You can actually extrapolate this model backwards through old media. If waldenponding puts you at zero temporal leverage, relying purely on (say) The Economist, which is about 6 months lag, goes into negative territory.
-
Show this thread
-
In general, temporal leverage can range from +2 years to -3000 years (if all you read are ancient Greek classics). The more reactionary you get, the more you need some *other* source of leverage to make up agency deficit. That wallowing in Greek classics better generate alpha.
4 replies 6 retweets 66 likesShow this thread -
Can you barbell your way out of this tradeoff? I like barbell thinking for many things but not for temporal agency. A portfolio of 90% greek classics and 10% shitposts just isn't going to do the trick... because the oracular agency of GSCITC participation has sharp thresholds
3 replies 5 retweets 60 likesShow this thread -
This addresses my main problem with waldenponding. To the extent *any* kind of thinking requires an input stream to work with, you can't arbitrarily decide a certain degree of retreat from "live" and a certain "deep work project" will be a net positive returns portfolio.
1 reply 4 retweets 47 likesShow this thread -
I have never had a problem with social media being a "distraction". My gonzo retreat/approach radar for intuitively calibrating how to balance my temporal leverage portfolio has been pretty good. And more importantly, requires no "addiction management" type behaviors.
1 reply 3 retweets 50 likesShow this thread -
I find that when I do get sucked into a longer project, I naturally retreat exactly as much as needed to "feed" that project the info stream it needs. If I need to spend more time with 10-year-old books I naturally do that.
4 replies 4 retweets 42 likesShow this thread -
This isn't a superpower. It's evidence the addiction hypothesis is much weaker than it looks. And that for nearly any subject, there is a shit ton more signal in the GSCITC than you might assume. Sign: output from "deep work" is generally very underwhelming.
2 replies 7 retweets 80 likesShow this thread -
I have been generally very unimpressed with the work people seem to generate when they go waldenponding to work on supposedly important things. The comparable people who stay more plugged in seem to produce better work.
6 replies 5 retweets 104 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @vgr
My guess as to the circumstances for successful Waldenponding: - your work involves sustained (personal?) reflection - your work involves deep chains of novel reasoning (not necessarily broad, though) - your work involves sustained physical labor
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @simpolism @vgr
I'd expect painters and other types of visual artists to Waldenpond successfully, and almost nobody else.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
I’d expect them to do it the worst. Craft benefits from retreat to hone technical perfection. Art requires immersion in the zeitgeist.
-
-
Replying to @vgr
I argue that they've probably picked up enough of the longer term zeitgeist during their childhood/adolescence, and the Waldenponding period gives them the opportunity to reflect and mine that part of themselves. Art that relies solely on the Now is forgotten Tomorrow.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @simpolism @vgr
the greatest paintings I know of have more layers of reference and metaphor than most novels do: they must be plugged in to something, even if it doesn’t have to be a facet of this GSTCDAPKHDSGJ or whatever
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.