The Pyramid Method: A Simple Strategy For Becoming Exceptionally Good(calnewport.com)
calnewport.com
The Pyramid Method: A Simple Strategy For Becoming Exceptionally Good
http://calnewport.com/blog/2009/06/03/the-pyramid-method-a-simple-strategy-for-becoming-exceptionally-good
34 comments
Awesome, thank you.
It's easy to think there are ways to shortcut in the art and tech worlds, but this technique is how sports people work. You don't get straight into the Olympics or Formula 1, but you work your way up through local clubs and divisions, represent your city, represent your state and work your way up.
Anyway, awesome article. It's easy to forget all this stuff when you're working with computers and everything seems so accessible (when, in fact, it's really no different to "real life").
Anyway, awesome article. It's easy to forget all this stuff when you're working with computers and everything seems so accessible (when, in fact, it's really no different to "real life").
It's important to realize though that the article leaves one of the most important things out. It's just a happy coincidence that the metrics used at the pyramid were representative of the metrics used in the industry as a whole.
It's just /just/ about finding a place with metrics and concentrating--the most important part is finding the venue with the RIGHT metrics, and that takes an understanding of what the industry metrics are.
It's just /just/ about finding a place with metrics and concentrating--the most important part is finding the venue with the RIGHT metrics, and that takes an understanding of what the industry metrics are.
Bingo!!
This is an awesome method IF you're in an industry or area which is close enough to this description. AND IF your up-and-coming talent can fit into this kind of process.
Albert Einstein did not appear at the academic equivalent of a Pyramid Club (A major university).
This is an awesome method IF you're in an industry or area which is close enough to this description. AND IF your up-and-coming talent can fit into this kind of process.
Albert Einstein did not appear at the academic equivalent of a Pyramid Club (A major university).
Wouldn't the academic equivalent of a Pyramid Club be academic journals?
Perhaps so - and "publish or perish" is the academic equivalent of appearing at the Pyramid club night after night. Einstein did publish but only once he was, indeed, so good they couldn't ignore him.
So, the first part "be so good they can't ignore you" certainly works - if you are really, really good. Of course, by the nature of a large scale society, most people, even most really good people, aren't so good they can't be ignored. Someone who is a bit smarter than an average full professor but who has no official credentials would probably not be hired if they wrote a few above average research papers and got them published in a modest journal. Someone who writes an earth-shattering research paper would get hired but, well, that's by its nature unusual.
Of course, every field has a somewhat different path to success, which is one of my points...
So, the first part "be so good they can't ignore you" certainly works - if you are really, really good. Of course, by the nature of a large scale society, most people, even most really good people, aren't so good they can't be ignored. Someone who is a bit smarter than an average full professor but who has no official credentials would probably not be hired if they wrote a few above average research papers and got them published in a modest journal. Someone who writes an earth-shattering research paper would get hired but, well, that's by its nature unusual.
Of course, every field has a somewhat different path to success, which is one of my points...
Einstein's Pyramid Club was relativity itself.
This is true, almost. His paper on Brownian Motion was his 'so good they can't ignore you anymore' moment.
When it comes to startups, this seems to me mapable onto Crossing the Chasm by Geoffrey Moore. Start by conquering the "underground" scene of early adopters by iterating until you have a polished product. When they like it you can go after a niche market where you will iterate until you have a polished pitch. When you have that 1-2 punch you can't help but be successful.
Sorry for typos. Via iPhone tonight.
Sorry for typos. Via iPhone tonight.
One distinction is making your product extraordinary vs. making your self extraordinary (or your company). I like the idea of the former, that you just need an adequate company if your product and marketing are great, but the article gives me pause...
Keeping ahead of the competition is important, and so it's important for a company to be good at "keeping ahead". This includes your explicit focus, and the focus implied by how the company is organized, its methods and how it approaches tasks.
One could perhaps define companies with long-term success as being good at getting better at some specific thing, as in the article. This could a specific sub-field of engineering; or marketing to an specific industry etc. When the environment no longer values that specific thing, that aspect of the company fails. e.g. rap or minicomputers.
Keeping ahead of the competition is important, and so it's important for a company to be good at "keeping ahead". This includes your explicit focus, and the focus implied by how the company is organized, its methods and how it approaches tasks.
One could perhaps define companies with long-term success as being good at getting better at some specific thing, as in the article. This could a specific sub-field of engineering; or marketing to an specific industry etc. When the environment no longer values that specific thing, that aspect of the company fails. e.g. rap or minicomputers.
That reminds me of another excellent book: Good to Great by Jim Collins. Great companies have a clear single metric of profitability (profit per x) and then relentlessly iteratively optimize against it--what Collins refers to as the Flywheel.
If there was any doubt this practice of having a small confined environment with clear metrics and feedback and iterating against it relentlessly was a Pattern of Success... Hmm.. Very enlightening.
If there was any doubt this practice of having a small confined environment with clear metrics and feedback and iterating against it relentlessly was a Pattern of Success... Hmm.. Very enlightening.
I disagree.
I think it really comes down to motivation. Everyone knows you have to practice and practice to get good at anything. It's the motivation to practice that is the hard part. It's easier to stay motivated when you set goals that you actually like as opposed to goals that you think may lead to success. That's how I learned to program. I told myself that I wanted to build Z. I didn't try and practice first by building a bunch of little A's, B's, and C's instead. I shot straight for Z from the start. Yeah, I screwed up a lot and had to redo everything like 100 times, but I was motivated to get to Z. I could care less about A, B, and C, but I ended up knocking them down along the way anyway.
If your dream is to write a novel, make it your goal to write a novel! Why would you be motivated to write in some literary journal instead? (I'm trying to write a spy novel myself, and I sure as hell don't care about my college's literary journal. I'm 100% certain that trying to get anything published in something like that would suck all the motivation out of me. Plus, how can someone honestly tell me that would help toward my original goal? I think you get better at writing spy novels by... writing spy novels.)
If you've ever been in a band, you know the hardest part is keeping everyone motivated enough to stick to a consistent practice schedule. I've been in bands where a leader-type thinks he knows some guaranteed method to getting 'discovered'. Every time we would try to follow that method, we would all burn out because it wasn't fun and it was demotivating when the method would inevitably turn out to be flawed or unrealistically demanding. We would have had a much longer life span if we stuck to setting goals that kept everyone motivated instead of trying to follow some unproven method.
So, I say target the motivation, not the method.
I think it really comes down to motivation. Everyone knows you have to practice and practice to get good at anything. It's the motivation to practice that is the hard part. It's easier to stay motivated when you set goals that you actually like as opposed to goals that you think may lead to success. That's how I learned to program. I told myself that I wanted to build Z. I didn't try and practice first by building a bunch of little A's, B's, and C's instead. I shot straight for Z from the start. Yeah, I screwed up a lot and had to redo everything like 100 times, but I was motivated to get to Z. I could care less about A, B, and C, but I ended up knocking them down along the way anyway.
If your dream is to write a novel, make it your goal to write a novel! Why would you be motivated to write in some literary journal instead? (I'm trying to write a spy novel myself, and I sure as hell don't care about my college's literary journal. I'm 100% certain that trying to get anything published in something like that would suck all the motivation out of me. Plus, how can someone honestly tell me that would help toward my original goal? I think you get better at writing spy novels by... writing spy novels.)
If you've ever been in a band, you know the hardest part is keeping everyone motivated enough to stick to a consistent practice schedule. I've been in bands where a leader-type thinks he knows some guaranteed method to getting 'discovered'. Every time we would try to follow that method, we would all burn out because it wasn't fun and it was demotivating when the method would inevitably turn out to be flawed or unrealistically demanding. We would have had a much longer life span if we stuck to setting goals that kept everyone motivated instead of trying to follow some unproven method.
So, I say target the motivation, not the method.
It's different strokes for different folks. His article highlights this. For example: rapping onstage is rapping onstage. But writing for the literary journal is not writing a novel.
To use a martial arts analogy, the rapping is kumite (sparring). You are working directly at your goal. In kumite, your feedback is kicks in the face. The article writing is kata (forms). Your are working at a parallel goal whose skills are transferrable. In kata, your feedback is angry shouting from Sensei. Either way, you get feedback and you improve.
The article's point is not method, motivation, kata, or kumite.
Rather, it is focus and measurement. Attack a precise, difficult, measurable goal, to the exclusion of all else, until victory is achieved. Then Sensei will stop shouting, and your opponent will yield.
To use a martial arts analogy, the rapping is kumite (sparring). You are working directly at your goal. In kumite, your feedback is kicks in the face. The article writing is kata (forms). Your are working at a parallel goal whose skills are transferrable. In kata, your feedback is angry shouting from Sensei. Either way, you get feedback and you improve.
The article's point is not method, motivation, kata, or kumite.
Rather, it is focus and measurement. Attack a precise, difficult, measurable goal, to the exclusion of all else, until victory is achieved. Then Sensei will stop shouting, and your opponent will yield.
Outliers suggests it's neither the motivation nor the method we see as genius or talent, but 10,000 hours of practice combined with the "luck" of being in the right place at the right time.
While reading the Pyramid article, it seemed to me that both an amazing amount of practice and exposure to (or in) the right venue figured in.
What the Pyramid article seems to add to practice and luck is accelerated self-improvement through a feedback mechanism. Playing hockey needs a coach. Writing a novel needs an editor. Rapping needs an audience.
While reading the Pyramid article, it seemed to me that both an amazing amount of practice and exposure to (or in) the right venue figured in.
What the Pyramid article seems to add to practice and luck is accelerated self-improvement through a feedback mechanism. Playing hockey needs a coach. Writing a novel needs an editor. Rapping needs an audience.
The feedback mechanism is priceless here.
Becoming increddibly good at something nobody wants is somewhat useless.
Becoming increddibly good at something nobody wants is somewhat useless.
Outliers is about Outliers, people who become the top 5 or 10 in their field. If you are in the top one in 10 million at something, there are still 600 people between you and Outliers territory.
Also, there wasn't 10,000 plus luck, it was the luck that put them in a position of getting the 10,000 hours.
Also, there wasn't 10,000 plus luck, it was the luck that put them in a position of getting the 10,000 hours.
What's the Pyramid for software development? What comes to mind are code reviews, and releasing open-source software that's good enough (or sucks less) to be worth using by others. Code reviews can make a difference even when reviewers are at the same level, or slightly below, though of course having a guru on hand is killer.
For entrepreneurship and its Pyramid, money/cashflow is the obvious metric and feedback mechanism - but just as important might be the entrepreneur's life-satisfaction, though that's harder to measure and may fluctuate much more.
Would love to hear people's comments on how they keep their own score.
For entrepreneurship and its Pyramid, money/cashflow is the obvious metric and feedback mechanism - but just as important might be the entrepreneur's life-satisfaction, though that's harder to measure and may fluctuate much more.
Would love to hear people's comments on how they keep their own score.
That's what I was going to ask. Contributing to Open Source projects springs to mind, since you get involved in a community that can give you feedback, experience on a potentially very large, complicated project (which is very different to doing toy projects for class - I'm currently a student) and the excitement of seeing something you work on actually being used.
I've never tried that, btw, but it's on my list when I get time. I'm currently working on a small browser MMORPG, and while I get feedback on the design etc from the playerbase, since no-one else looks at my code I don't get any feedback on my own programming.
However, I did leave it for a few months (got too convoluted to work on) but I've been persuaded to restart working on it, starting from scratch (moved from PHP to Ruby). Since I'm basically trying to recode the same behaviour but trying to avoid known bugs and pitfalls it's been a good way to see progress - I've learned stuff about database normalisation, FP, etc, since version 1 and it's good to see 'ah, doing it that way this time round has made stuff so much easier'. So I guess the community feedback comes from myself.
I should probably github it, actually.
I've never tried that, btw, but it's on my list when I get time. I'm currently working on a small browser MMORPG, and while I get feedback on the design etc from the playerbase, since no-one else looks at my code I don't get any feedback on my own programming.
However, I did leave it for a few months (got too convoluted to work on) but I've been persuaded to restart working on it, starting from scratch (moved from PHP to Ruby). Since I'm basically trying to recode the same behaviour but trying to avoid known bugs and pitfalls it's been a good way to see progress - I've learned stuff about database normalisation, FP, etc, since version 1 and it's good to see 'ah, doing it that way this time round has made stuff so much easier'. So I guess the community feedback comes from myself.
I should probably github it, actually.
I'm actually happy there is no Pyramid Club for software. The thing about programming is that you don't have to reach the very top before people think of you as a success.
Open source is the opposite of a pyramid club. You can produce things to impress people, you can produce things for your own enjoyment or you can things that just solve a problem that needs solving.
Entrepreneurship, of course, is different and I'll leave that to the entrepreneurs. Indeed, what's great about open source is that you don't have to be an entrepreneur to do - you can be but its totally optional.
Open source is the opposite of a pyramid club. You can produce things to impress people, you can produce things for your own enjoyment or you can things that just solve a problem that needs solving.
Entrepreneurship, of course, is different and I'll leave that to the entrepreneurs. Indeed, what's great about open source is that you don't have to be an entrepreneur to do - you can be but its totally optional.
This might work for some things, but if you are radical enough, the single venue will not give you appropriate feedback.
If you play, play to win.
Practice makes perfect. tl;dr
I had a coach who used to say, practice doesn't make perfect, perfect practice makes perfect. Which I think is an important distinction, because you need to have direction and focus, not just dedication.
If I understood that stream of consciousness correctly, and I had to read it twice, I think it's this:
1. To be spectacularly successful you have to be extraordinary.
2. There are no shortcuts.
3. If well directed then intense focus and frequent practice can be a great way to improve.
Is is just me or is the above obvious? Has anyone gotten anything else from that article?
1. To be spectacularly successful you have to be extraordinary.
2. There are no shortcuts.
3. If well directed then intense focus and frequent practice can be a great way to improve.
Is is just me or is the above obvious? Has anyone gotten anything else from that article?
It may seem obvious, but it's easier said than done.
It's also very enticing to want to believe that a real shortcut exists, and there's plenty of writing out there in that vein. It's refreshing to have someone be honest enough with you to tell you something you may not want to hear, but you really need to hear.
It's also very enticing to want to believe that a real shortcut exists, and there's plenty of writing out there in that vein. It's refreshing to have someone be honest enough with you to tell you something you may not want to hear, but you really need to hear.
I didn't see anything extraordinary in the article either. The guy focused on what he wanted to do and improved through practice.
The best book I have ever read on outlining how learning works is Mastery by George Leonard. One of his points is that many people assume we learn at a linear pace and so get frustrated when we find we are not making progress.
He says that is false. We actually learn in short bursts. There will be a period of flatness, followed by an intense period of gains where you will plateau and then fall back a little behind you're highest point but above where you were before. This will then repeat itself if you keep up. The time frame could change as well. One flat period may be days while another may be years.
This seems to be exactly the same process as the guy in the article went through.
The best book I have ever read on outlining how learning works is Mastery by George Leonard. One of his points is that many people assume we learn at a linear pace and so get frustrated when we find we are not making progress.
He says that is false. We actually learn in short bursts. There will be a period of flatness, followed by an intense period of gains where you will plateau and then fall back a little behind you're highest point but above where you were before. This will then repeat itself if you keep up. The time frame could change as well. One flat period may be days while another may be years.
This seems to be exactly the same process as the guy in the article went through.
True Passionate Curiousity
http://cobaltsaffron.com/newsletter/CobaltSaffron-01-us.pdf
Appears totally unrelated.
In the fair chance, you haven't heard this Ira Glass segment about the process of creating/making - it inspires me and may well you.
Ira Glass: "Don't quit even when you know your stuff sucks"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hidvElQ0xE
Via http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=198935