Tweet

@NeckarValue

@NeckarValue

More from @ejames_c

Cedric Chin

@ejames_c

13 Jul

Totally obvious once you know it exists, but training methods for when you can extract tacit expertise (assuming you have access to experts, and the skill to do so) look VERY different from training methods without such an ability.

Example: tacit expertise is basically a pattern recognition process that generates 4 things: cues, expectancies, a prioritised and fluid list of goals, and an action script.

So, with this in mind, your training program ends up looking like a series of scenario simulations.

This is very different from the ‘pedagogical development and subskill identification’ view of teaching.

Here it’s “what series of varied scenarios may I design that allows students to gain the right set of cues, expectancies, goals, and actions that experts tacitly generate?”

Read 8 tweets

Cedric Chin

@ejames_c

7 Jul

1/ My post on product taste spent 1 day on the Hacker News front page.

In that piece, I argued that 'product validation frameworks like Lean Startup consist of two bits: an explicit bit which is process, and a tacit bit which is product taste.'

So what IS product taste?

2/ If you want to succeed at product, you need to build taste. This is really the hard bit of the game.

I've spent about a decade collecting links and snippets about product taste, mostly because I suck at it (and I'm still trying to get better).

Here are some of them.

3/ Paul Buchheit, in 2010: 'if your product is great, it doesn't have to be good'.

paulbuchheit.blogspot.com/2010/02/if-you…

Buchheit's post is fascinating. It was the first time I'd seen this idea of 'just pick 3 great features, and half-ass everything else.'

Read 17 tweets

Cedric Chin

@ejames_c

29 Jun

Something that's always bothered me: product validation frameworks (Lean Startup, etc, but mostly Lean Startup) usually talk about the methodology like the methodology is the thing.

But I've often found that product taste is just as important. commoncog.com/blog/product-v…

Product taste is tacit, and so it doesn't get talked about as much. Here's a throwaway paragraph in Working Backwards, for instance, on Amazon's PR/FAQ process:

(It *does* seem like it runs on the backs of 'people who've done it before, doesn't it?)

Corollary: if you attempt to copy the process without putting in place experienced people, the people with good product taste, odds are pretty good that you'll fail.

Read 4 tweets

Cedric Chin

@ejames_c

8 Dec 20

1/ My current reading approach, broken down:

1) a reading program is for research & synthesis of knowledge — usually land-and-expand reading into some topic I'm interested in (and will likely write about).
2) a practice program is for practice — primarily for actionable books.

2/ Land-and-expand: I aim to read a handful of books, usually a minimum of three, about some topic. commoncog.com/blog/the-land-…

I usually have a couple projects in parallel. Currently I have one for Charlie Munger's analogical thinking, and one for tech company histories.

3/ Actionable books: this one is a lot simpler. I read a book chapter by chapter, only moving on to the next chapter once I've put the ideas from the previous chapter to practice.

Currently doing this for goodreads.com/book/show/3998…

Read 4 tweets

Cedric Chin

@ejames_c

19 Oct 20

1/ For all of its warts, Goodreads is still pretty darned good.

I was trying to wrap my head around Lisa Feldman Barrett's work, and so I hop onto the Goodreads page for How Emotions are Made. goodreads.com/book/show/2371…

From there, it's a short hop to more scholarly sources.

2/ David Clarke's review seems like it's written by someone with a background in psychology; he points out that Barrett presents her theory as being close to consensus, but in more scholarly publications, she is reserved and says more work needed. goodreads.com/review/show/29…

3/ And this question ("Can anyone point me to a review that would indicate how well-received this research is received in the professional community?") contains good answers — at least, solid enough to kickstart a dive into the more scholarly sources. goodreads.com/questions/1446…

Read 5 tweets

Cedric Chin

@ejames_c

15 Aug 20

Understanding the principles of a productivity methodology is often more important than understanding the trappings of the methodology itself.

Latter means you’re a slave to the step-by-step. Former means you’re able to adapt to your personal idiosyncrasies.

Example: grokking the principle of Total Capture is more important than the trappings of GTD itself.

Not everyone can do pure GTD. Most productive people I know adapt it to their needs, or find some way to express its principles in their lives.

Similarly, Progressive Summarisation’s contribution is to take the lean manufacturing notion of ‘muda’ and apply that to knowledge work.

In the Toyota system, unused inventory is waste.

In PS, the underlying principle seems to be “over-eager summarisation is waste”.

Read 19 tweets

Share this page!

Cedric Chin

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @ejames_c

Cedric Chin

Cedric Chin

Cedric Chin

Cedric Chin

Cedric Chin

Cedric Chin

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Like this author's thread?