Hey there,
It’s me, Al.
You know, I think I kinda messed up last week because I tried to share impulsively, but now I’m excited to announce the new format of The Insight Journal!
I don’t think I can keep up with a weekly cadence of sending a newsletter, but I’ll try my best to do that. (Otherwise, I might just send you a newsletter twice a month)
Starting today, the issues would be called “Entries”, similar to a normal journal, where I’ll share my insights (and good reads) on:
Thinking Better
Working Better
Learning Better
Sometimes (as you’ll see later) I’ll also include some extra headings so I can connect with you a bit, but basically the three above will always be there in the entries.
Also, when I post new stuff on Improveism, you’ll also get notified. I’ll include the link in the next issue so you won’t receive annoying emails of my mere “updates”.
Lastly, I’m also excited to tell you that I started a Patreon account in case you wanted to support my ad-free writing!
Right now, I don’t have any other perks yet except shoutouts for new patrons here at The Insight Journal. I do have a course tier where I write my premium stuff, tho. It consumes much of my time right now. (However, I don’t want you joining my courses just yet, read this post if you want to learn why.)
With that out of the way, here’s Entry # 1.
Think Better
Ever since I graduated College and entered Grad School, I was constantly getting bombarded with the notion that “Practical Experience beats Theory all day long”.
But I’ve always thought there’s something off with that belief. Aren’t theories developed from practical experience? If theories can be wrong in explaining why a specific phenomenon happens or how a system responds, then surely the lessons learned can develop that theory even more rather than invalidate it!
According to Oxford Dictionary, a theory is:
a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
Thus, by definition, isn’t saying “theories are inferior to practical experience” a theory itself because you learned that from practical experience?
I don’t have all the answers yet.
People who study mostly theory makes a case for theory.
People who have a lot of practical experience mostly discredits theory.
I want to see it more objectively, and that surely doesn’t help.
But, I want to ponder on this a bit more as I gain insights from both sides. In the meantime, I’m currently reading this article that argues the “experience > theory” notion is misinformed:
Article: Dispelling the ‘Theory vs. Practical Experience’ Debate
I think you’ll find it insightful, too.
Work Better
Recently, I was thinking about a more holistic approach to productivity so you don’t have to rely on “tips” to guide your every improvement. I might write about it in the future, but only after I can show some results.
Anyway, one of the most overlooked elements of productivity, I believe, is ergonomics. As you may know, I’m a fan of improving subtle, seemingly ordinary things that make a huge difference — in which ergonomics fits perfectly.
If you do a lot of work on your computer like me, then you might as well follow Dr. Mann’s advice and invest in a vertical mouse, a split keyboard, and a comfortable office chair (this one is my advice, though). I’m not really into consumerism, but if a product does make a huge difference to my work performance, then I’m gonna spend a lot of money on that.
So, just in case you wanted to buy a mechanical keyboard or some new gadget, you might want to think twice. (In fact, I almost bought one impulsively! Shame on me) That’s because if you’re gonna use a non-ergonomic thing all day long, you’re going to mess up your body real quick. Compound effect, baby.
Learn Better
In one of his articles, the cartoonist Scott Adams mentioned two ways to learn your way to achievement (emphasis mine):
If you want something extraordinary [in life], you have two paths:
Become the best at one specific thing.
Become very good (top 25%) at two or more things.
The first strategy is difficult to the point of near impossibility. Few people will ever play in the NBA or make a platinum album. I don’t recommend anyone even try.
The second strategy is fairly easy. Everyone has at least a few areas in which they could be in the top 25% with some effort. In my case, I can draw better than most people, but I’m hardly an artist. And I’m not any funnier than the average standup comedian who never makes it big, but I’m funnier than most people. The magic is that few people can draw well and write jokes. It’s the combination of the two that makes what I do so rare. And when you add in my business background, suddenly I had a topic that few cartoonists could hope to understand without living it.
The first takeaway is, the better you become at a single skill/field, the more you become rare — that’s actually what Cal Newport also argues in his excellent book, Deep Work.
Second, the better you become at the intersection of two (or more) skills/fields, the more you become rare. But I believe that’s only the case if you can actually make “idea babies” out of these fields. Who wants to become a walking fact machine who can’t use his knowledge for thinking, anyway?
Interestingly, as I researched for my Zettelkasten post, I discovered that at one point in history, there occurred a splitting of disciplines. This implies that back then, “multidisciplinary” knowledge was the real “normal” — back then, you actually become rare when you become a talking, breathing library.
That is, until some time before early 17th century. [1]
In his insightful speech, systems thinking pioneer Russell Ackoff describes one of the greatest polymaths of all time, Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz, saying “The entire domain of science was capable of being contained in a single human brain”.
However, this feat “became increasingly impossible as the domain of human knowledge enlarged,” Ackoff adds.
That isn’t because we’re becoming dumber by the day, no. The problem started when we were taught that the things we learn are always “respective” to their own subject. Surely that’s not how it works in the real world! That’s where we and the old learners differ in opinion.
To make things worse, why is it that when you try to become better at more than one skill or one field, you get called (rather, “stigmatized as”) a “jack of all trades”?
I believe the underlying intention is to prevent you from hopping to multiple careers when you still haven’t experienced anything yet. But the fact remains that this social stigmatization makes multidisciplinary learning a less attractive behavior — even after that condition is satisfied.
To solve that, I want to recommend an article I’ve just read that argues “why you should aim to become a polymath”:
Article: People Who Have “Too Many Interests” Are More Likely To Be Successful According To Research
One thing I dislike, though, is when the author said at the end “mental models are key to becoming a better polymath” — which downright contradicts how he defines polymaths.
I define a modern polymath is someone who becomes competent in at least three diverse domains and integrates them into a top 1-percent skill set.
What follows that is none of my business (it’s his business) but I’d really take it with a grain of salt.
You’re certainly not a polymath just because you can apply mental models (more appropriately, principles) like the Pareto Distribution, Opportunity Cost, or Sunk Costs into other fields. Not even if you’ve incorporated systems thinking into your mental toolbox.
They’re helpful, for sure — even I use them as thinking tools when I reflect on what I do — but I don’t let them become an excuse to favor surface knowledge. Of course, there are times where surface knowledge might be more practical, but even with my limited experience, I’ve found depth much better.
Personal Update: Guitar Learning
Okay, here’s the extra! Idk if you’ll like me including this section (please tell me if you do/don’t) but in any case, this is just an optional section I’ll be putting out.
Just recently, I noticed I’ve been overworking myself with writing and reading. My girlfriend hates me for it sometimes, but I do agree with her that I really need a way to unwind. So, I’m thinking of getting better at guitar playing.
Back then, I only used to read tabs (which is a horrible sin according to some guitarists) but now that I’ve adopted an entirely different way of thinking, it makes me want to start from the beginning — music theory — so that I can eventually improvise fingerstyle music by ear.
But hey, if you have experience in creating fingerstyle music, how do you think you would approach teaching someone who doesn’t know any theory? What would be the most important things to focus on?
So far, I’m finding a book for self-studying it…but I don’t yet know how to filter the quality of these books. I might just be overthinking it.
Anyway…
That’s all for today! If you liked this new format, let me know!
Have a great day ahead!
Cheers,
- Al Khan
P.S. I just pledged $2 each month for myself, because, you know, you gotta believe in yourself, right? (…right?)
[1] I once read an abstract by Harvard historian Ann Blair that this information overload thing started in the 15th century. I speculate that may have sparked the conception of the word "polymath" — someone who seems relatively unaffected by information overload.