Live data from Hacker News

Most advice is pretty bad

atis.substack.com

41–50 of 90 posts

Re: Most advice is pretty bad

#41
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This depends on whether the field is an arms race. In plenty of areas, common advice is quickly implemented by most competitive participants. See college admissions or even getting jobs after university. At one point founding a charity was considered evidence of leadership. By my graduating class for high school, half the class had a charity. The person I know who has been the best at admissions has founded 4. But no…

> Or consider unlimited vacation for developers. Is there any evidence that developers (or anyone else with "unlimited vacation") take more time than they did previously? I've assumed that was more akin to "open offices" - selling a cost-cutting measure as something hip.

I have vague memories of stories that it leads to less time off taken. Something about people feeling more guilty taking vacation when they have to pick their own limit.

Re: Most advice is pretty bad

#42
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This depends on whether the field is an arms race. In plenty of areas, common advice is quickly implemented by most competitive participants. See college admissions or even getting jobs after university. At one point founding a charity was considered evidence of leadership. By my graduating class for high school, half the class had a charity. The person I know who has been the best at admissions has founded 4. But no…

> Or consider unlimited vacation for developers. Is there any evidence that developers (or anyone else with "unlimited vacation") take more time than they did previously? I've assumed that was more akin to "open offices" - selling a cost-cutting measure as something hip.

My company recently switched to unlimited, and everyone has been consistently taking more than we were offered prior, which was a generous amount compared to previous places I've worked for.

So far in the 4 months we've had unlimited, I've taken 40-50% more time off than I would have otherwise. I think many employees know of the issue you mentioned, and we're collectively taking steps to prevent that from happening. It mainly has to do with culture and not have too many key person dependencies.

Re: Most advice is pretty bad

#43
Better title: Most (tactical business/career) advice is (rarely helpful in the general case, often unwise as long-term life strategies and full of survivorship bias).

Yep. Such books are written to get the author into the business equivalent of Oprah’s Book Club. They have the half-life of your average K-pop group.

The beef jerky and Mountain Dew at the feast of life insights. If you are starving and nothing else is available…

The In-and-Out burger wrappers in the library of worldly wisdom. They can, at least, be useful bookmarks…

Re: Most advice is pretty bad

#44

I disagree strongly with the article's central thesis, but it is still worth critically examining the source and utility of advice. Even honest and sincerely given advice is often more a form of nostalgia on the part of the giver than a lucid examining of your specific situation and the nuances therein. It's most often a form of "well this is what I wish I'd done when I was in a similar situation years ago" or "here'…

Changed over the decades? Your issue with advice is that the giver must have had something happen so long ago that they can tell you about how the world has changed in the meantime? By your reasoning, you would have rejected that person's advice if they had given it to you earlier because it would have looked a lot like the form of advice you have an issue with.

The majority of advice I've received was founded in experiences 10+ years in the past, yes, and did not account for the substantial societal changes that have occurred since. My issue is not that the giver hasn't noticed changes in the world, it's that most often the underlying reason they give advice seems to be as a form of nostalgia rather than a careful consideration of what my best options are.

> By your reasoning, you would have rejected that person's advice if they had given it to you earlier because it would have looked a lot like the form of advice you have an issue with.

No, I am not saying that any advice should be immediately rejected. It should be appreciated, always, when given in good faith. It should also be silently examined, always, before application.

Re: Most advice is pretty bad

#45
post #16

Our obsession with non-obvious advice stems from our base addiction to novelty. For good reason, pathways in our brain become myelinated and more efficient the more often we use them, to the point where we can process well-worn thoughts almost subconsciously. Thus, toys we've played with too long become boring. Advice we've heard too many times before seems blah. We're hardwired to notice more when we encounter thing…

> However, most good advice is common advice. In practically any field, grokking the fundamental advice and actually sticking to it will get you 99% of the way there. As Charlie Munger once said, "Take a simple idea, and take it seriously."

Definitely. There's also an issue on the flip side of it: many people asking for advice are not doing so sincerely. You'll see it in the new year on fitness forums. People asking for advice on which fad routine (coughCrossfitcough) will make this the year they keep that weight off, or whether they should get a Peloton or a Bowflex. If you give them the simple, obvious advice that most experienced lifters would agree on--do a barbell strength program and count your calories--they get extremely defensive. That isn't an option for them because it's boring. It requires repetitive, uninteresting, and physically strenuous effort multiple times per week. They're actively looking for, as you say, the new and novel advice that gives them the dopamine hit.

So yeah, I disagree with the article's assertion that good advice is not obvious. There's a reason the advice is obvious; it's likely pretty good advice!

Re: Most advice is pretty bad

#46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Or consider unlimited vacation for developers. At one point that was a fairly novel perk. Now, everyone has that. I would argue that nobody (or hardly anyone) has this. Otherwise you’d find most developer only working 6 months a year.

Fair, it is not truly unlimited, but for plenty of people (at least where I have worked) it has still ended up being 5-8 weeks a year. In contrast to the more traditional employers who say that you can start with two weeks and after 3 years of loyal service with no real raises, you can have three.

Ah, I guess that makes sense from an American perspective. For context, 5.6 weeks (28 days) is the legal minimum for absolutely every full time employee here in the UK, and I believe that’s one of the lower legal minimums in Europe. Higher allowances are not uncommon here.

My employer considered introducing unlimited holiday, but we said no once they admitted that they were hoping it would result in us taking less holiday in practice. I’d rather have my 5 weeks guaranteed, no guilt, than be worrying about whether I’ve taken too much unlimited holiday.

Re: Most advice is pretty bad

#47
post #16

Our obsession with non-obvious advice stems from our base addiction to novelty. For good reason, pathways in our brain become myelinated and more efficient the more often we use them, to the point where we can process well-worn thoughts almost subconsciously. Thus, toys we've played with too long become boring. Advice we've heard too many times before seems blah. We're hardwired to notice more when we encounter thing…

One other - more subtle - point is that nothing is easy and nothing is obvious. There are people in the world to whom "you need to make eye contact when you talk to someone" is a new idea.

Good advice is based on evidence that the receiver does not understand something. Nothing is novel to an expert.

Re: Most advice is pretty bad

#48
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Or consider unlimited vacation for developers. Is there any evidence that developers (or anyone else with "unlimited vacation") take more time than they did previously? I've assumed that was more akin to "open offices" - selling a cost-cutting measure as something hip.

I only have anecdotes from the two companies I have worked for with it, but developers taking 5-8 weeks off is not uncommon. And whether or not you do take it, you can if you need/desire to do so. It stands in contrast to more traditional companies that offer you two weeks to start and an extra week after three years of service without a raise.

I too only have anecdotes from myself and friends/colleagues, but a few experiences stand out:

* The accountability culture really matters. Are teams responsible for their own commitments/deadlines? If you think you might get fired, or at least a lower performance review for taking vacation (because you shipped less while out) then you are less likely to take vacation. Of course the problem here isn't the PTO policy, but unlimited PTO in a company like this is worse than a defined amount of time.

* Are senior leaders work-a-holics? If so, that might breed a culture where, even these same leaders always say the right things about everyone needing to recharge and take advantage, the ambitions see those above them, and ape the behavior of working more. This trickles down, though it might be inconsistent across the company.

* As time has gone on with these being more common, some strategies have emerged to take advantage of them more effectively. Such as being more aggressive with 3 day weekends, or flex schedules, or remote work, or vacation hybrids (like going abroad for a 6 weeks and working every other week). Taking a bunch of multi-week vacations may or may not work in your company, but figuring out the broader category of "flex work" seems to be getting a ton of experiment.

Re: Most advice is pretty bad

#49
post #35
post #12

VC give pretty bad advice in general. Their advice is the the description of founders they want to invest in. Most of the founders they give money to, more or less follow the advice they give (not directly, but because they have been selected like that). But as all vc most of their companies fails, showing that the advice in fact doesn't work. Don't forget that if they really knew what to do to start a successful com…

“Don't forget that if they really knew what to do to start a successful company they wouldn't be investors but founders” I can’t stand this philosophy, e.g. “those who can’t do teach” kind of stuff. Perhaps VCs prefer their job to being a founder? Not everyone who is _capable_ of being a founder _wants to_ be a founder. It’s exhausting work that takes all of your time.

And plenty of VCs are former founders.

Re: Most advice is pretty bad

#50
I disagree.

In my career I started getting close to the people that had already done what I wanted and just asked them for advice.

The advice they gave me was incredible and the most useful thing you could do.

The most important thing is that it must be an active process. You must do the work to decode and extract the information.

Different personalities will give you different advices. If someone has a very strong visceral nature, her advice is going to be "don't be too visceral, think before you act", because that is the advice she needs, but not what you need.

That advice is completely useless if your nature is thinking too much, and you don't have a problem thinking, you love to think all the time. The advice you need is acting instead of thinking, to take decisions.

So you need to be active and ask specifically the problems you are having when trying to do what you wanted. Most of the time you will realize the super big problems that you have are the most stupid and obvious thing for the person you are asking.

It is so easy for them because their own nature or personality makes it so for them. 9 times out of 10 they will give you an easy, "obvious" solution you never thought about.

Post reply on HN