1/ There’s an element of mentorship that I don’t see discussed a lot.
(Yes, finding a mentor is a whole other story, and much advice focuses on that).
But the key to a good mentor relationship is that you *actually take action* on the advice you’ve been given.
2/ As an old boss puts it, “you must be someone that’s helpable.” Which is a corollary to “only help others who can be helped.”
The trick isn’t that you MUST put everything the mentor tells you to action.
The trick is that you find SOME aspect of the advice and apply that.
3/ Why is this important?
Or rather, why do mentors give their time and energy to help “only those who can be helped?”
The answer is what the mentor gets out of the relationship, right?
A mentor doesn’t want to feel like they’re wasting their time.
4/ Taking action on a mentor’s advice shows that you’re taking the mentor seriously.
And you give them the pleasure of watching their advice making a difference in your life.
5/ The heuristic I use is actually simple: I ask myself that the next time we (the mentor and I) meet, am I able to say something of the form of ‘you told me X, and I applied it, and here’s what happened …”
If yes, great! If no, wait till you can before meeting again …
6/ Obvious corollaries: if you can’t find even SOME aspect of the mentor’s advice to put to practice, stop asking advice from that person.
7/ Another corollary: some people curry favour from mentor-like figures by PRETENDING that they’ve put advice to practice — even if they have to stretch a little (e.g. you told me X which made me think of X’ and I think you’re right …)
Take of that what you will.
8/ Final corollary: if you consistently do this, you’ll find that it becomes remarkably easier to find (and keep!) mentors.
- You meet someone. They give you advice.
- You take that advice seriously and put some aspect of it to practice.
- You make a note of it with regard to the person.
- The next time you meet them, you bring it up …
10/ cont …
- That person feels happy that a) you remembered what the advice was (they’ve probably forgotten), b) you took it seriously and thus made them feel good, so
- You get to ask more question in the future, and they’re inclined to answer.
Rinse and repeat.
11/ If you enjoyed this, you might enjoy this thread on how people actually learn from doing (and why some can reach mastery with it, and others cannot):
12/ Or follow for more threads like this; I’m probably going to turn this one into an essay soon. (It’s surprisingly necessary for finding mentors amongst, say, ‘traditional, uneducated’ businessmen, the kind who might not understand mentorship but who populate South East Asia.)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I want to call out an example of some remarkable thinking that I've had the privilege of observing up close.
About 2 years ago, @vaughn_tan started a project to come up with better thinking around 'uncertainty'. This MIGHT be important to business! MIGHT! But I was unconvinced.
Vaughn had noticed that our collective ability to deal with uncertainty was compromised by bad language. Because we do not have good language for uncertainty, we are forced to borrow words and concepts from risk management.
But this is bad: risk is VERY diff from uncertainty!
I was in good company in my scepticism, though. Vaughn's friend, the notable VC Jerry Neumann, told him that he was sceptical Vaughn's project would be very useful.
Neumann argued that it wasn't important to know what types of uncertainty exist — merely how to use it.
I once had an intern do an internship with me because she wanted to see how I approached 'startup things'. At the end of the summer, she was surprised that I didn't have a set of hypotheses to test.
"Doesn't this go against the data-driven approach you talked about?" she asked.
I didn't have the language for it then, but I think I do now.
When an initiative / product / project is too new, there is too much uncertainty to form useful hypotheses.
Instead, what you want to do is to just "throw shit at the wall and see what sticks."
This sounds woefully inefficient, but it's not, not really. A slightly more palatable frame for this is "take action to generate information."
But what kind of information?
Actually I was looking for answers to the following four questions:
A gentle reminder that if you want to speed up expertise intuition, you will do a lot better if you have an actual mental model of what expert intuition *is*.
The most useful model is the one below:
It gives you more handles on how to improve.
The name of the model is the 'recognition primed decision making' model, or RPD.
The basic idea is simple: when an expert looks at a situation, they generate four things automatically:
1. Cues 2. Expectancies 3. Possible goals 4. An action script.
You can target each.
For instance, if you're a software engineer and you want to get better from the tacit knowledge of the senior programmers around you, ask:
- What cues did you notice?
- What were your expectancies?
- What was your action script?
1. DP is a sleight of hand research paradigm, and only claims to be the best way to get to expertise in fields with a good history of pedagogical development. (See: The Cambridge Handbook, where they point out that pop stars and jazz musicians become world class but not through DP)
2. Most of us are not in such domains.
3. Therefore we cannot use DP, and tacit knowledge elicitation methods are more appropriate.
The counter argument @justinskycak needs to make is simple: math is a domain with a long history of pedagogical development, therefore DP dominates.
Justin says that “talent is overrated” is not part of the DP argument.
I’m not sure what he’s read from Ericsson that makes him think that.
Hambrick et al document the MANY instances where Ericsson makes the claim “DP is the gold standard and therefore anyone can use DP to get good, practice dominates talent.”
Ericsson spends the entire introduction of Peak arguing this. When Ericsson passed, David Epstein wrote a beautiful eulogy but referenced his being a lifelong proponent of the ‘talent is overrated’ camp, which frustrated him and other expertise researchers to no end.
Now you may say that DP has nothing to say on talent, but then you have to grapple with the man making the argument in DECADES of publications — both academic and popular! If the man who INVENTED the theory sees the theory as a WAY TO ADVANCE his views on talent, then … I don’t know, maybe one should take the man at his word?
“Oh, but his views have NOTHING to do with the actual theory of DP” My man, if you’re talking to anyone who has ACTUALLY read DP work, you need to address this, because they’re going to stumble into it. Like, I don’t know, in the INTRODUCTION CHAPTER OF THE POPSCI BOOK ON DP.
Anyway, strike two for reading comprehension problems. But it gets worse …