I think we've been here before...
But, if advice is directed towards the mainstream, does that not put severe constraints on what kind of advice can possibly be given?
For example...
There's an absolute definition of a good exercise regime, but if the mainstream is too out of shape to even begin such a program, mainstream advice should aim at something more basic.
Ditto eating, ditto investing(*), ditto maybe all kinds of advice.
(*) Heck, I've taken to giving the following investment advice: "Well, if you have to ask, go for index funds [or worse, target year balanaced funds(**)].
(**) If anyone is going to ask why I think that's worse, I'm going to say ... well, if you have to ask ...
But you see what I mean ...
On giving general advice ...
-
aussierogue
- Posts: 379
- Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 1:02 pm
I agree
Most people who really wanna know a topic inside out will find their own way there. The ones who think they can get one piece of advice and solve a problem are probably not the ones who are ready to listed to the more comlicated and better advice that you (and I) may be willing to give.
I reckon many people realise they have a problem (whether its financial, emotiona whatever and then the next move is to seek a quick fix. Once they realise that a quick fix is often not the solution on offer then they glaze over and get distracted. And this is potentially where the dumbed down version comes in. Short and sweet, maximum impact eg "go with indexed funds"
Most people who really wanna know a topic inside out will find their own way there. The ones who think they can get one piece of advice and solve a problem are probably not the ones who are ready to listed to the more comlicated and better advice that you (and I) may be willing to give.
I reckon many people realise they have a problem (whether its financial, emotiona whatever and then the next move is to seek a quick fix. Once they realise that a quick fix is often not the solution on offer then they glaze over and get distracted. And this is potentially where the dumbed down version comes in. Short and sweet, maximum impact eg "go with indexed funds"
Advice depends on the circumstances. So general advice only holds in general circumstances. And "general" circumstances are obviously a gross simplification. So general advice is a gross simplification.
But still general advice can be quite useful: Spend less than you earn. Don't speculate with borrowed money. (Although there are specific circumstances where this general advice may not apply.)
By the same reasoning I think there is no "absolute definition of a good exercise regime" etc. It just depends on what you want to achieve and how the circumstances are. On the other hand if this absolute good exercise regime existed, I wanted to know about it. And then probably can show a specific situation where it does not apply.
But still general advice can be quite useful: Spend less than you earn. Don't speculate with borrowed money. (Although there are specific circumstances where this general advice may not apply.)
By the same reasoning I think there is no "absolute definition of a good exercise regime" etc. It just depends on what you want to achieve and how the circumstances are. On the other hand if this absolute good exercise regime existed, I wanted to know about it. And then probably can show a specific situation where it does not apply.
"But, if advice is directed towards the mainstream, does that not put severe constraints on what kind of advice can possibly be given?"
-- Yes, I would agree with this.
"Advice depends on the circumstances. So general advice only holds in general circumstances. And "general" circumstances are obviously a gross simplification. So general advice is a gross simplification."
-- I would agree with this, too, although I am not sure that most people live in "general circumstances" and they may be there only temporally -- in any event, you end up having to define what those circumstances are. But there's nothing wrong with starting with a few basics as you say, like B. Franklin's aphorisms.
My advice -- if you want good advice, follow people who have "been there and done that," but also matched your circumstances at some point in the past. For example, don't take advice about health from people who look terrible and don't take advice about growing wealth from people who inherited most of theirs.
-- Yes, I would agree with this.
"Advice depends on the circumstances. So general advice only holds in general circumstances. And "general" circumstances are obviously a gross simplification. So general advice is a gross simplification."
-- I would agree with this, too, although I am not sure that most people live in "general circumstances" and they may be there only temporally -- in any event, you end up having to define what those circumstances are. But there's nothing wrong with starting with a few basics as you say, like B. Franklin's aphorisms.
My advice -- if you want good advice, follow people who have "been there and done that," but also matched your circumstances at some point in the past. For example, don't take advice about health from people who look terrible and don't take advice about growing wealth from people who inherited most of theirs.
First, are you the Jacob who wrote ERE? Sorry for the dumb question but I'm new to this site.
"If advice is directed towards the mainstream, does that not put severe constraints on what kind of advice can possibly be given?"
You are probably well familiar with Chris Anderson's original blog post about the Long Tail (circa 2004: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/tail.html). If not, it's must reading (the book expands on the same theme, but the post is sufficient in order to grasp the concept). I will assume you have: the advice you give depends on where on the long tail (or short head) of the curve you are on. Nowadays, almost everything has gone to the very far end of the long tail. In other words, the mainstream has been niched down so that there are numerous mainstreams. Accordingly, my suggestion would be to provide advice as ruthlessly niched down as possible so that 1) you don't dilute its effectiveness; and 2) the people who need the advice will find you anyway.
"If advice is directed towards the mainstream, does that not put severe constraints on what kind of advice can possibly be given?"
You are probably well familiar with Chris Anderson's original blog post about the Long Tail (circa 2004: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/tail.html). If not, it's must reading (the book expands on the same theme, but the post is sufficient in order to grasp the concept). I will assume you have: the advice you give depends on where on the long tail (or short head) of the curve you are on. Nowadays, almost everything has gone to the very far end of the long tail. In other words, the mainstream has been niched down so that there are numerous mainstreams. Accordingly, my suggestion would be to provide advice as ruthlessly niched down as possible so that 1) you don't dilute its effectiveness; and 2) the people who need the advice will find you anyway.
-
jennypenny
- Posts: 6910
- Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm
-
zarathustra
- Posts: 172
- Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 11:15 pm
- Location: VEGAS, BABY
When giving advice, at least in person, I usually start by asking a few questions to understand what they're really asking and then give a large-brushstroke idea of what I really think. If their interest is piqued, they'll ask for more and then we'll go deeper. Sometimes they take the simple answer and ruminate and come back later or not at all. This way I don't waste time, but have done my best to honestly put them down a path of thinking that I think is helpful. Plant the seed and all that.
On the internet, I think this is much different, particularly in Jacob's shoes, where he is seen as an authority and will draw lots of casual and shallow inquiries.
On the internet, I think this is much different, particularly in Jacob's shoes, where he is seen as an authority and will draw lots of casual and shallow inquiries.
What is your goal in giving advice?
Do you want to help the person solve their problem? Do you want to solve it for them? Do you want them to understand why they are failing? Do you want to enjoy being the expert? Do you want them to take the first step on a self-guided path?......
Most people already know WHAT they need to do to take the first few steps to solve their problems. It is no mystery to them. The mystery is how to avoid the temptations luring them in the wrong direction.
Last week we gave a new lecture. It's been a few years since the last one. It was a good turnout with about fifty people. Inevitably during the Q&A someone asked how we afford to live our unusual lifestyle. I've got a canned response, "We've earned every penny we've spent... budget.... frugal.... do I need it or do I want it... " I could actually see the eyes of about half the audience gloss over.
I know that they desperately want the adventure. I suspect they are resigned to their inability to beat temptation. Our goal is to provide the non-glossy-eyed folks with something that motivates them more powerfully than immediate temptations.
We try to put a positive spin on what many see as extremism. By expanding how they define extreme frugality maybe some will triangulate it with extreme indebtedness and find a happy medium.
And if we are honest we have to admit we enjoy being experts.
Do you want to help the person solve their problem? Do you want to solve it for them? Do you want them to understand why they are failing? Do you want to enjoy being the expert? Do you want them to take the first step on a self-guided path?......
Most people already know WHAT they need to do to take the first few steps to solve their problems. It is no mystery to them. The mystery is how to avoid the temptations luring them in the wrong direction.
Last week we gave a new lecture. It's been a few years since the last one. It was a good turnout with about fifty people. Inevitably during the Q&A someone asked how we afford to live our unusual lifestyle. I've got a canned response, "We've earned every penny we've spent... budget.... frugal.... do I need it or do I want it... " I could actually see the eyes of about half the audience gloss over.
I know that they desperately want the adventure. I suspect they are resigned to their inability to beat temptation. Our goal is to provide the non-glossy-eyed folks with something that motivates them more powerfully than immediate temptations.
We try to put a positive spin on what many see as extremism. By expanding how they define extreme frugality maybe some will triangulate it with extreme indebtedness and find a happy medium.
And if we are honest we have to admit we enjoy being experts.
-
BeyondtheWrap
- Posts: 598
- Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:38 pm
- Location: NYC
Well, this is one of those areas of human relations that I always find murky. On the one hand, I am prompted to offer general advice when it's requested because I want to be helpful and build up social capital. But in most cases, general advice is inadequate and rapidly reveals the need for more specialized advice. Then, sometimes I can oblige and sometimes I cannot, depending on the subject. And even when I can, I rub up against a proverb that a mentor of mine shared with me when I was new to the practice of law: Free advice is worth what you pay for it.
In other words, if you want good, actionable advice of real value on a specific issue, be prepared to pay. Free advice is for the mildly curious.
In other words, if you want good, actionable advice of real value on a specific issue, be prepared to pay. Free advice is for the mildly curious.
Sometimes turning the negative into a positive is the best advice.
If someone wants to learn or change and you are the advisor, I think it beneficial to point out the exact opposite of the desired action and say do THIS not THAT. This is the exact opposite of following the been there done that herd.
An example of this is clinical fellowship or residency in a medical setting. Almost as quickly as I learned how I wanted to shape my practice by observing others, I also developed a sense of what I did not want to do by observing the clowns.
If someone wants to learn or change and you are the advisor, I think it beneficial to point out the exact opposite of the desired action and say do THIS not THAT. This is the exact opposite of following the been there done that herd.
An example of this is clinical fellowship or residency in a medical setting. Almost as quickly as I learned how I wanted to shape my practice by observing others, I also developed a sense of what I did not want to do by observing the clowns.
But, if advice is directed towards the mainstream, does that not put severe constraints on what kind of advice can possibly be given?
Similar to academia's problem, hence grade levels, honor groupings and prerequisites. So yes, it's constrained at least initially. More like dropping breadcrumbs, or maybe Reeses Pieces for ET, to lead those who are willing and able. The starting points, however, will always differ.
I've been asked to help develop some apps that provide general advice to a general audience; crowd-sourced and crowd-rated for effectiveness. A sort of FAQ on steroids. But I've also had discussions on the next level, i.e., designing an environment that leads people of varying capabilities into and through a subject, providing multiple paths and starting points to eventually get very different people to the same destination as efficiently as possible.
@Ego mentioned the alternate motivations for giving and receiving advice. Too often, a person asking advice is not seeking a guru but rather a genie (or maybe just an argument). I loved Ego's method of dividing sheep and goats; I could practically hear the sound of foreheads hitting tabletops
For many, reality doesn't sell very well.
But there is the advice giver's motivation as well. I was accused of being "professor-centric" in my approach, but responded that since I do teach, I have to take my pleasure where I can find it!
Similar to academia's problem, hence grade levels, honor groupings and prerequisites. So yes, it's constrained at least initially. More like dropping breadcrumbs, or maybe Reeses Pieces for ET, to lead those who are willing and able. The starting points, however, will always differ.
I've been asked to help develop some apps that provide general advice to a general audience; crowd-sourced and crowd-rated for effectiveness. A sort of FAQ on steroids. But I've also had discussions on the next level, i.e., designing an environment that leads people of varying capabilities into and through a subject, providing multiple paths and starting points to eventually get very different people to the same destination as efficiently as possible.
@Ego mentioned the alternate motivations for giving and receiving advice. Too often, a person asking advice is not seeking a guru but rather a genie (or maybe just an argument). I loved Ego's method of dividing sheep and goats; I could practically hear the sound of foreheads hitting tabletops
For many, reality doesn't sell very well. But there is the advice giver's motivation as well. I was accused of being "professor-centric" in my approach, but responded that since I do teach, I have to take my pleasure where I can find it!
@Dropbar -- yes, that's him. As for your link, as with many other things, ITS ALL ABOUT POWER LAWS, baby. They are everywhere.
I was thinking again about the general question, and it came to me that general advice without having a specific goal in mind is probably not very valuable.
Whenever people ask me for advice, I usually ask them what they are trying to accomplish. I find that a lot of times they have not thought the problem through and whether their goals align with the general advice that they have heard before they asked me.
I was thinking again about the general question, and it came to me that general advice without having a specific goal in mind is probably not very valuable.
Whenever people ask me for advice, I usually ask them what they are trying to accomplish. I find that a lot of times they have not thought the problem through and whether their goals align with the general advice that they have heard before they asked me.
-
aussierogue
- Posts: 379
- Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 1:02 pm
-
jacob
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17124
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
- Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
- Contact:
My original post was somewhat vague and inspired by the many "what should I invest in?"-emails I still get---in particular since I now get them from a broad swath of the population and not just twenty-something INTJs.
By general advice, I didn't mean unspecific advice. I meant advice to the general person, advice for the "great masses",a kind of propaganda if you will.
But actually I'm more interested in the direction of this post on puppetmasters. Maybe it would be better to attempt to correct for the recipient of the message? The problem is that what might be the best advice for a novice (or someone who wishes to remain a novice) is not necessarily the best advice for more advanced studies. I'm conflicted between explaining things one way for the novice and then upon asked for more advanced information having to say that "everything I just told you is actually a simplification and not entirely right---this is the right answer"... and then imagine having to do the same thing for the third time: "The second answer I gave you is also not quite how I see it. Here's the next 'evolution'".
By general advice, I didn't mean unspecific advice. I meant advice to the general person, advice for the "great masses",a kind of propaganda if you will.
But actually I'm more interested in the direction of this post on puppetmasters. Maybe it would be better to attempt to correct for the recipient of the message? The problem is that what might be the best advice for a novice (or someone who wishes to remain a novice) is not necessarily the best advice for more advanced studies. I'm conflicted between explaining things one way for the novice and then upon asked for more advanced information having to say that "everything I just told you is actually a simplification and not entirely right---this is the right answer"... and then imagine having to do the same thing for the third time: "The second answer I gave you is also not quite how I see it. Here's the next 'evolution'".
IMO the distinction is between conveying information, and educating. Any deep subject has a partial order of prerequisite concepts that need to be understood prior to consequential concepts. A good mentor/teacher adds value by assessing where a student really is and guiding them through one of the many viable paths through the material.
This requires personalized attention and is why the Internet has not completely obsoleted the field of teaching. (The quasi-teaching service of going through the motions of someone else's canned powerpoints and exams is obsolete, though.)
The process can be semi-automated with a curriculum, which is an ordering of topics and consistent terminology intended to take a student from a defined starting point to a defined end point. A good textbook has a curricular perspective, which is the value it adds over a collection of wiki articles.
I actually think Dave Ramsey's baby steps is a wise curriculum, for his target audience.
http://www.daveramsey.com/new/baby-steps/
It's true that his algorithm is sub-optimal w.r.t. risk-adjusted return, but that's not the point. Envision working through the steps as a financial novice who is impressionable enough to have fallen into debt and has no positive financial role models. Step 1 teaches LBYM and that operating on a cash basis makes money solve problems instead of cause them. Step 2 teaches setting and achieving medium-term goals and how compounding works. And so on. These are big important concepts and I think he gets the order right.
So, I say if you want to be a mentor, go ahead and write personalized responses and don't be afraid to modulate the content to the recipient. If you want to teach in an automated way, develop a curriculum. If you don't want that responsibility, convey information. Though I think your Dogs of the Dow post was an effective information-conveyance, and people are still asking for more, so I don't think conveying more information will make the emails stop.
This requires personalized attention and is why the Internet has not completely obsoleted the field of teaching. (The quasi-teaching service of going through the motions of someone else's canned powerpoints and exams is obsolete, though.)
The process can be semi-automated with a curriculum, which is an ordering of topics and consistent terminology intended to take a student from a defined starting point to a defined end point. A good textbook has a curricular perspective, which is the value it adds over a collection of wiki articles.
I actually think Dave Ramsey's baby steps is a wise curriculum, for his target audience.
http://www.daveramsey.com/new/baby-steps/
It's true that his algorithm is sub-optimal w.r.t. risk-adjusted return, but that's not the point. Envision working through the steps as a financial novice who is impressionable enough to have fallen into debt and has no positive financial role models. Step 1 teaches LBYM and that operating on a cash basis makes money solve problems instead of cause them. Step 2 teaches setting and achieving medium-term goals and how compounding works. And so on. These are big important concepts and I think he gets the order right.
So, I say if you want to be a mentor, go ahead and write personalized responses and don't be afraid to modulate the content to the recipient. If you want to teach in an automated way, develop a curriculum. If you don't want that responsibility, convey information. Though I think your Dogs of the Dow post was an effective information-conveyance, and people are still asking for more, so I don't think conveying more information will make the emails stop.