Patrick then points out that this effect is why programs like YC add value: maybe they give you obvious advice, but during the program they make you ‘go to the gym’. And you’re forced to do it. This benefit extends down to even 2nd tier programs like
Conversation
The other side of it is that there’s value when ‘thought leaders’ rephrase obvious bits of advice to make them seem novel and insightful. The hope is that you feel motivated to take it if it doesn’t sound like something your dad would say.
1
For example, so much of what says is simply a more rigorous form of old wisdom. e.g. “Watch for the downside and let the upside take care of itself.”
Replying to
I’ve often seen complaints by book reviewers arguing “this author hasn’t said anything new, we’ve known this shit since time immemorial.” And maybe the author hasn’t contributed anything new. But so what?
1
The truth is that we respond to different formulations of the same advice. The value of obvious advice is in actually DOING the thing. Therefore, a new formulation of old advice, repackaged to appeal to a subset people, has some value.
1
I like ’s Principles because it takes really old advice and repackages for rationalist-type people (of whom Ray is one). And I like ’s How Do You Measure Your Life because its written for type-A personalities, the kind who would chose career over family.
1
Similarly, I suppose I don’t get eastern mysticism, mostly because it’s a formulation of advice that’s not meant for my personality type. Doesn’t mean it can’t work for someone. Just that it won’t spur me to take the advice within.
1
Core takeaway from this thread: there’s a competitive advantage to ACTUALLY DOING obvious advice, because most people don’t. Worse, they brush it aside because it’s old and obvious, even if they don’t do it, while looking for something newer and more sexy.
//END