-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3
/
Copy pathadvice.scroll
144 lines (80 loc) · 4.64 KB
/
advice.scroll
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
date 2021-05-06
tags All Data Writing Life
title Strong Advice
openGraphImage advice.png
singleHeader.scroll
I split advice into two categories:
dateline
1. 🥠 WeakAdvice
2. 💎📊🧪 StrongAdvice.
## Examples
WeakAdvice:
> 🥠 Reading is to the mind what exercise is to the body.
> 🥠 Talking to users is the most important thing a startup can do.
StrongAdvice:
quote
💎📊🧪 In my whole life, I have known no wise people (over a broad subject matter area) who didn't read all the time – none, zero.
<a class="rightQuote" href="https://fs.blog/2014/06/charlie-munger-recommended-books/">Charlie Munger</a>
quote
💎📊🧪 I don't know of a single case of a startup that felt they spent too much time talking to users.
<a class="rightQuote" href="https://www.ycombinator.com/library/5l-how-not-to-fail">Jessica Livingston</a>
***
If you only look at certain dimensions, you may conclude the WeakAdvice is better.
WeakAdvice is shorter and does not have an author's name.
But all things considered, StrongAdvice is 100x better.
***
# Defining StrongAdvice
> StrongAdvice is advice that is concise, derived from data, and easy to falsify.
***
1. 💎 Concise
2. 📊 Derived from data
3. 🧪 Easy to falsify
***
Unlike WeakAdvice, StrongAdvice needs to be backed by a large dataset.
## Example
In 2009 I wrote:
twelve-tips-to-master-programming-faster.html I wrote
> 🥠 to master programming, it might take you 10,000 hours of being actively coding or thinking about coding.
Ten years later, I now have the data to write:
https://github.com/breck7/30000hours data
> 💎📊🧪 Every programmer I respect the most has practiced more than 30,000 hours^hours.
Even though the message is the same, the latter introduces a dataset to the problem and is instantly testable.
***
StrongAdvice can't just be the inclusion of a dataset. It should be constructed to provide _instant_ testability.
Without the testability Munger's quote would be WeakAdvice:
> 🥠 I've met hundreds of wise people who read all the time
A testable version is a 1,000x stronger signal. If Munger, who likely met more wise people than nearly anyone, never came across an instance of someone wise who didn't read all the time, it's a pretty strong signal that reading is a _requirement_ for being wise.
Versus the WeakAdvice version, which would also be true if it was just a slight correlation.
***
Sometimes you see WeakAdvice evolve into StrongAdvice, where an advisor hasn't quite made it instantly testable yet but is proposing a way for the reader to test:
quote
💎📊 If you look at a broad cross-section of startups -- say, 30 or 40 or more; which of team, product, or market is most important?...market is the most important factor in a startup's success or failure.
<a class="rightQuote" href="https://pmarchive.com/guide_to_startups_part4.html">Marc Andreessen</a>
***
Coming up with StrongAdvice requires time.
Like a good Proof of Work algorithm, StrongAdvice is hard to generate but easy to test.
I know Charlie Munger has met thousands of "wise people". All it would take would be for me to find just a single one that didn't read all the time to invalidate his advice. But I can't.
I know Jessica Livingston knows thousands of startups and I just need to find one who regrets spending so much time talking to users. But I can't.
***
If you have a lot of experience, I urge you to chew on your WeakAdvice until you can form it into StrongAdvice.
StrongAdvice is perhaps the most valuable contribution to our common blockchain.
***
My back of the envelope guess is that 99.9% of advice is written in WeakAdvice.
WeakAdvice is valuable for changing your perspective.
WeakAdvice is good for ideating.
Nothing wrong with WeakAdvice.
But it's worth a lot less than StrongAdvice.
***
Mistakes happen when people treat WeakAdvice like StrongAdvice.
Bad advice is a mistake on the reader's part, not the writer's.
Most "bad advice" has a famous person on one end, simply because they are constantly hounded for advice.
Mostly they'll give out WeakAdvice, since new StrongAdvice take time to create.
***
When you can quickly identify the difference between WeakAdvice and StrongAdvice, you're less likely to make the mistake of blindly betting on WeakAdvice.
It's safe to use WeakAdvice for ideating but not for decision making.
StrongAdvice you can bet on.
****
# Notes
^hours There are a lot of programmers who have 10,000 hours of experience that I respect a lot and enjoy working with, but the ones I study the most are the ones who stuck with it (and also just lucky enough to live long lives).
css .rightQuote{text-align: right; display: block; margin-top: 5px;}
footer.scroll