Summary: Description ability = 1. Language ability (to describe each piece of the picture) * 2. Model ability (to put all pieces of the picture together cohesively)

The better you can describe something (language ability), normally the more you can understand something. The more you can understand something (model ability), normally the more you can help improve something.
Jingle: If your mind is thoughts, then improving description ability is like going from a low res to high res!

++++++++

Details

Dreyfus taxonomy - Novice to Master

They say it often takes 10,000 hours to go from a novice to a master.

1s hours = Novice
10s hours = Competent
100s hours = Proficient
1,000s hours = Expert
10,000s hours = Master

But what are some of the things a Master can do that a Novice can’t? After all, just because one has spent time trying to improve, doesn’t mean one has actually improved!

Outcome = 1. Language ability to describe each piece * 2. Model ability to build the full picture

1. Language ability to describe each piece

A novice doesn’t have the language to explain / describe the piece.
A master has language to explain the piece in high resolution.

2. Model ability to build the full picture

A novice can’t put the pieces together into a model that represents 80%+ of the problem space.
A master has made models of the problem space through experience that means they can calibrate new ideas and give high quality feedback really quickly.
See All models are wrong, some are useful

Ok some numbers for fun.

IMO the value of being able to describe pieces well and build models that explain problem spaces well is exponential. So a master isn’t a bit better than a novice, they are 100x+ better.

For example, often Novices don’t know they are Novices (see the Dunning Kruger effect) and can have false confidence about a proposal helping. Often a Novice can be more harm than help.
Some more numbers to possibly illustrate things.

This is saying a Master is ~100x more valuable than a Novice.

Examples

Some thoughts from education research

One difference people talk about between Novices and Masters is that Masters have joined individual pieces of knowledge together into ‘chunks’ and built lots of schemas (models) up over time that allow them to see the world differently.
One example of this is that chess grandmasters normally can look at a chess board and recreate it, but novices can’t.

Masters don't have a photographic memory (I don't think there is such a thing, but this is a story for another day), they aren't seeing individual pieces on the board but have schemas (models) to see strategy from their side as well as the other player.
So a Master is able to remember where all the pieces are as they are looking at their strategy as well as the others strategy. They are seeing a cohesive picture.
Whereas a Novice is still trying to remember what pieces do which moves. Trying to describe each piece.
So what a Master sees and what a Novice sees are two different things. And this is for something physical you are looking at, wait until the problem space (chess board in this case) is metaphysical.

However when a chess grandmaster is shown a Go board they can’t remember it and remake it. They are a Novice at Go.
What a Chess Grandmaster can do.

What a Novice can do

Description Ability Levels

L0: Can’t describe pieces accurately
L1: Can describe pieces accurately
L2: L1 + Can build models that explain 80%+ off that data points you have
L3: L2 + User test to find where your model needs updating.

If you only take away one thing

To me language is one of the most beautiful things there is. The more words you have, the more possible thoughts you can have!

The invention of the word ‘FOMO’ is akin to inventing a new emotion.

If you are really good at something (Expert / Master) you are effectively speaking a different language to someone new to an area (Novice).

I’m a horrible cook, if I walked into a high end restaurant I wouldn’t understand half of what they said and also couldn’t do 90% of what they do.

Levelling up your language ability to be able to describe something, and levelling up your model ability to understand problem spaces, is one of the most fun things I know of because it makes the world so much more ‘beautiful’. You can literally see and understand way more!
The more you know about something normally the more interesting it is. = The better one’s ‘Language ability to describe each piece’ the more interesting something is.
The better you are at something normally the more rewarding it is. = The better one’s ‘Model ability to build the full picture’ normally the better one is at something.
I recommend systematically trying to level up your Description Ability. Writing all the time is one way to try do this.

May 27, 2023

Deliberate laughter practice: A better tool to destress and change your mood than meditation?

May 27, 2023/ Duncan Anderson

By Duncan Anderson. To see all blogs click here.

Reading time: 6 mins

Summary: One should eat well, sleep well, exercise well… and laugh well. I’ve heard a lot about the value of ‘daily meditation practice’, I’ve not heard much about the value of ‘daily laughter practice’, for me the ‘laughter practice’ has been more beneficial.

Jingle: Mediation Practice * Laughter Practice = Calm * Happy mood!

Meditation practice vs Laughter practice

Mediation practice = Focusing on your breath for 10-20 mins.
Mediation practice = Can wipe away the day's stress, bringing with it inner peace.
Laughter practice = Doing something that makes you laugh/chuckle for 10-20 like watching a funny lighthearted TV show.
Laughter practice = Can wipe away stress, change your mood to be jovial and help you let go of whatever is on my mind better than meditation can (well for me anyways).
I do both Mediation practice * Laughter practice.

++++++++++

Details

Meditation practice

Mayo clinic: “Meditation can wipe away the day's stress, bringing with it inner peace. See how you can easily learn to practise meditation whenever you need it most.”

For previous thoughts from me on meditation please see: How meditation can upgrade your mind and life

A way to visualise what meditation can do (this is an oversimplification, and misrepresents part of how I think meditation works but also hopefully it’s helpful).

Possible mindstates

What can happen if meditation is done well.

One of the most common forms of meditation is focussing on your breath until you let go of any emotions and thoughts you have. After you have hopefully been able to let go of emotions and thoughts you are left with ‘nothing’ or ‘calm’. Practising being good at ‘calm’ (levelling up your ability to be calm) I think is a very useful life skill.

What I also find can happen.

Meditation can get you to calm momentarily but then the previous feelings and emotions can come back.

Other things I’ve found meditation can help with beyond increased calm skills:

Increased self awareness of thoughts and emotions you have = After you have hopefully been able to let go of any thoughts and feelings you have often you are able to realised what they were. I am not my thoughts, I am the observer of my thoughts, I am not my feelings, I am the observer of my feelings.
Increased regulation of thoughts and emotions you have = The more aware of what thoughts and feelings you have normally the more you can regulate them.
Increased ability to direct your attention how you want (e.g. stay focused on one task) = Getting better at ‘letting go of thoughts and feelings’ AKA increased calm skills is normally also meaning you are better at not letting things come up and distract you from what you are focussing on right now.
Increased awareness of others = Increased awareness of your own feelings and thoughts normally also provides some insight to be aware of others too.

Laughter practice

What is laughter practice?

More details below.
Instead of ‘meditating’ and focusing on your breath / body scan / matra (IMO they are different strategies for the same end goal of stopping thinking about what you are thinking and / or feeling), you do something that makes you laugh for 10-20 mins. Eg watch a TV show that is light hearted and laughy EG Young Sheldon or some standup for me currently.

I’ve found the outcomes of ‘laughter practice’ more beneficial than meditation practice.

But I still do both, and think both have a place.

What can happen with laughter practice:

Laughter practice > Meditation practice?

There were many people I admired who talked about the value of mediation 10+ years ago like Ray Dalio and Naval Ravikant. So I thought ‘I should give meditation a go’. Honestly I’ve found meditation great and highly recommend it. It’s helped reduce stress and bring more inner calm.
I didn’t think of doing ‘deliberate laughter practice’ in the same way I was thinking about doing ‘deliberate meditation practice’, a daily ritual.
I’ve personally found ‘laughter practice’ better to ‘wipe away stress, not just bring inner peace but also good energy’, than ‘meditation practice’.
Mediation practice = Can wipe away the day's stress, bringing with it inner peace.
Laughter practice = Can wipe away stress, change your mood to be jovial and help you let go of whatever is on my mind better than meditation can (well for me anyways).

I’ve found ‘laughter practice’s' ability to lighten my mood a friggin mind trick for the ages.
Note I still practise meditation, I’ve just got a new tool in my repertoire, a laughter practice.

What does my ‘laughter practice’ look like?

Type one (where it started): After work in the evening watch something ‘laughy’ for 20 mins.

After finishing work at night I used to meditate, then try to wind down into bed by watching something. But I wasn’t deliberate about what I watched. I could be watching something dense like a talk on AI, or Four Corners, or some gripping but dark TV show etc.
If I had had a particularly stressful day then meditation wouldn’t work. I’d still be holding onto whatever was happening at work. Meditation couldn’t ‘nuke’ the thoughts and feelings out of my mind to let go and sleep.
Then I noticed a pattern, if I watched something ‘funny’ for 20 mins, almost always at the end my mind had wiped and was clear to let go of things for the day.
I started to make this a deliberate habit and it’s been epic, so thought I’d share.
I try very hard at ~9pm to watch something ‘funny’ for 20 mins. It gets my mind to let go, for things to be not just not stressed, but light hearted.
Examples of what I consume for ‘daily laughter practice’.

Certain TV shows (I’m sure you are all different), for me right now it’s Lego Masters, Young Sheldon and Brooklyn 99. Much standup can be great. There also seems to be endless amounts of it.

Type two: quick 2-3 mins during the day or after a tough meeting.

The benefits of deliberately watching something funny at night gave the idea to systematically try it during the day.
What I used to do to fill in breaks was walk to get coffee, just go for a walk, make a tea, do a quick breathing meditation. I’d also read emails during this time.
I tried 1-2 times a day consciously looking at certain ‘funny’ things like Betoota Advocate (website not instagram as can get stuck in a spiral), Babylon Bee (again website), or you can train TikTok to feed you funnies (I don’t get in a spiral).
A long time ago I used to feel guilty about ‘not doing work the whole time’, then I let myself do short breathing meditations during the day and found it helped.
But looking at a funny like Betoota Advocate during the work day, don’t be absurd, that is slacking off.
Now I see ‘laughter practice’ as a great strategy to lift my mood, destress me, or just change what I’m thinking about. Just like meditation can be a great strategy to de-stress.
But I think ‘deliberate laughter practice’ should be done on good days and bad days alike!
I try to do this a 1-2 times a day.

Type three: while commuting, driving, walking to get dinner

Again I used to struggle to not work, or listen to an educational podcast etc.
But now I’ll listen to something like Hamish and Andy for 10 mins and my headspace can be so much better!
I try to do this once a day.

Jingle: Am I a Type A personality having three types of ‘laughter practice’?

If you only take away one thing

I don’t think time is not the only non-renewable resource, and therefore the most important resource. I believe energy is the most important resource as your energy levels normally determine how you spend your time. Good energy levels = Good times. Bad energy levels = Bad times.
For managing my energy levels (eg stress, mood, etc) I’ve found:

Meditation practice = Good
Laughter practice for me = Even better

Consider trying deliberate laughter practice.

+++++++++

Also reference

Serious with a smile :): Humour is no laughing matter… and a lack of laughing is a serious matter!
‘Serious with a smile’ is about having a laugh while working and hopefully enjoying it way more.
Deliberate laughter practice is about the practice of systematically doing units of laughter each day and the value this I hope can provide you.

May 06, 2023

Product traction framework: Ideal product = 1. Known problem * 2. Known solution * 3. No existing product

May 06, 2023/ Duncan Anderson

By Duncan Anderson. To see all blogs click here.

Reading time: 7 mins

Summary: Some businesses / product ideas are easier than others.

Jingle: I try not to do things the hard way, I’m not a masochist, I’m looking to be a net progress optimiser!
Here is a framework I’ve created for trying to figure out what to build.

+++++++++

Details

“The only thing that matters is getting to product/market fit.” - Marc Andresseen

Over the years, I think I’ve read Marc’s blog on product market fit 10 times, and somehow each time it’s insightful. I recommend reading yearly.
Startup Outcome = 1. Market size * 2. Product quality (yes this is a rephrase from Andresseen where he includes a third variable called ‘team quality’. I’m assuming product quality here incorporates team quality).

“The #1 company-killer is lack of market.” Marc Andresseen.
DA updated quote:

When a great product meets a lousy market, market wins.
When a lousy product meets a great market, market wins.
When a great product meets a great market, something special happens.

Andresseen says that ‘market size > product quality’ and I agree.
The main point of this blog is to look at a framework to define product traction (quality).

Traction quality = Time to market share saturation.

High product quality gets to market share saturation fast.
Low product quality gets to market share saturation slow.

Market size determines the number of customers / amount of revenue at saturation.
All else equal you want a massive market and high product quality.

Fast growing small market vs Large slow growing existing market.

They say either a market can be small now and growing fast to eventually be big. Or big right now.
Standard advice is that a small fast growing market is easier to go at then an existing big one. That is because competition is normally more ferocious in the existing big market.

Destination market size.

One lens I like is: Destination market share can be 100%, 10%, 1%, 0.1% etc of humanity.
To be a massive company you need destination to 100%. Eg everyone searches (Google), everyone buys things (Amazon), hopefully everyone has friends (Meta), everyone needs transport (Tesla).
One example of destination market share for social media:

100% = Meta (facebook, instagram)
10% = Twitter
1% = Reddit

I don’t think there is anything wrong with building a company that is going at eg 1% destination market share, it can be epic thing for society. If you want to be a $1tn+ business then you’ve likely got to be something that is going at 100% of humanity.

Company traction vs Product traction

Company traction = 1. Market size * 2. Known problem * 3. Known solution * 4. Existing solution.
Product traction = 1. Market size * 1. Known problem * 2. Known solution * 3. Existing solution.
Comment

One should really always consider market size, but it makes the table at the start twice the size, with things becoming a bit unwieldy.
Don’t ‘achieve failure’ = Strong product traction in a small market.
But don’t just arbitrarily assume that big markets are always better than small markets. IMO think about product traction quality too!

Either everything is equal, or everything is not equal.

One unit of effort can lead to no progress.
One unit of effort can lead to one unit of progress.
Or, one unit of effort can lead to ten units of progress.
If you are trying to build a new feature, or new product, or new company, I think you want to try and understand what your potential customers see (not just what you see). You might have a sick solution… to a problem that people don’t know they have. So building a great product isn’t going to be enough, you’ll need to educate people on the problem, then the solution AND build the product. Likely a large amount of work.

Most products / companies evolve. Pick the best starting point.

When you are coming up with ideas, I think you want the ideas to have maximum traction, not maximum improvement to the world if everyone saw the world the way you do and understood how to use the product as you intend.
To me, if you can start with this:

Then bolt on other features once you have traction and people get what you are doing.
Your initial idea might be:

Here you have a product idea, but there are existing solutions. Normally they say to get big traction you want a 10x better solution / product. It might be relatively easy to be 50% better, but 10x is normally very hard.

I’d try seeing if you can find something that is ‘Option 1’, do this first, then do your ‘Option 4’ idea second where hopefully the two features are ‘positive sum’ (aka 1+1=3).

The biggest problem is figuring out what the problem is.
Find the place to get maximum traction and try building solutions there.
Also, consider market size!

Examples

iPhone

There is the internet, but you can’t have it with you all the time.
Touch screens and 3G are invented meaning it’s now possible to have the internet in your pocket at all times.
Much better than just being able to make phone calls or text people.
Known problem = Want internet everywhere
Known solution = Have a device you can fit in a pocket that accesses the internet.
No existing product = Not possible before certain technologies built like touch screen and 3G.

Edrolo Video Theory

Video on demand theory was technically possible as the internet speeds and devices (eg computers, iPhones, iPads) existed, but no one in Australia at least had built curriculum specific video theory courses.

Redbubble

There is an existing product, a known problem, but not a solution.
It used to be that physical products were limited by the shelf space in a shop.
With the internet there is infinite shelf space.
There are lots of long tail products like custom stickers (Redbubble) that were not able to be advertised until you had the internet.
So you get the marketing layer to work.

Wish

There are all these products in China that you don’t know about / can’t easily get.
Wish makes it so you can easily discover these products existing when you eg search. Then looks after the logistics of shipping etc.

Google search

Google was not the first search company, but the quality was 10x better.
Apparently on Altavista (one of the most popular search engines prior to Google), if you searched for ‘Altavista’ their own website didn’t even show up on the first page… on their own website!
Pagerank (a Google search signal) changed the quality of search outcomes 10x.

Services that spread virally: eg Instagram

I don’t think people thought they needed to scroll on their phone looking at images.
But there was a viral sharing coefficient of more than 1 so the product grew massively. It’s highly unusual to have a viral coefficient of more than 1.
If you need to do marketing or enterprise sales to educate people about 1. The problem, 2. The solution and 3. Build a product; this is likely a lot harder than just having to in ‘Option 1’ build a product where you only have to build the product.

Services that don’t spread virally: Oura

Problem education: You should track your sleep, this will help you understand what drives good / bad quality sleep and optimise your life to sleep better.
Solution education: Wear an Oura ring to track sleep.
Build product: Build the product that does all the tracking!

If you only take away one thing

I find often that building a product requires a similar amount of effort. But at the end of building a product sometimes you then have to figure out how to educate potential customers on the problem, and then on why your product is a solution to that problem.
At other times you build the product, show people and they are ‘yes, that is what I need!’.
Thinking about 1. Market size, 2. Known problem, 3. Known solution & 4. If there is an existing solution up front before you build a product can help with traction.

April 29, 2023

What went wrong review: Trying to be consistently less stupid.

April 29, 2023/ Duncan Anderson

By Duncan Anderson. To see all blogs click here.

Reading time: 5 mins

Summary: "It is remarkable how much long-term advantage people like us have gotten by trying to be consistently not stupid, instead of trying to be very intelligent.” Charlie Munger.

I find a key way to ‘try and consistently be less stupid’ is to systematically do ‘What went wrong reviews’.

I try to do a ‘What went wrong review’ each week (of the week in general).
I try to do a ‘What went wrong review’ at the end of major projects.

By proactively looking for where things ‘went wrong’, I normally find more things than if you just do ‘a review’.
People often spend a lot of time reading each week, not so much time reviewing. Even less time reviewing what went wrong.

Jingle: To be more right, explain where you were wrong.

Levels of learning from the past

Levels:

L0: No review done.
L1: Just write a review.
L2: Write a review about 1. What went well + 2. What went wrong

Comment:

I find it’s so easy to under invest in learning about what went wrong. To be less wrong, try to not commit this wrong!
Or, it’s wrong to not explain where you were wrong!

++++++++++++

Details

Hindsight is 20/20. It's difficult to make predictions, especially about the future.

Levelling up comes in many forms, but perhaps the highest ROI is reviewing what you have just done and looking for things that went well, and especially looking for things that didn’t go well!
I find that generating insights from the recent past is way easier than trying to predict the future (generate insights for the future).
In investing, people often have something like a Decision Journal. I find that it’s harder to have ‘clean decision points’ in companies as you:

Normally don’t have a binary, one point in time, decide to invest or not decision;
But often instead have a series of decisions made with many people over months on a big project.

However, at the end of a project you can normally review everything and quite easily write down 1. What worked + 2. What didn’t work.
Also, doing a unit of reviewing what went wrong each week is often quite insightful and easy to do. It just often doesn't feel nice.

Quality of future decisions = 1. Insight about the future (planning what to do) + 2. Insight from the past (2.1 Learning what to do + 2.2 Learning what not to do)

"It is remarkable how much long-term advantage people like us have gotten by trying to be consistently not stupid, instead of trying to be very intelligent.” Charlie Munger.

AKA there are mega wins from ‘2. Insight from the past (2.2 Learning what not to do)’ AKA a ‘What went wrong review’.

In my experience, people (myself included) tend to spend time in the following way:

Some reasons why this might be:

There is time pressure and you’ve just got to get on with things => ‘1. Insight about the future (planning what to do)’.
Looking at where things went wrong isn’t normally as fun as where they went well => ‘2. Insight from the past (2.1 Learning what to do)’.

I don’t care how I get better, just that I do.
“Progress solves all known problems.” Delivering the maximum net amount of progress for me is the goal.

An example

PSHE = Problem Solution How Execution
If something didn’t go as planned it normally happened in one area of this framework.
Let’s say you expected a feature to be a ‘L2: Dealmaker’ but it was received as a ‘L1: Nice to have’. Then something about how you view the world is off.

Likely your view of the problem space is ok as people still thought it was a ‘L1: Nice to have’, not ‘L0: Indifferent’.
But your understanding of the solution sets was off.
In this case I would try to build a new / updated framework through which to view the world to see if it explains the data point I’ve received and then use this framework to then help me make decisions in the future.
A framework for how a product is received might be = 1. Known problem * 2. Known solution * 3. Is there an existing product in market covering ‘1’ & ‘2’?
You might have built a great solution to a known problem, but it’s not known as a solution when people see it, they think ‘what’s that?’ vs ‘the help I’ve been wanting’.
This means that instead of the feature being a ‘L2: Dealmaker’, it’s a ‘L1: Nice to have’.
In the future perhaps build something that provides less of an improvement but is instantly recognised as the help someone needs. This could result in the feature being a dealmaker.

If you only take away on thing

“Everything has beauty, but not everyone sees it.” Confucius
To me there is epic beauty in finding where you were wrong. Not just in the moment you figure it out, but also in all the bad you get to avoid in the future.
Oversimplification:

In secondary school: Finding where you were wrong = Bad, you lose a mark = See ugliness.
In white collar job: Finding where you were wrong = Good, you find a way to level up = See beauty.

Lean into finding where you were wrong, otherwise you’ll be leaning out of making progress.
Know what I think about spending time to find where you were wrong? It’s not bad ;P.

Also see: Post game analysis.

April 16, 2023

Counter Biassing: Counter balance your biases to try be unbiased

April 16, 2023/ Duncan Anderson

By Duncan Anderson. To see all blogs click here.

Reading time: 4 mins

Summary: Unbiased = 1. Know of cognitive biases + 2. Proactively counter for cognitive biases = Counter Biassing.

Counter balancing your biases = Counter Biassing
Probably the best you can do is to be low biassed. So aim for this.
Jingle: I don’t want to be right, I want to be less wrong.
Jingle 2: If you don’t want to be an ass, consider counter biassing.

“It is remarkable how much long-term advantage people like us have gotten by trying to be consistently not stupid, instead of trying to be very intelligent.” Charlie Munger.

Example 1: Confirmation Bias => Run Anti Confirmation Bias

See this blog for full details: Anti Confirmation Bias: to be unbiased you need to bias your bias
Confirmation bias = the tendency to search for, interpret, favour, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one's prior beliefs or values.
Anti confirmation bias = IMO what is needed to counter ‘confirmation bias’ to attempt to be unbiased
Confirmation bias = overweighting information on why your idea is correct and underweighting information that goes against your idea
Anti confirmation bias = looking for how your idea can be wrong (AKA ego distortions)
Anti confirmation bias = looking for what you have missed (AKA blind spots)
Jingle: to be unbiased you need to bias your bias.

Example 2: Dunning Kruger

The Dunning-Kruger effect occurs when a person's lack of knowledge and skills in a certain area cause them to overestimate their own competence. By contrast, this effect also causes those who excel in a given area to think the task is simple for everyone, and underestimate their relative abilities as well.
Dunning Kruger = People of low competence mistakenly think they have high competence because they don’t know there is better.

Dunning Kruger can be characterised as someone with Novice level understanding has Master level confidence.
Ideally: Knowledge levels ≃ Confidence levels
As a rule of thumb I think it takes 1s of hours to have novice level understanding, 10s to have competent, 100s to be proficient, 1,000s of hours to be an expert and 10,000s of hours to be a Master.
So if you have 1s of hours of understanding about something (eg you have heard about something being discussed in the mainstream media here and there) then likely you have Novice levels of understanding, and you should Novice levels of confidence in your view (aka very low confidence and be looking to update your views when you encounter new new info).
Countering for Dunning Kruger = 1. Trying to recognise your levels of knowledge + 2. Having an appropriate amount of confidence for the level of knowledge.
“I’m not young enough to know the answer anymore.” AKA I’m not a Novice anymore, so I get there is much nuance here, and that as a Novice I had large ego distortions and blind spots that meant any views I had were likely quite off.
The more I know, the less I know.
Ignorance often begets confidence far more than knowledge does.

If you only take away one thing

“It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent; it is the one most adaptable to change.” — Charles Darwin
It’s not the person most steadfast in their views that improves humanity the most, it is the one who is most able to counter biases and update their views to be less wrong as much as possible.

+++++++++++++

A list of well known Cognitive Biases

April 06, 2023

Optimal unit of work size = Smallest unit of work needed to get a unit of learning.

April 06, 2023/ Duncan Anderson

By Duncan Anderson. To see all blogs click here.

Reading time: 4 mins

Summary: “Progress solves all known problems.” Learning is the key lead indicator to progress (either a learning of what to do, or a learning of what not to do). As such, the optimal size for a unit of work = The smallest unit of work needed to get a unit of learning.

Jingle: If you want to move fast, don’t ‘move fast and break things’, break work into the smallest unit size you can to get a unit of learning.

Figuring out what to do Vs You already know what to do

This is an over simplification but let’s assume there are only two types of work:

Type 1: Figuring out what to do => Optimal unit of work size = Smallest unit of work needed to get a unit of learning.
Type 2: You already know what to do => Optimal unit of work size = That which optimises output. Eg you might do much larger units of work, or do heaps of ‘inventory building’ as an optimal way to work well with the rest of the team.

This blog is addressing ‘Type 1: Figuring out what to do’ work.

It’s not about velocity, it’s about vector

“If you are pointed in the wrong direction, it doesn’t matter how fast you are going, you are not making progress. If you are pointed in the right direction, it doesn’t matter how slow you are going, you are making progress.” Sam Altman
Done well

A unit of learning allows you to update the ‘direction’ you are heading to be ‘less wrong’.

If you are doing something you haven’t done before (figuring out what to do) then you don't know what the solution is (end is), figuring this out in the shortest time possible is the name of the game!

Done poorly

If time is the total ‘length’ of the vectors here, then you might have taken 3x as long to figure out a sufficient+ solution.

Recommendations of things to avoid: ‘Unit of learning = 1. Unit of exploration + 2. Unit of synthesis’.

1. Unit of exploration

Unit of work is way too big = Could have gotten a unit of learning in 25% the time and updated ‘course’.
Unit of work is too small = Didn’t do enough exploration to have the data points needed for a unit of synehtesis.

I rarely see this / do this. 90% of the time I spend too long / see others spending too long.

2. Unit of synthesis’

There can be under investment in the ‘2. Unit of synthesis’. Lots of exploration is done but you need to synthesise it! See “Synthesizers, not summarizers: Move the game forward, don’t just say something.”
There is ‘Analysis paralysis’ in the ‘2. Unit of synthesis’ where people can get stuck.

If you are stuck synthesising, ask for help! A new perspective is often all it takes.
One strategy for synthesising well is to write a ‘One Sentence Summary’.

Excess time spent on synthesis. All you need is a unit of learning that unlocks the next unit of work to be done.

I find that sometimes people think they can solve things after one unit of work. This can happen for a small problem.

However, a medium might require 2-5 units of work to get to a sufficient+ solution.
A large might be 6-10 units of work.
And an extra large 11+ units of work.

Don’t worry about solving everything in one unit of work. Worry about each unit of work leading you to be ‘less wrong’ or closer to a sufficient solution.

Sufficiency > Perfectionism
Innovation is often 2 steps forward, one backwards (or more). Innovation = 10 Units of Effort for 1 Unit of Progress

If you only take away one thing

I think work should be broken down into the smallest unit of work to get a unit of learning.
Maximising units of learning => Maximising progress… and progress solves all known problems.
Minimum cycle time for a unit of learning = Maximum amount of learning

This in some respect is ‘lean methodology’, or ‘Build minimum viable product, measure, learn’ and repeat.

Truth: This refers to the correspondence between our beliefs and the way the world actually is. A belief is true if it accurately describes the world.

Beliefs ≠ Truths.
Beliefs = Hypotheses
Once you have a hypothesis set out to do a unit of work to gather info about if your hypothesis is correct, or more likely how wrong it is. After you have done the unit of investigation, do a unit of synthesis, update hypothesis and go again.
Normally my line of sufficiency is looking for 80%+ reflection of reality! You can’t know everything and you have to stop somewhere!

March 18, 2023

Mind ability = Improvable = 1. Knowledge level * 2. Thinking speed * 3. Synthesis ability

March 18, 2023/ Duncan Anderson

By Duncan Anderson. To see all blogs click here.

Reading time: 6 mins

Summary:

Mind = Sum of upgrades done to it = Quantity * Quality of the upgrades done = Mind can be ‘trained’ / levelled up
Mind ability = 1. Knowledge level * 2. Thinking speed * 3. Synthesis ability
Jingle: You upgrade your phone, why not upgrade your mind too?

I used to think people were born smart or dumb… Now I think this is dumb, and that understanding you can level up your mind is smart!

L0: People are born smart or dumb, and that is your lot in life.

Paraphrasing Jo Boaler who is a Stanford Professor - 5-10% of people are born with a biological impediment that is hard to overcome such as hardcore dyslexia or ASD. For the other ~90%, the biological differences are effectively irrelevant vs the upgrades done to a mind.
Growth mindset = Your abilities are a product of the upgrades done to your mind by others and by yourself
Fixed mindset = You are born good / bad at something.

L1: You can add knowledge to your mind

You’ve likely read a book and learned something, or been in maths class and not been able to do algebra and then learned how to do algebra.
You can consume information and add knowledge to your mind through reading, podcasts, audiobooks, etc. Some people do a lot of this, others not much at all.
I’ve found one can consume and / or create new knowledge through these modalities: reading, thinking, talking, writing, building and user testing.
The more you know about something normally the more interesting it is. At 18 years old I knew very little about the world, so not much was interesting. Now I know much more about the world and it’s really quite interesting!
Knowledge level = 1. Number of ideas * 2. Interconnectedness of ideas.

Aside: this is often referred to as ‘background knowledge’ in academic research.

L2: L1 + You can increase the speed you think

You can train to lift heavier weights, you can train to run a marathon faster… and you can train to read faster AKA think faster.
No one is born able to talk let alone read. The average person reads at 200 words per minute with 60% comprehension. A top 1% reader does 1,000 words per minute at 85% comprehension. Yes, more words AND more comprehension. This is not skipping words. I’m confident 90% of people can get to 1,000 words a minute at 85% comprehension… if they put in the work to get there. 200 years ago ~10% of earth’s population could read, now ~90% can. 1% of readers can read at 1,000 words a minute today, I don’t see why you wouldn’t want to level up your brain to read / think faster. Get into the 1% ;)!
Brain upgrading: increasing the rate at which you think!

I constantly train my brain to comprehend information faster.

My fav methods of training are speeding up Youtube, Netflix, Podcasts, Audiobooks & having articles read to me. Details on how to do this here.
I started off at 1.25x speed and thought this was fast. Slowly I’ve increased the speeds, it’s so much fun!

Learning to read faster increases the speed at which you can think. This has many benefits:

I spend ~2 hours a day listening at 5x+ speed (at a frenetic pace). The rest of the day I spend speaking with people at 1x speed. Being able to think faster allows the rest of the day at 1x speed to be much calmer. Eg instead of having to spend all of my mental bandwidth to just keep up with what someone is saying at 1x speed, I can listen to what they are saying AND think about what they are saying. While they are speaking I can think:

‘Do I understand what they are saying?’
‘Should I ask a clarifying question?’
‘Ok, I think I understand what they are saying, how should I respond?’
Etc etc.

So listening to podcasts at a frenetic pace doesn’t make life more stressful, it makes life calmer!
Also, it allows you to think faster so when by yourself you can get more done = more improvement to the world, more value added, all else equal more pay.

L3: L2 + You can improve your synthesis ability

The best strategy I’m aware of to level up one’s ability to synthesise is to write about a problem.

The act of writing I find is problem solving.
I don’t know the solution and then write it out.
I have a problem I want to level up my solution to (ie do a unit of synthesis on), so I write and this is the act of synthesis.
Writing is problem solving
Paul Graham put it this way: “A good writer doesn’t just think, and then write down what he thought, as a sort of transcript. A good writer will almost always discover new things in the process of writing.”

If you do problem solving writing all the time then I find you slowly get better at problem solving (synthesis). For me, this blog is an example of problem solving writing. I normally do problem solving writing 5-20 times a week. I believe I’m significantly better at this than I was 10 years ago.

Knowledge level = 1. Number of ideas * 2. Interconnectedness of ideas

I’ve talked about why in the past I think knowledge acquisition can be exponential - link.

As talked about in the blog link I think knowledge acquisition and knowledge interconnectedness are both exponential.

As a novice most things are boring. As a master almost everything is interesting!

One strategy for an interesting life: learn lots about lots!

Synthesis ability = 1. Speed * 2. Quality

Speed: I think speed ability isn’t exponential, but linear. Eg top 1% reader is 5x the speed of average. My goal in general is to level myself up at minimum to be top 1% at things, in some areas my goal is to be the best at what I do on earth.

Quality: I don’t think novices can problem solve at all, you give them something and nothing can happen… but I do think 90%+ of people can level up at problem solving. You have to start somewhere, and that is almost always a Level 0 (novice).

Getting better at quality is so important. Probably the most important thing. As above, my key strategy for this is to do ‘problem solving writing’ all the time!

If you only take away one thing: Your mind is your ultimate possession, your mind should be your ultimate creation.

You should go to the gym for your body, you should go to the gym for your mind.
I try to systematically add knowledge to my mind.
I try to systematically increase the speed my mind thinks.
I try to systematically improve my synthesis ability.
Done well, I find all of these things energising, not draining.
Upgrading your mind = Uplifting!

++++++++++

Addendum - The dumbest words in the english language: smart and intelligent?

IMO ‘smart’ has deep fixed mindset connotations.

IMO someone is not smart or dumb.
Dumb = novice = someone is yet to cultivate themselves.
Smart = expert = has cultivated themselves to have high ability.

Jo Boaler (Stanford Education Professor): The biggest problem with maths education today is that people (teachers / students / parents) think that someone is either good or bad at maths. Ie maths in the west has a deep embedded fixed mindset culture.
We need the culture to shift from asking “How intelligent someone is?” to asking “ how much upgrading one has done to one's brain?”

IMO the traditional meaning of smart / intelligent implies that one cannot upgrade one’s brain.

I.e Intelligence = Ability they were born with

IMO we need to shift the meaning to Intelligence = Built not born.

In some respects ‘Intelligence = knowledge, skill and innovation ability you have cultivated’.

As per other blogs I’m trying not to use the words intelligent, smart, dumb, genius! This I like to think is ‘smart’.

March 04, 2023

Quality Metrics: Objective measures for subjective things

March 04, 2023/ Duncan Anderson

By Duncan Anderson. To see all blogs click here.

Reading time: 6 mins

Summary:

Company objectives:

Objective #1: Don’t die (AKA run out of money)
Objective #2: Make the world better

Improvement to the world = 1. Quantity * 2. Quality.

I find it’s often easy to have Quantity Metrics (eg Revenue, Monthly Active Users), but hard to have Quality Metrics (eg time well spent on site, improvement to education), but… also sometimes it’s not hard to have a Quality Metric (eg ‘cost per tonne to orbit’, ‘cost per renewable mile driven’).
What gets measured gets managed. To run a company well I think you want to have objective Quantity and Quality Metrics.
I believe you can build objective measures for subjective things.
I believe you can build objective Quality Metric(s) to represent 80%+ of something subjective.
Developing Quality Metric(s) is normally a big win.

Culture happens by default or design. Objectives happen by default or design.

I think it’s unwise to not have Quality Metric(s) as the equal most important metric or the most important metric.
Missionaries vs Mercenary

It’s normally much easier to motivate people to improve the world (Quality Metric) over something like ‘increase revenue’ (Quantity Metric).
Of course a business needs to be economically viable, but hopefully also making the world better!
Missionaries normally stay around longer, push through tough times, etc. Missionaries > Mercenaries.

Having Quality Metric(s) is key to having Missionaries.

Missionaries possible = 1. Company has a mission * 2. Company has Quality Metric(s) that show if progress is being made towards the mission.

What gets measured gets managed.

Without objective Quality Metric(s) it’s often easy for an objective Quantity Metric(s) (eg revenue, monthly active users) to be given too much weight.
Having Quantity Metric(s) as the most important thing often means you get mercenaries.

Jingle: Either you manage culture or culture manages you. Either you have objective Quality Metric(s) or it’s hard to have a culture that leans towards ‘missionary’ (instead of mercenary).

+++++++++++++++

Details

Country Example

Bobby Kennedy quote - Love this!

Our Gross National Product, now, is over $800 billion dollars a year, but that Gross National Product - if we judge the United States of America by that - that Gross National Product counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for the people who break them. It counts the destruction of the redwood and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl. It counts napalm and counts nuclear warheads and armored cars for the police to fight the riots in our cities. It counts Whitman's rifle and Speck's knife, and the television programs which glorify violence in order to sell toys to our children.
Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country, it measures everything in short, except that which makes life worthwhile. And it can tell us everything about America except why we are proud that we are Americans.

Quantity Metric(s) = GDP growth
Quality Metric(s) - I’d personally have a combination of =

1. Net immigration demand for a country as a percentage of the population (if citizens are wanting to leave that is not a good thing, if others from around the world are wanting to come that is likely a net good signal)
2. Broad based decline in crime (eg violent crime, domestic violence, white collar crime, corruption)
3. Minimum wage increasing - faster than CPI
4. Average wage increasing - at above peer averages

Here is a list of variables from Ray Dalio if you wanted to go deeper.

Company example 1 - Edrolo - A company making education resources for secondary schools

Quantity Metric(s) = Revenue growth
Quality Metric(s) =

Improving education -

This is a bit of our secret sauce.
But at a high level: improving on tests that we rate (I think some tests are amazing, and some really bad, find the tests you rate and then use them as part of the picture), conceptual understanding (not procedural understanding), increased portion of student continuing education past Year 10, and more.

High retention (this alone isn’t enough IMO).
Gaining market share.

Company example 2 - Twitter

Quantity Metric(s) = Revenue growth, Monthly active users
Quality Metric(s) =

"New Twitter will strive to optimise unregretted user-minutes.” Musk.

How do you measure this?
I’m not aware of an easy way to measure this, so I think you’d need to have team(s) of people who are mapping different segments of users and building a metric for ‘unregretted user-minutes’ likely through speaking to users constantly.
As an example when I was at Google back in 2011/12, Google had a team of people who made an objective measure for search quality, compared Google to competitors and then mapped if search quality was improving over time. It was really quite awesome to see.
On their rating scale at the time Google was ahead of Bing and Yahoo, improving over time (ie year on year) and the gap between Google and Bing was increasing literally in a summative quantitative measure.
Making tests to objectively reflect a large portion education quality is super hard but IMO doable. Making a quantitative metric for search quality is super hard but IMO doable. I’m confident the same could be done for Twitter and it would really be worth spending the time to figure out :).

Personal example

Quantity Metric(s) = Earn more money each year
Quality Metric(s) =

1. Saving money each year
2. Physical health in good place (eg weight in healthy range, not getting sick, sleeping well based on Oura ring)
3. Friendships improving (do I have 3-5 quality friends that I feel a deeper connection to than I did a year ago)
4. Enjoy work (I personally track how much I think about quitting vs how much I’m excited about something at work in spreadsheet)

If you only take away one thing

For a quality life, have Quality Metric(s).
For a quality company, have Quality Metric(s).
No money is normally unhappiness. But having money isn’t happiness, money is freedom, freedom to make decisions. Freedom to make good and bad decisions.
I’d like to have enough money and hopefully to make good decisions!
I find having Quality Metric(s) is a great way to balance tradeoffs and try to make good decisions!

February 18, 2023

Plentiful Prioritising = Prioritising well = Coming up with double the number of ideas you need and going with the top half.

February 18, 2023/ Duncan Anderson

By Duncan Anderson. To see all blogs click here.

Reading time: 3 mins

Summary: Prioritise well by having double the number of ideas you can implement and then going with the top half AKA Plentiful Prioritising. If you don’t have plentiful ideas (eg 2x the number you need) then it’s very hard to prioritise well.

Jingle: If a good life is the outcome of good decisions, then plentiful prioritising isn’t pointless, it’s key to pointing less in the wrong direction!

One version of problem solving ≈ Prioritising well

Let’s say you have the space to do three things, which three things do you do?
My rule of thumb is that you should come up with double the number of ideas as you have the ability to do, then prioritise them top to bottom.
It’s very possible that #4 could well be #3, but highly unlikely that #6 should be #1.
If you have double the number of ideas you have the ability to do, it’s highly likely you have prioritised well.

Having excess ideas = Plentiful Prioritising = Increased chance of prioritising well.

If you have space for 5 things then try to come up with 10 ideas. Etc.

Problem solving is not going with the first idea that comes to mind

L0: Going with the first idea you come up with.
L1: Not knowing how many ideas you can implement and EG stretching out 2 ideas to fill the space of 3 ideas
L2: Coming up with only 3 ideas when you have the space to do 3 ideas. How do you know if these ideas are any good?
L3: Prioritising well by coming up with 6 ideas when you have the space to do 3 ideas, prioritising the ideas and going with the best 3 AKA coming up with double the number of ideas you have space for AKA Plentiful Prioritising.
L4: L3 + using a model to prioritise - link

A more detailed model of a way to problem solve

1. Figure out the 100% problem space coverage framework
2. Brainstorm up 2x the ideas that you have space AKA Plentify Prioritising (the main point of this blog)
3. Prioritise the ideas with a model

Example 1 - Email drip feed campaign

Let’s say you are wanting to set up an email drip feed campaign to activate users.
You decide that you want to have a set of 5 emails, one per week for 5 weeks.
What do you have each of the 5 emails be?
One approach is to come up with 10 ideas (double the number you have space for AKA Plentiful Prioritising) and then prioritise them from best to worst. Pick the best 5 and implement.

Example 2 - Maths textbook

Let’s say a maths period is 50 minutes long, so you have 50 minutes of content to fill.
L0: Just go with the first thing you come up with.
L1: Coming up with 2 ideas that take up 30 mins of time. But, a period is 50 mins long, so you stretch out these ideas to fill 50 mins.
L2: Coming up with 50 mins of ideas for 50 mins of learning time.
L3: Coming up with 100 mins of ideas and then picking the best 50 mins of ideas.
L4:

Building a model: I think you want to come up with a ‘High resolution destination’ of where you hope to get students to (this is part of building a model to prioritise which ideas are best). Then you want to figure out a starting point and the optimal journey from starting point to destination.
From here you try to map the excess ideas you have and how they work with the model optimally.
EG Option A should get 50% of students to the destination. Option B should get 75% of students to the destination. As such you propose going with Option B.

If you only take away one thing

In the past I’ve spent too much time trying to make individual ideas better when in fact I should have been looking for better ideas.
Outcome = Macro Idea Quality * How well you can execute on the Macro Idea

Ultimately both are important, but don’t underinvest in finding quality Macro Ideas.
One strategy I have for finding quality Macro Ideas is Plentiful Prioritising.

February 04, 2023

Positive Sum Discussions = 1. Message Positive Sum * 2. Messaging Positive Sum * 3. Interactions Positive Sum

February 04, 2023/ Duncan Anderson

By Duncan Anderson. To see all blogs click here.

Reading time: 5 mins

Summary: Outcome = Message * Messaging. I’ve found the outcome of a discussion can range from ‘hated it’ to ‘life changing’ and everything in between. I think one can level up at discussions, and one should proactively try to do so.

“You do not learn from your experiences, you learn from reflecting on your experiences.” John Dewy

One form of reflection = Being able to meta-describe what happened.
Ideally you can meta-describe all of your work discussions (and perhaps even social conversations) not just upon reflection, but real time!
A framework I use for to try meta-describe work discussions is:

1. Was the message positive sum (not negative sum)?
+ 2. Was the messaging positive sum (not negative sum)?
+ 3. Were the interactions between participants positive sum?

Jingle: So your discussions don’t disgust, meta-planning and meta-describing is a must!

+++++++++

Details

Positive Sum Discussion = 1. Message Positive Sum * 2. Messaging Positive Sum * 3. Positive sum interactions (conversation conventions)

1. Message Positive Sum =

1.1 Diagnose before you prescribe (aka build a MECE’d picture of the problem space that is jointly agreed upon before putting forward solutions, you might need to MECE from 2+ perspectives)
+ 1.2 When putting forward solutions normally have a minimum of 2 options, build a model to explain the tradeoffs between the 2+ options and which option overall you recommend in something like a tradeoff table.

I honestly feel that many work discussions should be had with a spreadsheet open and the spreadsheet being populated live with the ideas people put forward being built into models.
This way you can start to see the different pieces of the problem space and components of a solution set vs just randoming throwing out one thing after another and at the end having not really been able to build anything!

+ 1.3 Doing a unit of ‘Angel’s Advocate’ (AKA Devil’s UnDisqualified Decisions)

Devil (un)disqualified decisions: only move ahead with decisions that the devil cannot disqualify (aka the work needed to build an opinion)

Recommended things to avoid:

Jumping to proposing solutions without first agreeing upon the problem space.
Having a partial view of the problem space, AKA not having mapped out the problem space fully into a MECE’d model (not having a ~100% coverage problem space framework)
If you are putting forward solutions, only putting forward one solution (problem solving is not going with the first idea that comes to mind). Normally a minimum of 2 options so you can start to try and see tradeoffs and prioritise.
Putting forward a solution that isn’t in the form of a model where you can see the multiple variables in your solution (eg in a tradeoff table). I often find if you don’t do this one can oversimplify the proposal to one variable when normally things are more complex than this.

2. Messaging Positive Sum =

2.1 Try not to use absolute language.

Eg Don’t “this will help”, do “I think this will help because X,Y&Z, do you feel that is reasonable?”
IMO good messaging tries to provoke thought, not tell people how it is.
Or “Messaging Confidence < Message Confidence”.

2.2 Productive Talk Stems:

Recommended things to avoid:

Doing defence mode instead of understanding mode.
Not taking time to think about how to put something (your messaging) before talking.
Not changing your mind when it makes sense. The ability to change your mind is a super power.” Ray Dalio

3. Positive sum interactions (conversation conventions)

Conversation conventions - thoughts on how not to derail meetings
We are taught about maths, we are made to write essays, we learn about chemical reactions… but we aren’t taught about quality verbal communications...

Recommended things to avoid:

Having discussions devolve to people just interrupting each other.
Not proactively making space for the input of others.
Tangenting off from the point you are trying to make.

Just for fun, a couple of other ideas

Strawmen arguments - link.
- A strawman is a version of an argument that no one actually believes, but is very easy to dispute.

If you only take away one thing

I honestly think that having high quality “Positive Sum Discussions” is one of the hardest things there is to do.
Like one can learn maths, or build empathy, I strongly believe one can level up in discussion ability.
You’ll likely do a lot of verbal communication in your life, your life should be better if you can communicate well.
An extraordinary amount of work is discussions in meetings. IMO if a company can verbally communicate well, it’s likely the company can do well.
People will often talk about how ‘culture is key’ for a company and they’ll actively work on culture. IMO discussion ability is upstream of culture. If you can’t discuss well then likely you don’t look forward to meetings and cultural efforts can be for naught!
‘Culture eats strategy for breakfast’ Peter Drucker. If discussion ability is upstream of culture, then discussion ability eats culture for breakfast!

January 22, 2023

Psychologically safe floor expectations: Expectations = Floor + Middle + Ceiling

January 22, 2023/ Duncan Anderson

By Duncan Anderson. To see all blogs click here.

Reading time: 5 mins

Summary:

Setting expectations correctly is very important. When setting expectations, I used to just think about just one expectation (what I call here the ‘middle expectation’).
Now: Good expectations = 1. Psychologically safe floor expectation + 2. High middle expectation + 3. Super ambitious ceiling expectation
This blog focuses on the importance of a “1. Psychologically safe floor expectation”
Jingle: Without psychological safety it can be safe to say a workplace might feel like working with psychos!

++++++++++++++

Details

Background terms:

A partial definition of psychological safetfy.

I think almost everything one says comes with an embedded mindset whether you are aware of it or not. One continuum: Learned helplessness ⇔ Learned help yourselfness

I believe you want to have a strong lean towards ‘learned help yourselfness’.
“Whether you belief you can or you can’t, you are right.” Henry Ford.
If you are about to take on a new project at work or try to make progress in an area you have no experience, if you don’t think you can make progress (learned help yourselfness) then it’s normally a big impediment.

One component Psychological safety = Positive sum floor expectations

Example:

If someone is doing something for the first time (AKA a L0) I normally say something like: The (psychologically safe) floor expectation = 1. Long term we expect you to be able to do this in 1 hour, but for this go let’s time box it at 4 hours (4x I’ve found is a reasonable expectation increase) + 2. I don’t mind if you make zero real progress, all I care is that you try (learned help yourselfness).
After the 4 hours let’s check in and see where you are up to.

Comment

You want someone to be comfortable trying AKA cultivating the right mindset AKA fostering ‘learned help yourselfness’.
The floor expectations will rise over time.

Psychological safety ≠ Low expectations

Psychological safety = Key way to make progress = One component of expectations.
Outcomes:

Low expectations = Bad
High expectations = Good
Unrealistic expectations = Bad

For me:

I expect people to try.
I expect people to level up.
But I don’t expect people to start off any good at things.

“The first version of everything is sh1t” - Hemingway.

If you are brand new to something, AKA a L0, then I’ll try to have L0 floor expectation.
I’ve found having a ‘psychologically safe floor expectation’ especially for when someone is L0 is key to fostering learned helpyourselfness.

Outcome = 1. Mindset * 2. Expectations ( 2.1 Psychologically safe floor expectation + 2.2 High middle expectation + 2.3 Super ambitious ceiling expectation)

1. Mindset - I see the left side at net harmful and the right side as net helpful

Learned helplessness ⇔ Learned help yourselfness
Fixed mindset ⇔ Growth mindset
Low resilience ⇔ High resilience
What doesn't kill you makes you weaker ⇔ What doesn't kill you makes you stronger

2. Expectations ( 2.1 Psychologically safe floor expectation + 2.2 High middle expectation + 2.3 Super ambitious ceiling expectation)

2.1 Psychologically safe floor expectation = Level of floor matches the level someone is in a task

If you are a L0 then you L0 floor expectations.

The main thing is that for someone new to something make the floor L0.
Then slowly rise over time. The best people rise quickly.

If you are a L10 then you should have L10 floor expectations.

2.2 High middle expectation

On average you should be levelling up each time you do something.
However we all have bad days, so it’s ok occasionally if you don’t level up when you do something (or even do something worse than the previous time).

2.3 Super ambitious ceiling expectation

“With ambition, you tend to get one step below what you aim for. So unless you try to be the best, you won't even be good.” - Paul Graham.
We obviously don’t want to be scared to try, or to give up, but we also definitely don’t want mediocrity. I’ve found having the three levels of expectations and calibrating them vs experience very helpful.

If you only take away one thing

Without a psychologically safe workplace you’ll likely make far less progress.
But I don’t think psychological safety means low expectations, in fact the opposite, I believe a psychological safe floor expectation can allow wildly ambitious ceiling goals (expectations) and properly high middle expectations.
We want to help people to the point they can help themselves, and then eventually help others help themselves!

One goal of education is so that you can eventually educate yourself.
One goal of people management is so that you can eventually manage yourself.
One goal of parenting is so that a child can eventually look after themselves, and then eventually raise (parent) others to look after themselves.

I see clearly articulated psychologically safe floor expectations as part of this.

Addendum: this compliments Energising Expectation: Level of expectations ≈ Amount of new

Energising expectations = 1. The amount of ‘new’ is understood at the outset of a project + 2. The expectations hurdle is proportional to the amount of new
I now think of this as the 'high middle expectation'. Floor and ceiling are additions.

December 17, 2022

Tradeoff Table: Most things involve a tradeoff, use a framework like this to try to explain the tradeoff.

December 17, 2022/ Duncan Anderson

By Duncan Anderson. To see all blogs click here.

Reading time: 5 mins

Summary: With decisions, product proposals, etc there is almost always a tradeoff. If you can’t explain the tradeoff you normally don’t think there is a tradeoff (ie have a blind spot for the tradeoff). So you think your proposal is great, when normally each proposal / idea / decision is some helpful and some harmful. I try to explain the tradeoff and if the proposal is a net step forwards OR which of the two options put forward is a net step forwards.

A framework to try to figure out the tradeoff: Building a Tradeoff Table

1. Is there a tradeoff (hint: there almost always is)?
2. How do you explain the tradeoff? Some quick suggestions:

2.1 Pick at least two alternatives (eg existing outcome + proposed new outcome, or two alternatives of what you could do)
2.2 Build a MECE’d model of the problem space

I’ve at times in the past called this a ‘100% coverage problem space model’. Other relevant links - link & link.
Oftentimes it makes sense to have more than one lens on the end problem space through which to view the tradeoffs. Eg Lens 1. Attributes of a problem space, Lens 2. Segments of the user base. At times you need 2-5x lenses on a single problem space.

2.3 Calibrate the 2+ alternatives against the problem space model in a ‘Tradeoff Table’.

Jingle: If you can’t explain the tradeoff to your team, then you might get traded off the team!

++++++++++++

Examples

Example 1: Generic non work example - Which restaurant to go to?

2.1 Pick at least two alternatives

Let’s say you are trying to decide between going to Restaurant A or Restaurant B.

2.2 MECE’d model of the problem space

You MECE out the following 4 ‘pieces’ (variables): deliciousness, nutritiousness, cost and distance.

2.3 Calibrate the 2+ alternatives against the problem space model in a ‘Tradeoff Table’.

How do you weight these factors and make a decision? You might do the following:
‘On Friday night I don’t worry about cost, nutritiousness or distance.’ - Duncan.

Link if you want to play with the model.

The model says go with Restaurant A

‘On Tuesday, I want a quick and nutritious lunch.' - Duncan

The model says go with Restaurant B

Possible ways to mess up figuring out the tradeoff

Possible problem 1: You leave out a factor (piece of the picture) like cost. Then your recommendation of which restaurant to go to is off.
Possible problem 2: In the discussion each person is only considering one piece (variable). E.g. Person A thinks deliciousness is all that matters and Person B thinks that nutritiousness is all that matters.

"If you just focus on the smallest details, you never get the big picture right." - Leroy Hood

Possible problem 3: you don’t weight variables.

Either everything is equally important or everything is not equally important. Normally not everything is equally important.
But more than that, some variables (pieces) can be deal breakers. I.E. not having this variable included means everything else doesn’t matter.

Possible problem 4: including a variable (piece) that doesn’t belong in the picture.

Example 2: Non generic work example - You are trying to decide on whether video or written answers are better for maths questions.

2.1 Pick at least two alternatives

Alternative 1: Video answers
Alternative 2: Written answers

2.2 MECE’d model of the problem space - how much the students understand

Lens 1: User understanding types

Segment 1: Understand the theory
Segment 2: Some conceptual understanding of the theory
Segment 3: Significant misconceptions about the theory

Lens 2: Product features

Feature 1: Understanding the worded question
Feature 2: Mathematical calculations
Feature 3: How to use a calculator

2.3 Calibrate the 2+ alternatives against the problem space model in a ‘Tradeoff Table’.

Lens 1: User understanding types

Comment:

If a student has a strong understanding of the theory then a video answer isn’t deemed as helpful as a written answer as a student doesn’t need to watch all of the video.
However, if a student has significant misconceptions about the theory then a video is deemed far more helpful than a written answer as the concepts will be explained more fully with verbal explanation.
So the tradeoff here helps one segment of students and harms the other, perhaps in equal measures.
Perhaps here you provide both a written and video answer but need to train students and teachers to be able to pick which option suits them best.

Lens 2: Product features

Comment

Lens 2 shows some ego distortions / blind spots of Lens 1.
Basically, video answers likely have significant value and are likely worth building (if you have unlimited time and money).
So the overall outcome here is to build both Written and Video answers, and to train students to use the right one in the right place.

Example 3: How to find out about tradeoffs the hard way

Don’t go through the Tradeoff Framework (or something similar):

1. Is there a tradeoff? (Hint: there almost always is)
2. How do you explain the tradeoff? Some quick suggestions:

2.1 Pick at least two alternatives
2.2 Build a MECE’d model of the problem space
2.3 Calibrate the 2+ alternatives against the problem space model in a ‘Tradeoff Table’.

Just make a decision or build a product / feature and then implement. Reality will point out the tradeoff soon enough and likely a lot of unnecessary pain could have been avoided.
I don’t think you’ll be able to see 100% of the tradeoffs ahead of time, but hopefully you can see more than 0%. Experience (past felt tradeoffs) and an ability to try and model out possible future tradeoffs should allow you over time to see a higher and higher percentage of tradeoffs ahead of time.
Put another way, hopefully the quality of your decision making improves over time.

If you only take away one thing?

I’ve found trying to figure out the tradeoffs is difficult… but that you will find out about the tradeoffs at some point (ie the parts of the picture you are missing, a better alternative you didn’t consider, etc).
They say what gets you into trouble are ‘ego distortions and blind spots’. I’ve found that trying to explain a tradeoff through a Tradeoff Table like that in this blog is a great way to find ego distortions and blind spots.
For key decisions at work I try to build a model (Tradeoff Table) to understand and explain the tradeoff.

December 04, 2022

Synthesizers, not summarizers: Move the game forward, don’t just say something.

December 04, 2022/ Duncan Anderson

By Duncan Anderson. To see all blogs click here.

Reading time: 7 mins

Summary: Synthesizers help improve the overall solution, Summarizers just say something. Help people understand how you are trying to help (ie be a Synthesizer), don’t just say things and have others need to do the work to try to understand how what you are saying could help (ie be a Summarizer).

Positive sum vs Zero sum conversations

I find a key way to help a conversation be positive sum (AKA improve the proposed solution) is to try and act as a synthesizer, not a summarizer.
Levels of input:
- L0: Just say something
- L1: Say something + metatag of it being good / bad
- L2: Say something and say what you feel the net impact of this is on the overall solution (eg despite this bad area the overall solution is still a net win)
- L3: Say something, explain how it can be viewed as a win (steelman) and a loss (strawman), explain how you think it actually is (eg actually a win despite the standard orthodoxy being it is a loss) and how we can incorporate this into the overall solution to move things forward.
- L4: L3 + multiple options of what to do with a recommendation of which proposal to go with!
Managers do an average of what is asked for, leaders chart a path forwards.
Jingle: Summarizers can't see a path forward, Synthesizers can!

Am I being a Synthesizer, or a Summarizer?

The biggest problem is figuring out what the problem is: If you know to try be a Synthesizer, not a Summarizer, then normally this is more than half the battle won!
Sometimes one can’t synthesize, other times one didn’t know to synthesize.
Naming a concept usually makes it far easier to use. The main goal of this blog is to give language to an idea I've tried to understand and use in the past. Being able to ask myself ‘Am I being a Summarizer? Or am I just being a Synthesizer?’ should be able to help me much more be a Synthesizer!
What follows is a non exhaustive list of ways to try a be Synthesizer

++++++++++++

A non exhaustive list of strategies to try be a Synthesizer, not a Summarizer.

Example 1: Put forward pieces, not pictures (partially related blog)

What not to do (what a Summarizer does): put forward a summary of the points you have heard from user testings. Eg I’ve heard that there is a lot going on on this slide 5x times.
What to do (what a Synthesizer does): Ask the users if you removed parts of what is on the slide would it make the overall outcome better (ie how to update the picture)? What you can often find is that while a users first impression might be that there is a lot going on they don’t want to remove anything.
Possible outcome:
- Summarizer = Remove things from the slide
- Synthesizer = Keep everything on the slide

Example 2: Put forward a piece and not say how it affects the picture

What not to do (what a Summarizer does): Put forward a negative point about a solution without calibrating whether you think overall this negative point means the solution should not be continued with.
What to do (what a Synthesizer does): Almost all solutions have some good and some bad. I often talk about a solution being made up of the following possible parts - dealmaker, nice to have, indifferent, dislike and dealbreaker. Often people will put forward something they ‘dislike’ but then not provide any context as to if this means the overall solution is broken or not. EG the solution also has ‘nice to haves’ and a ‘dealmaker’, so despite the ‘dislike’ we should go ahead with the proposal. I want to know if:
- 1. The thing you dislike can be ameliorated, or
- 2. If yes, the point raised is not great, but overall the solution is still something people will use. IE the net outcome is the proposal is moving the game forward.
Possible outcome:
- Summarizer = This whole solution is bad
- Synthesizer = Part of this solution is bad but overall it’s better than no solution

Example 3: Put forward only one option, not a minimum of 2+ options

In financial markets, they say ‘bears sound like they are trying to protect you, and bulls sound like they are trying to sell you something’.
- Bear view = What is the negative outcome
- Bull view = What is the positive outcome
People often have a built in ‘default’ way of leaning: net negative or net positive.
What not to do (what a Summarizer does): Put forward only one view / option.
What to do (what a Synthesizer does): Put forward 2+ options. Eg explain the 75% positive view (steelman) and the 25% positive view (strawman). Then explain what you think.
Outcome
- Summarizer = Trying to find why something might not work
- Synthesizer = Trying to see the full spectrum of views and then calibrating what you feel is the best outcome.

Example 4: Following conversation rallies through to conclusions

Conversation conventions - thoughts on how not to derail meetings
From Ray Dalio

What not to do (what a Summarizer does): Summarizers do the ‘bad’ side, they are not trying to see the bigger meta picture and segway / tangent all over the place ending conversations without coming to conclusions on points (aka synthesizing).

What to do (what a Synthesizer does): The ‘good’ side.
Outcome
- Summarizer = Conversations where many things are discussed but minimal conclusions are reached.
- Synthesizer = Conversations where many things are discussed AND conclusions are reached (synthesis occurs).

Example 5: Don’t metatag their point before saying it

What not to do (what a Summarizer does): I think this point is problematic.
What to do (what a Synthesizer does): Ok, I think this one (point) sub component of the overall solution is problematic, but I’m not sure how it might affect the overall proposal. Can we talk this sub component through and try to figure out how we think it might affect things?
Comment
- Often if putting forward a negative point others can assume you think the overall solution is bad but instead you are just putting forward something new for consideration and want to try to develop the solution set.

Example 6: Explain the tradeoff

Most things involve a tradeoff. They are not 100% win, 0% loss.
As an example we can go at the new high water mark for quality of questions… but this could make the content harder to make, so it could well lower the floor of quality we make as well. Is this tradeoff worth it?
Or, we could go at the new high water mark for quality but this could make something twice as long to create, this means that instead of making a product to help one year we could make a product to help two years at the same time.
A key question to ask to be a Synthesizer (not a Summarizer) is ‘what is the tradeoff here?’ There is almost always a tradeoff, just because you might not be able to articulate it doesn’t mean there isn’t a tradeoff.
What a Summarizer does: Does not ask themselves if there is a tradeoff for the proposal.
What a Synthesizer does: Does not ask themselves if there is a tradeoff for the proposal.

Example 7: Diagnose before you prescribe

What not to do (what a Summarizer does): Start putting forward solutions before you have a sufficient+ understanding of the problem space.
What to do (what a Synthesizer does): First build a sufficient understanding of the problem space (ideally a 100% problem space coverage framework) and then start putting forward solutions.

If you only take away one thing:

I don’t think it’s possible to be a synthesizer 100% of the time, but it’s possible to try to be :).
Almost all people are trying to help. I find that most people don’t know they are being a ‘summarizer, not a synthesizer’.
Two key questions:
- 1. Am I being a Synthesizer, not a Summarizer?
- 2. Am I using some known strategies to be a Synthesizer, not a Summarizer?
Often it’s as simple as this!

November 24, 2022

Effective Email: A key way to reduce organisational drag

November 24, 2022/ Duncan Anderson

By Duncan Anderson. To see all blogs click here.

Reading time: 10 mins

Summary: Much effort is placed on having the right strategy (going in the right direction), I feel as much effort should be put into executing the strategy well (moving quicking in the chosen direction, AKA removing friction / organisational drag). I’ve found that internal comms and email specifically is one of the core areas of organisational drag.

"Your net productivity is the balance of the productive and unproductive forces in your life. A great deal of time and energy is spent thinking about how to increase effort, but there is a lot to be gained by reducing friction. A car will travel faster not only if you press the accelerator, but also if you remove the speed bumps." James Clear
Jingle: Effective email for efficient execution.

Recommended listening

HBR IdeaCast (Episode 566, March 2017) - Reduce Organisational Drag
Michael Mankins, Bain & Company partner and head of the firm’s Organization practice, explains how organisations unintentionally fail to manage their employees’ time and energy. He also lays out what managers can do to reduce what he calls organisational drag. Mankins is a coauthor of Time, Talent, Energy: Overcome Organizational Drag and Unleash Your Team’s Productive Power.

This blog is focused on internal email comms only (not email between businesses, or cold contacting someone, etc).

How many hours a week do you do of internal email?
I actually know this as I track every minute of my time at work. It’s normally 4-6 hours of my week and it’s stayed at this level for the last 5 years as I try to manage email comms internally at Edrolo to be as effective as possible.
IMO you only want to be on the emails you need to be on (need to know basis) and you want these emails to be as effective as possible.

Impact areas for effective email

Searchability: An email subject that is searchable.
Sending the email to the right people: Almost everything is on a need to know basis.
Actionability: @tagging at the top and in the body of the email for what you want from the people the email was sent to (see below for examples).
0% misunderstanding: 100% understanding is not normally possible, it’s just a question of what amount of misunderstanding there will be. Minimising misunderstanding is key to reducing organisational drag.
Structure: An email should not be a stream of consciousness, have tl;dr / One Sentence Summaries, indented structure with dot points (like this blog :) ).
Length: “If I had longer I would have written a shorter speech.” - Churchill.
Clarity: Can the email be read as fast as you can read?

The quality of someone's internal email I find to be one of the best ways to judge their overall quality. Bad at email = Normally bad at their job

"Every transaction is paid for at least three times. First, with the money you pay. Second, with the time you spend. Third, with the reputation you create through your behaviour. Being pleasant, reliable, and easy to work with might cost you a little more time. Perhaps even a bit of extra money. But the long-term returns from a great reputation usually outweigh the cost of a single transaction. Most of the value in life and in business arises out of good relationships."
Being good at email is one of the keys to being good at work.
Want a great reputation at work? IMO be great at internal email! Every email is marketing for you whether you like it or not. Don't have a bad personal brand marketing campaign!
Honestly, there are some people who when I see an email from them in my inbox I get anxious.
10 years ago Duncan saw email as ‘not output’ so not something to dedicate much proactive time to levelling up in. Today Duncan sees email as the most important communication tool at a company of ~30+ people, and that communication is the infrastructure upon which everything gets done. I don’t think it’s unfair to say: A company with good communications = A good company!
Get rich or die trying => To get rich, get good at effective email, or die in bureaucratic internal email!

++++++++++

Details

Searchability: An email subject that is searchable.

Goal: To be able to find every single email you ever want with one search
- You know how you put in keywords to get good at searching Google, how you have learned to work with Google to have it return what you want?
- Well IMO you want to do the exact same thing with your email subjects. The email subjects should carefully have all the keywords needed so you can find the email again. This normally means way more keywords than people expect and putting the keywords in order from most to least important.
- To rank well on Google a website needs to be ‘SEO friendly’ (search engine optimisation friendly). IMO make all your email subjects at the entire company search friendly!
- Also, this doesn’t just make searching easier it allows people to know what is in an email properly!

Sending the email to the right people: Almost everything is on a need to know basis.

Don’t send emails to people you don’t need to send emails to (just like don’t invite people to meetings who don’t need to be there).
I used to think I wanted to know everything that was going on at Edrolo, now I want to know as little as possible.
- Almost everything is on a need to know basis.
- If everyone needs to know everything then what you can get done is only what one person can know.
What can happen with each person you add to an organisation:
- Bad: Each new person added adds less than 1 person’s output
- Average: Each new person added adds 1 person’s output
- Good: Each new person added adds more than 1 person’s output
A core strategy to have people add more than 1 person’s output is only having people know what they need to know (no more, no less). One part of this is not bogging them down with unnecessary emails or meetings. It’s not you being nice adding someone to an email or meeting, it’s you adding organisational drag!

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.
- Being on unnecessary emails is killer!
- Not being on necessary emails is a killer!
- Leave a meeting if you're not contributing: “Walk out of a meeting or drop off a call as soon as it is obvious you aren't adding value. It is not rude to leave, it is rude to make someone stay and waste their time.” - Elon
- If you are not needing to be on an email please ask not to be included!

Actionability: @tagging at the top and in the body of the email for what you want from the people the email was sent to (see below for examples).

Ideally you want the actions that someone needs to do in an email to be as clear as possible, to be literally black and white. @tagging is a great strategy for this.
Every email sent internally at Edrolo IMO should have @tagging at the top.
Details of @tagging
- Levels

@tagging = 1. Who * 2. What action

“2. What action” I’ve found there are 3 main types of action in an email:
- 1. #read
- 2. #respond: to the email and you show where you want someone to respond
- 3. #action: please complete that action noted in the email

Example:
- Example: -L10
  - Hi team,
  - I think this thing is interesting.
  - I think we should do this.
- Example: L1
  - Hi team,
  - I think this thing is interesting.
  - I think we should do look into X.
  - @warren: can you please look into X and respond to the email when you are done with the findings.
- Example: L2
  - @all #read:
  - @warren #action:
  - Hi team,
  - I think this thing is interesting.
  - I think we should do this X.
  - @warren: can you please look into X and respond to the email when you are done with the findings.
- Example: L3
  - @all #read:
  - @warren #action:
  - Hi team,
  - I think this thing is interesting.
  - I think we should do this X. By look into X I recommend we use the product and speak to 3x users of the product.
  - @warren: can you please do this action and respond to the email when you are done with the findings. If you have a different view on what we should do please respond to the email outlining your alternative.
- Comment
  - The amount of confusion @tagging removes is frankly astounding. I wish this was standard for all email comms so you could email across organisations this way!

0% misunderstanding: 100% understanding is not normally possible, it’s just a question of what amount of misunderstanding there is. Minimising misunderstanding is key to reducing organisational drag.

Almost all emails contain some information dispensement component. Minimising misunderstanding is absolutely key for reducing organisational drag.
My rules of thumb
- An email to 1-10 people - reread the email yourself to try to level it up.
- An email to 11-100 people - prior to sending to the full set of people, get feedback from 1-2 people (eg what does the email say, what is the action item, etc).
  - I’m yet to do this and not get feedback that is obvious as soon as someone says it about how to level up the email.
  - We all have ego distortions and blind spots, a core strategy to finding them is asking others to point them out!
- An email to 11-100 people - prior to sending to the full set of people, get feedback from 2-4 people

Structure: An email should not be a stream of consciousness, have tl;dr / One Sentence Summaries, indented knowledge with dot points (like this blog :) ).

Get good at as many different literary devices as you can. A random grab bag:
- One Sentence Summaries (AKA tl;dr)
- Taxonomies
- Indenting knowledge to give it structure allowing readers to see the picture you are building better.
- Using visuals.
- Using analogies, quotes, etc.
- Etc etc.
At work (which this blog is written for) I’m going at maximum precision and maximum density of information, not at eg the most relaxing thing to read. The emails are designed to be dense as I feel that is optimal for internal email communications.
As an example I think this table says things that would be hard to do at all in words. So get good at using many different literary devices.

Length: “If I had longer I would have written a shorter speech.” - Churchill.

Levels

This is really tough, but get it done!

Clarity: Email can be read as fast as you can read

No acronyms or nonsense words:
- “Don’t use acronyms or nonsense words for objects, software or processes at Tesla. In general, anything that requires an explanation inhibits communication. We don’t want people to have to memorise a glossary just to function at Tesla.” - Elon
Correct use of qualification words (don’t be absolute when you shouldn’t).
This is another area that never stops. My goal = That you want recipients to be able to read the email as fast as they can read and understand exactly what you intend.

If you only take away one thing

Life doesn’t get easier, you get better at it. IMO there is no ceiling to how good one can get at email. If you work in an organisation of more than 1 person, communication is going to be very important. Why would you not want to become a master at communicating?

Over time you hopefully pick up on more and more areas that were ‘unconscious incompetence’ and move them to ‘second nature / unconscious competence’.

I used to spend lots of time trying to get better at ‘output’, I didn’t realise that perhaps the most universal and important from of ‘output’ is email. I now try to proactively get better at email, and suggest you do too!

November 06, 2022

Dealmakers vs Dealbreakers vs Nice to haves: Not everything matters equally.

November 06, 2022/ Duncan Anderson

By Duncan Anderson. To see all blogs click here.

Reading time: 5 mins

Summary: A rule of thumb I have for products to hopefully be successful - 2+ Dealmakers and no Dealbreakers.

Details of Dealmakers

L2: Dealmaker
L1: Nice to have
L0: Indifference
-L1: Dislike
-L2: Dealbreaker

Utilitarianism vs Deontology

IMO not everything can be netted off (utilitarianism). EG it doesn’t matter how many dealmakers a product has, if it has one dealbreaker people will not use it (deontology).
Also, normally having 10x ‘L1: Nice to haves’ isn’t as important as having 1x ‘L2: Dealmaker’.
Utilitarianism
- 2x ‘L1: Nice to haves’ will offset 2x ‘-L1: Dislike’
- A product with 2x ‘L2: Dealmakers’ and 1x ‘-L2: Dealbreaker’ still has net 1x ‘L2: Dealmaker’ and is good to go.
- Comment:
  - I think you can net off ‘L1: Nice to haves’ and ‘-L1: Dislikes’.
  - But normally 1+ ‘-L2: Dealbreaker’ and a product is dead.
  - *Aside: often enough, a net of 5x+ similar ‘-L1: Dislikes’ can turn into a ‘-L2: Dealbreaker’. For example 5x small UX issues can lead someone to overall find a product too hard to use and UX is a ‘-L2: Dealbreaker’.
Deontology
- 1x ‘L2: Dealmaker’ will not offset 1x ‘-L2: Dealbreaker’.
- In fact 10x ‘L2: Dealmakers’ will not offset 1x ‘-L2: Dealbreaker’. All it takes is 1x ‘-L2: Dealbreaker’ and it’s game over for your product.
- But 2x ‘L2: Dealmakers’ normally mean people ignore some things they ‘-L1: Dislike’.
- I’ve found that people see and talk about the ‘-L2: Dealbreakers’ the most and first. Then if there are no ‘-L2: Dealbreakers’ people talk about ‘L2: Dealmakers’. Only after this do people normally talk about things they like / dislike.
Put in lean methodology: Minimum Viable Product (MVP) = 1. No Dealbreakers + 2. 2x+ Dealmakers + 3. Likely lots of areas of ‘-L1: Dislike’, ‘L0: Indifference’ & ‘L1: Nice to haves’
- Over time you want to get rid of as many areas of ‘-L1: Dislike’ and level up areas of ‘L1: Nice to have’ into ‘L2: Dealmakers’, but to me it’s unlikely and even counterproductive to try have all areas of the product be ‘L2: Dealmakers’ at launch.
- Some relevant blogs:
  - Sufficiency > Perfectionism & High Definition Line Of Sufficiency: Defining Sufficiency Sufficiently
- The Minimum Viable Product needs to be able to succeed. I don’t think there is any point launching a product where you cannot see solid traction for a segment of the market.

There is always a most important thing, and if you don’t know what the important thing is you won’t be important for very long!

I normally try to figure out what the most important thing is and then make it a dealmaker. I’m not trying to find dealmakers, I’m finding Jobs To Be Done and then trying to build a dealmaker solution for the Job To Be Done.
- Diagnose before you prescribe!
Places to look up build dealmakers

Normally I look for where the most time is spent on a problem
Or where people care the most.
Then do the work to earn secrets.

One MECE for possible dealmaker areas
- New feature / functionality.
- Big increase in the quality of an existing feature.
- Ease of user experience.
- Time savings. Something that is higher quality but takes longer to do often does not get done!

Ceilingless vs Having a ceiling

Some places have a ceiling where you can’t improve something anymore. Most places do not, eg how good a maths textbook can be.
Dealmaker doesn’t mean something can’t be improved further, it just means the step change is enough over the existing outcome to ‘change the game’. IMO the first iPhone was a game changer. IMO the iPhone 14 isn't a game changer over the iPhone 13.

Feature vs UX

UX = User experience
I think it’s possible for both a feature and the UX of a feature to be dealmaker and / or dealbreaker.
But sometimes if a feature is good enough (eg a L2: Dealmaker) people will overcome average (L0: Indifference) UX to get to the feature.
- Please note I'm not saying you don't want great UX.
In other words ‘L2: Dealmakers’ can solve average UX. You can go from struggling to activate people to having strong retention.
Conversely, often people don’t do what is best for them, but whatever is the path of least resistance. Let's say a task takes 2 hours to do. If you can get the same task done in 1.5 hours at a similar quality then people will likely do it. A dealmaker can be time saving!
Man struggles uphill, water flows downhill. IMO saving times is a product where ‘water (man) is flowing downhill’.

Deal or No Deal: Rejection vs Minimal traction vs Strong traction (Product Market Fit)

When calibrating which product changes to do, look at the changes through Dealmaker ⇔ Dealbreaker taxonomy

When building a product I’m usually trying to optimise for validated units of learning. This often means that a product has been used by customers and you have observed the customers using the product.
Each time you observe you normally get multiple ideas of what to do. Which ones do you prioritise? This is normally how I approach things:
- #1 is removing dealbreakers
- #2 is adding dealmakers
- I normally leave everything else (eg adding a ‘nice to have’ or ‘removing a dislike’) and then build the next version of the product taking into account “#1 is removing dealbreakers” & “#2 is adding dealmakers” and then go and do another round of user testing.
Don’t do no brainers, remove deal breakers or add dealmakers.

If you only take away one thing

I think the concept of dealmakers and dealbreakers can be a dealmaker!
Or… dealbreaker = dealmaker ;)

October 23, 2022

Net progress deliverers: Don’t fight all fires, optimise for net progress.

October 23, 2022/ Duncan Anderson

By Duncan Anderson. To see all blogs click here.

Reading time: 6 mins

Summary: I’ve come to believe there will always be ‘fires’ in a business. If you wanted to, one could spend all day everyday fighting fires. To me, only fighting fires just means you go backwards slower. Ultimately I believe one should optimise for net progress. This likely means letting some fires burn… and having fires burning at any given point.

Three strategies for dealing with fires:

Passive approach = Let the fire burn itself out or just keep burning at a low and non escalating level.
Proactive approach = Directly hose down the fire.
Indirect approach = Let’s say the UX is suboptimal and causing activation problems, instead of addressing the UX you might add a new feature and this is the best way to increase progress for the business. IE the unit of effort to add upside (new feature) adds more net progress than the unit of effort to remove downside (fix UX).
- Product example: I don’t generally think about having the least bad product, I want a product with no dealbreakers and hopefully 2+ dealmakers… but not everything needs to be (or even can be) a dealmaker.
- Team example: I’m normally much less focused on the weakest player on the team than ‘is the team winning matches’.

“Progress solves all known problems” - IMO optimise for net progress AKA be a Net Progress Deliverer, Not an involuntary Fire Fighter!

Firefighter = Fights all fires one is aware of.

Builder = Only builds new things, does not fight fires.
Net progress deliverer = Fights the right fires when it makes sense AND builds new things, overall delivering the net greatest amount of progress.

Jingle: If I wanted to only fight fires I would have been a firefighter, I want to try to make the world better, to build the plane as I’m flying it… and put some fires out on the plane while building it! I want to be a net progress deliverer!

++++++++++

Details

Size of fires

Small Fire - Annoying but no one is really going to get hurt. Small fires can normally be left to burn indefinitely. This doesn’t mean a small fire should be left to burn indefinitely, but it usually can be. EG UX of a product could be improved. EG someone said one thing in a negative sum way in a meeting.
Medium Fire - Long term a medium fire will hurt, but in the short term you can typically let a medium sized fire burn AKA not need to address it immediately. However long term it should be addressed. EG UX is causing a meaningful drop off in activation. EG someone consistently says things in a negative sum way in meetings and others are becoming unhappy.
Large - Needs to be addressed immediately or it will burn down other significant things. EG the updated UX of a product is causing a big increase in customer churn. EG the way someone talks in meetings means others no longer want to have meetings with them.

Some fires burn themselves out, some fires burn other things down: Proactive vs Passive fire management

Most fires start out as smalls (IE they don’t start as a large). Then if left unaddressed, some fires go from small, to medium, then to large.
Other fires start as a small and burn themselves out.
Some go from a small to a medium, then back to a small and burn themselves out.
In my experience anything that gets to a large needs to be put out proactively and should be done so as quickly as possible.
However, passive fire management is something one should employ. IE don’t fight all fires you are aware of. I had no understanding of this 10 years ago. I thought all fires; small, medium or large, should be addressed proactively and immediately.
With the benefit of hindsight, I think trying to put out all fires immediately meant significantly less net progress… and significantly less net enjoyment at work. Letting some fires burn can increase work enjoyment and progress? I think it so. This was very counterintuitive for me.

“Progress solves all known problems.” You are not a firefighter, you are a net progress deliverer.

Sometimes the best approach to solving a fire is the indirect approach of progress.
Oversimplification:
- Fighting fire = Removing a unit of regress
- Progress deliverer = Adding unit of progress
The ROI (return on investment) of each unit of time can vary wildly.
- The iPhone didn’t have a physical keyboard and some people thought this meant it was ‘dead on arrival’. Ie a unit of regress.
- But the unit of progress of a touchscreen allowed many other things that way more than offset the regress.
Sometimes a team isn’t functioning well because of one person.
- Reactive fire fighting approach = Just leave it, the person will slowly level up as people tend to do and the problem will go away.
- Proactive fire fighting approach = Give the person feedback to shift their behaviour.
- Indirect approach = Change structure of the team to work around the weakness or change the role responsibilities of the person.
Sometimes a product isn’t performing well because of the quality of a feature.
- Reactive fire fighting approach = This isn’t great but we have bigger fish to fry. There is always a most important thing, and most of the time you should be doing the most important thing.
- Proactive fire fighting approach = Fix the quality of the feature.
- Indirect approach = Create a new feature that shifts the overall workflow meaning the existing feature is seen in a different light and received quality goes up significantly.

What is insignificant to you might be significant to others. What is significant to you might be insignificant to others.

One person’s trash is another person’s treasure. One person’s opportunity is another person’s anxiety.
Sometimes this is just experience.
- The first time you encounter something it can feel like a large. By the 5th time it’s a small, you know what to do and that everything will be ok!
But even with the same level of experience, someone might view something as a small and another person as a large. Talk it out!
Also, an off hand comment from someone might be taken in a really negative way. Almost never do people go to work trying to ruin someone else’s day. Try to assume positive intent and not get bent out of shape.

If you only take away one thing

Fires suck, and it’s tempting to want to put out all fires you are aware of.
But normally net progress towards your mission is what matters, and letting some fires burn is usually optimal for net progress.
Where there’s smoke there’s fire. A company without any smoke might well be about to get smoked by its competition ;)!

October 10, 2022

Humble Mindset: How a humble mindset leads to sustained success.

October 10, 2022/ Duncan Anderson

By Duncan Anderson. To see all blogs click here.

Reading time: 3 mins

Summary: Minsky ‘Stability leads to instability, instability leads to stability.’ Success can lead to failure, failure can lead to success.

Success is an intoxicant.
- Unchecked, success often leads to failure.
- Failure can lead to success… if you don’t give up!
- Don’t get stuck in this cycle!
Hubris Mindset = Success that leads to failure.
Humble Mindset = Success that leads to success.
Thinking that it’s possible you might fail is one of the best strategies I know of to help with sustained success AKA a Humble Mindset.
Jingle: Aspire to humility, not to greatness.
- Done well, aspiring to Humility = Sustained success AKA greatness
- Aspiring to Greatness often = Hubris mindset = Fleeting success

+++++++++++

Details

Minsky: Stability leads to instability, instability leads to stability

Success is an intoxicant. Unchecked, success can lead to failure.

Success can lead to failure. If you don’t give up, failure can lead to success.
Don’t get stuck in this cycle.
Hubris = Success that leads to failure.
- Success => Think you are better than you are (overconfidence) AKA Hubris Mindset => Take silly risk => Failure
Harmful Mindset * Determination => Success * Hubris Mindset => Failure * Harmful Mindset etc etc

Another version of Humble Mindset is ‘Innovator mindset’.

If you think you have got this you are often in big trouble = Hubris mindset
If you think you can’t make this work you are in big trouble = Harmful mindset

Humble Mindset = Success that leads to success

Success * Humble Mindset => Considered Confidence * Humble Mindset => Success => Considered Confidence * Humble Mindset etc etc.
Don’t think you can’t succeed at something (Harmful Mindset), don’t think you can definitely succeed at something (Hubris Mindset). Try to think you can succeed if you do things right (Humble Mindset).
Overconfidence is a killer, underconfidence is a killer.

Aspire to humility, not to greatness.

A core strategy I see for greatness (AKA sustained success) is humility. To me aspiring to humility is upstream and a better strategy than aspiring to greatness.
Aspiring to Humility => Sustained greatness
- Aspiring to Humility => Success * Humble Mindset => Success * Humble mindset => Success * Humble mindset
Aspiring to greatness => Success to failure cycle (if lucky)
- Aspiring to greatness => Success * Hubris Mindset => Failure * Harmful Mindset * Grit => Success * Hubris Mindset => Failure * Harmful Mindset etc etc.
Success is an intoxicant, don’t get high on your own supply… as you might die!

Aristotle’s golden mean

If you only take away one thing

“You are never as good as you think you are on your best day, you are never as bad as you think you are on your worst day.” AKA don’t have a Hubris Mindset, don’t have a Harmful Mindset.
Try to have a healthy respect for ego distortions and blind spots, try to have a healthy respect for the problem you are solving! Healthy respect = Humble Mindset!

September 18, 2022

Attention Control: Don’t always be present - Your mind can time travel, to not use this ability I think is silly!

September 18, 2022/ Duncan Anderson

By Duncan Anderson. To see all blogs click here.

Reading time: 10 mins

Summary: You can train your brain to have high ‘Attention Control’. Attention Control = Can be present when you want, can think about the past when you want, can think about the future when you want. Being able to be present when one wants, to review the past when one wants and to think about the future when one wants I think is a great asset to enjoying and upgrading life. I don’t think one should be present at all times.

Jingle: You could say, at times, one should be absent from being present ;)!

Should one be ‘present’ all the time?

One characterisation of the modern mindfulful movement is that you should be ‘present’ at all times. By this I think they mean have your attention on the here and now. Enjoy the current moment.
This is an oversimplification: in your mind there is the conscious component and the subconscious component (sometimes referred to as your monkey mind).
I don’t think you want your subconscious throwing in all these thoughts and emotions willy nilly. An out of control subconscious can be a great way to ruin an interaction with a friend, or a business presentation, etc!
I think you want to have high Attention Control AKA high ability to choose how your attention is at any given moment AKA not have your subconscious run amok. Should you be present now? Should you be thinking about the past? Should you be thinking about the future? Should I listen to my subconscious now?
I don’t think you want your subconscious doing whatever it wants whenever it wants. But that doesn’t necessarily mean I think one should be ‘present’ all the time.

What is Attention Control?

This is a concept I got from The Foundations of Mindfulness: How to Cultivate Attention, Good Judgement, and Tranquillity but I’ve modified it a bit.
Here is a MECE of types of attention:
- Conscious:
  - In the present
  - Reviewing the past past
  - Considering the future
- Subconscious - This is hands off mode, you are just watching your subconscious and seeing what it says. Not trying to make sure your conscious is saying nothing AKA being ‘present’. This is kind of a definition head spin, but listening only do your subconscious and not interacting with it all is IMO being ‘present with your subconscious’.
I think you want to get good at being able to do all types of Attention Control when you want. But also good at listening to your body if it’s trying to tell you something, eg if your subconscious is being particularly stubborn and not being quiet it’s probably worth trying to listen to what it has to say!
*Aside: I think you can cultivate mindstate as well, and Attention Control can be about having the right mindstate for the right circumstance. Eg if someone is having a really rough day and wants to talk the optimal mindstate is likely very different to if you are giving constructive feedback to someone. Effectively, mindstates are different types of being ‘present’. However this branch of ‘presence’ is a topic for another day.

Good attention control vs Bad attention control AKA Good mind time travel vs Bad mind time travel

+++++++++

Further Detail

I’ve found meditation a core way to build Attention Control

One definition of meditation = Practising Attention Control through concentrating on your breath and thereby letting go of whatever thoughts and emotions are kicking around your head.
One definition of meditation = Getting to calm AKA letting go of all thoughts and emotions AKA being full present
One definition of meditation = Once you have let go of thoughts and emotions you can often realise what you were thinking and feeling. The busier my mind often the lower my self awareness.
A blog I previously wrote on meditation, read if you would like more of my thoughts on meditation.

A complex example of using Mind Time Travel to make an experience better

Let’s say you just had a great experience with a friend. At the end of it you are reflecting saying how you had a great time.
I think you can also say ‘imagine if we did this to improve things next time’. This is thinking about a future time AKA not being present.
To me this can mean you enjoy the activity you just had, and look forward to the future even more because you get do the activity again but better!
“Comparison is the thief of joy.” This can be true, but also, comparing how you can have enjoyed the experience today and can expect to enjoy an upgraded version of it in the future even more is to me: enjoyment today + enjoyment about the future = double enjoyment!
A way to do this badly, today was good but it could have been better. This is taking away enjoyment from today + not adding enjoyment about the future. So this is a downgrade on just being present.
Outcomes
- Just present: enjoyment of today = 1 unit of enjoyment from today
- Present + Positive view of future having even more enjoyment = 1 unit of enjoyment from today + 1 unit of enjoyment from thinking about the future through positive sum comparison = 2 units of enjoyment
- Present + Negative view about today as future could be better = 1 unit of enjoyment from today - 0.5 units of enjoyment through negative sum comparison = 0.5 units of enjoyment
In short, I think mind time travel done well is a way to improve enjoyment and extract learnings from the past. AKA an essential thing one should be doing! The trick is to do mind time travel in the right time in the right way AKA have high Attention Control.
An example: I’ve really enjoyed going to Burning Man, I think I could enjoy it even more if next time I went in an RV instead of yurt. OMG this Burning Man was epic, we get to do this again and have even more epicness next time! Today is pretty awesome, the future can be even better :)!!!!

Example - Jointly being present to reminisce about the past :)

No this is not an oxymoron.
I don't know about you, but a non trivial portion of my chats with mates is reminiscing about past times! Done well you and your mate are both ‘present’ in your reflection / appreciation of a past experience, reminiscing together and getting a unit of enjoyment today from a time in the past where you had enjoyment!
With good Attention Control, I think a unit of enjoyment from the past can provide many units of enjoyment in the future!

Reviewing the past - A key strategy to level up and a key strategy to make past bad time (a unit of unenjoyment) into units of enjoyment

“I’m not proud of all the things I’ve done, but I’m proud of who I am today.”
And if the past is any indicator, some of the things I do today with the benefit of hindsight, I’ll not be proud of in the future.
But this is ok, in fact this is more than ok. One could call this ‘maturing’ or levelling up. To somehow be proud of everything one has ever done is to me, saying one has never learned anything new. With the benefit of new information I change my mind on many things.
- “When events change, I change my mind. What do you do?
- When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?
- When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?
- When someone persuades me that I am wrong, I change my mind. What do you do?” - Keynes
Trying to do the right thing doesn’t mean that you’ll always do the right thing. Updating what you think is right over time is key to making progress. The only constant is change. To be right often you need to change your mind often.
Being able to mind time travel, to go back in time and review circumstances, to extract happiness from past times, but also learnings from things that didn’t go well, that hurt, that embarrass you, I think is key.
I think you want to be present some times, to relive the past some times, and to think about the future some times.

Analogy of Attention Control to emotional healthy

A blog I wrote a while back: Emotional health is experiencing the full spectrum of emotions in a healthy way, not only feeling ‘positive emotions’
I don’t think you want to experience only good emotions, and not bad emotions. I think you want to experience all emotions in a healthy way.
To me, emotions are signals, you can use them to make better decisions.
Buddhist mantra: I am not my thoughts, I am not my feelings. I am the observer of my thoughts, I am the observer of my feelings.
I am not frustrated, I am experiencing frustration. I am not annoyed, I am experiencing annoyance.
One definition of experiencing emotions in a healthy way: You see experiencing frustration as a signal, you use this signal to figure out how to better navigate a situation and have the frustration stop. You don’t become frustrated and then get in a negative frustration feedback loop with someone! Well I’m frustrated now, well your frustration is making me frustrated, now I’m even more frustrated etc etc.
In a similar vein, I think you want to be ‘present’ in a healthy way. To me this means being present sometimes, but not all the time.

If you only take away one thing

Jingle 2: I recommend giving yourself a present, the present of not needing to feel like you need to be present all the time!
This kinda sounds like a contradiction, but I don't think it is. I think when you choose, you want to be present with the present, present with the past, present with the future and present with your subconscious :)!

September 17, 2022

Rounded mental abilities: IQ, EQ & KQ

September 17, 2022/ Duncan Anderson

By Duncan Anderson. To see all blogs click here.

Reading time: 7 mins

Summary: Rounded mental abilities > Only strong in one area. Through deliberate effort I believe one can level up each of IQ, EQ and KQ.

Definitions

IQ = Intelligence Quotient = Pure logic ability
EQ = Emotional Intelligence = Ability to understand yourself and others
KQ = Knowledge Intelligence = The amount of useful ideas you know of. An article on what I consider a subset of KQ. But I prefer this idea of the knowledge curriculum from Natalie Wexler.
*Aside: To me the word ‘intelligence’ is a very fixed mindset idea. I’m just using ‘intelligence’ it is how things are currently named, you’ll see below that I think you can grow all areas and that mental ability (vs intelligence) is a better name as it sounds more upgradable.

Rounded vs Unbalanced Mental Abilities

You can grow mental abilities

Over the last 100 years IQ has improved on average 3 points per decade, or 30 points over 100 years - link.
15 points is one standard deviation. This means that the average person today would have scored in the 94th percentile 100 year ago.

People have put forward many explanations for this, I think the cleanest explanation is that one’s mental abilities are not fixed, and that you can level up. The earlier you start compounding mental abilities the better. This is called ‘cumulative advantage’ or ‘The Matthew Effect’.

To me, on average there is more exposure to content today than 100 years ago (books, games, calculations for buying things, video, etc), but also 100 years ago there was no TV, no internet and no smart phones. So the average person today is starting to compound mental abilities sooner and doing so at a higher quantity and quality than an average person 100 years ago.

Mental ability = 1. Quantity * 2. Quality of upgrades done.
- I think today vs 100 years ago on average people:
  - A: start mental upgrades sooner.
  - B: do higher quantity once they start, and
  - C: on average the quality is higher.
- *Aside: the main difference I see between someone who is a master in their field and someone who is average is the quantity and quality of upgrades they have done. In other words, if you want to be a master, start doing upgrades now!

This can explain the 30 point difference / 2 standard deviation difference in IQ results from 100 years ago. Effectively the average human today is using their brain earlier and more in all areas than 100 years ago, and this has compounding effects.
*Aside: I consider this blog “Mental Ability = Number of ideas * Interconnectedness of ideas” one explanation of how the Matthew Effect can compound and is ceilingless. Also, this blog has another definition of ‘mental ability’.

Some thoughts on how to grow IQ, EQ and KQ

IQ
- It’s logical to think improving at logic ability is logical! Haha, I like that sentence!
- The best way I know to improve logic ability is writing blogs. Writing blogs like this CloudStreaks blog = Improving raw logic ability. Here are some blogs I’ve written about the power of writing.
  - Metacognition Writing: the best way to add value I’m aware of - Dec 2021
  - Language is the ultimate tool. Writing = improving at language. As such: writing = cool! - Oct 2020
  - Writing is problem solving - Dec 2019
- One way to represent logic ability is the logic structures one can build - as per this blog.
  - High quality logic solving (IQ ability) is playing 3D chess. Low quality logic solving is 1D checkers.
  - A visualisation for logic problem solving ability.

I find a problem, then I write about it. The writing is figuring out the ‘solution’, I don’t know before I write what I’m going to write, I just have a problem I’d like to level up my understanding of.

In effect writing blogs like this one you are reading, are little logic puzzles. I set myself custom little logic puzzles and solve them.
Including what I do inside work, I likely solve 5-15 logic puzzles a week.
You get better at the things you try to get better at. I believe I’ve slowly gotten better at solving logic puzzles through writing. AKA I've levelled up my IQ abilities.
I’d council that you write a weekly or fortnightly blog about anything you want to systematically get better at. I do this for improving Edrolo as a business, improving the product at Edrolo, personal self reflections, etc etc.
*Aside: IMO for the vast majority of jobs, speed of problem solving pales in comparison to the quality of the solution. Normally I don’t care if it takes twice as long if the solution is twice as good, or frankly 10% better. Normally the solution scales to some degree more than offsetting the extra time needed.

EQ
- A couple of frameworks I like for emotional intelligence

Learning from yourself (improving self awareness and self management)
- “You do not learn from your experiences, you learn from reflecting on your experiences.” John Dewy
- I try to do a few units of ‘Post Game Analysis’ a week on how I’ve done in meetings etc with others, eg in 1:1s.
- I journal to myself about the week and also review what I was journaling about from a year ago writing notes.
Learning from others (improving social awareness and relationship management)
- “The good learn from everything and everyone, the average from themselves, and the stupid already know everything.” Socrates
- I systematically try to consume content 2+ times a week that will help me walk a mile in someone else's shoes. Reality TV can be great for this.
- Some examples:
  - Reading biographies - recent ones include ‘Xi, a study in power’ (about Xi Jinping), ‘10 steps to Nanette’ (if you haven’t watched the Netflix special please do) & ‘Burn Rate - Launching a startup and losing my mind’ (about mental health troubles and running a startup)
  - Watching reality TV - Love on the spectrum (people with ASD dating), You can’t ask that (a mix bag of everything being a sportsperson to addition), Maid (abuse, single mum, poverty :( ).
  - Podcasts - Dear HBR (different circumstances at work), en(gender)ed (coercive control), Trained (a podcast interviewing coaches of sports players and what they do)
- I also do post game analysis with others about others. It's great!

KQ
- They say ‘it’s not what you know, it’s who you know’. Well I think a big determinant in who you know, is what you know! As I’ve gotten to know more stuff I’ve been able to meet people I wouldn’t have been able to if I didn’t know much! I've found you can meet someone when you are worthy of meeting them, not because you have a connection. So do the work to level yourself up to be worthy of meeting people!
- Ideas / content range from highly useful to not really useful at all.
- I think one should try and understand all highly useful ideas. For instance, I think one should understand about inflation and central bank policy right now. I also think one should understand the last time there were countries trying to take other countries (eg Russia with Ukraine and China with Taiwan) and how the world reacted.
- But overall you should know about economics, sociology, startups, politics, geopolitics, financial markets, the differences in major cultures, key lessons from history, etc etc.
- It’s pretty friggin broad… and awesome! Normally the more you know about something the more interesting it is. I knew almost nothing about the world as an 18 year old and most things were boring. I like to think I know much more now, and honestly, almost everything is interesting!
Some quick thoughts from me
- I do ~2 hours of EQ and KQ content consumption a day. This is just the reading component.
- But then I also systematically try to do the major learning modalities at least once a week, ideally once a day: Reading, thinking, talking, writing, building and user testing! This is partially building IQ ability.

If you only take away one thing

I like to think my IQ, EQ and KQ have massively levelled up from where they were 10 years ago. I like to think my IQ, EG and KQ will be massively levelled up in 10 years.
I’m trying to do systematic upgrades 5-6 days a week.
I’ve found there is an emergent outcome where these areas combine to allow me to do new things I couldn’t before.
I don’t believe any of IQ, EQ or KQ have a ceiling, you can level up indefinitely. Not just that, your improvements can be more than linear, they can be exponential!
Jingle: If you think your abilities are fixed, then there is no point trying to level up. I’ve got a fix for you, break that fixed mindset and out of the rubble start to grow!

Cloud Streaks

Cloud Streaks

Blog

Cloud Streaks

All Blogs

Description ability: A key way Masters differentiate from Novices.

Deliberate laughter practice: A better tool to destress and change your mood than meditation?

Product traction framework: Ideal product = 1. Known problem * 2. Known solution * 3. No existing product

What went wrong review: Trying to be consistently less stupid.

Counter Biassing: Counter balance your biases to try be unbiased

Optimal unit of work size = Smallest unit of work needed to get a unit of learning.

Mind ability = Improvable = 1. Knowledge level * 2. Thinking speed * 3. Synthesis ability

Quality Metrics: Objective measures for subjective things

Plentiful Prioritising = Prioritising well = Coming up with double the number of ideas you need and going with the top half.

Positive Sum Discussions = 1. Message Positive Sum * 2. Messaging Positive Sum * 3. Interactions Positive Sum

Psychologically safe floor expectations: Expectations = Floor + Middle + Ceiling

Tradeoff Table: Most things involve a tradeoff, use a framework like this to try to explain the tradeoff.

Synthesizers, not summarizers: Move the game forward, don’t just say something.

Effective Email: A key way to reduce organisational drag

Dealmakers vs Dealbreakers vs Nice to haves: Not everything matters equally.

Net progress deliverers: Don’t fight all fires, optimise for net progress.

Humble Mindset: How a humble mindset leads to sustained success.

Attention Control: Don’t always be present - Your mind can time travel, to not use this ability I think is silly!

Rounded mental abilities: IQ, EQ & KQ

Cloud Streaks