The following is my reaction to reading what Nat Friedman believes: http://nat.org/
1. ”Reshaping the universe to our preferences”
What we have done to the earth is a testament to humans prioritising humans’ preferences, at the cost to other living beings and the environment, and as we are learning now, comes around ultimately to us – we are all connected.
Technology could also protect our environment but to have technology carry that as its conscience, that aim must be embedded in our preferences. In our desires, we know very well we are not perfect creatures, responsible protectors, that this conscience must counter our natural tendencies towards selfishness and greed.
Speaking of preferences, I would prefer to differentiate between technology and knowledge, and while we’re at it, wisdom. It is beneficial for us to know the difference.
2. “Energy is a necessary input for progress”
I agree, energy does work (sic), and progress only materialises when something happens and not when nothing happens. Or does it?
But understanding the Chi in every living thing and how to efficiently channel it to worthwhile purposes, I agree with that.
I will tell you a secret of my productivity: when I work, I really work. Full focus and no distractions. When I play I really play 🙂 I cluster my activities and ride the crest of my high energy and fully immerse myself in my low tide, downtime, without guilt or thought for the unfinished things. Understand the different waves of your energy, what are the best activities for them, as well as your circadian rhythm. Eat well, sleep well. Perhaps it’ll work for some.
The long-term aim is to be the master of your own time and not be subject to others for what you want to do and when and for how long. That is one of the true freedoms.
2b. “It’s easier to work on things that are exciting to you”
Sometimes, we have to work on things that bore us because it is our duty, our giri. The reason for being. Not everyone is fortunate to have the option of pursuing what excites them most. Sometimes rewards come in not self-fulfilment but in knowing that because you’re doing something that others are loathe to do or incapable of doing, you have saved the day. There is worth in doing the inferior, the less glamorous, the ‘no accolades’ things, as much as in doing the bigger things.
3. “Do it fast”
The community of sloths might take umbrage at the phrase “slow is fake”. The winner of Fields Medal, June Huh, might be offended that his working only 3 hours a day is too little, too slow.
Too often there is fortuitous serendipity when a project temporary stalls. Reorienting and collecting further information and guidance takes time. Rushing things might result in an inferior outcome, or worse. Taking a pause to consider whether you are moving in the right direction, or to gauge whether the circumstances have changed, matter in the long run.
More important than speed is constancy in the right direction, that’s what “The Tortoise and the Hare” taught us.
4. “The EMH is a lie”
It is neither wrong nor right but an approximation of one type of market mechanism. To understand the limitations of the EMH is to learn the wisdom of Shannon and information.
5. “Many of the things we believe are wrong”
The way the accumulation of knowledge and understanding work is through fits and starts. We begin with a premise and gather evidence that supports it, and it works, for a time. Until some genius comes along and instigates a paradigm shift and we learn the limitations of our understanding in that particular framework, throw away that tray of tools for a new set and begin again. Has always been thus until we encounter the boundary of our viewfinder of reality and discover that our sight would be clearer, more accurate with a new pair of glasses.
Why has it always been thus? Because humanity has to grow and mature in our capacity for absorbing a new knowledge before we are able to graduate to that more advanced tool for thinking. It will come to us once we are ready. For example, I would explain electrons completely differently to a 10 year old compared to how I would explain it to a physics undergraduate.
6. ““Great” individuals should be allowed to micromanage”
Agree to some extent. Compromise hinders great vision. However.
My father littered our house with management books when I was growing up that I couldn’t help but read them. Edward de Bono is a good source. “How to Make Friends and Influence People” by Dale Carnegie and “Adventures of a Bystander” by Peter Drucker are good too. Old books that withstand the test of time.
“Continuous cooperation” and not a “one-off compulsion” is the key phrase here, unless you like to fire people often. Even then, you lose the cumulative experience and camaraderie of the group. Above all, treat people with respect.
7. “Smaller teams are better”
More important than the size of the team is the composition of the team.
(By the way, I abhor the labelling of people as “mediocre”. It stunts your personal growth if you limit the things you see of, and learn from, other people because you’ve already decided they are mediocre.)
The composition of a group determines the condition of the discussion. At either end of the spectrum lies “major agreement” and “major disagreement”. In between we have “minor agreement” and “minor disagreement” of varying degrees.
Let’s imagine a group trying to make a decision for their business venture or a committee on public policy. What could induce the group to immediately agree on a decision? It is either because there is a) so much established information that it’s very easy to concur, or b) there’s very little information known and it’s agreed that that is all the information you can ever obtain at the time of discussion, or c) the group is homogeneously populated that each brings the same set of information to the discussion but the group wrongly surmises that there is no additional information, even though there would be if the composition of the group was more varied.
The ease to come to a conclusion based on the available information helps a group to come to a quicker agreement. But is it the correct agreement to come to? Situation (c) increases the chances of agreeing on the wrong decision.
What could promote immediate disagreement in a group on a particular topic? The probability of immediate disagreement rises when the group is diversified, possessing different levels of expertise, different access to data or information, different background and experiences, etc. Immediate disagreement stems from the significant mismatch of what one group member is saying with another member’s circle of competence and personal beliefs.
The higher the number of mismatched interactions between members, the greater the disagreements within the group. Immediate disagreement is not only caused by the characteristics of the individuals, but also their priorities. E.g., some care about the means while others only the end results. Or care about outcome A more than outcome B. Or some feel that the costs are worth it, and so forth.The problem with a “major disagreement” group is that it’s very difficult and lengthy to get things done as the members of the group find it hard to come to an agreement.
“Minor agreement/minor disagreement” is where I think the sweet spot lies. The composition of the group should be varied enough that the chances of coming to the right decision are maximised, but not so varied that the group comes to a standstill and no decision is made at all. A ‘sweet spot’ perfectly varied group is just an ideal of course, to be aspired to but not truly achievable in real life. Maybe someone should write a book on how to assemble at least a close approximate, that would be useful I think. Or the assembling could be outsourced to a specialist firm. Catalogue all the attributes of potential members and let algorithms recommend a combination. There must be a way to do this. Imagine the improved productivity!
8. Where do I “get my dopamine”?
No idea, to be honest. Different things at different times. I am simple in my pleasures and complex in my needs. “The answer is predictive of your behaviour” – what does my answer then, say about me? 🙂
9. “We are tied down by invisible orthodoxy”
How do you cut down these restraints? By awareness and by voice. Speaking up helps, and if it doesn’t, then it’s time to change your environment, be it a new job, a new place, or others.
I wish I am as optimistic to say that the “laws of physics are the only limit”, but I have encountered enough orthodoxies in my way to know that that isn’t so. In the very, very long run though, I agree with the statement.
10. Conclusion
Approach challenges holistically but don’t forget the feeling of completion, of being in the zone of perfection, when industriously attending to the little details.
Approach life and its conclusions with a huge, huge dose of humility, remembering the lessons of failed dreams. We are not creatures of ambitions without values, without compassion.
And finally, as long as you breathe, hope.
@Amni Rusli
EightAteEight 