8 ms·

I agree with the article in general, but that said, I do think a lot of successful people are successful because they are highly opinionated in black-and-white

I agree with the article in general, but that said, I do think a lot of successful people are successful because they are highly opinionated in black-and-white ways. Coming across people like this in life can be frustrating whether they tend to be right or wrong. I've definitely known and worked with a few people who were black-and-white thinkers and abstracted away and ignored a lot of second order effects that could negate their opinion, but had such good intuition that they tended to be right anyway. A good read on this is “The Cognitive Distortions of Founders” by Michael Dearing https://link.medium.com/Ri20AKKuL2 https://link.medium.com/Ri20AKKuL2.

wwarner 7y ago
Yes, the article ought to mention the downside of grey thinking. The way forward is found by closing the gap between ambiguity and certainty. "All progress depends on the unreasonable man".
claudiawerner 7y ago
The "dose" argument in the article is also rather unconvincing, and the examples used show this. I suppose this is a topic where I know something (capitalism and socialism). The author writes: > Capitalism is enormously productive but has many limitations. Some socialist institutions actually work well in a capitalist economy, but pure socialism hasn’t tended to work at all. But this is actually a counter-example. Most socialists (and certainly all of the originators and main theorists) would contend that socialism represents a pure qualitative break with capitalism, that socialism is at odds with capitalism in many ways (law of value, commodity production, class society) and that to speak of implementing "socialist policies" is worse than meaningless, it is a misunderstanding. They have some good reasons to say that socialism represents such a qualitative break with capitalism. So from my point of view, you can start out thinking "gray" (most people uninformed on the scholarly work on the difference between capitalism and socialism take the point of view of the article) but when you look further, you actually see that it's black and white. This example, at least, undermined the author's point. "Quantitative scale-based thinking" means that quality rarely enters the mix (except, perplexingly, in the example that "trying heroin once is bad"). Quantitative thinking is not always a perfect fit, because (1) it assumes the object under investigation is quantifiable, (2) it assumes the object is mathematically and formal-logically comparable, (3) quantitative models often simplify beyond how a qualitative model would (as an example, Samuelson's "commodity 1" and "commodity 2", or the presumption that inputs=outputs in Steedman). Qualitative and quantitative thinking are both important, and the preference for quantitative over qualitative has become increasingly common; as a famous German economist once pointed out (in the criticism of Bentham's utilitarianism), quality logically preceeds quantity. If you don't know what you're talking about, its measurement will be a lot more difficult. This is the same argument levelled at Ricardo (the confusion of form, substance and magnitude into one monstrous mess).
- platz 7y ago
  It appears you would reject the premise of running a co-op in a capitalist society because it does not start from a fundamentally pure starting position, or alternatively such a co-op is really a capitalist entity for the same reason and so pursuring such an entity is not a concern of socalists but rather capitalists.
  - claudiawerner 7y ago
    >It appears you would reject the premise of running a co-op in a capitalist society because it does not start from a fundamentally pure starting position No, not at all. In fact, I support local co-ops. My (and Marx's) only contention is that it is not sufficient to call this "socialism" or "socialism within capitalism", or "a socialist part of capitalism" because socialism is by definition the ending of the specific historical production of commodities and class society. A co-op is an admirable thing to run, but it's not "socialism".
    - mnowicki 7y ago
      The author probably wasn't using the word 'socialism' in the technically correct way that you've explained, If you just take it for what he meant though then I think his point still stands
    - platz 7y ago
      So, you just want to have a semantics debate then, about who gets to define what certain terms mean. That's admirable, but I'm not sure is what OP's article is really about.
      - claudiawerner 7y ago
        No. My point of dispute is that "socialism" is qualitatively different (in actual substance, not just terminology) from "social democracy", that "social democracy" does not answer to what "socialism" is. To my understanding, the author is using the word "socialism" to refer to what I am using it to refer to, but misunderstanding it.
jcims 7y ago
> I've definitely known and worked with a few people who were black-and-white thinkers and abstracted away and ignored a lot of second order effects but had such good intuition that they tended to be right anyway. This is my wife. She’s never undecided and has incredible intuition. I’m a gray thinker to the point of paralysis. When something comes up that we need to sort out, i feed factors and we walk the decision tree until we’re both happy. Works well lol
- pooroldlistr 7y ago
  I get labeled as a paralyzed grey thinker type. In my twenties I did it all with the travel, party, foodie, career conference crap. In my thirties, I consciously worked on not giving a shit about every little option an possibility. Life need not be seen as a Burger King giving it to me my way. Counting a spoiled American kid childhood, 30 years of being spoon fed options that marketing felt fit the curve best wore thin. I’ve become incredibly DIY and avoid socializing because it’s more of the same. Making music at home, learning, creating. I make tons of choices in those contexts all the time, building a new emotional vibe each time. Picking a sushi joint for the thousandth time is just mind numbingly banal in comparison. And so I seem to have become “indecisive” to others, when internally I just don’t give a shit to go out for sushi again.
  - jcims 7y ago
    One behavioral difference I've found in myself vs. my wife is that I always look for what was wrong with my decision after the fact and she always looks for the win in hers. The reality is that you have to spend time thinking about both to truly learn from the exercise, but focusing on what went right definitely improves confidence. Another thing that a decade of painstakingly quantified decision making has taught me is that the metric details often don't actually matter that much and rarely lead you to a satisfying choice. My most recent example is the purchase of a Bosch dishwasher. I did quite a bit of looking and landed on one of the higher end series that did very well across the board in reviews. I hate it. The dishes come out with this weird sweaty feel to them, the racks suck, and the user interface is beyond horrendous (something that a week stay in a rental property confirmed is common to all Bosch appliances). So I'm slowly working my way out of it, but I'm almost 50. Wish I would have had better constitution about this out of the gate.
Swizec 7y ago
My gut is black-and-white, my mind is grey. As a result I often find myself debating a decision I’ve actually already made. So I started using a shortcut. Instead of following the arguments, I observe the arguments themselves. Am I trying to justify a yes or a no? Saves a lot of time. Just do what in your gut you’ve already decided to do anyway.
- extempore 7y ago
  Whenever you're called on to make up your mind, and you're hampered by not having any, the best way to solve the dilemma, you'll find, is simply by spinning a penny. No - not so that chance shall decide the affair, while you're passively standing there moping; but the moment the penny is up in the air, you suddenly know what you're hoping. - Piet Hein
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    And if it doesn't help, if you still don't truly know what option you prefer, that means that the downsides and upsides of either are balanced so well you may as well pick whatever the coin landed on - the time you're wasting agonizing over the decision is worth more than the marginal improvement of picking the better option.
    - bonoboTP 7y ago
      As with all advice, some people are on the other end of the spectrum and need the exact opposite advice. You may be indecisive because you truly don't know enough about the options and need to do your research to make an informed decision. Don't overdo it, just do enough. How much is enough is not easy to say in general.
jariel 7y ago
"A bad plan is always preferable to no plan" - recently associated with Thiel but I believe it's an old military adage. I think there is something metaphysical about it; the 'grey' is the ether and the black and white is the materiality that comes out of it literally from force of will. You can only create something by making a choice, choosing a path, 'making the quantum observation' which dissolves the ambiguity. Too often we think of the 'solutions' as a form of 'clarity' ... when reality, 'clarity' might be just the force (or clarity) of vision more than anything. Consider three rules of branding: consistency, authenticity, simplicity. The message resonates when it is consistently and repeatedly applied in a simple way, and there is some kind of 'truthiness' (i.e. authenticity) to it. Sometimes I think of a product roadmap, and all the crazy internal and external politics of it all, as a form of branding. It's a 'decision' (i.e. either black or white) reiterated among individuals such that they can resonate their various talents around it, pushing it into fruition.

wwarner 7y ago

Yes, the article ought to mention the downside of grey thinking. The way forward is found by closing the gap between ambiguity and certainty. "All progress depends on the unreasonable man".

claudiawerner 7y ago

The "dose" argument in the article is also rather unconvincing, and the examples used show this. I suppose this is a topic where I know something (capitalism and socialism). The author writes: > Capitalism is enormously productive but has many limitations. Some socialist institutions actually work well in a capitalist economy, but pure socialism hasn’t tended to work at all. But this is actually a counter-example. Most socialists (and certainly all of the originators and main theorists) would contend that socialism represents a pure qualitative break with capitalism, that socialism is at odds with capitalism in many ways (law of value, commodity production, class society) and that to speak of implementing "socialist policies" is worse than meaningless, it is a misunderstanding. They have some good reasons to say that socialism represents such a qualitative break with capitalism. So from my point of view, you can start out thinking "gray" (most people uninformed on the scholarly work on the difference between capitalism and socialism take the point of view of the article) but when you look further, you actually see that it's black and white. This example, at least, undermined the author's point. "Quantitative scale-based thinking" means that quality rarely enters the mix (except, perplexingly, in the example that "trying heroin once is bad"). Quantitative thinking is not always a perfect fit, because (1) it assumes the object under investigation is quantifiable, (2) it assumes the object is mathematically and formal-logically comparable, (3) quantitative models often simplify beyond how a qualitative model would (as an example, Samuelson's "commodity 1" and "commodity 2", or the presumption that inputs=outputs in Steedman). Qualitative and quantitative thinking are both important, and the preference for quantitative over qualitative has become increasingly common; as a famous German economist once pointed out (in the criticism of Bentham's utilitarianism), quality logically preceeds quantity. If you don't know what you're talking about, its measurement will be a lot more difficult. This is the same argument levelled at Ricardo (the confusion of form, substance and magnitude into one monstrous mess).

platz 7y ago
It appears you would reject the premise of running a co-op in a capitalist society because it does not start from a fundamentally pure starting position, or alternatively such a co-op is really a capitalist entity for the same reason and so pursuring such an entity is not a concern of socalists but rather capitalists.
- claudiawerner 7y ago
  >It appears you would reject the premise of running a co-op in a capitalist society because it does not start from a fundamentally pure starting position No, not at all. In fact, I support local co-ops. My (and Marx's) only contention is that it is not sufficient to call this "socialism" or "socialism within capitalism", or "a socialist part of capitalism" because socialism is by definition the ending of the specific historical production of commodities and class society. A co-op is an admirable thing to run, but it's not "socialism".
  - mnowicki 7y ago
    The author probably wasn't using the word 'socialism' in the technically correct way that you've explained, If you just take it for what he meant though then I think his point still stands
  - platz 7y ago
    So, you just want to have a semantics debate then, about who gets to define what certain terms mean. That's admirable, but I'm not sure is what OP's article is really about.
    - claudiawerner 7y ago
      No. My point of dispute is that "socialism" is qualitatively different (in actual substance, not just terminology) from "social democracy", that "social democracy" does not answer to what "socialism" is. To my understanding, the author is using the word "socialism" to refer to what I am using it to refer to, but misunderstanding it.

jcims 7y ago

> I've definitely known and worked with a few people who were black-and-white thinkers and abstracted away and ignored a lot of second order effects but had such good intuition that they tended to be right anyway. This is my wife. She’s never undecided and has incredible intuition. I’m a gray thinker to the point of paralysis. When something comes up that we need to sort out, i feed factors and we walk the decision tree until we’re both happy. Works well lol

pooroldlistr 7y ago
I get labeled as a paralyzed grey thinker type. In my twenties I did it all with the travel, party, foodie, career conference crap. In my thirties, I consciously worked on not giving a shit about every little option an possibility. Life need not be seen as a Burger King giving it to me my way. Counting a spoiled American kid childhood, 30 years of being spoon fed options that marketing felt fit the curve best wore thin. I’ve become incredibly DIY and avoid socializing because it’s more of the same. Making music at home, learning, creating. I make tons of choices in those contexts all the time, building a new emotional vibe each time. Picking a sushi joint for the thousandth time is just mind numbingly banal in comparison. And so I seem to have become “indecisive” to others, when internally I just don’t give a shit to go out for sushi again.
- jcims 7y ago
  One behavioral difference I've found in myself vs. my wife is that I always look for what was wrong with my decision after the fact and she always looks for the win in hers. The reality is that you have to spend time thinking about both to truly learn from the exercise, but focusing on what went right definitely improves confidence. Another thing that a decade of painstakingly quantified decision making has taught me is that the metric details often don't actually matter that much and rarely lead you to a satisfying choice. My most recent example is the purchase of a Bosch dishwasher. I did quite a bit of looking and landed on one of the higher end series that did very well across the board in reviews. I hate it. The dishes come out with this weird sweaty feel to them, the racks suck, and the user interface is beyond horrendous (something that a week stay in a rental property confirmed is common to all Bosch appliances). So I'm slowly working my way out of it, but I'm almost 50. Wish I would have had better constitution about this out of the gate.

Swizec 7y ago

My gut is black-and-white, my mind is grey. As a result I often find myself debating a decision I’ve actually already made. So I started using a shortcut. Instead of following the arguments, I observe the arguments themselves. Am I trying to justify a yes or a no? Saves a lot of time. Just do what in your gut you’ve already decided to do anyway.

extempore 7y ago
Whenever you're called on to make up your mind, and you're hampered by not having any, the best way to solve the dilemma, you'll find, is simply by spinning a penny. No - not so that chance shall decide the affair, while you're passively standing there moping; but the moment the penny is up in the air, you suddenly know what you're hoping. - Piet Hein
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  And if it doesn't help, if you still don't truly know what option you prefer, that means that the downsides and upsides of either are balanced so well you may as well pick whatever the coin landed on - the time you're wasting agonizing over the decision is worth more than the marginal improvement of picking the better option.
  - bonoboTP 7y ago
    As with all advice, some people are on the other end of the spectrum and need the exact opposite advice. You may be indecisive because you truly don't know enough about the options and need to do your research to make an informed decision. Don't overdo it, just do enough. How much is enough is not easy to say in general.

jariel 7y ago

"A bad plan is always preferable to no plan" - recently associated with Thiel but I believe it's an old military adage. I think there is something metaphysical about it; the 'grey' is the ether and the black and white is the materiality that comes out of it literally from force of will. You can only create something by making a choice, choosing a path, 'making the quantum observation' which dissolves the ambiguity. Too often we think of the 'solutions' as a form of 'clarity' ... when reality, 'clarity' might be just the force (or clarity) of vision more than anything. Consider three rules of branding: consistency, authenticity, simplicity. The message resonates when it is consistently and repeatedly applied in a simple way, and there is some kind of 'truthiness' (i.e. authenticity) to it. Sometimes I think of a product roadmap, and all the crazy internal and external politics of it all, as a form of branding. It's a 'decision' (i.e. either black or white) reiterated among individuals such that they can resonate their various talents around it, pushing it into fruition.