Peter Kaufman on The Multidisciplinary Approach to Thinking

feedback@janusworx.com (Mario Jason Braganza) — Mon, 16 Sep 2019 05:45:00 +0530

Peter Kaufman, editor of Poor Charlie’s Almanack, on why is it important to be a multidisciplinary thinker.

Because as the Japanese proverb says, ‘The frog in the well, knows nothing of the mighty ocean.’
You may know everything there is to know about your specialty, your silo, your “well”, but how are you going to make any good decisions in life …
the complex systems of life, the dynamic system of life …
if all you know, is one well?

He then, talks about a sneaky shortcut on how he did it.

So I tried to learn what Munger calls, ‘the big ideas’ from all the different disciplines.
Right up front I want to tell you what my trick was, because if you try to do it the way he did it, you don’t have enough time in your life to do it. It’s impossible. Because the fields are too big and the books are too thick. So my trick to learn the big ideas of science, biology, etc., was I found this science magazine called Discover Magazine. […]
I found that this magazine every month had a really good interview with somebody from some aspect of science. Every month. And it was six or seven pages long. It was all in layperson’s terms. The person who was trying to get their ideas across would do so using good stories, clear language, and they would never fail to get all their big ideas into the interview. […]
So I discovered that on the Internet there were 12 years of Discover Magazine articles available in the archives. So I printed out 12 years times 12 months of these interviews. I had 144 of these interviews. And I put them in these big three ring binders. Filled up three big binders.
And for the next six months I went to the coffee shop for an hour or two every morning and I read these. And I read them index fund style, which means I read them all. I didn’t pick and choose. This is the universe and I’m going to own the whole universe. I read every single one.
Now I will tell you that out of 144 articles, if I’d have been selecting my reading material, I probably would have read about 14 of them. And the other 130? I would never in a million years read six pages on nanoparticles.
Guess what I had at the end of six months? I had inside my head every single big idea from every single domain of science and biology. It only took me 6 months. And it wasn’t that hard because it was written in layperson’s terms.
And really, what did I really get? Just like an index fund, I captured all the parabolic ideas that no one else has. And why doesn’t anybody else have these ideas? Because who in the world would read an interview on nanoparticles? And yet that’s where I got my best ideas. I would read some arcane subject and, oh my god, I saw, ‘That’s exactly how this works over here in biology.’ or ‘That’s exactly how this works over here in human nature.’ You have to know all these big ideas.

And then in an extraordinary step of generous giving, he spends the rest of the talk, summing all he has learnt into the next 40 or so minutes.

You should go read the talk at Latticework Investing.

Even better, you should go listen. Kaufman is a really engaging speaker.

I hope you listen to this, every once in a while like I do.

Shane Parrish also merges Peter’s ideas with the Durants for an amazing post on the lessons of history.

P.S. Subscribe to my mailing list!
P.P.S. Feed my insatiable reading habit.

On Capturing Value; my newest mental model

feedback@janusworx.com (Mario Jason Braganza) — Fri, 30 Mar 2018 16:34:17 +0530

![np_lightbulb_1262982_000000l](/images/2018/03/np_lightbulb_1262982_000000l.png)

I’ve found it difficult to figure out why I did not make money (or at least intentionally make money, not counting my lucky breaks) as I expected to, in the old consulting gig. This, despite the fact, that I knew I was smarter than the average bear when it came to my field of work.

And that same fear still remains¹ as I pivot careers. I know I’ll pick up stuff with programming. I know I’ll get fluent. But will I be able to make a comfortable living?

It’s funny how insights come when you’re least expecting it. Yet you have to always be listening.

I’m a big Shane Parrish² fan, and I ran across an article featuring him on the Growthlab blog today. As usual, Shane was all about being intentional and doing the work.

But somewhere in the course of the article, he drops this gem …

I learned very quickly there is a difference between the value you create and the value you capture. If you only create value, you won’t be able to make a living. If you only capture value, you’ll go out of business. If I have to err, I choose the side of creating too much value.

And suddenly, lightbulbs go off! Another thing learnt. A little late in life, but better late than never :)

You see, even my clients privately told me that I could be doing so much better! And even that did not strike any alarm bells in my head.

All my life, I believed that if I created enough value, people would see it, recognise it; if I built it, they would come. And in a way they have. I have the loyalest set of clients ever. Folks who’ve stuck by me for nearly 20 years.

So why no money? The first line in that quote there, was my lighbulb moment.

I need to learn to capture value. I need to learn to figure out how to make the most out of what I get. Be more opportunistic (in a good way) It won’t be immediate, but so as long as I’m cognisant of this fact; if I use this little gem as my new mental model to filter stuff that comes my way, I’ll be fine.

The balancing act that Shane talks about isn’t all that hard to do. It’s already been years of creating value, it’s my default mode. It’s just time to make the most of it.

or rather remained, until today ↩︎
no secret to the folk who read what I write :) ↩︎

Mental Models on Janusworx

Peter Kaufman on The Multidisciplinary Approach to Thinking

On Capturing Value; my newest mental model