📚 Quinn's Highlights

Join 📚 Quinn's Highlights

A batch of the best highlights from what Quinn's read, .

The Danger of Incorrectly Mapping Between Scientific Measures and Truth Transcript: Speaker 1 And it's a problem when scientific culture tolerates too much ambiguity. There's always a caveat there, which is that at the early stage of theory development, sometimes you need ambiguity because you don't actually know really what you're talking about Yet. And so you need to allow for multiple interpretations to be possible until you can figure out what you mean. But a mature theory should be minimally ambiguous. This is at odds with things like metrics in terms of let's say how to evaluate something because people think, oh, well, it's scientific. Therefore, I want to use this to then therefore impose a value judge on something. It's better because it has a higher score on it. But that's not what science is actually able to do. Science can say, it has this score and it measures this thing because what it measures is this. If you say what it measures is this, and therefore it means this other thing, that's a problem because that's a false mapping. And it's not really about ambiguity versus precision. It's about, I think, the imprecision of the mapping between the measure and the term. So if you want to measure something like happiness or economic prosperity, you can say, well, we'll measure the genie coefficient, we'll measure GDP. But those are rigorous, clearly unambiguous measures. They have a meaning. This is what they are. This is how we measure them. We can compare things on this measure. And that's not problematic until you then say, and it is better to have a higher GDP full stop.

Paul Smaldino & C. Thi Nguyen on Problems With Value Metrics & Governance at Scale

COMPLEXITY: Physics of Life

Adversarial instead of truth-seeking engagement is baked into so many aspects of our society Summary: Our society often relies on adversarial advocates for decision-making, but this approach doesn't lead to the truth. We need a cooperative effort where people are open to changing their minds and acknowledging different perspectives. This applies to civic organizations, legal systems, political systems, and even neighborhood associations. We tend to punish those who disagree with the established opinion, leading to a lack of pluralism. We should strive for diverse viewpoints and a cooperative search for the truth. Transcript: Speaker 1 There's a thing wrong with our society which is we have even the institutions that work reasonably well in our society are still often built around adversarial advocates in which the Idea is i will argue as passionately as possible for one side you will argue as passionately as possible for the other side we will deploy whatever resources we can rhetoric money etc And somehow we like to think that by i don't know interpolation that will arrive at the truth and that's totally not true right i mean i we know that there are lots of types of decision-making Where that's a disaster where what you need is not these two sides each of which are deliberately undercutting the other as effectively and including viciously as they can but you want Everybody to be willing to change their mind openly publicly to be willing to publicly acknowledge the point that the other person is making and you want to sense that people are cooperatively Working together toward the truth but that's not how most civic organizations work it's not how our legal system works it's not our political system works nowadays maybe there was Some golden age in the past but it did probably not it's not even how neighborhood associations work right i mean there may be some diversity in how homeowners associations work internally Although i regret to say i don't think that's usually true because they're usually very self-selected groups of people who are quite vocal but once they arrive at a decision they're Like good old-fashioned Maoist democratic centralists you know like well we represent the neighborhood and this is our monolithic opinion and if somebody shows up and says well i Live in that neighborhood but i i actually don't agree then they they get piled on and punished and if somebody says i'm an environmentalist but this environmental organization doesn't Speak for me or i belong to this racial or ethnic group but i don't necessarily agree with what the claimed representatives of that group say that group wants they get punished again A lack of pluralism but i think it's not just a lack of diversity it's this notion that the way to get make decisions is for everybody to hammer their stake as firmly into the ground as they Can

Glen Weyl & Cris Moore on Plurality, Governance, and Decentralized Society

COMPLEXITY: Physics of Life

Don’t attach your identity to something that’s unsustainable. Optimize for sustainability Summary: Avoid attaching your identity to something unsustainable, such as a career, relationship, or investing strategy, as it could lead to devastation when it ends. Instead, focus on sustainability and longevity in all aspects of life, including friendships, careers, investing, and habits. Prioritize maintaining activities and relationships over short-term gains, aiming to live at 80% potential to avoid burnout and ensure long-term sustainability. Transcript: Speaker 1 I think it's super dangerous in any life to attach your identity to something that's unsustainable, whether it's being a model or having a certain career, having an investing strategy, If you attach your identity to something that you cannot sustain, when it ends, you're going to be morally crushed. It's just going to destroy you. And this like back to investing, the variable that I want to maximize for is how long can I do this for? It's not, can I earn the highest returns? It's, can I maintain this investing strategy for another 50 years? And I know that I couldn't earn a higher return this year and over the next five years, if I did something different. But I'm way less confident that I could keep it going and sustain it. And I think it's the same for relationships. Like you might be able to find a more attractive or a wealthier spouse or partner. But can you keep that going? Is it something you can maintain? I'm not interested in anything that's not sustainable. Friendships, investing, careers, podcasts, reading habits, exercise habits, if I can't keep it going, I'm not interested in it. And I think the only way to really do that is if you are going out of your way to live life at like 80 to 90% potential, if you're always trying to squeeze out 100% percent potential for something, Almost certainly it's going to lead to burnout, whether it's a friendship or a relationship or an investing strategy. So I think it's not easy thing to do. And if you're a type A person, it's almost impossible to do. But going out of your way to live life at 80% has always been a strategy that I want to do just because I want to keep it going for a long time.

#702 — Morgan Housel — Contrarian Money and Writing Advice, Three Simple Goals to Guide Your Life, Journaling Prompts, Choosing the Right Game to Play, Must-Read Books, and More

The Tim Ferriss Show

...catch up on these, and many more highlights

Readwise.

Join 📚 Quinn's Highlights

A batch of the best highlights from what Quinn's read, .

LEARN

EXPLORE

CONTACT