Pablo F's Journal

writing about #pablof7z, #thinking

Whenever I run into a list of books written by someone, even when I have no idea who that someone is, I have the reflex of clicking it.

Even if I see the word "reading list" offline I start poking the words like a madman, waiting for something to happen.

Booklists are super popular among people like us.

I didn't read that anywhere; I'm just guessing, but, since I see them everywhere, it's safe to assume that's because people can't get enough of them.

The books in this list I'm giving you are these: seven books you have already read.

Yup. That's it.

We're constantly looking for an answer to our questions out there. We assume that we don't already know the secret to life, but that there is one. A magic button that will make everything instantaneous and effortless.

Maybe the answer is that you already have all the information you need to become who you want to be. Perhaps now is just a matter of action, of applying what you already know.

I know this is not earth-shattering. By now is as much a clichè as "the best books for X" lists, or "5 reasons why you are like Trump."

The insight is noticing that, whenever you feel the pull to peek into that reading list from famous-internet-guru, realize that that is also procrastination.

Last year I did the challenge of not allowing myself to read any new book. Not even books I had already purchased but hadn't read yet.

I could only re-read.

It turned out the value I got from that re-reading was much more impactful than continually chasing new stuff.

When you approach things from a perspective of "I already know everything I need to know to accomplish/be X, now I need to make it happen", it shifts your mindset into action.

If you want to find out what you already know, journal about something you've already read, you'll find that you'll be much more prone to extracting insights.

Enter PIN to unlock

Here's a bit of a random idea but that it's interesting to explore, not sure how, but I'd like to find an answer to this question.

How can I frame my disagreement with someone that knows more about the subject matter than I do?

Say, a keynesian economist, well.. that's a bad example, because I understand, or I think I understand, the premise of their mental models and I think it's total bullshit.

But say someone like the economist from the book Princes of the Yen, who talks about the wonders of Quantitative Easing and understands the risks of QE programs but sees that a well-run QE program can be benefitial in the short and long term.

This idea feels and rings incorrect to me. But this guy clearly knows multiple orders of magnitude more than I do. So what's my standing to disagree with his idea, really? It's just intuition. Intuition that he's wrong, but I can't go down in the mud of the argument.

Well, actually, thinking about it, if I were talking to him, I could attempt to probe his arguments from the start and attempt to find the place of disagreement. Which of the premises he basis his argument on is where we fork-off.

So where is the disagreement? What's the root? Is it experiential? This guy is clearly a very bright guy, seems to be honestly curious and willing to take his conclusions wherever reasoning takes him (not sure if that's true, but,  let's assume it is for the sake of exploring this line of thinking.)

Is the disagreement based on our lived experiences? At some point, regardless of the fact that we could both be following reason, we could find ourselves in completely opposed conclusions under the same set of facts.

Again. What's the source of the disagreement? What's the element that makes the logical conclusions under same facts diverge?

This is what I'm not sure of. This is the basis of the question.

UPDATE: After 

Enter PIN to unlock