11–20 of 115 posts
As I just said in another thread, “amateurs talk about effort, professional talk about impact”. Unravelling the puzzle of how impact happens is the hardest problem.
In actuality I do the same things over and over again and if it's something I haven't done then probably 10s of thousands or 100s of thousands have done it before. I certainly need a search engine to be able to work so it's obvious that I'm copying more than anything.
this whole article reeks of privilege
I've always thought that people underestimate the mental acuity needed to find simple truths within complex systems and to use them to achieve useful results. Especially in academia, many professors, who are wedded to particular models, go so far as to dismiss simplicity without sufficient consideration. It was not always this way. Among the older philosophers, you can observe a strong affinity for simplicity. Figure…
The individuals you mention mastered complexity. What they did could be seen by us as simplicity retroactively. Something like Denning’s crane. Newton developed calculus, that was anything but simple at that time.
I agree to use simplicity to decide, inform, lead. But great things tend to emerge from thinkers that can think through complexity and not oversimplify their own thinking.
I've always thought that people underestimate the mental acuity needed to find simple truths within complex systems and to use them to achieve useful results. Especially in academia, many professors, who are wedded to particular models, go so far as to dismiss simplicity without sufficient consideration. It was not always this way. Among the older philosophers, you can observe a strong affinity for simplicity. Figure…
Easy to favor simplicity when the basics in your field hasn't been fully mapped out yet. Much harder to make a name for yourself when pretty much all the low-hanging (i.e. simple) fruit has been claimed already by people in the past. Most people probably feel they don't have much choice but to pursue more complex ideas nowadays as a result.
I've always thought that people underestimate the mental acuity needed to find simple truths within complex systems and to use them to achieve useful results. Especially in academia, many professors, who are wedded to particular models, go so far as to dismiss simplicity without sufficient consideration. It was not always this way. Among the older philosophers, you can observe a strong affinity for simplicity. Figure…
Simplicity adds value not by denying complexity but by providing a means to navigate it. However it must be applied judiciously to ensure that the richness of the complex system is not lost. Complex systems are often more resilient to shocks. Complex models are often more robust, simple models can be misleading. The individuals you mention mastered complexity. What they did could be seen by us as simplicity retroacti…
Re: Newton - I am not denying complexity. I am simply saying recognising basic truths, honoring them to the extent to which they deserve, making them the foundation for all further activities/undertaking. For ex - Rickover dealt with super complicated projects, but how he dealt with them is based on utterly simple principles; so simple that people would outright reject them, until they see the results he achieved. One could say the same regarding Lee Kuan Yew's work.
I've always thought that people underestimate the mental acuity needed to find simple truths within complex systems and to use them to achieve useful results. Especially in academia, many professors, who are wedded to particular models, go so far as to dismiss simplicity without sufficient consideration. It was not always this way. Among the older philosophers, you can observe a strong affinity for simplicity. Figure…
> Figures like Pythagoras, Newton, Descartes, Archytas, and various Indian philosophers, such as Shankaracharya, strongly favored simplicity. Easy to favor simplicity when the basics in your field hasn't been fully mapped out yet. Much harder to make a name for yourself when pretty much all the low-hanging (i.e. simple) fruit has been claimed already by people in the past. Most people probably feel they don't have mu…
I've shown these ideas to many so-called well-educated college graduates, and they don't warm up to it. They say "processes" > "individual initiative". This is too old-school, too simple, blah, blah.
I think people will learn only when you put them in charge of a complex undertaking to appreciate what simplicity means in leadership of complex projects.
this whole article reeks of privilege
As I just said in another thread, “amateurs talk about effort, professional talk about impact”. Unravelling the puzzle of how impact happens is the hardest problem.
I rather prefer to talk about elegance, thus I am likely neither an amateur nor a professional, but rather suited to academia. :-)
(I really liked my graduate studies, but was more suited for finding deep connections in research problems than for academic politics, which is why I left academia)
> I could try to solve an easy problem as quickly as possible
The "solve X as quickly as possible" is now the problem. Not just solve X. I And that sounds like a hard (therefore interesting) problem!