101–110 of 111 posts
Sadly, none of this would make any sense if I had not already learned it the hard way.
I suppose tips like these are like uninitialized pointers - they aren't really useful until you have experiences to attach them to, but after that they are a handy way to access those experiences quickly.
That was enough for knowledge to start snowballing.
In historical terms, that happened a few moments ago and we are still at the mostly-stupid stage. Before we have a chance to evolve to be smarter, technology itself will have left us in the intelligence rear view mirror.
No species lasts forever but we should feel successful for being the origin of not just the next species, but the next order of life on Earth after DNA. Self-designed life will be as profoundly smarter than we are, as multi-cellular life became more interesting than the first microbes.
This is very inspiring to me. But if for some reason, you find it depressing that our technological "children" will soon look nothing like us, there is still time to find a way to transition your own mind into that next generation. Just be prepared to change anything about your own biology that holds you back, just like to learn you need to sacrifice any beliefs that hold you back. Prepare yourself mentally now to sacrifice your biological substrate and neural continuity for your new uber intelligence in a few decades.
This is extremely insightful and applies to a lot of industries: I've learned that we can't tell the difference between luck and skill. Out of millions of investors, a few will be phenomenally successful due to luck alone, yet no one is willing to admit they are one of the lucky ones. I recall reading this statement written in different words in a few articles and essays from PG and others.
Step 0: Create 1024 different "funds".
Step 1: In half the funds (512) buy a very volatile stock. In the other half, sell the same stock short. Wait a week and close out all positions. Half the funds will now have made a lot of money. (Half will have lost the same amount of money.)
Step 2: In half the winning funds (256) buy a very volatile stock. Sell short in the other half. In a week close out the positions.
Step 3: In half the two-time winning funds (128), buy a very volatile stock, in the other half, sell short. Close out.
Steps 4-10: Repeat with half as many winning funds for each repetition.
Step 11: You now have exactly the same amount of money that you started with, minus some trading fees. But you have a remarkable fund you can point to where you made an enormous amount of money betting correctly on volatile stocks 10 times over 10 weeks. Your fund's return will be amazing and turn any investor green! Start acquiring investors who you can charge fees for depositing funds, removing funds, keeping funds invested, whatever: Profit!
Note this plan is unconventional in that there is no "Step 10b ???" before profit. Profit is assured.
This is extremely insightful and applies to a lot of industries: I've learned that we can't tell the difference between luck and skill. Out of millions of investors, a few will be phenomenally successful due to luck alone, yet no one is willing to admit they are one of the lucky ones. I recall reading this statement written in different words in a few articles and essays from PG and others.
Skill: Step 0: Create 1024 different "funds". Step 1: In half the funds (512) buy a very volatile stock. In the other half, sell the same stock short. Wait a week and close out all positions. Half the funds will now have made a lot of money. (Half will have lost the same amount of money.) Step 2: In half the winning funds (256) buy a very volatile stock. Sell short in the other half. In a week close out the positions…
Mostly insightful, but this bit: Those who criticize the behavior of "greedy Wall Street bankers" underestimate their tendency to do the same thing if offered an eight-figure salary. You have to be greedy to go into Wall Street banking in the first place. Most of us deliberately didn't become bankers because we aren't motivated by greed. This makes bankers fair game for criticism.
"Most of us ... because we aren't motivated by greed" History would indicate otherwise. Maybe most of us aren't dominated by our greed to the exclusion of all else / to sociopathic levels. But, most of us certainly are greedy. I suspect it's in our genes. Greed/hoarding (to a degree) being evolutionary strengths.
I've learned that we can't tell the difference between luck and skill. Out of millions of investors, a few will be phenomenally successful due to luck alone, yet no one is willing to admit they are one of the lucky ones. and the same goes for CEO's.
This is extremely insightful and applies to a lot of industries: I've learned that we can't tell the difference between luck and skill. Out of millions of investors, a few will be phenomenally successful due to luck alone, yet no one is willing to admit they are one of the lucky ones. I recall reading this statement written in different words in a few articles and essays from PG and others.
One reasonable test is if a person consistently is "lucky", then it is more likely to be skill. Steve Jobs, for example, made three fortunes. I suspect it is skill.
Every one of those observations sounds extremely true to me. Regarding the first one: "changing your mind is one of the most difficult things we do" -- changing our mind is almost impossible; changing other people's is down right impossible. BUT - It's possible to influence people before they have made up their mind. - It's also possible to reframe / rename / re-position a subject, so that it becomes a new category a…
I think this explains why the NSA revelations are such a non-issue to so many people: it doesn't fit into their narrative, so it must somehow be overstated or misleading in its presentation. I think a solution to this is to try to notice your aversion or second-guessing of straightforward information. If you immediately start seeking to minimize something or think "This must be wrong", then that thing is worth deeper investigation. One must realize if a piece of information does not fit with their model of the world, it is usually an inadequacy of their model and not with the data.