Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cognitive Distortions of People Who Get Stuff Done (2012) [pdf]

pdfs.semanticscholar.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 160 posts

Re: Cognitive Distortions of People Who Get Stuff Done (2012) [pdf]

#101

Post by nostrademons »

hyperpape wrote: post #38
scarejunba wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Possibly true but doesn't affect the outcome. If you can do some things to increase the likelihood of success with low cost, the fact that success is dominated by things you can't change doesn't matter. There are no guarantees, only actions that mildly bias one outcome over another.

Why think the cost is low? I suspect there are a lot of people with founder type personalities who have wasted tons of money, time and goodwill chasing their ambition.

If you exhibit the cognitive distortions in the slideshow, this likely doesn't matter to you. Money, time, and goodwill are all meaningless if you don't achieve your ambition, per all 5 of them.

Re: Cognitive Distortions of People Who Get Stuff Done (2012) [pdf]

#103

Post by eeeuo »

adnzzzzZ wrote: post #68
cncrnd wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know what it's saying, but I don't agree that 'convincing yourself that luck isn't relevant is one such cognitive distortion that is a very helpful way of guiding your actions through life.' We can all put our big boy pants on, accept that luck is a part of reality, and act in the best possible way with this fact in consideration.

>We can all put our big boy pants on, accept that luck is a part of reality, and act in the best possible way with this fact in consideration. This is where we disagree. A cognitive distortion automatically filters the world for you. Your body does it without you being consciously aware of it. You want these distortions to be helpful, otherwise your body will automatically filter the world in an unhelpful manner to y…

There are many situations in life where one does something that is "optimal" but factors beyond their control cause it to be unsuccessful. Being clear-eyed and able to distinguish between luck and non-optimal strategy is an important part of improving as a person.

There are times that changing the original strategy/task/behavior is not the optimal thing to do, but your "no luck" world view does not allow for that possibility.

Re: Cognitive Distortions of People Who Get Stuff Done (2012) [pdf]

#104

Post by hyperpallium »

Dichotomous thinking is discussed in terms of high standards, with the danger of perfectionism.

But generally: reality is grey; actions are not.

If you see reality as it really is, it is harder to make decisions, and to commit to them.

A quality of leadership is the ability to make decisions quickly. If they are the right decisions, so much the better... (LN)

Re: Cognitive Distortions of People Who Get Stuff Done (2012) [pdf]

#105

Post by nostrademons »

projektir wrote: post #73
cncrnd wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To summarize, the link says that luck is real but you are better off thinking that it isn't real since that will affect your behavior in a more positive way. Still not sure I agree in this case (you can think luck is real bit still behave optimally) but it could be a helpful way to think in other scenarios.

I think it's a very poor idea to convince ourselves of falsehoods for personal benefit. Believing luck is not real pretty much immediately activates the just world hypothesis, which is responsible for some rather awful things happening to people. It's the kind of shallowly selfish, short-term belief set we do not want to have. It's not just about a given person and how productive they singularly happen to be, why are…

"Believing luck is not real pretty much immediately activates the just world hypothesis."

This doesn't follow, and the article adnzzzzZ linked explains how it doesn't follow. In particular, if you divide the concept of truth up into "objective truth" and "pragmatic truth" as the article suggests, you can believe the just-world hypothesis is false on an objective level while still believing that you should ignore luck on a pragmatic level, because it - by definition - holds no bearing on what you can control.

Re: Cognitive Distortions of People Who Get Stuff Done (2012) [pdf]

#106

Post by fastball »

1996 wrote: post #33
mariopt wrote: post #9

I found the slide for "Cognitive behaviour model of depression" very interesting, it's probably the best visualisation of depression taking over someones mind leading to a paralysis where simple tasks become something else and chaos emerges. Ego does, sometimes, gets in the way of getting things done but without it we wouldn't care to launch anything new/groundbreaking. Without our Ego as creator, we would have no so…

We need all that. Still, it can be frightening. I have "launch fear": I delay by another week every week, because I found one or more bugs the day before, which to me is unacceptable. Also it would crush my ego if people said I hadn't noticed or bothered to fix it, because it would mean I don't care about my users. When I am launching, I want users to have the best experience possible. MVP is minimal, not bug ridden.…

  "If you are not embarrassed by the first version of your product, you've launched too late." - Reid Hoffman

Re: Cognitive Distortions of People Who Get Stuff Done (2012) [pdf]

#107

Post by themodelplumber »

hyperpallium wrote: post #104

Dichotomous thinking is discussed in terms of high standards, with the danger of perfectionism. But generally: reality is grey; actions are not. If you see reality as it really is, it is harder to make decisions, and to commit to them. A quality of leadership is the ability to make decisions quickly. If they are the right decisions, so much the better... (LN)

You can change the resolution of the judgment process to better model the grayness of life. You can also wield and employ multiple models, intentionally, to gain a similar outcome. Actions that follow this modeling and detecting can then be _refined actions_, which is to say that they elegantly fit a higher-resolution model of reality.

A quality of leadership is refinement, which allows for decisions that e.g. unite people of varying backgrounds through a higher-resolution process which, while still dichotomous in some ways, is much smarter about it. In using elegant models one's reaction time is shortened while also bringing to bear a great deal of leverage.

Re: Cognitive Distortions of People Who Get Stuff Done (2012) [pdf]

#108

Post by atomical »

GW150914 wrote: post #90
atomical wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Medications are indicated for disease. Only pseudoscientists take drugs for health.

Statins? Hypertensive meditations? Anxiolytics? Prophylaxis in general?

Are those not addressing states of disease?

Re: Cognitive Distortions of People Who Get Stuff Done (2012) [pdf]

#109

Post by cam_l »

ggm wrote: post #98
cam_l wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if you believe you are the smartest person in the room because you are the only one that questions their own ideas? What then?!

Why are you even in the room dumb-ass!!

..meta, and just enough so I am not totally sure I got the joke, or that it even was a joke.

There was also a serious side to my question though, that we all have flaws in our reasoning, even in the reasoning we use to question our reasoning. Using heuristics to judge, just never turns out right all the time.

Re: Cognitive Distortions of People Who Get Stuff Done (2012) [pdf]

#110

Post by nojvek »

1996 wrote: post #33
mariopt wrote: post #9

I found the slide for "Cognitive behaviour model of depression" very interesting, it's probably the best visualisation of depression taking over someones mind leading to a paralysis where simple tasks become something else and chaos emerges. Ego does, sometimes, gets in the way of getting things done but without it we wouldn't care to launch anything new/groundbreaking. Without our Ego as creator, we would have no so…

We need all that. Still, it can be frightening. I have "launch fear": I delay by another week every week, because I found one or more bugs the day before, which to me is unacceptable. Also it would crush my ego if people said I hadn't noticed or bothered to fix it, because it would mean I don't care about my users. When I am launching, I want users to have the best experience possible. MVP is minimal, not bug ridden.…

I feel you. I also don’t like the “if you’re not embarrassed, you haven’t released early”.

We only get one chance at a first impression and it’s very important that we get it right. If we do, then that user is delighted and will mostly likely recommend it to someone else.

That’s why I really like “minimal delightful product” rather than “minimal viable product”.

But “minimal delightful product needs to solve the users job”. This means even if it’s slightly buggy but you manage to solve a painful problem, the user still is delighted with a smile.

So many products I see that are the work of long months of building but don’t solve the users problem.

The process I find works best is a strong canary program. “You don’t spend more than a week without iterating by showing something to a customer and collecting/observing feedback”

The first version is ugly and only meant for a few users, as more holes are fixed, it’s exposed to more and more users until you hit the gold pot and find new users are actually “getting delighted”. That’s when you’d go full GA on a feature with a limited scope that “gets the users job done in a way that delights them”

Post reply on HN