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

171–180 of 266 posts

Re: Second-Order Thinking

#171

Post by rob_c »

Ensorceled wrote: post #102
rob_c wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

how is that not long term thinking?

> > The 2nd order effect may be in 5s time > how is that not long term thinking? What does "long term" mean to you ... 5s (i.e. 5 seconds) is pretty short term to me.

Long term being further down the line, i.e. net result in 5 years is still the same regardless of how quickly things evolve.

I'd argue that because happens in 5min that's an immediate effect regardless of if it happens after something or not. How is there any higher order evolution to that?

Are you trying to argue that people can't cope with time in a plan therefore it must be a higher order thinking to understand the rapid evolution of something?

Re: Second-Order Thinking

#172

Post by bloomingeek »

noduerme wrote: post #79
brightball wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humility essentially the core virtue of Christianity, as well as active recognition of pride as a sin. If you dig deep, you’ll find that pride is the root of virtually every evil. I’m only pointing this out because of the perception of Christianity that you mention in your post. There’s a very big difference between what Reddit claims is Christian behavior and what the Bible actually claims. https://www.readnotmisled…

Quoted post unavailable.

Exactly! I'm a former evangelical who could no longer stomach the way they have changed the interpretation of the New Testament to achieve their own means. I'm still a believer and consider ethics as the most important thing any human can achieve. When ethics and the rule of law go out the window humans always turn on each other.

Re: Second-Order Thinking

#173

Post by 2-718-281-828 »

hu3 wrote: post #168
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…

The problem I have with exploring neighbouring causal links is that when overdone it can lead to analysis paralysis. I often get stuck simulating too many different branches in possible futures and casual links to the point of slowing down my present capabilities. My GF calls it overthinking, and not in a good way. Perhaps I just need a bigger brain with more processing power.

or the opposite - in ML terms more brain will likely just introduce overfitting - while less brain makes way for some neat generalization that is quick and works just good enough ;)

Re: Second-Order Thinking

#174

Post by gautamdivgi »

hu3 wrote: post #168
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…

The problem I have with exploring neighbouring causal links is that when overdone it can lead to analysis paralysis. I often get stuck simulating too many different branches in possible futures and casual links to the point of slowing down my present capabilities. My GF calls it overthinking, and not in a good way. Perhaps I just need a bigger brain with more processing power.

You can use a mind mapping tool and limit your expansion radius. I've had some success with that.

Re: Second-Order Thinking

#175

Post by philosopher1234 »

hu3 wrote: post #168
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…

The problem I have with exploring neighbouring causal links is that when overdone it can lead to analysis paralysis. I often get stuck simulating too many different branches in possible futures and casual links to the point of slowing down my present capabilities. My GF calls it overthinking, and not in a good way. Perhaps I just need a bigger brain with more processing power.

I think it requires balance. Seems to me like the more you can consider the better decision you can reach, but there is a point where thinking more is negative value, and you must decide.

“The instant of decision is madness”

-Kierkegaard

Re: Second-Order Thinking

#176

Post by NikolaNovak »

hu3 wrote: post #168
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…

The problem I have with exploring neighbouring causal links is that when overdone it can lead to analysis paralysis. I often get stuck simulating too many different branches in possible futures and casual links to the point of slowing down my present capabilities. My GF calls it overthinking, and not in a good way. Perhaps I just need a bigger brain with more processing power.

This. I've received consistent feedback (from mentor, from family, etc) to do less second-order analysis. It can be very productive in some specific scenarios, especially when I used to do initial architecture; but these days, it's a complete analysis paralysis. Moving from technological architecture to people leadership / client relationship management, second order thinking brings up so many pros and cons for each action, with insufficient data to weigh the balancing.

Re: Second-Order Thinking

#177

Post by ehnto »

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?

If in their analysis, they come to the conclusion that they shouldn't be skeptical, does that make them the best skeptic or the worst?

Re: Second-Order Thinking

#178

Post by morley »

hu3 wrote: post #168
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…

The problem I have with exploring neighbouring causal links is that when overdone it can lead to analysis paralysis. I often get stuck simulating too many different branches in possible futures and casual links to the point of slowing down my present capabilities. My GF calls it overthinking, and not in a good way. Perhaps I just need a bigger brain with more processing power.

Leveled thinking is common in competitive games, for obvious reasons. There's no better illustration of what you're talking about than the poison scene in Princess Bride:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMz7JBRbmNo

The way I've heard most competitive gamers talk about the line between leveling and tail-chasing is to play at level 2:

Level 1: The obvious strategy

Level 2: Strategy that beats the obvious strategy Level 3: Strategy that beats level 1

The problem is, if you're playing in a competitive environment, everyone knows about leveling, so you may actually gain more edge by picking a strategy randomly. I've heard competitive Magic player Huey Jensen would make random plays when he was behind on the chance he could throw his opponent off and trap them in leveling second-guessing.

Re: Second-Order Thinking

#179

Post by yojo »

NikolaNovak wrote: post #176
hu3 wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem I have with exploring neighbouring causal links is that when overdone it can lead to analysis paralysis. I often get stuck simulating too many different branches in possible futures and casual links to the point of slowing down my present capabilities. My GF calls it overthinking, and not in a good way. Perhaps I just need a bigger brain with more processing power.

This. I've received consistent feedback (from mentor, from family, etc) to do less second-order analysis. It can be very productive in some specific scenarios, especially when I used to do initial architecture; but these days, it's a complete analysis paralysis. Moving from technological architecture to people leadership / client relationship management, second order thinking brings up so many pros and cons for each…

I've taken to using a sort of internal version of "disagree and commit" - I have the little mental debate with myself, arrive at an ambiguous juncture, then pick an option (at random if necessary) and go all-in on it. If it turns out I was wrong there's usually still time to course-correct.

Delaying or not making a decision is a choice itself, one that is almost always inferior to the options you're stuck between.

Re: Second-Order Thinking

#180

Post by thfuran »

rob_c wrote: post #171
Ensorceled wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > The 2nd order effect may be in 5s time > how is that not long term thinking? What does "long term" mean to you ... 5s (i.e. 5 seconds) is pretty short term to me.

Long term being further down the line, i.e. net result in 5 years is still the same regardless of how quickly things evolve. I'd argue that because happens in 5min that's an immediate effect regardless of if it happens after something or not. How is there any higher order evolution to that? Are you trying to argue that people can't cope with time in a plan therefore it must be a higher order thinking to understand th…

No, time has nothing to do with it, only the length of the causal chain. That's why it's not really "long term" thinking even if higher order effects might sometimes not be felt immediately.
Post reply on HN