2 posts tagged with "blog"

Deliberate practice is now likely a widely recognized concept. To reach a high level of mastery in a particular field, you need to practice with focus, repetition, volume, and speed, and only practice within your learning zone.

Taking vocabulary memorization as an example, the most efficient way to memorize a vocabulary book is to first memorize the first word in each chapter, then the first two; then the first three; and so on, until you reach the last word N. After that, reverse the order of the chapter and memorize it again using the same method. Additionally, apply the Ebbinghaus forgetting curve to schedule your review sessions. This is akin to Mario jumping through warp pipes, or Xiao Lin discovering the secret sword manual.

Deliberate Practice is Not Surprising​

Deliberate practice is especially important in the software engineering industry because programming is essentially a craft. The question we need to ask today is: can you dominate the industry solely through deliberate practice and your exceptional skills?

The answer is, of course, no. We both know that simply writing good code is far from enough. I often say that there are three factors for promotion: having resources, having people, and having credibility. Resources refer to whether you can handle your work with ease; people refer to whether the decision-makers for your promotion are in your network and willing to advocate for you; credibility refers to whether your achievements and words can convince others. Writing good code, at best, accounts for one-third of the equation. If you fail in the other two-thirds, you risk losing your job!

The book "People Who Won't Be Replaced by Machines" tells a story about Southwest Airlines hiring a highly skilled IT engineer who isolated himself in his office, focusing solely on his work and refusing to engage with others. The boss told him that this approach was not acceptable because the company culture at Southwest Airlines emphasized communication, and he was subsequently fired.

Technology is Not a Moat​

You might say, "Fine, I won't collaborate with others. I don't need a company; the genius code I develop through deliberate practice can serve everyone on my own." Can this lead to global domination?

The answer is likely no—unless your development and learning speed can sustain the entire lifecycle of large-scale internet services all by yourself.

Uber's founder, Travis Kalanick, once said that technology is layered; once a layer of technology matures, it gradually becomes less important, while new layers become more advanced and iterate faster based on the previous ones. Therefore, we can conclude that the skills you painstakingly practice begin to lose their significance from the moment they are formed. I strongly agree with what Ruan Yifeng mentioned:

In software development, technology changes so rapidly that the time you invest in learning technologies and tools can render your knowledge worthless once those technologies are replaced, as most of it consists of implementation details.

It's no wonder Warren Buffett's moat theory also asserts that technology is not a moat because it will ultimately be replicated by others.

Steve Jobs' Answer​

I once pondered deeply: since the internet age is fleeting, how can I ensure that I won't be swept aside? Upon reviewing Steve Jobs' speech at Stanford University, I found the answer. Although he shared three stories and offered one piece of advice, I believe it essentially boils down to two points.

==First, face life's uncertainties with love and death==. Because of your passion, you imbue your work with immense meaning. Life is short; if you don't pursue it, you might as well die. Therefore, even if you are cast out, even if you achieve financial freedom and retire at 30, you will still persist in doing meaningful things you love. Faust's life is filled with suffering, yet the divine grants him ultimate redemption. Don Quixote's life is also fraught with hardship, yet readers are inspired by his spirit.

==Second, be a fool and never be satisfied==. Jobs believed that regardless of whether you achieve great success through the first point, you should never settle for the status quo—strive for your ideals, break conventions, persevere, and always protect the inner child within you.

You may wonder, "These lofty worldviews are indeed fascinating, but what relevance do they have for you and me? Or what guiding significance do they hold for our lives?"—"I understand the principles, yet I still struggle to live well."

I believe that borrowing from the concept of deliberate practice, exploring the unknown in a structured and methodical way is what we call ==deliberate curiosity==. Curiosity is not about hosting banquets, writing articles, or painting; it cannot be that elegant, that composed, that refined, or that humble. Curiosity is a rebellion, a fierce action of an individual exploring a complex world.

Deliberately Explore the World​

This fierce action must be organized and premeditated. You need to manage your reading, chatting, watching, and listening inputs like you manage your financial investments. Your investment portfolio consists of 24 hours a day—what percentage do you allocate to health, work, family, and input? Within that input, what percentage do you dedicate to technology, economics, management, psychology, design, politics, the future, and history? What channels do these pieces of information come from? Are those channels trustworthy?

==The information we input shapes our thoughts, just as the food we eat shapes our bodies. In his book "The Creative Curve," Allen Gannett interviewed numerous creative individuals and summarized this principle: 20%. To create and maintain cultural awareness and understand what resonates with the public, you must spend 20% of your waking time each day absorbing knowledge in your field.==

This is not easy, but at the very least, we can ask ourselves daily: before meeting someone today, did I prepare any interesting questions to ask them? When solving a problem today, did I consider faster, better, or stronger solutions? During a meeting today, did I ask myself what else I could learn from the other person? Hu Shi said, "Talk less about ideologies, ask more questions," which embodies deliberate curiosity.

Final Summary​

Gaze at the stars with deliberate curiosity, and stay grounded with deliberate practice. What worries do we have that our daily endeavors won't come to fruition?

One hundred years ago, before December 1911, no one had ever been to the South Pole. Therefore, explorers around the world would dream of claiming the glory of being the first one been there.

We all know that the South Pole is located at the south-most of the earth, namely the 90°S in latitude. A typical exploratory plan was that expeditions started from 82°S, went to the South Pole, and then came back alive.

Two teams were competing against each other for the first place - the Amundsen team with 5 members and the Scott team with 17 members. Which one do you guess will win this competition? Of course, more people do not necessarily mean more chances of success.

They set off almost at the same time. ==As the same with all the competitions ever happening in the world, it is quite intensive. When there are great opportunities, there are no reasons that only you can see it; unquestionably, there are a lot of people can see it==. Both teams prepared well around October 1911 at the periphery of the Antarctic Circle, and they were racing and rushing for the last distance.

The result was like this -- the Amundsen team planted the Norwegian flag at the South Pole first in the following two months, namely December 15th, 1911. However, the Scott team was late for more than one month, though they started almost at the same time and had more team members... What does this mean?

It means the difference between success and failure. Amundsen team was remembered as the first one reaching the South Pole in human history, and the winner takes all the honors. Unfortunately, the Scott team suffered the same challenges but was just late. No one would remember the second place, but we all remember the first one.

This story was not as simple as the above. There were even more - you should not just go to the South Pole; you should come back alive as well. The Amundsen team went there first and came back to the base smoothly.

On the other hand, the Scott team was late and failed to win the glory. Even worse, because of being late, the weather became awful during the way back. People left behind in increasing numbers. Finally, none of them survived. This team, these 17 people, failed to achieve the victory and perished as a whole. It is the difference between death and life.

Today, we can say that they are risking more than us the entrepreneurs. The bet was bigger and thriller than we could imagine. Why was this difference more than just between success and failure, but actually between death and life? Researching the causing facts gives us the insights.

First, exploring the South Pole is not just about people; it is also about the supplies. Researchers analyzed afterward and found the vast difference in the preparation. The Amundsen team prepared three tons of supplies though they had fewer team members. The Scott team made only one ton of supplies, though they had more team members.

Is one ton of supplies adequate? If you make no mistakes, completely no mistakes, then that is just enough. It is horrible that things are perfect in theory and you plan with a tight schedule of resources. People come across unexpected scenarios all the time in reality. People get lost in the wilderness all the time when exploring. People make inevitable mistakes all the time under stress. The fact is that a plan without any slack leads to grave danger.

On the contrary, the Amundsen team did a great job on this. They had only 5 people but prepared three tons of supplies. The surplus in resources made them more fault-tolerant and well-prepared for the unexpected challenges.

It is a considerable difference whether the resource is abundant enough and whether the team leaves room for making mistakes.

In fact, both teams were competing in the same environment, but they delivered two fundamentally different results, which is well worth reaching.

==In one word, the success of the Amundsen team is due to making progress 30 kilometers per day no matter what the weather is. In extreme environments, you do the best. More importantly, you do the best in a sustainable way.==

Unfortunately, the Scott team was less-disciplined according to their logs. They could advance 40 to 60 kilometers in one day if the weather were pleasant. However, when the weather was terrible, they were bad-tempered, they cursed the bad luck, and they stayed in the tent for the entire day.

In retrospective, this might be the most significant difference. The difference is that no matter how bad the weather is, keep moving 30 kilometers a day and then you can reach the South Pole and then come back alive.

Why am I telling this story? It precisely resembles the intense competition today we are facing in the Internet era. People may say it is the winter of the market and things are getting worse. It is the same with the awful weather 100 years ago in the South Pole. What we can do to survive is like the Amundsen team - making plans with slackness to prepare for the unexpected; leaving room for making mistakes; and most importantly, making progress 30 kilometers per day, and no matter how bad the weather is.

I may say that this is the greatest factor—the way in which the expedition is equipped—the way in which every difficulty is foreseen, and precautions taken for meeting or avoiding it. Victory awaits him who has everything in order—luck, people call it. Defeat is certain for him who has neglected to take the necessary precautions in time; this is called bad luck.

 - from The South Pole, by Roald Amundsen