
Principles - ingve
https://www.principles.com/
======
bmpafa
I've never worked at Dalio's hedge fund, Bridgewater, but after we studied
their culture and performance in grad school, I did consider working there &
spoke to a number of their alum (full disclosure: I did apply and was rejected
in later rounds).

Bridgewater is easily one of the most consistently performant hedge funds in
history, so it's hard to argue there isn't anything at all to ways in which
they're different. Capital-T-Truth is worth its weight in gold when your
business is predicting the future.

My conclusion was that the system for which Principles sets the stage really
does seem like a sort of Truth-utopia. I say that with no hint of irony--it
really does sound like bliss to have so many unproductive communication
complexities actively suppressed. If you've ever felt like work shouldn't be
about navigating complex political landscapes, or other people's egos and
insecurities, but instead about the team's mission, then a system built on
Dalio's principles is probably up your alley.

In practice, it turns out it might be a little tricky. Understandably, there's
a tremendous stigma at Bridgewater with becoming defensive when confronted
with your potential 'wrongness.' It's one of the things they screen heavily
for: can you receive aggressive critique of your argument, often bordering on
personal attack, without feeling threatened or defensive--ie, while still
maintaining a relentless pursuit of Truth?

Problems start (again, as I understand it second-hand) at the point where
people use Truth-seeking methodology like a cudgel. Consider a simple example,
not significantly altered from a friend's first-hand experience:

You: "I think we ought to do X, because of [etc etc]"

Colleague: "What? It feels like you're not even considering Y. I think what
we're seeing is that you're consistently refusing to get your head out of your
ass and see [etc etc]. You have a bias that leads you towards X, and it's
making you useless to this project."

You: "I understand your argument and I think it's fair to think I have that
bias. However, I've thought a lot about that particular bias, and I've
concluded that it isn't a bias because of [etc etc]. So I think the premise of
your objection is flawed."

In this example, were 'You' responding to the merits of the argument
presented, or were you being defensive? How do you know? How do you disagree
with arguments couched in critiques of your objectiveness, self-awareness,
etc?

The conclusion I ultimately settled on was that so-called 'social niceties'
don't just serve as kid-gloves for fragile egos. They're also a reliable
mechanism of giving people the space to engage in honest discussions about
their own short-comings as they relate to the argument.

Because the Colleague in this example had been conditioned to understand that
more aggressive arguments can functionally shut-out a dissenting opinion
(because, again, of the stigma around defensiveness), I'd argue he/she had
incentive to act aggressively.

In some respects, the Colleague in this example has failed to check their own
emotions (irritation, frustration, etc.)--a slip-up that isn't nearly as
vilified as failing to control emotions when confronted. This sort of
asymmetry, I think, is one of the bigger risks in this type of system.

Like I said at the top, though, I ultimately did apply. My reasoning was
simple: every work culture has its baggage (I'd come from investment banking),
and I felt this baggage was more manageable than most other types I was
familiar with.

Now that I'm building my own company, I've been re-reading Dalio's stuff. I
really respect what Bridgewater is trying to do culturally, and I'm anxious to
see if parts of it are transferable to a more tech-oriented workplace (and one
where the average worker doesn't gross $200k+, fwiw).

~~~
eternalban
Your post prompted[0] a search for this:
[https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/red-
boo...](https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/red-
book/ch27.htm)

Going to give this a read now.

[0]: self-criticism, "Truth-upia", "a little tricky"

------
chollida1
I like that there aren't any comments on this yet, it means that hopefully
people are taking the time to read this.

I think the best way someone introduced me to Ray Dalio's principles is that
it gives employee's the freedom, not to be an asshole, but to cut right to the
heart of the problem without worrying about social niceties.

it's a common complaint and almost cliche on HN to hear someone say they find
American culture ot be a bit "fake" where Fake refers to being polite or
dancing around an issue rather than stating it clearly because they're worried
about social niceties.

Principle 97 comes right out and says "Don’t let people off the hook."

and Principle 98 follows up with "Don’t assume that people’s answers are
correct."

When you are free by the CEO's decree to just flat out not let someone off
with a half assed answer I find that you get to the root cause of issues
faster.

The downside of course is that asshole's are even more pronounced and even the
most well meaning people start to sound a bit like assholes. If you have thin
skin it doesn't work well, you need to learn that people aren't attacking you,
but attacking the problem instead.

Not everyone transitions well to this type of environment as it can be a bit
of a departure from the norm of many companies existing cultures.

~~~
soneca
_it 's a common complaint and almost cliche on HN to hear someone say they
find American culture ot be a bit "fake" where Fake refers to being polite or
dancing around an issue rather than stating it clearly because they're worried
about social niceties._

Interesting, I never heard this at HN at all and here in Brazil we have the
exact opposite perception: americans are very straightforward in business
while we worry too much about niceties, ammenities and excessive politeness
that borderlines hypocrisy. We consider this a disadvantage in our culture
regarding business.

~~~
ci5er
I've noticed here, in the US, that technical staff will sometimes (often?)
feel attacked or challenged by simply asking the question: "Why".

It's an important information-seeking question!

But, for some reason, in many geographies, here, in the US, people often
(apparently) take it to mean something like "I don't agree." or "Justify
that.". And that triggers defensiveness, and then you aren't getting
information.

Because my goal is the information nugget at the end of the quest, I've
learned, with most people, until I know them well, to use something like these
instead of "why?":

    
    
      - "Interesting. Why did you decide to do it that way?", or
      - "Really? How did you prioritize the trade-offs to come to that conclusion?"
    

I don't know if that makes Americans thin-skinned, or just sensitive to that
one word, or ... what ... but I think that most Americans most of the time
would prefer to not offend, and have learned that challenging another person's
opinion is viewed by many to be offensive. It's highly inefficient, doesn't
work well in multi-lingual meeting settings, so I'd guess the Americans you
have been exposed to are are somewhat experienced in international business?

~~~
shanusmagnus
Is this different from somewhere else that you've been? Or are you just
offering the datapoint that you are in the US, and in the US you have observed
this to be true?

I would think, given my travel and cultural experience, that the US would be
one of the least problematic countries from the PoV of being allowed to
challenge "authority" and ask "why" without catastrophic career consequences,
but would be interested to hear other perspectives.

~~~
ci5er
I am giving the datapoint, from the US, that I found team-mates, subordinates
and managers to all respond defensively when asked a simple straightforward
"why".

I never found my co-workers to be defensive when I asked them the same
question in Japan (in Japanese). I didn't have any subordinates, and
management let the group decide, (at our level), so challenging management
rarely came up.

I agree that asking "why" is probably not a career-ending move in the US --
I'm just talking about the subtle first-response I've notices from other
Americans in the first place. I don't know that it has any larger relevance
than to maybe lend support to the idea that US workers (or engineers, anyway)
are afraid to be wrong in public too.

~~~
shanusmagnus
Thanks for the perspective -- I would have guessed exactly the opposite, using
the logic that many Asian societies have highly formal and even ritualized
notions of hierarchy and authority, and that asking "why" in such a place
could be tantamount to questioning that authority. But maybe it's different
when everyone is at the same spot in the hierarchy.

~~~
ci5er
Don't get me wrong. The consensus attainment rituals/processes I found there
(Japan, mid-80s~mid-90s) were mind-numbingly slow/tedious/inefficient.

But, in companies that manufactured products intended to compete in the global
marketplace (and not something intended to meet some local need), the internal
processes for doing root-cause analysis of design, manufacturing or even
business model defects was pretty direct/efficient/ruthless and impersonal. To
me that makes some sense: If I were on a team of 100 NASA engineers, all of us
armed with slide-rules, trying to send some people to the moon and back, I
wouldn't want feelings (or social standing) to get in the way of the process
of verifying that the calculations were correct.

------
JamilD
_I believe that pursuing self-interest in harmony with the laws of the
universe and contributing to evolution is universally rewarded, and what I
call “good.” […] Like the hyenas attacking the wildebeest, successful people
might not even know if or how their pursuit of self-interest helps evolution,
but it typically does._

My perspective on this (and feel free to point out if there are any flaws in
my thinking) is that this tendency to "work within the system of evolution" is
how humans evolved. With our consciousness and self-awareness, however, we've
accepted that some things that run contrary to self-interest are sometimes
"good" for society. We don't have a society of absolute Darwinian natural
selection; we've set up some structures to make sure that everybody can live a
life where certain rights and freedoms are protected. Things like Universal
Basic Income would go against the author's apparent Social Darwinistic
morality, even though it might be a net positive for society.

So I'm not sure I agree with that view of "good" and "evil", though it
certainly is _the most practical and effective_ when you're managing a
company.

~~~
delluminatus
I'm guessing you were thinking mostly about financial and political self-
interest (the things we usually classify as "greed") when you wrote this post.
But I think there are other, equally important ways to be selfish.

For example, humans evolved to be social creatures. Interactions with other
humans impact our body chemistry in dramatic ways. I want to avoid loneliness,
so I selfishly hold relationships with others. I want to hear people say
"thanks" to me, so I selfishly give people gifts. I want to be able to be
righteous without hypocrisy, so I selfishly stick to my principles.

Just my two cents. There are a lot of different types of desire in the world.
Who's to say that UBI wouldn't be in folks' best self-interest?

------
cpsempek
_I am confident that whatever success Bridgewater and I have had has resulted
from our operating by certain principles._

I generally avoid this type of advice due to the inherent effects of
survivorship bias. Admittedly, I haven't read all of the words yet. Am I being
too rash, or does this boil down to the standard fare of a successful person's
biased view and false narrative about how they have been successful?

I am, however, intrigued with the ostensibly rigorous approach of making sure
the subject is defined precisely.

~~~
IsaacL
The fallacy with dismissing Dalio's advice as survivorship bias, is that
building a successful business isn't a one-shot deal. It's not like 100
investment managers all start out with different philosophies, their cards are
dealt, and years later we find that 50 have turned a profit and 5 have become
super-wealthy.

Building an organisation the size of Bridgewater involves many, many sub-
challenges. How do find an opening with this client? How about this other
client? How do you close a deal with this client? How about this client? One
client now has an issue we're not able to solve. How do you retain them? How
do you build a system to manage the sales pipeline and client relations?

Who do you recruit for this position? How do you interview them? How do you
track for bad hires? How do you train interviewers so you avoid future bad
hires? How do you build a system to handle recruiting and HR issues?

How do you train new hires? How do you decide who to promote? How do you
minimise office politics? How do you handle conflicts between managers and
teams? Etc, etc, you get the idea.

Once you've faced similar issues multiple times, you can track failures and
successes, and figure out the essential actions which usually lead to success
in that particular field. These essential rules are principles. Over time you
identify meta-principles which apply to all fields (e.g., "be rational", or
"avoid wishful thinking").

I assume you didn't intend to be offensive, but your attitude boils down to
"someone smart and extremely successful has taken the time to identify what
they believe to be the factors behind their success, and I'm going to dismiss
their opinion without reading it, because I've decided, _a priori_ , that they
must be delusional, and I regard this a-priori reasoning as the scientific and
rigorous approach".

~~~
cpsempek
I did not intend to be offensive, only skeptical and cautious. I was pointing
more to people's nature to erroneously construct narratives regarding cause
and effect in their lives. We are all guilty of it, no doubt. I also don't
think Dalio is being intentionally misleading. But, people tend to give less
credit to chance and more credit to a very concrete chain of events that they
can attribute a narrative to.

However, I think you bring up a fair criticism. It's worth reading, if nothing
else, because of what Dalio has seen and experienced, situations I will likely
never find myself in. As such, I would otherwise not learn firsthand how to
react to or solve problems in such environments. Whether his association
between actions and the outcomes are true is only part of the value of what he
has written.

~~~
IsaacL
> I did not intend to be offensive, only skeptical and cautious.

Cool, that's perfectly reasonable.

> We are all guilty of it, no doubt.

This might sound facetious, but don't you see the contradiction here? Towards
the proposition "These are the principles Dalio used to achieve success", you
are skeptical. Towards the proposition "people erroneously construct
narratives regarding cause and effect in their lives", you have no doubt that
it applies to all people.

Why not apply skepticism towards the second proposition? Maybe somewhere on
the planet are people who are able to examine their lives without constructing
false narratives.

The reason I am not being facetious is that skepticism is extremely popular
amongst intelligent people, but it leads to such contradictions in practice
(e.g., "I know that all knowledge is biased").

~~~
cpsempek
I agree with the problem you raise and I don't have a good solution to the
problem. This may invalidate my position.

However, per Kahneman, possibly some modes of thought are more susceptible to
bias and to a greater magnitude than other modes of thought. This might allow
for one to examine certain beliefs or actions based on one mode of thought
with a higher degree of accuracy and lower susceptibility to bias than others.

This is getting off topic from the OP, but you raise an important issue that I
think about often but don't have a good answer for. Thanks for the critical
discussion.

------
jasonhansel
Dalio seems to assume that, since nature follows certain physical laws, those
laws must be morally good. Thus he says that natural selection must be a good
thing in society.

I think the best counterargument comes from Lester Frank Ward, writing about
Social Darwinism: [http://www.nlnrac.org/critics/social-
darwinism/documents/min...](http://www.nlnrac.org/critics/social-
darwinism/documents/mind-as-social)

~~~
__jf__
Whose argument seems to be:

Being a proponent of natural selection, non-interference and laisser-faire is
inconsistent, because who can be against protecting the innocent from
injustice or healing the sick?

~~~
jasonhansel
To give a simpler summary: nature rules by natural selection. But, once
natural selection has created minds, these minds should be governed by a
different set of rules: one that requires us to protect weak or marginalized
people.

A related argument is this one: the laws of physics cannot, in a sense, be the
source of the laws of morality. This is because the laws of physics are (by
nature) inviolable -- you can never really "disobey" them. But moral laws are
(by nature) able to be broken.

Edit: Aristotle disagreed with this latter argument: he thought that final
causes were both causes of physical events and the source of moral rules. But
this conception of physics has been (almost entirely) displaced by the modern
scientific method.

------
b1daly
I am reading through some of this, and there is some good advice.

With the caveat that I've only read a portion, I am put off by the anecdote
about the Hyena and the Wildebeest. This is where he seems to be attempting to
justify social Darwiniasm with actual Darwiniasm, and bizarrely projects his
own conception of morality onto both.

He seems to believe that evolution is directional, and moral, which seems
rather fanciful to me.

The question of trying to understand morality based on principles of Nature
strikes me as pointless.

When the Hyenas kill the Wildebeest, for food, to them it is good. To the
Wildebeest who was killed, it was undoubtedly bad, if anything can be called
bad. To the Wildebeest who remain, perhaps in a more healthy overall
environment, it might go either way.

I'm not sure what my point is here, except that my intuition is that there are
some basic principles of morality, and they are not synonymous with "success."
This impulse of successful people to extend methods of achieving success to be
more than that is weird.

~~~
bitexploder
Financial markets and the way bwater plays them are a zero sum game. This
principle makes sense for them, but I am with you.

------
pc86
I'm going to be that guy. I skimmed a few sections and wanted to come back
here and had to click the back button a dozen or so times to achieve that. Why
does the URL update when you're scrolling down the page? It seems like a
pointless "look what I can do!" kind of thing in JavaScript.

~~~
a3n
Firefox on Linux, I had to disable uBlockOrigin to see anything at all. It was
a blank page, although ViewSource showed a large body of html and content.

This doesn't appear to be a commercial site at all. Weird that an ad blocker
would be in conflict with it.

Also: I was able to read it with no problem with lynx, a text browser, after
scrolling wwaaayyyy down to get to the article. Why don't designers (or
whoever's responsible for this decision) put the content physically first, and
the cruft last, in html? You can obviously arrange what gets _displayed_ first
in CSS/javascript. It would make life easier for text viewing people and their
tools.

~~~
CaptSpify
Websites should fail like escalators, not elevators. If your JS isn't working
properly, the site should default to just dumping the text. I'll be OK dealing
with the consequences of bad formatting.

/rant

~~~
Nadya
_> Websites should fail like escalators, not elevators._

I like this analogy and will be stealing it for future use. It's for this
reason alone my site is plain text with few images and few styles.

Time to see how my site does in a CLI browser like Lynx or eLinks. :)

~~~
CaptSpify
> I like this analogy and will be stealing it for future use.

Heh, I stole it from someone on here. I purposely built my site to work with
minimal unnecessary components (JS, CSS, etc), and that makes it "just work"
with things like Lynx. As it turns out, making sites simple also make them
more compatible!

~~~
a3n
> making sites simple also make them more compatible!

For some reason (probably that I recently ran across it), this reminds me of:

"designing the system so that the manual will be as short as possible
minimizes learning effort."

\- Mike Lesk, as quoted in _Expert C Programming_ , Van der Linden.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Lesk](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Lesk)

------
daveguy
This is related to a recent story and discussion of how Dalio is trying to
turn his management principles into an AI to guide the management of his hedge
fund, Bridgewater:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13238568](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13238568)

~~~
Jugurtha
What's interesting is that I've seen the link on HN titled "Hedge Fund Is
Building an Algorithmic Model From Its Employees’ Brains", but I didn't click
on it.

I found it a bit silly that the WSJ doesn't name the hedge fund in question..
It's like seeing a link on Hacker News that says "This company is redesigning
its architecture", and the company is Facebook. Just say "Facebook is
redesigning its architecture".

I shared the video about "How the Economic Machine Works" (narrated by Dalio)
on Facebook yesterday.. Here's the video:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHe0bXAIuk0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHe0bXAIuk0)

------
_sentient
> I learned that one of the greatest sources of problems in our society arises
> from people having loads of wrong theories in their heads—often theories
> that are critical of others—that they won’t test by speaking to the relevant
> people about them. Instead, they talk behind people’s backs, which leads to
> pervasive misinformation. I learned to hate this because I could see that
> making judgments about people so that they are tried and sentenced in your
> head, without asking them for their perspective, is both unethical and
> unproductive.

This stood out as particularly relevant to our deep political schism of late.
When you have subgroups calcifying around worldviews that haven't been stress
tested outside of whatever microcosm they originated in, you end up with with
large pockets of people subscribing to massively wrong ideas.

------
dsacco
For anyone looking for the context, this is was written by Ray Dalio, founder
of Bridgewater. It's more or less a thesis of his personal and management
principles. An article about Dalio and Bridgewater was on the front page
yesterday, where chollida1 posted the link to this site in his comment.

------
hallman76
Also available in epub/mobi/audiobook
[https://principlesbydalio.com/](https://principlesbydalio.com/)

~~~
irickt
and from there a pdf [https://www.principles.com/assets/artifacts/Bridgewater-
Asso...](https://www.principles.com/assets/artifacts/Bridgewater-Associates-
Ray-Dalio-Principles.pdf)

------
rokhayakebe
Please allow me to tell you the most important part of this "Principles." It
is that we should each investigate and write down our own list. One that will
evolve and change but we should have our own. Even a list of 10 guiding
principles will do us good.

------
maxt
Now and then I like to revert back to first principles. The moment things
become refined, elegant, or complex, is usually when I have to see the woods
from the trees and apply first principles to it.

One principle I live by is minimalism. With technology it's easy for things to
become rapidly complex. It's worth applying mindfulness to technology and
seeing the results. Most of my solutions are easy solutions with no cruft,
instead of complex solutions with bells and whistles galore.

Another principle I try to apply is doing one thing at a time, which ties into
minimalism. It's so easy to fall into the trap of distractions and
multitasking. I've trained myself over the years to cull distractions, and
segmented my workflow into discrete single duty units of work. If I'm on
Skype, then I'm on Skype, & I'm not checking my email or Twitter too. If I'm
on Hackernews, then I'm _just_ on Hackernews, and not lurking in Reddit too,
etc. It seems obvious, but _focusing_ actually requires training.

Virtualization has helped with this, and it's not uncommon seeing me spinning
up a new VM for the sole purpose of video conferencing, and having an entire
operating system just for Twitter, etc

------
kaleidic
My background is from the hedge fund investment side (though I have been
programming since 1983 and have been increasingly involved in tech the past
few years) and I have found these principles to be invaluable. I try to reread
them a couple of times a year and in the past handed out copies to CEO and
owner of the corporate partner of my startup fund.

There's a resonance here with Andy Grove's constructive confrontation and the
kind of zero based idea they had about lines of business after realising
mistake with memory vs cpu.

I think the main difficulties with it come from Dalio's insistence that
everything is a machine - hunan beings, the family, the firm and the economy.
I don't believe that is true - even code has an organic aspect to it, and
firms are certainly organic.

And I think that shows in the difficulties he has with sustaining the
principles as he steps away. If you read the comments on glass door, few
complain about the principles but they do complain the principles aren't
properly applied. So I think that's because he neglects the human aspect and
if it's a cult if is insufficiently a cultus. (see TS Eliot).

Any approach can end up becoming a substrate for opportunistic and political
behaviour. And most people aren't cut out for quite that level of directness.

But I learnt much more from Dalio than the stuff where I think he gets it
wrong, and it's pretty powerful stuff because he has set out a coherent
philosophy.

Charles G Koch has similar ideas about getting to the heart of things and
bring critical. He says if a supervisor isn't being challenged by employees
after a couple of years then he shouldn't be a supervisor - but the obligation
is on both sides. See his books or YouTube interviews.

------
nunez
Ray Dalio's principles are sound but the issue is that Bridgewater (his hedge
fund) takes them extremely literally. This has made them seem cult-like to
people from the outside and has also given them an interesting retention
problem. (My understanding is that most of their technology people don't last
more than six months despite their incredible pay at 2x market.)

~~~
gech
>their technology people

I wonder if yelling and berating others is less helpful when its a technical
issue versus yelling and berating others when it's some soft skill issue

------
Isamu
> 62 Look at what they were paid before and what people with comparable
> credentials get paid and pay some premium to that, but don’t pay based on
> the job title.

Sounds like a justification for low-balling your pay. If there is a large
range for "comparable" credentials, and you have been underpaid at a previous
job, you get ... still low pay.

I say this as a person who was chronically underpaid for much of my early
career due to this.

You could blame me for not being aggressive, for not advocating for myself,
for being unaware of what others made. And I do blame myself. Don't make the
same mistakes I made!

But yeah, it is unprincipled to default to getting away with paying somebody
on the lowest end of the scale just because you can get away with it. You can
dress it up as "smart" or "principled" however you want, but it is still
scummy. Low pay can stick to somebody for years, it takes forever to climb out
of it because it takes a lot of relatively high percentage raises, during
economic downturns.

~~~
cheez
There is a principle about being cheap somewhere too. Treat money like its
your own.

------
amelius
> Principles are concepts that can be applied over and over again in similar
> circumstances as distinct from narrow answers to specific questions. Every
> game has principles that successful players master to achieve winning
> results. So does life. [...]

Do "ethical principles" fall in the same category?

I think the author is confusing principles for heuristics.

------
shurcooL
This made me think of Bret Victor's classic Inventing on Principle talk [0].
It was also broken up in similar 3 sections.

[0] [https://vimeo.com/36579366](https://vimeo.com/36579366)

------
SirBacon8
I've been on a fruitless pursuit to code a mobile application to model goals,
values, problems, tasks, and their linkages. While I do enjoy journaling on
paper, it's hard for me to organize over time. My app's called Experimentum on
iOS if you care to check it out, it's free. I'd be very interested to hear
anyone's take on this concept implemented as a mobile tool.

------
pyrale
It is interesting that many HNers describe this work as incredibly valuable,
whereas they would describe humanities and social sciences as subpar, when
they offer better vision on the same topics.

In particular, Dalio's anthropocentrism towards nature, evolution and the
convergence he establishes between such human concepts as good and evil and
subjective perception of outcomes make his work look shallow and flawed.

Overall, I think that his document works more towards justifying his situation
than explaining it. If anything, I would suggest reading Spinoza as much as
possible rather than this.

~~~
Terretta
> _HNers would describe humanities and social sciences as subpar_

Curious assertion -- is that true? I know I prefer to hire engineers with at
least some humanities background.

~~~
pyrale
I would not put all HNers in one basket, but I have noticed on topics about
studies, and on several societal topics that there is a tendency in our
community to put hard sciences to the pinnacle, and to overlook the benefits
of humanities. The extreme manifestation of this phenomenon is, to me, the SV
creed of engineers disrupting the society for the best.

I was lucky enough to have someone show me this, and now I try to spend a fair
amount of my time educating myself not only in my field but also in
philosophy, sociology, etc. I am happy to discover these now, rather than
after a life of making things I would regret.

~~~
mahyarm
There are many good principles that come from social sciences and such. The
problems are:

1\. It's difficult to make a career in it unless you apply it in a non-
traditional way. Many kids are often misled by that.

2\. There is a lack of rigor, politics-under-the-color-of-science and
experimental reproducibility problems in the humanities and social sciences,
and it's the negative downside you have to look out for.

3\. Postmodernism tends to be toxic and makes you ineffective. People repulsed
by it go into more concrete things like STEM by instinct when they are young.

------
bpatel576
Has anyone in this forum that runs a company or a team implemented these
principals or a variant of them? I'd love to hear how it faired. I've worked
at several companies that preach transparency, but always fail to follow
through once political obfuscation seeps through.

------
ap22213
Interesting stuff, and it was worth the read. I took some good ideas from it.

However, as I read it, I also wondered if his principles were used to test his
principles.

