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

Second-Order Thinking

fs.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 266 posts

Re: Second-Order Thinking

#151

Post by noduerme »

wawjgreen wrote: post #130
krapp wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Skepticism requires critical thinking and engagement. You can't be a proper skeptic about something without taking the time to understand the domain you're being skeptical of, approach it in good faith from first principles as much as possible, and accept criticism in kind. Most people just won't bother, because cynicism and snark provide a better endorphin hit, and the internet has trained people to associate that f…

the first things skeptics should be skeptical about is skepticism itself: are they right in being skeptical about what they are skeptical about?

The first thing skeptics question are sentences which begin with

>> the first things skeptics should be skeptical about

from there I guess we just migrate up to talking shit about bloated blog posts where one dude mumbles his observations about deep thoughts.

Re: Second-Order Thinking

#153

Post by brightball »

pjmorris wrote: post #120
noduerme wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

I read the New Testament 2-4 times per year (and the Old Testament every year or so) and I'm convinced I don't understand him. But I'm trying.

That’s healthy. We can’t ever completely understand, but we can certainly improve with time and study.

I found that study groups at church were the most beneficial for me because I hear a lot of perspectives that never crossed my mind.

There’s also a great book call The Bible from 30,000 Feet that gives great commentary on each book.

Re: Second-Order Thinking

#154

Post by april_22 »

noduerme wrote: post #35
TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #30

I use the predictive horizon model. It's not that there's a clear division between first order and second order thinking, it's that some people's ability to model consequences covers a narrow area, a few people can model successfully much further out, and a tiny minority can make astounding predictive leaps that reach far into the future. It's a continuous variable, not a Boolean. But it means most of the population…

In human terms, my older brother who I learned to code from (he left me his TRS-80/100 and the BASIC manual when I was 8, plus some Springsteen tapes, and gave up programming to become a federal prosecutor) told me: Your problem is you can never look two weeks into the future . Which is now exactly the same thing I think about kids a decade younger than me. It's true, but they're not dumb, they just have to live awhi…

“Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards.” - Søren Kierkegaard

Re: Second-Order Thinking

#155

Post by april_22 »

another-dave wrote: post #33
hef19898 wrote: post #17

>> First-order thinking is fast and easy. Most definitely not. Thinking about the processes and long term effects takes a deeo understanding of things, time to properly think it through, experience to get it right and constabt adjustments. So basiy the opposite of fast and easy. Pretending to practice second -order thinking is fast and easy. As is writing a short blog about it.

> Most definitely not. Thinking about the processes and long term effects takes a deeo understanding of things, time to properly think it through, experience to get it right and constabt adjustments. Isn't what your describing second-order thinking though? For example — "I'm hungry therefore I'll order a takeaway" is an easy decision, if you ignore any second order effects & consequences (e.g. impact on your health/f…

Agree, it's usually thinking about the consequences, things that don't seem clear directly that makes second order thinking hard.

Re: Second-Order Thinking

#156

Post by 8jef »

Thinking can be sterile, unless it leads to making real life choices. Then, when choosing, so-called second-order thinking can only be fruitful if all ramifications are explored, level by level, which is almost impossible, as other forces opposing your own are simultaneously at play. In that context, self actualization will drain one's forces and lead to defeat, not counting all other people's life that may be crushed in the process.

A better way may be to always make the best, highest choice possible. Always aiming for the grandest, most elevated and most valuable choice possible, considering all variables, thoroughly solving every problem as they come. That comes with a cost, but the benefits are infinite.

Re: Second-Order Thinking

#158

Post by marcosdumay »

atoav wrote: post #86
kqr wrote: post #60

This article, and some of the comments here, seem to confuse "second-order" with "long-term". Long-term just means doing the same analysis far out into the future: "If I spend less on maintaining software product $LEGACY, I will save money. If I continue to do this, I will save more and more money by each passing month." Second-order means discovering neighbouring causal links. "If I spend less on maintaining softwar…

I am not particularily familiar with the connotation of the term second-order-thinking , but to me it implies the somewhat mathematical meaning of it. The first order might be some value (e.g. a voltage) and the second order might be the rate with which that voltage changes and the third the rate with which this rate changes etc. To me this implies that thinking on a higher order is somewhat about stepping back and v…

You are stepping back and looking how your decision consequences will impact the network of causes and consequences that exists on the real world.

Root cause analysis is a different thing.

Re: Second-Order Thinking

#160

Post by marcosdumay »

analyst74 wrote: post #142
MengerSponge wrote: post #135

Zeynep's Law: "Until there is substantial and repeated evidence otherwise, assume counterintuitive findings to be false, and second-order effects to be dwarfed by first-order ones in magnitude." https://twitter.com/zeynep/status/1478766408691556353?s=20&t...

Isn't second order effects quite common and observable in software systems, in history, in economics and everything?

Yes, but those are still the exception. The rule is that higher order consequences are small or nonexistent.

The problem is that, there are so many of them that for any decision you will get many of those exceptions worth looking at.

Post reply on HN