I am offering mentoring: In which I help you
dynomight.substack.com
dynomight.substack.com
But one question-answer pair is missing. I can only ask the question: who are you?
I guess they'd argue that the author's identity shouldn't matter and that one should just judge the writing on its own merit. The problem is that we're drowning in information. AI makes its trivial to generate authoritative-looking nonsense. Evaluation is costly. So I prefer to read something which the author has associated with their own identity (which means there's a cost to lying), or has provided some credentials to prove why their opinion matters. Of course there are exceptions (Gwern comes to mind), but I'll only trust them if they're recommended by other writers I trust.
Too often at this point, I saw/heard/read things explained very confidently and yet missing the mark quite a bit.
I think is one of the first things I try to determine when somebody talks to me, when I see a blog, a video, or a comment in HN.
That's just not practical in the real world.
I don't necessarily think that's bad. I do it myself, by posting with usernames that are not directly attached to my own. But there is a certain amount of respect that I give to people that do things with their name attached. They take a risk that many in our society no longer do: they put their name and identity on the line with their opinions. Even public figures who are absolutely reprehensible in about every way possible get a tiny bit of respect from me for having their name attached to their shitty opinions.
Slightly OT, and of course only half anonymous but for example G.S. Bhogal really fits that bill. His posts come up here occasionally and I get a kick out of them but the real gold is in his twitter (1) Don't listen to the haters and make sure to follow for quality life advice (like don't listen to politicians and journalists because they're all corrupt liars, or that "below average IQ" people should reproduce as to not spread their genes, and the really smart people don't need friends or go outside, what they need a "circle" of other highly intelligent people like themselves on X
I do not agree.
I’m not sure in which context you are saying that. But that implies people never change, never learn, never get better. Specially that phrase is used in HR, what is terrible.
There are traits that are hard to change, and things that hardly change, as there are lots of things that do change.
That all being said, I’m totally with you, that the question has to be asked, but not to put the people in a box and never move them. Just to have a reference point in a changing curve.
Ok. I accept that you do not accept my personal opinion.
<< I’m not sure in which context you are saying that.
There are multiple reasons, but speaking from perspective of crime statistics ( and I don't even mean in US, where once you are in the system, it is actively working to keep you in its grasp ), recidivism[1] is common even among prisoners, where the system actively tries to rehabilitate you[2]. I don't want to belabor that point too much though as people tend to take it as a political stance ( and it is not ). That said, those do translate to other less extreme forms of behavior.
<< But that implies people never change, never learn, never get better.
No, it is a common misconception. Going from the original recidivism claim, the rate of recidivism is not 100%, but it is high enough that it gives people pause[2]. In other words, never is never the right or accurate claim here. I can start with more likely yes than not and take it from there if it makes you more comfortable to quibble over details.
<< Specially that phrase is used in HR, what is terrible.
HR is terrible. No disagreement. I have no control over HR or their phraseology.
<< There are traits that are hard to change, and things that hardly change, as there are lots of things that do change.
You may be confusing things a little, but maybe I am misunderstanding your point. Do you want to elaborate?
<< but not to put the people in a box and never move them.
Yes. I accept the concern about being labeled even though you did not voice it. That said, the box remains a box. No amount of language will change its boxy nature. Things just are.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recidivism [2]https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/recidivis...
Recidivism is a well-studied topic in the social sciences. There is a multi-factor causal chain behind the high-rate of recidivism, driven by the circumstances of the individual (past trauma) that led to incarceration in the first place, the resources available in a particular prison (few are equipped to properly rehabilitate the inmates) and the barriers that society places on reintegration for those individuals. For a prior criminal, the paths to a middle-class existence are few and far between. For professionals, resuming a profession, be it doctor, lawyer, accountant, engineer, etc. is almost impossible with a criminal record. So is holding down a government job, any job in the military or defence requiring a clearance, any positions that may require the public trust, such as working with children. Banks will not provide loans to individuals with a criminal record, making it impossible to start a business.
This is a topic worth reading up on in greater depth.
The whole thing about prison does not apply to work, does it? I mean, I have switched tasks, countries, companies, industries many times. And through it, you could not believe I was the same person, as my behavior was very much influenced by the environment. That was pointed out by people who know me. So the trying to predict the future just doing linear interpolation of the past, no, it does not work with people in the professional environment.
I do believe you it works for convict felons. But I know nothing about it. On the other hand many many times in HN I’ve read comments of people that were in prison, and today are much better and are not looking back. Survivor bias you may say?
One would hope, but similarities are not that easy to ignore. I might even extend it further, because I saw the same approach, for whatever reason, replicated among many grammar level education bodies.
<< In the context of knowing who somebody is, to know if I should take advice from him, I think knowing what somebody did as a predictor does not tell me if he can help me or not.
I disagree in general, but other poster noted that the connection may not be as clear / useful to the discussion. With that in mind, I will try to present a different example.
<< I mean, I have switched tasks, countries, companies, industries many times. And through it, you could not believe I was the same person, as my behavior was very much influenced by the environment. That was pointed out by people who know me. So the trying to predict the future just doing linear interpolation of the past, no, it does not work with people in the professional environment.
I will briefly engage in that analogy again. And other prisoners were transferred, went to different prisons, were let out, and so on. For all the steps listed, similar steps for 'non-professional environment' could be reasonably construed.
<< So the trying to predict the future just doing linear interpolation of the past, no, it does not work with people in the professional environment.
Linear? No. Heuristic prediction. Yes.
<< But I know nothing about it.
We are just two minds on the internet. I know what is available to me.
<< On the other hand many many times in HN I’ve read comments of people that were in prison, and today are much better and are not looking back. Survivor bias you may say?
Anecdata vs statistics, but I accept that exceptions exist. We are humans.
***********
Would it help if we changed the example to that serial enterpreneur will likely remain one and continue to find/fund/invest in profitable ventures with a better chance of success than a person that does no? That seems more fitting to HN.
----
As a reader, if I had to generalize; Dynomight is a SF-rationalist-substack-adjacent blogger with a good understanding of statistics. The 2 closest popular bloggers I associate him with are SSC and Gwern; both pretty popular on HN.
I particularly loved his blogs on the homelessness[1] and drug[2] crisis in the US. He? digs deep, does the statistical due diligence and usually finds conclusions that richer-academics-media houses have yet to find. I have found his arguments to be in good faith and are generally unencumbered by the political repercussions of said findings.
Clicking the domain name next to the story title returns a list of previous HN discussion of the author's articles, with 1000+ comments.
I guess maybe mentoring is different because the mentee is actively seeking out advice.
In my opinion, mentoring has become a trend and a status symbol. The current definition of mentoring does not genuinely benefit anyone except the egos of those offering it.
To be honest, this entire post reeks of that.
I could definitely be out of the loop but I've never heard of the linked blog/newsletter, and there is no explanation of who it is, so the whole thing gives me a feeling of "uhm, why would I do that?"
They write good quality, thought-provoking content that I enjoy.
I've had one amazing career-related mentor in my life. He probably spent 20+ hours per week for 6 months doing mentoring things for me. He worked VERY hard at this but his work was very impactful on me and I really appreciated it. He had support of his management, which was critical to being able to spend that much time on mentoring.
I've tried to be a mentor for Google Summer of Code before. It was difficult for me and required a LOT more effort and time than I had expected. Mentoring well is not easy.
I don’t think I could mentor even 10 people without failing. You have to genuinely care about their progress.
Perhaps the author means coaching. That’s scalable. Teach people how to do something you’ve successfully done repeatedly. That’s something I could do even for groups.
That’s why good mentoring is so hard to find. It takes real effort and emotional investment. You can’t just scale it up infinitely. But even a little bit of good mentoring can be life-changing.
That's what this is, and I don't think it pretends to be anything else. I don't think it's worth getting too hung up on the "mentoring" language used here - especially since I'm certain there is no standard agreed definition of what "mentoring" actually entails. Or have I missed one?
I don't know anything about the author, but he doesn't seem like a bad person by any means, and this post is probably well intentioned. I just can't help but get an ick from this.
I will say they are hard to find. These aren't your average people.
It also really depends on where the mentee is. If there is a massive gap from where they are and where they want to go, that would be a large undertaking.
However, mentors don't have to expend all that effort. Even just a bit of help from time to time would be preferable to zero mentorship, which is where most people are today.
Although, I can see how it could enshittify quickly with recruiters and whatnot.
(edit: though it looks like you already have it in your profile!)
The problem is, I’ve struggled to find a mentor that isn’t currently at my company.
Not looking for a job or even network building - I love my job, simply looking for someone to chat with about issues and career development as someone only a few years into their career as a SWE.
Most of the recommendations I receive are sites where the individual has a large list of mentees and cost hundreds of dollars.
Are there better ways to go about this?
It would be great if:
a) it used LLMs to do partial AI match making
b) it had a relatively decent solution to avoiding mentors getting spammed by mentees (using existing trust networks is good except it disadvantages outsiders who deserve mentorship most)
c) it hooked into existing chat platforms so it's sticky without needing to visit the site
EDIT: I'm down to mentor on ML/AI and have in the past, for the right candidates. It's hard to put my finger on what qualities I'm looking for.
I also like time idea of a cross mentorship. Two people mentor each other.
I do agree that partnering up with someone is better than going it alone, but if you're both at the same level, progress won't be as substantial as with a true mentor.