I like this. I would add that I think it's a process of iteration and not as categorical as it might seem on the surface. We live in a world of categories, and yet the most interesting and happy people seem to be the ones that embrace their categorical overlap — the ones that defy simple categorization because it makes the most sense to them.
So, I would say the bigger indicator of long-term success is how well can you move towards the hidden games that you are better and better at, until you arrive at one that only you can play. I'm sure it's possible to keep iterating from there, as well, even if it isn't necessary for happiness.
Couldn't agree more. There's certainly some level of intuition-led traversal that is optimal for these hidden games (and honestly, I think it's often more useful than trying to articulately define precisely what you're doing). Thanks Joshua :)
I would add that the single biggest bottleneck for me has been trying to classify what I'm doing and pin it down. I spend more time thinking about what I am and what it means that just doing the things.
I don't know if that's a common problem, but it's a particularly heady one that I get into after feeling like I invested too much in stuff that *wasn't* really for me. The antidote seems to be to pay more attention to myself and my feelings to figure out what I like and don't like. Sort of a taste-finding process, rather than a top-down, "I need to model my life after this high-level image of what it could be" process.
Again, that might work great for others, but turned out to be a huge trap for me. Definitely trying to optimize from the wrong side of the map, there.
I also wish I understood that it's okay to move cautiously and carefully through the fog. It doesn't require brave or dramatic leaps. How many times did I take a new job only to realize that the grass was not very green at all?
One of the things that I like from Dr. K is that "big problems don't require big solutions," but rather, "most huge problems are actually solved through mild interventions that are combined."
I think the problem of "who am I and what should I be doing in life" is the same. You gain nothing from doing big dramatic experiments, if you don't look at and carefully reflect on the data.
Hm, good question. Never thought of doing this, but this absolutely should exist. Any thoughts on how to build one?
I wonder if building up from standard intelligence primitives would be useful -- e.g. "literacy, self-reflection, logical reasoning, abstract thinking, critical thinking, introspection and mental arithmetic".
You know, on second thought, Nathan, I think even this might be too coarse. If, for example, you're playing basketball, you can't just measure your ability as "general athletic ability" -- there's height, hand size, instincts, two-step speed, etc.
But I wonder if trying to decompose things like that systematically is not so practically useful. Coming back to your original point, I don't think it's about finding the right taxonomy -- it's a lot easier to just narrow in on the thing that you're good at (and perhaps identify some things that you're bad at to boot). I think, for instance, that I have quite exceptional spatial intelligence (which has always made solving certain geometric puzzles pretty trivial). But I have pretty average recall, meaning that even with high spatial intelligence, I get lost all the time. And it's much easier for me to see these things (the extrema) than to try to a priori list out the correct breakdown of all skills.
I like this. I would add that I think it's a process of iteration and not as categorical as it might seem on the surface. We live in a world of categories, and yet the most interesting and happy people seem to be the ones that embrace their categorical overlap — the ones that defy simple categorization because it makes the most sense to them.
So, I would say the bigger indicator of long-term success is how well can you move towards the hidden games that you are better and better at, until you arrive at one that only you can play. I'm sure it's possible to keep iterating from there, as well, even if it isn't necessary for happiness.
Couldn't agree more. There's certainly some level of intuition-led traversal that is optimal for these hidden games (and honestly, I think it's often more useful than trying to articulately define precisely what you're doing). Thanks Joshua :)
🙏🏼
I would add that the single biggest bottleneck for me has been trying to classify what I'm doing and pin it down. I spend more time thinking about what I am and what it means that just doing the things.
I don't know if that's a common problem, but it's a particularly heady one that I get into after feeling like I invested too much in stuff that *wasn't* really for me. The antidote seems to be to pay more attention to myself and my feelings to figure out what I like and don't like. Sort of a taste-finding process, rather than a top-down, "I need to model my life after this high-level image of what it could be" process.
Again, that might work great for others, but turned out to be a huge trap for me. Definitely trying to optimize from the wrong side of the map, there.
Oh love this point as well. The best way to see 6 feet further in the fog is to walk forward 6 feet, so they say, right?
Never heard that saying, but it checks out!
I also wish I understood that it's okay to move cautiously and carefully through the fog. It doesn't require brave or dramatic leaps. How many times did I take a new job only to realize that the grass was not very green at all?
One of the things that I like from Dr. K is that "big problems don't require big solutions," but rather, "most huge problems are actually solved through mild interventions that are combined."
I think the problem of "who am I and what should I be doing in life" is the same. You gain nothing from doing big dramatic experiments, if you don't look at and carefully reflect on the data.
Is there a set of skills taxonomy?
Hm, good question. Never thought of doing this, but this absolutely should exist. Any thoughts on how to build one?
I wonder if building up from standard intelligence primitives would be useful -- e.g. "literacy, self-reflection, logical reasoning, abstract thinking, critical thinking, introspection and mental arithmetic".
(from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_skill)
You know, on second thought, Nathan, I think even this might be too coarse. If, for example, you're playing basketball, you can't just measure your ability as "general athletic ability" -- there's height, hand size, instincts, two-step speed, etc.
But I wonder if trying to decompose things like that systematically is not so practically useful. Coming back to your original point, I don't think it's about finding the right taxonomy -- it's a lot easier to just narrow in on the thing that you're good at (and perhaps identify some things that you're bad at to boot). I think, for instance, that I have quite exceptional spatial intelligence (which has always made solving certain geometric puzzles pretty trivial). But I have pretty average recall, meaning that even with high spatial intelligence, I get lost all the time. And it's much easier for me to see these things (the extrema) than to try to a priori list out the correct breakdown of all skills.