📚 Quinn's Highlights

Join 📚 Quinn's Highlights

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

Source of the Meaning Crisis: Contradictions Between Societal Progress and Global Crises Summary: The current societal malaise and victimhood culture are attributed to a complex interplay of factors, including a disconnection from the positives of societal progress and the simultaneous awareness of global crises like climate change. The author explains that while the world is objectively getting better, the incessant exposure to negative news triggers hyper-vigilance and threat response, leading to a cognitive dissonance between feeling alive and needing to practice triage. This contradictory experience fosters a sense of confusion and psychological distress in individuals, creating a state of being 'crazy making.' Transcript: Speaker 2 You because you wrote a book recently called recapture the Rapture, which is trying to address the seeming sort of psychological ills of our society. Can you try and sort of summarize what your thesis is on why it seems like victimhood culture has become so dominant? Disconnection, general malaise people are having, is it, is it a function of, you know, fear of the future? We've been hearing, you know, doom and gloom from climate change and all these other growing risks? Or is it something more fundamental going on inside a psychologically that is giving rise to this? I mean, I think without a doubt, like, what on earth is going wrong these days? And why are so many people sad, suffering, disconnected? Speaker 1 I think that's just a massive, multi-variable situation. But one of the things that I mentioned in that book was just things are getting exponentially better, and things are getting exponentially worse at the very same time. And trying to map to intersecting, contradicting, overlapping, exponential curves. Confusing. Back as the imagination. I mean, with the whole three-body problem in physics, which I know you must be deeply aware of, everybody, it's very hard to be like sun and moon and stars, you know, like you get you. Panotales, ah! Yeah, and we are eight billion bodies, all with volition, you know, and pesky human nature. So trying to map what is going on as things are simultaneously Stephen Pinker and Hans Rosling, and all the lot of like, if it bleeds, it leads, you've been massively misled. The world is safer, better, cheaper, more prosperous than it's ever been. Ta-da. And you're like, oh, thank God. And then you click over to polar bears and, you know, throw it to Glacier and all of these things, you're like, oh, no, which is it? Right. So as we have that initial experience, which naturally triggers hyper-vigilance and threat response, oh, shit. Right? Are we coming alive? All this wonderful stuff. My own personal life, my personal growth, my relationships, my career, where am I coming alive? That's the inquiry I'm in. Or are we staying alive? And I need to be practicing triage, right? And in a threat response and toggling back and forth between those two is crazy making.

#11 - Jamie Wheal — Tackling the Meaning Crisis

Win-Win with Liv Boeree

The Problem of Scale Clash in Human Collaboration Summary: The problem goes beyond ideal scale of humanity. Different things we want involve different scales. Science works on a huge scale for problems like climate change while other things work on medium or small scales. There is a clash of different scales and no optimal scale. The big scales tend to win and squash out the small scales. However, over long time scales, these complex systems tend to implode. It's about a dynamic balance where different forces coexist. How do we handle this in light of global coordination, bioregional organization, and personal relationships at the neighborhood level? Transcript: Speaker 2 I think the problem is even worse than what you're describing I'm going to try to pessimize what you said I mean when you ask me a question like have we gone past the ideal scale of humanity That implies that there is an ideal scale that we could plausibly hit if we could somehow convince people to scale back. For me the real worry is there's no ideal scale of humanity because different things we want to be involved in demand different scales science works really big good on a huge scale solving Problems like climate change our massive scale problems that everyone has to get together on and then there are other things that work at medium or small scales and there's just this Unsolvable scale clash my real worry is that different parts of us and our needs call us to different scales and there is not an optimal scale and so I have to participate in these different Scales or in tension with each other and also the big scales tend to win because they get really powerful and so they squash out the small scales. Speaker 3 Over short time scales though right because over long time scales those like you know this is the Bob May will a complex system large complex system be stable question it's like at some Point those things tend to implode so it's not about like an equilibrium so much as it is about a a dynamic balance or a zone at which these different forces are able to coexist how do you Deal with all of this in light of both the need for global coordination and bioregional organization and neighborhood level personal relationships etc.

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

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