
Little Ideas - RickJWagner
https://www.collaborativefund.com/blog/100-little-ideas/
======
jkhaui
"Fact-Check Scarcity Principle: This article is called 100 Little Ideas but
there are fewer than 100 ideas. 99% of readers won’t notice because they’re
not checking, and most of those who notice won’t say anything. Don’t believe
everything you read."

I was thinking to myself "this is an amazing list" until I came across that
cheeky snippet. Now I'm confused; is the point to make readers critically
evaluate each of the listed theories?

~~~
darthcoder1010
Well, in fact the first one "Depressive Realism" is a common (false) myth.
Depressed people tend to have distorted thoughts about reality with a strong
negative bias.

A typical distorted though is over-generalization. For instance: if a
depressed person fails to pass an exam, he may think that he will never be
able to pass that exam and his life is a complete failure because of that. Of
course that though is NOT the reality. The reality is that he probably need
prepare better for that exam, but that does not mean that his life is a
complete failure.

If someone is interested in this topic I recommend the book "Feeling good" by
David Burns.

------
bickeringyokel
"The 90-9-1 Rule: In social media networks, 90% of users just read content, 9%
of users contribute a little content, and 1% of users contribute almost all
the content."

What percentage of people started typing something, deleted it, started typing
something else, then gave up when they realized they had nothing of value to
contribute or out of fear of rejection?

~~~
sharedfrog
This reddit post, invocatively titled Most of What You Read on the Internet is
Written by Insane People, builds up on that rule.

[https://old.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/9rvroo/most...](https://old.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/9rvroo/most_of_what_you_read_on_the_internet_is_written/)

------
abdullahkhalids
> Google Scholar Effect: Scientific research depends on citing other research,
> and the research that gets cited the most is whatever shows up in the top
> results of Google Scholar searches, regardless of its contribution to the
> field.

As a scientist, to me, this is extremely dangerous. We don't know what the
Google Scholar search algorithm exactly is. But it does put highly cited
papers on top, meaning those papers get cited more in the future. I see this
as preventing alternate lines of investigation in a subfield not being
successful as much.

------
gfody
I’m enjoying lists like this. They’re like pocket versions of “This book will
make you smarter”. Here’s another:
[https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1225561131122597896.html](https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1225561131122597896.html)

~~~
joe_the_user
It's a fun list but I think the list will make you smarter if you take each
ideas as _possibility_ to play with in a given situation or as a toolbox of
ideas to use or not depending on the situation. I think the list could make
you dumber if you use it as a series of pat-answers to complicated situations,
ie, so you can avoid thinking the particular details involved.

------
baxtr
Nice list! I have one note where I collect "concepts" like these, too.

Example: _Pygmalion effect:_ or Rosenthal effect, is the phenomenon whereby
others' expectations of a target person affect the target person's
performance. Based on antique Pygmalion whose sculpture became a real women
over time

This link will definitely help to grow my list :)

------
joe_the_user
A nice list of things to keep in mind. But just to keep in mind, not to
believe definitively.

With _Base Rate_ , for example, yes, if you attempting to succeed at something
that many others have failed at, you should know why you expect to succeed and
track your beliefs as you about the effort.

------
natmaka
"Buridan’s Ass", not "Burdian's Ass"

------
imvetri
Thanks for sharing

