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

181–190 of 266 posts

Re: Second-Order Thinking

#181

Post by bee_rider »

js8 wrote: post #109
OJFord wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'order' has many meanings in mathematics, and I'm not sure of the best metaphor that is actually called an order there, but when people talk colloquially about 'second order effects' etc. IME they mean something like a vertex v2 (doing something) in response to a change to v1, where there exists a vertex vj and edges (v1, vj) & (vj, v2) - and implicitly no edge (v1, v2). Higher 'orders' similarly extending the chain.…

IMHO, the figure of speech "n-th order" generally comes from Taylor series approximation, where n-th term is indeed expressed using n-th derivative. Also, if the series converges, the higher order terms will become smaller, thus the practice of approximating the reality up to n-th order term. Also, it's often practical to ignore 2nd order and higher terms, because then you have a linear function - something really ea…

This is what I've always assumed as well. The feeling of "things that usually don't matter but may explode (if it turns out the series doesn't converge)" seems to fit the expression pretty well.

Re: Second-Order Thinking

#182

Post by Gareth321 »

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 agree. I believe it is not that second-order thinking is unhelpful, but rather that it is only useful when applied wisely. The challenge is knowing when and how to apply it, and of course having the tool kit necessary to do this kind of thinking.

Re: Second-Order Thinking

#183

Post by l33t2328 »

noduerme wrote: post #123
k0k0r0 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A related thing that seems unthinkable for many people now is how dynamic opinions are. Like, not intelectually, but from experience understanding that my world view currently firmly stands on a foundation that might very well fall apart some day... I feel that experience deeply shaped my character. Funnily, I think my opinions are now standing on even firmer grounds since I stopped expecting them to hold forever. Pe…

One thing I find exceptional about your statement and also about a number of similar treatises of recent years is the seeming hopelessness of finding your own self clear of the endless subjectivity of others' conflicting opinions. You may find it terrible, but I actually believe in objective reality. I believe I know good and evil when I see them... and I can do this without access to the supernatural or recourse to…

These comments are all over the place. I can’t identify a coherent point.

Re: Second-Order Thinking

#184

Post by mrkstu »

yojo wrote: post #179
NikolaNovak wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yep, fail fast is often going to have a superior resolution time than time spent in deep analysis.

Re: Second-Order Thinking

#186

Post by l33t2328 »

Shugarl wrote: post #41
seanhunter wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way Ray Dalio describes it in "Principles" is very helpful in my opinion. He says whenever you are trying to solve a problem, rather than just doing it you should imagine you are trying to build a machine to do it. And if you are trying to perform a task you should imagine you are writing the script for a movie in which the task is performed. The advantage of this second-order thinking is then you have a differen…

Ooh, interesting. Up until now, I'd just imagine myself solving the problem manually, then describe that with code. I'll try to imagine building a machine to see how it feels

For me, building a machine is identical to writing code.

I can’t really see a difference.

Re: Second-Order Thinking

#187

Post by balderdash »

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’ve seen the analysis paralysis happen as well, but I think the key is to also assign likelihoods/severities upside downside to the analysis, you can usually quickly triage what to focus on from there (or as I often find the nice you’ve bounded the range of likely outcomes, pick the one one that fits your risk tolerance (e.g. do I take the train for an almost guaranteed 3hr trip, or do I try and outsmart the traffic and either be right and have a 2hr trip, or be wrong and have a 4hr trip)

Re: Second-Order Thinking

#188

Post by aaronblohowiak »

noduerme wrote: post #123
k0k0r0 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A related thing that seems unthinkable for many people now is how dynamic opinions are. Like, not intelectually, but from experience understanding that my world view currently firmly stands on a foundation that might very well fall apart some day... I feel that experience deeply shaped my character. Funnily, I think my opinions are now standing on even firmer grounds since I stopped expecting them to hold forever. Pe…

One thing I find exceptional about your statement and also about a number of similar treatises of recent years is the seeming hopelessness of finding your own self clear of the endless subjectivity of others' conflicting opinions. You may find it terrible, but I actually believe in objective reality. I believe I know good and evil when I see them... and I can do this without access to the supernatural or recourse to…

+100. Relativism is liberalism for intellectually malnourished

Re: Second-Order Thinking

#189

Post by mbg721 »

noduerme wrote: post #110
nbzso wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry in advance, to be the goyim and ask: Do you have doubts in this privileged model of thinking, or you enjoy the power and then intellectualize the outcome. Because we as the stupid ones can "hurt ourselves" and we need the "wisdom" of historically proven "chosen" people with higher IQ, moral ground and knowledge. Right?

No, you are completely reading some bullshit sense of false superiority into what I said. Your comment is antisemitic but I'll address it as it stands as if you mean it honestly. I don't believe in any "chosen". I believe in what my people taught me, just like the Chinese believe in their own 5000 years of history, or the Czechs have pride for fighting back the Russians but I am not "chosen"...or better than anyone..…

Everybody and their second cousin have been trying to call themselves the successors of the Romans, from the Byzantines to the Franks to the Ottomans to the Russians to Mussolini. (Edit: and, of course, the Pope) But I think this is the first time I've heard it as a pejorative.

Re: Second-Order Thinking

#190

Post by the_only_law »

l33t2328 wrote: post #183
noduerme wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing I find exceptional about your statement and also about a number of similar treatises of recent years is the seeming hopelessness of finding your own self clear of the endless subjectivity of others' conflicting opinions. You may find it terrible, but I actually believe in objective reality. I believe I know good and evil when I see them... and I can do this without access to the supernatural or recourse to…

These comments are all over the place. I can’t identify a coherent point.

Sounds like some weird form of Dualism for HN nerds. Either that or a convenient way to label people who’s values differ from your own as evil.
Post reply on HN