The idea that:
"By reading, you learn through others’ experiences, generally a better way to do business, especially in our line of work where the consequences of incompetence are so final for young men."
Is so utterly important when lives are on the line that it seems difficult to refute, and I'd be interested to see someone try in fact, but let's take that premise, and add to it:
"Ultimately, a real understanding of history means that we face NOTHING new under the sun."
+
"Alex the Great would not be in the least bit perplexed by the enemy that we face right now in Iraq, and our leaders going into this fight do their troops a disservice by not studying (studying, vice just reading) the men who have gone before us."
Let's take a jump into the hacker news/YC/Lean Startup milieu and apply the same lesson: You should learn from those who have gone before. Study their decision making processes, study their customers, read whatever you can read to find the people who have done what you are doing.
Chances are the business that you are creating (even if it is going to "disrupt" some industry or another) is still dealing with the same issues that have always been issues. It's going to have HR, marketing, leadership, operations and a million other hassles that are similar to those that have come before. Similar because people haven't changed that much.
If you are a startup person, working 100 hour weeks and learning by doing, you should still find some time to read and learn from the mistakes and triumphs of those who came before. Don't burn the investors cash relearning the lessons that someone else already learnt, save your runway for iterating on the true unknowns of your problem domain.
For those of us that have been in it for awhile -- keeping abreast of what is going on, reading about "new paradigms" and how they may just be new incarnations of what we have seen before, continuous learning is key.
For those getting started, battle stories can be interesting and provide insight.
Don Melton's blog - http://donmelton.com
JWZ's blog - http://jwz.org
The * at Work series (Coders, Founders, etc.)
Usenix archives on the subject of choice
Are some that come to mind. Others are there, but it's been a long day and I am a bit burnt.
Exactly--I'd love to read more about our industry, but I just can't find the material.
It used to be going into Barnes & Noble was amazing, there were so many books I'd find interesting.
Not that I by any means have mastered "every single book in B&N tech section", it's just "yet another beginner intro to language XYZ"/etc. isn't fun to read anymore.
And so many books (tech and otherwise) have so much fluff, and seem like they could be ~1/4th the size with the same content. (Not true for every book of course.)
I support reading, but it's far more important to learn how to distinguish truth from fiction than it is to read a lot. Ironically, that's the one thing that it's quite difficult to learn from reading.
You can see it easily on this site where there are so many people who can argue eloquently and passionately for diametrically opposed perspectives on an issue. Both sides can't both be right, even though a comment would in isolation be more than enough to convince someone who was not skeptical. If you can't distinguish which pretty words are the true ones, you'll be lead by the nose by the guy who can put his words together best, which isn't necessarily a great idea except if you're trying to learn to write and argue.
> there are so many people who can argue eloquently and passionately for diametrically opposed perspectives on an issue. Both sides can't both be right
It is sometimes true that both sides can't be right -- there certainly formal propositions which are mutually exclusive (a circle can be squared, a circle cannot be squared).
Other times, people are arguing in a space where there's tension between multiple true principles (which programming language is best for your new project -- the more expressive/flexible/typesafe one you don't know? or the one you're already familiar with?).
This is a perfect example. Even though you have worded this eloquently, your claim ("everyone is right, except in mathematics") is mutually exclusive to mine ("in some cases, two people speaking against each other cannot both be right"). Personally, I don't find your metaphor convincing. There are plenty of cases where not all parties are right.
We both used infinity haphazardly. You said both sides can't be right, I said all sides are right.
The truth is, it's even more grey than that. Sometimes both sides can't be right and sometimes some sides are not right. But the point stands, in reality you rarely if ever only have two sides and rarely if ever is any side demonstrably wrong in an objective way.
You make an excellent point. Being a member of various forums I have encountered again and again the "clever arguer" who is someone who is able to convince lots of people of his opinion even when he is wrong.
> distinguish truth from fiction = difficult to learn from reading
Sorry but you are plain wrong here, it seems.
Distinguish truth from fiction can only happen if you have good eyes, so you see the thruth, and at the same time have access to good fiction, which you should get primarily from books or movies.
Everyone has eyes to see: only those reading a lot will be able to tell the true from the invented.
"In order to rule out the role of personality, we first identified Openness as the most consistent correlate. This trait was then statistically controlled for, along with two other important individual differences: the tendency to be drawn into stories and gender. Even after accounting
for these variables, fiction exposure still predicted performance on an empathy task."
This methodology is fundamentally flawed. There is no technical fix to get around the fact that you cannot distinguish between reading causing more empathy, or greater empathy causing more reading.
They are trying to measure the relationship between personality traits and reading, and then claiming to control for personality!
I'll let you take that up with the authors. Until it's settled, we can all just reflect on whether reading stories has helped us, personally, better understand and empathize with others.
That's a fairly flippant way to deal with my criticism. If you post a study here, it's fine if you haven't read it, but you shouldn't pretend that anything that's been published is infallible.
It's flippant, but also completely honest. If mc-lovin of HN is correct that this study should be ignored and possibly retracted, then he should email the authors. Telling me about it does no good. Your original comment may be 100% accurate, but it really doesn't take away from the insight the study talks about. Your comment would have been more useful if you had a counter-argument about reading and empathy, but you only offered an unfounded criticism. Really.
The argument you are making is basically an argument from authority, which would be fine if you understood the nature of the authority in question, but you do not.
Peer reviewed journals contain a lot of garbage. Whether this should be the case is irrelevant. There are plenty of people on HN qualified to both judge and understand the study and my criticism of it. If you cannot understand my comment or for some other reason are unwilling to comment on its substance, that's fine, but there is no reason to dismiss it out of hand.
Also, there is a fundamental flaw in your logic. You keep saying that it irrelevant whether the studies methodology is valid or not, and yet this is the only evidence you give for your position. You say that I failed to give a counter-argument, and yet I directly addressed the only argument you gave for the relationship between empathy and reading, namely that study.
Many (my self included) agree it was not a war we should have fought.
But implying that the reason we went to war was primarily because "oil companies and Israeli interests" wanted us to -- that's just intellectually dishonest. The path into Iraq was so much more complicated than that and simplifying it in such a crude way makes it more likely that we will repeat those past mistakes again in the future.
I agree with you. Although what he said is correct, saying in such a crude way unfortunately helps it ridiculed and disqualified easily which leads to the repetition of it. Unfortunately not by mistake but in consequence of poor communication like that which results sheer encouragement of conspirators to try again for another war.
I know a lot of people made this claim in the lead up to the Iraq war but I find this claim pretty weak with the benefit of hindsight.
While the predictions/criticisms that it would be a protracted struggle that left the country in tatters were pretty much spot on, I think the claims that the US just wanted the oil were wrong.
The mistake most make when criticizing US is when they put all the US into one bag. Like any country there are many competing forces in the US. Especially a country like US, big and dominant, those forces are trying pull and bend the public opinion for their own agenda. That said arguing that it was for the oil (in the literal sense) without substantiating it only good for self-debunking. I think it would be known by now if Iraq's oil was really stolen (literally shipped overseas). I do not believe in that. Hegemony is all about controlling others so was the reason of this war. What has US gained can not be described in one sentence, especially if that sentence is just a rant. As much as it gained something she lost a lot as well, especially average American and multiples of it by the poor Iraqi people. Corporations, special interest groups and countries in that region which has deep and dirty ties with the congress (interestingly Iran as well) gained a lot.
There's a simpler reason, essentially the "follow the money" argument: It would have been A LOT cheaper (literally $trillions) and A LOT easier to quietly carry on supporting Saddam's regime in exchange for cheap oil. Hell, he could probably even have been convinced to hand over some inconvenient Shia "terrorists" and be applauded as a responsible ally in the war against terror.
On the other hand, the then-US government and its advisors clearly didn't read as much as General Mattis (or read the wrong books), and did not expect to find themselves embroiled in a bloody civil war. The fact that, as usual, there is not one bad single reason to go to war, but multiple ones, does not mean that acquiring strategic oil supplies was not a significant factor. And of course, spreading freedom and Coca-Cola through shock and awe.
What do you do to continue learning and to continue improving in your craft?
Keep building things. That's really the only way I know how to learn something. Reading books doesn't really do anything for me. I have to see something applied in practice, on my own, before I can really internalize something and grow.
The issue at hand, was the General's use of reading as a way to ensure the things he is in charge of building (Marines), do not go to waste. Long in the making, quick in the breaking.
> I have to see something applied in practice, on my own, before I can really internalize something and grow.
This skill, reading, takes a while to develop. Understanding what is said and not said, and what it means in context takes practice and deliberate thought.
Learning while building works well only when your effective materials cost (as in software) is zero.
If war is a necessary course of action, then it is possibly the most important lesson. War is of course the least desirable course of action. But his job isn't to find peace without war. His job is to do his job (win wars) if called upon. The people responsible for peace are the political leaders. If they fail, they turn to the military.
Yes, sometimes they turn to the military without exploring all avenues to peace. Whether or not those are good decisions can be long debated. But do not put the onus for peace on him. Rather, be thankful that he is capable to do his job. The responsibility for peace lays on the shoulders of political leaders and diplomats.
Quoting the only line that ever stuck with me from Alien vs. Predator:
"Why do you have a gun?"
"It's like a condom. I'd rather have it and not need it, than need it but not have it."
> Yes, sometimes they turn to the military without exploring all avenues to peace. Whether or not those are good decisions can be long debated. But do not put the onus for peace on him.
What about all the military coups throughout history, where a general decided the politico commanding him wasn't a very good leader, and took his place?
Sure, in that case, yeah. But we're talking about a US general in the US military where that hasn't happened. Your comment expands the scope and context of the conversation, and obviously conclusions wouldn't necessarily be the same in that case.
We've also been fighting for much longer than 5,000 years. It sounds like the General is a young-Earth creationist which, if true, doesn't give me much faith in his intellectual capacity.
> Do you not adapt because you cannot conceptualize faster than the enemy’s adaptation? (Darwin has a pretty good theory about the outcome for those who cannot adapt to changing circumstance — in the information age things can change rather abruptly and at warp speed, especially the moral high ground which our regimented thinkers cede far too quickly in our recent fights.)
Except he doesn't say "we've been recording fighting for 5,000 years," he says "we've been fighting for 5,000 years." There's no ambiguity there, unless you're delusional.
There is an odd phenomenon prevalent on the 'net: the presumption that a short blurb written with a small audience and particular point in mind should, somehow, contain encyclopedic completeness to every conceivable objection any twit may conjure up, no matter how ill-informed or tenuously applicable.
That´s why sometimes silence is the only viable option, any other one only receives mental onanism as a response, the conversations ends in the same place but with the OP mentally exhausted.
Um, when a general says "we've been fighting for 5,000 years," he's referring to organized conflict, i.e. WAR. It's pretty hard for war to exist without civilization, so, yeah, around 5000 years, give or take, is the accepted number. Part of that is because writing was invented at about that time.
Now you could argue this number, but before you do, ask yourself: do you actually have any experience in this area, or are you just being a pedantic douche? The answer to that question will determine if you should reply.
I also think the guy who asked about books written 5,000 years ago is pretty funny. Well, actually, there is writing dating back to 3,200 BC. If you're going to be a pedant, at least get it right.
I think he is talking from the perspective of civilizations waging organized war. It would make the most sense, given who he is and the lessons he hopes to learn. Let's not put thoughts into his mind or words into his mouth that aren't necessarily there.
Is so utterly important when lives are on the line that it seems difficult to refute, and I'd be interested to see someone try in fact, but let's take that premise, and add to it: "Ultimately, a real understanding of history means that we face NOTHING new under the sun." + "Alex the Great would not be in the least bit perplexed by the enemy that we face right now in Iraq, and our leaders going into this fight do their troops a disservice by not studying (studying, vice just reading) the men who have gone before us."
Let's take a jump into the hacker news/YC/Lean Startup milieu and apply the same lesson: You should learn from those who have gone before. Study their decision making processes, study their customers, read whatever you can read to find the people who have done what you are doing.
Chances are the business that you are creating (even if it is going to "disrupt" some industry or another) is still dealing with the same issues that have always been issues. It's going to have HR, marketing, leadership, operations and a million other hassles that are similar to those that have come before. Similar because people haven't changed that much.
If you are a startup person, working 100 hour weeks and learning by doing, you should still find some time to read and learn from the mistakes and triumphs of those who came before. Don't burn the investors cash relearning the lessons that someone else already learnt, save your runway for iterating on the true unknowns of your problem domain.