I view them as two slightly different things. Consider 3 different counts: A. the number of projects you start, B. the number of projects you are able to do justice to and take to completion (whether it is a success or a failure), C. the number of projects that are success. The "hell yes or no" advice is for people who have a tendency to have a high A and a low B, because they start too many projects and aren't able to do justice to any of them. For these people, the B/A ratio is very low, and obviously C remains low because B is low.
In this article, the advice being given is for people who don't start a project unless they think there is a good chance it will succeed. They have low A, low B, and low C. (And this becomes increasingly true as you become senior and successful, you have more reputation to lose from failures.) They keep trying to pick smartly so that they'll have a high C/B ratio. However, the data shows that you cannot increase the C/B ratio. The only way to get a high C is from a high B (where B counts as projects you did justice to).
So, this article is saying, keep your B high. "Hell yes or no" says that you should keep your B/A ratio high (don't start projects that you will not be able to do justice to.) The important subtle point here is that when thinking of whether a project is "hell yes" or "no", don't think in terms of is it likely to succeed or not (because you cannot predict that), but in terms of whether you will be able to put in your full effort or not. Start a project only if you're able to say "Hell yes" to the effort. (You can see this coming back to Karmanyevaadhikaraste: you can control the effort, you cannot control success.)
But do you really think that this is good generalization?
Since I'm involved in the Indian classical music community, I immediately thought of many masters who hardly perform.
On one hand there is Ustad Zakir Hussain who performs in about 180 concerts every year. His music goes from deeply mathematical to completely free form. I don't think there's any other musician who can wander comfortably across so many genres.
And on the other hand, there is Vidushi Kishori Amonkar who hardly performed. But in my opinion, her understanding of ragas is unparalleled. She can very easily take her audience to another level with her music. But she used to perform in only ~20 concerts a year.
Maybe this is unique to the Indian classical music world.
I think I'm making the mistake of measuring quantity in terms of number of performances. Maybe quantity should be measured in terms of riyaz hours. :)
I don't know about Indian classical music, so cannot really comment on that. But one thing to keep in mind is that the rule is probabilistic: there are always outliers since some humans have amazing abilities. Another possibility is that Kishori Amonkar does a lot of work/experimentation in smaller circles...
In other areas though, I have noticed that some of the smartest and most accomplished people keep reinventing themselves, and constantly trying new things. In spite of world-famous achievements, they become like new students when they come in touch with someone/something that knows more about a new domain that they find interesting.
"Actions are deterministic, while success is probabilistic" Loved this line. Thank you.
Please consider making a series of posts about how lessons from Gita are still relevant in the modern world!
Thanks. Will be trying that.
Does the popular advice "hell yeah or no" (reducing the quantity and range of things one does) goes against this?
I view them as two slightly different things. Consider 3 different counts: A. the number of projects you start, B. the number of projects you are able to do justice to and take to completion (whether it is a success or a failure), C. the number of projects that are success. The "hell yes or no" advice is for people who have a tendency to have a high A and a low B, because they start too many projects and aren't able to do justice to any of them. For these people, the B/A ratio is very low, and obviously C remains low because B is low.
In this article, the advice being given is for people who don't start a project unless they think there is a good chance it will succeed. They have low A, low B, and low C. (And this becomes increasingly true as you become senior and successful, you have more reputation to lose from failures.) They keep trying to pick smartly so that they'll have a high C/B ratio. However, the data shows that you cannot increase the C/B ratio. The only way to get a high C is from a high B (where B counts as projects you did justice to).
So, this article is saying, keep your B high. "Hell yes or no" says that you should keep your B/A ratio high (don't start projects that you will not be able to do justice to.) The important subtle point here is that when thinking of whether a project is "hell yes" or "no", don't think in terms of is it likely to succeed or not (because you cannot predict that), but in terms of whether you will be able to put in your full effort or not. Start a project only if you're able to say "Hell yes" to the effort. (You can see this coming back to Karmanyevaadhikaraste: you can control the effort, you cannot control success.)
thanks for the great explanation
Loved this article. Thanks! :)
But do you really think that this is good generalization?
Since I'm involved in the Indian classical music community, I immediately thought of many masters who hardly perform.
On one hand there is Ustad Zakir Hussain who performs in about 180 concerts every year. His music goes from deeply mathematical to completely free form. I don't think there's any other musician who can wander comfortably across so many genres.
And on the other hand, there is Vidushi Kishori Amonkar who hardly performed. But in my opinion, her understanding of ragas is unparalleled. She can very easily take her audience to another level with her music. But she used to perform in only ~20 concerts a year.
Maybe this is unique to the Indian classical music world.
I think I'm making the mistake of measuring quantity in terms of number of performances. Maybe quantity should be measured in terms of riyaz hours. :)
I don't know about Indian classical music, so cannot really comment on that. But one thing to keep in mind is that the rule is probabilistic: there are always outliers since some humans have amazing abilities. Another possibility is that Kishori Amonkar does a lot of work/experimentation in smaller circles...
In other areas though, I have noticed that some of the smartest and most accomplished people keep reinventing themselves, and constantly trying new things. In spite of world-famous achievements, they become like new students when they come in touch with someone/something that knows more about a new domain that they find interesting.
*this is _a_ good generalization?