3 ms·

> they've created a bespoke system of abstract beliefs swatcoder, can you please tell me how you particularly manage to learn from your mistakes? Some people

> they've created a bespoke system of abstract beliefs swatcoder, can you please tell me how you particularly manage to learn from your mistakes? Some people create personal theories of how the world works, and then put their theories into action: A successful example is Charlie Munger and heres his talk explaining some of his excellent theories: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Jv7sLrON7QY https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Jv7sLrON7QY Some people overthink things and label things. That can be unhealthy, and Adam touches on that with his "Stroking the problem" section. But the opposite can be unhealthy too: not thinking at all and repeating over and over making the same mistakes. > catchy names Useful when communicating with others if it is an uncommon concept. I like to search for the perfect word or perfect catchphrase when thinking about a problem or solution because it helps my thinking. > various example cases How do you do it? Don't you look at specific issues you find in your own life? Examples yes? And then generalise from that? I just don't understand what you're complaining about. The closest I can think is that you're anti-intellectual or you're a "Just do it" prosyletiser - the implication being that thinking is unnecessary and the problem. Academic over-thinking is its own problem: is that your issue? Like most things: we need to find the right balance. Thinking too little is bad in a different way from thinking too much. > intellectualize and systematize and engineer things I'm just gobsmacked at your choice of words: is systemizing and engineering bad? I define engineering as making good compromises. Maybe you could find some catchier phrases from what you are trying to say ;-). "intellectualize": is thinking good or bad? I suspect I'm falling into the trap you mention - perhaps we both need to learn to write as well as Mastroianna!!

swatcoder 3y ago
Navigating the world comfortably involves a balance of contemplation and action. As I tried to allude in my comment, most people here, myself included, are already heavily biased towards the former. We train ourselves to think deliberately and rationally, breaking down challenges into components, using and inventing abstract symbols and operations to get from where we are to where we need to be. It's our profession in many cases, and often we were called to that profession because we've got some natural inclination to approach the world that way. And it's valuable! I don't know that I could work on hard problems or take sound actions on some of the biggest and most impactful matters in my life without that. I value that I'm good at it, and practiced in it, and (like the author) think there's value in sharing the fruit of that work with others. I did exactly that in my original comment and I'm doing it again here. What I'm expressing is not a general critique against intellectualizing. It's cautionary advice that -- for many of the people here -- they (specifically) may experience more benefit resisting the urge to intellectualize rather than indulging in it. It's not anti-intellectual, nor is it especially novel. You can find comparable encouragement in both "Eastern" and "Western" traditions and from countless modern synthesizers of these traditions (Alan Watts, Werner Erhard, etc), who encourage brainy "bogged" intellectuals to just "bonk" themselves and stop expecting more thought and analysis to be the road away from their problems. In many cases, it's the intellectualizing itself that invents/perpetuates problems that simply cease to be if one can practice simply acting. Some people need the opposite advice, but few of them are going to be reading these comments in the first place and generally have different complaints than being stuck in s "bog".
- robocat 3y ago
  It's difficult alright. My father is very academic and he tends to start projects but not finish them. I also recognise the same fault in myself. But I've fought it hard and won a few times with some long-term successes (using a variety of personal strategies to avoid my unproductive tendencies). We have many concepts related to what you are saying: analysis-paralysis, productivity porn, ivory tower, etcetera, etcetera. I find the fields of psychology and philosophy are mostly tar-fields of unactionable thinking. Unfortunately I also find them interesting! Finding the gems in the tar is hard, but Adam seems to find a few of them. Here's another article of Adam's that seems relevant: https://www.experimental-history.com/p/excuse-me-but-why-are-you-eating https://www.experimental-history.com/p/excuse-me-but-why-are...

swatcoder 3y ago

Navigating the world comfortably involves a balance of contemplation and action. As I tried to allude in my comment, most people here, myself included, are already heavily biased towards the former. We train ourselves to think deliberately and rationally, breaking down challenges into components, using and inventing abstract symbols and operations to get from where we are to where we need to be. It's our profession in many cases, and often we were called to that profession because we've got some natural inclination to approach the world that way. And it's valuable! I don't know that I could work on hard problems or take sound actions on some of the biggest and most impactful matters in my life without that. I value that I'm good at it, and practiced in it, and (like the author) think there's value in sharing the fruit of that work with others. I did exactly that in my original comment and I'm doing it again here. What I'm expressing is not a general critique against intellectualizing. It's cautionary advice that -- for many of the people here -- they (specifically) may experience more benefit resisting the urge to intellectualize rather than indulging in it. It's not anti-intellectual, nor is it especially novel. You can find comparable encouragement in both "Eastern" and "Western" traditions and from countless modern synthesizers of these traditions (Alan Watts, Werner Erhard, etc), who encourage brainy "bogged" intellectuals to just "bonk" themselves and stop expecting more thought and analysis to be the road away from their problems. In many cases, it's the intellectualizing itself that invents/perpetuates problems that simply cease to be if one can practice simply acting. Some people need the opposite advice, but few of them are going to be reading these comments in the first place and generally have different complaints than being stuck in s "bog".

robocat 3y ago
It's difficult alright. My father is very academic and he tends to start projects but not finish them. I also recognise the same fault in myself. But I've fought it hard and won a few times with some long-term successes (using a variety of personal strategies to avoid my unproductive tendencies). We have many concepts related to what you are saying: analysis-paralysis, productivity porn, ivory tower, etcetera, etcetera. I find the fields of psychology and philosophy are mostly tar-fields of unactionable thinking. Unfortunately I also find them interesting! Finding the gems in the tar is hard, but Adam seems to find a few of them. Here's another article of Adam's that seems relevant: https://www.experimental-history.com/p/excuse-me-but-why-are-you-eating https://www.experimental-history.com/p/excuse-me-but-why-are...