> What do we need? Real guidance. That comes from honesty about constraints, the times when your "strategy" was actually just making the best of what you had. It demands admitting that many successful decisions weren't visionary choices but creative responses to circumstances beyond your control.

> But that kind of honesty doesn't get shared or saved on LinkedIn and X/Twitter.

Because honesty is not incentivised nor rewarded, the rewards come to the deceivers, the ones inflating and exaggerating claims to their customers and investors.

It's all smoke and mirrors, founders searching for funding won't get any money from being honest, the same for workers, honesty is not appreciated nor valued during the hiring/funding process, hell, it's not even appreciated in a lot of working environments where being honest would save a lot of headache and waste.

We all need more "real" but there's nothing incentivising for realness, even less within social media where it's all bluster chasing a dollar.

People bullshit on linkedin for sure. This is the mild end. Medium end is made up stories "a client told me...", and high end you have fat lies.

It’s safe to assume without extraordinary evidence that anything posted on LinkedIn is at best glorified reality, but most likely complete fabrication. There’s zero incentive for anybody to be truthful.

"he who talks loud, saying nothing"

Post rationalisation of decisions - everyone does it.

Everyone justifies their own existence.

> Note: Written from my own experience, with Claude helping me structure my rambling thoughts into something readable

> #Personal Growth

Why not spend a bit of effort to rewrite the draft yourself? That's how you learn, and well, grow as a writer and a thinker.

Ego stuff

That’s a pretty strong take on someone labelled “friend”…

Some level of retrospective pat on back is necessary if all of the competition is doing it

I know people like prediction markets for this reason. There is no hiding. You’re either right or not

It's ironic that there's a link to a YouTube video praising James Dyson at the bottom of this post, because Dyson is an example of someone whose narrative is bullshit. The clever physics and engineering in Dyson's products don't result in superior products. Have a look around the Dyson Institute after hours and you'll see the cleaners using Henry vacuum cleaners made by Numatic.

We expect comitted founders to make the best of their constraints.

This founder is doing that by putting a positive spin on their constraints in their social media posts.

Fallibility is important and I hope that founder is honest with their team, but at the same time keeping a positive public narrative about your company is also important. Not everyone has to perform their growing pains in public.

I don't understand how a clickbait title submitted as-is, a "Source:Internet" image or a shallow LinkedIn-type post (mostly written by a LLM?) can get any traction on here. Clearly a good Rorschach test, though.

I do understand the core message but I don't get why the author seems upset about it. Sounds like people complaining that instagram models show fake "fake" life. LinkedIn is a social network. Professionals show off how successful and hirable they are, or companies show how nice it is to work there.

I personally can't take this self promotion that has become very necessary in many parts of our industry so I stay clear of places where it is exercised.

What this boils down to, is that we live in the civilisation of the image, where image is the most important thing. So now, for authenticity, you constantly have to look past and ignore the bs.