Non-consensus cognition

Recently, I read an article:

In this article, it quotes a viewpoint mentioned by Jerry Neumann in *Productive Uncertainty*:

"For startups, the only moat that can create excess value is 'uncertainty.'"

He explained that this uncertainty can last long enough to provide an opportunity to build a real moat.

​

The uncertainty mentioned by Neumann mainly falls into two categories:

1. Novelty uncertainty / technical risk / construction difficulty
2. Complexity uncertainty / market risk / clarity of the idea

He also came up with a formula:

Required moat depth = how clear your idea is - how hard it is to build

After seeing this formula, Packy McCornick further explained the two great truths about startups:

• "Great companies are often created during bear markets."
• "You need to have a contrarian view and be right." This is because in both of these situations, uncertainty gives entrepreneurs more time to build competitive barriers.

From my observations in the blockchain industry, due to the impact of financial leverage, its cycle is shorter than in other industries. This gives me the opportunity to observe fluctuations in this field over a short period of time. Many products that emerged during the bull market were actually established through investment and strategic layouts during the bear market of the previous or even earlier cycles. For example, HuggingFace, which I have been paying close attention to recently, had already started building Model Hubs for machine learning before the AI boom, establishing a network effect moat in this area well ahead of the trend.

The "uncertainty" mentioned by Neumann can also be interpreted as non-consensus cognition.

So, how do we cultivate this kind of non-consensus cognition?

Recently, I've been listening to Fu Peirong's course on Western philosophy, which involves methods of studying philosophy.

When we study Western philosophers, we should first objectively understand their views and arguments, avoiding jumping to conclusions too quickly. Each philosopher sincerely shares what they believe to be true, so we should respect and try to understand them. Even if we disagree with certain viewpoints, we should remain open-minded and consider two points: first, are their arguments logically rigorous? Second, when our experiences don't align with their views, we should recognize that everyone's life experience is unique. Learning diverse perspectives can broaden our thinking and make us more open and inclusive, but it doesn't mean we must change our own views.

Before forming an opinion, we should patiently listen to various voices, whether they are positive or negative. Carefully consider whether the reasoning process of others' viewpoints is reasonable, and then form our own independent judgment. In this way, we can gradually build our own consensus or non-consensus cognition, and find hidden opportunities from it.