4 ms·
Aaaand third order thinking is skimming this and knowing it's about as deep as the conversation I tried to have at a bar three hours ago when I explained I was
by noduerme 4y ago
Aaaand third order thinking is skimming this and knowing it's about as deep as the conversation I tried to have at a bar three hours ago when I explained I was just playing "devil's advocate" to someone who was already playing devil's advocate.
Whenever I get desperate enough to start a blog full of deep thoughts that only gets posted here, watch out HN.
- jrh206 4y agoIndeed. Unfortunately the article lost me when I saw the graph of "extent to which you consider second order and subsequent consequences" vs "odds of success".
- noduerme 4y agoAren't totally meaningless graphs the best though? ;) You're just bitter because you're already fourth order thinking... you assessed the whole thing as a dumbass waste of time. Also, never show people graphs when /ok, never mind
- tomohawk 4y agoCynicism is not a substitute for wisdom.
- noduerme 4y ago
- mattsahr 4y agoWhat? Wisdom is expensive! If you're fresh out of wisdom, or just low on cash, you can TOTALLY use cynicism 1:1 in most recipes.
- smilespray 4y agoOr Worcestershire sauce. Everything tastes better with Worcestershire sauce.
- tomohawk 4y agoHow cynical!
- gnfargbl 4y agoA healthy skepticism can be a useful way to avoid vacuous thinking.
- krapp 4y agoSkepticism requires critical thinking and engagement. You can't be a proper skeptic about something without taking the time to understand the domain you're being skeptical of, approach it in good faith from first principles as much as possible, and accept criticism in kind. Most people just won't bother, because cynicism and snark provide a better endorphin hit, and the internet has trained people to associate that feeling with likelihood of correctness (what Stephen Colbert called "truthiness" back in the day.)
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- wawjgreen 4y agothe first things skeptics should be skeptical about is skepticism itself: are they right in being skeptical about what they are skeptical about?
- gexla 4y agoI generally skip articles from Farnam Street. Once I saw the source, I already knew what the comments would be. ;)
- ramblerman 4y agoYeah I like Shane, but FS seems it has too narrow a focus and he has tried really hard to squeeze every last drop out of these mental models.
- vocram 4y agoWhat’s the problem with FS?
- noduerme 4y agoy'know goddammit that's it. I'm gonna start a blog and cross post every day to HN and tell you all lots of really amazing observations about life you never even thought of before. Just kidding hahshahah I'd never do that edit but only because I'm lazy
- Ecstatify 4y agoTheir podcast 'The Knowledge Project' is essentially a book tour for authors flogging their new book 'Framework/Mental Models to achieve X'. Modern day magic beans to make you smarter.
- wnolens 4y agoIt's like Tim Ferris, filtered for the "intellectual" topics. Yawn
- mynameisash 4y agoYeah, I think that about sums it up. I started listening to Tim Ferris years ago because there were a few decent episodes, but I hit a breaking point after one-too-many horrendous episodes. I discovered FS a couple years ago and have enjoyed some of them, but I'm very close to unsubscribing from this one. There have been a lot of low quality episodes as well as some negative quality: goofy web3 technobabble.