If anyone who read Four Hour Work Week came away feeling slightly dirty about Ferriss's route to success, I'd recommend reading "The Art of Learning" by Josh Waitzkin. Josh is the chess prodigy featured in the movie "Searching for Bobby Fischer" and later became a world champion in Tai Chi/Push Hands.
Where Ferriss finds ways to quickly exploit weaknesses in the system to win, Waitzkin wins by constantly analyzing _himself_ to find weaknesses and improving until he is truly the best at what he does.
Both books were good, and both strategies have their time and place, but "The Art of Learning" resonated with me a little more, and I suspect it might do the same with other folks here. It feels a little more "noble".
On a side note, I think "resourcefulness", the desirable trait in a startup founder, is probably a 50/50 split between the two: recognizing and exploiting weakness/opportunity, backed up by substance and hard work.
That's exactly what I thought of when I read that. However, it's possible to find your own satisfaction in less ruthless codes... as long as you accept that others may do whatever the letter of the rules allows.
For instance, I play Gen, but accept that I must fight a lot of Ryus and Sagats.
If you’re not happy with your job, instead of re-organizing your life so you can be a vagabond, consider looking for a more interesting line of work.
Why? This statement makes the fallacy that happiness comes from the type and duration of labor, rather the overall fruits of any labor you choose to do. If being a "vagabond" (in the Tim Ferriss sense) results in more net happiness than that attained by someone who loves their "interesting line of work" then being a vagabond is still advantageous.
I also have grave doubts that there are that many business models out their that will support this sort of hands-off management.
The most popular business models clearly do. The majority of large and mid-sized companies - as well as many small ones - operate with "hands-off management" from the people who take most of the profits. Shareholders do little work for the corporations in which they hold shares but still, often, collect the largest profits. Even ignoring shareholders, well structured companies over a certain size are not reliant on obligatory day-to-day management by a single person. That's what tiers of management and boards are for. If Steve Ballmer chose to run away to Thailand for a few months to go kick boxing, Microsoft isn't going to stop producing a tubload of cash each month.
Among other things, the people doing the actual real work may become disgruntled at the absentee landlord. But hey, if it works for you...
Why? There's almost no precedent for this except in situations where the workers are being mistreated or underpaid. Larry Ellison spends lots of time on his yacht, flying planes, and whatever, but are Oracle employees generally "disgruntled" by this? If so, what rationale would they have unless they believed Ellison's permanent presence were to have a significant effect on their paychecks or job security?
How can you be sure that you will love some kinda work, I mean, can't there be people who may not love any kinda work. Why is it a given that there is some work/profession which has been ordained for you !
I haven't read the 4 hour workweek book, but the two pieces of advice
1) Money is a means not an end
2) Doing less e-mail,
are good bits. But I'm not sure why this is worthy of repeating. Doesn't everyone know this? Personally I'm way more interested in how people discovered their passions. I love reading biographies of people on Wikipedia that shows chronologically how they came to realize or produce something great. What was it that led them to their ideas? How did they become so productive? Did they meet someone, read something, or had some other type of epiphany? If you love your job and want to do more, then I doubt money and e-mail are the things that hold you back. If you love your job you will be in the office everyday because it is an essential part that brings you happiness.
> He accomplished this by gaming the weigh-in rules to compete in a division two below his actual weight, and gaming the scoring rules to win by pushing lighter opponents out of the ring.
Heh, someone has never played competitive sports with weight classes before.
I find this (very short) review comes off more or less that the author wasn't comfortable with Ferris himself and the manner he 'plays the game' so to speak, therefore making the book itself of little value.
Heh, someone has never played competitive sports with weight classes before.
He wasn't referring to the standard process of cutting weight and rehydrating after the weigh-in - he was referring to the fact that Ferriss won a kickboxing championship without actually doing any kickboxing, but rather exploiting a bit of a loophole in the rules that said your opponents forfeit if they fall out of the ring.
The way he won it is tainted with significant doucheitude, and I cannot imagine anyone I respect doing it. On top of that, how could you feel any pride whatsoever having won the title in such a way?
It seems like everything the guy writes should be suffixed with "but not really": "How to Gain 30lbs of muscle in a month (but not really)", "How to Learn a Language in 3 Weeks (but not really)", "How to Win the Chinese Kickboxing Championship (but not really)."
That's ridiculous! You can't claim that someone isn't "playing fair" if they are playing by the rules! If you don't like the rules, then either change them or don't play the game.
In Kendo (japanese swordfighting) I was taught that if for any reason my opponent was able to knock my weapon out of my hands, I should immediately body-check him so he couldn't use his sword and try to force him outside the combat area. It's a fighting technique: you do what you need to do (within the rules if it's a game) to win!
I think the post is just a cheap shot based on the title of the book.
We all have to do things that we don't like as part of our jobs. The point of the book is that by becoming more efficient and effective at what you don't like you can spend more time doing what you do like. If you classify what you like as "work", that's fine, do more of the work you like. I doubt the book author would have a problem with that.
If the only two things the author got out of the 4HWW was (1) money is a means not an end, and (2) do less emailing, then the author should try actually reading the book instead of skimming it.
One way to have a 4 hour work week is to sell a self help book like 4 hour work week and watching the suckers dig in while you reap the benefits.
Success! At least one person has done it so you know it works.
As a criticism I've seen at least one person who got to the top by being honest. Just don't follow every rule to the letter till it gives you a dissadvantage.
Where Ferriss finds ways to quickly exploit weaknesses in the system to win, Waitzkin wins by constantly analyzing _himself_ to find weaknesses and improving until he is truly the best at what he does.
Both books were good, and both strategies have their time and place, but "The Art of Learning" resonated with me a little more, and I suspect it might do the same with other folks here. It feels a little more "noble".
On a side note, I think "resourcefulness", the desirable trait in a startup founder, is probably a 50/50 split between the two: recognizing and exploiting weakness/opportunity, backed up by substance and hard work.