This is a great way to frame a shift in perspective around what we consume, but just to add some nuance to this: not only should we be thoughtful about the content we consume in a similar way that we are thoughtful about the food we consume, but we should also be self compassionate.
Sometimes we want to eat those Chicken 'n' Waffles, just like sometimes we go on a trashy TV show binge! It's just a small thing that serves as a comforting release, and we shouldn't let the guilt overcome us!
Even "comfort food" (or the equivalent) can expand and exercise your thought.
I read a ton of what even I consider "fluff". Science fiction, fantasy, mystery, adventure, horror. Novels that get unceremoniously lumped under "genre fare".
But even if the primary motivation is entertainment, I can honestly say that from a young age, reading lots of anything exposed me to new ideas, ways of thinking, and perspectives.
Even something as simple as spelling and vocabulary seem to come a lot easier, if only due to having seen so many words written out over time. I remember being a kid and never really having issues with spelling or knowing most words because I'd at least run across them already.
That's not to say reading more "serious" material is useless. It just isn't an either/or question.
The idea that because it's risky right now and that a decrease in risk will provide higher returns isn't necessarily sound. For example, playing a financial equivalent to Russian roulette won't give you higher returns. You can look at the countries titled with the euphemistic "developing markets" which have historically had extremely high risks AND a much lower return than in lower risk countries. The risk-return trade-off may be assumed often, but there are controversies, and it's underlying theoretical basis only holds in an efficient capital markets where market participants are capable of pricing risk. A bank can price the risk of a mortgage default, but how can you price the risk of anything in the Blockchain space, like say Ethereum getting completely wiped out by a hack, etc?
> You can look at the countries titled with the euphemistic "developing markets" which have historically had extremely high risks AND a much lower return than in lower risk countries.
Hmm? Not sure what you mean. High-risk countries' bonds pay higher interest than low-risk countries' bonds. E.g. Ukraine was paying 10% interest in USD when US was paying 1%. Of course, expected value might be lower if you average over all such countries, but we are talking about a "happy case" here where a bad event did not happen.
> how can you price the risk of anything in the Blockchain space, like say Ethereum getting completely wiped out by a hack, etc?
Well, you can't calculate the risk but you can get 1000000% return (the actual return over 7 years for ETH presale). Or you can calculate the risk and get 5% return. It's your choice.
> Well, you can't calculate the risk but you can get 1000000% return (the actual return over 7 years for ETH presale). Or you can calculate the risk and get 5% return. It's your choice.
"Past returns are not indicative of future performance" is a mantra you will see everywhere in the financial world. If not doing any risk calculation whatsoever gives you 1000000% return them you didn't "invest" anything, you just gambled with it.
A good/bad axis over time doesn't really tell you anything new about the story that you don't already know, and the only information contained in the "shape" is how many times the good/bad axis is crossed (I don't see how Cinderella is more 'step shaped' than 'boy meets girl' stories). Crossing this good/bad axis already has a better concept to describe it while also encapsulating more complex story events: the plot point.
The idea is completely useless in stories with any ambiguity (most good stories), or absurdist, or anti-hero (like Taxi Driver), or conflicting narratives, or where time isn't uni-directional (such as recollections like Citizen Kane) etc.
For those who haven't watched the video, his whole talk is tongue-in-cheek. The flavor of the talk is the same as the flavor of his writing; both worthwhile.
I feel like life is a lot better if people prioritize these things in the reverse order of what Winston prescribes. Look at our bureaucracies and you'll see that the people leading it have taken Winston's advice to heart -- excellent speakers, decent writers, and low quality ideas / creativity.
Although personally, I have no desire to become like the people who currently lead our society -- the most 'successful' -- so I guess I'm disagreeing more with his definition of success than his means of achieving it within the bounds he has set.
I believe that a crucial component of rigorous college education today is the acculturation into an ability to sell, spin, etc. absolutely anything into a persuasive, confident, narrative delivery --- putting the BS in bachelor's degree, one might say.
Literature classes felt this way sometimes. Having to find and present in writing some interesting meaning to be discovered from the blandest of passages. Alfred E Prufrock comes to mind.
I'd generally look at bureaucracies as being extremely process driven, with the goals of the process to create reproducible results no matter who is involved.
Ideas and creativity don't fit that reproducible mould
Sometimes we want to eat those Chicken 'n' Waffles, just like sometimes we go on a trashy TV show binge! It's just a small thing that serves as a comforting release, and we shouldn't let the guilt overcome us!