The man you want to be does not matter(swiz.ec)
swiz.ec
The man you want to be does not matter
http://swiz.ec/nHr3YJ
35 comments
What I've always hated about that is there is a sense of an immutable judgement going forward if at some point you perform poorly. Surely it's obvious that that idea is merely an approximation and life is somewhat more complex?
Isn't it the case that if past performance is an indicator of future performance then there is no hope of improving anything?
I really think there is quite serious denial of the possibility of bad things happening to people which effects their performance and it not being their fault, often with very serious consequences for them.
I have a friend who had a family crisis occur during his A-levels; the impact on his future prospects was huge and he has had to struggle to stand a chance at getting a decent job. I personally had a family crisis during my degree which several impacted my performance and has destroyed my confidence, something which still impacts me today (though I did manage to get a 2:1 despite it all), does that mean I cannot perform well in the future?
I understand what you're saying about there being an overall correlation but I really do think you have to be careful about it - on the whole, it may be true, but it's the individual edge cases that matter, and adopting that position as if it was some immutable fact is dangerous.
Isn't it the case that if past performance is an indicator of future performance then there is no hope of improving anything?
I really think there is quite serious denial of the possibility of bad things happening to people which effects their performance and it not being their fault, often with very serious consequences for them.
I have a friend who had a family crisis occur during his A-levels; the impact on his future prospects was huge and he has had to struggle to stand a chance at getting a decent job. I personally had a family crisis during my degree which several impacted my performance and has destroyed my confidence, something which still impacts me today (though I did manage to get a 2:1 despite it all), does that mean I cannot perform well in the future?
I understand what you're saying about there being an overall correlation but I really do think you have to be careful about it - on the whole, it may be true, but it's the individual edge cases that matter, and adopting that position as if it was some immutable fact is dangerous.
I agree with what you're saying. A person's direction in life can change at any time and it's unfortunate that people judge and discriminate so carelessly.
They are acting rationally though. Take, for example, your anecdote about your friend's employment difficulty. The employer is just trying to get the best person they can for the job. They can't realistically predict future performance of the person they hire so they just rely on credentialism and base the decision on past performance/qualifications in the hope that a person who performed well in the past will continue to do so.
They are acting rationally though. Take, for example, your anecdote about your friend's employment difficulty. The employer is just trying to get the best person they can for the job. They can't realistically predict future performance of the person they hire so they just rely on credentialism and base the decision on past performance/qualifications in the hope that a person who performed well in the past will continue to do so.
Sure, and it's understandable given the number of CVs companies have to filter through, especially the more desirable places - there has to be some way of filtering through.
I think it's very important to highlight that these judgements aren't etched in stone, though, it's a point which is lost in that phrase, hence me not being a huge fan of it.
I think it's very important to highlight that these judgements aren't etched in stone, though, it's a point which is lost in that phrase, hence me not being a huge fan of it.
As you say it is an indicator not a guaranty, and a really good one when you look at a long enough history. a family crisis during my degree which several impacted my performance I would say that it is a pretty good indicator of how you behave in the future if those circumstances happen again. What is dangerous is not using enough data to make the determination. Your friends A-levels is just one data point, making a judgement on one data point isn't going to make a good choice.
I agree but I prefer to think that's a lack of agency [1] than proof that past performance doesn't correlate with future performance.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agency_(philosophy)
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agency_(philosophy)
The post isn't addressing third parties, but an individual's own self-perception. From an employer perspective, past performance is probably a good shorthand for expected performance in the future, but when looking to improve one's self, this is a dangerous assumption because it can cause you to quit before you even start (e.g. "I'm just not good at math").
Experience and learning are programming your brain to predict the future. To maximize your chance of success by action.
Correlation with the past depends on how unpredictable inputs may influence the computation of your future actions.
If you want to take it to extremes you might want to look into the induction problem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction
I think he is right. Past and future performance don't correlate. That is why employers do usually not look a resumes or references. Or why, say, Google and Microsoft don't ask tricky questions in interviews. Or why admission to graduate programs is never determined by your past grades and achievements. Wait, what?
Past and future performance do correlate in many cases, but "Google and Microsoft do it" has never been a valid argument for the correctness of anything. I hear that in Imperial China one had to pass a classical literature exam to get civil service jobs. There is a great deal of arbitrary convention in the things done by big companies, this is not evidence of optimality.
When people are at a loss for how to make a hiring decision and they have a giant pile of applications in front of them, they are liable to just choose whatever filter is available. It might not be any better than reading tea leaves, but at least the decision gets made. This is rational behavior when the cost of devising or applying a better criterion is high, but it doesn't mean the resulting criterion is the best thing possible.
When people are at a loss for how to make a hiring decision and they have a giant pile of applications in front of them, they are liable to just choose whatever filter is available. It might not be any better than reading tea leaves, but at least the decision gets made. This is rational behavior when the cost of devising or applying a better criterion is high, but it doesn't mean the resulting criterion is the best thing possible.
We are talking statistics here. When you see a hypothesis like "past performance does not correlate with future performance" you look around for evidence for or against it. All the examples I cited clearly speak against this hypothesis. Insofar, the fact that people use past behavior as a predictor for future behavior clearly speaks against the hypothesis.
I could go on with examples. Why is it for example, that people want to get to know each other better before they hop into some kind of mutual arrangement or contract? Could it be, because we all try to predict future behavior from past behavior?
Of course we could all be wrong - in general or in certain circumstances. Maybe a pedophile will never molest a child again in the future. Or maybe the girl you dated who was very obnoxious will change for the better. Yet, this is unlikely (remember: this is still a statistical argument). So the burden of proof is with the guy who came up with this hypothesis.
EDIT: Regarding the "the fact that Google does it doesn't proof anything" argument. Would you say that Google should just throw a coin to decide which applicant to take or simply take the first k applicants (say, in alphabetical order) and Google would not be worse off than they are with the current interview process?
I could go on with examples. Why is it for example, that people want to get to know each other better before they hop into some kind of mutual arrangement or contract? Could it be, because we all try to predict future behavior from past behavior?
Of course we could all be wrong - in general or in certain circumstances. Maybe a pedophile will never molest a child again in the future. Or maybe the girl you dated who was very obnoxious will change for the better. Yet, this is unlikely (remember: this is still a statistical argument). So the burden of proof is with the guy who came up with this hypothesis.
EDIT: Regarding the "the fact that Google does it doesn't proof anything" argument. Would you say that Google should just throw a coin to decide which applicant to take or simply take the first k applicants (say, in alphabetical order) and Google would not be worse off than they are with the current interview process?
Simple example are many famous artists. They used to be considered quacks, people who are a waste of canvas, but ended up being very influental and quite an important part of our culture.
Or take a look at music bands. First few albums are smashing hits, then suddenly, no more takers. Everything they create is simply not accepted by the fans. The mojo is gone.
Perhaps startups are a bit less fragile, or I just don't know enough history, but I think similar patterns emerge if you look widely enough.
edit: actually, We Live In Public (movie) could be a good example. Josh Harris had a really really successful first venture, after the web1.0 crash, nothing he tried doing really caught on and became something. At the end of the movie about him, he's hiding from creditors in africa or something.
Or take a look at music bands. First few albums are smashing hits, then suddenly, no more takers. Everything they create is simply not accepted by the fans. The mojo is gone.
Perhaps startups are a bit less fragile, or I just don't know enough history, but I think similar patterns emerge if you look widely enough.
edit: actually, We Live In Public (movie) could be a good example. Josh Harris had a really really successful first venture, after the web1.0 crash, nothing he tried doing really caught on and became something. At the end of the movie about him, he's hiding from creditors in africa or something.
> Simple example are many famous artists. They used to be considered quacks, people who are a waste of canvas, but ended up being very influental and quite an important part of our culture.
Performance and public perception are not the same thing. One is much more steady and less susceptible to wild and capricious swings than the other.
Most people have a fairly stable level of performance over time, except when dramatic or destructive events or behaviour interfere (such as drug abuse, stock market crashes, etc.) The millions of people who are stably employed and have been for years are clear evidence of this. If past performance was not an indicator of future performance, then work experience, resumes, and criminal histories are all meaningless.
Past performance is evidence for the consistency of present behaviour.
Performance and public perception are not the same thing. One is much more steady and less susceptible to wild and capricious swings than the other.
Most people have a fairly stable level of performance over time, except when dramatic or destructive events or behaviour interfere (such as drug abuse, stock market crashes, etc.) The millions of people who are stably employed and have been for years are clear evidence of this. If past performance was not an indicator of future performance, then work experience, resumes, and criminal histories are all meaningless.
Past performance is evidence for the consistency of present behaviour.
Those famous artists you mention did rise in the end, though, so that shows the process working rather than failing overall.
For every famous artist who struggled and then made it big, there are thousands of artists who were treated the same initially but really were crap. That's because a huge number of people want to be artists and 90% of everything is crap.
Now suppose that you are trying to make money by enabling artists, and it costs $10,000 to give one a try. If you take a chance on everyone, you will go broke because 90% of everything is crap and your few famous artists won't be enough to subsidize the rest.
So how do you filter?
For every famous artist who struggled and then made it big, there are thousands of artists who were treated the same initially but really were crap. That's because a huge number of people want to be artists and 90% of everything is crap.
Now suppose that you are trying to make money by enabling artists, and it costs $10,000 to give one a try. If you take a chance on everyone, you will go broke because 90% of everything is crap and your few famous artists won't be enough to subsidize the rest.
So how do you filter?
I think he wants more than examples. Your examples may be exceptions to the rule. Do you have any numbers?
Path dependence works, you know: the person you were will tend overall to shape the person you will be in the future.
You also can't just "decide to shape the future", you've got to actually analyze your past and develop ways of deflecting your current path. The problem people have is they think over-much and experiment too little.
You also can't just "decide to shape the future", you've got to actually analyze your past and develop ways of deflecting your current path. The problem people have is they think over-much and experiment too little.
"We become that with which we busy our minds."
Don't know who said it, but I love it. And I think it's a good tl;dr for this post.
Don't know who said it, but I love it. And I think it's a good tl;dr for this post.
Someone broke it;
"The requested URL /blog/the-man-you-want-to-be-does-not-matter/swizec/2071 was not found on this server."
"The requested URL /blog/the-man-you-want-to-be-does-not-matter/swizec/2071 was not found on this server."
Isn't tying ones self worth to others opinion a bit dangerous. There's always going to be people who don't like you/think you provide value etc. It's surely not healthy to rely on others for your self esteem, or to define who you are. This is only a small point from the article but I thought it important to question.
This revelation drove me to existentialism, which I lately realized was too inwardly-focused, but it ended up balancing my perceptions in a better way.
There are cases where thinking and not doing can help shape your future. In particular, I don't always have healthy thought patterns and spend a lot of time thinking about things that aren't really beneficial, often going around in circles. I think the author of the post would agree that I need to think about these things less! But while there may be some component of "doing" to correct your thinking (such as seeing a therapist, or doing online CBT, in the extreme cases) there is also a component of thinking. I've been trying to make more time to JUST think, which I suppose you might call meditation, and by allocating time to think, process, and move on I am reducing the overall time I spend in unconstructive thinking.
What if I don't care about being remembered, but just want to build something useful, and have economical success?
I love this article! Only had a chance to skim read it so far, but it looks along the same lines as a lot of things my friends have been discussing at the moment about making a worthwhile impact with our lives, especially the focus on NOW and starting small.
It held together up until the last sentence:
Which do you think better to be remembered for?
If the past doesn't matter and the future doesn't matter why then do you care how people in the future will remember you?
Which do you think better to be remembered for?
If the past doesn't matter and the future doesn't matter why then do you care how people in the future will remember you?
This reminds me of the Italo Calvino short story "The Light Years".
http://issuu.com/martuxa/docs/thelightyears
http://issuu.com/martuxa/docs/thelightyears
It DOES matter who you want to be and healthy ambitions never hurt. There are so many examples that hard work and time investment made someone a completely different person.
We can't all save the world. I guess the next best thing is a web app that is useful to our users.
can anyone post this article? Site is down..
Excellent post.
Maybe I am using a 'thinking shortcut', but can you please source the evidence for there not being a correlation between past performance and future performance?