Live data from Hacker News

Second-Order Thinking: What Smart People Use to Outperform (2016)

fs.blog

131–140 of 143 posts

Re: Second-Order Thinking: What Smart People Use to Outperform (2016)

#131

I think people are generally good at 2nd order thinking, and thinking within complex systems with multiple causes, effects and subsequent effects. Especially so if we're immersed and experienced in a field. We are bad at thinking this way in groups, relatively. We're especially bad when these groups are political. If we're deciding on arming rebels, the political dynamics are the 2nd order effects that dominate think…

>> I think people are generally good at 2nd order thinking

>> We are bad at thinking this way in groups, relatively.

Wow! This seems to answer a long-standing question I have had. I think I can now work out the mathematics of this, given appropriate amount of time. I think this is it! Thanks.

Re: Second-Order Thinking: What Smart People Use to Outperform (2016)

#132
post #131

I think people are generally good at 2nd order thinking, and thinking within complex systems with multiple causes, effects and subsequent effects. Especially so if we're immersed and experienced in a field. We are bad at thinking this way in groups, relatively. We're especially bad when these groups are political. If we're deciding on arming rebels, the political dynamics are the 2nd order effects that dominate think…

>> I think people are generally good at 2nd order thinking >> We are bad at thinking this way in groups, relatively. Wow! This seems to answer a long-standing question I have had. I think I can now work out the mathematics of this, given appropriate amount of time. I think this is it! Thanks.

good luck to you.

Re: Second-Order Thinking: What Smart People Use to Outperform (2016)

#133
post #21

I think this article is saying: - 1st order thinkers primarily see causes and *direct* effects. - 2nd order thinkers frequently see causes and their *indirect* effects. I guess that seems like a reasonable idea. For what it's worth, the truly exceptional people I've met in life had a different quality. * When most people are presented with a difficult/challenging problem, they soon give up. * The most exceptional peo…

Persistence is it. Quitting, by definition, takes you out of the potential winners domain.

Quitting a losing effort permits you to place bets in a more likely to win effort. There is a huge opportunity cost to using bad judgement to continue a failing project.

Re: Second-Order Thinking: What Smart People Use to Outperform (2016)

#134
Another way to look at Second-Order thinking is whether someone can understand C pointers intuitively. Joel Spolsky once wrote that understanding pointers is an aptitude, and I believe he was right. It is the same concept as second-order thinking - being able to follow several layers of indirection. Recursion and regular expressions fall into this group as well. I find otherwise very bright individuals that don't have something in their brain that allows them to grasp these concepts. I think it is how the brain is wired, like good hand-eye coordination or fast memory recall (aka being witty). Just because your brain is good at one of those traits doesn't mean you are good at all of them.

Re: Second-Order Thinking: What Smart People Use to Outperform (2016)

#136

I think people are generally good at 2nd order thinking, and thinking within complex systems with multiple causes, effects and subsequent effects. Especially so if we're immersed and experienced in a field. We are bad at thinking this way in groups, relatively. We're especially bad when these groups are political. If we're deciding on arming rebels, the political dynamics are the 2nd order effects that dominate think…

Sometimes I wonder if people are actually really good at thinking in groups but the thought process is just too terrifying and different from what we could understand as individuals

Re: Second-Order Thinking: What Smart People Use to Outperform (2016)

#137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to split the title, which is marketing mumbo jumbo, from the article, which is fundamentally talking about decision making. Smart decision making and persistent work is the X and Y axis of achievement. Decision making (which broadly includes subjects like efficiency, policy, systems, problem solving, and design thinking) is the heart of efficiency gains for large organizations (not necessarily individuals, a…

I humbly presume that you are familiar with topic at hand, and so, if you please, can you elaborate more on 'scratching the surface' part? I'm genuinely curious about other aspects of policy/systems-building, as it were. Pointers to blog posts or books should be enough, as well. Thanks.

Sorry for the late reply.

Many people have recommended and I agree, Thinking in Systems is a great primer.

Here's an excerpt from the intro of that book:

> So, what is a system? A system is a set of things—people, cells, molecules, or whatever—interconnected in such a way that they produce their own pattern of behavior over time. The system may be buffeted, constricted, triggered, or driven by outside forces. But the system’s response to these forces is characteristic of itself, and that response is seldom simple in the real world.

> The system, to a large extent, causes its own behavior! An outside event may unleash that behavior, but the same outside event applied to a different system is likely to produce a different result.

> Think for a moment about the implications of that idea:

> • Political leaders don’t cause recessions or economic booms. Ups and downs are inherent in the structure of the market economy.

> • Competitors rarely cause a company to lose market share. They may be there to scoop up the advantage, but the losing company creates its losses at least in part through its own business policies.

> • The oil-exporting nations are not solely responsible for oil price rises. Their actions alone could not trigger global price rises and economic chaos if the oil consumption, pricing, and investment policies of the oil-importing nations had not built economies that are vulnerable to supply interruptions.

> • The flu virus does not attack you; you set up the conditions for it to flourish within you.

> • Drug addiction is not the failing of an individual and no one person, no matter how tough, no matter how loving, can cure a drug addict—not even the addict. It is only through understanding addiction as part of a larger set of influences and societal issues that one can begin to address it.

Once you start to understand the principle, you'll see systems everywhere. Good case studies in business are studies of systems. Annual reports are windows into the systems companies build to run effectively.

Everything is a system, really. Losing weight is no longer an extended act of willpower, it's building a system into your schedule and habits that produces the outcome of less weight (well, to be fair it's a bit of both). Writing a book is a series of behaviors sustained over time, induced through scheduling.

A lot of traits of people are systems induced, and instead of blaming a culture for a negative trait, a system (usually just looking at income level) can explain a lot of it. For example - why do Chinese people copy western IP so much? Before getting into "it's part of chinese culture", which is a slippery slope, consider how much can be explained by systems - just look at the national income average and compare education levels to see how little skilled labor they actually have to work with, and how much economic growth the country needs.

In Thinking Fast and Slow, there's a great little section that talks about professors wanting to write a book and budgeting 2 years, only later to find out that the it took anyone in the history of the school 8-10 years to write of a book of similar scope. They indeed ended up taking 10 years to write the book. There's a system hidden in there too.

Re: Second-Order Thinking: What Smart People Use to Outperform (2016)

#138
So you're successfully applying 2nd level order thinking on your job. Other's don't do it. You're working towards your goal. Achieving your 2nd level order thinking successes.

But the rest of your colleagues don't understand what you're doing. They don't see your vision. They live in the 1st order thinking world. To them your choices don't make sense. They don't understand how the successes came from the 2nd level choices.

They'll say: "Why are you eating a salad? You're hungry! Take a chocolate bar! It has much more calories so it will better solve your problem."

You try to explain. They don't get it. They wave it off like some ridiculous story.

How can you effectively sell your 2nd order thinking ideas to 1st order thinking people?

Re: Second-Order Thinking: What Smart People Use to Outperform (2016)

#139

This closely mirrors my own thesis on genius. There are first level, direct thinkers. This is the lower 50% of all people, although everyone is capable of it. It is direct and without irony, sarcasm, or self reflection. Think slapstick comedy, or superhero movies. The second level is in 4th wall breaking, analogy, simile, anything which takes "getting" the joke beyond the purely visual. Most people who consider thems…

A cleric in 1200 might have said that the masses could never read, and that illiteracy will always be a feature of our society and that it is natural. Yet, here we are today, all reading. Maybe Einstein’s talents can really elude nearly everyone, but don’t short change your fellow human. If you do, you will be all the worse off for it.

Re: Second-Order Thinking: What Smart People Use to Outperform (2016)

#140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I humbly presume that you are familiar with topic at hand, and so, if you please, can you elaborate more on 'scratching the surface' part? I'm genuinely curious about other aspects of policy/systems-building, as it were. Pointers to blog posts or books should be enough, as well. Thanks.

The seven habits of highly effective people. The Peter Principle Books or articles on "planning backwards." Gantt charts get used a lot in, for example, construction. You need certain things to precede certain other things. You set a goal and end date and then start asking "What has to happen just before that? And just before that ?" It is the reverse of asking "So, then what?"

Backward state-space planning in classical AI/automated planning
Post reply on HN