Yikes, this graphic has a ton of errors and incorrect conclusions. I’m not confident they’ve done any real research about this.
Intriguing. Care to elaborate?
Some of these seem accurate, some of these seem questionable, but I don’t know enough about any of this to upvote or downvote
That thing about ideas and writing rings true in my professional life. Lots of thinking and refining to get to simple understandable concepts.
E- the reading thing holds true for me. I went back to the read an influential book that I had mostly forgotten and revisited all the different ways it affects my thinking to this day.
The rest of this I’m skeptical of.
To be honest, I think I need to save this as a reminder for myself.
Got to remember when I lose at games against my friends it’s all about luck right?
Assuming you are evenly matched and they aren’t just better than you.
Shhhhh. Of course we’re evenly matched. What could you possibly be suggesting? /s
Sure, here’s three points, even though there’s many more (I can’t be bothered to type them all out):
- His so-called “Paradox of Abundance” claims that most people are hurt by having too much information available, with no evidence to support his claim. However as a hard counter example, more internet usage (eg. access to the largest abundance of information in the world) is strongly linked to higher academic performance.
- The “Paradox of Creativity” is a lovely thought but simply doesn’t hold up to scrutiny in a general sense. Some things do indeed become simpler as they are refined, while others do not. For example, very few would look at the Sistine Chapel and think “oh, I could have painted that.”
- His “Paradox of Consensus” is spectacularly stupid, because it implies that if everybody agrees, they are likely wrong. I think it’s reasonable to say that we all agree murder is morally wrong, but we shouldn’t take that as a sign that there’s something wrong with our moral system. (Moreover, using ancient Judean law as a basis for your theory is silly.)
This whole thing sounds like it was cooked up by some LinkedIn startup blogger who wanted to sound deep. Very little of this advice is generally applicable.
Also be aware that the tactic being used here (framing every step as if it’s a paradox) is a literary device intended to make the content sound more legitimate. This is related to the rhyme-as-reason effect, where someone is more likely to believe something if it rhymes.
thanks to have take the time for that illuminationg comment. I had a feeling it was all bullshit by the lack of reference
Each of these “paradoxes” appear to be built on psych/philosophical concepts. I think the only misstep was naming the infographic.
- “Paradox of Abundance” comes from a parenting technique that abuses illusion of choice. It’s not really a paradox but a skill for dealing with difficult people. https://lovevery.com/community/blog/child-development/why-fewer-choices-help-your-child-establish-independence/
- “Paradox of Creativity” comes from intellectual property law and explores how much of an idea is considered original when it’s built on all of human history. How responsible for a song can you be when you are using established notes, rhythm, timing, all music theory, instrument production, the skills of performers. Everything including language and writing. This is a cursed problem stemming from capitalism, not a paradox.
- “Paradox of Consensus” explores herd mentally and due diligence. It also originated from an era where laws and government were more political and meant to protect against bias. Again not a paradox, and the weakest example
The effects and techniques you mentioned are certainly grounded in reality and I love studying all of them! However the conclusions made in the infographic are quite a reach. For example, “information abundance” would be a bad generalization of “choice overload”.
Better to just study these real principles instead of whatever this guy cooked up.
