Deliberate Practice - The Benjamin Franklin Method 2

Mission #4

Mission #4: Concrete examples. This is the only output dimension to focus on right now. “Concrete” means “no high-level descriptions”.

For example, instead of “You run scenarios in your mind where you are verbally battling with them”, you would give an example of a “verbal battle”. Or, when we see “The book ‘Talent is Overrated’ seems to suggest that greatness is not only for a select few.”, we should also know what “greatness” looks like and who those “select few” were who we wrongly assumed to be sole possessors of talent. And when you say “In fact there exists a path that runs between your current abilities to that of the greats.”, I would like a concrete example for this bold claim (maybe a video like this). And, finally, “The journey will be hard, long and demanding.” - like how hard, how long, and how demanding?

RorG may not be a good instance of that since, for obvious reasons, concrete examples couldn’t be mentioned.

Most importantly, the aim is not to just notice where you fall short, but to actually change your response till it satisfies the dimension. Only then is the practice rep complete.

— STM

Introduction

The book Talent is Overrated explains that Talent is not something that you are born with but something that is harnessed over years and years of Deliberate Practice (DP). This link shows a person learning guitar and counting the number of hours he worked on it as he progresses. This is how it is expected to look. The more hours of DP the more skilled you get.

DP in general is expected to look like,

Deliberate practice is characterized by several elements, each worth examining. It is activity designed specifically to improve performance, often with a teacher’s help; it can be repeated a lot; feedback on results is continuously available; it’s highly demanding mentally, whether the activity is purely intellectual, such as chess or business-related activities, or heavily physical, such as sports; and it isn’t much fun.

— Chapter 7, Talent Is Overrated

Based on the above, in the last essay on DP, it was attempted to DP based on the Benjamin Franklin (BF) method across 10 output dimensions (very similar to the attempt by an STM). The skill that was aimed to be improved was ‘critical thinking’. In that context different output dimensions such as ‘number of ideas serially delivered’, ‘concrete examples for each idea’, ‘continuity of sentences and 5 others, were used. Usually, in DP a particular aspect is practiced, with large repetition, where feedback on the results is available immediately. For example, in one of the practices of Tiger Woods, he stuffed balls in sand and practiced only hitting them one after the other several times, measuring key dimensions like distance of the ball traveled. What Tiger Woods doesn’t seem to have done is practice one ball in the sand, focus on his grip on the next, one ball on the grass, focus on his posture in the next, and randomly switch between each of them. Similarly, in an attempt to keep the focus on the one skill or one isolated part of the skill that we want to improve currently, we aim to look at one output dimension alone (as suggested in the Mission). We look at the dimension which looks at the concrete examples given. More on the actual dimension later.

In this essay we apply the same BF method across this one dimension. For the BF method a base article is used, notes are made, a few days later a new version written based on the notes. Finally the original is compared with the new version across certain output dimensions. The article chosen is The Solution In Your Head (SIYH).

My Notes on SIYH

• what is the purpose of life?
• What do we want? What are we searching for?
• What would the solution look like?

• We care about impact not definitions

• gift-wrapped box what happens?
• solution cannot be 42
• what else could the solution be

• what happens when you get the solution? what do you do?

• looks like the solution can’t just be anything!

• what are the constraints imposed?

• will the real slim shady please stand up
• Someone else is the making the final call about the solution, Who? or what?
  • NINRTS
• solution is inside your head?

• will use and should use solution

• solution needs to agree with SIYH
• some basic parts are somehow already in your head and you can’t change that

• judging with the SIYH

• the box is useless if SIYH is fixed.
• but we seem to have changed our view on what should be part of SIYH.
• SIYH has changed or our understanding of the SIYH has changed

• map vs territory

• summary
• YOU and the SIYH are the same!
• more open questions is it happening inside our head? is it real?

My Version

What is the purpose of life? What do we want in life? What should we be doing? Should we go behind girls and making lot of money, or should we excel at work and give everything that we have to the people in need. The answer to these questions is an important one and has the potential to completely change the way we live our lives. We call this answer the Solution. Right now we don’t seem to know the Solution, so we decide to look around. Who has the answers? Where do we find this Solution?

Let’s say that someone hands us a gift-wrapped box with the “Solution” inside. All we need to do is open it and perform it. What do we do?

Personality of the solution

There could be doubts about the credibility of the Solution being delivered. Let’s assume it is the most trustworthy Solution ever. It is hand-delivered by Albert Einstein or someone you respect the most, after several 100 years of research, it cannot get any more credible than this. Furthermore, the solution should be usable. If you open the box and the box says “42”, what are you going to be able to do with that? On the other hand if you open the box and it says, “Just follow your feelings, to best fulfill the purpose of life”, then it is atleast usable.

So let’s say we get such a credible, and usable Solution. Let’s say the Solution is something like, “Kill all babies in the world with a knife”, or something much less hair-raising or diabolical like, “slap your Parents every time you see them”, or maybe even something seemingly pointless as “go up and down the stairs until the end of time”, What happens when you get this solution? What do you do? Every solution, although usable and perform-able, we know we will never be able to do it. We could imagine ways in which each of the solutions proposed above might make sense, but we will never do it. For instance, killing all the babies in the world could create fear in people not to have any more children and thus prevent all of the human race from causing more damage to the world. Far-fetched, but yeah we can think of some scenario where it might make sense, but we are never going to perform any of the solutions. The solution can’t just be anything.

In addition to the solution being credible and usable, there seems to be additional constraints. The solution shall not contain any killing, beating, slavery, suicides, loneliness etc… I seem to be able come up with these constraints by myself. If Richard Feynman delivered a box containing solutions violating the above constraints then I will not be able to perform it. On the other hand if Richard Feynman delivered a box saying, I should go behind girls, increase my status, gain more power, make a lot of friends, I would pretty much say, “Your wish is my command, Professor”.

Will the real slim shady please stand up

I seem to be judging every solution somehow with some pre-existing knowledge from somewhere. The constraints seem to be coming from within. No matter what solution you see, you are going to judge it and will be able to perform it based on if it agrees with the SOLUTION INSIDE YOUR HEAD (SIYH). The SIYH seems to be this set of rules that you already posses to guide you in what is right and wrong.

Ah so you have the solution inside your head! Game over? Does this mean you know what to do in your life? Well, in the beginning we didn’t know what the fuck to do with our lives. We were unable to choose between “going behind girls” and “dedicating life to save as many people as you can”. We are still at “What the hell are we supposed to do in life?” Nice that the solution is within, but the story seems to be far from over.

SIYH is fixed?

Although the SIYH is within the head we still don’t know what to do. Just looking inside seems to be not enough. So we continue to look outside for gift-wrapped boxes to get more clues. Granted that we are only able to look at these boxes through the SIYH, but we have no other option. If the SIYH is fixed—cannot be modified—then there is no point of looking outside. If no matter what happens we will still have the same understanding of the SIYH, then the gift box is worthless. But there used to be a time when I thought being Gay was blasphemous. There used to be a time when I thought Vaishnavism (religion) was the way to live life, there used to be a time when I thought life was about getting girls and rising in status. And now I seem to have some completely different views. What happened?

The SIYH seems to have been modified! Someone (an STM) came to me with a gift-wrapped box, which said, “Gays are also people just like us. What they do in the bedroom is none of your business. If they are attracted to men, so be it. Who said men should be attracted to women only. You seem to be echoing the popular opinion amongst the society you grew up in. Just because 1 billion people think something is true, does not make it true”. Almost magically, my SIYH started changing it self. The SIYH was used to modify itself. It seems like the SIYH can be modified as long as it is within the current rules of the SIYH. The SIYH used its rule of logic to modify itself.

Map vs territory

The SIYH can be thought of as being modified or it can be thought that the true SIYH is being uncovered more and more. Just like in ancient days where people made rough maps of the actual terrain, and updated it with more information as they explored it; we seem to be doing the same thing. We initially have a rough map (SIYH), with some mountains and rivers drawn not to scale (sex is good, killing is bad, Gays are not welcome in the society etc…). We use that map to get some water from the river (Hating on Gays according to the SIYH) and find some inconsistencies in the Map (when someone delivered the gift-wrapped box). Naturally you updated your Map, so that you can find the water correctly next time, so that it is closer to the actual territory (the TRUE SIYH).

Output dimensions

So now that we have the main essay and our version of it, we need output dimensions to compare. The following are the dimensions chosen.

Rule #1 : Main ideas that are part of the essay, must be identified. No grade is given for this rule. It just facilitates other rules.

Rule #2 : The main ideas shall each have one example atleast.

Rule #3 : In my version of the essay, all places worthy of examples shall have examples.

This is a quite vague, I accept, but if you have a look at the mission and its examples, it is much less vague.

For example, instead of “You run scenarios in your mind where you are verbally battling with them”, you would give an example of a “verbal battle”. Or, when we see “The book ‘Talent is Overrated’ seems to suggest that greatness is not only for a select few.”, we should also know what “greatness” looks like and who those “select few” were who we wrongly assumed to be sole possessors of talent. And when you say “In fact there exists a path that runs between your current abilities to that of the greats.”, I would like a concrete example for this bold claim (maybe a video like this). And, finally, “The journey will be hard, long and demanding.” - like how hard, how long, and how demanding?

— from the Mission

Rule #4 : Rule #3 but for STM’s essay instead.

Rule #5 : Should not have missed any critical points as compared to an STM’s essay.

Comparing

Part I

STM:

Entry question: What is the purpose of life?

Setting it up In “The Big Problems”, I started talking about the biggest obstacles on our path to getting what we want. What I left out there was the most important issue - what do we really want?

What is it that we’re searching for? What is the “purpose of our Life”? Is there any “meaning to Life”?

We’ll answer all these questions and more.

ME:

What is the purpose of life? What do we want in life? What should we be doing? Should we go behind girls and making lot of money, or should we excel at work and give everything that we have to the people in need. The answer to these questions is an important one and has the potential to completely change the way we live our lives. We call this answer the Solution. Right now we don’t seem to know the Solution, so we decide to look around. Who has the answers? Where do we find this Solution?

Rule #1: The main idea discussed here by me as well as an STM, is the lack of knowledge about what we need to do in life.

Rule #2: I have given an example to emphasize the main idea discussed.

Should we go behind girls and making lot of money, or should we excel at work and give everything that we have to the people in need.

It doesn’t look like an STM has done that.

0-1 for Agent!

Rule #3: It appears that I should have given some examples to support the following sentence:

The answer to these questions is an important one and has the potential to completely change the way we live our lives.

I think it should be expanded to the following, containing examples.

“The answer to these questions is important owing to the limited time we have on this planet. If the answer to this question is about getting better at say critical thinking, then the sooner we start the better. This solution thus has the potential to change our lives drastically. As focusing on girls, would mean to work on skills like ‘picking up’, magic and the like, where as wanting to be altruistic needs you to be extremely good at things that make money or saves large number of people.”

2-0 for STM

Rule #4: I don’t think an STM needed to give any more examples except for the ones mentioned in Rule #2.

0-0

Rule #5: Looks like we both covered the same thing.

0-0

In total : 2-1 for STM

Part II

STM:

The necessary first step Let’s look at the problem in more detail (long long time since I’ve been saying this).

What would the Solution look like? If I said there was someone behind the door who had the Solution, what would you guess about the nature of the Solution, without knowing anything in particular about that person?

Ground rule: We talk only in terms of… words? dictionary definitions? references to philosophers? Nah! Only Impact.

Ok, assume I have a gift-wrapped Box with me. In it lies the answer to all the questions you’ve been asking about goals and purposes and meaning and stuff.

ME:

Let’s say that someone hands us a gift-wrapped box with the “Solution” inside. All we need to do is open it and perform it. What do we do?

Rule #1: The main idea discussed here by me is the introduction of the gift-wrapped box. An STM is also discussing the same.

Rule #2: I think a few examples of how the gift-wrapped box or the Solution inside should look seems to be missing. Although they are delivered in the next parts of the essay.

0-0 for both

In total: 1-1

Part III

STM:

The essence of all your questions basically is - How should I live my life?

We want something that will tell us what we should do at each point in life.

Well, the Solution inside will tell you exactly how you should best live your life.

I hand over the Box to you. You are free to open it after a minute.

What happens now? What will the Impact be? Why do you want the answer? Why not just throw the Box away?

Planning Ahead What will happen when we have the Solution?

We may not know what the Solution will be, but we’re expecting something we can use, right? We don’t expect the “Solution” to be “42”. That doesn’t tell us anything. It is of no use to us.

Remember what I’d written a long time ago, in the overconfident exuberance of my youth, about solving Hard problems?

When you have banged your head about for what seems like forever and have bruised your head to the size of a pumpkin, you may NOW go to a person in the know and ask two or three pointed specific questions.

These questions should be like door-keys.

You should be confident that once you have the answers to these questions (aka the keys), you can basically go straight ahead and open the door to the safe.

You should have figured out just about everything else.

Once you get these answers and turn the key in the keyhole, everything else should click into place and the safe should open.

It’s like you have a safe which you know is opened by some combination. A genie appears in front of you. When you ask the genie what the combination to the safe is, you know the answer is gonna be somewhere between 0000 to 9999 (or whatever). Or, worst case, the safe could be tricked up such that no combination opens it. Cool. But these are the ONLY possibilities. The genie’s answer can only be one of these.

Which means, you can decide on actions for each eventuality, well in advance. If the genie says 1376 is the key, you will punch in 1376. If the genie says 8365, you will punch in 8365. If the genie says there is no combination, you will call in some heavy machinery and drill the shit out of that safe.

Your plans of action have already been decided. All you need to know is which plan you need to take forward.

And remember, there has to be an answer to the questions you’ve asked. There has to be a best way (or several best ways) to live your life. Not all life outcomes are equally valuable, right?

So, assume that the gift-wrapped Box contains The Solution, the right one.

ME:

There could be doubts about the credibility of the Solution being delivered. Let’s assume it is the most trustworthy Solution ever. It is hand-delivered by Albert Einstein or someone you respect the most, after several 100 years of research, it cannot get any more credible than this. Furthermore, the solution should be usable. If you open the box and the box says “42”, what are you going to be able to do with that? On the other hand if you open the box and it says, “Just follow your feelings, to best fulfill the purpose of life”, then it is atleast usable.

Rule #1: Here I primarily write about 2 things, one is about the credibility of the solution and the other is about the usability of the solution.

An STM seems to write about, what the solution should contain, usability of the solution and ends with the assumption about the gift-wrapped box being the right one.

Rule #2: I have given examples of what it means to be credible i.e., that the solution is coming from science or coming from one of the greatest researchers of all time. I also give examples for what it means that a solution is usable. I give examples for usable and non-usable cases.

An STM, gives examples for what a usable solution should not look like, but fails to provide an example of how a usable solution should look like. Strike I think! An STM doesn’t really talk about the credibility of the solution the way I did, so I don’t think he is obliged to add any more examples.

1-2 for Agent.

Rule #3: There seem not to be other places that I need to give examples for.

Rule #4: An STM talks about what the solution should inform, such as

We want something that will tell us what we should do at each point in life

Well, the Solution inside will tell you exactly how you should best live your life.

I think he is missing atleast 2 examples.

0-2 for Agent!

Total: 1-4 for Agent!

Part IV

STM:

Contemplating the Ifs

What will you do if the “Solution” says that life has no meaning?

What will you do if the “Solution” says that the purpose of life is to go to the “Why this Kolaveri Di” Youtube page and watch it again and again?

Let’s kick it up a notch. What if the “Solution” says that the purpose of life is to go and shoot everybody else on the planet?

What if the “Solution” says that the purpose of life is to kill your parents, siblings if any, relatives, best friends, and any babies you find along the way?

What if the “Solution” says the purpose of life is to cut off your legs and toss them into the ocean?

What if the “Solution” says the purpose of life is to kill yourself as soon as possible?

Legitimately Wrong

First off, recognize that every single one of the above “Solutions” is a perfectly legitimate answer to your question.

“What is the purpose of life? Kill your loved ones.” You can imagine a world where this answer could be right. It probably won’t be anything like our world, but it is possible.

And yet, every one of them is laughably wrong. There is just no way any of them is the real answer!

But how could you know that?!

You don’t know the real answer to the question. You could be mistaken, right? People in the past were mistaken about what revolved around what, and whether the Earth was flat, and stuff. Why couldn’t we be wrong about what the “purpose” of our life is?

What’s happening here?

A Method to the Madness This means that there is more to it than meets the eye. We have some more constraints to place on the set of possible solutions. The Box can’t contain any arbitrary goal and proclaim it to be the “purpose of our life”. This means we have some information about the Solution already.

The Box contains the “purpose of your life” and how you should go about living your life. There is a correct answer and a genie has come up with the answer in the box.

What now?

Since it contains the perfect way for you to live your life, shouldn’t you just go ahead and do whatever it says? Remember, the box contains the Ultimate Purpose of your life. It has the answer to the question “How should I live my life”? That is the Impact that we seek from the Box. We are in a game without knowing any of its rules. We don’t know how to play. We’re just struggling around doing crap. We want to know.

Because the Box contains perfect information, it means that whatever it says is basically The Way to live our life.

Which means, we need to do exactly what the Solution turns out to be. And, it could be anything! We could currently have incorrect views about the world (just like the earth is flat, sun revolves around it, etc.).

But if the Solution says that we should go and kill people, we won’t do that! If it says that we should kill ourselves, we won’t do that!

ME:

So let’s say we get such a credible, and usable Solution. Let’s say the Solution is something like, “Kill all babies in the world with a knife”, or something much less hair-raising or diabolical like, “slap your Parents every time you see them”, or maybe even something seemingly pointless as “go up and down the stairs until the end of time”, What happens when you get this solution? What do you do? Every solution, although usable and perform-able, we know we will never be able to do it. We could imagine ways in which each of the solutions proposed above might make sense, but we will never do it. For instance, killing all the babies in the world could create fear in people not to have any more children and thus prevent all of the human race from causing more damage to the world. Far-fetched, but yeah we can think of some scenario where it might make sense, but we are never going to perform any of the solutions. The solution can’t just be anything.

In addition to the solution being credible and usable, there seems to be additional constraints. The solution shall not contain any killing, beating, slavery, suicides, loneliness etc… I seem to be able come up with these constraints by myself. If Richard Feynman delivered a box containing solutions violating the above constraints then I will not be able to perform it. On the other hand if Richard Feynman delivered a box saying, I should go behind girls, increase my status, gain more power, make a lot of friends, I would pretty much say, “Your wish is my command, Professor”.

Rule #1: The main idea of this part is to show that the Solution can't just be anything. An STM and I seem to be talking about the same thing.

Rule #2: Both STM and I have given decent number of examples about the type of unacceptable solutions which reflects the main idea.

1-1

Rule #3: There don’t seem to be any places missing examples.

Rule #4: There don’t seem to be any places missing examples.

Rule #5: STM also brings in a nice point that I missed.

And yet, every one of them is laughably wrong. There is just no way any of them is the real answer!

But how could you know that?!

You don’t know the real answer to the question. You could be mistaken, right? People in the past were mistaken about what revolved around what…

STM talks about how we could be wrong and yet we don’t accept THE SOLUTION. We have been wrong in the past haven’t we (The Earth is Flat!!!).

1-0 for an STM.

In total: 2-1 for STM.

Part V

STM:

Will the real Slim Shady please stand up? Hey!

As mentioned at the beginning, the Solution is basically something that will tell us what we should do at each point. It will give us the answer to the question: “How should I live my life?”.

But here, we overrode the advice the Solution gave! That means that the Solution is not the final adjudicator. We make the final decision. We are using a different Solution in our Head to decide what we should do. That Solution in our Head is what we’re really using to decide how to live our life.

This means that, for all practical purposes, there is no point in saying that Solution X is the real way we should live our lives. Why not? Because it is not gonna have any Impact. If it contradicts with the Solution in our Head, we will not do anything Solution X says. The Solution in our Head is the one we are going to use at the end of the day.

Dude! I know you’re struggling here, but you seem to be making a basic error. The Solution in your Head is what you will use to decide how you live. But the Solution in the Box is what you should use to decide how to live.

That isn’t the real point. The point is, does it matter?!

How does it affect anything in any way what the Solution in the Box is? You will not do what it says. At the end of the day, the only Solution that you will use is the Solution in your Head.

In fact, suppose I came to you and said that the real, true, ultimate purpose of your life is to go kill your family members. Not for any good reason, like “you will get insurance money”. Just do it because it is the “real purpose” of your life. You will laugh in my face. There is no way it is happening. Why? Cos it clashes with the Solution in your Head.

On the contrary, if I said that part of the “purpose of your life” is to have fun with your friends and hang out with members of the opposite sex and stuff, you will agree in a jiffy. What happened? Yup. It agreed with the Solution in your Head.

ME:

I seem to be judging every solution somehow with some pre-existing knowledge from somewhere. The constraints seem to be coming from within. No matter what solution you see, you are going to judge it and will be able to perform it based on if it agrees with the SOLUTION INSIDE YOUR HEAD (SIYH). The SIYH seems to be this set of rules that you already posses to guide you in what is right and wrong.

Ah so you have the solution inside your head! Game over? Does this mean you know what to do in your life? Well, in the beginning we didn’t know what the fuck to do with our lives. We were unable to choose between “going behind girls” and “dedicating life to save as many people as you can”. We are still at “What the hell are we supposed to do in life?” Nice that the solution is within, but the story seems to be far from over.

Rule #1: SIYH and What does it mean for the initial questions asked are the main points discussed here. An STM talks mainly about SIYH.

Rule #2: I have not delivered even one example, for the SIYH whereas an STM has delivered examples. It seems like I just delivered examples in the previous paragraph about this. But when I am reading it, it still feels like I need a solid example here. Either I should re-write to accommodate the examples here or I should re-write the paragraphs to feel like it is not repetitive. But I didn’t so, Strike!

1-0 for an STM

Rule #5: I like how an STM contrasts the ‘Should do’ solution with the ‘Will do’ solution. You SHOULD perform the Solution in the Box and you WILL perform it only if it is in accordance with the SIYH. I missed this part here.

1-0 for an STM

Total: 2-0 for an STM!

Part VI

STM:

Inescapable Reality

Think about what this means. The Solution is not out there somewhere. It is in your head. In fact, it cannot be outside your head. No matter what is shown in front of you as your purpose, you will always judge it using… the Solution in your Head.

In f*cking fact, you cannot do anything different!!

There is no way on Earth you can judge something without using the Solution in your Head!

Your view is FOREVER coloured!

Kissing girls - awesome (for boys)!

Kissing the backend of a syphilitic donkey - yuck!

Murdering loved ones randomly - yuck! No!

Hanging out with friends - yay!

Giving some of our hard-earned money to a friend in need - Right.

Having sex with someone against their will - Wrong.

All else being equal, no matter how eloquently some Solution X tries to convince you that you must go and rape innocent people, you will not do it. You will just show it the middle finger.

There we go! We do have information about the Solution. It’s right here in our head. There is already a GPS in our head guiding our path through life.

Mapping the Territory

Is that all there is to it?

Remember, if we already have the Solution in our Head, then there is no use in opening the Box. We can just throw it away. It is not gonna give us any new information. It won’t change anything. We will still do exactly the same thing we were gonna do anyway.

Hmmm… So Humans should basically want and do the same things no matter when or where they are… right?

But are there any discrepancies? Yeah! In the non-normality essay, we saw how our notion of what is “normal” had kept evolving over the ages. No to Slavery, No to Disenfranchisement of Women, Sorta-Ok to Living it Large while Lots of Other People Suffer… yup. Normality has been evolving. And that is nothing but our good old friend, Mr. Solution in our Head.

Killing another man in a duel over some trifling matter wasn’t too much of a big deal earlier. It was honorable, even. Now it is considered a very bad thing to do, other things being equal.

The Solution has evolved! Or, rather, our understanding of the Solution in our Head has evolved.

It is like a rough map of some terrain. Initially, it just marks out some hills and a river (“Don’t kill me, I won’t kill you. Let’s hunt together”). Nothing is to scale. There are vast parts unmarked (“how to treat women, blacks, gays, etc.”). Then, as we gain more and more knowledge, we fill in the vaguer parts of the map (“Ah! Black people are basically just like me. It is wrong to treat them like slaves”).

Make no mistake, we have just explored a tiny bit of the territory. There are huge sections of the map still hazy and blank.

Not only can we discover things we didn’t know, we can overturn beliefs that were wrong. People in the past firmly believed that it was ok to beat children like hell. Now, people are changing their minds.

In essence, it is like there is this actual territory out there which we are slowly capturing in our maps. Step by step, we are evolving our maps towards the actual territory. We are upgrading our understanding of the Solution in our Head.

ME:

Although the SIYH is within the head we still don’t know what to do. Just looking inside seems to be not enough. So we continue to look outside for gift-wrapped boxes to get more clues. Granted that we are only able to look at these boxes through the SIYH, but we have no other option. If the SIYH is fixed—cannot be modified—then there is no point of looking outside. If no matter what happens we will still have the same understanding of the SIYH, then the gift box is worthless. But there used to be a time when I thought being Gay was blasphemous. There used to be a time when I thought Vaishnavism (religion) was the way to live life, there used to be a time when I thought life was about getting girls and rising in status. And now I seem to have some completely different views. What happened?

The SIYH seems to have been modified! Someone (an STM) came to me with a gift-wrapped box, which said, “Gays are also people just like us. What they do in the bedroom is none of your business. If they are attracted to men, so be it. Who said men should be attracted to women only. You seem to be echoing the popular opinion amongst the society you grew up in. Just because 1 billion people think something is true, does not make it true”. Almost magically, my SIYH started changing it self. The SIYH was used to modify itself. It seems like the SIYH can be modified as long as it is within the current rules of the SIYH. The SIYH used its rule of logic to modify itself.

The SIYH can be thought of as being modified or it can be thought that the true SIYH is being uncovered more and more. Just like in ancient days where people made rough maps of the actual terrain, and updated it with more information as they explored it; we seem to be doing the same thing. We initially have a rough map (SIYH), with some mountains and rivers drawn not to scale (sex is good, killing is bad, Gays are not welcome in the society etc…). We use that map to get some water from the river (Hating on Gays according to the SIYH) and find some inconsistencies in the Map (when someone delivered the gift-wrapped box). Naturally you updated your Map, so that you can find the water correctly next time, so that it is closer to the actual territory (the TRUE SIYH).

Rule #1: SIYH can be modified, Map vs territory connection are the 2 main ideas I am focusing on in the above paragraphs. An STM focuses on how our view is colored forever, SIYH can be modified and the Map vs Territory connection.

Rule #2: I seem to have provided examples for the main points in ‘Rule #1’ using ‘how our view about Gays has changed over time’ as the main example. An STM has given proper examples for all the main points as well.

1-1

Rule #3: When writing about the Map and Territory connection, I purposely skipped providing an example in the end as I couldn’t come up with it at that time. Strike for me!

… find some inconsistencies in the Map (when someone delivered the gift-wrapped box). Naturally you updated your Map, so that you can find the water correctly next time, so that it is closer to the actual territory (the TRUE SIYH)

I said, “the TRUE SIYH”, instead it should have been, “Gays are also people like us and very much welcome everywhere, just as Straight people are”

1-0 for STM

Rule #5: A closing statement on what it means for us is missing in my version. Also I think what is missing in my text is, we are yet to discover a ton more of the map and over throw many of our beliefs. An STM very well featured it as shown below:

There are vast parts unmarked (“how to treat women, blacks, gays, etc.”). Then, as we gain more and more knowledge, we fill in the vaguer parts of the map (“Ah! Black people are basically just like me. It is wrong to treat them like slaves”).

1-0 for STM

Total: 3-1 for STM

Reflection

Scores

The scores seem to indicate that an STM on average has done better than me. Lot of space to improve.

Rule #1 was not scored as it was expected to only assist Rule #2.

Rule #2 was expected to be the rule that allowed to see if I have examples for the main points determined in Rule #1. It appears that in a few places (2 out of 6 parts) I have defaulted on this rule; and an STM has defaulted as well (3 out of 6 times). According to me, it appears that the places where I missed is not really a big deal, as I had delivered the examples in the passages just before and after. In one case (‘Part II’) I had not given examples of the gift-wrapped box, but they show up in the subsequent paragraphs. In the other case where I missed (‘Part V’), I just gave an example in the last paragraph, and didn’t want the paragraph to sound repetitive. I don’t want to come across as being cocky, I just want to clarify how I feel. The reader shall correct me appropriately.

Rule #3 was about the places other than the main points where I feel like I missed giving an explanation, based on the examples in the mission:

“The book ‘Talent is Overrated’ seems to suggest that greatness is not only for a select few.”, we should also know what “greatness” looks like and who those “select few” were who we wrongly assumed to be sole possessors of talent.

I missed 2 out of 6 parts. Whereas an STM missed 1 out of 6 parts (Rule #4). I admit I don’t know if in some places examples are required even. It just feels right, so I try to penalize myself so that I can get feedback from a reader later. As an illustration, in Part 1 Rule #3, it felt like I had to clarify what the hell I was saying, with an example here,

The answer to these questions is an important one and has the potential to completely change the way we live our lives.

“Important” why? “potential to completely change the way we live” why?

Rule #5 was just there to help me realize when I miss some valid points from making. When I realize it I make a note. I didn’t try to go out of my way to find faults. I seem to have defaulted 2 out of 6 Parts even then.

Overall, there is a lot of scope for improvement. If I want to improve this, I need to do more such exercises and compare over time how I fare. Nowadays, I find my inner voice aiding me to write examples, by sometimes spotting the need for examples automatically, and even if I am lazy, pushing me to write them. I guess this is how DP provides results. For example today when I was writing the introduction, there was a point when I was discussing ‘working with one dimension at a time’. I managed to deliver an example involving ‘Tiger Woods playing only the sand-balls as DP’. Also looking at old articles would help to see the growth before DP and afer DP.

Impact

The bigger point that an STM is trying to push me towards is I think that words mean shit. Without examples you are nothing. When someone says “You need to be great”. WTF does it even mean? What do I need to do? Where do I go? How to I train? In what do I train? etc…

We deliver examples to allow us to see where we are failing. If you remember Mission #2, it gets clear. We cannot work with words.

Mission #2: Collect actual, everyday instances where you fell short because of lack of “critical thinking” (why am I putting “critical thinking” in scare quotes?) and divide them into skills. No abstract skills like “logical structure” or “critical thinking”. Concrete instances where you failed. That will give you harsh feedback

I am failing at work Viz., I suck at organizing information and providing actions based out of it in a convincing way to my Boss at work. Close enough, but an actual link to the PowerPoint I am referring to would help I guess. As said before, my antennas are moderately on alert now, to deliver examples and not just deliver words. I guess with more exercises I can hopefully see more change and naturally have the tendency to drop examples like dropping bombs in the middle east (without thought or hesitation) as and where needed, and reach a state of unconscious consistency over time.

Note: A word about Unconscious consistency (UC). UC is not where we want to be in most skills, as it seems to stop growth in that skill (Chapter 5, Talent is Overrated). Think about driving, where in the beginning you struggle to put all the knowledge and actions together, then you slowly start getting a grip of the whole thing and within some time, you are talking on the phone and driving almost automatically. And our improvement slows down dramatically from there onward. But that is okay, we just want to be able to drive safely and move around conveniently. For most things that is not a problem. In the case of determining where to drop examples that is all I want I guess.

In other cases though, say when you are organizing information and providing solutions—based on that—to your boss, you might want to be like Tiger Woods, conscious, controlled and not automatic.

Frequently when we see great performers doing what they do, it strikes us that they’ve practiced for so long, and done it so many times, they can just do it automatically. But in fact, what they have achieved is the ability to avoid doing it automatically.

By contrast, great performers never allow themselves to reach the automatic, arrested-development stage in their chosen field.

— Chapter 5, Talent is Overrated

Here is a video of Tiger Woods stopping mid-shot unable to focus because of the shadow of a bird flying behind him. Here is him stopping mid-shot so many times over his career, informing us that,

… ultimately the performance is always conscious, controlled, and not automatic.

Not that hard

Overall it didn’t feel like I was on the edge, like the last time when I did this assignment. I was literally racing to finish, there was so much to do and I couldn’t afford any sorts of distractions. This time, I am quite relaxed as I am finishing this assignment over the final 4-8 hrs of the assignment. Why is this not hard, why is it boringish—whether it is comparing the original and my version or writing my own version of the essay?

Hypothesis: It is because we measured lesser dimensions at a time so lesser words, lesser work, lesser time required for work. But then I allocated more time in total.

Observation: Not hard enough, not on the edge of the seat, lot of distraction this time, thinking about random things when I was supposed to be clocking DP hours.

Observation: Didn’t have to do much of planning as I was confident of finishing the assignment anyway. Whereas the last time I remember giving half an hour for one part and forcing myself to meet the time constraints.

Observation: Lower Words/hr written in SIYH compared to RorG! Lower total words written in SIYH compared to RorG! Implying that the time allocated for DP’ing this time seems to be larger than required.

Conclusion and action: It is clear that the number of words per hour is much less in the case of this essay. To make it challenging lesser time should have been allocated to complete the task with lesser dimensions. If I use the Words/hr of the RorG DP essay, it appears that I would need ~16 hrs to finish this SIYH DP essay, which I spent 23 hrs on. Maybe that is somewhere to start. Next time I either increase the content delivered or reduce the time to match with RorG. We’ll evaluate how the task is the next time and factor in other variables of motivation if need be.

Other issues

From earlier it is already clear that the hardness of the task needs to be factored in, and consciously accounted for. But I had some other issues while writing this essay as well.

I have written my version and was in the process of comparing mine with the original. For this I needed segments of the original and my version, to match. The issue was ‘Where do I put this paragraph, in part X or part X+1?’

I would like to spend majority of the time on doing real comparisons and not bothering about things like which paragraphs belong in which part. I spent quite some time, stuck at places not sure if a paragraph is supposed to be in this part or the next. I think this came about because I was worried about getting too much help from the notes while writing my version, I was even considering shuffling the order of the notes just like BF did. Luckily I didn’t, it would have been much harder to match the paragraphs. BF shuffled his notes to allow himself the opportunity to learn how to organize his texts well. I don’t think that is the skill I am working on right now. I should be completely focused on finding where I am missing examples and dropping them. That is it!

I want to suggest that I make notes per section of the original essay or per set of paragraphs and clearly demarcate them while making notes. This way while making my version, I will make it based on the demarcations in the notes. This way I suppose I don’t have any paragraph overlapping between 2 parts. And regarding making it too easy for me or being able to recollect from the original essay, I think I should wait a few days before re-writing from the notes.

Road ahead

An STM always asks me in the Mission to provide clear plans and not be vague. That has been the foundation.

Mission #2: Collect actual, everyday instances where you fell short because of lack of “critical thinking” (why am I putting “critical thinking” in scare quotes?) and divide them into skills. No abstract skills like “logical structure” or “critical thinking”. Concrete instances where you failed. That will give you harsh feedback

So I try. I don’t want to be like, “I have to do many more essays” and leave it at that. I think it is a way for me to escape from thinking what I actually need to be doing next.

I am unsure how I should take this forward. Yes, I would like to do a few more essays just like this one with the above format and output dimensions. But, I am not sure where this is going. I am not sure what I am solving or where this is going to help.

When I practice basketball every Saturday, I am not looking for anything more than killing it on the game with friends on next day. I know where I suck in the game and simply focus on getting better in those particular situations with high repetition. Over time I want to be really good, that people turn their heads, and hope to keep playing this sport well into old age. It is one place where I can stand long duration’s of cardio without batting an eye. So I like how it is going on. But in the case of “critical thinking”, I don’t know how my current work is going to help me?

What is the high-level skill I am working on? Is it “critical thinking”? What will this do for me? Where can I expect to see these results? If I don’t know about this, then I think I am as clueless as the x-girlfriend of Andrew (from Whiplash) (Writing-Rule#8 trying-too-hard;)).

Will the real slim shady please stand up? I think I need to either revisit or redo, Mission #2, and make the connection.

Mission #2: Collect actual, everyday instances where you fell short because of lack of “critical thinking” (why am I putting “critical thinking” in scare quotes?) and divide them into skills. No abstract skills like “logical structure” or “critical thinking”. Concrete instances where you failed. That will give you harsh feedback

To be continued…

Stats

written from: 22 dec 2018 to 26 dec 2018 (Saturday to Wednesday)

Total time: ~24 hrs Total number of days: 5

Total words (without quotes) : 5k Time per day: ~5 hrs

Writing summary : 6.6 hrs DP by comparing : 6.2 hrs Reflection and stats : 6 hrs

Situation : No office to go to.