7 ms·

I think this article is saying: - 1st order thinkers primarily see causes and direct effects. - 2nd order thinkers frequently see causes and their *indir

I think this article is saying: - 1st order thinkers primarily see causes and *direct* effects. - 2nd order thinkers frequently see causes and their *indirect* effects. I guess that seems like a reasonable idea. For what it's worth, the truly exceptional people I've met in life had a different quality. * When most people are presented with a difficult/challenging problem, they soon give up. * The most exceptional people that I've met just kept hammering away after the rest of us had stopped. Most of the time, they failed, but if you have some aptitude and you keep hammering, you have a better chance to make breakthroughs that the rest of us don't make. Just as an example, I had worked for a company that used X-ray crystallography as a tool for drug-development. I would be in meetings with crystallographers where we discussed the technical problems they were having in trying to grow crystals. The crystallographers were all smart and talented, but when we had group meetings, there was only one guy who would float suggestion-after-suggestion-after-suggestion, long after everyone else had run out of ideas. I don't think he was any "smarter" than anyone else in the room, but he just could not shut himself off. He was relentless. He went on to make some important contributions to the field.

SquishyPanda23 8y ago
It's worth pointing out that blindly hammering away on the wrong problem is a failure mode for many intelligent people. The key is not just sticking to things, but also having enough taste to know when to drop a problem.
- Spooky23 8y ago
  Sometimes. Forward motion is always important. In incident command scenarios, I’ve seen situations where people will sit around and wait... you need to move forward at all times or you get used to nothing happening.
- CamperBob2 8y ago
  It's worth pointing out that blindly hammering away on the wrong problem is a failure mode for many intelligent people. Also, being right about something, but at the wrong time. That's the worst failure mode of all IMO.
- busyant 8y ago
  > blindly hammering away on the wrong problem is a failure mode for many intelligent people. The key is not just sticking to things, but also having enough taste to know when to drop a problem. Agreed. In my original comment, I was trying to imply that those exceptional people did (ad you say) have enough "taste" to know when to stop, but I don't think I made that aspect clear. The crystallographer I was talking about definitely failed more often than not, but I was always struck by his ability to keep floating reasonable ideas after the rest of us had reached what we thought was an intellectual cul-de-sac. If you have ever read the transcript of Richard Feynman's speech "There's plenty of room at the bottom" [1] you get the same feeling--here's an incredibly bright person who can't seem to stop when he's told that "x is impossible." I love this part of Feynman's speech: "The reason the electron microscope is so poor is that the f- value of the lenses is only 1 part to 1,000; you don't have a big enough numerical aperture. And I know that there are theorems which prove that it is impossible, with axially symmetrical stationary field lenses, to produce an f-value any bigger than so and so; and therefore the resolving power at the present time is at its theoretical maximum. But in every theorem there are assumptions. Why must the field be axially symmetrical? Why must the field be stationary? Can't we have pulsed electron beams in fields moving up along with the electrons? Must the field be symmetrical? I put this out as a challenge: Is there no way to make the electron microscope more powerful?" [1] https://www.zyvex.com/nanotech/feynman.html https://www.zyvex.com/nanotech/feynman.html
  - kqr 8y ago
    I think the deeper explanation here is that unusually clever people know how to locate the unquestioned assumptions and have no problem throwing them out. Or put another way, they ask questions of the form, "I know this sounds dumb at first, but hear me out. Why don't we..." Most problems come with a slew of constraints we take for granted, and then a set of constraints we consciously impose on the solution because we think it helps. Most reasonably bright people try lifting those conscious constraints, but rarely touch the less apparent ones. I think that more neatly explains what you both are going for with "gives up too soon" (not identifying all constraints), "hammering away" (also investigating non-obvious constraints), yet "have enough taste to stop" (there are no more constraints to lift).
- zebraflask 8y ago
  Agreed. I have seen this plenty of times.
- sevensor 8y ago
  I somewhat disagree with this idea -- it's important to drop unrewarding lines of enquiry, but more because you've reached the point where it becomes clear the answer would be boring than because it won't pay the bills. I mean, you have to get with the program sometimes and drop an interesting problem because you can't afford to continue working on it, but at that point it's not really dropped. It's just become an itch you can't scratch. If the problem is interesting enough, the pursuit is its own reward.
spyckie2 8y ago
You have to split the title, which is marketing mumbo jumbo, from the article, which is fundamentally talking about decision making. Smart decision making and persistent work is the X and Y axis of achievement. Decision making (which broadly includes subjects like efficiency, policy, systems, problem solving, and design thinking) is the heart of efficiency gains for large organizations (not necessarily individuals, although there really shouldn't be a separation between the two). Generally speaking, decision making falls into 2 categories - prioritization and policy. Prioritization is deciding what best to do out of the given options, and while policy (systems building) is building ecosystems that enable activity or work output. 2nd order thinking is the necessary requirement for policy/systems building. However, there's a lot more skills needed to enact good policy decisions, so this is just scratching the surface on the subject.
- ignoramous 8y ago
  I humbly presume that you are familiar with topic at hand, and so, if you please, can you elaborate more on 'scratching the surface' part? I'm genuinely curious about other aspects of policy/systems-building, as it were. Pointers to blog posts or books should be enough, as well. Thanks.
  - poushkar 8y ago
    +1, really would love to learn more
  - DoreenMichele 8y ago
    The seven habits of highly effective people. The Peter Principle Books or articles on "planning backwards." Gantt charts get used a lot in, for example, construction. You need certain things to precede certain other things. You set a goal and end date and then start asking "What has to happen just before that? And just before that?" It is the reverse of asking "So, then what?"
    - gota 8y ago
      Backward state-space planning in classical AI/automated planning
agumonkey 8y ago
What I prefer, rathet than blunt endurance, is efficient in testing hypothesis. A radar for aesthethics.
johnnycab 8y ago
>there was only one guy who would float suggestion-after-suggestion-after-suggestion, long after everyone else had run out of ideas. I don't think he was any "smarter" than anyone else in the room, but he just could not shut himself off. He was relentless. He went on to make some important contributions to the field Whilst I admire determination, enthusiasm and persistence; if none of the ideas had come to fruition or contributed anything meaningful, it could have been misconstrued as gish gallop. It probably requires second-order thinking just to manage such a scenario, which is not uncommon.
bigbadgoose 8y ago
Persistence is it. Quitting, by definition, takes you out of the potential winners domain.
- EForEndeavour 8y ago
  It has to be intelligent persistence, though. Only persist if you firmly believe that the potential reward outweighs the cost of continued effort. Quitting a hopeless avenue of exploration frees you up to pursue greater chances of success elsewhere. It all depends on context.
- jhayward 8y ago
  Quitting a losing effort permits you to place bets in a more likely to win effort. There is a huge opportunity cost to using bad judgement to continue a failing project.

I think this article is saying: - 1st order thinkers primarily see causes and *direct* effects. - 2nd order thinkers frequently see causes and their *indir

SquishyPanda23 8y ago

It's worth pointing out that blindly hammering away on the wrong problem is a failure mode for many intelligent people. The key is not just sticking to things, but also having enough taste to know when to drop a problem.

Spooky23 8y ago
Sometimes. Forward motion is always important. In incident command scenarios, I’ve seen situations where people will sit around and wait... you need to move forward at all times or you get used to nothing happening.
CamperBob2 8y ago
It's worth pointing out that blindly hammering away on the wrong problem is a failure mode for many intelligent people. Also, being right about something, but at the wrong time. That's the worst failure mode of all IMO.
busyant 8y ago
> blindly hammering away on the wrong problem is a failure mode for many intelligent people. The key is not just sticking to things, but also having enough taste to know when to drop a problem. Agreed. In my original comment, I was trying to imply that those exceptional people did (ad you say) have enough "taste" to know when to stop, but I don't think I made that aspect clear. The crystallographer I was talking about definitely failed more often than not, but I was always struck by his ability to keep floating reasonable ideas after the rest of us had reached what we thought was an intellectual cul-de-sac. If you have ever read the transcript of Richard Feynman's speech "There's plenty of room at the bottom" [1] you get the same feeling--here's an incredibly bright person who can't seem to stop when he's told that "x is impossible." I love this part of Feynman's speech: "The reason the electron microscope is so poor is that the f- value of the lenses is only 1 part to 1,000; you don't have a big enough numerical aperture. And I know that there are theorems which prove that it is impossible, with axially symmetrical stationary field lenses, to produce an f-value any bigger than so and so; and therefore the resolving power at the present time is at its theoretical maximum. But in every theorem there are assumptions. Why must the field be axially symmetrical? Why must the field be stationary? Can't we have pulsed electron beams in fields moving up along with the electrons? Must the field be symmetrical? I put this out as a challenge: Is there no way to make the electron microscope more powerful?" [1] https://www.zyvex.com/nanotech/feynman.html https://www.zyvex.com/nanotech/feynman.html
- kqr 8y ago
  I think the deeper explanation here is that unusually clever people know how to locate the unquestioned assumptions and have no problem throwing them out. Or put another way, they ask questions of the form, "I know this sounds dumb at first, but hear me out. Why don't we..." Most problems come with a slew of constraints we take for granted, and then a set of constraints we consciously impose on the solution because we think it helps. Most reasonably bright people try lifting those conscious constraints, but rarely touch the less apparent ones. I think that more neatly explains what you both are going for with "gives up too soon" (not identifying all constraints), "hammering away" (also investigating non-obvious constraints), yet "have enough taste to stop" (there are no more constraints to lift).
zebraflask 8y ago
Agreed. I have seen this plenty of times.
sevensor 8y ago
I somewhat disagree with this idea -- it's important to drop unrewarding lines of enquiry, but more because you've reached the point where it becomes clear the answer would be boring than because it won't pay the bills. I mean, you have to get with the program sometimes and drop an interesting problem because you can't afford to continue working on it, but at that point it's not really dropped. It's just become an itch you can't scratch. If the problem is interesting enough, the pursuit is its own reward.

spyckie2 8y ago

You have to split the title, which is marketing mumbo jumbo, from the article, which is fundamentally talking about decision making. Smart decision making and persistent work is the X and Y axis of achievement. Decision making (which broadly includes subjects like efficiency, policy, systems, problem solving, and design thinking) is the heart of efficiency gains for large organizations (not necessarily individuals, although there really shouldn't be a separation between the two). Generally speaking, decision making falls into 2 categories - prioritization and policy. Prioritization is deciding what best to do out of the given options, and while policy (systems building) is building ecosystems that enable activity or work output. 2nd order thinking is the necessary requirement for policy/systems building. However, there's a lot more skills needed to enact good policy decisions, so this is just scratching the surface on the subject.

ignoramous 8y ago
I humbly presume that you are familiar with topic at hand, and so, if you please, can you elaborate more on 'scratching the surface' part? I'm genuinely curious about other aspects of policy/systems-building, as it were. Pointers to blog posts or books should be enough, as well. Thanks.
- poushkar 8y ago
  +1, really would love to learn more
- DoreenMichele 8y ago
  The seven habits of highly effective people. The Peter Principle Books or articles on "planning backwards." Gantt charts get used a lot in, for example, construction. You need certain things to precede certain other things. You set a goal and end date and then start asking "What has to happen just before that? And just before that?" It is the reverse of asking "So, then what?"
  - gota 8y ago
    Backward state-space planning in classical AI/automated planning

agumonkey 8y ago

What I prefer, rathet than blunt endurance, is efficient in testing hypothesis. A radar for aesthethics.

johnnycab 8y ago

>there was only one guy who would float suggestion-after-suggestion-after-suggestion, long after everyone else had run out of ideas. I don't think he was any "smarter" than anyone else in the room, but he just could not shut himself off. He was relentless. He went on to make some important contributions to the field Whilst I admire determination, enthusiasm and persistence; if none of the ideas had come to fruition or contributed anything meaningful, it could have been misconstrued as gish gallop. It probably requires second-order thinking just to manage such a scenario, which is not uncommon.

bigbadgoose 8y ago

Persistence is it. Quitting, by definition, takes you out of the potential winners domain.

EForEndeavour 8y ago
It has to be intelligent persistence, though. Only persist if you firmly believe that the potential reward outweighs the cost of continued effort. Quitting a hopeless avenue of exploration frees you up to pursue greater chances of success elsewhere. It all depends on context.
jhayward 8y ago
Quitting a losing effort permits you to place bets in a more likely to win effort. There is a huge opportunity cost to using bad judgement to continue a failing project.