le péripatéticien

[leperipateticien]

When you grow up, you tend to get told the world is the way it is and your life is just to live your life inside the world. Try not to bash into the walls too much. Try to have a nice family life, have fun, save a little money. That’s a very limited life. Life can be much broader once you discover one simple fact. And that is: Everything around you that you call life was made up by people that were no smarter than you. And you can change it, you can influence it, you can build your own things that other people can use. Once you learn that, you’ll never be the same again.

- Steve Jobs

[leperipateticien]

Non-creative behavior

In the 1960s, a creative performance researcher named George Land conducted a study of 1,600 five-year-olds and 98 percent of the children scored in the “highly creative” range. Dr. Land re-tested each subject during five year increments. When the same children were 10-years-old, only 30 percent scored in the highly creative range. This number dropped to 12 percent by age 15 and just 2 percent by age 25. As the children grew into adults they effectively had the creativity trained out of them. In the words of Dr. Land, “non-creative behavior is learned.”

- James Clear

[leperipateticien]

“The thing that I care about is—when I look into the future, I see the future as a series of branching probability streams. So you have to ask, what are we doing to move down the good stream—the one that’s likely to make for a good future? Because otherwise, you look ahead, and it’s like “Oh it’s dark.” If you’re projecting to the future, and you’re saying “Wow, we’re gonna end up in some terrible situation,” that’s depressing.

I certainly admire the discoveries of the great scientists. They’re discovering what already exists—it’s a deeper understanding of how the universe already works. That’s cool—but the universe already sort of knows that. What matters is knowledge in a human context. What I’m trying to ensure is that knowledge in a human context is still possible in the future. So it’s sort of like—I’m more like the gardener, and then there are the flowers. If there’s no garden, there’s no flowers. I could try to be a flower in the garden, or I could try to make sure there is a garden. So I’m trying to make sure there is a garden, such that in the future, many Feynmans may bloom.

I was at one point thinking about doing physics as a career—I did undergrad in physics—but in order to really advance physics these days, you need the data. Physics is fundamentally governed by the progress of engineering. This debate—“Which is better, engineers or scientists? Aren’t scientists better? Wasn’t Einstein the smartest person?”—personally, I think that engineering is better because in the absence of the engineering, you do not have the data. You just hit a limit. And yeah, you can be real smart within the context of the limit of the data you have, but unless you have a way to get more data, you can’t make progress. Like look at Galileo. He engineered the telescope—that’s what allowed him to see that Jupiter had moons. The limiting factor, if you will, is the engineering. And if you want to advance civilization, you must address the limiting factor. Therefore, you must address the engineering.”

- Elon Musk

In thinking about where exactly to point himself to best help humanity, Musk says that in college, he thought hard about the first principles question, “What will most affect the future of humanity?” and put together a list of five things: “the internet; sustainable energy; space exploration, in particular the permanent extension of life beyond Earth; artificial intelligence; and reprogramming the human genetic code.”

[leperipateticien]

First principles reasoning

I think generally people’s thinking process is too bound by convention or analogy to prior experiences. It’s rare that people try to think of something on a first principles basis. They’ll say, “We’ll do that because it’s always been done that way.” Or they’ll not do it because “Well, nobody’s ever done that, so it must not be good.” But that’s just a ridiculous way to think. You have to build up the reasoning from the ground up—“from the first principles” is the phrase that’s used in physics. You look at the fundamentals and construct your reasoning from that, and then you see if you have a conclusion that works or doesn’t work, and it may or may not be different from what people have done in the past.

- Elon Musk

[leperipateticien]

I don’t know what a business is. All a company is is a bunch of people together to create a product or service. There’s no such thing as a business, just pursuit of a goal—a group of people pursuing a goal.

Elon Musk

[leperipateticien]

Those species who hit the God Point, then enter the chaos that inevitably ensues, and somehow come out alive on the other side have “made it through,” and they can officially join the universe’s community of grown-up, immortal, intelligent species.

[leperipateticien]

If you can imagine what tomorrow looks like, why bother re-living it?

[leperipateticien]

On well-being

We're entering an era where income and resources are no longer a measure of development and well-being. Truth is, except for the case of Africa, most "developing" countries are no longer suffering from extreme poverty. A person cramming in a tiny apartment in Paris, London or Singapore and spend 2 hours per day sweating in the metro is no longer confident that he is better off than someone earning 1/5 the wage but living in a room twice the size with the same amenities in South America or Eastern Europe. And if he has any guts at all, he starts wondering why he has to slave away his youth to obtain perceived short-term comfort; while in the long run, he holds little physical property. When people can afford to accumulate wealth enough to ensure personal and familial security, the human mind starts wandering elsewhere in search of content.    

[leperipateticien]

Death is only awkward if you're not prepared for it.

[leperipateticien]

The more times you state a problem in a different way, the more likely it is that your perspective will change and deepen.

Michalko

[leperipateticien]

Bất cứ ai đánh giá thấp sức mạnh kinh tế và văn hoá của Trung Quốc thường mắc phải 2 sai lầm. Thứ nhất, họ không mường tượng được quy mô của một dân tộc 1,5 tỷ người. Bởi khi nói đến TQ, ta không thể nói đến một quốc gia. Sự phát triển của TQ tương đồng với sự phát triển vủa ¼ nhân loại. Thứ hai, ít người hình dung được network effect khi con số 1,5 tỷ kia được phân tán đến bất cứ tận cùng ngóc ngách nào của thế giới. Hay như một người bồi bàn gốc Hoa ở Barcelona đã tóm gọn cho mình: “Cả địa cầu, không có đi đâu, làm gì mà không gặp người Hoa.” (全世界去哪里做什么都有华人)

Năm 1949, Quốc Dân Đảng bị Đảng CS Trung Quốc đuổi khỏi lục địa, phải rút về Đài Loan để đóng đô. Đài Loan là tên thường gọi cho dễ phân biệt, nhưng tên nước thực chất vẫn còn giữ là Trung Hoa Dân Quốc. Hai nước Trung Quốc và Đài Loan, một bên cộng sản, một bên dân chủ. Một bên thì bao nhiêu năm đóng cửa dè dặt, ngần ngại mở cửa với nước ngoài; bên kia thì tự nhận thấy thế mình yếu nên luôn cởi mở hoà nhập với tất cả mọi người. Chỉ có một điểm tương đồng duy nhất là dân số cả hai bên đều là đại đa số người Hán (hơn 90%) vì thế ngôn ngữ, phong tục, tập quán đều gần như nhau.

Đương nhiên không thể so sánh một hòn đảo 24 triệu dân với một đại lục 1.3 tỷ người, nhưng có thể chọn ra hai thành phố tiêu biểu Bắc Kinh và Thượng Hải để so sánh với Đài Loan. Nhưng sau 65 năm phát triển thì:

Bắc Kinh: 25 triệu người, GDP: $16,120/người/năm, HDI: 0.821

Thượng Hải: 34 triệu người, GDP: $15,880/người/năm, HDI: 0.814

 Đài Loan: 24 triệu người, GDP: $21,571/người/năm, HDI: 0.882

Nếu chiết khấu cả gánh nặng và sức ì của cả một bộ máy quan liêu khá cồng kềnh ở TQ so với lợi thế linh hoạt của Đài Loan, thì có thể nói, phát triển kinh tế và con người ở TQ không những không thua kém mà đương nhiên là nhỉnh hơn tất cả các nước trong khu vực. 

Nhìn về người anh em Việt Nam: 90 triệu người, $2,233/người/năm, HDI: 0.638

Đến ngay cả chỉ số phát triển con người, vốn đã gộp cả hai tiêu chí life expectancy và education index vào thì Việt Nam vẫn thua TQ (0.638 so với 0.719). Thế thì mình chả hiểu trước giờ người ta bảo đất nước mình rừng vàng biển bạc, đồ ăn nước mình healthy, hay là cái nôi sinh ra nhân tài là không hiểu từ đâu mà ra?

Lại nhắc đến, trong hồi ký của cố thủ tướng Lý Quang Diệu của Singapore, có đoạn kể rằng. Đặng Tiểu Bình, sau khi lên nắm quyền, có gặp mặt Lý Quang Diệu. Trong lúc bàn bạc, Đặng nói thẳng thắn: “Nếu tôi chỉ có mỗi Thượng Hải thì tôi cũng dư sức làm được những gì ông làm cho Singapore. Nhưng đằng này tôi phải nuôi đến 1 tỷ người.”

Từ năm 1981 đến 2008, tỉ lệ nghèo đói ở TQ giảm từ 85% xuống 13,1%. Tức 600 triệu người thoát khỏi đói nghèo. Để dễ tương quan, từ năm 1981 đến 2005, tỉ lệ nghèo đói ở Châu Phi tăng từ 50% lên 58%. Dân số Châu Phi hiện nay là 1.1 tỷ và vẫn còn tăng. Trong khi đó, Châu Phi được trợ giúp vật chất và tinh thần của tất cả các nước “phát triển” và các tổ chức “nhân đạo” trên thế giới.

Vì thế, mỗi khi đi ngang một bảng quảng cáo hay poster của United Nations vận động giúp đỡ cho Châu Phi là mình khịt mũi. Các ông giao cả Châu Phi cho TQ nó nắm quyền có khi còn hiệu quả hơn đi xin xu lẻ của tôi.

Có người từng nói với mình rằng: “Nếu có một thằng nào giỏi hơn em mà từ năm này qua năm khác nó đều giỏi hơn thì chắc chắn nó không giỏi hơn do may mắn.”

Tóm lại, thay vì ngồi soi mói xem là TQ nó chiếm đảo gì, nó tính lừa lọc mình ra sao thì hãy hỏi là tại sao hồi xưa nó đông, nó nghèo, nó dơ dáy, mà giờ nó phát triển đến thế? Trong khi mình cũng đi lừa lọc khắp nơi, ngay cả lừa qua lừa lại lẫn nhau, mà lừa mãi vẫn không phát triển bằng nó.

[leperipateticien]

When presented with multiple life choices, pick the 2nd or 3rd best option. 2nd and 3rd bests are easier to obtain, easier to retain, and over the long run, provide almost always the same level of satisfaction.

[leperipateticien]

The defining factor is not resources. It's resourcefulness.

Tony Robbins

[leperipateticien]

There comes a time when you ought to start doing what you want. Take a job that you love. You will jump out of bed in the morning. I think you are out of your mind if you keep taking jobs that you don't like because you think it will look good on your resume. Isn't that a little like saving up sex for your old age?

Warren Buffett

[leperipateticien]

The popularity of the self-help genre created a bizzare phonomenon: those who condition themselves to believe that they are living the life envisioned by such literaries. The daydreamers cherry-pick their own best attributes to convince themselves that they indeed represent, if not all, part of the heroic image described. This results in a group of overly-optimistic individuals who believe things will change even when they do nothing.

[leperipateticien]

How does he feel when he realizes that he has barely tasted the meal of life; when he sees the prison he has made for himself in pursuit of the almighty dollar? If he thinks this is all well and good, fine, but think of the tragedy of a man who has sacrificed his freedom on the altar of security, and wishes he could turn back the hands of time. A man is to be pitied who lacked the courage to accept the challenge of freedom and depart from the cushion of security and see life as it is instead of living it second-hand. Life has by-passed this man and he has watched from a secure place, afraid to seek anything better What has he done except to sit and wait for the tomorrow which never comes?

[leperipateticien]

On the “no-surprise” threshold

For every language, there’s such a barrier that I’d call the “no-surprise” threshold. Beyond which point, the mastery of such language is no more a question of technicality, but solely time and immersion. The goal for each language learner is in the shortest amount of time possible, to bypass this “no-surprise” threshold. Such achievement does not guarantee fluency, but creates the foundation required for organic linguistic growth. At the passing of the “no-surprise” threshold, the language learner would have achieved the level of a 12-year-old native. A 12-year-old native speaker understands roughly half of the things around him, but at the same time, is not taken aback by things he doesn’t comprehend. Familiarity induces illusion of comprehension. And overestimation of one’s own ability enforces confidence for eventual fluency. 

My hypothesis is that most people fail to reach fluency in foreign languages because they didn’t take the time and effort required to bypass the “no-surprise” threshold; resulting in learners who have studied a language for 7-8 years and still get confused by minor tweaks in the daily usage of a language. 

For most languages, there exists only one or two areas required to bypass the “no-surprise” threshold. For Romance languages - conjugation, for East Asian languages - character recognition, for Slavic languages - cases (?), or for Vietnamese in particular - phrase structure (because we Viets often casually forget to punctuate or accentuate where it matters). Whatever the language, there’s only one (or two) principal area(s) where learners should spend the most energy and effort. Having enough effort and careful planning, such goals can be achieved in 1-2 years.

Failing to do so results in the “no-end-in-sight” syndrome; i.e. learners, who after years of studying, still haven’t gathered the foundation required to visualize, let alone achieve, fluency. After the mastery of such focus areas, the path to fluency is clear. Hardly has there been anyone who complained about French vocabulary or Chinese grammar.