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

A Few Rules

collaborativefund.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 85 posts

Re: A Few Rules

#41

Post by _def »

narag wrote: post #17
skmurphy wrote: post #6

My top four: Behavior is hard to fix. People say they’ve learned but they underestimate how much of their previous mistake was caused by emotions that will return when faced with the same circumstances. Being good at something doesn’t promise rewards. It doesn’t even promise a compliment. What’s rewarded in the world is scarcity, so what matters is what you can do that other people are bad at. People learn when they’…

Most fields have only a few laws. When I've had the opportunity to talk with true experts in different fields, I was surprised to find that they tend to focus in very few factors, unlike books or other practitioners. Wasn't Karate Kid training something like that? The master was only interested in a few exercises that were done doing repetitive tasks apparently unrelated to fight.

Reminds me of the pareto principle.

Re: A Few Rules

#42

Post by _def »

k__ wrote: post #34

"The only thing worse than thinking everyone who disagrees with you is wrong is the opposite: being persuaded by the advice of those who need or want something you don’t." Also, the things you or they want don't have to be right. Take software choices. Their users all got their own reason why they prefer one over the other and all could be wrong. Which leads us to another rule. "Logic is an invention of man and may b…

I'm really tired of people not noticing how a certain phone/OS/editor/food/whatever can be a great choice for themselves, but not for everyone, because everyone makes the choice theirselves.

Re: A Few Rules

#43

Post by kubanczyk »

> People learn when they’re surprised.

I took it as a quick opportunity to stop reading, since I wasn't surprised at any point.

But now I'm thinking: in the morning I found out that "la hoja" is "the sheet [of paper, etc]" in Spanish. How do I still know it in the afternoon if my jaw didn't meet the floor at any point?

Re: A Few Rules

#44

Post by jimbokun »

ribs wrote: post #24
FeepingCreature wrote: post #22

> Don’t expect balance from very talented people. People who are exceptionally good at one thing tend to be exceptionally bad at another, due to overconfidence and mental bandwidth taken up by the exceptional skill. Also because of cross-compensation. Sometimes talent can compensate for the lack of another skill, thus allowing the person to be worse at that other skill and still succeed.

And often that other skill, the one they have less of, is about dealing with people.

Or vice versa, the person who is great at dealing with people and bad at everything else.

Re: A Few Rules

#45

Post by auggierose »

kubanczyk wrote: post #43

> People learn when they’re surprised. I took it as a quick opportunity to stop reading, since I wasn't surprised at any point. But now I'm thinking: in the morning I found out that "la hoja" is "the sheet [of paper, etc]" in Spanish. How do I still know it in the afternoon if my jaw didn't meet the floor at any point?

very polish comment :-D

Re: A Few Rules

#46

Post by dredmorbius »

The full context of the Wilson Newton/Darwin quote, from an obscure lecture (Worldcat has no record), is this:

The trouble with the theory is that government is not a machine, but a living thing. It falls, not under the theory of the universe, but under the theory of organic life. It is accountable to Darwin, not to Newton. It is modified by its environment, necessitated by its tasks, shaped to its functions by the sheer pressure of life. No living thing can have its organs offset against each other as checks, and live. On the contrary, its life is dependent upon their quick cooperation, their ready response to the commands of instinct or intelligence, their amicable community of purpose. Government is not a body of blind forces; it is a body of men, with highly differentiated functions, no doubt, in our modern day of specialization, but with a common task and purpose. Their cooperation is indispensable, their warfare fatal. There can be no successful government without leadership or without the intimate, almost instinctive, coordination of the organs of life and action (pp. 56-57).

Original: http://www.garynorth.com/public/12711.cfm

https://www.loc.gov/item/08017752/

Re: A Few Rules

#47

Post by 3pt14159 »

Most of these are true enough, but this:

> Self-interest is the most powerful force in the world. Which can be great, because situations where everyone’s interests align are unstoppable; bad because people’s willingness to benefit themselves at the expense of others is so seductive.

No way. Self-interest is useful enough for day-to-day interactions, but for the stuff that truly matters it is not even in the top five.

Love, trust / faith, goodness, thoughtfulness, so many other things are more powerful that mere self-interest.

Re: A Few Rules

#48

Post by dredmorbius »

watwut wrote: post #11
themodelplumber wrote: post #5

Behaviors and outcomes rarely change, but history is driven by surprising events...? I admit that this juxtaposition of the listed rules confuses me. The first part/rule would seem to indicate that history is driven by predictable, probable, or otherwise bell-curvy events.

Civil rights movement was started by Rosa Park sitting on the bus. It was surprising big event. Most characters in that story kept going by same scripts as before, with only slight variations and only little bit of learning from previous experiences.

This better fits the "compelling narrative" rather than "surprising events" mode. Perhaps combining them.

The right story, told the right way, at the right time.

Re: A Few Rules

#49

Post by larrik »

> Median family income adjusted for inflation was $29,000 in 1955. In 1965 it was $42,000. Today it’s just over $62,000. We think of the 1950s and 1960s as the golden age of middle-class prosperity. But the median household today has roughly twice the income as the median family of 1955.

I mean, sure, but I'm pretty sure the median household income today is from 2 working adults, where 1955 and 1965 are a single working adult.

There's also purchasing power, which isn't touched on here. Yes, TVs and such are super cheap compared to that era, but owning a house is nearly out of reach for a family living off $62k/year. In 1955 and 1965 it was completely normal for a single-income family to own a home with a yard, etc.

Re: A Few Rules

#50

Post by epidemian »

larrik wrote: post #49

> Median family income adjusted for inflation was $29,000 in 1955. In 1965 it was $42,000. Today it’s just over $62,000. We think of the 1950s and 1960s as the golden age of middle-class prosperity. But the median household today has roughly twice the income as the median family of 1955. I mean, sure, but I'm pretty sure the median household income today is from 2 working adults, where 1955 and 1965 are a single work…

I agree with you, but i dind't see the text you're quoting on the article. Was the article changed?
Post reply on HN