6 ms·

A lesson on thinking and acting long term

116 points by seapunk 8y ago

ThomPete 8y ago
4/ what is actually difficult, and worthwhile, instead is to do ONE single thing for a very, very long time. It's much harder and much rarer and results in outlier outcomes much more often. A friend of my parents spent more than 30 years building a famous watch called "jens olsens world watch" in half size by hand (as in litreally everyhing is done in hand also the wrenches which for some of them takes 400 years to go around their own axis) This is on top of a bunch of other things he built. If there is a modern day da vinchi he would be it (he paints, plays music, writes assembler like it's an artform, understand mechanical engineering and electrical engineering he reversed engineered the Mac2 back in the days, I could go on) https://imgur.com/a/wfQNM https://imgur.com/a/wfQNM He never brags about it so I have to do it because I think there are far too few people like him left and they are the ones who really do things in life. There is much to be learned by someone like him.
- SubiculumCode 8y ago
  So many undergraduate research assistants want to be in the lab to do the minimum time and effort, get the check mark in their cv, and move on. Then they go interview with an impressive looking list of labs and projects they've worked at, but when you inspect their thinking there is little depth. Then you find the jr specialist applicant that stayed at one lab their entire undergraduate career, shows some understanding and language surrounding the basic problems in that field, and mental dedication to work through the hard problems without bailing. That is what I valued in candidates. No matter how tough it gets, they didn't give up.
  - ThomPete 8y ago
    Little depth is exactly the problem. I am all for the expert generalist but you need to at least have tried to dig into something really serious and spent the years learning to become really good at something. First time I did that was with music where you learn that you will hit plateaus along the way were it feels like nothing happens until then suddenly you are catapulted to an ever more accomplished level. Luckily this still happens but it seems like it mostly happens outside of academia because it's not been as politicized as much of that seems to have become.
- captainperl 8y ago
  Similarly, you can see a remarkable model airplane collection by Edward Chavez at SFO now. It was sponsored over two decades by the Nut Tree restaurant owner: https://www.flysfo.com/museum/exhibitions/masterworks-edward-chavez-model-aircraft-collection https://www.flysfo.com/museum/exhibitions/masterworks-edward...
  - ThomPete 8y ago
    Beautiful. I always wanted to do a book about every day leonardo da vincis maybe I should get going on it.
vikiomega9 8y ago
I'll leave one of Naval Ravikant's podcast here that contains similar advice including putting down books instead of reading them cover to cover, https://fs.blog/naval-ravikant/ https://fs.blog/naval-ravikant/
llampx 8y ago
How (and when) do you decide that your time is better spent elsewhere? Basically the Silicon Valley catchphrase, "Fail fast" I know that if I decided to spend my next two (or three or ten) years learning Discrete Mathematics I would probably get somewhere. But what if I gave up once I realized that I have more of a talent somewhere else and followed that subject? That aside, I find references to historical successes kind of a truism. Sure, Amazon is successful and Jeff Bezos perservered. It doesn't mean everyone who perseveres at their craft is going to be as successful as him.
sharadov 8y ago
It's not about reading 52 books or reading 1 book 52 times. Your literary journey should be all about discovery, if you really like an author then read his omnibus. If you gravitate towards certain areas - then read the best writing that is available. Books lead to other books and good authors always name their influences. There is nothing quite like reading, when you read an author's omnibus you are literally getting into his head and realizing he is/was wrestling with the same existential dilemmas that you have/had.
myle 8y ago
Deep work, the book, is along similar lines.
nine_k 8y ago
There's no silver bullet. Spending the proverbial 10k hours on something gives you mastery. This mastery matters if it's a mastery of a right thing. Spending 100 hours on 100 different subjects gives you an immense breadth of view, and maybe a better chance to choose the worthy area for digging deep. There's an obvious survivor bias in the messages of people who have spent 10k hours on doing something and succeeded. They have spent their time and concentrated effort on the right thing that returned the investment many times over. You don't hear much about people who spent 2k hours on something that drove them to poverty, so they dropped it. They are seen as losers that wasted their time on that silly thing. There are also people who keep doing something completely unrewarding for years, because they like the process, or because they think they can't learn anything else. They are seen as crazy. No matter that they were or are exercising the same perseverance that drove other people to the shining summits of success. I personally think a mixed strategy is best. Do one or two things long-term, learn it deeply. Keep looking around and trying other things, and be ready to de-prioritize your old "deep thing" and start to dig deeper at something else.
- tokyodude 8y ago
  Right. I know plenty of people that spent 10k hours playing WoW back in the day. That's not a judgement. If you enjoyed those 10k hours good for you. Just guessing though that mastery of WoW is a not that useful of skill outside of WoW
  - nine_k 8y ago
    High-level WoW team players, and also Eve team players, are known to be in high regard in certain business settings. The orcs and planets may be virtual, but the skills of team-playing, knowing your teammates, strategy, resource allocation, quick estimation are very real and transferable.
    - ThomPete 8y ago
      That's mostly the same reason they were highly regarded in WOW. I.e. it's not that WOW made them that but rather their skills were expressed in WOW.
nopinsight 8y ago
Markets reward useful uniqueness. Long-term focus yields mastery few have achieved. A path even more likely to lead to success is combining two types of expertise in a fruitful way. In today's global economy, it is very hard to be among the world's top 100 or 1,000 for a particular skill, even with years of practice. It is quite possible to be among the top 1,000,000 in each of the two skills that, when usefully integrated, result in a fairly unique output or skill set. To elaborate on YC's motto: Creative integration toward things people want.
- hyperpallium 8y ago
  Markets reward useful defendable uniqueness. Making something people want is a foundation, but no good if someone else copies it (and perhaps does it better amd markets it better through capitalization). I think the YC playbook is if you keep improving it, it's hard for copiers to catch up (so don't worry about competitors/copiers in themselves, look fotward, not behind you). There's also a market advantage of being first - people like that, and you've have longer for news to spread about you.
  - nopinsight 8y ago
    Good elaboration. You could say defendability is implied by uniqueness. Once it is copied it is no longer unique. Better to have it spelled out though. I used the word ‘toward’ to hint that there is no perfect market fit. One can only continually improve toward the ideal, which also keeps changing. I think we largely agree. :)
- movedx 8y ago
  > In today's global economy, it is very hard to be among the world's top 100 or 1,000 for a particular skill, even with years of practice. Why do you need to be in the top 1,000? Why do you need to be in the top 100,000? If I have a market of 5,000 people around me who want my service, why is it not OK to be the best you can be for 100 of those people paying you $5,000 a year (or some other amount)? If I'm doing my part for those 2% and someone else, perhaps a large company, is doing the same for 50%, what's the problem? :-)
meta_AU 8y ago
the same way that if you lift for 3 months, it achieves nothing. I'm probably missing the point - but that first 3 months of training is where you make the fastest growth and can double the weight you lift (from untrained to novice). Sure - you aren't going to compete at a world level after 3 months, but it doesn't seem right to describe it as 'nothing'.
- pseudoramble 8y ago
  Agreed. Though re-reading it, I think the point may have been more about quitting after 3 months and not so much that you don't gain anything the first 3 months. > 5/ if I had only worked on a startup for a year, I would've gotten nowhere, the same way that if you lift for 3 months, it achieves nothing. Everything good in life comes from perseverance, but at the beginning, you're just like "I need to be somebody!!!" It may be more about persevering beyond that arbitrary time limit and trying to get to a certain real goal instead... maybe.
- naasking 8y ago
  A lot of those gains are neurological, so you can quickly lose them. I hazard that's the analogy he was going for.

116 points by seapunk 8y ago

4/ what is actually difficult, and worthwhile, instead is to do ONE single thing for a very, very long time. It's much harder and much rarer and results in outlier outcomes much more often. A friend of my parents spent more than 30 years building a famous watch called "jens olsens world watch" in half size by hand (as in litreally everyhing is done in hand also the wrenches which for some of them takes 400 years to go around their own axis) This is on top of a bunch of other things he built. If there is a modern day da vinchi he would be it (he paints, plays music, writes assembler like it's an artform, understand mechanical engineering and electrical engineering he reversed engineered the Mac2 back in the days, I could go on) https://imgur.com/a/wfQNM https://imgur.com/a/wfQNM He never brags about it so I have to do it because I think there are far too few people like him left and they are the ones who really do things in life. There is much to be learned by someone like him.

SubiculumCode 8y ago
So many undergraduate research assistants want to be in the lab to do the minimum time and effort, get the check mark in their cv, and move on. Then they go interview with an impressive looking list of labs and projects they've worked at, but when you inspect their thinking there is little depth. Then you find the jr specialist applicant that stayed at one lab their entire undergraduate career, shows some understanding and language surrounding the basic problems in that field, and mental dedication to work through the hard problems without bailing. That is what I valued in candidates. No matter how tough it gets, they didn't give up.
- ThomPete 8y ago
  Little depth is exactly the problem. I am all for the expert generalist but you need to at least have tried to dig into something really serious and spent the years learning to become really good at something. First time I did that was with music where you learn that you will hit plateaus along the way were it feels like nothing happens until then suddenly you are catapulted to an ever more accomplished level. Luckily this still happens but it seems like it mostly happens outside of academia because it's not been as politicized as much of that seems to have become.
captainperl 8y ago
Similarly, you can see a remarkable model airplane collection by Edward Chavez at SFO now. It was sponsored over two decades by the Nut Tree restaurant owner: https://www.flysfo.com/museum/exhibitions/masterworks-edward-chavez-model-aircraft-collection https://www.flysfo.com/museum/exhibitions/masterworks-edward...
- ThomPete 8y ago
  Beautiful. I always wanted to do a book about every day leonardo da vincis maybe I should get going on it.

vikiomega9 8y ago

I'll leave one of Naval Ravikant's podcast here that contains similar advice including putting down books instead of reading them cover to cover, https://fs.blog/naval-ravikant/ https://fs.blog/naval-ravikant/

llampx 8y ago

How (and when) do you decide that your time is better spent elsewhere? Basically the Silicon Valley catchphrase, "Fail fast" I know that if I decided to spend my next two (or three or ten) years learning Discrete Mathematics I would probably get somewhere. But what if I gave up once I realized that I have more of a talent somewhere else and followed that subject? That aside, I find references to historical successes kind of a truism. Sure, Amazon is successful and Jeff Bezos perservered. It doesn't mean everyone who perseveres at their craft is going to be as successful as him.

sharadov 8y ago

It's not about reading 52 books or reading 1 book 52 times. Your literary journey should be all about discovery, if you really like an author then read his omnibus. If you gravitate towards certain areas - then read the best writing that is available. Books lead to other books and good authors always name their influences. There is nothing quite like reading, when you read an author's omnibus you are literally getting into his head and realizing he is/was wrestling with the same existential dilemmas that you have/had.

myle 8y ago

Deep work, the book, is along similar lines.

nine_k 8y ago

There's no silver bullet. Spending the proverbial 10k hours on something gives you mastery. This mastery matters if it's a mastery of a right thing. Spending 100 hours on 100 different subjects gives you an immense breadth of view, and maybe a better chance to choose the worthy area for digging deep. There's an obvious survivor bias in the messages of people who have spent 10k hours on doing something and succeeded. They have spent their time and concentrated effort on the right thing that returned the investment many times over. You don't hear much about people who spent 2k hours on something that drove them to poverty, so they dropped it. They are seen as losers that wasted their time on that silly thing. There are also people who keep doing something completely unrewarding for years, because they like the process, or because they think they can't learn anything else. They are seen as crazy. No matter that they were or are exercising the same perseverance that drove other people to the shining summits of success. I personally think a mixed strategy is best. Do one or two things long-term, learn it deeply. Keep looking around and trying other things, and be ready to de-prioritize your old "deep thing" and start to dig deeper at something else.

tokyodude 8y ago
Right. I know plenty of people that spent 10k hours playing WoW back in the day. That's not a judgement. If you enjoyed those 10k hours good for you. Just guessing though that mastery of WoW is a not that useful of skill outside of WoW
- nine_k 8y ago
  High-level WoW team players, and also Eve team players, are known to be in high regard in certain business settings. The orcs and planets may be virtual, but the skills of team-playing, knowing your teammates, strategy, resource allocation, quick estimation are very real and transferable.
  - ThomPete 8y ago
    That's mostly the same reason they were highly regarded in WOW. I.e. it's not that WOW made them that but rather their skills were expressed in WOW.

nopinsight 8y ago

Markets reward useful uniqueness. Long-term focus yields mastery few have achieved. A path even more likely to lead to success is combining two types of expertise in a fruitful way. In today's global economy, it is very hard to be among the world's top 100 or 1,000 for a particular skill, even with years of practice. It is quite possible to be among the top 1,000,000 in each of the two skills that, when usefully integrated, result in a fairly unique output or skill set. To elaborate on YC's motto: Creative integration toward things people want.

hyperpallium 8y ago
Markets reward useful defendable uniqueness. Making something people want is a foundation, but no good if someone else copies it (and perhaps does it better amd markets it better through capitalization). I think the YC playbook is if you keep improving it, it's hard for copiers to catch up (so don't worry about competitors/copiers in themselves, look fotward, not behind you). There's also a market advantage of being first - people like that, and you've have longer for news to spread about you.
- nopinsight 8y ago
  Good elaboration. You could say defendability is implied by uniqueness. Once it is copied it is no longer unique. Better to have it spelled out though. I used the word ‘toward’ to hint that there is no perfect market fit. One can only continually improve toward the ideal, which also keeps changing. I think we largely agree. :)
movedx 8y ago
> In today's global economy, it is very hard to be among the world's top 100 or 1,000 for a particular skill, even with years of practice. Why do you need to be in the top 1,000? Why do you need to be in the top 100,000? If I have a market of 5,000 people around me who want my service, why is it not OK to be the best you can be for 100 of those people paying you $5,000 a year (or some other amount)? If I'm doing my part for those 2% and someone else, perhaps a large company, is doing the same for 50%, what's the problem? :-)

meta_AU 8y ago

the same way that if you lift for 3 months, it achieves nothing. I'm probably missing the point - but that first 3 months of training is where you make the fastest growth and can double the weight you lift (from untrained to novice). Sure - you aren't going to compete at a world level after 3 months, but it doesn't seem right to describe it as 'nothing'.

pseudoramble 8y ago
Agreed. Though re-reading it, I think the point may have been more about quitting after 3 months and not so much that you don't gain anything the first 3 months. > 5/ if I had only worked on a startup for a year, I would've gotten nowhere, the same way that if you lift for 3 months, it achieves nothing. Everything good in life comes from perseverance, but at the beginning, you're just like "I need to be somebody!!!" It may be more about persevering beyond that arbitrary time limit and trying to get to a certain real goal instead... maybe.
naasking 8y ago
A lot of those gains are neurological, so you can quickly lose them. I hazard that's the analogy he was going for.