31–40 of 40 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, and that would be fully warranted. One is a criminal organization that kills dissidents and is entrenched in corruption. The other is the Canadian government.
So are all Russians suspect in your book?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So are all Russians suspect in your book?
Citizens are not their government. I think that should be clear to anyone that isn't trying to stoke nationalist ideologies.
I could never get into Farnam Street because it just seemed like appropriating Charlie Munger's mental models to sell self-help services. I'm more intrigued by something like Online Great Books ( https://onlinegreatbooks.com/ ) which seems like a lot of effort but would probably force me to widen my knowledge - In reality, I wish something like Online Great Books included some first principles math/science books to r…
Farnham Street is an entertaining read, but the problem I have with it is that owner is compiling all this wisdom, these great techniques for life, and he's er, running a website about compiling wisdom and great techniques for life. I guess at some level if this information was so valuable he'd have leveraged it into something even more powerful. Kind of like the people that, rather than (say) investing in real estat…
Those who know dont tell and those that tell dont know. You bet your ass if I ever find a sure fire, easily repeatable money making system Im not telling a soul.
I wrote a longish post criticising Farnam Street's (and others) called the mental model fallacy.[1] My key beef is this: I think the vast majority of people who write about mental models are making a mistake in their reasoning: yes, successful practitioners succeed in part due to their mental models. But no, you can't learn their mental models from reading. My belief is coloured by experience: while I was reading FS,…
2. This Shane Parrish guy seems to be a practitioner hence he’s explaining the mental models to us. Or at least he’s relaying the information from folks like Charlie Munger, but the point is we are getting useful information that originated from practitioners.
3. Yes they are useful as guard rails for practice. I wouldn’t say that’s the only thing they’re good for, but even if that were true, I’d say that provides decent value.
I wrote a longish post criticising Farnam Street's (and others) called the mental model fallacy.[1] My key beef is this: I think the vast majority of people who write about mental models are making a mistake in their reasoning: yes, successful practitioners succeed in part due to their mental models. But no, you can't learn their mental models from reading. My belief is coloured by experience: while I was reading FS,…
1. For trying to explain riding a bike, that just shows the difficulty in describing how to coordinate and move your body parts. A software engineer can clearly explain why the code looks good, which is then clearly understood by anyone who has basic technical understanding. Implying this is some abstract phenomenon that you “just feel” sounds like witchcraft. 2. This Shane Parrish guy seems to be a practitioner henc…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1. For trying to explain riding a bike, that just shows the difficulty in describing how to coordinate and move your body parts. A software engineer can clearly explain why the code looks good, which is then clearly understood by anyone who has basic technical understanding. Implying this is some abstract phenomenon that you “just feel” sounds like witchcraft. 2. This Shane Parrish guy seems to be a practitioner henc…
Hey, thanks for the comment! You should probably read the full post, though, as it pre-emptively deals with all three observations you've raised.
We can read about mental models and then put them to use. You seem to be saying that is not possible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hey, thanks for the comment! You should probably read the full post, though, as it pre-emptively deals with all three observations you've raised.
Your pre-emptive details may have been valid but your conclusions have been refuted. We can read about mental models and then put them to use. You seem to be saying that is not possible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your pre-emptive details may have been valid but your conclusions have been refuted. We can read about mental models and then put them to use. You seem to be saying that is not possible.
Are you sure that’s what I’m saying?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It only takes 4 hours a week to write a blog about how working 4 hours a week is awesome.
The irony of course is that Tim Ferris works really hard (way more than 4 hours a week) to promote the 4 hour work week.