10 ms·

I’ve noticed there’s been a trend of people capitalizing on teaching others about “thinking how to think”, more or less. But does it really work, or does this

I’ve noticed there’s been a trend of people capitalizing on teaching others about “thinking how to think”, more or less. But does it really work, or does this stuff just make you better at winning an argument? My concern is that people are going to go around collecting mental models and they’re going to use them to justify their stupid decisions. Some examples that come to mind: https://fs.blog/ https://fs.blog/ https://jamesclear.com/feynman-mental-models https://jamesclear.com/feynman-mental-models https://www.lesswrong.com/ https://www.lesswrong.com/

lallysingh 6y ago
It's mostly intended to make people feel smarter by reading fancy clickbait.
capableweb 6y ago
> they’re going to use them to justify their stupid decisions I'm sorry, but isn't this the whole point of using mental models for your decisions? What's stupid is all up to you, but if I reasoned together some decision based on some model that I think works for me, it's hardy stupid for me. I always saw the point of these mental models is to use them to justify my "stupid" decisions, and have some structured way of reaching that decision instead of just "because I wanted to". Disclaimer: I don't really follow any mental models myself, except the model my organic brain comes up with on the fly, so don't let me tell you how others use these mental modals.
- maxerickson 6y ago
  The argument is that it is a facade, that the structure isn't really guiding the decision.
  - naasking 6y ago
    It doesn't have to. As long as it provides reasonable justification for a decision, that's better than no justification at all, eg. Like the OP said, "because I wanted to".
    - maxerickson 6y ago
      How is a false justification reasonable or better than admitting that the choice is arbitrary? (especially in the framework of the comment I replied to, where they are talking about the process being internally useful. Of course it may be useful to bullshit someone else, but that's a different thing.)
      - naasking 6y ago
        Because at least you put some thought was put into it, which again, is better than no thought at all. Consider your question applied to math: how is a false mathematical argument for believing a theorem better than just believing it for no reason at all? It's clearly better because you can actually point out the flaw in the specific argument. If someone accepts a mental framework and is faced with a choice they want to make, either: 1. They can find no justification for a choice they want to make, at which point they are more likely to question whether their choice is justifiable, or their mental framework is sufficient. Either outcome should be encouraged. 2. If they find a justification that's valid in the framework, then they have an explicable basis from which to convince others they made the right choice. 3. If they find a justification that's fallacious, then pointing out either how the framework is incomplete, or their argument within the framework is incorrect is far more likely to change their minds than simply claiming their choice was wrong and trying to explain why from your own framework, which they haven't accepted (and likely won't without a lot more convincing). Ultimately, applying thought to a problem is always better than no thought.
        maxerickson 6y ago
        I think admitting a choice is arbitrary will often require more thought than a specious conclusion arrived at by a faulty process.
        naasking 6y ago
        Doubtful. Like the OP said, "because I want to" is all the thought it requires. It's the answer children instinctively give. How much thought do they give their justifications? Finally, if you're giving credence to a process, even a faulty one, then at least it's possible to erode confidence in the process or your application of it. To see its effectiveness, you need only browse the countless posts on reddit written by former Christians about how they came to question and ultimately give up their religion after a discussion with an atheist.
- coldtea 6y ago
  >I'm sorry, but isn't this the whole point of using mental models for your decisions? What's stupid is all up to you Parent assumes there's an objective reality, and that, (even judging by one's own purposes and goals, and not the other person's), one can make stupid BS decisions that work against themselves and their goals...
petra 6y ago
Well, mental models are basically the BuzzFeed of thinking tools. So no wonder it has become a trend.
MrBuddyCasino 6y ago
I've followed him for some time on Twitter. Now convinced he's a Bullshit Vendor, to put in Talebian terms.
- smnrchrds 6y ago
  He has at least one seminal article that I know of: https://www.perell.com/blog/what-the-hell-is-going-on https://www.perell.com/blog/what-the-hell-is-going-on Previously discussed with 220 comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19413852 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19413852 The first few paragraphs are not good and may be difficult to read through. But after that, things start falling into place and the rest of the article is absolutely great. But I agree that the other articles by the author may not have the same level of quality.
  - CaptArmchair 6y ago
    Well, I read the article. It's not that great. Why? Because it's a mix 'n match of quotes, bits and pieces and observations cobbled together to support the thesis that digital technology will disrupt how information - and therefore our thinking about the world - is controlled. It's not that he's factually wrong about what he's saying. Rather, it's that the article lacks any references to a foundational understanding of historical dynamics and current affairs regarding economics, politics or economics. Everything he discusses has a historical context steeped in competing ideological, economical and political theories that have shaped the world since World War 1. And yet, he makes no mention that background whatsoever. On the contrary. For instance. > Like a fish in water, we’re unaware of the integration between our education system, the corporate structure, and our media environment. Uh. No. There's very much awareness about this among those who have participated in this debate and who are extremely worried about the state of education in America. And it's a debate about investing in public infrastructure, the advantages and drawbacks of free market dynamics in education and the long term impact on future generations. For instance, Mary Sue Coleman, president of the Association of American Universities and former president of the University of Michigan and the University of Iowa, wrote in the Washington Post back in 2016: > Public higher education is at a tipping point in the United States. It is an essential public good that is suffering from an unprecedented erosion of public support, with potentially devastating consequences for our students and our economy. > If our country continues to disinvest, we will be abandoning an essential feature of American democracy. This is what is at risk: the means to educate the broadest possible swath of our society, for the betterment of society, with full public support. Public institutions, especially, educate large numbers of students from all walks of life — particularly low-income, first-generation and underrepresented students. We cannot lose sight of that, particularly as our society grows more diverse. > We need to remind ourselves as a nation of higher education’s true value and its return on investment, not only to the individual but to society. Our collective progress and prosperity hinge on quality higher education. It is the strongest argument we have for lifting up our public support of this critical public good. Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor, has voice his concerns at various times about the impact of education economics on higher education: For instance, in 2010 - https://robertreich.org/post/2420649887 https://robertreich.org/post/2420649887 - and in 2012 -https://robertreich.org/post/18496069594 https://robertreich.org/post/18496069594. Even John Oliver pointed out in 2015 how nefarious standardized testing is on the quality of public education, how it is driven by market economics. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6lyURyVz7k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6lyURyVz7k And then there's the policies of current Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos which haven't done anything but accelerate the overall decrease of quality in education and contributed to the overall widening of the equality gap in american society. As evidenced in this scathing article from The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/dec/27/betsy-devos-trump-republicans-education-secretary https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/dec/27/betsy-devos-... Those are just a few examples. Education is a huge topic in it's own right with very heated debates in their own right. Buried below those highly visible examples are large groups of lobbyists, experts, unions, companies, non-profits, activists, academic researchers,... who have produced entire libraries filled with theories, frameworks, models, opinions,... that describe this field. Simply referring then to "digital technology is going to disrupt the monopoly on information" is quite a reductionist view of that complexity. And that's just the part of his essay that touches on education. The fact that the article lacks a clear understanding of the historical complexity that underpins the construction of his theory about the current state of American society, is of less concern to me. When I read this, it stood out to me as written by someone who has a background in media. On LinkedIn, he mentions that his education is a BA in Media & Arts. Now, there's aboslutely nothing wrong with that. But his background clearly define his writing. Someone who has a degree in education studies or social studies will arrive at a very different take on american society. However, what truly concerns me is that instead of going deeper and doing the research, looking for context and these debates, interviewing people and looking for insights, he chose to write in isolation and conjure his own theory on american society and the role of media, education and politics.
rwnspace 6y ago
The primary material on Lesswrong is a mixed bag, but certainly some of it is very interesting even to people with training in Philosophy. Indeed you can thank Dennett's 'Intuition Pumps' for providing a source of legitimacy to those people who want to take the mental model stuff Very Seriously. The same stuff can be mis-leading or well-leading. People will be people. Give it a few years and I half-expect a Mental-Models-cum-pseudo-Magickal Qabbalistic cottage industry to appear. Or at least a handy reference system, such as [Yudkowsky 24:10]...
jotm 6y ago
Tbf self improvement content is as old as Web 2.0
- TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
  Way older than that. There's very little difference between the the modern concept of Self Improvement and religion. Except, maybe, that people change mental models more frequently than they change underwear.
adverbly 6y ago
To me, it seems like a lot of these "systems" do actually work, and can lead to "good thinking". But, they all seem to suffer from the same flaw, which is that they seem to work better for the creator of the system than they do for adopters. "Good thinking" for many is still likely worse than what no system would yield. Why is this the case? I think a good guess at the reason might be 1) The very act of creating a system is itself a meaningful practice which improves thinking 2) People document systems which they found natural to themselves, and therefore are a better fit for themselves than others. Until I see someone "invent" a system which has broad success that goes beyond the inventor's own success, I'm not going near any of these systems with any degree of seriousness.
- toyg 6y ago
  3) people who adopt someone else's thought-system are effectively admitting they are bad at thinking. They will likely continue to be bad, no matter how refined the system is. You can get Leo Messi to teach me football but my first touch will still be sub-par.
  - smackay 6y ago
    4) It's not possible to express a thinking system sufficiently clearly in writing - after all we've been thinking for far longer than we've been writing. 5) (related) The assumption that all aspects of thinking are conscious. The eureka moment, sleeping on a problem or just taking a distracting shower suggest otherwise.
  - dahart 6y ago
    > 3) people who adopt someone else's thought-system are effectively admitting they are bad at thinking. > You can get Leo Messi to teach me football but my first touch will still be sub-par. Isn't that conflating practice with thinking? You would also never invent football on your own if you'd never heard of it. If you want to be good at football, letting Leo teach you is likely to be a lot faster and produce better results than not learning from anyone. Everyone adopts thought systems from others, you do and I do. Failing to admit that is to be actually bad at thinking and fail to admit you're human. It's not possible to have only original thoughts, and even if it was, it wouldn't be practical. Try to be honest with yourself and think about how many things you know for certain, that you weren't taught by someone else. How many facts do you know that you've verified yourself first hand? How do you know the sun is 93 million miles away, or that there are electrons in your CPU? I trust scientists who've studied it and thought about it, I haven't verified those things myself. How do we even understand words and speak languages? As children, we learned everything about the world from others, including how to think. Isn't this is a feature, not a bug? We learn from each other over time, and we'd be nowhere without people having adopted and then built upon the thought systems of others.
oh_sigh 6y ago
Couple that with so much advice that encourages people towards action with their current worldview and not introspection and then action, and it isn't too surprising that we end up with discussion-via-screaming-match as the standard in a public forum.
11thEarlOfMar 6y ago
It was literally true that my mother had taught her children that emotion should play a major role in making decisions. That generally meant identifying wants and then pursuing them, regardless of whether we should. I led my life with that approach until I had an epiphany about 10 years ago. It was inspired by my exposure to 2 people[0]. Between 2009 and 2012, I encountered several people who were very smart, but expressed their intelligence in a different way than I was familiar with. One I met personally, the other through media (YouTube, etc.) I realized at one point that what they had in common was this: their explanations and reasoning were precisely sufficient. They expressed themselves with exactly the right amount of evidence, logical flow and correct reasoning such that virtually everything they claimed was unassailable. I found myself strongly attracted to this type of thinking and in a short time, started second guessing all of my analysis and decision making and discarding any points that were not clear thought. It wasn't just emotional wants that were discarded, but in many cases, incorrectness as well. One area that benefited quite a bit from this was in my investments. The best performing investments I've made were executed since that epiphany. [0] (I prefer not to name them, lest I be disregarded as a fanboy, but the clues are in the comment)
- hackingthenews 6y ago
  I honestly can't tell who you are talking about. And I really want to know...
  - benjohnson 6y ago
    One of the people he's referencing has become a political Rorschach test - people see what they want to see and don't actually look at what the picture is trying to convey.
    - hackingthenews 6y ago
      Now I am even more interested, but still have no idea.
      - 6y ago
vikiomega9 6y ago
There are steps to learning and copying is one of them, and if someone is willing to acknowledge this that's a win. The problem is when people decide someone else has done the heavy thinking for them and they just have to copy-paste mental models, as you're alluding to.
dahart 6y ago
> My concern is that people are going to go around collecting mental models and they’re going to use them to justify their stupid decisions. If I look beyond blog posts about how to think, your sentence seems like an accurate description of human behavior. Isn't this what has always happened, haven't people always used mental models they've collected to justify stupid decisions? I'd be curious to hear more about the alternatives, or how and where to find balance. And I mean this seriously and expect it's a hard-to-possibly-unanswerable question. We have a limited ability and time to construct our own mental models about everything, and we are exposed to other's mental models at all times through communication. It's not possible to be completely independent about ideas. It's only possible to build on, practice, and prove out maybe a few ideas that came from others during a lifetime. "Does it really work?" I think is a great and essential question, and for many of these items in the list, the answer has to be yes for someone in some context. Maybe the question is when do they work, and will they work for me?
- deegles 6y ago
  Reminds me of one of my favorite quotes: “So convenient a thing to be a reasonable creature, since it enables one to find or make a reason for every thing one has a mind to do.” - Ben Franklin
lcuff 6y ago
I stopped subscribing to the Farnham street blog because it was too overwhelming, frankly. There are a ton of good ideas out there. Using the 80/20 rule (Pareto principle), I grabbed one: Charlie Munger says "I never allow myself to have an opinion on anything that I don't know the other side's argument better than they do." Applying it to current events, I (very intermittently) tap into broadcast news, but watch both CNN and Fox News. Then I fact-check them both. It's pretty interesting. I personally have limited bandwidth learning and applying better thinking techniques. It's a slow process to learn new ones.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
quietthrow 6y ago
I am big (closet?) fan of Farnam street blog and came across it many years ago as it was connected to munger and buffet (who I still remain a fan of). The funny thing is I know FS has good content and I subscribe to the free newsletters for years now but I have never really read them except for the occasional one here and there. They just go into a special folder with my hopes that I will get to it and I don’t want to lose out (fomo!). What follows may be poorly articulated but will try anyway as I could use help with this. I don’t read FS cos I feel like I need to spend proper time behind it to read and learn what is has to share. It’s like studying read it and then perhaps take some notes and keep them handy to reference later. Then on top of this it has so many articles I feel I have no strategy to keep up. And then there is the whole when will I really use it if I need to go look it up / reference it In order to use it. This whole approach sounds twisted to me. And as someone on this thread said it’s essentially me learning how to think Which may be subconsciously tells me I am bad at thinking. I can say thst for the last decade i feel like I am on a quest to improve myself so that then I can be “smart”. In a way this had lead for me for the last decade or so to pursue reading / finding content on the web (largely through ask hn and the likes) that is about optimizing or making myself better. And I find that I have consumed a lot but may have not really realized it’s gains from a career or other tangible perspective. Is anybody else in a similar boat? Sometimes I feel these are all time wasters disguised as things that can be helpful. May be a better approach is to just do things and then when you are stuck on a problem then go consult there types of sites to see if they have a solution to your problem. In that is where real growth might happen. I feel like the approach I current have is the other way around - let me find all the “general solutions” and (become “smarter” ) and then apply it to whatever I do. Am I wrong here in think thst is whole chasing after self improvement is a real discretion from doing real things thst will actually make me “smarter”?
- rajlego 6y ago
  I think the problem comes down to: there is no good way to retain the information. And writers don't think about it either. Most writers will say you need to "practice" and "apply" whatever you read while being very vague on the how. I'm interested in a habit creation system for methodologically allowing you to get good at applying say a mental model, but aside from that I think the best alternative is incremental reading/spaced repetition. (https://supermemo.guru/wiki/Incremental_reading https://supermemo.guru/wiki/Incremental_reading) tl;dr: while it can't give you procedural/neurally honed representations of the models you would get from practice, it gets close by allowing you to memorize declarative info. I've found it at least partially functional for being able to sort of apply mental models, though there is still a large gap between knowing and applying.
coldtea 6y ago
>I’ve noticed there’s been a trend of people capitalizing on teaching others about “thinking how to think”, more or less. But does it really work, or does this stuff just make you better at winning an argument? Depends. There's stuff you learn by experience, and there's stuff that you learn by studying. Thinking how to think is somewhere in between - you learn a lot of it by experience (e.g. when you get duped in a certain way, you learn to recognize the pattern and avoid it), but you miss a lot too. And even the things you learn, you might merely apply subconsciously or practically, without really understanding them. So having some kind of teacher / book / course into it makes sense, as much and in the same way it makes sense for math or chemistry or driving. Generally any subject in which someone can be much better at it than you, and the principles of which can be communicated, makes sense to be taught... That said, there are all kind of crap teachers online, people who make those mental models into some rigid dogma (either teachers or students), people who discovered/came up with some thinking models / mental guidelines and think they're the next Aristotle, and so on. If they make money off of ads or selling courses, I'ld stay well away... One particular pet peeve is how people discover the "logical fallacies" and force them upon any conversation, when part of mastering conversing with humans is to know when and how to apply or break strict logical consistency - and understand context and applicability. When someone a friend tells you not to go with X's proposition because they're not trustworthy, they're a criminal, etc, their talk might be an "ad hominen" and the proposition might be great in itself. But the result of trusting X might still be bad (e.g. they might use what's a great proposition to their advantage to dupe you), and that's the point your friend tries to convey.
loughnane 6y ago
I think it was Jefferson who said something to the effect of “if you want to know what’s true, look at what all the great religions agree on” Similarly, people have been writing about thinking for a looong time, so rather than jumping from framework to framework it’s good to read a few old books and see what the authors agree on. I’m not an expert on what those agreements are, but off the top of my head: -be more prepared than your competitor -master principles and you can select your methods -don’t have rigid tactics, things always change so adapt accordingly. -chain is as strong as its weakest link - etc
ThomPete 6y ago
You can't teach people how to think. Like everything else only once it gets applied to do learn how to use it i.e. like everything else if you don't practice it's mostly useless because you have developed the intuition for using it (and even when you do it's still a lot of practice and you will still get it wrong.
DecayingOrganic 6y ago
I've realized that the biggest obstacle in my life isn't about knowing what to do but mustering the will to do it. Nearly everyone knows a thing or two that they can do to improve their life or to maximize the chance of reaching their goals. But they don't do it. Not even after reading countless self-help books that always promises to solve this exact problem! I think it is fair to accept the fact that we do _not_ have the full privileges of the system, and sometimes what we want to do gets overridden by other primal behaviors.
- mmcconnell1618 6y ago
  Here's a good TED talk on behavioral change. Short answer is that knowledge doesn't change behaviors as you pointed out. Knowing the right thing to do and actually doing it are very different things. https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_ariely_how_to_change_your_behavior_for_the_better?language=en https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_ariely_how_to_change_your_beha...
xyzzy2020 6y ago
I think these are closer to aphorisms than "models of thinking". In that sense take them or leave them if the are applicable to your life. I don't read too deeply into stuff like this..maybe that is talked about in one of these ideas that I haven't finished reading.
dennis_jeeves 6y ago
>I’ve noticed there’s been a trend of people capitalizing on teaching others about “thinking how to think”, more or less. >But does it really work, or does this stuff just make you better at winning an argument? Overall for most of these writers, I think it's just intellectual masturbation, or perhaps getting more clicks or readership, i.e there is a clear immediate financial benefit. Or perhaps they are truly deluded in thinking that they can teach people to think, i.e an altruistic motive. Personally for me (if you check the link on my profile) it's a way to connect and work with like minded people.
rajlego 6y ago
I've read all 3 of those and have found some interesting stuff but I'm not sure how much they actually changed my life because none of them think much about the most important aspect of teaching: how to get people to retain and apply stuff.
lunias 6y ago
Here in my garage, just bought this new Lamborghini here. It’s fun to drive up here in the Hollywood hills. But you know what I like more than materialistic things? Knowledge. In fact, I’m a lot more proud of these seven new bookshelves that I had to get installed to hold two thousand new books that I bought. It’s like the billionaire Warren Buffett says, “the more you learn, the more you earn.”
gofreddygo 6y ago
Intellectual Porn, that's what all this is.
bonoboTP 6y ago
Well, to go meta, you get about 80% of the way with 20% of "insight porn". After a while it's just repetition, rephrasing and marketing. Self help and business growth mindset etc whatever we call this can become a trap in itself. Go out, do something boring and you'll learn more through that than reading little enlightening maxims. Sure some of it is helpful. Read some Kahnemann, some Taleb, some Marcus Aurelius, some classic novels etc. Reading can be good, you don't have to learn everything on your own example. But it's often the case that these lessons are only intelligible in hindsight. You may feel like you intellectually understood it and got some insight orgasm from it, but getting some actual stuff done then becomes more beneficial. Advice always depends on where you are now. It's never generic. These materials also put a lot of emphasis on the weird, the counterintuitive, the quirky, the paradoxical. But what you actually need to know first is the solid default normal way the world works. This can be learned from "boring" old textbooks, not from shiny new strange theories. Whenever you read something new about a surprising new discovery about the brain or physics or AI or whatever, think about whether you even know what the straightforward, non-counterintuitive result would have been. Do you even know the basics, the foundations or just have a large collection of curious bits and pieces of nice cocktail party did-you-know material?

lallysingh 6y ago

It's mostly intended to make people feel smarter by reading fancy clickbait.

capableweb 6y ago

> they’re going to use them to justify their stupid decisions I'm sorry, but isn't this the whole point of using mental models for your decisions? What's stupid is all up to you, but if I reasoned together some decision based on some model that I think works for me, it's hardy stupid for me. I always saw the point of these mental models is to use them to justify my "stupid" decisions, and have some structured way of reaching that decision instead of just "because I wanted to". Disclaimer: I don't really follow any mental models myself, except the model my organic brain comes up with on the fly, so don't let me tell you how others use these mental modals.

maxerickson 6y ago
The argument is that it is a facade, that the structure isn't really guiding the decision.
- naasking 6y ago
  It doesn't have to. As long as it provides reasonable justification for a decision, that's better than no justification at all, eg. Like the OP said, "because I wanted to".
  - maxerickson 6y ago
    How is a false justification reasonable or better than admitting that the choice is arbitrary? (especially in the framework of the comment I replied to, where they are talking about the process being internally useful. Of course it may be useful to bullshit someone else, but that's a different thing.)
    - naasking 6y ago
      Because at least you put some thought was put into it, which again, is better than no thought at all. Consider your question applied to math: how is a false mathematical argument for believing a theorem better than just believing it for no reason at all? It's clearly better because you can actually point out the flaw in the specific argument. If someone accepts a mental framework and is faced with a choice they want to make, either: 1. They can find no justification for a choice they want to make, at which point they are more likely to question whether their choice is justifiable, or their mental framework is sufficient. Either outcome should be encouraged. 2. If they find a justification that's valid in the framework, then they have an explicable basis from which to convince others they made the right choice. 3. If they find a justification that's fallacious, then pointing out either how the framework is incomplete, or their argument within the framework is incorrect is far more likely to change their minds than simply claiming their choice was wrong and trying to explain why from your own framework, which they haven't accepted (and likely won't without a lot more convincing). Ultimately, applying thought to a problem is always better than no thought.
      - maxerickson 6y ago
        I think admitting a choice is arbitrary will often require more thought than a specious conclusion arrived at by a faulty process.
        naasking 6y ago
        Doubtful. Like the OP said, "because I want to" is all the thought it requires. It's the answer children instinctively give. How much thought do they give their justifications? Finally, if you're giving credence to a process, even a faulty one, then at least it's possible to erode confidence in the process or your application of it. To see its effectiveness, you need only browse the countless posts on reddit written by former Christians about how they came to question and ultimately give up their religion after a discussion with an atheist.
coldtea 6y ago
>I'm sorry, but isn't this the whole point of using mental models for your decisions? What's stupid is all up to you Parent assumes there's an objective reality, and that, (even judging by one's own purposes and goals, and not the other person's), one can make stupid BS decisions that work against themselves and their goals...

petra 6y ago

Well, mental models are basically the BuzzFeed of thinking tools. So no wonder it has become a trend.

MrBuddyCasino 6y ago

I've followed him for some time on Twitter. Now convinced he's a Bullshit Vendor, to put in Talebian terms.

smnrchrds 6y ago
He has at least one seminal article that I know of: https://www.perell.com/blog/what-the-hell-is-going-on https://www.perell.com/blog/what-the-hell-is-going-on Previously discussed with 220 comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19413852 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19413852 The first few paragraphs are not good and may be difficult to read through. But after that, things start falling into place and the rest of the article is absolutely great. But I agree that the other articles by the author may not have the same level of quality.
- CaptArmchair 6y ago
  Well, I read the article. It's not that great. Why? Because it's a mix 'n match of quotes, bits and pieces and observations cobbled together to support the thesis that digital technology will disrupt how information - and therefore our thinking about the world - is controlled. It's not that he's factually wrong about what he's saying. Rather, it's that the article lacks any references to a foundational understanding of historical dynamics and current affairs regarding economics, politics or economics. Everything he discusses has a historical context steeped in competing ideological, economical and political theories that have shaped the world since World War 1. And yet, he makes no mention that background whatsoever. On the contrary. For instance. > Like a fish in water, we’re unaware of the integration between our education system, the corporate structure, and our media environment. Uh. No. There's very much awareness about this among those who have participated in this debate and who are extremely worried about the state of education in America. And it's a debate about investing in public infrastructure, the advantages and drawbacks of free market dynamics in education and the long term impact on future generations. For instance, Mary Sue Coleman, president of the Association of American Universities and former president of the University of Michigan and the University of Iowa, wrote in the Washington Post back in 2016: > Public higher education is at a tipping point in the United States. It is an essential public good that is suffering from an unprecedented erosion of public support, with potentially devastating consequences for our students and our economy. > If our country continues to disinvest, we will be abandoning an essential feature of American democracy. This is what is at risk: the means to educate the broadest possible swath of our society, for the betterment of society, with full public support. Public institutions, especially, educate large numbers of students from all walks of life — particularly low-income, first-generation and underrepresented students. We cannot lose sight of that, particularly as our society grows more diverse. > We need to remind ourselves as a nation of higher education’s true value and its return on investment, not only to the individual but to society. Our collective progress and prosperity hinge on quality higher education. It is the strongest argument we have for lifting up our public support of this critical public good. Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor, has voice his concerns at various times about the impact of education economics on higher education: For instance, in 2010 - https://robertreich.org/post/2420649887 https://robertreich.org/post/2420649887 - and in 2012 -https://robertreich.org/post/18496069594 https://robertreich.org/post/18496069594. Even John Oliver pointed out in 2015 how nefarious standardized testing is on the quality of public education, how it is driven by market economics. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6lyURyVz7k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6lyURyVz7k And then there's the policies of current Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos which haven't done anything but accelerate the overall decrease of quality in education and contributed to the overall widening of the equality gap in american society. As evidenced in this scathing article from The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/dec/27/betsy-devos-trump-republicans-education-secretary https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/dec/27/betsy-devos-... Those are just a few examples. Education is a huge topic in it's own right with very heated debates in their own right. Buried below those highly visible examples are large groups of lobbyists, experts, unions, companies, non-profits, activists, academic researchers,... who have produced entire libraries filled with theories, frameworks, models, opinions,... that describe this field. Simply referring then to "digital technology is going to disrupt the monopoly on information" is quite a reductionist view of that complexity. And that's just the part of his essay that touches on education. The fact that the article lacks a clear understanding of the historical complexity that underpins the construction of his theory about the current state of American society, is of less concern to me. When I read this, it stood out to me as written by someone who has a background in media. On LinkedIn, he mentions that his education is a BA in Media & Arts. Now, there's aboslutely nothing wrong with that. But his background clearly define his writing. Someone who has a degree in education studies or social studies will arrive at a very different take on american society. However, what truly concerns me is that instead of going deeper and doing the research, looking for context and these debates, interviewing people and looking for insights, he chose to write in isolation and conjure his own theory on american society and the role of media, education and politics.

rwnspace 6y ago

The primary material on Lesswrong is a mixed bag, but certainly some of it is very interesting even to people with training in Philosophy. Indeed you can thank Dennett's 'Intuition Pumps' for providing a source of legitimacy to those people who want to take the mental model stuff Very Seriously. The same stuff can be mis-leading or well-leading. People will be people. Give it a few years and I half-expect a Mental-Models-cum-pseudo-Magickal Qabbalistic cottage industry to appear. Or at least a handy reference system, such as [Yudkowsky 24:10]...

jotm 6y ago

Tbf self improvement content is as old as Web 2.0

TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
Way older than that. There's very little difference between the the modern concept of Self Improvement and religion. Except, maybe, that people change mental models more frequently than they change underwear.

adverbly 6y ago

To me, it seems like a lot of these "systems" do actually work, and can lead to "good thinking". But, they all seem to suffer from the same flaw, which is that they seem to work better for the creator of the system than they do for adopters. "Good thinking" for many is still likely worse than what no system would yield. Why is this the case? I think a good guess at the reason might be 1) The very act of creating a system is itself a meaningful practice which improves thinking 2) People document systems which they found natural to themselves, and therefore are a better fit for themselves than others. Until I see someone "invent" a system which has broad success that goes beyond the inventor's own success, I'm not going near any of these systems with any degree of seriousness.

toyg 6y ago
3) people who adopt someone else's thought-system are effectively admitting they are bad at thinking. They will likely continue to be bad, no matter how refined the system is. You can get Leo Messi to teach me football but my first touch will still be sub-par.
- smackay 6y ago
  4) It's not possible to express a thinking system sufficiently clearly in writing - after all we've been thinking for far longer than we've been writing. 5) (related) The assumption that all aspects of thinking are conscious. The eureka moment, sleeping on a problem or just taking a distracting shower suggest otherwise.
- dahart 6y ago
  > 3) people who adopt someone else's thought-system are effectively admitting they are bad at thinking. > You can get Leo Messi to teach me football but my first touch will still be sub-par. Isn't that conflating practice with thinking? You would also never invent football on your own if you'd never heard of it. If you want to be good at football, letting Leo teach you is likely to be a lot faster and produce better results than not learning from anyone. Everyone adopts thought systems from others, you do and I do. Failing to admit that is to be actually bad at thinking and fail to admit you're human. It's not possible to have only original thoughts, and even if it was, it wouldn't be practical. Try to be honest with yourself and think about how many things you know for certain, that you weren't taught by someone else. How many facts do you know that you've verified yourself first hand? How do you know the sun is 93 million miles away, or that there are electrons in your CPU? I trust scientists who've studied it and thought about it, I haven't verified those things myself. How do we even understand words and speak languages? As children, we learned everything about the world from others, including how to think. Isn't this is a feature, not a bug? We learn from each other over time, and we'd be nowhere without people having adopted and then built upon the thought systems of others.

oh_sigh 6y ago

Couple that with so much advice that encourages people towards action with their current worldview and not introspection and then action, and it isn't too surprising that we end up with discussion-via-screaming-match as the standard in a public forum.

11thEarlOfMar 6y ago

It was literally true that my mother had taught her children that emotion should play a major role in making decisions. That generally meant identifying wants and then pursuing them, regardless of whether we should. I led my life with that approach until I had an epiphany about 10 years ago. It was inspired by my exposure to 2 people[0]. Between 2009 and 2012, I encountered several people who were very smart, but expressed their intelligence in a different way than I was familiar with. One I met personally, the other through media (YouTube, etc.) I realized at one point that what they had in common was this: their explanations and reasoning were precisely sufficient. They expressed themselves with exactly the right amount of evidence, logical flow and correct reasoning such that virtually everything they claimed was unassailable. I found myself strongly attracted to this type of thinking and in a short time, started second guessing all of my analysis and decision making and discarding any points that were not clear thought. It wasn't just emotional wants that were discarded, but in many cases, incorrectness as well. One area that benefited quite a bit from this was in my investments. The best performing investments I've made were executed since that epiphany. [0] (I prefer not to name them, lest I be disregarded as a fanboy, but the clues are in the comment)

hackingthenews 6y ago
I honestly can't tell who you are talking about. And I really want to know...
- benjohnson 6y ago
  One of the people he's referencing has become a political Rorschach test - people see what they want to see and don't actually look at what the picture is trying to convey.
  - hackingthenews 6y ago
    Now I am even more interested, but still have no idea.
    - 6y ago

vikiomega9 6y ago

There are steps to learning and copying is one of them, and if someone is willing to acknowledge this that's a win. The problem is when people decide someone else has done the heavy thinking for them and they just have to copy-paste mental models, as you're alluding to.

dahart 6y ago

> My concern is that people are going to go around collecting mental models and they’re going to use them to justify their stupid decisions. If I look beyond blog posts about how to think, your sentence seems like an accurate description of human behavior. Isn't this what has always happened, haven't people always used mental models they've collected to justify stupid decisions? I'd be curious to hear more about the alternatives, or how and where to find balance. And I mean this seriously and expect it's a hard-to-possibly-unanswerable question. We have a limited ability and time to construct our own mental models about everything, and we are exposed to other's mental models at all times through communication. It's not possible to be completely independent about ideas. It's only possible to build on, practice, and prove out maybe a few ideas that came from others during a lifetime. "Does it really work?" I think is a great and essential question, and for many of these items in the list, the answer has to be yes for someone in some context. Maybe the question is when do they work, and will they work for me?

deegles 6y ago
Reminds me of one of my favorite quotes: “So convenient a thing to be a reasonable creature, since it enables one to find or make a reason for every thing one has a mind to do.” - Ben Franklin

lcuff 6y ago

I stopped subscribing to the Farnham street blog because it was too overwhelming, frankly. There are a ton of good ideas out there. Using the 80/20 rule (Pareto principle), I grabbed one: Charlie Munger says "I never allow myself to have an opinion on anything that I don't know the other side's argument better than they do." Applying it to current events, I (very intermittently) tap into broadcast news, but watch both CNN and Fox News. Then I fact-check them both. It's pretty interesting. I personally have limited bandwidth learning and applying better thinking techniques. It's a slow process to learn new ones.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

quietthrow 6y ago

I am big (closet?) fan of Farnam street blog and came across it many years ago as it was connected to munger and buffet (who I still remain a fan of). The funny thing is I know FS has good content and I subscribe to the free newsletters for years now but I have never really read them except for the occasional one here and there. They just go into a special folder with my hopes that I will get to it and I don’t want to lose out (fomo!). What follows may be poorly articulated but will try anyway as I could use help with this. I don’t read FS cos I feel like I need to spend proper time behind it to read and learn what is has to share. It’s like studying read it and then perhaps take some notes and keep them handy to reference later. Then on top of this it has so many articles I feel I have no strategy to keep up. And then there is the whole when will I really use it if I need to go look it up / reference it In order to use it. This whole approach sounds twisted to me. And as someone on this thread said it’s essentially me learning how to think Which may be subconsciously tells me I am bad at thinking. I can say thst for the last decade i feel like I am on a quest to improve myself so that then I can be “smart”. In a way this had lead for me for the last decade or so to pursue reading / finding content on the web (largely through ask hn and the likes) that is about optimizing or making myself better. And I find that I have consumed a lot but may have not really realized it’s gains from a career or other tangible perspective. Is anybody else in a similar boat? Sometimes I feel these are all time wasters disguised as things that can be helpful. May be a better approach is to just do things and then when you are stuck on a problem then go consult there types of sites to see if they have a solution to your problem. In that is where real growth might happen. I feel like the approach I current have is the other way around - let me find all the “general solutions” and (become “smarter” ) and then apply it to whatever I do. Am I wrong here in think thst is whole chasing after self improvement is a real discretion from doing real things thst will actually make me “smarter”?

rajlego 6y ago
I think the problem comes down to: there is no good way to retain the information. And writers don't think about it either. Most writers will say you need to "practice" and "apply" whatever you read while being very vague on the how. I'm interested in a habit creation system for methodologically allowing you to get good at applying say a mental model, but aside from that I think the best alternative is incremental reading/spaced repetition. (https://supermemo.guru/wiki/Incremental_reading https://supermemo.guru/wiki/Incremental_reading) tl;dr: while it can't give you procedural/neurally honed representations of the models you would get from practice, it gets close by allowing you to memorize declarative info. I've found it at least partially functional for being able to sort of apply mental models, though there is still a large gap between knowing and applying.

coldtea 6y ago

>I’ve noticed there’s been a trend of people capitalizing on teaching others about “thinking how to think”, more or less. But does it really work, or does this stuff just make you better at winning an argument? Depends. There's stuff you learn by experience, and there's stuff that you learn by studying. Thinking how to think is somewhere in between - you learn a lot of it by experience (e.g. when you get duped in a certain way, you learn to recognize the pattern and avoid it), but you miss a lot too. And even the things you learn, you might merely apply subconsciously or practically, without really understanding them. So having some kind of teacher / book / course into it makes sense, as much and in the same way it makes sense for math or chemistry or driving. Generally any subject in which someone can be much better at it than you, and the principles of which can be communicated, makes sense to be taught... That said, there are all kind of crap teachers online, people who make those mental models into some rigid dogma (either teachers or students), people who discovered/came up with some thinking models / mental guidelines and think they're the next Aristotle, and so on. If they make money off of ads or selling courses, I'ld stay well away... One particular pet peeve is how people discover the "logical fallacies" and force them upon any conversation, when part of mastering conversing with humans is to know when and how to apply or break strict logical consistency - and understand context and applicability. When someone a friend tells you not to go with X's proposition because they're not trustworthy, they're a criminal, etc, their talk might be an "ad hominen" and the proposition might be great in itself. But the result of trusting X might still be bad (e.g. they might use what's a great proposition to their advantage to dupe you), and that's the point your friend tries to convey.

loughnane 6y ago

I think it was Jefferson who said something to the effect of “if you want to know what’s true, look at what all the great religions agree on” Similarly, people have been writing about thinking for a looong time, so rather than jumping from framework to framework it’s good to read a few old books and see what the authors agree on. I’m not an expert on what those agreements are, but off the top of my head: -be more prepared than your competitor -master principles and you can select your methods -don’t have rigid tactics, things always change so adapt accordingly. -chain is as strong as its weakest link - etc

ThomPete 6y ago

You can't teach people how to think. Like everything else only once it gets applied to do learn how to use it i.e. like everything else if you don't practice it's mostly useless because you have developed the intuition for using it (and even when you do it's still a lot of practice and you will still get it wrong.

DecayingOrganic 6y ago

I've realized that the biggest obstacle in my life isn't about knowing what to do but mustering the will to do it. Nearly everyone knows a thing or two that they can do to improve their life or to maximize the chance of reaching their goals. But they don't do it. Not even after reading countless self-help books that always promises to solve this exact problem! I think it is fair to accept the fact that we do _not_ have the full privileges of the system, and sometimes what we want to do gets overridden by other primal behaviors.

mmcconnell1618 6y ago
Here's a good TED talk on behavioral change. Short answer is that knowledge doesn't change behaviors as you pointed out. Knowing the right thing to do and actually doing it are very different things. https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_ariely_how_to_change_your_behavior_for_the_better?language=en https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_ariely_how_to_change_your_beha...

xyzzy2020 6y ago

I think these are closer to aphorisms than "models of thinking". In that sense take them or leave them if the are applicable to your life. I don't read too deeply into stuff like this..maybe that is talked about in one of these ideas that I haven't finished reading.

dennis_jeeves 6y ago

>I’ve noticed there’s been a trend of people capitalizing on teaching others about “thinking how to think”, more or less. >But does it really work, or does this stuff just make you better at winning an argument? Overall for most of these writers, I think it's just intellectual masturbation, or perhaps getting more clicks or readership, i.e there is a clear immediate financial benefit. Or perhaps they are truly deluded in thinking that they can teach people to think, i.e an altruistic motive. Personally for me (if you check the link on my profile) it's a way to connect and work with like minded people.

rajlego 6y ago

I've read all 3 of those and have found some interesting stuff but I'm not sure how much they actually changed my life because none of them think much about the most important aspect of teaching: how to get people to retain and apply stuff.

lunias 6y ago

Here in my garage, just bought this new Lamborghini here. It’s fun to drive up here in the Hollywood hills. But you know what I like more than materialistic things? Knowledge. In fact, I’m a lot more proud of these seven new bookshelves that I had to get installed to hold two thousand new books that I bought. It’s like the billionaire Warren Buffett says, “the more you learn, the more you earn.”

gofreddygo 6y ago

Intellectual Porn, that's what all this is.

bonoboTP 6y ago

Well, to go meta, you get about 80% of the way with 20% of "insight porn". After a while it's just repetition, rephrasing and marketing. Self help and business growth mindset etc whatever we call this can become a trap in itself. Go out, do something boring and you'll learn more through that than reading little enlightening maxims. Sure some of it is helpful. Read some Kahnemann, some Taleb, some Marcus Aurelius, some classic novels etc. Reading can be good, you don't have to learn everything on your own example. But it's often the case that these lessons are only intelligible in hindsight. You may feel like you intellectually understood it and got some insight orgasm from it, but getting some actual stuff done then becomes more beneficial. Advice always depends on where you are now. It's never generic. These materials also put a lot of emphasis on the weird, the counterintuitive, the quirky, the paradoxical. But what you actually need to know first is the solid default normal way the world works. This can be learned from "boring" old textbooks, not from shiny new strange theories. Whenever you read something new about a surprising new discovery about the brain or physics or AI or whatever, think about whether you even know what the straightforward, non-counterintuitive result would have been. Do you even know the basics, the foundations or just have a large collection of curious bits and pieces of nice cocktail party did-you-know material?