Most advice is pretty bad | Hacker News Reader

Most advice is pretty bad

atis.substack.com

161 pointssamglover9788 comments

Our obsession with non-obvious advice stems from our base addiction to novelty. For good reason, pathways in our brain become myelinated and more efficient the more often we use them, to the point where we can process well-worn thoughts almost subconsciously. Thus, toys we've played with too long become boring. Advice we've heard too many times before seems blah.

We're hardwired to notice more when we encounter things we've never heard or seen before. Novel advice just pops.

However, most good advice is common advice. In practically any field, grokking the fundamental advice and actually sticking to it will get you 99% of the way there. As Charlie Munger once said, "Take a simple idea, and take it seriously."

But the fundamentals are boring. We'd prefer to ignore them and say, "Yeah yeah I know that already," even if we're totally ignoring it. Then we retweet the next dopamine hit of novel advice we see on Twitter.

This depends on whether the field is an arms race. In plenty of areas, common advice is quickly implemented by most competitive participants. See college admissions or even getting jobs after university.

At one point founding a charity was considered evidence of leadership. By my graduating class for high school, half the class had a charity. The person I know who has been the best at admissions has founded 4. But now there is nothing special about charity creation.

Same with getting jobs after university. It used to be that you earned your degree and a good job awaited you. But then lots of extra people went to university and you started needing better grades, an internship, and now several internships to be competitive.

In those cases you need something novel to stay ahead.

Or consider unlimited vacation for developers. At one point that was a fairly novel perk. Now, everyone has that. I would be surprised to work for a company with fixed vacation ever again.

It was once a perk that would win you staff. Now, it is just being competitive for certain kinds of people.

> Or consider unlimited vacation for developers. At one point that was a fairly novel perk. Now, everyone has that.

I would argue that nobody (or hardly anyone) has this. Otherwise you’d find most developer only working 6 months a year.

Fair, it is not truly unlimited, but for plenty of people (at least where I have worked) it has still ended up being 5-8 weeks a year.

In contrast to the more traditional employers who say that you can start with two weeks and after 3 years of loyal service with no real raises, you can have three.

Ah, I guess that makes sense from an American perspective. For context, 5.6 weeks (28 days) is the legal minimum for absolutely every full time employee here in the UK, and I believe that’s one of the lower legal minimums in Europe. Higher allowances are not uncommon here.

My employer considered introducing unlimited holiday, but we said no once they admitted that they were hoping it would result in us taking less holiday in practice. I’d rather have my 5 weeks guaranteed, no guilt, than be worrying about whether I’ve taken too much unlimited holiday.

Indeed. It’s a wolf in sheeps clothing.

It’s like letting the kids mind the house by themselves while you go on holidays.

If they take too much liberty, they never get that privilege again. If they do it within implied constraints they get to have the house more often.

If you have power (not necessarily managerial) you can exploit thus and be okay, if you’re mediocre and you take the same advantage, you could very well have signed your own pink slip.

Now if you have a minimum everyone takes, then even as a mediocre worker, you’re not an outlier.

People I know take about four weeks a year. 8 weeks seems nuts. Do their managers push back all the deadlines related to their projects since they take a lot of vacation? I'd imagine managers don't even consider it and plan deadlines according to a typical (e.g., 50 weeks a year) worker output.

The managers indeed push back the deadlines or hire more people

I haven't ever worked for a company with hard deadlines. Always enterprise software, so delays are of seemingly no consequence.

> Or consider unlimited vacation for developers.

Is there any evidence that developers (or anyone else with "unlimited vacation") take more time than they did previously?

I've assumed that was more akin to "open offices" - selling a cost-cutting measure as something hip.

I only have anecdotes from the two companies I have worked for with it, but developers taking 5-8 weeks off is not uncommon.

And whether or not you do take it, you can if you need/desire to do so.

It stands in contrast to more traditional companies that offer you two weeks to start and an extra week after three years of service without a raise.

I too only have anecdotes from myself and friends/colleagues, but a few experiences stand out:

* The accountability culture really matters. Are teams responsible for their own commitments/deadlines? If you think you might get fired, or at least a lower performance review for taking vacation (because you shipped less while out) then you are less likely to take vacation. Of course the problem here isn't the PTO policy, but unlimited PTO in a company like this is worse than a defined amount of time.

* Are senior leaders work-a-holics? If so, that might breed a culture where, even these same leaders always say the right things about everyone needing to recharge and take advantage, the ambitions see those above them, and ape the behavior of working more. This trickles down, though it might be inconsistent across the company.

* As time has gone on with these being more common, some strategies have emerged to take advantage of them more effectively. Such as being more aggressive with 3 day weekends, or flex schedules, or remote work, or vacation hybrids (like going abroad for a 6 weeks and working every other week). Taking a bunch of multi-week vacations may or may not work in your company, but figuring out the broader category of "flex work" seems to be getting a ton of experiment.

I have vague memories of stories that it leads to less time off taken. Something about people feeling more guilty taking vacation when they have to pick their own limit.

My company recently switched to unlimited, and everyone has been consistently taking more than we were offered prior, which was a generous amount compared to previous places I've worked for.

So far in the 4 months we've had unlimited, I've taken 40-50% more time off than I would have otherwise. I think many employees know of the issue you mentioned, and we're collectively taking steps to prevent that from happening. It mainly has to do with culture and not have too many key person dependencies.

Best of both worlds is guaranteed vacation with unlimited sick in my experience. People for sure take their vacation, and people slip in days to not be around when they need a break and need an extra 3 day weekend.

> However, most good advice is common advice. In practically any field, grokking the fundamental advice and actually sticking to it will get you 99% of the way there. As Charlie Munger once said, "Take a simple idea, and take it seriously."

Definitely. There's also an issue on the flip side of it: many people asking for advice are not doing so sincerely. You'll see it in the new year on fitness forums. People asking for advice on which fad routine (coughCrossfitcough) will make this the year they keep that weight off, or whether they should get a Peloton or a Bowflex. If you give them the simple, obvious advice that most experienced lifters would agree on--do a barbell strength program and count your calories--they get extremely defensive. That isn't an option for them because it's boring. It requires repetitive, uninteresting, and physically strenuous effort multiple times per week. They're actively looking for, as you say, the new and novel advice that gives them the dopamine hit.

So yeah, I disagree with the article's assertion that good advice is not obvious. There's a reason the advice is obvious; it's likely pretty good advice!

I don't think this is the same thing. They're asking for a fun activity they can use to lose weight, not for a novel fun advice about losing weight.

It's not the advice itself that's boring, it's the activity the person will have to do every other day.

One other - more subtle - point is that nothing is easy and nothing is obvious. There are people in the world to whom "you need to make eye contact when you talk to someone" is a new idea.

Good advice is based on evidence that the receiver does not understand something. Nothing is novel to an expert.

> grokking the fundamental advice

This is much harder than it sounds! The roots of true fundamental understanding go very deep.

Good point. How to classify:

'Don't risk catching Omicron and passing on to others who may die by going to see the latest, widely panned, episode of The Matrix starring Doogie Howser as a psychotherapist, a middle aged woman as an action hero all set against a stalker's perspective on romance. Same goes for Yaamava which opportunistically released a commercial with a Morphius-like narrator over slow motion scenes.'

Is this obvious, non-obvious, common (or novel) advice?

Not everyone is “addicted” to novelty. I’ve travelled a bit and there are places where people repeat and repeat old advice about lots of general things and don’t go for novelty… but that may be because they’re not plugged in to a bias of novelty = modern = more savvy = better = more admiration.

Good advice:

1. Try, try until you succeed.

2. Stop beating a dead horse.

The best advice — real wisdom, in fact — is often readily available as platitudes on door mats or fridge magnets but they don’t resonate with us. Because real wisdom and the best advice is useless without a certain time and experience to recognize it, and a great deal of practice in putting it to life.

I first recognized this learning to meditate. Life is impermanent and leads to suffering so stop cravings and avoiding! Okay, well I’ve heard that a million times so what. But then learning to observe my experience a lightbulb goes goes on.

Most advice is quite specific for people in certain circumstances and useless or even harmful for people outside those circumstances.

Should you save save up for retirement and be generally financially sensible? Of course, but there are plenty of exceptions. For example, for the terminally ill it is terrible advice, and neither is the traditional "save 10% of income and invest in index funds" advice applicable to newly minted millionaires who have just won the startup lottery.

"Turn the other cheek" is great advice 99% of the time, but terrible advice in a relationship with an abusive spouse.

"When in doubt, assume stupidity over malice" is extremely easy to abuse by malicious actors.

In general, even well-meaning advice givers on the internet often don't realize that their advice is not universally applicable or forget to add a warning label stating the same. (And, of course, not everyone on the internet is well-meaning in the first place)

> Should you save save up for retirement and be generally financially sensible? ... For example, for the terminally ill it is terrible advice

No it's not terrible advice. People that are terminally ill will quite commonly have loved ones that can benefit after their passing from their being financially prudent rather than spendthrift. That can involve children, young adults, widow/ers, and all manner of contexts (disabled brother that you've helped across your lifetime, and you worry about their situation after you're gone).

As someone's loved one I'd rather have them go broke and inherit nothing than see them choose death to give me money.

Hence the attention economy promoting informational junk food.

I myself like Mary Schmich's definition of advice from the "Wear Sunscreen" column:

> Be careful whose advice you buy, but be patient with those who supply it. Advice is a form of nostalgia. Dispensing it is a way of fishing the past from the disposal, wiping it off, painting over the ugly parts and recycling it for more than it's worth.

[1] https://www.chicagotribune.com/columns/chi-schmich-sunscreen...

I disagree strongly with the article's central thesis, but it is still worth critically examining the source and utility of advice. Even honest and sincerely given advice is often more a form of nostalgia on the part of the giver than a lucid examining of your specific situation and the nuances therein.

It's most often a form of "well this is what I wish I'd done when I was in a similar situation years ago" or "here's what I did when I was in your position and let me tell you how great a choice it was." That is meaningfully distinct from and a lot more common than the much more useful version "I once had something similar happen and afterwards concluded that I should have done X, but the world has changed over the decades and now it seems like kX would yield better outcomes based on Y."

Changed over the decades? Your issue with advice is that the giver must have had something happen so long ago that they can tell you about how the world has changed in the meantime?

By your reasoning, you would have rejected that person's advice if they had given it to you earlier because it would have looked a lot like the form of advice you have an issue with.

It was an example of how someone could give advice while trying to take into consideration the nuances and circumstances of the person's context.

I understood it along the same lines as you and don't understand the down-voting.

The majority of advice I've received was founded in experiences 10+ years in the past, yes, and did not account for the substantial societal changes that have occurred since. My issue is not that the giver hasn't noticed changes in the world, it's that most often the underlying reason they give advice seems to be as a form of nostalgia rather than a careful consideration of what my best options are.

> By your reasoning, you would have rejected that person's advice if they had given it to you earlier because it would have looked a lot like the form of advice you have an issue with.

No, I am not saying that any advice should be immediately rejected. It should be appreciated, always, when given in good faith. It should also be silently examined, always, before application.

I’m reminded of a quote from the “Wear Sunscreen” song/speech from back in the 90s:

> Be careful whose advice you buy, but, be patient with those who supply it. Advice is a form of nostalgia, dispensing it is a way of fishing the past from the disposal, wiping it off, painting over the ugly parts and recycling it for more than it's worth.

Agreed — when I’m on the receiving end of advice, I try to suss out the distinction you describe. Is the advice-giver just lazily ruminating (usually the case) or are they actually thinking through my particular circumstances and reflecting on the optimal path given these constraints and/or plugging a particular blind spot holding me back? You can often feel, viscerally, the difference between the two types of advice-giving.

I disagree.

In my career I started getting close to the people that had already done what I wanted and just asked them for advice.

The advice they gave me was incredible and the most useful thing you could do.

The most important thing is that it must be an active process. You must do the work to decode and extract the information.

Different personalities will give you different advices. If someone has a very strong visceral nature, her advice is going to be "don't be too visceral, think before you act", because that is the advice she needs, but not what you need.

That advice is completely useless if your nature is thinking too much, and you don't have a problem thinking, you love to think all the time. The advice you need is acting instead of thinking, to take decisions.

So you need to be active and ask specifically the problems you are having when trying to do what you wanted. Most of the time you will realize the super big problems that you have are the most stupid and obvious thing for the person you are asking.

It is so easy for them because their own nature or personality makes it so for them. 9 times out of 10 they will give you an easy, "obvious" solution you never thought about.

Yes. It's important to analyze why the person giving the advice is suggesting a particular course of action.

If it's face to face, after I ask for advice, I always follow up with "Why?"

VCs offer bad advice, because most of them are successful not because of the ruthless elimination process that is a startup, but despite. Meaning that they have no idea why they are successful. Take this example: Let's take 10 identical startups with identical traits doing the same thing in 10 places of the US. Some die because they burn money quicker, b/c SF salary is expensive. Others die because they are in rural US and don't get exposure to the right people. Or they succeed because lower cost of income allows for longer runways so they are still alive at the right time, as opposed to the SF startup. Or they might have a neighbor who knows someone who knows someone.

All of those that make it in the end will think they made it because they were smart and hard working and what not. Truth is that hard work and smarts are the lower entry barrier of success, not what takes you all the way to the top.

But then again VCs are mostly self-congratulating morons who will attribute their success to anything but luck.

Case in point: Anything from Sam Altman or Paul Graham.

I think part of the dynamic here is that when people give advice it often comes from one of two very different modes:

1. There's a piece of advice I want to give, and I'm going to give that advice to some degree regardless of the question or situation. Maybe I'll wait for a question where my advice fits, or maybe I won't, but it's a play _I_ want to suggest, so I'm going to suggest it. For example, "use Django" is advice I might give to anyone who asks anything about web apps because I know Django and it's easy advice to give.

2. I really listen to what someone's asking, and give them specific advice for their situation, without letting it be colored by my own experience or the moves that have worked for _me_ in the past.

The second is a lot less common! It's really hard to pay that level of attention, and force yourself to question your own assumptions. But it's also a lot more useful, since it's specific and tailored.

Critically, in a blogging context, only the first mode is really possible. There isn't someone asking for the advice, it's just me writing a blog post for some imagined asker. This is why most unsolicited advice isn't that useful, which absolutely includes whatever blog post you're reading. Including one of mine.

I don't mind 1 if I know what it is. It's an existence proof of sorts. "I took this path to get somewhere and the fact I got there" tells you something about the level of obstacle on the way.

For #2, I think that a secret to being perceived as a great advice-giver is that, in their heart of hearts, most askers already know what they want to do, but need your help discovering it. It's more effective to simply restate the question in a novel way than it is to just tell them what to do.

Giving unsolicited advice is disrespectful and will do your relationship with the person in question no favors. Contrariwise, soliciting advice from someone else is respectful, and will often improve their disposition towards you. The simple rule that I endeavor to follow is to never give unsolicited advice, but to give solicited advice if I can be helpful.

A blog post isn't unsolicited advice because nobody reads it without choosing to visit your blog. Incidentally that indicates the reader has at least some respect for your thoughts. It probably won't be as helpful as personalized solicited advice, but it's still potentially valuable.

Another rule I follow for advice-giving is asking myself, am I suggesting a way that is really better or just how I would do it? If it's the latter case then I'll often demur, or at least say it's really just my opinion and there are probably other, possibly better, ways to do whatever it is.

When I have a question, I rarely settle for one piece of advice. Instead, I read a bunch of them, often in a forum like this one. Inevitably people will start arguing with each other, and I will find myself sympathizing more with one or another side of the argument. Well, there you are: that's what I think I should do.

On the other hand, "how to be successful" is so nebulous that I think your first step is defining the question better. Of course the advice is vague and un-actionable, because what you need to do if "being successful" means being the world's greatest Tekken player is different than if it means starting a business, and different again if it means being a great parent, and different once more if it means doing well as an employee in the company you work for now (and among these one can imagine many more variations). I guess in most cases the unspoken premise here is that we're talking about a tech-based startup, but even then, if your startup has so few unique traits that you can ask such a broad question, what's your competitive edge, really?

Better title: Most (tactical business/career) advice is (rarely helpful in the general case, often unwise as long-term life strategies and full of survivorship bias).

Yep. Such books are written to get the author into the business equivalent of Oprah’s Book Club. They have the half-life of your average K-pop group.

The beef jerky and Mountain Dew at the feast of life insights. If you are starving and nothing else is available…

The In-and-Out burger wrappers in the library of worldly wisdom. They can, at least, be useful bookmarks…

A better title would be something like: "Most advice sucks: how to determine when it doesn't"

The important point I got out of the article, wasn't that most advice is bad, which seems clearly true, but a theory as to why:

1) Not novel - it just repeats what everyone already know, but maybe with a new anecdote! 2) Not actionable - the advice to vague to be practicable, good advice needs to be more specific which probably mean not applicable to everyone, which means not oprah scale. 3) Not based on evidence - why does this advice work, as opposed to being survivorship bias or junk extrapolation of real research.

VC give pretty bad advice in general. Their advice is the the description of founders they want to invest in. Most of the founders they give money to, more or less follow the advice they give (not directly, but because they have been selected like that). But as all vc most of their companies fails, showing that the advice in fact doesn't work.

Don't forget that if they really knew what to do to start a successful company they wouldn't be investors but founders

“Don't forget that if they really knew what to do to start a successful company they wouldn't be investors but founders”

I can’t stand this philosophy, e.g. “those who can’t do teach” kind of stuff.

Perhaps VCs prefer their job to being a founder?

Not everyone who is _capable_ of being a founder _wants to_ be a founder. It’s exhausting work that takes all of your time.

And plenty of VCs are former founders.

And they, of course, know it's a numbers game. Why suffer all the failure and risk never having another hit when you can let others do it for you?

My point is that only a handful of people have been able to create several successful companies. Because we don't know how to create such company, so most advice in that case are wrong

I think that a lot of advice from VCs is bad, but only because a risk profile that makes sense for an individual VC investment is completely reckless for that individual.

Assuming utility grows linearly with wealth (which it doesn't: a $100M exit is not going to improve your life 20x more than a $5M exit, which makes this worse), the kelly criterion[1] puts the amount of your personal resources you should optimally invest into something that has a small chance at mooning very low. Which is what the VC is doing. But the founder is not.

But ok I'm on a tangent and I think I disagree with your post otherwise.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_criterion

I've thought a lot about this recently: what type of person is subject to a greater amount of variance in the outcome of something due to good/bad advice than a founder?

Other professions with the potential for drastic upticks of success or net worth (e.g. a professional athlete, an entertainer) are so standardized that the advice to follow is pretty much down the center of the fairway.

Given the complexity/uniqueness of a company and its market, almost any piece of advice given to a founder is at best inadequate, at worst, gravely detrimental.

Paul Buchheit had a slide at founder school that read something like "Advice = Limited Life Experience + Over generalization" - I have no idea if I interpreted it correctly, but most advice I've received (and thought was great at the time) ended up being wrong. The people giving me the advice weren't being malicious - they were just looking at my problem with _their_ life experience and abstracting it a very general way.

And the worst part is - and I say this with a lot of experience - when someone else's advice was wrong, you can't blame them, you can only blame yourself.

Most advice is advice:

  advice, n.
    An opinion about what could or should be done about a situation or problem.
    Information communicated; news.
    An opinion recommended, or offered, as worthy to be followed; counsel; suggestion.

If the advice is based on something that has worked for someone, it is good advice. It's up to you to figure out if the advice will work for you. If the advice didn't apply to your own situation, or wasn't appropriate, it is your responsibility to figure that out, not theirs.

You can of course try to blame everyone else for the paths you choose to take in life: you didn't get the right advice; they didn't give you the right tools; they didn't explain something well enough. But none of that changes the fact that you, ultimately, are the only one that controls whether you will take that advice and use those tools, or go find others. You own your own decisions.

I disagree with the article somewhat, I think a more accurate take is that the well of good advice that is generally applicable is fairly shallow and once exhausted is not worth revisiting. From there you need to start looking for advice with an eye to the specific context of your life.

For me personally, the first time I understood that my life would be really easier if I was really good at something, and that the best way to get good at something was to work at it every day, was a bit of revelation. That may sound a bit silly to say, but we don't come into this world knowing everything. The advice has improved my life immensely and is exactly the advice the author is bashing but it was only good because I understood how to apply it.

You can take advice or leave it. If you take it and it works, it's not bad. If you can't or don't take it, that doesn't make it bad if somebody else could. It's bad only if, when you take it, it will produce a worse outcome for you. Most advice is not bad in that way.

The most useful thing a piece of advice can be is something you would not have thought of yourself, that somebody else learned by hard experience, that you wish somebody had said to you before you got it.

It is in the nature of the very best advice that it is not obvious why it is good advice. If it doesn't seem like good advice, it might be because you have just not thought it through.

What we can say is that most posts on substack are bad.

I think most advice is bad because the person giving the advice somehow also wants to sound like a hero or at least somebody you would want to look up to.

Unfortunately most of the times the reality to do the things for which the advice is sought is rather mundane and sometimes not even something a person would be proud off.

Like for example, if you want to be a very successful business the reality advice is to market more aggressively, lock people in your walled garden, save taxes, inflate prices, make a commission on other people's work, etc but the advice you give is make better products, innovate, make it user friendly, create brand loyalty, etc.

I agree that advice that "isn’t practical" is bad advice, as the article states.

I do NOT agree that advice that "isn’t insightful" or "is obvious" is bad advice.

The author complains that "Work hard" is bad advice, and I don't agree. Some people I meet are not willing to work hard. You may think it's obvious, but that doesn't mean it really is obvious. Even if it's obvious, people often need reminding of obvious things, because "obvious" things are easy to forget.

Vince Lombardi was famous at starting training from the beginning. He would start his training courses by telling highly-trained athletes, “this is a football.” https://jamesclear.com/vince-lombardi-fundamentals Excellent athletes continually train and excercise the fundamentals, because they are fundamental. "Obvious" things do require reminders. They require reminders because they're boring, & we often want to shift to the novel thing instead of focusing on the important thing.

Even worse, if it's novel, then it's often wrong. Sometimes the new can be really helpful - but seeking novelty for its own sake misses the point. You want good advice, not novel advice, and the two are not the same thing.

I wonder what the fundamentals are of coding, that you could practice, starting from "this is a football"

1: Naming Things 2: Testing (Unit or otherwise)

I agree with the title and disagree with the article.

I was hoping the article was going to talk about how much advice comes from survivorship bias and people's general inability to see the difference between cause and correlation of what they are recommending and true effect. On this subject, I could rant.

As others have pointed, "non-obvious advice" doesn't inherently have any reason it's better. The vast majority of people I know who struggle with problems aren't struggling because they haven't been told helpful advice, it's because of some combination of lack of conviction of the advice, lack of discipline, and in some cases (as the author points out) is hard to discover how to take the advice . (While advice that lays out clear actionability is good advice, I don't think that advice that is more general is bad advice.)

Take diet. I think you'd be hard pressed to find people who said salads were unhealthy. I believe most know that they would lead to less heart problems in the US, they are cheaper, and would help lose weight.

The more I have gone into philosophy and that path of many successful people, most of them have taken to simplifying everything they do. It's said that only masters can truly simplify. It's the amateur who overly complicates. But I digress; I firmly believe that obvious advice is often the most useful. Personally and professionally, most of the problems with advice that arise is that it wasn't followed, not that it needed to be non-obvious.

> Take diet. I think you'd be hard pressed to find people who said salads were unhealthy. I believe most know that they would lead to less heart problems in the US, they are cheaper, and would help lose weight.

Eating things doesn't help you lose weight.

A vast amount of dietary research and dieticians disagree with you. Hilariously, eating things you're allergic to causing you to get sick/not eat/throw up is one of the most amusing versions of this.

"Amusing" but worthless to say.

The best advice I ever got was that advice is pretty bad in general because the person giving the advice doesn't have skin in the game. It's usually much better when you instead tell the other person about relevant experience you've had in the past as a data point for them to base their decision on.

So: less "in your situation, I would do this", and more "when I was in this similar situation, I did this, and that happened".

I wonder if what people get out of the general advice literature is more like a reminder or motivation, rather than actual insight.

My wife once called it "affinity porn," in that a lot of demand is the feeling of proximity to something great gives you some kind of essence of that greatness, like it will rub off in some way. Why do people like getting signatures of sports figures (ignoring second order financial motives to serve to the those with genuine interest)? Or to shake the hand of a political or religious leader? So much of the advice literature seems like it falls into that category, especially those that are memoirs in advice-book form.

The issue with a lot of advice is that the world is insane. A lot of very very straightforward practical advice would make you a social outcast if you did it to a degree that it moves the needle.

For example, financially it makes PHENOMENAL sense to save almost everything you make right out of school and don't buy things or take on loans. Live like a hermit. Get the compounding interest going as fast as you can, early as you can.

But then you're a boring, lame, cheap person that gets backburnered as a second class friend for YOLO stuff, or even worse you won't be as appealing to mates.

Likewise, don't drink/smoke/do drugs/eat like shit when you are young. You get decades on the backend of life of FAR higher quality life (like, you are basically an average 20 year old in health into your 50s and 60s). But... again, that marks you as boring.

What people want is this amazing insightful advice that has no consequences to implement.

This also applies to doctors. You would think they are intelligent, highly trained and experts in their field. But the you look at the statistics for medical mistakes and how many people die every year from drug complications and it brings some needed perspective.

I think the problem is people are biased, and play out roles. You show a carpenter a nail that sticks up and he will hammer it down. What else would you expect, this is what he was trained to do.

A doctor is trained to give you drugs or operate, the bias is towards taking medical action. If he doesn't do anything and you die, he might get fired, your family would have a clear case to sue and so on. Even if statistical doing nothing may be preferable. It's just probably hard to nothing in some cases.

In my experience, most situations and their associated decisions are context sensitive, so most general advice is unhelpful, or even harmful. Heeding generalization is the root of many bad outcomes.

"Even for us, though, we can often increase our impact a lot by improving our generalized effectiveness."

This rings of Scott Adams' 'Talent Stack'. He posits that having expertise in multiple, unrelated fields both expands your generalized knowledge and helps you stand out in the combination of talents you possess. One example of a real person is one who holds expertise in artistry (oil painting), mechanical engineering, and cycling.

If I were to claim my own, it would be program management, poker and music.

Advice is a way to get someone else to try out your hypothesis.

Advice is best regarded as suggestions for future experiments. Nothing beats trial and error plus a willingness to do new things.

In my experience, I usually either get good advice that I'm not ready to act upon, or get bad advice because of a lack of good shared context. There is also a good amount of bad advice, but I rarely seek advice anyway so it doesn't amount to much. Perhaps take the post with a grain of salt, or on its own premise.

Most advise is like: do what I did, if you were me, in the exact place and time as I was, surrounded by the same people as I was, and so on...

I think advise in the form of a small life lesson is more helpful. For example: 'Take good care of yourself if you work hard.' is more helpful than 'Work hard to become successful.'.

So does this advice.

You can definitely develop conscientiousness, and not just genetics. Saying everything is genetics is just lazy.

OP never said you can't develop conscientiousness, just that it was almost certainly partially genetic. You can learn to run faster, but some genetic profiles will never make it to the Olympics by just practice.

"Be hard to compete with" is also not bad advice, at all. What it really boils down to is, start learning to do something that takes a long time to learn now, and once you know it, you'll be ahead of the people who are starting then. And once you've done that, start learning something else that takes a long time to learn.

It may be helpful to think of advice from the perspective of a "science of life". In science, you often want to spell things out that many people might consider "obvious". The point isn't necessarily to instruct, but to document.

That would follow Sturgeon's Law that "90% of everything is crap"

Work smart, not hard.

If you knew how dumb I am, you'd realize it's not up to me.

Advice is free like kittens. Really affecting the outcome of someone elses circumstances costs money and time and very few are willing to do that. Especially when the someone is outside our family or tribe.

Favourite quote I've seen on this:

"Most advice is basically people mistaking correlation for causation."

(quote by Leo Polovets, some random datascience guy from twitter, no idea if original or not)

That's because people are generally ungrateful, and forget all the good advices that helped them in life, but remember the bad ones, so they can blame someone.

"...for advice is a dangerous gift, even from the wise to the wise, and all courses may run ill." - Gandolf (fictional character by J.R.R. Tolkien)

IMHO I think free advice is the worst. I'm gonna generalize, but free advice usually:

- There is no incentive to give you good advice

- Ulterior motives are much more prevalent

- Rarely contextualized

> "buildshit-free"

I feel that.

It's not just advice. 90% of everything is crap.

The best advice I heard was don't listen.

- Cousin Stizz

“smile” is an exception

Reply on news.ycombinator.com