With Rifle and Bibliography: General Mattis on Professional Reading
strifeblog.org
strifeblog.org
Is so utterly important when lives are on the line that it seems difficult to refute, and I'd be interested to see someone try in fact, but let's take that premise, and add to it: "Ultimately, a real understanding of history means that we face NOTHING new under the sun." + "Alex the Great would not be in the least bit perplexed by the enemy that we face right now in Iraq, and our leaders going into this fight do their troops a disservice by not studying (studying, vice just reading) the men who have gone before us."
Let's take a jump into the hacker news/YC/Lean Startup milieu and apply the same lesson: You should learn from those who have gone before. Study their decision making processes, study their customers, read whatever you can read to find the people who have done what you are doing.
Chances are the business that you are creating (even if it is going to "disrupt" some industry or another) is still dealing with the same issues that have always been issues. It's going to have HR, marketing, leadership, operations and a million other hassles that are similar to those that have come before. Similar because people haven't changed that much.
If you are a startup person, working 100 hour weeks and learning by doing, you should still find some time to read and learn from the mistakes and triumphs of those who came before. Don't burn the investors cash relearning the lessons that someone else already learnt, save your runway for iterating on the true unknowns of your problem domain.
For those of us that have been in it for awhile -- keeping abreast of what is going on, reading about "new paradigms" and how they may just be new incarnations of what we have seen before, continuous learning is key.
For those getting started, battle stories can be interesting and provide insight.
Don Melton's blog - http://donmelton.com JWZ's blog - http://jwz.org The * at Work series (Coders, Founders, etc.) Usenix archives on the subject of choice
Are some that come to mind. Others are there, but it's been a long day and I am a bit burnt.
What do others read for their history lessons?
It used to be going into Barnes & Noble was amazing, there were so many books I'd find interesting.
Not that I by any means have mastered "every single book in B&N tech section", it's just "yet another beginner intro to language XYZ"/etc. isn't fun to read anymore.
And so many books (tech and otherwise) have so much fluff, and seem like they could be ~1/4th the size with the same content. (Not true for every book of course.)
You can see it easily on this site where there are so many people who can argue eloquently and passionately for diametrically opposed perspectives on an issue. Both sides can't both be right, even though a comment would in isolation be more than enough to convince someone who was not skeptical. If you can't distinguish which pretty words are the true ones, you'll be lead by the nose by the guy who can put his words together best, which isn't necessarily a great idea except if you're trying to learn to write and argue.
It is sometimes true that both sides can't be right -- there certainly formal propositions which are mutually exclusive (a circle can be squared, a circle cannot be squared).
Other times, people are arguing in a space where there's tension between multiple true principles (which programming language is best for your new project -- the more expressive/flexible/typesafe one you don't know? or the one you're already familiar with?).
This isn't mathematics, this is the real world. Here issues aren't two-sided, they are dodecahedrons and all sides are right.
The truth is, it's even more grey than that. Sometimes both sides can't be right and sometimes some sides are not right. But the point stands, in reality you rarely if ever only have two sides and rarely if ever is any side demonstrably wrong in an objective way.
> distinguish truth from fiction = difficult to learn from reading
Sorry but you are plain wrong here, it seems.
Distinguish truth from fiction can only happen if you have good eyes, so you see the thruth, and at the same time have access to good fiction, which you should get primarily from books or movies.
Everyone has eyes to see: only those reading a lot will be able to tell the true from the invented.
Between that and the general's words, how can one not spend any spare minute reading?
This methodology is fundamentally flawed. There is no technical fix to get around the fact that you cannot distinguish between reading causing more empathy, or greater empathy causing more reading.
They are trying to measure the relationship between personality traits and reading, and then claiming to control for personality!
That's a fairly flippant way to deal with my criticism. If you post a study here, it's fine if you haven't read it, but you shouldn't pretend that anything that's been published is infallible.
Peer reviewed journals contain a lot of garbage. Whether this should be the case is irrelevant. There are plenty of people on HN qualified to both judge and understand the study and my criticism of it. If you cannot understand my comment or for some other reason are unwilling to comment on its substance, that's fine, but there is no reason to dismiss it out of hand.
Also, there is a fundamental flaw in your logic. You keep saying that it irrelevant whether the studies methodology is valid or not, and yet this is the only evidence you give for your position. You say that I failed to give a counter-argument, and yet I directly addressed the only argument you gave for the relationship between empathy and reading, namely that study.
But implying that the reason we went to war was primarily because "oil companies and Israeli interests" wanted us to -- that's just intellectually dishonest. The path into Iraq was so much more complicated than that and simplifying it in such a crude way makes it more likely that we will repeat those past mistakes again in the future.
I know a lot of people made this claim in the lead up to the Iraq war but I find this claim pretty weak with the benefit of hindsight.
While the predictions/criticisms that it would be a protracted struggle that left the country in tatters were pretty much spot on, I think the claims that the US just wanted the oil were wrong.
Keep building things. That's really the only way I know how to learn something. Reading books doesn't really do anything for me. I have to see something applied in practice, on my own, before I can really internalize something and grow.
> I have to see something applied in practice, on my own, before I can really internalize something and grow.
This skill, reading, takes a while to develop. Understanding what is said and not said, and what it means in context takes practice and deliberate thought.
Learning while building works well only when your effective materials cost (as in software) is zero.
Lessons in better tactics ain't the most important learning to draw from that reading, General.
Yes, sometimes they turn to the military without exploring all avenues to peace. Whether or not those are good decisions can be long debated. But do not put the onus for peace on him. Rather, be thankful that he is capable to do his job. The responsibility for peace lays on the shoulders of political leaders and diplomats.
Quoting the only line that ever stuck with me from Alien vs. Predator:
"Why do you have a gun?"
"It's like a condom. I'd rather have it and not need it, than need it but not have it."
I think all wars since WWI were probably unnecessary but they were fought for economic reasons. It was all about money.
What about all the military coups throughout history, where a general decided the politico commanding him wasn't a very good leader, and took his place?
Have you read any good books from 6,000 years ago lately?
> Do you not adapt because you cannot conceptualize faster than the enemy’s adaptation? (Darwin has a pretty good theory about the outcome for those who cannot adapt to changing circumstance — in the information age things can change rather abruptly and at warp speed, especially the moral high ground which our regimented thinkers cede far too quickly in our recent fights.)
Now you could argue this number, but before you do, ask yourself: do you actually have any experience in this area, or are you just being a pedantic douche? The answer to that question will determine if you should reply.
I also think the guy who asked about books written 5,000 years ago is pretty funny. Well, actually, there is writing dating back to 3,200 BC. If you're going to be a pedant, at least get it right.