agota

I tend to believe what he says because I don't get the "narcissist cult leader" vibe from him.

I do get that vibe from the vast majority of popular content creators in the "hustle" niche, though.

Plus, I've found the people who were hyper focused on retiring early or achieving financial independence to be less happy and more self-critical about their financial decisions.

I also wanted to comment on this.

What I have observed about FIRE folks is that they start optimizing everything for FIRE.

This isn't a healthy way to live, certainly not in the long run, and it's not like this goes away once they reach FIRE.

Here's an article where Mrs. Money Mustache shared how uncomfortable she was about her parents taking her and their son to the movies, then to an ice cream place.

She was already retired, literally a millionaire.

https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/07/27/youll-never-be-no...

I believe that one reason for this is that FIRE, passive income, entrepreneurship, etc. attracts people who are looking for shortcuts.

This means that they are optimizing for the short term, which is counterproductive to success in any area of life.

Back in the 2010s we saw this with niche sites, ebooks, info products, etc.

It worked for some but it's probably safe to say that learning to code and getting a tech job would have had better ROI for most people who went down that route.

At the moment we are seeing this in the crypto space, where you have all these guys in their 20s who are "investing in crypto" (gambling) because they want a Lamborghini ASAP.

They would likely be better off learning to code and getting a tech job, but they can’t see it at the moment because they don’t have the perspective that comes with time.

That was my first thought as well. Is this a dating profile?

"Fix your life in 3 weeks, only takes 30 minutes a day"

More like "This ONE Tip Will Change Your Life!"

You need to account for genetic outliers.

IIRC, Jocko Willink believes that his ability to function on little sleep is genetic, he just doesn't need much of it.

He has mentioned that this was a running joke in the Seal teams, which presumably consist of people already selected for their ability to function on little sleep, not your average "7 - 8 hours of sleep" folks.

But then normal people who need an average amount of sleep start "getting after it" by waking up at 4.30 AM because that's what Jocko does.

You can wake up at 4.30 AM as a normal person, but you'd need to go to sleep at 8.30 PM - 9.30 PM for that to be sustainable.

You can't "discipline equals freedom" yourself into optimal performance under perpetual sleep deprivation.

What human being on the planet can make choices without being swayed by outside influences?

I have the same theory on women having been selected for caring about their environment.

I see that as an argument for choosing traditional gender roles because it seems to me that one of the main causes of conflict in 50/50 relationships are these arguments about chores, tidiness, etc.

Splitting chores 50/50 seems like asking for trouble given that men and women have evolved differently in this regard - he ends up feeling that she's endlessly nagging him, she ends up feeling that she has to manage him like a child.

Seems like the traditional breadwinner/homemaker setup would be a solution to this problem.

Him monetizing his divorce like that is disturbing if the wife didn't agree to this.

That's my question:

Did this guy's ex-wife agree to be a subject of a blog, articles in major publications, and a book??

but his spouse also had the opportunity to communicate about her feelings of neglect

According to the article:

"Hundreds, maybe thousands, of times, my wife tried to communicate that something was wrong. That something hurt. But that doesn’t make sense, I thought. I’m not trying to hurt her; therefore, she shouldn’t feel hurt"

At what point it's okay to stop "trying to communicate" and just leave?

I came to a conclusion that people who genuinely can't control themselves due to extremely low impulse control tend to end up in prison.

Those who claim that they "can't control themselves" yet somehow manage to be functional adults are lying - they can control themselves, they just can't be bothered.

Too often for me, I have tried to figure out a solution to a problem, when someone was just trying to let me know how they feel

John Gray addressed this in "Men are From Mars, Women are From Venus" - I believe he argued that this is the #1 mistake men make in relationships.

IIRC, he also argued that the #1 mistake women make in relationships was trying to help men by giving unsolicited advice.

The Atlantic should add this comment to the article as a TL;DR.

You seem to be implying that it's irrational to be upset about having to repeat yourself if you haven't yet repeated yourself at least six times?

If you need to repeat yourself half a dozen times to get any reaction beyond dismissal, it's reasonable to conclude that the other person is indeed not listening.

In fact, it's reasonable to conclude that they just don't care, and that it's time to move on.

Baltic states?

Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia?

And before anyone mentions that "normal people" like it and it is just the icky nerds that have reservations

I'm one of the "normal people". I absolutely hate Windows 10 . I used it for a few years because switching to Linux seemed overwhelming. I have finally ditched Windows 10 for Elementary OS, it's just so much better.

"Lots of activities can boost the size of various parts of the pre-frontal cortex – video games, for example"

This doesn't mean that:

1. Any activity that requires focus has the same effect on the prefrontal cortex of meditation.

2. Video games have the same effect on the prefrontal cortex as meditation.

Also, using this article to support your position is an interesting choice, given that you have previously said that "There are no proven benefits to meditation" and this article discusses proven benefits of meditation.

Actually, the very quote you provided mentions "range of physical as well as mental health benefits", presumably referring to meditation (or "mindfulness practice").

The article you provided doesn't back up the claim that playing video games has the same effect on the prefrontal cortex as meditation.

1. It discusses video games that were created with a specific purpose of improving ability to focus.

2. It mentions that researchers have a hypothesis that these games will improve ability to focus.

3. It mentions that there is an ongoing research into what's happening in the brain when people play these games.

I don't see how you can take this and draw a conclusion that video games have the same effect on the prefrontal cortex as meditation.

And your initial claim was broader than that, you said that "prefrontal cortex activity touted by Kelly McGonigal is achieved through any other focused activity", which appears to be completely baseless.

Do you have a source for the claim that playing video games has the same effect on the prefrontal cortex as meditation?

Seems extremely unlikely, but I'm curious, so I would appreciate a link.

I was confused the first time I saw the word "learnings", I thought it was a mistake, but then I saw other people using it as well.

Can native English speakers tell me if the word "learnings" is an actual word that exists outside startup blogs?

What is great about it?

Genuine question, not saying that it isn't, just curious what exactly makes it great for you.

I think that's definitely something to consider. In theory, everyone would love to be the best in the world at something, but in practice, how many people would want to live a life required to achieve that?

I think whether it's worth it depends on if the goal you are trying to achieve is worth it.

I remember reading about this couple of I believe software engineers who achieved financial independence at I think age 30.

If I recall correctly, she didn't have any natural aptitude for software engineering, she struggled to keep up with her classmates, she didn't enjoy her work, etc.

Still, she got her degree, got a job, made six figure salary, and retired at 30.

From what I understand, for her it was worth it.

I think this is a serious issue for intelligent people.

The curriculum is tailored towards people of average intelligence, so if you are one, two, or three standard deviations above that, you won't be under pressure to develop a work ethic because you can get good grades without it.

Of course, if your intelligence is above average, then you probably are interested in a career that attracts other intelligent people.

And then you are in a serious trouble, because now you are in an environment where everyone is of similar intelligence, so you don't have your competitive advantage anymore, plus some people have a work ethic that you lack.

And even if you are still a standard deviation above most people, there are likely other people who are at the same level as you, and they might have a work ethic.

I think this is something that people who have intelligent children need to pay attention to.

Another person in this thread pointed out that "skill stacking" boils down to becoming good at two skills, "X + marketing".

I think that's a good example of "Good at A + hates B", say "Good at software engineering + hates marketing".

But what are the other "Good at A + hates B" skill combinations?

That's why I think that trying to be the best in the world at something almost certainly means setting yourself up for failure.

At the top, you have genetic freaks with insane work ethic that are obsessed with that particular skill. Can you compete with that? No.

I'd guess that if you have average talent, you can probably get to the top 10%, mainly through outworking everyone else. But you will never be the best in the world.

Can you give a specific example, though?

Because generally, no competition means no demand, so while it might be satisfying to be best in the world at something, an obscure skill might not translate into financial success.

I think that's a great observation.

One exception I can think of where you legitimately need to be decent at three skills is bootstrapping as a solopreneur.

You need to be able to code, design, and market your product.

Other than that, it does seem like "X + marketing" is what you need, though I guess "marketing" is an umbrella term (content marketing requires writing ability, public speaking requires public speaking ability, etc.).

That's a good point.

However, I think the question is how likely it is that you would be able to become the best in the world at something?

I think that people who are the best in the world at something tend to be genetic freaks. Are you one? Probably not.

In that case, attempting to become the best in the world might mean setting yourself up for failure, though presumably you would still be more successful than an average person. It's just that there's a massive difference between being in the top 10% and the top 1% in terms of reward.