I avoided reading the article. Haha.
How to Do Hard Things
11–20 of 22 posts
Re: How to Do Hard Things
#12The best proof of any kind of methodology is in its application and results. I'd be impressed if some data were to be presented showing its effectiveness.
Re: How to Do Hard Things
#13The best proof of any kind of methodology is in its application and results. I'd be impressed if some data were to be presented showing its effectiveness.
ACT is pretty well established scientifically at this point. There are controversies but not more than other things and they tend to be focused on the novelty of ACT concepts.
As to any particular implementation, that's a different issue.
Re: How to Do Hard Things
#14Quite a dense read but looks like it has a ton of useful advice as I'm not familiar with ACT (only CBT). Added to read later!
ACT is generally considered a form of CBT, fwiw, with some extra experiential components.
Re: How to Do Hard Things
#15The best proof of any kind of methodology is in its application and results. I'd be impressed if some data were to be presented showing its effectiveness.
ACT is pretty well established scientifically at this point. There are controversies but not more than other things and they tend to be focused on the novelty of ACT concepts. As to any particular implementation, that's a different issue.
Its my own ignorance, but can you please link to data showing effectiveness?
Re: How to Do Hard Things
#16The best proof of any kind of methodology is in its application and results. I'd be impressed if some data were to be presented showing its effectiveness.
You don’t get proof from Bayesian reasoning (data). That’s not how science is done. The best proof of any idea is whether it is a good logical explanation that stands up to criticism.
Take Newton’s ideas about gravity and the motion of bodies for example. The day before Einstein came up with general relativity, Newton’s ideas had the most possible data which confirmed they were true. In other words, they were as wrong as they ever had been.
Relativity predicted the warping of spacetime, which was shown to be real in a single experiment. It’s not like more data is needed to make it more true.
Back to the original topic: If this ACT stuff is a good explanation for your behavior, and if it works for you, what more data is needed?
Re: How to Do Hard Things
#17Can I just say how tremendously irritating it is that this site has no scrollbar? Why!?
Re: How to Do Hard Things
#18OK, that's one way to do hard things... I was expecting something more like:
1) Look at the whole problem.
2) Split it up into smaller parts. As you do so, try to...
3) Evaluate each part on how a) basic to the rest of the problem or based on other parts it is, and b) how easy or hard it is to do.
4) Begin with the most basic parts; among those, begin with the easiest ones.
5) If some part turns out to be a big(gish) problem in itself, do the same splitting-up and ordering in steps 2-4 with it.
6) If at some point you find that you've made a mistake in your Step-3 evaluating, re-evaluate and re-order; then continue according to the new evaluation order.
Honestly, is there any other sensible way, and doesn't pretty much everyone know that already?
But yeah, this post was -- after the annoying advertisement formatted like actual content-- about something else: How to get started in the first place. Oh well, insert as Step 0?
Re: How to Do Hard Things
#19The best proof of any kind of methodology is in its application and results. I'd be impressed if some data were to be presented showing its effectiveness.
You don’t get proof from Bayesian reasoning (data). That’s not how science is done. The best proof of any idea is whether it is a good logical explanation that stands up to criticism. Take Newton’s ideas about gravity and the motion of bodies for example. The day before Einstein came up with general relativity, Newton’s ideas had the most possible data which confirmed they were true. In other words, they were as wron…
Einstein’s theories being confirmed is one of the best examples of the relationship between the theoretical and empirical. AFAIK, there’s no equivalent for ACT.
> If this ACT stuff is a good explanation for your behavior, and if it works for you, what more data is needed?
I’m wrong like all the time, so I only lean on my own judgement about explanations so much. And how would I really know something is working for me? Sometimes there are confounds and there are definitely measurement errors.
Re: How to Do Hard Things
#20I read the post and really enjoyed it. I had my adblocker on, and didn't run into any issues with ads, or the scrollbar. I thought the content was thorough and well-written, and is encouraging me to explore this methodology a bit more. It seems to pull on a bunch of threads I've come across in the therapy, mindfulness, and general productivity advice. Some of the author's own anecdotes seemed a bit reductionist, but I appreciate that they tie back to business, making them feel immediately actionable. It feels like every one of these sections could be a chapter or few of a book, but I guess that's the whole point.
The section on values was the most helpful to me personally.