
Ideas That Changed My Life - Tomte
https://www.perell.com/blog/50-ideas-that-changed-my-life
======
booleandilemma
I’ve noticed there’s been a trend of people capitalizing on teaching others
about “thinking how to think”, more or less.

But does it really work, or does this stuff just make you better at winning an
argument?

My concern is that people are going to go around collecting mental models and
they’re going to use them to justify their stupid decisions.

Some examples that come to mind:

[https://fs.blog/](https://fs.blog/)

[https://jamesclear.com/feynman-mental-models](https://jamesclear.com/feynman-
mental-models)

[https://www.lesswrong.com/](https://www.lesswrong.com/)

~~~
capableweb
> they’re going to use them to justify their stupid decisions

I'm sorry, but isn't this the whole point of using mental models for your
decisions? What's stupid is all up to you, but if I reasoned together some
decision based on some model that I think works for me, it's hardy stupid for
me.

I always saw the point of these mental models is to use them to justify my
"stupid" decisions, and have some structured way of reaching that decision
instead of just "because I wanted to".

Disclaimer: I don't really follow any mental models myself, except the model
my organic brain comes up with on the fly, so don't let me tell you how others
use these mental modals.

~~~
maxerickson
The argument is that it is a facade, that the structure isn't really guiding
the decision.

~~~
naasking
It doesn't have to. As long as it provides reasonable justification for a
decision, that's better than no justification at all, eg. Like the OP said,
"because I wanted to".

~~~
maxerickson
How is a false justification reasonable or better than admitting that the
choice is arbitrary?

(especially in the framework of the comment I replied to, where they are
talking about the process being internally useful. Of course it may be useful
to bullshit someone else, but that's a different thing.)

~~~
naasking
Because at least you put some thought was put into it, which again, is better
than no thought at all.

Consider your question applied to math: how is a false mathematical argument
for believing a theorem better than just believing it for no reason at all?
It's clearly better because you can actually point out the flaw in the
specific argument.

If someone accepts a mental framework and is faced with a choice they want to
make, either:

1\. They can find no justification for a choice they want to make, at which
point they are more likely to question whether their choice is justifiable, or
their mental framework is sufficient. Either outcome should be encouraged.

2\. If they find a justification that's valid in the framework, then they have
an explicable basis from which to convince others they made the right choice.

3\. If they find a justification that's fallacious, then pointing out either
how the framework is incomplete, or their argument within the framework is
incorrect is far more likely to change their minds than simply claiming their
choice was wrong and trying to explain why from _your own framework_ , which
they haven't accepted (and likely won't without a lot more convincing).

Ultimately, applying thought to a problem is always better than no thought.

~~~
maxerickson
I think admitting a choice is arbitrary will often require more thought than a
specious conclusion arrived at by a faulty process.

~~~
naasking
Doubtful. Like the OP said, "because I want to" is all the thought it
requires. It's the answer children instinctively give. How much thought do
they give their justifications?

Finally, if you're giving credence to a process, even a faulty one, then at
least it's possible to erode confidence in the process or your application of
it. To see its effectiveness, you need only browse the countless posts on
reddit written by former Christians about how they came to question and
ultimately give up their religion after a discussion with an atheist.

------
dghf
> 12\. Demand Curves Slope Down: The harder something is to do, the fewer
> people will do it. For example, raise the price of a product and fewer
> people will buy it. Lower the price and more people will buy it. Economics
> 101.

Not always as true as you might think. There are Veblen goods [0], luxury
status symbols for which the high price is part of the attraction.

More controversially, there _may_ be Giffen goods [1]. Imagine a poor part of
the world, where an average family spends half of its food budget on some
cheap staple -- bread or rice or whatever -- and half on meat and fresh fruit
and vegetables, but the staple part of the diet provides three-quarters of
their calories. If the price of the staple rises , then their food budget will
no longer provide enough calories. The only way they can make up the deficit
is by buying less meat/fruit/veg and more of the staple: in other words, as
the price of the staple rises, so demand for it goes _up_.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good)
[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giffen_good](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giffen_good)

~~~
bobwernstein
>as the price of the staple rises, so demand for it goes up.

in $ terms, sure, but only because the price went up. In absolute units? No.

~~~
dghf
Yes, in absolute units (according to the theory).

If you buy exactly the same amount of kg of staple as before, you won't have
enough money to buy the same amount of other food stuffs as before, so you'll
be short of calories. Assuming you can't spend more money on food, your only
options are to go without or to buy more of the staple (and even less of the
other foodstuffs).

Some made-up figures:

* Staple costs $1/kg, and provides 1500 calories/kg

* Other stuff costs $2/kg and provides 1000 calories/kg

Out of every dollar in your food budget, you spend:

* $0.50 on 0.5kg of staple for 750 calories

* $0.50 on 0.25kg of other stuff for 250 calories

for a total of 1000 calories for every dollar spent on food.

Then the price of staple goes up to, say, $1.20/kg.

If you stick to buying the same absolute amount of staple as before, your
spending looks like this:

* $0.60 on 0.5kg of staple for 750 calories

* $0.40 on 0.2kg of other stuff for 200 calories.

You're 50 calories short.

You can get back up to 1000 calories per dollar by spending like this:

* $0.67 on ~0.56kg of staple for 833 calories

* $0.33 on ~0.17kg of other stuff for 167 calories

That's an absolute increase in staple consumption from 0.5kg to 0.56kg for
every dollar spent on food -- a bit more than an 11% rise.

~~~
bobwernstein
you're right. thanks for the informative explanation.

------
oldsklgdfth
Overall interesting ideas, but I think he did a disservice to this one.

> 47\. The Medium Is the Message: We pay too much attention to what is being
> said. But the medium of communication is more impactful. For example, the
> Internet’s impact on humanity has a bigger influence than anything that’s
> said on the Internet.

The concept here is that the character of the medium defines the types of
ideas that can be transmitted through it. An example is how writing promotes
logical and structures ideas, where television invokes emotion.

For more info, check out the wiki:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_medium_is_the_message](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_medium_is_the_message)

EDIT: a relevant example is comparing HN and fb. The are both internet-based
and have high-speed responses. However, HK is text based and all ideas must be
written in a way that is clear to the reader. FB has text, but also has the
like/heart/laugh/hate button. I think this encourages "a response", whether
you can articulate it or not. Also fb has images. Memes can be used, which are
quite ambiguous and not a structured, logical statement. The different
environments are a consequence of the rules that define the medium.

~~~
toyg
It's not just a disservice, he flatly got the concept wrong (or misrepresented
it).

~~~
oldsklgdfth
It's a very subtle concept. I do a pretty poor job explaining it to friends
all the time. I think of it as an extension of "to a person with a hammer,
everything is a nail". There's only so many ways to use a hammer. There's only
so many ways to use smoke signals, or twitter or a picket sign or a sitcom to
convey an idea. The main takeaway is that they are all tools, each with their
specific use.

Understanding Media by Marshall McLuhan [0] is where the phrase is first seen,
but it's a dense book and tough to read at times. It's quite theoretical,
kinda like he's developing an information theory of communication mediums.

Amusing ourselves to death by Neil Postman[1] is more specific to written text
and tv, but is a much easier read and very eye-opening.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Understanding_Media](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Understanding_Media)

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amusing_Ourselves_to_Death](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amusing_Ourselves_to_Death)

------
jacknews
I don't mean to be too cynical, but I would like to know HOW these 50 buzz-
phrases changed the author's life.

Perhaps the key to change is actually this blog post. If it generates enough
traffic.

~~~
amelius
Yes. Title should be more like "fortune cookies that I've read" or "collected
quotes" or something.

~~~
TheSpiceIsLife
I have a text file I've been keeping since 2003 full of "things other people
said."

One day, maybe, I'll get around to tizzy it up and start a blog with some
witty as fuck domain name and retire on the shoulders of every else's hard
work.

~~~
MacroChip
You've caught my attention. Care to share it? I promise I won't host it. If
you put the source quotes on github it could be a cool project that you accept
pull requests to. And that does not preclude you from still making a good
website out of it.

~~~
TheSpiceIsLife
Naaah, it needs cleaning up before it makes it in to the wild.

I’ll probably get on to it this winter (Southern Hemisphere), just after I do
my taxes.

------
superkuh
>40\. Penny Problem Gap: Economists assume demand is linear, but people’s
behavior totally changes once an action costs money. If the inventors of the
Internet had known about it, spam wouldn’t be such a problem. If sending an
email cost you $0.001, there’d be way less spam.

Or, more likely, the internet as we know it would not exist and it'd just be
some crappy failed commercial venture where everything cost money and it never
took off. Building commerce into protocols is a terrible idea.

~~~
gxon
And yet, we desperately want to find a better model so we can stop feeding the
ad demon.

------
motohagiography
Regarding 8, cultivating talent vs. genius - I'd argue an increasing majority
of what we call genius nets out when we control for the effect of crazy
meeting survivor bias.

As someone familiar with all of the listed ideas, I get the sense these
contrarian proverbs form a kind of modern hacker subculture tribal knowledge.
What I've noticed is that none of the most (or least) successful people I know
think this way, it's like a view from the outside or the middle.

Maybe the co-incidence of financial success and a mind full of gnomic
aphorisms is no better than random too?

------
ColinWright
From the page source:

    
    
        <!-- This site is converting visitors
             into subscribers and customers
             with OptinMonster -
             https://optinmonster.com
             -->
    

Well, maybe not.

~~~
chance_state
What does this have to do with this post?

~~~
ColinWright
It gives the sense that the whole thing is click-bait, designed to draw in the
reader and then get them to sign up for for his mailing list. As I read the
list I was thinking "This feels pretty content-free ... there are a few
nuggets, but mostly it feels really fluffy."

Then there's the sign-up form, and everything became clearer. Colour me
cynical[0], but it's the reaction the post provoked in me, so I thought I'd
share it with other readers here in case they felt the same way.

I guess you didn't.

[0] The power of accurate observations is commonly called cynicism by those
who haven't got it. -- George Bernard Shaw

~~~
dahart
It's fair & fine to come to the conclusion that the content is fluffy (plus I
happen to agree with that conclusion here.) On the other hand, does being
cynical automatically make an observation accurate? I think the question by
@chance_state above is legitimate, inclusion of a cloud service in the page
source is not strong evidence of your conclusion. The problem is that the
online services in the page source are not created by the author and cannot be
assumed to reflect directly on the content, and that all pages on the internet
are intentionally designed to draw traffic. How many pages do you read that
don't have a signup form, don't invite the reader to subscribe, aren't
offering a value exchange of some kind?

~~~
ColinWright
> _... does being cynical automatically make an observation accurate?_

Not at all, and that's not the claim made by GBS. It's the converse, that
things that are accurate and true are often incorrectly dismissed under the
umbrella of "cynicism".

> _I think the question by @chance_state above is legitimate, inclusion of a
> cloud service in the page source is not strong evidence of your conclusion._

Agreed, but it did serve to crystallise the feeling that had been developing.

> _... all pages on the internet are intentionally designed to draw traffic._

Actually, that's not true. It' might be true in the world you inhabit, but
most of the content that's directly relevant to my work is provided "as is",
information and ideas, offered without a follow-up "Sign up for my weekly
email".

> _How many pages do you read that don 't have a signup form, don't invite the
> reader to subscribe, ..._

For me, most of them. I suspect we inhabit different circles, mine isn't full
of people trying to develop a following. This isn't a criticism, it's an
observation. I do, however, feel that when I read many of the more popular
items linked from HN and other tech forums that I'm walking through a carnival
and being beset by hawkers and barkers.

------
hliyan
Not sure why some commenters have been put off by this. I actually learned a
few things (and was reminded of a few other things I had forgotten) while
going through this list. The stuff I disagreed with, I just skipped over.

What I liked:

19\. Planck’s Principle

20\. Bike-Shed Effect (had almost forgotten this)

21\. Table Selection

23\. Gall’s Law (worth a reminder)

24\. Hock Principle

39\. The Paradox of Consensus

49\. The Paradox of Abundance

~~~
paulcole
> The stuff I disagreed with, I just skipped over.

Guaranteed a podium spot in this year’s HN Accidental Slogan contest.

------
meagher
Mental models are useful when you use them. Not so much when you talk about
them.

The idea of having a favorite mental model is fine if you are talking about
them abstractly.

But I envision a whole bunch of people using the wrong models in loads of
situations simple because they like the idea of them.

Your brain more often than not picks a pretty good one without having to even
think about it.

------
haltingproblem
Interestingly I was reading Charlie Munger's Biography - Poor Charlie's
Almanac - over the weekend. My recollection is that it took Munger almost a
couple of decades of living, reading and contemplating to start formulating
his system of models and it did not gell for another 10-20 years.

He uses them not on the spur of the moment but in analyzing investments and
this process can take a while (think weeks or months and not days).

These systems of mental models sound fascinating but I fear that unless the
model has come from _lived experience_ it will just be intellectual junk found
- eaten, digested and out the rear rather fast with the only effect being
intellectual blubber in your cerebral cortex. What one needs is a system of
tutelage that might take a few years during which you can try out and codify
these models one-by-one. Your list might be different than Munger or whomever
but it will be tailored to your context and enable you to draw upon it with
fluidity akin to a muscle reflex.

On a related note, I recall, from a Buddhist class on ethics, that Buddhist
monastics have hundreds of rules that they have to observe. The story goes
that when the historical Buddha formulated the order of monastics - there were
no rules. Overtime in response to various incidents the rules were formulated
and those incidents are recorded. The monastics are taught those stories that
lie behind each rule to inculcate some notion of lived experience and a
guideline for when/why that rule is to be used.

A list of rules is useless sans lived experience or a tradition that creates
them is rather useless. You are better of throwing away the list and trying on
your own supplemented by good reading. Charlie Munger His speeches and his
reading recommendations are a good place to start.

~~~
jesterson
You may also like Seeking Wisdom: From Darwin to Munger. Pretty much same
ideas but aligned in more memorable way. Liked it way better than Poor
Charlie's Almanac.

------
bedobi
Great. Yet another online psuedo-intellectual "guru" with pretentious posts
full of meaningless, vague trueisms. Why are posts like these so popular on
Hacker News?

~~~
jesterson
People are attracted with articles with pseudo-intellectual discussions,
especially if they are filled with well-sounding buzz-terms like faustian
bargain or overton window.

------
randcraw
48 is wrong without qualification. A resource-rich country indeed _can_ become
both economically powerful and it's people empowered -- look at the US.

48 _is_ true only when two more constraints apply: 1) when the natural
resources are few (like only oil or diamonds), and 2) when the resource is
dominated by monopoly, especially when abetted by the gov't, like Saudi Arabia
or Russia, or 1970's South Africa.

~~~
zeroxfe
They say "tend to have less economic growth", not "always have less economic
growth".

------
adrianN
> The Second Law of Thermodynamics: The world tends towards disorder. That’s
> why your room becomes messier and messier over time

That's not how the second law works.

~~~
pontus
This seems like a reasonable analogy. What about it do you feel is wrong?

~~~
clemParis
You can tidy your room and the mess (that they mistake for entropy) would be
reduced. The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that in an isolated system the
entropy is always increasing (or at best constant), so the room analogy does
not work.

~~~
testing312
Tidying your room would be adding energy to the system, to make it tidy. This
is still in line woth thermodynamics where adding energy can decrease entropy

~~~
AtHeartEngineer
You have to add energy to make it messy as well

~~~
dasil003
"Tidy" is a subjective quality, not an objective physical one. It does take
mental energy to tidy a room, and without that effort it will tend to get
messy through use. As long as you don't confuse mental energy for physical
energy and tidiness for entropy in the literal sense, then the analogy works
surprisingly well.

------
ehnto
> For example, raise the price of a product and fewer people will buy it.
> Lower the price and more people will buy it. Economics 101.

There are of course exceptions, and knowing your demographic is important. I
worked for a company that released a skincare product at an affordable price
point, and no-one bought it. They raised the price, and people started buying.
It was because they were in a premium product niche, so being affordable made
the product look bad in comparison to other products on the shelf, and people
looking to buy that product used price to qualify the products quality.

~~~
qznc
> 50\. The Map Is Not the Territory: Reality will never match the elegance of
> theory. All models have inconsistencies, but some are still useful. Some
> maps are useful because they’re inaccurate. If you want to find an edge,
> look for what the map leaves out.

This applies to all these 51 points.

------
cryptica
>> The world always makes sense. But it can be confusing. When it is, your
model of the world is wrong.

That was my mistake when I first heard about Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies.

I was assuming that the economy was efficient and relatively fair and that
made me see Bitcoin as a bubble. My assumption about economic efficiency was
very wrong... Then I took the time to learn everything I could about the
Federal Reserve Bank and money printing. I'm not going to make that mistake
again.

~~~
benjohnson
Something I've noticed: There's been some things that I initially thought were
bubbles. But they seemed to work - I even started doubting myself. Turns out
they were just longer lasting bubbles.

~~~
cryptica
This is definitely something that I keep at the back of my mind. That said, my
current world view is that the entire fiat monetary system itself is a bubble.
In that context, cryptocurrencies are a lesser bubble and by virtue of their
limited supply, they will continue going up in value as they are constantly
propped up by an infinite supply of newly printed credit from banks. The
cryptocurrency community's ability to continuously buy politicians and
journalists also helps ensure continued dominance.

Everything that's happening around the world now perfectly aligns with my
world view. Guess who is going to benefit from the Fed's massive covid-19 fiat
injections?

------
paulorlando
I've been slowly working my way through understanding a tiny fraction of
systems that reveal the world. Doing it partly from a humanities perspective,
where I look into examples from history and art as much as tech and business.
It's incredibly overwhelming and wonderful. This is the way I spend my early
mornings and walks. I know what you mean about the "how to think" blogs
though. I'm just trying to teach myself how to think or at least notice
underlying systems. (This is what I've been writing:
[https://unintendedconsequenc.es/blog/](https://unintendedconsequenc.es/blog/))

------
nzealand
__The Pareto Principle __is key for scaling a business.

80% of the revenue comes from 20% of the customers.

Segment your customers to shift low revenue customers to low cost channels.

And it scales, depending on your unique Pareto Curve.

4% of your customers generate 64% of your profits.

------
blickentwapft
>>> Robustness Principle: Be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what
you accept from others. It’s a design guideline for software and a good rule
for life:

My understanding is this is flat out wrong and bad for software development.
Design software that is rigid in both what it accepts and sends. Loose
standards lead to incompatiblities and chaos. Tightly define. This is not to
say that your design should be inflexible, but for example a specification for
data interchange should not accommodate loosely or incorrectly structured
data.

~~~
mongol
This is also called Postel's Law after Jon Postel who worked on designing TCP.
I think it has merit.

------
weinzierl
> _" 36\. Creativity Begins at the Edge: Change starts away from the
> spotlight. Then, it moves towards the center. That’s why the most
> interesting ideas at a conference never come from the main stage. They come
> from the hallways and the bar after sunset"_

Made me think that, when in times of Corona lock-down where most conferences
have gone online, there is no real place away from the spotlight anymore, no
hallway talk and no meeting at the bar after sunset. We should have a
replacement for that, but Discord chatter isn't it.

------
WalterBright
I read some stuff about how various cognitive biases produce poor investment
decisions, like "fear of loss" and "sunk cost". I recognized that I fell prey
to them.

I thought "how would I invest if I was investing Monopoly money just to win a
board game?" and realized that my decisions would be completely different.
With that gedanken experiment I was able to make better investment decisions,
though I still can't entirely overcome the biases.

~~~
andrewnc
That's an interesting paradigm shift, thanks for sharing.

------
dghf
> 20\. Bike-Shed Effect: A group of people working on a project will fight
> over the most trivial ideas. They’ll ignore what’s complicated. They’ll
> focus too much on easy-to-understand ideas at the expense of important, but
> hard to talk about ideas. For example, instead of approving plans for a
> complicated spaceship, the team would argue over the color of the
> astronaut's uniforms.

That's not quite what I understood by the bike-shed effect. In the version I
heard, although the approval committee would indeed descend into endless
arguments over the colour of the astronauts' uniforms, the complicated
spaceship would get passed through on the nod: no one on the committee
understands the technical details of the latter, so they defer to the experts,
while they all grasp, and can make a contribution to, a decision on the former
(or at least think they can).

~~~
m463
Your explanation seems to agree.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_triviality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_triviality)

------
kgin
> 48\. Resource Curse

I've seen this at work in people (including myself) as well. Wherever people
have a natural, unusual strength that starts at a young age, they often have
many underdeveloped abilities due to relying on their strength. (ex: smart
kids never learn how to study and hit a wall in college)

------
pedalpete
Can somebody elaborate on the "go-for-it window"? > . The Go-For-It Window:
Large gaps between accelerating technologies and stagnating social norms
create lucrative new business opportunities. But they are only available for a
short time when people can capitalize on the difference between the real and
perceived state of the world. For example, 2007 was the perfect time to launch
the iPhone, but Google Glasses launched too early.

What was the "stagnantig social norms" in that benefited the iPhone era, yet
left Google Glasses in the dustbin?

~~~
relaxing
They’re two different norms.

The iPhone capitalized on the public’s willingness to spend $500 on a fragile
slab of glass with no keyboard.

Google Glass ran into the social norm of not looking like a creep.

------
cryptica
>> Parkinson’s Law: Work expands to fill the time available. People don’t want
to look like they’re lazy, so they find extra tasks to tackle, even if they’re
trivial.

This can easily be fixed with the right project management approach and
incentives. This problem is mostly relevant in corporate settings where there
are no clear individual incentives for delivering results.

~~~
booleandilemma
Also, at least at the places I've been, finishing a task early just means
you're "rewarded" with more work.

------
hirundo
"8\. Talent vs. Genius: Society is good at training talent but terrible at
cultivating genius. Talented people are good at hitting targets others can’t
hit, but geniuses find targets others can’t see."

If you can find targets others can't see, you may be a genius. Or delusional.
Check your prescription interactions for clues.

~~~
atsaloli
"Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else
can see."

[https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Arthur_Schopenhauer](https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Arthur_Schopenhauer)

See also blog post on this (talent vs genius) at
[https://www.brainpickings.org/2016/06/29/schopenhauer-
genius...](https://www.brainpickings.org/2016/06/29/schopenhauer-genius/)

------
archived22
50 is too much. Reading about yoga these days. Seems like following 5 Yamas &
5 Niyamas or noble eightfold path may keep clear from most of the troubles.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niyama](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niyama)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamas)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_Eightfold_Path#The_Eight...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_Eightfold_Path#The_Eightfold_Path)

------
RMPR
>If sending an email cost you $0.001, there’d be way less spam.

Less spam, probably. More elaborated spam, definitely.

------
Havoc
Weird how many times I've heard people mention the overton window in the past
week. Don't recall ever hearing about it before

~~~
kgin
All of a sudden, I've been seeing people mentioning the Baader-Meinhof
phenomenon everywhere

------
jose-cl
I think not all people do Preference Falsification and Doublespeak, and they
just happen on toxic environments (edit: grammar)

------
sidcool
I like most of the ideas. But unsure which are pragmatic. Like avoiding
competition. I don't get it. ELI5 anyone?

~~~
saucymew
It reminds me of Thiel's "Zero to One" that competition is for suckers, aim
for true monopoly power.

------
curation
The concept of Differend -> A wrong or injustice that arises because the
discourse in which the wrong might be expressed does not exist. This
technology of Western Civilization retains coherence via a white supremacist
patriarchal order based economic system. Racism is deciding what dies,
guaranteeing profits. All meaning has been surgically drained over centuries
of enmity leaving only the calculable.

------
elchin
Peter Thiel’s Zero to One makes a good case for #10

