I agree with your view of procrastination. I think there's a good portion of it that is due to the points you make.
However, there's something else to be added to the discussion about procrastination that has to do with people's temperament and unhealthy ideas they have of work (and themselves).
For example, one problem people might have is they tie their self-worth to the outcome of their goals. You can see why that could cause a lot of anxiety and stress. Using your examples, if you needed to win every time you played video games, and it was a source of great confidence and self-esteem for you - the moment you're in a situation where you know there's a chance you might loose, it will become a lot harder to get the energy to practice/play. It has nothing to do with enjoying video games in and of itself - it has to do with connecting your worth to the outcome. Even hanging out with friends can become a hassle if people think they need to control the outcome somehow.
This happens in school (in college,where for the first time people may not be getting the top grades and in highschool grades were the source of great pride and acceptance and popularity), and at work (if you screw something up you think you'll be considered an idiot and possibly be fired). A lot of people, somehow and at some point, develop some sort of inner drill sergeant who tells them they are no good until they get X done - and this works well enough when you're young and use to being forced to do things by other people anyway and are looking for approval from adults and peers. But as people grow independent they realize they really don't like the way they talk to themselves or at the least, they start not to care about what the drill-sergeant in them wants.
To people who do not have these cognitive traps, these problems are invisible. They are likely to think procrastinators are inherently lazy/undisciplined because that is what they can visually conclude (and it also reinforces the idea they are not lazy and are disciplined).
Another trap is not viewing work in the correct context. People feel they are being 'forced' to do something. That reinforces the idea that the work isn't very pleasant, and they would be doing something else if they could. Well, thats the wrong way to frame the problem. It focuses on your feelings, transient and often miscalculated. A healthier way to frame work is to consider cost vs reward. We tend to highlight the cost of work and compare it to the rewards of procrastination.
Also, people who procrastinate may also not take breaks when working, or set aside time to enjoy their life - they are stuck in a perpetual grind where they feel like crap/imposters if they take their attention off work. That very pressure is what renders them unproductive.
Anyway, if this stuff seems interesting to anyone, I recommend checking out "The Now Habit" by Neil Fiore. I found it to be one of the few books that frames procrastination as a symptom rather than a cause. It has a lot of interesting insights if you don't feel the you lack discipline or are lazy, but may not be framing things (or talking to yourself) in the healthiest way.
Very interesting, reminds me of the conflict between Freud and Adler. You answered on a post who explains procrastination with desire, but added the self-esteem element. I am with you on this, i suppose the problem is a combination of desire and self worth problems.
I also can recommend "The Now Habit", this is really a book that stands out on this topic.
The most valuable thing you do is provide a basis for intuition in the topics you teach. Getting people to understand the "big picture" early on actually increases the appetite for curiosity, makes topics less intimidating and easier to learn.
I don't need all the facts, but I do need an understanding of why certain historical events (or any other topic) are important. Having that latticework in my mind allows me to kickstart learning the details, and synthesizing all that information.
Criticism of various learning models will always be around. Its important to listen to it, but at the same time, these ideas are coming straight out of people's heads - about what they "think" is a better approach. On the other hand, Khan Academy's success is a direct function of its wide-spread adoption. If it didn't work as well as, if not better than, what people learn in a classroom, people simply wouldn't watch. Not only that, I'm sure feedback (positive and negative) from actual users is much more useful than from someone ingrained in the old model (and most likely views himself as teacher only, and not a learner).
I'm an avid user of the site and I see this all the time:
Sal- "In the last video, I seemed to have confused people about so and so.. let me clarify that now." The videos and site are developing iteratively, and they have data to understand what people need/having trouble with.
Please continue to teach in this manner. Anyone who grew into, and succeeded in an academic environment (as virtually all professors have) will not see how transformative KA is for people who do not learn that way.
The NYT article is inflammatory, makes factual errors, and is even a bit trollish at times. A simple analysis or opinion piece would have been fine.
"Since then, Buffett has been subject to criticism of a kind he has never before faced."
“'It makes you question Warren’s judgment,'” - author who happens to have a new Warren Buffet book out.
"What moved him to pre-emptively clear Sokol, who had so clearly violated Berkshire’s code of conduct, of wrongdoing? What does that tell us of possible flaws in Buffett’s character?"
"He often buys companies with very little due diligence;"
"He often buys companies with very little due diligence;" that doesn't sound like Buffet at all. If everyone who bought stock, CDSs, and other complex financial instruments did as much diligence as Buffet everyone in finance would still think a TARP is something you use to protect things from the elements.
Architecture would be the perfect field for this guy. Specifically at those firms that dabble with digital fabrication technology.
There's been a major transformation in the industry. Designers using CAD-based software that interfaces with 2D/3D cutting and welding machinery has allowed custom structures to be created in a cost effective way.
There are some nice images/videos here showing the process (albeit on a smaller scale): http://workshopsfactory.com/past-workshops/
Frank Gehry was one of the pioneers in this space. His buildings would be completely unfeasible without the use of digital fabrication. Consequently, his firm was one of the first to package together a platform (based on CATIA) to allow architecture firms to manage mass customized components within the confines of building lifecycle management:
http://www.gehrytechnologies.com/index.php?option=com_jportf...
They didn't cover this one, which I think is pretty common as well:
"You're probably going to [exaggerate other person's negative reaction], but..."
This will usually dampen the other person's negative reaction. You've presumed the person will react unfavorably to whatever it is you're about to say. You, in a way, have suggested the person will have a bias to be negative, before you've even stated anything.
No one likes to hear that about themselves, so people will tend to overcompensate by being even more dispassionate than they normally are. Before anything is ever said.
"You're probably going to hate me for saying this, but..."
"You're going to think this is silly, but..."
"You're going to think I'm a jerk, but..."
I think in each case, you'll find the listener consciously or subconsciously suppress their reactions so as to not to come off as hating the other person, or thinking they are silly or a jerk.
Warren Buffett - Sun Valley 1999 (excerpt from Snowball):
"I would like to talk today about the stock market," he said. "I will be talking about pricing stocks, but I will not be talking about predicting their course of action next month or next year. Valuing is not the same as predicting.
In the short run, the market is a voting machine. In the long run, it's a weighing machine.
Weight counts eventually. But votes count in the short term. And it's a very undemocratic way of voting. Unfortunately, they have no literacy tests in terms of voting qualifications, as you've all learned."
"This is half of a page which comes from a list seventy pages long of all the auto companies in the United States." He waved the complete list in the air. "There were two thousand auto companies: the most important invention, probably, of the first half of the twentieth century. It had an enormous impact on people's lives. If you had seen at the time of the first cars how this country would develop in connection with autos, you would have said, 'This is the place I must be.' But of the two thousand companies, as of a few years ago, only three car companies survived. [21] And, at one time or another, all three were selling for less than book value, which is the amount of money that had been put into the companies and left there. So autos had an enormous impact on America, but in the opposite direction on investors."
"Now the other great invention of the first half of the century was the airplane. In this period from 1919 to 1939, there were about two hundred companies. Imagine if you could have seen the future of the airline industry back there at Kitty Hawk. You would have seen a world undreamed of. But assume you had the insight, and you saw all of these people wishing to fly and to visit their relatives or run away from their relatives or whatever you do in an airplane, and you decided this was the place to be.
"As of a couple of years ago, there had been zero money made from the aggregate of all stock investments in the airline industry in history.
"It's wonderful to promote new industries, because they are very promotable. It's very hard to promote investment in a mundane product. It's much easier to promote an esoteric product, even particularly one with losses, because there's no quantitative guideline. But people will keep coming back to invest, you know. It reminds me a little of that story of the oil prospector who died and went to heaven. And St. Peter said, 'Well, I checked you out, and you meet all of the qualifications. But there's one problem.' He said, 'We have some tough zoning laws up here, and we keep all of the oil prospectors over in that pen. And as you can see, it is absolutely chock-full. There is no room for you.'
"And the prospector said, 'Do you mind if I just say four words?'
"St. Peter said, 'No harm in that.'
"So the prospector cupped his hands and yells out, 'Oil discovered in hell!'
"And of course, the lock comes off the cage and all of the oil prospectors start heading right straight down.
"St. Peter said, 'That's a pretty slick trick. So,' he says, 'go on in, make yourself at home. All the room in the world.'
"The prospector paused for a minute, then said, 'No, I think I'll go along with the rest of the boys. There might be some truth to that rumor after all.'
I think this is a great example of Apple's "design strategy" being completely end-to-end.
They don't just focus on the tiniest details of industrial design; the aluminum chassis, the battery layout, the screws, friction coefficients on the trackpad, etc.. they have also designed their entire supply chain with the same attention to detail.
There was a post on HN a while ago about Apple's patent on a new headphone jack design - they redesigned what is pretty much a commoditized component (and never seen by the customer), to unlock more value in the form of greater maneuverability and internal space. I imagine the supply chain is also very commoditized, and Apple is the kind of company to take that process apart and refine it in the same way, to unlock value in the form of greater margins.
EDIT: Another area where their attention to detail is apparent is their manufacturing tolerances. They've pretty much perfected the art of physically manufacturing precision components. I've not been able to find another product, luxury or otherwise, that comes close to the fit and finish of Apple's devices - and thats including things like rolexes, ferraris, etc.
To add another example of Apple's details of industrial design, Apple makes two keyboards from the space they stamp out for the iMac's screen. Apple is very efficient.
Charity is most needed for problems that have no other natural source of funding. If the government/private sector can solve certain problems, then charities are perhaps not the best vehicle for solving those particular problems.
Buffett and Gates specifically focus on the former. Trying to reduce extreme poverty, provide healthcare, and educational opportunities. They also believe every life is of equal value. So the challenge then becomes helping the most people per dollar invested.
Some of the most well developed medical technologies/ solutions exists because their's a lot of wealthy people with those problems. A lot of male baldness and not so much malaria.
Malaria is a treatable disease. Millions die because they don't have access to care. You can't say these people would be better off employed, as if their health is not a factor in their economic output. Hence, the goal of trying to eliminate malaria is a valid philanthropic activity.
Buffett also donated through one of his children's foundations, to help solve/minimize the potential for a nuclear event. His view is pretty grim: the information is already out there, getting into more hands, and so the probability approaches 1 that an event will occur at some point in the future. What other natural funding exists for trying to solve this? It might be futile, it might be incredibly hard, but you need smart capable people working on this.
Furthermore, helping the rest of the world become a little bit more prosperous might reduce hostility, and violence that desperate people can be induced into. While businesses have had a great history of introducing wealth into the world, its always done with a profit motive. Where there is no profit potential, there is no interest of a business to be involved. A lot of these problems don't have those profit potentials. Hence, charity works in these areas.
Another important point regarding disease, in general, and especially malaria is that disease often leaves survivors with permanent physical disabilities and/or neurological deficits. I think a lot of people in the U.S. and Europe have this mistaken notion that malaria is like a bad case of influenza, mononucleosis, pneumonia, or some other common disease that we are familiar with. We think that the person gets really sick and feels awful and it could even be life-threatening, but that as long as you survive it, you fully recover. That simply isn't true.
Malaria primarily affects children and many survivors have severe permanent disabilities because of it (seizure disorders, deficits caused by stroke, psychiatric problems, etc.). And malaria is just one of many serious diseases in the developing world (tuberculosis, schistosomiasis, dengue fever, HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, etc.). If you acquire a severe disability before you're even old enough to enter the workforce, how does creating jobs help you? Creating jobs alone is insufficient to address the problems of Africa. You have to concomitantly address the heavy burden of disease if you are to have any chance of solving the economic woes of Africa.
1/. Videos are short, 10-15min digestible bits. Long enough to teach a concept, short enough not to lose my attention.
2/. He's a huge advocate of teaching intuition behind concepts instead of memorization. This makes learning less stuffy and more informal.
3/. Everyone has "holes" in their knowledge, but they are in different areas. Schools have a hard time to individually address weak points in each student's knowledge (particularly if you should have learned them in a prerequisite course). Videos organized by concepts allow you to address these weaknesses systematically.
4/. He makes mistakes! Those mistakes are quite insightful and give a glimpse into an art of solving problems that usually isn't presented in most lectures. You usually see a problem, and a solution thats a finished product.
5/. He doesn't have an ego. He's not breathing down your neck or thinking you're an idiot if you don't understand anything the first time. You can pause, google something, repeat, watch it anytime, etc.
Key quote:
"This is not about the revenue streams Facebook has; it’s about the revenue streams they’re about to have."
Everyone who's been defending Facebook's $33B valuation is projecting the success of some yet-to-be-developed or nascent product at Facebook. Projecting growth based on past earnings and current growth rate is one thing. But imagining hypothetical revenue streams of yet-to-be validated products is batshit crazy. It doesn't matter how obvious or inevitable people think it may be or what the trends are. There's no track record with any of these if-they-wanted-to-they-could-do-this-tomorrow-and-make-billions products.
"Facebook Credits are poised to be this generation’s American Express"
Am I the only one that thinks Facebook isn't as omnipotent and in total control of its user-base as people like to think? Everyone is making these projections about users just falling inline with Facebook's potential revenue models, but they forget the shitstorm that was Beacon. Clearly, Beacon was a direct grab at a sustainable business model and it violated many of their user's trust. Facebook may act like its a benevolent dictatorship, but there's always been an element of democratic decision-making at the behest of angry users. And those concessions always occur at the boundary between potential profitability and privacy.
So many are quick to use Google as a benchmark when Google itself was an extraordinary circumstance. It was recently mentioned that Larry and Sergey were willing to part with their company for $750,000.[1] Now, you could argue if Bill Gross never existed, Google would never have be Google because they wouldn't have developed Adwords and have a perpetual license to Overture patents. And Google's advertising is its flagship product, accounting for 97% of its revenue.[2]
Google was a net win for the internet. It helped structure and organize the majority of information available on the net, and combined the best interest of their users (accurate, quality search) with the best interest of businesses (targeted advertising, purchasing intent). They unlocked tremendous wealth on a new platform and reaped the rewards.
Facebook has clearly had a social impact. Just like text-messaging and AOL Instant Messenger did. But the question of if it has unlocked any huge wealth the way Google has is yet to be seen.
However, there's something else to be added to the discussion about procrastination that has to do with people's temperament and unhealthy ideas they have of work (and themselves).
For example, one problem people might have is they tie their self-worth to the outcome of their goals. You can see why that could cause a lot of anxiety and stress. Using your examples, if you needed to win every time you played video games, and it was a source of great confidence and self-esteem for you - the moment you're in a situation where you know there's a chance you might loose, it will become a lot harder to get the energy to practice/play. It has nothing to do with enjoying video games in and of itself - it has to do with connecting your worth to the outcome. Even hanging out with friends can become a hassle if people think they need to control the outcome somehow.
This happens in school (in college,where for the first time people may not be getting the top grades and in highschool grades were the source of great pride and acceptance and popularity), and at work (if you screw something up you think you'll be considered an idiot and possibly be fired). A lot of people, somehow and at some point, develop some sort of inner drill sergeant who tells them they are no good until they get X done - and this works well enough when you're young and use to being forced to do things by other people anyway and are looking for approval from adults and peers. But as people grow independent they realize they really don't like the way they talk to themselves or at the least, they start not to care about what the drill-sergeant in them wants.
To people who do not have these cognitive traps, these problems are invisible. They are likely to think procrastinators are inherently lazy/undisciplined because that is what they can visually conclude (and it also reinforces the idea they are not lazy and are disciplined).
Another trap is not viewing work in the correct context. People feel they are being 'forced' to do something. That reinforces the idea that the work isn't very pleasant, and they would be doing something else if they could. Well, thats the wrong way to frame the problem. It focuses on your feelings, transient and often miscalculated. A healthier way to frame work is to consider cost vs reward. We tend to highlight the cost of work and compare it to the rewards of procrastination.
Also, people who procrastinate may also not take breaks when working, or set aside time to enjoy their life - they are stuck in a perpetual grind where they feel like crap/imposters if they take their attention off work. That very pressure is what renders them unproductive.
Anyway, if this stuff seems interesting to anyone, I recommend checking out "The Now Habit" by Neil Fiore. I found it to be one of the few books that frames procrastination as a symptom rather than a cause. It has a lot of interesting insights if you don't feel the you lack discipline or are lazy, but may not be framing things (or talking to yourself) in the healthiest way.