Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

Most people avoid cringe. I just have a really high tolerance for it. Because discomfort usually means growth. If you’re afraid to look foolish, you’ll miss the shot. Full convo with on The Knowledge Project (The Knowledge Project) is up now.

29,545 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr •via X (Twitter)

7 Kommentare

Profilbild von Shane Parrish
Shane Parrishvor 1 Jahr

@farnamstreet So much advantage in life comes from being willing to look like an idiot for 5 minutes. Listen and learn from this amazing conversation:

Profilbild von Shibin Dotco
Shibin Dotcovor 1 Jahr

@ShaneAParrish @farnamstreet Love this @harleyf. Being able to embrace cringe is basically a founder superpower.

Profilbild von Vincent Touquet
Vincent Touquetvor 1 Jahr

@ShaneAParrish @farnamstreet @nayafia agrees. Her book Antimemetics is a must read.

Profilbild von 6days1week
6days1weekvor 1 Jahr

@ShaneAParrish @farnamstreet “Being afraid to look foolish” is usually a byproduct of lack of confidence, however, either can precede the other. If you have confidence you aren’t afraid of looking foolish, but if you don’t have self confidence, and take the leap (vulnerability), it can build confidence.

Profilbild von Jovian Gautama 劉恆原
Jovian Gautama 劉恆原vor 1 Jahr

@ShaneAParrish @farnamstreet Cringe is the new cool @iamjasonlevin

Profilbild von Joel Strickland
Joel Stricklandvor 1 Jahr

@ShaneAParrish @farnamstreet you wont take the shot.

Profilbild von Ryan Florence
Ryan Florencevor 1 Jahr

@ShaneAParrish @farnamstreet my favorite thing about you ... also where do I buy the towels? summer is half over and I need that outfit!

Ähnliche Videos

.Naval: You define wealth in a beautiful way. You talk about wealth as a set of physical transformations that we can affect. So as a society it becomes very clear that knowledge leads directly to wealth creation for everybody. A given individual can obviously affect physical transformations proportional to the resources available to them—but much more proportional to the knowledge available to them. Knowledge is a huge force multiplier. You then define resources as the thing that you combine with knowledge to create wealth. New knowledge allows you to use new things as resources and discard old things that maybe we’re running out of. There are lots of examples of how we’ve done that in the past. For example, in energy we’ve gone from wood to coal to oil to nuclear. But then people say, “Now we’re out of ideas. Now we’re caught up. Now we’re done. There aren’t going to be new ideas, and now we have to freeze the frame and conserve what we have.” The counter to that is, “No, we’ll create new knowledge and have new resources. Don’t worry about the old ones.” Well they say, “If you’re going to have new resources, if you can’t think of them now, it’s not real.” This now gets into the realm of people demanding that if you’re going to claim that new knowledge will be created, you have to name that knowledge now. Otherwise it’s not real. But that seems like a Catch-22. David Deutsch: It does, and it’s a bad argument. I don’t want to claim that the knowledge will be created. We’re fallible; we may not create it. We may destroy ourselves. We may miss the solution that’s right under our nose, so that when the snailiens come from another galaxy and look at us, they’ll say, “How can it possibly be that they failed to do so-and-so when it was right in front of them?” That could happen. I can’t prove or argue that it won’t happen. What I always argue, though, is that we have what it takes. We have everything that it takes to achieve that. If we don’t, it’ll be because of bad choices we have made, not because of constraints imposed on us by the planet or the solar system. Naval: It will be by anti-rational memes that restrict the creation of knowledge and the growth of knowledge. David Deutsch: Maybe. Or maybe it’ll be by well-intentioned errors, which nobody could see why they were errors. Again, it doesn’t take malevolence to make mistakes. Mistakes are the normal condition of humans. All we can do is try to find them. Maybe not destroying the means of correcting errors is the heart of morality; because if there is no way of correcting errors, then sooner or later one of those will get us. Naval: Don’t destroy the means of error correction is the base of morality. I love that. I think about places like North Korea where you can’t have elections and a revolution is very difficult because the gang in charge is armed to the teeth and they’ve destroyed the means of political error correction for a long time. That is a case where humanity is trapped in a local minimum, and it’s very hard to climb out of that hole. If too much of the world falls into that mindset, then we as a species may just stagnate because we’ve lost our biggest advantage. We’ve lost our biggest discovery, which was the ability to make new discoveries.

Deutsch Explains

143,913 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren