Mental Ability = Number of ideas * Interconnectedness of ideas

By Duncan Anderson. To see all blogs click here.

Reading time: 8 mins

Summary: Mental Ability ≈ Reading Comprehension Ability ≈ Problem Solving Ability.  I believe that reading comprehension ability and problem solving can improve exponentially and infinitely (IE there is no ceiling). A master's problem solving ability can be 100x+ better than a novice’s. 

• Mental Ability = Value extracted from reading 1x article = (1. Ability to extract ideas from an article + 2. Ability to recall relevant ideas from long term memory) * 3. Ability to interconnect ideas

• Mental Ability = Problem solving ability = (1. Ability to generate ideas in a problem space + 2. Ability to recall relevant ideas from long term memory) * 3. Ability to connect the ideas into a metastructure

One of many definitions: Mental Ability ≈ Reading Comprehension Ability

• To me reading comprehension is the most upstream mental skill there is. 

• Having a discussion with someone is real time two way reading comprehension. 

• Thinking to yourself is internal reading comprehension. 

• It doesn’t matter if you are an Artificial Intelligence engineer, a teacher or an AFL player, you all do lots and lots of ‘reading comprehension’. 

• I think that reading comprehension ability has no ceiling, and that masters at reading comprehension are at least 100x+ better at it than novices. The compound outcome of being 100x better at something per unit of time is boggling! 

• But also, Reading Comprehension ≈ Problem Solving. 

• There is also a bunch of research on ways to describe what reading comprehension is :), see details below. 

Mental Ability represented with numbers :) 

• Here is a model for how connecting ideas can visualise (see below for more detail on models that can underlie these visuals). Joining SOLO taxonomy and Dreyfus taxonomy.

• What a novice ‘sees’ when reading an article

• What an expert ‘sees’

• IMO Language Comprehension Ability does not have a ceiling AKA you can improve at Language Comprehension indefinitely. The value you can get from a single article (or add to solving a problem) can massively increase. A novice can get 1 unit of value, a master might get 100x+ more. 

• The two main areas I see as limitless are 1. Background knowledge (ideas in long term memory) and 2. Ability to connect ideas together to create emergent new ideas. 

Another way to visualise interconnecting ideas.

• The structures you can build are effectively limitless. 

  • A novice sees minimal new data points. 

  • A master sees new data points AND creates new structures of ideas combined together. 

• One’s ability to interconnect data points ≈ One’s ability to create emergent new ideas ≈ Metacognition ability

One strategy to grow mental abilities

• “1. Ability to extract ideas from an article + 2. Ability to recall relevant ideas from long term memory” = Reading and thinking

• “3. Ability to interconnect ideas” = Talking, writing, building and user testing. 

• More detail: Learning Modalities: Reading, thinking, talking, writing, building and user testing. 

Life can get always more colourful. 

• Related blog: Knowledge compounds exponentially: an explanation for the matthew effect

• What you can learn is a function of what you know. The more you know the more you can learn. 

• What you can do is a function of what you have done. The more you have done the more you can do. 

• IMO increased mental ability means each unit of time can be more valuable AKA colourful than before :)! 

• Jingle: If you are bored then you are boring. If you don’t find things interesting then start reading, thinking, talking, writing and building! 

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

Details

The Simple View Of Reading - A well regarded model for reading

• Introductory model

• More detailed version

• Background knowledge (ideas in your long term memory) on a topic is something that massively affects the results students have on reading comprehension tests. To me this makes logical sense. I like to think I have 100x the background knowledge about the world that I had 10 years ago. 

• One component I think it's missing from Scarborough's model is the ability to join ideas together into emergent ideas. This is something I think SOLO taxonomy covers well. 

Skills that have ceilings vs Skills without ceilings

• Word recognition (decoding) = Can you recognise the word (if you are reading this the answer is yes, this is mainly for children reading to learn) = Has a ceiling

• Language comprehension = Once you have recognised the word what can you do with it = No ceiling

  • Some examples of Language Comprehension having increasing levels:

    • “A text for 7-year-olds that discusses the exact function of white blood cells may seem ambitious, but if the class doesn't yet understand blood's role in the circulatory system, then the text would likely be an unwise choice. Equally, it may be tempting to teach children about the supercontinent of Pangea, but if they don't know about the continents as they currently exist, then learning about these should come first. Some concepts are simply more fundamental than others.”

    • “Take the word 'steal'. A young child may only understand this word in terms of the physical act of taking something without permission. Most adults, however, will understand the word in various other contexts and phrases. Their rich network of understanding will allow them to understand that one can 'steal an election', 'steal a heart and 'steal a march'; they will know that no crime has been committed when some one proudly declares that their new shoes were 'a steal at this price'. In short, most adults' understanding of the word 'steal' has considerable depth as the word is for them part of a rich network of meaning. Vocabulary breadth and depth as the word is for them part of a rich network of meaning. Vocabulary breadth and depth are both important to reading in different ways.”

• I like to think I have 10x the background knowledge I had 10 years ago. I hope to have 10x the background knowledge I have today in 10 years. 

• I like to think I have 10x the ability to join ideas together into emergent new ideas I had 10 years ago. I hope to have 10x the ability to join ideas together into emergent new ideas in 10 years from today. 

• My definition of Language Comprehension = Mental Ability = (1. Ideas you can get from the passage you are reading + 2. Ideas you have in your long term memory you can recall that relate) * 3. Ability to structure these ideas together into something useful

Learning = The construction of a mental model

• ‘Learning = The construction of a mental model’ is one of my fav definitions of learning. 

  • What people get when they read an article is not the same. 

  • Some very one dots, others something as intricate at the Milky Way. 

• Here are some well known models about learning. 

• SOLO Taxonomy

• Bloom’s Taxonomy

• Marzano

• Kegan

• Dreyfus

Language Comprehension = Mental Ability = (1. Ideas you can get from the passage you are reading + 2. Ideas you have in your long term memory you can recall) * 3. Ability to structure these ideas together into something useful = Problem Solving Ability 

• When you read an article the value you can extract from it can vary massively! 

  • The same article for some can be incomprehensible, and for others life changing. 

• One huge component is ‘background knowledge’ AKA the ideas in your long term memory you can recall that relate to what you are reading (or the problem you are working on). 

• Value extracted = (1. Ideas from article extracted + 2. Ideas from long term memory) * 3. Interconnectedness of each idea.

• What a novice ‘sees’ when reading an article

• What a master ‘sees’

• So IMO your Language Comprehension (Mental) ability is limitless. The value you can get from a single article (or add to solving a problem) can massively increase. A novice can get 1 unit of value, a master might get 100x+ more. 

Reading Comprehension Ability ≈ Problem Solving Ability ≈ Mental Ability

• Also, I see reading comprehension ability as akin to problem solving ability. And the solution to all problems is problem solving :). What can you construct out of the ingredients in front of you? A path forward or a mess that bogs you down? 

Can one level up one’s Mental Ability (language comprehension ability)? I think so!

• In the model put forward here the two areas that are limitless are ‘background knowledge’ aka what is in your long term memory and one's ability to construct ideas into useful structures (aka make a mental model). 

• The key strategies I have to build ‘background knowledge’ are reading and talking. 

• The key strategies I have to build ‘mental model construction ability’ are thinking, writing and building. 

If you only take away one thing

• Your mind is your ultimate possession, your mind is your ultimate creation. In key areas I think your mind is limitless. 

• I’ve found building my mind and trying to help build others to be one of life’s great joys! 

Realists: not pessimists, not optimists

By Duncan Anderson. To see all blogs click here.

Reading time: 2 mins

Summary & Jingle: The glass isn’t half full, or half empty, it’s 50% full. 

• Optimist = Half full

• Pessimist = Half empty

• Realist = 50% full

Your understanding of reality is the foundation upon which everything is built

• The most accurate reflection of reality is upstream of any decision and solutions you build. 

  • Diagnose before you prescribe. 

  • I find a key strategy for high quality diagnosis is hectic realism and transparency. 

• I think you want to be as pragmatic as possible, to tell things as straight as possible. I don’t mind if the glass is 20% full, we can still get it to 100% full. I just want to know where things are at so we can plan as well as possible. 

• If you need to calibrate what someone is saying so that it better reflects reality, you are normally lowering decision making ability and velocity. 

• A slightly different area but something I say: I want to know good news quickly and bad news immediately. You have nothing to fear from the truth, but that doesn’t mean the truth won’t hurt. You do, however, have lots to fear from delusion. 

  • Realism = Transparency = High ability to trust

• I see realists as being minimally delusional. 

  • Optimism = being more positive then is realistic (aka partially delusional). 

  • Pessimism = being more negative than is realistic (aka partially delusional).

• Trust is one core element to good working relationships. Being a realist is a core strategy I’ve found to build trust. 

Believing you can make progress ≠ Being optimist

• Pragmatists, not idealogues. Do what works! 

• I used to think that being an optimist was important to making progress. But I didn’t really understand there was a third option of being a ‘realist’. 

• I believe the optimal way to make progress is through being a realist. As being a realist means you have the best understanding of the current state of play (reality, aka can diagnose well) and the best ability to forecast how changes you are proposing will play out (ie not overestimating [optimising] or underestimating [pessimism]) AKA can put forward quality prescriptions. 

Forecast accuracy = Key strategy to build trust

• I plan to write another blog on this. 

• I think it’s conceivable that forecast accuracy is the most important attribute of someone at work. 

• Forecast accuracy = 1. Reviewing your most recent forecast (1.1 Explaining why your forecast was off  + 1.2 Explaining how to be less inaccurate in the future) + 2. Making the next forecast. 

• I’ve found one key to good at forecast accuracy is being a hardcore realist. 

Types of Innovation: 0=>1 vs 1=>10 vs 10+

By Duncan Anderson. To see all blogs click here.

Reading time: 5 mins

Summary: I find it useful to talk about these three types of innovation. If you are trying to grow your’s or others innovation ability, recognise what type of innovation you are asking of yourself or them and support accordingly. 

• Jingle: A definition of magic I like: Magic = Doing something that someone else doesn’t know how to do. Therefore, perhaps, innovation is modern day magic! 

Types of innovation

• 0=>1 innovation : there was nothing before and you build the first version of something

• 1=>10 innovation : there is something and while it’s ‘working’ there are significant upgrades that can and should be done

• 10+ innovation : only small optimisations are being done

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

Details

You get better at the things you spend time trying to get better at

• You are not born able to walk, talk, write or do mathematics. 

• You are not born able to innovate. But I do think ~90%+ of people are born with the possibility to level up to where one can innovate. 

• When we started Edrolo ~10 years ago, I think my innovation ability was very poor. I like to think I’ve levelled up consistently across the last 10 years. I had almost no ability to improve education when we started, now I believe each unit of effort leads to progress. 

• In short, I think I was Level 0 at ‘0=>1 innovation’ when we started Edrolo. I like to think I’m Level 10+ at ‘0=>1 innovation’ now. 

Possible outcome for the different types of innovation

• 0=>1 : 

  • Done well, 10 units of effort for 1 unit of progress. Or 10 steps forward 9 steps backwards. Eg Level 10. 

  • Done average, 100 units of effort for 1 unit of progress. Eg Level 5. 

  • Done badly, no progress. Eg Level 0. 

• 1=>10 : 

  • Done well, 5 units of effort for 1 unit of progress. Or 5 steps forward, 4 steps backwards. 

  • Done average, 20 units of effort for 1 unit of progress

  • Done poorly, 100 units of effort for 1 unit of progress

• 10+ : 

  • Done well, 2 units of effort for 1 unit of progress. Or 2 steps forward, 1 step backwards. 

  • Done average: 5 units of effort for 1 unit of progress.

  • Done poorly: 20 units of effort for 1 unit of progress. 

• No innovation AKA learning what someone else has done: 

  • Done well, 1 unit of effort of progress for 1 unit of progress. But you do conceptual learning (making the if/then statement), not procedural (memorising someone else’s if/then statement). 

  • Done average: 2 units of effort for 1 unit of progress. 

  • Done poorly: procedural learning. 

IMO you get better at all types of innovation, but you should expect to start all at L0. 

• I’ve found that some people walk in at their first job and can have solid Innovation ability and other’s zero. 

• One of the key things I think that is related to innovation ability is ‘have you taught yourself something’ AKA have you levelled yourself up at something. This can be in art, playing sport, chess, debating, maths, humour, friendships… anything. 

• In some respects, Innovation Ability = 1. Have discovered the love of learning * 2. Are using the ability to learn to level yourself up. 

• Some people have figured out how to level themselves up in 3+ areas by the time they finish university. These people normally have strong innovation ability. Others have only been taught things by others AKA had upgrades done to them not by themselves. 

• Good marks at uni ≠ Good innovation ability. 

  • Good marks can mean good innovation ability. But doesn’t necessarily mean good innovation ability. 

  • One model: You can get good marks one of two ways: 1. Rote memorisation of the content (memorising someone else’s if/then statement AKA procedural learning) or 2. Understanding the content (creating the if/then statement for yourself AKA conceptual learning). 

  • You want people who are good at the latter. I count creating an if/then statement is a small unit of innovation. 

How do you grow yourself and / or others' innovation abilities? 

• If you want to level up at eg “0=>1 Innovation” then I recommend spending time doing “0=>1 innovation” and while trying to do “0=>1 innovation” be as systematic as possible (eg metacognitively write about what you are doing). 

• I’ve written some blogs about this in the past. I hope these are useful. 

  • Earned Secrets V2 = 1. Find problem + 2. Do the work to build / level up a solution (AKA earn a secret) - June 2022

  • Innovator Mindset = Considered Confidence = Imposter syndrome done well - Jan 2022

  • Innovation = 10 Units of Effort for 1 Unit of Progress - Dec 2021

  • Product innovation ability: innovation is not magic, innovation can be systematic - June 2021

  • Ability to see data points in the world around you ≈ Ability to innovate - May 2021

  • Building innovation ability in others = the best thing you can do? - Oct 2020

  • Innovation = 1. Figure out what the problem is * 2. Solve the problem - Sep 2020

  • Learning Vs Innovating - don't learn about innovating the hard way - Aug 2019

I used to think one couldn’t learn to innovate. Now think Edrolo has been innovating in learning! 

• Secondary school student example: 

  • A model for maths problems: A problem can have a start and an end. 

  • No innovation = Memorise someone else’s if/then statement for a maths question (procedural learning). Normally for close start and close ended question. 

  • 10+ innovation = Make the if/then statement to answer a maths question by conceptual learning). Normally for close start and close ended question. 

  • 1=>10 innovation = Answering a closed start but open ended question conceptually. Eg inquiry learning. This might take 5-20 mins. 

  • 0=>1 innovation = Figure out the problem to solve then solve the problem (ie open start problem and hence open ended problem). This could be a week-long project. 

• Edrolo content creator example: 

  • No innovation = Using the maths product recipe without understanding it (procedural use)

  • 10+ innovation = Make a lesson for maths using the recipe and machine well (conceptual use)

  • 1=>10 innovation = Upgrade part of the maths macro recipe

  • 0=>1 innovation = Come up with the idea of recipes to make maths resources

If you only take away one thing

• You can learn innovation. Innovation can be layered into almost everything if designed well. 

• I believe Edrolo tries to layer some building of innovation skills into the resources we create. 

Same different: One person's opportunity is another person's anxiety.

By Duncan Anderson. To see all blogs click here.

Reading time: 3 mins

Summary: I’ve found the exact same thing at work can be perceived as polar opposites by different people.

One person’s trash is another person’s treasure. 

• One person’s opportunity is another person’s anxiety. 

  • The opportunity to manage people for one person is really invigorating, for another it’s stressful. 

  • The opportunity to project manager for one person is really invigorating, for another it’s stressful. 

  • The responsibility to deliver a new product by a deadline for one person is really invigorating, for another it’s stressful. 

• One person’s relaxation is another person’s boredom. 

  • For one person doing something they know how to do and do well is their ‘happy place’. For another person it’s boredom and restlessness; they want something new. 

  • For one person having minimal time pressure is nice, for another person they want to push themselves. 

• Some people aim to be the best at what they do in the world, others want to ‘work to live’. 

  • A place for everything and everything in its place. IMO there isn’t one right answer, and even for one individual they might have a different approach in different years! 

  • I’ve seen people pre kids and post kids have different approaches to work. What is optimal for 25 year old you might not be optimal for 35 year old you. 

Maturity = Understanding others don’t see the world the way you see the world. 

• Levels:

  • L0: Thinking everyone views the world the way you do.

  • L1: Understanding people view the same thing in different ways, sometimes totally opposing ways.

  • L2: Drawing continuums for how people can view the same thing (eg opportunity ⇔ indifference ⇔ anxiety) and placing different people at different points on the continuum. 

  • L3: Consistently being able to place people correctly on the continuums thereby anticipating how they will feel about different circumstances. 

• Comment

  • I definitely used to think that others saw the world the way I saw the world. 

  • I try to have my default be ‘what are the continuums of how people could see this circumstance?’ ‘How can we place people in this on the continuums?’

I don’t think a company wants everyone viewing things the same way (ie everyone views a circumstance as opportunity or as anxiety). 

• In some respects I see a ‘strong culture’ being characterised as ‘monoculture’. 

  • I think a good culture is uniform in some areas, differs in other areas, and is always updating. Not 10 cultural values that everyone has to embody and that don’t update. 

  • To me, this means inside the same company you have some people who view Circumstance A as opportunity, and some people who view Circumstance A as anxiety. 

  • It means that what is relaxation for some is boredom for others. 

• Businesses are normally team sports. If you are playing soccer, you don’t want everyone to be a goalkeeper. That team is not likely to win many matches. 

• So having people who view the exact same circumstance in opposing ways, done well, is a feature, not a bug. Eg having someone who views product development on a deadline as an opportunity and another who views this as anxiety can be used to get better outcomes for the business than if everyone viewed it as opportunity. For instance at Edrolo I think you need people who love making high quality content for existing product recipes. I also think you need people who love making new recipes. 

• I find performance feedback systems can often push people to be the same. IMO you want a team with the highest winning ratio (aka the right different people in the right positions), not a team with everyone the same. 

Having said all this

• I find the biggest shortage is of people aiming to be the best at what they do in the world AND doing the work to become the best at what they do. 

• These people view almost everything as an opportunity.  

Diagnose before you prescribe. Quality diagnosis = 100% Coverage Problem Space framework = Building a framework to explain ~100% of the problem space.

By Duncan Anderson. To see all blogs click here.

Reading time: 

• Intro = 4 mins

• Details = 7 mins

Summary: For large problems I believe one should have a framework that covers 80%+ of the problem space AKA ~100% Coverage Problem Space Framework

• Jingle: Diagnose before you prescribe. For a perfect presecription don’t have a dumb diagnosis.

• You can’t have a good solution if you don’t understand the problem space properly unless you get lucky. 

• One key strategy I have to ‘diagnose’ well is to build a framework that covers at least 80% of a problem space. AKA 100% Coverage Diagnosis Framework. 

Some suggestions literally make things worse

• Rearticulations

  • The path to hell is paved with good intentions. 

  • The path to hell is a prescription based on a poor quality diagnosis. 

  • The path to hell is paved with good first order intentions and unforeseen negative second order consequences that more than offset the first order improvement. 

  • The path to hell is optimising for a portion of the problem space picture (eg 25%), and not realising that this optimisation actually means going backward for the other 75% of the problem space picture for an overall net loss. 

  • The path to hell is prescribing without a 100% Coverage Problem Space Framework. 

Diagnose before you prescribe

• Diagnose = Build a framework that covers 80%+ of a problem space AKA the full picture of a problem space with metacognition explanation AKA 100% Coverage Problem Space Framework 

  • -L2 = no piece of the problem space picture

  • -L2 = a piece that isn’t part of the problem space

  • -L1 = one piece (eg 25%) of the problem space and think it’s the entire problem space

  • L0 = a picture of that represents part of the full problem space, but not the entire space (eg 50% of the problem space)

  • L1 = a framework that represents 80%+ of the problem space

  • L2 = L1 + have a meta-explanation of the problem space that makes it easy to understand and work with AKA a 100% Coverage Problem Space Framework

• Prescribe

  • -L2 = go with the first thing that comes to mind. 

  • -L1 = come up with two options and calibrate them vs “-L1 = one piece (eg 25%) of the problem space and think it’s the entire problem space”

  • L1 = come up with 2+ options and calibrate them vs “L2 = L1 + have a meta-explanation of the problem space that makes it easy to understand and work with” explaining the weighted best outcome and tradeoffs. 

    • Reference blog: Externally supported recommendations, not opinions

• Comment

  • This blog is mainly about trying to figure out minimum sufficient diagnosis, not about levelling up prescription. 

  • With the benefit of hindsight I think for years I underestimated the importance of diagnosis. AKA operated with sub sufficient diagnosis. 

  • Outcome = Diagnosis ability * Prescription ability

    • Anything times zero is zero. 

    • Diagnosis is upstream of prescription. 

  • I see this blog as a levelling up of ‘To solve problems effectively, first build a complete picture of the problem space.’ The 100% coverage part and frameworks to show this is the main level up. 

Examples of headline ‘~100% Coverage Problem Space Frameworks’ 

• Example 1: People management

  • Areas of the problem space: 

    • Area 1: the individual 

    • Area 2: the team

    • Area 3: the manager

    • Area 4: the company

  • Most of the time you can have all 4 areas be happy, but normally not all of the time. For example, sometimes there is one person who is underperforming and it can feel harsh to performance manage them. But when you look at the ‘100% Coverage Problem Space Framework’ you can see the ‘line of sufficiency’ to performance manage someone is well and truly met. 

  • Not performance managing someone is actually, while possibly in the interest of the individual (ie one piece of the problem space), a net loss for the full problem space according to the ‘100% Coverage Problem Space Framework’. 

• Example 2: Making education products

  • *Note: most of the rest of this blog will be concentrated on this area as this has a lot to do with what Edrolo does. 

  • 100% Coverage Problem Space Framework = 1. Framework Destination + 2. Optimal starting point + 3. Systematic sequential path between the startpoint and Framework Destination 

  • While there might not be a ‘100% definitive’ destination, not doing the work to build an agreed upon ‘fuzzy desintiation’ (often previously referred to the ‘fuzzy north star’) means any path is ‘forwards’... also any path is ‘backwards’. 

  • Having a 100% Coverage Problem Space Framework I find core to being able to put forward an ‘Externally Supported Recommendation’, not an opinion. 

  • More details below. 

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

Details

100% Coverage Problem Space Framework = 1. Framework Destination + 2. Optimal starting point + 3. Systematic sequential path between the startpoint and Framework Destination 

• This framework was built for Year 7-10 Education products but I think can be used in other areas too. 

• Building the 100% coverage diagnosis frameworks can be really hard, but not doing so is likely dooming yourself to failure :(. 

• Most of the rest of this blog is on this framework. 

Framework Destinations - some are easy to figure out, some are hard, however I think having one is a necessity

• Tesla - easy:  cheaper electric car or more specifically cheaper average cost per kilometre travelled. 

• Google search - hard: better quality search

  • One of my fav presentations from when I was at Google back in 2011/12 was how Google had made a quantitative measure for Google search quality. They ‘whitelabelled’ the major search engines (ie removed discernable UX elements) and then got external people to search on the different players (eg google, bing, yahoo) and rate their outcomes. You could see the quality number on average of Google improving and the gap to Bing increasing. 

  • There are a huge amount of semantics involved. Eg if someone googled ‘streaming platform’ 20 years ago what did it mean? Streaming = water, platform = ?? maybe a waterfall. Now? Netflix. 

  • For Google Search the Framework Destination is constantly moving but it is able to be mapped. 

• Secondary education resource - medium: 1. Find the types of things students need to do (eg exam, eg inquiry project, eg socratic discussion, etc) * 2. Map these done well at high resolution (in Edrolo speak ‘genome’) * 3. Munge together

  • Figuring this out takes lots of work. But it’s crucial. 

• Bridgewater country rankings - hard: 

  • This is part of the way Bridgewater build a ‘100% Coverage Problem Solving Framework’ for investing. 

  • Full file here. 

You’re not listening to me, no you’re not listening to me! 

• I find that when someone says something there is almost always a supporting reason. There however isn’t necessarily a supporting ‘100% Coverage Problem Solving Framework’ through which they are calibrating multiple options and considering multiple variables. AKA someone has done sub sufficient diagnosis before prescribing. 

• A recommendation isn’t necessarily a good one as you have one supporting reason. In fact the proposal could be an improvement on the one variable (piece) of the problem space put forward but overall highly counter productive for the problem space you are operating in. 

• Levels

  • -L2: opinion with no supporting reason

  • -L1: opinion with one supporting reason

  • L1: opinion with discussed and agreed up high resolution Framework Destination

  • L2: externally supported recommendation based on a 100% Coverage Problem Space Framework

  • L3: L2 + calibrate existing proposal vs new proposal on the 100% Coverage Problem Space Framework with the multiple variables this entails. 

• An oversimplification: you can have negative sum debates or positive sum discourse. 

  • Often negative sum debates happen when two parties are operating at ‘-L1: opinion with one supporting reason’. AKA don’t have a 100% Coverage Problem Space Framework AKA both have only one piece of the problem space and the pieces are different to each other. 

    • My supporting reason is good, no my supporting reason is good. You are not listening to me. No you are not listening to me etc. 

  • There is almost always more than one thing to consider when diagnosing AKA building a 100% Coverage Problem Space Framework. A key strategy I have to consider multiple variables in a considered fashion to thread them together into a ‘100% Coverage Problem Space Framework’. 

  • Then often you can go from negative sum debate to positive sum discourse. 

    • Yes, I think reason 1 is important. 

    • But I also think that reason 2 is important. 

    • When we calibrate these reasons against the ‘100% Coverage Problem Space Framework’ we see there are four major variables to consider, and that both reason 1 and reason 2 are two of the four. Bolting them together through the ‘100% Coverage Problem Space Framework’ it appears the best tradeoff is to move forward with this recommendation. 

Example: Using a ‘100% Coverage Problem Space Framework’ for building education resources

• This is an oversimplification but I hope it helps. 

• Right now I think one of the first steps for building a product is figuring out and agreeing on a “100% Coverage Problem Space Framework = 1. Framework Destination + 2. Optimal starting point + 3. Systematic sequential path between the startpoint and Framework Destination”

• For a Year 7 Secondary product, building a “100% Coverage Problem Space Framework” might take 100s to 1000s of hours. 

  • Doing this means you can see the big picture of the problem space you are trying to solve. Not just focus on one piece of the picture and not know that you are doing this. 

    • To solve problems effectively, first build a complete picture of the problem space.

  • We are not collecting data points, we are building knowledge maps. I find a core part of building knowledge maps is creating and updating a ‘100% Coverage Problem Space Framework’. 

  • Then you can calibrate the tradeoffs for an ‘Externally Supported Recommendation’ against the ‘100% Coverage Problem Space Framework’.  

• Let’s say you want to change the question recipe for a component of a secondary education resource: 

  • Mini example 1: 

    • Opinion: I think that my proposed change reflects part of the curriculum AKA not referencing the proposal vs the ‘100% Coverage Problem Space Framework’ and calibrating whether on balance your new proposal is highly likely to be a better outcome than the existing proposal. 

    • Externally supported recommendation: changing the question recipe here is highly likely to increase the chance of students getting to the Framework Destination over the existing proposal. 

  • Mini example 2: 

    • Opinion: I think this change will improve the UX. AKA only considering one piece of the picture. AKA not referencing proposal vs the ‘100% Coverage Problem Space Framework’ and calibrating whether on balance your new proposal is highly likely to be a better outcome than the existing proposal. 

    • Externally supported recommendation: while changing the recipe here would likely be a UX win it means we need to remove a component of our systematic sequential path which on balance likely means a lower portion of students get to the Framework Destination. So on balance it appears the proposal is a net loss. AKA considering the full picture. 

  • Mini example 3: 

    • Let’s say this is your ‘100% Coverage Problem Space Framework for Year 7 Maths’. 

      • Optional Starting Point: 

        • Scaffolded abstract maths

      • Systematic sequential path

        • Abstract maths

        • Introductory worded maths

      • Framework destination

        • High order (reasoning) worded maths

        • High order (reasoning) abstract maths

    • How do we define what ‘High order (reasoning) worded maths’ is? 

      • Technically ‘reasoning’ can be almost anything. 

      • A framework: 

        • No variation = boring and rote learning

        • Optimal amount of variation = conceptual understanding

        • Too much variation = no learning as too much variation

      • So normally we need to define multiple types of reasoning, usually deduced from relevant tests (aka genomed) and then we need to figure out how many of these types of reasoning we can teach well.

      • The variation for reasoning isn’t ‘random’, it’s highly considered. 

      • You can then calibrate the tradeoffs for different question variation proposals against the ‘100% Coverage Problem Space Framework’. 

      • This may only make sense for people inside Edrolo. 

If you only take away one thing

• Either everything is equally important or everything isn’t equally important.

• Clearly everything isn’t equally important. 

• Building a ‘100% Coverage Problem Space Framework’ is a core strategy to see the full picture, not accidentally focus on a piece thinking it is the full picture.  AKA diagnose well. 

• Building a ‘100% Coverage Problem Space Framework’ is a core strategy to calibrate multiple variables at once. 

• Building a ‘100% Coverage Problem Space Framework’ is a core strategy to have people feel like they are heard and see the logic behind how they are contributing to a positive sum levelling up of a solution. Best. Sentence. Ever! 

Earned Secrets V2 = 1. Find problem + 2. Do the work to build / level up a solution (AKA earn a secret)

By Duncan Anderson. To see all blogs click here.

Reading time: 4 mins

Summary:

• Idea = 1. Have problem + 2. Solution at the same time 

• Earned Secret = 1. Encounter problem + 2. Then do the work to build a solution (this normally takes a while)

• I don’t believe there are ‘ideas’, I do think one can do the work to ‘Earn a Secret’. 

For reference here is the blog on ‘Earned Secrets V1’. FYI it’s materially different from this blog. 

I don't have ideas. I find problems and then I work to build solutions (AKA earn a secret).

• If you are new to problem space (Job To Be Done), then you almost always start off at Level 0. 

• How much work is needed to level up to Level 1? 

  • 10 years ago it took me on average 100 hours to level up. 

  • 5 years ago 50 hours. 

  • Now it can be as short as 10 hours to level up. 

• Sometimes you have already done a bunch of work in a problem space and have an existing L5 solution. But you think it’s worthwhile trying to improve this, so you do the work to go from L5=>L6. Other times you are starting at L0. 

The biggest problem is figuring out what the problem is. 

• Sometimes figuring out the problem isn’t that hard. Eg we want to build a better Australian Year 7 Maths resource. So you do the process of figuring out a solution to the problem. In the case of Edrolo recently it took 1.5 years to build a ‘solution’ for Year 7 Maths. 

• Other times figuring out the problem is much more difficult, eg what is the best way to start with helping the US education system? We can help any part of America, any year level and any product. It’s been ~6 months of looking at the US and I’d say we are on the 4th version of the problem. One strategy is to try to identify the biggest problem students and / or teachers have. 

• I used to go around hoping for ideas AKA instant simultaneous problem identification and solution generation. I used to think ‘I’m not an ideas person’ because I don’t believe this has ever happened to me. 

• Now I go around trying to find problems that I think are worth solving, then I wrestle with the problem space for an extended period of time to level up solution sets. This is doing the work to ‘Earn a Secret’. This is how I believe I’ve had all my ‘ideas’. 

Can one be systematic about doing the work to level up on a solution AKA Earn a Secret? I think so. 

• This blog covers one of my approaches: Learning Modalities: Reading, thinking, talking, writing, building and user testing.

• Effectively I cycle through ‘reading, thinking, talking, using existing product, building and user testing’ as quickly as possible. Each cycle normally equates to a unit of learning. 

• Done well I'll be able to get 1-3 cycles / units of learning a week. 

• Sometimes I can level up in one cycle, other times it takes 10+ cycles. However if you are persistent and systematic I find that levelling up is inevitable. 

Dunning Kruger - The more I know the less I know

• I’ve found there are almost always solutions in a problem space I'm looking at… but I may not know that initially. It’s possible to be so green that you aren't aware of any solutions to the problem space you have identified, then you start doing cycles of learning by eg going through the learning modalities and you realise ‘ok wow, there are heaps of existing solutions out there!’ 

• Sometimes I'll go from L0 to L1 and think I've done something new haha. When in actual fact I’ve just done enough work to realise what solutions are actually out there. 

• Where is the existing high water mark? Some times at L1. But normally not. It could be L10 or more.

• Sometimes it takes 3 months to get to be the new high water mark, sometimes it takes 1.5 years (AU Year 7 maths), other times longer. 

• Sometimes it takes me going from L0=>L5 to even know where the existing high water mark is, eg L10. I find it's almost always possible to do the work needed to build a product to be the new high water mark. The bigger question is whether or not you should do the work… Or find a new problem to work on… Or normally to modify the problem space (job to be done) to allow becoming the new high water mark a lot easier. I often find that the secret to problem solving is changing the problem to make it easier to solve! But this is a topic for another day. 

• You have to start somewhere. 

I almost never skip levels. I don't come new to a problem (Job To Be Done) and off the bat have a Level 10 solution. 

• I start off at Level 0. Then slowly level up. 

• I think I’m wildly more systematic at levelling up today than I was 5 years ago. So progress from one level to the next is much faster… but there still isn’t skipping levels! 

If you only take away one thing

• I think the media can propagate a story that there are ‘creative people and not creative people’. There are product oracles like Steve Jobs and then normal people. 

• Jingle: I have an idea for you, there is such thing as ideas (instant simultaneous problem identification and solution generation). 

• I do strongly believe you can do the work to earn a secret. I’ve read a bunch about how people create products at companies like Apple, Google, Tesla, etc etc. IMO the iPhone wasn’t Job’s sering product idea, but the slow cumulative building of many earned secrets put together into a cohesive whole. 

• Learning how to earn secrest is a key to success! 

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

Addendum - Some industries / companies are constantly levelling up, others not so much

• iPhone

  • It took building the iPod and many earned secrets to build the iPhone. It took building the iPhone to build the Apple watch. 

  • The iPhone was L1 at the start. Mainly a touch screen, no app store even! 

  • Now the iPhone is likely L100. 

  • It might be possible to catch up and overtake but likely cost billions of dollars? 

• Tesla self driving

  • I believe for the last seven years in a row Elon has said ‘Tesla will have self driving finished this year’. 

  • Elon thought the line of sufficiency was L10, then L50, then L100, etc. 

  • I think that Tesla are levelling up faster in self driving than ever before. Maybe 5 years ago they levelled up 10 levels in that year. This year Tesla might level up 100 levels. 

  • If someone started today you might never catch up. 

  • Listen to this podcast if you want to understand what levelling up for Tesla self driving looks like. 

    • Check out this podcast episode: Tesla FSD update, AI Day, TSLA w/ James Douma #30 (Ep. 662) from podcast: Dave Lee on Investing https://owltail.app.link/ft8D7qX4sqb

• Google search

  • In ~1998 Larry Page and Sergey Brin created one signal ‘PageRank’ and were able to become the new high water mark for search. Somewhat amazingly their L1 solution was the new high water mark! 

  • When I was at Google in 2011 I think Google had ~400 signals they were munging together for search and I’m assuming it is way more now. 

  • Google search is probably at L1000 now. Catching up with them likely requires herculean effort or some big insight. 

• Secondary education resources

  • I think the high water mark is normally L5-L10. IE not nearly as high as Google Search. 

  • A good maths textbook 20 years ago is likely a good maths textbook today. Try using Google search from 2002. 

  • One of the reasons for this is that I think it’s relatively easier to cumulatively stack learnings (earned secrets) in code than it is in humans. Effectively Google Search or a Tesla factory has most of the work in upgrading the process, not much work in execution. You just let the machines run for the execution. 

  • But in something like writing a secondary textbook there is much writing aka executing that cannot be done by machines. I hope Edrolo can massively level up in accumulating and systematising learning AKA earned secrets. 

Learning Modalities: Reading, thinking, talking, writing, building and user testing.

By Duncan Anderson. To see all blogs click here.

Reading time: 8 mins

Summary: Learning Modalities

• Learning about an issue, eg inflation: Reading, thinking, talking & writing. 

• Learning to build a product: Reading, thinking, talking, using all major existing products, writing, building & user testing.

If you are doing something you have never done before, at the outset you can’t know the solution. But that doesn’t mean you can’t have a systematic process to come up with a solution. 

• “Progress solves all known problems.” Eric Schmidt. 

• I think that learning is the key lead indicator to progress. 

• Normally I want to cycle through units of learning as fast as possible. 

• Typically I count a unit of learning as having cycled through each of the Learning Modalities. 

  • If I want to level up on school classroom behaviour management I’ll cycle through “reading, thinking, talking & writing” as fast as I can. 

  • If I’m wanting to make progress on a new product for Edrolo I’ll try and cycle through “reading, thinking, talking, using all major existing products, writing, building & user testing” as fast as possible. AKA do a unit of learning as fast as possible. Ideally I’ll get through multiple units of learning a week. 

  • Keeping the cycle time for units of learning low is one of the key things I try to optimise. 

• At school there is a curriculum for what to learn and how to learn. In life this often isn’t the case. 

• Jingle: don’t languish in learning limbo, use the learning modalities to level up!

+++++++++++

Details

Details on different the different Learning Modalities

• Modalities I use for learning about an issue

  • Reading

    • I try to do some short term, some medium term and some long term reading. 

      • Short term = news, twitter, etc

      • Medium term = magazine articles, podcasts. 

      • Long term = books. It’s hard for a book to be on the news of the day. 

    • Also, I try to understand all the major schools of thought ASAP. 

      • E.G. With economics I might want to know supply side economics, demand side economics, rawls & modern monetary theory. 

      • E.G. For secondary school maths I’ll want to understand skill and drill, cognitive load theory for maths, conceptual understanding and inquiry based learning. 

  • Thinking

    • After listening to a podcast / reading an article / chapter of book / documentary I pause and ask myself a few questions. 

    • Some typical questions: 

      • How can I apply this to my life? 

      • How can I apply this to Edrolo? 

      • Is there anyone in my life who would be interested in this? 

    • Then if I feel appropriate I’ll write a note about a thought I have, e.g. send myself an email, put something in a doc. 

    • Normally this is only a minute or two. 

  • Talking

    • This is an oversimplification, but I sometimes classify meeting at work in the following categories: 

      • Synthesis meeting: you need to make decisions. 

      • Info disbursement meeting: decisions have been made and you are explaining them and people can ask clarifying questions (if material new info comes to light then you might need to update your synthesis). 

      • Free form chat meeting: the purpose here is to explore, not to synthesise. 

    • Inside work: If there is a topic you want to level up in or you are building a product I think you should have free form chats. Normally set the goal of the meeting at the start then explore away! So many connections and new ideas often come out of free form chat meetings. 

    • Outside work: for each key person in my life I have a notes file in my iPhone and I write down things I think they’d like to talk about. Eg with my mother. I’ll often have three things I come across in a week that I’d like to talk to mum about but then when I see mum I can’t remember any of them. The note is a great solution! 

  • Writing

    • I think writing is extremely powerful, I’ve written about it a few times: 

      • 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

    • If I’m trying to level up on inflation (as I am currently) then I’ll try and write about it. Eg what are the different types of inflation, what are the sources, how do you solve them. 

    • This CloudStreaks blog is writing intended to help me level up Edrolo. 

    • I find writing can be a high quality conversation with yourself. If I’m confused about something I just start writing about it and normally progress is made. 

    • In some respects writing is counselling chats with yourself. A strategy I use: if I have something you want to work through, I write about it every week until I have sorted it.  

    • For a product I’m trying to build I’ll write a ‘free form writing’ once a week. What is the definition of free form writing? I define this with an anti-definition, it’s writing that isn’t making product users can use. Basically writing about the problem, not making product to help solve the problem. 

• Extra modalities I do when building product

  • Using all major existing products

    • If you are trying to build a product to help then best to know all the major existing solutions. So buy them all, use them all, speak to people who use them to understand how they use them. Then try and write about what each product is and compare and contrast. 

    • Or as Newton put it, ‘stand on the shoulders of giants’. 

  • Building

    • Try to figure out the smallest unit of product you can make that will be able to be shown to your target market to get a valid unit of user testing. 

    • Then build this. This is standard lean methodology. Build, measure, learn. 

    • I find that building is often hard core synthesis of all the prior Learning Modalities. You’ve got to try join them into a cohesive whole! 

  • User testing

    • If you are trying to help others then you have to watch them use the product. Normally I think a minimum of one user testing session a week is needed to make sure you aren’t wildly off course. 

An example - learning about inflation

• Reading: go through wikipedia, listen to podcasts, read books you find on the topic. 

• Thinking: after each unit of reading stop and think for a few minutes. 

  • Some people say that learning is when you can make a metaframework for an idea / product. I quite like this definition. 

  • So I’ll often be trying to build a framework in my head. 

• Talking: I’ll chat with one of my friends in finance once a week and just talk about inflation. Normally this is 15-20 mins while at something social.

• Writing: try make a model / metaframework. 

  • As an example I’m thinking about 3 kinds of inflation: ‘demand pull inflation’ (where demand exceeds supply), ‘cost push inflation’ (where eg oil prices spike because of OPEC in the 70s or Ukraine in early 2022) and then ‘velocity of money inflation’ (eg weimar republic in germany). 

  • Then I’ll try and write out when each of these types of inflation has occurred in say the last 100 years, and what the response was by governments and central banks. 

  • Then if I’m really up for it make a decision tree of what could happen from here today and map out the estimated probabilities of each branch. 

  • Basically with a framework in your head you can start to calibrate the data points you get. I’ve found a framework can allow you to build knowledge maps, not collect data points. 

An example - building maths product for the US

• Reading: podcasts, research papers, etc. 

• Thinking: again this is normally after a unit of reading for a few minutes. Sometimes I’ll send myself an email after etc.  

• Talking: Have a free form discussion meeting once a week or more. These can be so much fun! 

• Writing: I’ll write a weekly email on how my understanding of the problem space is shifting and / or possible solution sets. This is very important ‘metacognition’. 

• Using all major existing products: normally try to understand one existing product in the market a week. It’s unlikely you’ll be able to know a product 100%, my goal is to get 80% understanding and normally I can do that in <1 day. 

• Building: make something. At a minimum this can be one question, or one answer. When you start off on a new product it’s very small, but a few months later you should hopefully have significant prototypes. 

• User testing: find ways to speak to your target market, segment the market into personas and systematically speak to people from all personas. Ask them what products they use, what they like and don’t etc. You can then calibrate what is said with your understanding of the product. But also show unit of product you have built for feedback. 

• I try to do two complete cycles a week. Each cycle normally means material updates to everything! At some point you zero in on something that works! 

If you only take away one thing

• The more you know about something normally the more interesting it is. 

• The better you are at something normally the more rewarding it is. 

• Systematic use of Learning Modalities is a great strategy to make things more interesting and rewarding! 

Externally supported recommendations, not opinions

By Duncan Anderson. To see all blogs click here.

Reading time: 4 min

Summary: 

• If a decision you are making affects many people I find it’s normally better to put forward an ‘externally supported recommendation’, not ‘your opinion’. 

• Opinion: What you think the right thing to do is.

• Externally Supported Recommendation: 

  • Your opinion can be one part, but likely should not be the only part. 

  • As much externally supported data as practical, incorporated in a positive sum way, into a recommendation. 

Trying to help your user set Vs Doing what you think

• Levels of recommendation:

  • L1: Opinion

  • L2: Have data

  • L3: L2 + Externally agreed upon destination / Job To Be Done

  • L4: L3 + Systematic sequential path to destination / Job To Be Done AKA Externally Supported Recommendation. 

• “Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one but they think each others stink.” ― Simone Elkeles

• You know what doesn’t stink? An Externally Supported Recommendation. 

  • I find that talking about opinions can often be negative sum debate. 

  • But that considering Externally Supported Recommendations is often positive sum discourse. 

Example 1: What the offsite for the company should be

• Opinion: What you want to do. 

• Externally Support Recommendation: 

  • It’s normally not possible to please everyone, but in this case hopefully you can please 90+% of people. 

  • Create the different segments / personas of your team. 

  • Propose a plan that you believe will please all key segments. 

  • Check with a couple of people from each segment to see if the plan is pleasing. 

Example 2: Hiring

• Opinion: I think this person would be good

• Externally Support Recommendation: 

  • You have a well designed ‘Job Description’ AKA Externally agreed upon destination. 

  • You looked at the traits of people who have excelled in this role in the past and why. You have looked at the traits of people who haven’t excelled in the past and why. AKA understand a systematic sequential past to the destination. 

  • Then you design an interview process around trying to discover these traits and put forward an ‘externally supported recommendation’ of what to do based on the outcomes. 

Example 3: Year 12 Textbook Questions

• We know the final destination is the Year 12 exam. 

• Opinion: What you think are the best questions. 

• Externally Support Recommendation: 

  • Understand at high resolution what the destination is, AKA the exam questions are. 

  • One strategy to understand the destination at high resolution is to systematically break down past exam questions into their components (in Edrolo speak ‘genome’). Then build a systematic sequential path to the destination. 

Example 4: What order the content of a resource should be

• Opinion: The order you would teach if you this was your class

• Externally Support Recommendation = (1. Find all major resources and map out the order they teach the content + 2.1 Break the teacher body into personas that ideally represent 80%+ of teacher * 2.2 Speak to enough teachers from each personas to get a solid understanding of the different sequences) * 3. Munge these together

Example 5: Optimal utopia vs Optimal first step

• Opinion: What you think is the best proposal for improving education. 

• Externally Support Recommendation: 

  • What matters normally is the quantum of actualised improvement to education (not how much improvement would happen if everyone did everything exactly as you envisage). They say progress happens one step at a time. Normally this means that the best way to improve education is to figure out the optimal next step from where things are at (not the optimal utopia). 

  • One strategy to figure out the optimal first step is to speak to people externally, break the user set into personas, understand what each persona is doing now and then propose next steps and get their feedback. 

If you only take away one thing

• If you are trying to make a decision that affects more than just yourself, as almost all decisions in a job do, then I’ve found it’s normally much better to put forward an ‘externally supported recommendation’, not ‘your opinion’. 

• Doing the work to build an ‘externally supported recommendation’ can be tough, but done well I find it much fun!

Good strength vs Bad strength: Every strength is a weakness and every weakness is a strength.

By Duncan Anderson. To see all blogs click here.

Reading time: 1 min

• Good strength = Resilience

• Bad strength = Stubbornness

• Good strength = Constantly upgrading and changing the plan

• Bad strength = Never giving up on the existing plan

• Good strength = Have willpower to push back in the right places and get rest / relaxation in the right places

• Bad strength = Will always do more

• Good strength = "Never give in. Never give in. Never, never, never, never--in nothing, great or small, large or petty--never give in, except to convictions of honour and good sense." Churchill 

• Bad strength = Never give in ever

• Good strength = Magnanimity

• Bad strength = Vindictiveness 

• Good strength = Admitting it when you are wrong

• Bad strength = Fighting to be right

• Good strength = Attaching your ego the trajectory of improvement

• Bad strength = Attaching you rego to being right. 

• Good strength = Knowing you don't need to be strong all the time 

• Bad strength = Seeing not being strong all the time as 'weakness'

Principle Creation Ability ≈ Levelling Up Ability

By Duncan Anderson. To see all blogs click here.

Reading time: 7 mins

Summary:  Input * Principle = Output. The better you are at creating principles, and the better you are at applying principles, likely the better your output. So, try to get good Principle Creation Ability! 

“We do not learn from experience... we learn from reflecting on experience.” ― John Dewey

• Experience = What

• Reflecting on experience = Principle Creation

• Experience * No Principle Creation = No Learning = No Levelling Up

• Experience * Principle Creation = Generate Learning = Level Up

• “Metacognition Ability ≈ Pricpile Creation Ability ≈ Ability to level yourself and others up” Taxonomy:

  • L0: Did something

  • L1: Know if what you did went well or badly but not why

  • L2: Know if what you did went well or badly and why but only for that circumstance

  • L3: L2 + abstract principle that can be applied for many circumstances

  • L4: L3 + recall and transfer the principle into new circumstances

• Creating a principle through reflection can often take only <10% of the time of the experience, but give you 100%+ extra value. 

Jingle: If I was your (school) principal, I’d heavily suggest the principle that after each experience you try to create a principle!

Wisdom = Number of principles you can apply in a positive sum fashion in a circumstance

• In an ideal world you can apply multiple principles to any given circumstance. 

• Then you prioritise the principles and figure out the 2-5x principles that best apply. 

• A taxonomy of principle application: 

  • Zero principles = Bad. Normally random low quality output. 

  • One principle = Dangerous. Highly susceptible to being an ideologue. 

  • 2-5x principles = Good. Unlikely to be beholden to one principle, can hopefully balance multiple principles to get a positive sum outcome. 

  • 6+ principles = Bad again :(. 6+ principles is normally too complicated to balance against each other and you often end up in ‘analysis paralysis’. 

+++++++++++

Detail

When to try and create a principle? All the time! 

• Every time something went well. 

• And every time something didn't go well. 

• Try abstract out a principle. 

• Then one can try and apply the principle again in the future. 

• This is a way to systematically extract out learnings. 

• To me, principle creation is metacognition by a different name. 

• Examples of when to do: 

• Reflection at the end of meeting

  • What went well & Principle of why

  • What didn't go well & Principle of why

• In 1:1s

  • What went well in the last week & Principle of why

  • What didn't go well in the last week & Principle of why

• Product - eg after user testing

  • What did they like & Principle of why

  • What didn’t they like & Principle of why

• But you can also do proactive principle creation

  • For example you learned something then you think about how to apply it to your field. For example I’ve been getting into systematic sequential phonics and thinking about how the frameworks apply at Edrolo. So I’ll write at an abstracted level how to apply these principles. 

Examples Of Principles 

• In some respects each of these Cloud Streaks blogs is trying to birth one principle. 

• Setting expectations properly

  • Happiness = Reality - Expectations

  • Many people have not done much innovation before. 

  • For the purposes of this, innovation = Where no one knows the answer = 0% known. 

  • Normal school = The teacher knows the answer = 100% known. 

  • For ‘normal school AKA 100%’, done well, ‘1 unit of effort = 1 unit of progress’. 

  • But where one is ‘innovating AKA 0% known’, done well, ‘10 units of effort = 1 unit of progress’. 

  • I didn’t realise this at the start of Edrolo 9 years ago. And many people don’t know this when they first join Edrolo. 

  • If you have the expectation that ‘1 unit of effort = 1 unit of progress’ and what is actually happening is ‘10 units of effort = 1 unit of progress’ then people can feel quite dejected, like they are not making good progress when in fact they are! 

  • So the abstracted principle is: 

    • For 0% new AKA normal school, done well, 1 unit of effort = 1 unit of progress. 

    • For 100% new AKA innovation, don well, 10 units of effort = 1 unit of progress. 

    • And to tell people this before they attempt to innovate so that expectations are realistic. 

• Sufficiency > Perfectionism

  • An oversimplification, there are two types of tasks: 

    • 1. Has ceiling: Where there is a ceiling and you can get 100%. 

    • 2. Ceilingless: Where there is no ceiling and you can always levell things up. Eg how to make the best coffee, how to best spend a tuesday, how to make the best Year 7 Maths Textbook. 

  • For ceilingless tasks you have to stop somewhere. I call the place one should stop ‘the line of sufficiency’. 

  • The mission of Edrolo is to improve education. Going beyond the line of sufficiency normally means that the overall amount of improvement Edrolo can deliver to education decreases as one spends too long on a certain area, meaning the opportunity cost offsets the improvement. 

  • With the benefit of hindsight, I used to spend way too long on some tasks. And I also saw others spending too much time on certain tasks. 

  • So the principle is for ceilingless tasks is one should set a line of sufficiency at the outset to guide when to stop and move on. 

• Constant course corrections

  • “We can never be sure we are right, we can only be sure that we are wrong.” Richard Feynman 

  • “Uncertainty is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.” Voltaire. 

  • If this is the case, then we likely need constant course corrections. It often doesn’t feel nice to do course corrections (aka admitting you were at least to some extent ‘wrong’), but not doing course corrections normally means ‘achieving failure’ AKA getting to a destination you don’t want to be. 

  • So try to normalise admitting you are ‘off course’ constantly, aka ‘constant course corrections’. Then hopefully you have a chance of being less wrong as you normalise ‘course corrections’.  

• Edrolo specific

  • In some respects Content Technology such as recipes and machines are a large set of principles integrated in a positive sum way.  

Strategies to level up “Principle Creation Ability”

• Write about things at an abstracted level. Or don’t just do experiences, do ‘reflecting on your experiences’ with the end goal to have clean abstracted principle. Eg a nice ‘one sentence summary’. One of the best strategies I have to think at an abstracted ‘principle creation’ level is ‘metacognition writing’. 

• Write a blog like CloudStreaks each week. 

• Write a mini blog as a learning in your weekly email. 

• Write at an abstracted level anything you want to level up in regularly (eg weekly or fortnightly). Eg my ‘Product thought development, not product strategy’ email thread at Edrolo. 

Wisdom = 1. Having lots of principles * 2. Confidence to implement them proportionally * 3. Resilience to do it again and again

• “Stop the bully without becoming the bully” is a famous line from George W. Bush in the Gulf War. I’ll rephrase it here to ‘Stop the bad behaviour without committing bad behaviour’. 

• Proportional implementation:

  • -L1: Not stopping bad behaviour = More bad behaviour occurs = Negative Sum

  • L1: Stop the bad behaviour without committing bad behaviour = The bad behaviour stops = Positive Sum

  • -L1: Too much = Stop the bad behaviour but committing bad behaviour = They dislike you = Negative Sum

If you only take away one thing

• Principle collection and creation is a key way to level up. 

• You get good at the things you spend time trying to get good at. 

• If your job is ‘knowledge work’, then ‘Principle Creation Ability’ is likely a good approximation of how you are at levelling up at your job. So IMO spend time trying to get good at ‘Principle Creation’! 

Purpose Vs Play Vs Peace: Plentiful Ingredients For A Pleasant Life

By Duncan Anderson. To see all blogs click here.

Reading time: 3 mins

Summary: One lens I have for life - there are three types of time: Purpose, Play and Peace (rest). In a normal week I try to do 5 days of Purpose, 1 day of Play and 1 day of Peace.

Equations for Purpose vs Peace vs Play

• Sometimes happiness comes from serving others. Sometimes happiness comes from being good to yourself. Other times happiness is the absence of any worry / stress! 

• For me, done well, work can give you purpose. 

• I think it’s possible to have happiness in all parts of your life, but that the type of happiness might be very different. This doesn’t mean that I think all times should be happy. In fact, I don’t think being happy all the time is optimal. There is no north without south, there is no happiness without sadness. Sadness isn’t necessarily badness. Amongst other things, done well, I think sadness can help you appreciate life more fully!

Jingle 1: Variety is the spice of life, that is why you want all the ‘p’ types of time ;)!

Jingle 2: A life without seriousness is frivolousness. A life with only seriousness is silliness.

Purpose vs Play vs Peace: they are sometimes opposites

• In some respects relaxing well (peace) is the opposite of work (purpose). 

• One lens: 

  • Work = There are things that have to be done by a certain time and above a certain level of quality

  • Relax = Can do things, but don’t have to do anything. And who cares about quality?

• I think you want to be good at being ‘on’ (eg work mode), good at being ‘off’ (eg peace mode), good a having plans (eg work mode), good at being spontaneous (eg play mode), good at being responsible (eg work mode), good at being silly (eg play mode). 

• This blog I wrote relates to multiple modes: I contain multitudes: one should have multiple modes

Accountable Talk Stems: a key strategy to improve positive sum-ness of discussions

By Duncan Anderson. To see all blogs click here.

Reading Time: 2 mins

Summary:

• I found out about ‘Accountable Talk Stems’ from a teacher from New York recently and really like the idea so I thought I’d share it!

• Outcome = Message * Messaging

  • Accountable Talk Stem = A nice strategy to level up messaging!

Constant course corrections: IMO one should be doing constant course corrections

By Duncan Anderson. To see all blogs click here.

Reading time: 4 mins

Summary: If you are doing something you’ve not done before you should be doing constant course corrections. Failure to do so will likely lead to failure! No course corrections is likely eventual death. 

Repetitive Vs Non repetitive tasks

• "Science is really in the business of disproving current models or changing them to conform to new information. In essence, we are constantly proving our latest ideas wrong." David Suzuki

• More and more of the tasks for knowledge work are non repetitive. So in effect one lens on what one is doing is ‘disproving current models or changing them to conform to new information.’ Be this as a venture capitalist, a content creator at Edrolo, a teacher in a classroom, a real estate agent, a friend! 

• So if you don’t have ‘constant course corrections’ for non repetitive tasks then it’s likely you are not improving… or, if you are running a business, eventually the business will fail. 

Types of course corrections

• Almost everything can be upgraded infinitely. But more than that, "Any year you don't destroy a core belief is a year wasted." Munger

• Want the 10 degree direction upgrades. Want to know when we are at a dead end, ie to stop doing something. Want to know when we are 180 degrees off course.

• Taxonomy of direction updates: 

  • 10 degree course correction - small change - feels fine

  • 90 degree course correction - medium change - doesn't feel great

  • stop - large change (this is a deadend) - feels embarrassing

  • 180 degree course correction - extra large change (it wasn't just not useful, it was counterproductive!) - feels shocking

• Don't hide from the latter three. They might hurt but they are healthy for you. Think of them as squats at the gym! 

Progress hoped for vs Progress actual

• I try to do a unit of ‘metacognition’ for a major project at least weekly to see how we can update the course. Almost every time I do a unit of metacognition I can find a course correction update. 

Outcome = 1. Metacognition * 2. Execution

• “You don’t learn from your experiences, you learn from reflecting on your experiences.” Dewy

• You don’t learn from doing a task, you learn from your ability to explain how and why you do the task AKA metacognition. 

• The better you can explain what you have been doing (metacognition) normally the better you understand what you have been doing. 

• When I’m talking about ‘course corrections’, I’m normally talking about levelling up one’s metacognition. 

• Some examples:

  • Venture capitalist

    • Levelling up how you make decisions about whether to invest or not. Not just changing how you make decisions. 

    • Levelling up how you work with portfolio companies. Not just changing how you deal with portfolio companies. 

  • Teacher

    • Levelling up how you engage in an interactive discussion with the class on theory. Not just changing how you do discussion. 

    • Levelling up in how you build relationships with students. Not just changing how you try build relationships. 

  • Edrolo content creator

    • Levelling up the macro recipe for what the product is. Not just changing the macro recipe. 

    • Levelling up how you actualise the macro recipe with an updated ‘machine’. 

  • Real estate agent

    • Levelling up the approach you have to get a listing. 

    • Levelling up the way marketing campaigns are run for a house. 

• Metacognition = 1. Can explain what you were doing before + 2. Can explain the changes you have come up with + 3. And can explain why you believe the changes will be an upgrade

• Not metacognition = Random changes = Just changing without taking the time to explain why what you are doing is different and hopefully an upgrade.

If you only take away one thing

• Try to do constant course corrections. 

• Try to have metacognition for all course corrections that are understandable, scalable and transferrable. 

• “To improve is to change, to be perfect is to change often.” Winston Churchill. 

• Jingle: Doing the same thing over and over again is boring / path to irrelevance. Changing without understanding why is stupid. To course correct with metacognition constantly is sublime. 

High Definition Line Of Sufficiency: Defining Sufficiency Sufficiently

By Duncan Anderson. To see all blogs click here.

Reading time: 9 mins

Summary: Most things can be improved indefinitely (ie are ceilingless); as such reaching perfection isn’t possible. So you have to stop somewhere, this place I call ‘sufficiency’. The higher resolution your understanding of sufficiency the better you can allocate resources. Not defining sufficiency is often a path to wasting time; either spending too little time or spending too much time. 

Levels Of Sufficiency Understanding

• The levels:

  • L0: Not aware of the concepts of Sufficiency vs Perfectionism (see below for details)

  • L1: Have a low resolution understanding of Sufficiency

  • L2: Have a High Resolution Line Of Sufficiency

• Comment

  • Building possible levels of sufficiency normally orients a team around where to get to and understanding the tradeoffs in how to get there.

  • In some respects, building a ‘High Resolution Line Of Sufficiency’ is building a ‘navigational framework’. The framework:

    • 1. Agree upon the Job To Be Done = The direction you are heading

    • 2. Define levels of Sufficiency = What are the possible places to stop and possible tradeoffs involved

    • 3. Agree upon the High Resolution Line Of Sufficiency = Agreed upon high resolution understanding of the place to stop

  • For large projects or projects with a large amount of new I’ve found it very useful to have a ‘High Resolution Line Of Sufficiency’. 

  • Please see below for examples of using this framework. 

• If you don't know where you are going, how will you know when you get there?

  • Defining Sufficiency sufficiently (AKA building a High Resolution Line Of Sufficiency) is a core way to understand where you are going and if you are there. 

  • Jingle: They say don’t work hard, work smart. Well I say, ‘work sufficiently’! 

++++++++

Details

This blog is a development of two prior blogs - I recommend reading each of them 

• Blog 1: Sufficiency > Perfectionism

• Blog 2: Taxonomised thinking: if you don’t taxonomise your thinking you’ll get your results taxed

• High Definition Line Of Sufficiency = 1. Sufficiency > Perfectionism * 2. Taxonomised thinking

“Sufficiency > Perfectionism” summary

• Most things in the world do not have a ‘ceiling’, meaning you can never not improve further. For ceilingless places, perfection is not attainable. As such you need to stop somewhere as ‘enough’, I normally refer to the line you stop as ‘sufficiency’.

• Ceilingless Vs Ceilings

  • Some places do have a ceiling. 

    • Eg do you properly administer the vaccine, you can’t 140% administer the vaccine. Eg is the water drinkable, you can’t have 140% drinkable water. 

  • For ceilingless places you can’t ever reach ‘perfection’. 

    • Examples of ceilingless places:

      • 1. How good a book can be. 

      • 2. How to make the best coffee. 

      • 3. How to best teach maths. 

      • 4. How to be a friend. 

      • 5. How to best help the common good. 

• Sufficiency vs Perfectionism

  • Perfectionism = striving for something to be as good as possible, but perfectionism can be a concept that when what you are working on is ceilingless, can mean you strive for an infinite amount of time

  • Sufficiency = When something meets realistic criteria in order to get a ‘Job To Be Done’ done

A model to build a ‘High Definition Line Of Sufficiency’

• The model: 

  • 1. Agree upon the Job To Be Done - the direction you are heading

  • 2. Define possible levels of sufficiency - possible places you can stop

  • 3. Agree upon the High Resolution Line Of Sufficiency - agreed high resolution place it makes sense to stop

• Visual model

  • 1. Agree upon the Job To Be Done - the direction you are heading

    • Honestly I find it can often be really quite hard to define a JTBD well. I’m normally constantly updating my thoughts on what the JTBD is. You never stop. 

    • If you have the incorrect JTBD then it’s normally like one is pointed in the wrong direction. Nothing else can matter. 

• 2. Define possible levels of sufficiency - possible places you can stop

• This is the main thing this blog is trying to focus on. Building of levels for sufficiency is a core strategy I have to improve resource allocation. 

• I’ve stopped the visual at L4 arbitrarily, it could technically go on forever.

• So the JTBD defines what direction you are going in, then the levels of sufficiency define possible places you can stop. 

• 3. Agree upon the High Resolution Line Of Sufficiency - agreed high resolution place it makes sense to stop

  • One you have the direction and levels, you can then discuss which level to stop at. Thereby defining a ‘High Resolution Line Of Sufficiency’.

Example of building a ‘High Definition Line Of Sufficiency’

• Example 1: What is the right level of sufficiency for the Finance Division of a company?

  • 1. Agree upon the Job To Be Done - the direction you are heading

    • ‘The only mistake you cannot make in a startup is to run out of money.’

    • I see the core overriding JTBD of the finance division to map out the future to show possible cash low scenarios.  

  • 2. Define possible levels of sufficiency - possible places you can stop

    • L0: No financial model

    • L1: Accurately calculating financial model to see possible future cash positions

    • L2: L1 + Current (vs stale) forecasts for cash in and cash out

    • L3: L2 + Bear, Base and Bull scenarios modelled out

    • L4: L3 + Strategies to manage through Bear scenario put in a slide deck

    • L5: L4 + Significant presentation for the board 

    • L6: L5 + Building out sub finance teams for each division

    • L7: L6 + Building financial literacy in everyone mid level manager or higher and having metrics for them to manage to

  • 3. Agree upon the High Resolution Line Of Sufficiency - agreed high resolution place it makes sense to stop

    • What makes sense will likely be different for companies of different sizes. 

    • It might well be that L4 is minimum sufficiency for a business of 50 people but that L7 is minimum sufficient for a business of 5,000 people. 

• Example 2: What is the level to stop product development?

  • 1. Agree upon the Job To Be Done - the direction you are heading

    • To improve education. But that does this actually mean? 

    • Each product normally has a higher definition articulation of the JTBD. For example ‘Optimal Frist Step = 1. Get to 70%+ market share as fast as possible + 2. While improving education outcomes for 90%+ of schools’. 

  • 2. Define possible levels of sufficiency - possible places you can stop

    • L0: Just improve education

    • L1: For all existing core areas (eg theory, activities, questions & answers) be the ‘new high water mark’ in market

    • L2: L1 + Have 2x+ instantly recognisable irrefutable dealmakers

    • L3: L2 + All core areas have instantly recognisable irrefutable dealmakers

    • L4: L3 + go beyond doing the existing core areas

  • 3. Agree upon the High Resolution Line Of Sufficiency - agreed high resolution place it makes sense to stop

    • Edrolo has very hard product deliverable deadlines (the start of a school year). So… finishing a product early isn’t a problem. Finishing a product late is a disaster.

    • Normally for Edrolo I define sufficiency as “L2: L1 + Have 2x+ instantly recognisable irrefutable dealmakers”. Having some parts of the product jump out at users as ‘wins’ really helps with usage. 

    • Also, we’ll be able to update things in the future. So this is just the starting point! 

• Example 3: What amount of ‘operations’ do you need for a team? 

  • 1. Agree upon the Job To Be Done - the direction you are heading

    • That you get products done on time above sufficient level of quality in hopefully an enjoyable manner. 

  • 2. Define possible levels of sufficiency - possible places you can stop

    • L0: No operations at all. 

    • L1: Individual team level (bottom up) ops eg with fortnightly report on progress

    • L2: L1 + ‘Top down’ division wide level monthly report on quality, delivery time expectations and if there is enough resourcing

    • L3: L2 + Standardised reporting frameworks

    • L4: L3 + 12 month plan for an operations division

    • L5: L4 + hiring for the division

    • L6: L5 + adding upside

  • 3. Agree upon the High Resolution Line Of Sufficiency - agreed high resolution place it makes sense to stop

    • Everyone has ego distortions and blind spots… and to others our blind spots are often blindingly obvious. 

    • For important areas I think you should get two independent opinions. So for delivery of a major project I’d want the individual team to have a report but also for the division to have a ‘top down’ view on where delivery, quality and resourcing is at. So I’m going to argue that the minimum is L2. 

A ‘High Definition Line Of Sufficiency’ allows you to have a conversation

• Building the levels of sufficiency allows you to have a discussion around priorities and tradeoffs. 

• I’ve found it to be such a fantastic tool. 

• Defining the JTBD well can be really quite difficult. Change the way you look at something, change what you see. So getting alignment around the JTBD is key. 

• But even then how do you define if you have sufficiently completed the JTBD? One key strategy is to build ‘levels of sufficiency’ and then agree upon a ‘High Resolution Line Of Sufficiency’. 

If you only take away one thing

• Optimising for sufficiency = Stopping at a reasonable point so you can solve the next problem = Overall delivering max improvement to the world

• Without a levels of sufficiency and a chosen line a ‘High Resolution Line Of Sufficiency’ you likely are rudderless. 

Management Styles: be authoritative, not permissive or helicopter

By Duncan Anderson. To see all blogs click here.

Reading time: 7 mins

Summary: A model I find useful to help early managers is transplanting parenting styles into management styles. I often find that early managers are either ‘permissive’ (don’t pull up direct reports when they should), or ‘helicopter’ (don’t allow directs to make mistakes, which done well are great learning opportunities)... or permissive and helicopter at the same time! Over time I find that good managers end up as ‘authoritative’ (care, have a strong relationship, but have limits & boundaries, high expectations and foster psychological safety such as mistakes are an opportunity to learn). I’ve found the ability to talk about different management styles can help yourself and others become more self aware and level up faster. 

A well known model of parenting styles

• Limits & Boundaries ≈ Principles, Rules and Effective Consequences (through Natural and Related Consequences). 

• Downside removal - Limits & Boundaries: 

  • The standard you walk past is the standard you accept.

  • You get exactly the behaviour you allow. 

  • Parenting: eg no hitting others, eg you clean up after yourself. 

  • Management: eg you are on time to meetings, eg you speak in a positive sum fashion. 

• Adding upside - Limits & Boundaries: eg expectations

  • “You rise to the level of your expectations.” There is much research about this in education. 

  • Low expectations = Bad

  • High expectations = Good

  • Unrealistically high expectations = Bad. 

  • Parenting: you will do your homework every day, you will read for 30 mins a day, you can pick the book you want to read but you have to read. 

  • Management: I expect you to ask for help when you need it but I also expect you to persist with problems and see challenges as positive and to expect to make mistakes in certain places and to look to learn from the mistakes. 

• Love & Warth ≈ Relationship strength

  • No one cares how much you know until they know how much you care.

• Indulgent ≈ Permissive

• Watch great video on 7 min video on parenting styles.

  • Please watch this video as it brings in a 5th style ‘Helicopter Parenting’. 

  • Honestly this video is great. 

• For over 25 years, authoritative parenting has been consistently linked to the most positive outcomes in many studies - link. 

Parenting Styles ≈ Management Styles

• Obviously there are many more than just the 5 parenting styles mentioned above (neglect, indulgent, authoritarian, authoritative and helicopter). All models are wrong, some are useful. However I find these parenting styles useful to talk to regarding people management. 

• Obviously parenting and white collar work for adults are not 100% the same! As an example I think it’s roughly 50:50 the responsibility of a manager and a direct report to build a strong relationship. One way I articulate relationship strength (this I see as a two way street): 

  • Negative relationship strength = Will work against you

  • Zero relationship strength = Don’t really talk about issues

  • Low relationship strength = Will bring larges issues to you

  • Medium relationship strength = Will bring mediums

  • High relationship strength = Will bring smalls, or anything, but doesn't need to. 

  • Visa versa = Will be listened to you if you have something you want to say

• IMO it’s not acceptable not to care, it’s not acceptable not to put in the work to build relationship strength. I’m going to assume that managers and directs have a solid relationship and care. 

• This means the management styles possible are: Helicopter Manager, Permissive Manager and Authoritative Manager. 

• I expect directs to foster a growth mindset, I expect managers to help foster a growth mindset. One core component of a growth mindset is how mistakes are treated. Are mistakes a good thing, an opportunity to learn, or something to be shunned and protected from? My fav growth mindset poster.

• For the sake of this blog I’m mainly going to define a Helicopter Manager as someone who doesn’t let others make mistakes. 

• They are hovering around trying to help as much as possible. 

• I used to think the best managers were the best helpers of directs. Now I think the best managers are those who are best at helping directs help themselves. A core component of this is to allow a safe space for directs to make mistakes and learn. 

• Here is a visual for Permissive Managers Vs Helicopter Managers Vs Authoritative Managers

Is it ever good to be a Helicopter Manager? 

• Sometimes I talk about two types of time at work: 

  • 1. Where there is a short term time deliverable

  • 2. Where there isn’t a short term time deliverable

• 1. Where there is a short term time deliverable => Focus on speed of getting something done AKA likely help a lot and minimise chance of mistakes AKA perhaps being a Helicopter Manager is optimal. 

• 2. Where there isn’t a short term time deliverable => Focus on trajectory of improvement of direct AKA likely have psychological safety around mistakes and make space for someone to level up AKA perhaps being an Authoritative Manager is optimal. 

• Jingle: If you want to build your career to the point you can afford to be in a helicopter (from time to time), best not to be a helicopter manager (except in rare times).

If you only take away one thing

• If you can’t describe what kind of manager you have or are, then you are likely missing opportunities to help them and yourself grow. 

• Obviously these relatively low resolution manager types are not everything, but I do find them quite useful! 

Ego distortion and blind spot discovery: a key strategy for personal upgrades

By Duncan Anderson. To see all blogs click here.

Reading time: 7 mins

Summary: Each unit of growth you do normally is part known, part ego distortion and part blind spot. Systematically finding and addressing ego distortions and blind spots is a core strategy for self improvement. Finding 1-5x new ego distortions and / or blind spots as part of a 6 monthly work performance review I’ve found to be extremely valuable. 

• “Any year that you don’t destroy one of your best-loved ideas is probably a wasted year.”— Charlie Munger

• "Any year you don't find 1-5+ new ego distortions or blind spots is probably a year wasted." - Duncan Anderson

Finding out about new Ego Distortions and Blind Spots normally makes one wince

• Each unit of growth typically consists of the following three areas: 

  • 1. Known = You know the area you have grown and have a fair understanding of.

  • 2. Ego Distortion = You know about the area of growth but your understanding of it is meaningfully distorted from reality.

  • 3. Blind Spot = You are unaware of this area of growth.

• I usually don’t find it nice discovering new Ego Distortions and Blind Spots, but as you are doing them anyway it’s best to find out about them ASAP!

• Jingle: You have nothing to fear from the truth… but that doesn’t mean the truth won’t hurt!

• In fact, I think you want to fear not knowing things you should know. IMO you definitely want to know about your Ego Distortions and Blind Spots. In this instance, ignorance is not bliss, ignorance is the precondition to drive ‘full speed into a brick wall’. 

How a process can be to find new Ego Distortions and Blind Spots

• Have process to get feedback from others to provide you with the ability to discover new Ego Distortions and / or Blind Spots 

  • See below for more detail

  • But at a minimum I think in your 6 monthly formalised reviews you want to be finding 1-5x new Ego Distortions and / or Blind Spots. 

• *Wince* …. (But don’t whinge)

• Synethise feedback from others to ascertain fair and reasonable newly discovered ego distortions and blind spots

• Have a plan upgrade for any newly discovered ego distortions and blind spots (details below)

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

Details

Three types of growth: 1. Known vs 2. Ego Distortion vs 3. Blind Spot

• I think it’s almost impossible not to grow, it’s more a matter of if you are growing fast or slow.

  • Basically every time you think, you have a conversation, you read an article or watch TV you are growing your mind. 

  • To not grow would involve doing nothing. No thinking, no talking, no consuming any content. 

• A MECE I have for the types of growth possible: 

  • 1. Known = You know the area you have grown and have a fair understanding of. My rule of thumb is that this is 50% of one's growth. 

  • 2. Ego Distortion = You know about the area of growth but your understanding of it is meaningfully distorted from reality. My rule of thumb is that this is 25% of one’s growth. 

  • 3. Blind Spot = You are unaware of this area of growth. My rule of thumb is that this is 25% of one’s growth. 

• Normally, every time you grow you do a unit of ‘1. Known’ growth, a unit of ‘2. Ego Distortion’ growth and a unit of ‘3. Blind Spot’ growth. 

• If you knew about your ‘2. Ego Distortions’ and ‘3. Blind Spots’ they wouldn’t be ‘2. Ego Distortions’ and ‘3. Blind Spots’, they would be ‘1. Known’. 

• We all have blind spots and ego distortions… To others, our blind spots and ego distortions are often... blindingly obvious!

I think you want as much healthy growth as possible

• To have healthy growth I think you need to have proactive strategies to find ‘2. Ego Distortions’ and ‘3. Blind Spots’. IMO you can’t find these easily yourself, you need tools to point them out to you. 

• Some strategies I find helpful in discovering your Ego Distortions and Blind Spots:

  • Strategy 1: Do 6 monthly feedback with 3-5x people who work closely with you 

    • What I’ll mainly be focussing on in this blog. Details below. 

  • Strategy 2: Diverse Reading

  • Strategy 3: Post Game Analysis - an essential tool for improving life

  • Strategy 4: Building personas and then trying to see how they view the world. 

Detail for “Strategy 1: do 6 monthly feedback with 3-5x people who work closely with you”

• Some broad questions I ask to try gather feedback (this is normally more questions than I ask people to answer but thought I’d put more in): 

  • Output of mine that was strong?

  • Output of mine that wasn’t so strong?

  • Something that went well from a people management perspective?

  • Something that didn't go well from a people management perspective?

  • The best part about working with me? 

  • The least best part about working with me? 

  • How can I be better to work with?

  • Any relative strengths I have?

  • Any relative weaknesses I have?

  • How have I changed for good and not so good in the last 6 months?  

When I find out about new ‘Ego Distortions’ and ‘Blind Spots’ normally I wince

• Here is a well known grief cycle

• And here is the GRASP feedback model

• I find that finding out about new ‘Ego Distortions’ and / or ‘Blind Spots’ follows a similar pattern. 

• Denial / Defence Mode => Feels not nice (wince)

  • You may find yourself disagreeing with the feedback or picking holes in or even trying to point blame at or resentment towards the person giving the feedback

  • ‘No that’s not right because…’ ‘I was only trying to help and they didn’t understand’, ‘Well that’s because they…’

• Acceptance => Bottom in feeling bad

  • ‘OK maybe they do have a point on X’ ‘Yes, even though I was well intentioned I can see how I did X’ ‘I agree I do need to work on X’ 

• Build plan to upgrade => Feeling much better

  • ‘How can I improve X’ ‘I can see how this is improving my X’ 

• Automate new behavior to be subconscious (Automaticity) => New improved base level of enjoyment. 

  • How did I ever not do X from the start’ :) 

• Another model: you are doing the ‘Unconscious incompetence => Consious incompetence => Consious Competence => Unconscious Competence’

• Finding new personal Ego Distortions and / or Blind Spots is finding new areas of ‘unconscious incompetence’.

• I’ve come to believe that wincing can be wonderful. 

• Wince = Find out about new Ego Distortion / Blind Spot

• Wonderful = Build in new automatic / subconscious upgrade to no longer have the Ego Distortion / Blind Spot

• When you find out about a new ego distortion or blind spot you can react in one of two ways

Failing to plan is planning to fail. Thoughts on a plan to upgrade an Ego Distortion / Blind Spot 

• Here is my standard approach for a plan to address a newly discovered Ego Distortion / Blind Spot = 1. Upgrade Spreadsheet + 2. 1-3x Post Game Analyses each week + 3. Systematic Monthly Checkins + 4. 6 Monthly Review

  • 1. Upgrade Spreadsheet - Something you personally do to manage yourself.  I’ll normally update this 1-3x times per day. 

  • 2. Post Game Analysis - Done with others, normally I’ll do this 1-3x time per week. 

  • 3.  Systematic Monthly Checkins - Done with your manager monthly

  • 4. 6 Monthly Review - Done with multiple people (3-5x) every 6 months asking questions similar to above. 

If you only take away one thing

• You’ll likely always be developing new Ego Distortions and Blind Spots. 

• I used to systematically try to upgrade. I didn’t use to systematically try and find Ego Distortions and Blind Spots. 

• Improvement = 1. Add upside + 2. Remove downside. 

• Avoiding stupidity is easier than seeking brilliance. We often focus on trying to be brilliant, yet many great people get far more mileage out of avoiding making stupid mistakes.

• "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

Innovator Mindset = Considered Confidence = Imposter syndrome done well

By Duncan Anderson. To see all blogs click here.

Reading time: 3 mins

Summary: Just because you have never done something before doesn’t mean you should have no confidence. We need people to be able to do things they have never done before. We need people to be able to do things that have never been done before! You might never have done people management before, that doesn’t mean you should have no confidence in yourself. You might be trying to build a product that has never been built before, if you have no confidence in your ability to do it (imposter syndrome) it’ll likely hinder your ability to make progress. 

Definitions - These are my version of definitions, so may differ from what you find elsewhere

• Imposter Syndrome = Doing something you have not done before and as such not having confidence. 

  • “Whether you believe you can or you can’t, you are right.” Henry Ford

• Innovator Mindset = Being new to something (not having done it), but believing you’ll be able to make progress. 

• Considered Confidence = The optimal amount of confidence for a given circumstance. Underconfidence is a problem, overconfidence is a problem. 

Underconfidence is a problem, overconfidence is a problem. 

• What I used to think made sense

• What I now think makes sense

• In some respects these graphs look like they contradict each other. What I’m suggesting is that there is likely an optimal amount of confidence to have at each level of ‘experience’. I call the optimal amount of confidence ‘Considered Confidence’. I believe Considered Confidence is key to making progress.

• Overconfidence = Do things when you shouldn’t = Don’t do appropriate planning

• Underconfidence = Don’t things when you shouldn’t = Over plan

• Considered Confidence = Believing you can make progress = Always have a crack at things = Appropriate amount of planning

This blog has a lot of overlap with “Innovation = 10 Units of Effort for 1 Unit of Progress”.

• Jingle: Don’t worry about never having done something before. Worry about never doing things that you haven’t done before. Worry about never doing things that haven’t been done by anyone before. 

• Fortune favours the bold. You miss 100% of the shots you don’t take. The biggest risk is taking no risk.

Metacognition Writing: the best way to add value I’m aware of

By Duncan Anderson. To see all blogs click here.

Reading time: 3 mins

Summary: A unit of work = 1. A unit of exploration + 2. A unit of synthesis (Metacognition Writing). I often find that ~90% of the value comes in the ‘Unit of synthesis’... and that this takes ~10% of the overall time. 

Analogy - How a PhD often is

• 90% of the time ≈ exploration

• 10% of the time ≈ synthesis (thesis writing AKA Metacognition Writing)

• But…

  • Exploration ≈ 10% of value derived

  • Synthesis (thesis writing AKA Metacognition Writing) ≈ 90% of value derived

You have to do the 90% exploration time to be able to do the ‘thesis writing’ (synthesis). But I find that if you don’t do the thesis writing (Metacognition Writing) then you are often leaving 90% of value on the table. 

Metacognition writing (synthesis)

• “You don’t learn from your experiences, you learn from reflecting on your experiences.” John Dewy. 

• Reflecting on your experiences = Metacognition Writing 

• Metacognition Writing = Explaining what you are doing

• Outcome = What you did * How you did it

  • How you did it = Metacognition writing (yes I know the words are contradicting) 

I try to spend 10% of my week doing ‘Metacognition Writing’

• If you work for 50 hours in a week I’d recommend doing 5 hours of Metacognition Writing. 

• Examples of Metacognition Writing:

  • The CloudStreaks blog. The CloudStreaks blog is intended to be ways to help Edrolo operate better as a company. I do ~50 hours a week on Edrolo and 1-2 hours a week of ‘Metacognition Writing’ for CloudStreaks on ways to hopefully help myself and / or others level up. 

  • I do another 3-4 hours of ‘Metacognition Writing’ that is Edrolo internal only each week. Some examples of what this is: 

    • I write an internal only blog at Edrolo weekly on Product Metacognition (like this CloudStreaks blog but on product only). 

    • I’ll systematically write larger Metacognition pieces on any product I’m working on. For example Year 7 Humanities I’ll try and write out the top down recipe.

    • What I believe most of the company wide presentations I give to Edrolo are. 

    • Well done ‘freeform thoughts’ people do in project updates to me count as ‘Metacognition Writing’. 

• Can you imagine doing all the exploration work for a PhD and then not writing a thesis (doing the synthesis AKA Metacognition Writing)? It would be stuid AF right? Well that is what I feel I was doing before I started to systematically do Metacognition Writing each week. 

• Jingle: Metacognition Writing = Mega cognition up levelling! 

With the benefit of hindsight, I think I was heavily underweight the time I spent on ‘Metacognition Writing’ until ~3 years ago. In other words I was leaving a massive amount of value on the table. 

• Let’s assume that knowledge doesn’t compound (I’m of the view that most of the time knowledge compounds). 

• How could how much value you add be shown if you do ‘Metacognition Writing’ for 10% of your week vs don’t. 

• You are 10x up if you do ‘Metacognition Writing’ if these calcs are fair. 

• Honestly, it’s hard to describe how much I find that Metacognition Writing levels what I do up. It’s the single largest upgrade strategy I’m aware of. 

If you only take away one thing

• My recommendation is that you do a unit of Metacognition Writing on the key areas you want to upgrade each week. A unit of metacognition I normally find is 0.5-2 hours. 

• I think you likely want to have 1-3x personal things you are wanting to upgrade and 1-3x company areas you are wanting to upgrade. 

• So you are doing 3-5x units of Metacognition Writing per week.

Levelling up: Shuhari = Bloom’s Taxonomy = Dreyfus Taxonomy

By Duncan Anderson. To see all blogs click here.

Reading Time: 4 mins

Summary: “Learn the rules like a pro so you can break them like an artist.” - Picasso. If you want to level up, shred everything others have done while also simultaneously doing units of creation (output). 

The models

• Shuhari

• Bloom’s Taxonomy

• Dreyfus Taxonomy

Joining the models together

What is the point of this? 

• That you can level up. That your abilities aren’t fixed. 

• This is a form of growth mindset. 

• For almost all mental areas you start at Level 0. And for many areas there is no ceiling, ie you can always continue to level up.

One can get better at levelling up… or level up at levelling up! 

• I’m not so fussed at what level one is at, I’m much more interested in how fast one can level up without outside help. 

• IMO the faster one can go from a novice to a master, from learning the rules to making the rules, from understanding what others do to creating a new high water mark the better. 

• I think there are broad meta strategies that you can apply to try to level up in new fields. Some high level ones are Shuhari and Bloom’s taxonomy. 

• One key strategy for where to start: understand what people are doing now and why. I find when you properly understand what is currently occuring, normally you can find ways to level up. 

All models are wrong, some are helpful. Using these models in a different way

• Another strategy to level up: I think you can normally ‘create’ really early on. 

  • Like when you are Level 1. 

  • Your ‘creation’ at Level 1 is normally very low quality, but I find that creating is a key way to level up to Level 2. 

  • Normally, each unit of levelling up requires a unit of creation... I know this is ‘breaking’ the model above! 

  • One way I find to level up is to do each component of bloom's taxonomy. 

  • Hopefully, each time you cycle through the components, you level up. 

  • So 1 unit of each of Remember, Understand, Apply, Analyse, Evaluate & Create = 1 level up. 

    • Level 0

      • Do a Unit of Remember => Understand => Apply => Analyse => Evaluate => Create

      • ==> Get to Level 1

    • Level 1

      • Do a Unit of Remember => Understand => Apply => Analyse => Evaluate => Create

      • ==> Get to Level 2

    • Level 2

      • Do a Unit of Remember => Understand => Apply => Analyse => Evaluate => Create

      • ==> Get to Level 3

    • Etc etc. 

  • Effectively how fast you can cycle ≈ How fast you can level up. 

  • Each time, hopefully what you create improves. I used to think that you didn’t create until you were eg a ‘Master’. But now I think you can almost never become a master without much creating. Effectively you have Level 1 creating / output. And you have Level 50 (master) creating / output. In my experience, output levels up, you don’t level up to the point where you can do output. 

• Another lens: reading, thinking, talking, writing & building

  • I think these are the main modalities for getting up the curve in a knowledge field. 

  • To level up, do a unit of each of the modalities. IE to go from Level 1 to Level 2 do 1 unit of reading, 1 unit of thinking, 1 unit of talking with others, 1 unit of writing and 1 unit of building. 

  • I use to mega over index reading and do almost zero writing. With the benefit of hindsight I was hindering the speed I leveled up at. 

  • Hopefully at the end of this you are at Level 2. Then repeat ad infinitum! 

• Jingle: I don’t want a level life, I want a life where I level up! 

Other relevant blogs: 

• Language is the ultimate tool. Writing = improving at language. As such: writing = cool!

• Improved ‘intelligence’ = strategy added

Innovation = 10 Units of Effort for 1 Unit of Progress

By Duncan Anderson. To see all blogs click here.

Reading time: 3 mins

Summary: Pure Innovation = 100% New. The more ‘new’, normally the slower the progress one makes. To innovate you typically make progress slowly… but without spending time innovating you’ll normally make no progress! 

Happiness = Reality - Expectations

• Having appropriate expectations is key to good outcomes. 

• Here is my rule of thumb: 

  • 0% new = 1 unit of effort fo 1 unit of progress = zero innovation

  • 50% new = 5 units of effort for 1 unit of progress = some innovation

  • 100% new = 10 units of effort for 1 unit of progress = pure innovation

Most of Secondary School has 0% new...

• You might be doing maths, or science, or history; but the maths has already been ‘invented’. You are learning what others have come up with. So there is 0% new. With a good teacher, good resources, good personal application and the right mindset you should be able to have 1 unit of effort actualise to 1 unit of progress. Eg at the start of class you didn’t know how to add fractions, but at the end of class you do. 

...but hopefully you do some things with 100% new

• For example, how do you improve a Year 7 Maths resource? There might well be no one there to show you what to do, you are 100% on your own. 

• It’s my experience that 100% new things take ~10x or more longer to make a unit of progress in than 0% new things. Unless you set expectations with yourself and / or others about this then it does not feel good! It can feel like you are wasting time, going nowhere, spinning your wheels etc. 

• They say innovation is a mess. 

• Innovation can be a beautiful mess, or an ugly mess. But I've always found that innovation is a mess. One key strategy I have for innovation to be a beautiful mess is to understand that often it takes 10 units of effort for 1 unit of progress. 

• I used to implicitly think that ‘1 unit of effort = 1 unit of progress’ for everything. I feel that school inculcated this. With the benefit of hindsight, this ‘mindset’ was quite counterproductive for innovation. 

If you want innovation in your business then allow 10 units of effort to get 1 unit of progress

• I did almost no innovation in my Secondary Education or at University. And minimal at my jobs prior to Edrolo. 

• One characterisation: Pure Innovation = 100% New. 

• Many businesses want to increase the amount they innovate. If so, I think you need to consider making the time for ‘10 units of effort to equal 1 unit of progress’. Ie 10% the productivity you might expect in ‘normal’ areas. 

• This can feel like ‘wasting resources’, it can feel very unproductive for the people involved, but I don’t know another way!

If you only take away one thing

• To innovate you need to spend time innovating AKA you need to spend time on 100% new areas and likely have ~10 units of effort for ~1 unit of progress. 

• Failing to spend this ‘unproductive time’ will likely mean failing to innovate. And without innovation your business is likely dead in the long run. 

• Jingle: If you can’t ‘waste’ time (innovating), then it’s likely your business will get ‘wasted’. 

Related blogs on this topic

• A framework to articulate expectations: Level of expectations ≈ Amount of new

• There are no lightbulb moments. There are however earned secrets.