Jacob Robinson's Blog, page 26
August 3, 2020
Fog of War
In this post, I want to deconstruct a classic phrase: “If you work hard and make the right decisions, you will succeed.”
It doesn’t take a PhD to tell that there’s some obfuscation here. What exactly are “right decisions”? What exactly is “working hard”? I would argue here that the sentence itself is solid structurally speaking (we wouldn’t say “If you work lazy and make the wrong decisions, you will succeed” is a valid sentence). I would also argue that this obfuscation is the “fog of war” that makes success so damn hard in the first place.
Okay, let’s start by cutting this down to a very simple micro phrase. Let’s say that “making the right health decisions includes a daily meditation practice”. Here we’ve straight up chopped off the working hard section and specified a microcosm of decisions and, most importantly, gave a concrete example for what a right decision might look like.
With this, we can see wherein the issue lies. For example, who gets to decide whether a daily meditation practice really is a “right decision”? We can assume that right decisions must be correlated in some way with success. So is having a daily meditation practice correlated with success? Is getting a job at a high-growth startup correlated with success? Is writing 500 words a day correlated with success?
What we end up finding is that there is a finite (but very large!) sets of categories we can make append with finite (but very large!) “right decision” items. And these subsets can be described as a list of all activities correlated with success. Of course, correlation is not causation. Because of this, we cannot guarantee that these events generate success; however, there is likely an optimal mix of items that maximize chance of success.
Speaking of optimums, this is how the first part of that sentence, “work hard”, can be defined as. Once again, let’s break it down; let’s focus on, say, running. Now, we can say some level of running is good for you, given our current information. Because of this, it would be considered a “right decision” item. There’s one issue with this, however: run too hard, and you’ll end up straining and injuring your legs. On the other hand, run too little and you won’t get the long-term gains that make it a “right decision” in the first place. Based on this, there must be some optimal point in which you can milk a right decision for the maximum amount.
So, at this point you’re probably wondering what the hell I’m trying to get at with all of this. Well, the point is that there is a specified, probabilistically optimized path to success that occurs in nature, but this path is obscured by the “fog of war”, which is our knowledge (and lackthereof) of what items correlate and optimize for success. Put another way: if you go about your day taking life as it comes, you might have a (for sake of example) 30% chance of success. However, if you a) find the “right decisions”, and b) optimize the “right decisions”, your chance of success shoots up. In fact, if you’re really good, you may very well be able to have a chance of success well above 90%!
Of course, now we hit another elephant in the room: what is success? We’ve defined how to get success, but we haven’t defined success itself. Is success the ability to hit your goals? That would make sense; we could say that 90% chance of success is exactly the same as 90% chance of achieving goal A. But, at the same time, isn’t goal-setting a “right decision” item? How can having goals be both a right decision and the thing which success effects in itself?
Well, it could be that goal-setting is simply removing the fog of war from the goals we have. This means that we all have goals that inherently exist, we just might not know how to adequately describe them in terms that would allow us to develop a path towards them. This is pretty believable, and it’s the thesis I personally follow; everyone has something they’re passionate about, or some vague interpretation of what they’d like to become, and that vague interpretation really serves as the true goal covered in the fog of war.
So, to sum all this up: we can translate the phrase “If you work hard and make the right decisions, you will succeed” by splitting it into three subphrases. Firstly, “make the right decisions” refers to the set of decisions that are correlated with success. Secondly, “work hard” refers to the optimal amount of work to obtain the highest probability of success from a right decision. Thirdly, success can be defined as achieving your personal goals — though you’ll have to figure out what those goals are first.
[image error]
Join my email list
Processing…
Success! You're on the list.
Whoops! There was an error and we couldn't process your subscription. Please reload the page and try again.
July 27, 2020
Managing Your Personal KPIs
When we want to understand the success of a product launch, we use KPIs — key performance indicators — to figure out what went right and what went wrong. But, what if we want to understand the success of our lives? What indicators do we use?
How do you measure your life? Salary? Amount of time spent with family? Books read?
These are questions I asked myself not too long ago. I know I have an indeterminate, finite amount of time left on this Earth; and my bizarrely structured brain insists on optimizing that time to the best method possible.
When I thought about optimizing it, I first considered the lifeblood of data analysis: KPIs and OKRs.
KPIs, or key performance indicators, are the vital measures for which you determine whether something is a success. For example, if I’m Facebook and I’m trying to determine the success of a new “Facebook Dating” app, I might want to consider sign ups, installs, monthly active users (MAUs), or in-app ad impressions. Really all these measures have their own pros and cons, and it’s up to the user to determine which they want to call “key”.
On the other hand, OKRs (or objectives and key results) are a system in which you create radical goals and then use the data from the results of those goals to determine where to go next. For example, Facebook might make the OKR of getting one million MAUs in six months. During that time they’ve strive to hit that goal, then at the end of six months they’ll circle back and determine how much they actually got, as well as any other effects or lessons that came out of that process.
So, when I first began trying to implement these two processes, I first had to determine what the hell I was measuring in the first place. This meant defining my goals in life in easy, quantifiable terms.
Alright, well… I knew I wanted to stay fit and health in the long term, and run a successful business, and work down my entertainment backlog — just as a few examples. So, now it was time to figure out how to set metrics for all these.
The entertainment backlog is certainly the easiest and most straightforward — you can literally just say “number of movies watched” or “number of games beaten” and call it a day. You might even go for extravagance and say “number of insights gleamed from books”, or something like that. But the end goal translates pretty nicely into a metric regardless of how you slice it.
Business is another fairly easy one, although in this case you’d have to define “success”. Is it in MRR? Or PNL? Or LTV/CAC? Or any of the other ridiculous business acronyms that exist out there?
Well, first I had to dive down on why I wanted to have a successful business in the first place. When I got down to it, I really just wanted the autonomy; to be my own boss, and do what I wanted when I wanted. So, in that case, my goal would be to have a profitable company that gives me enough to live a reasonable life.
Well, let’s markdown a “reasonable life” as roughly 55k/yr in salary (on 55k/yr with your own company is the “emotional equivalent” of 120k/yr in a real job — this is an interesting idea I’ve learned about that I’ll share in a future blog post!). So, 55k divided by 12 is roughly $4,600 a month. So, is my goal to hit 4.6k MMR?
Well, not quite! Recall that revenue is a top line item, which means we still need to incorporate variable costs, as well as any amount saved for taxes/reinvestment. To keep things simple, let’s say that these together amount for roughly 30% of the total revenue. So, the real number we’d be after is 55k * 1.3 = 71.5k, or ~6k MMR.
Alright, well that’s business down. Now we move on to health. This is where things… get tricky.
Firstly, what does “being healthy” mean, anyway? It’s easy to define “healthy” in terms of a business (make more money than you spend), and it’s easy to define “healthy” for a backlog (finish something, damn it!). But what the hell is “being healthy”… you know, in general? Is it getting 8 hours of sleep? Or being on a mediterranean diet? Or walking 8,000 steps a day? Or having a regular meditation practice? Or all of the above? With business, we just had to find the measure… but at the end of the day, MMR and PNL and LTV/CAC all meant the same thing as “make more money than you spend”. But none of these ones have anything to do with each other at all!
Secondly, there’s a lot of factors going into this. For example, what’s my OKR if I choose “diet” as my KPI? Eat 100 green beans by the end of the month? Is that really going to make me more healthy? And what about something like weight lifting — I might be able to bench 200 pounds now, but will I be able to bench 200 pounds when I’m 80? Probably not. That means that the number will naturally go down, which means it doesn’t help all that much as a metric!
In cases like these, we’ll have to mess with our definition of the metrics. In diet, we might want to play a finite game — if we convert all of the things we eat to healthy foods, then we win. Whereas with fitness, we might do a conditional process — understand what’s good for our current condition (such as age), and try to score a high in a relative sense.
So, with these KPIs, they can always be made. More importantly, they can definitely keep you on track for your goals. You really just have to keep in mind how you’ll be able to adequately quantify your metrics, and what system the OKRs will work on. But the power of technical analysis does work, at least in my experience.
[image error]
Join my email list
Processing…
Success! You're on the list.
Whoops! There was an error and we couldn't process your subscription. Please reload the page and try again.
July 20, 2020
How to Get into Harvard
So, how do you get into Harvard? Well, it’s actually quite easy. Let’s break it down.
To simplify things, I’ll assume that Harvard looks for three main criteria: smarts (How do the score on education?), drive (How much quality stuff do they do?), and background (How did they get to where they are today?).
Let’s start off with our first example. Let’s assume that a person has essentially infinite resources. Then, by the function of opportunity, it’s pretty easy to hit all three of these criteria. You’ll have access to the best schools from a starting point, thus easing the pathway to get into the best schools in the future — at these schools, you’ll have a competitive motivating factor and an eye on the best opportunities available. These two together get the checkmarks on smarts and drive.
Let me elaborate. The best schools themselves have the most resources. They have the best teachers, who teach material in such a way that makes it easier to score on “national” tests, such as subject tests, since they are competing against other “average” teachers.
In addition, the best schools are highly competitive. Humans tend to be highly competitive by nature (I’ll contend that point in a little bit), and so on average this allows them to score higher.
Finally, the best schools scout opportunities for their students. They might encourage them to apply for a startup accelerator, or conduct some research in high school. And, because the student has “essentially infinite resources”, paying for these opportunities isn’t an issue.
Really the only checkmark here that is in jeopardy is background. This depends largely on a person’s mindset; for example, if they are not highly competitive, they may suffer in school and therefore have a lower GPA in comparison to colleagues. Or they might not be motivated to partake in any opportunities. Or they become ill, mentally or physically, and they falter because of this.
But, one might say, even this isn’t an issue. Because the best schools also have the best tutors, and the best counselors, who can then assist these students with their problems or otherwise help them craft a personal statement that ignores these issues entirely. So we’ve come to one conclusion in our first example, which is that it is pretty easy for someone with a lot of resources to get into Harvard.
Now, let’s do another example. Say we have a person with a lot of drive but limited resources. These resources aren’t too limited; right now we might be referring to someone in the US middle class hierarchy. In this case, it’s a lot harder to get into contact with the best schools right out of the gate, and therefore some momentum needs to be built. But as I mentioned, this is a person who scores highly in drive; they scour the internet for opportunities, and although they’re putting in a lot more work than the people with a lot of resources they’re still finding the same help and are able to capitalize on these opportunities. Some of these opportunities may be too expensive — for example, a middle class family would likely not be able to afford for their child to study abroad at a high class English institution for a summer — but in this modern age there’s enough that is freely available either through scholarship or through the internet that it’s still reasonable to say they can access the information needed.
A unique characteristic of this example is that the “background” section is actually even easier! An institution like Harvard is more willing to forgive foibles in a person’s academic or experiential career if they’re more limited in resources, provided that they’re able to back that up. And while the drive individual isn’t getting a personal statement review for free, they likely have enough motivation to ask the right people anyway. And, since we’re assuming they’re already in a competitive and determined mindset, that won’t be an issue either. We can assume out of this that they’ll score good in “smarts” as well. So, for these people, a big fat scholarship and access to Harvard — delivered!
…of course, you’re likely already starting to catch the issues at play here. There is a massive amount of hard work required here, and a stern mindset to boot. While this is possible, it may only be possible for 5% of the middle class students; the other 95% get left in the dust.
But this is alright, right? After all, Harvard’s reputation is surrounded by hard work and mindset. All the private institutions are going after this 5% demographic; it’s their main source of capital!
Well, let me bring you to the last example. Let’s keep the “drive” factor constant, but let’s reduce the resources significantly. So, now we’re dealing with someone who might be from the US poor class. Let’s run the simulation again.
So, our student is a scout. But can we guarantee that they will be able to achieve the same opportunities as our previous examples? Now, things are not quite clear. In fact, we can’t even be certain this person has an internet connection.
But, there are always some free opportunities around, and there are always some that are local. So let’s say that our poor student is a real eagle, and they’re able to know about all these things. Well now, time becomes an issue.
Poorer students have to take the bus. Poorer students have to take care of their families. How can a poor student take on all the burdens of poverty, while still finding time to reach our three criteria?
Well, it’s possible. And it’s been done before. In fact, it is often the case that the ones who come out of poverty to reach these points are the greatest of them all. But this is rare; in fact, it is a once in a lifetime event.
Alright, now let’s peel back and see things as a whole. I’ll make up some statistics: let’s say that 40% of the “rich” make it into Harvard (they’re still competing against themselves, after all!), 5% of the “middle” make it into Harvard, and 1% of the “poor” make it into Harvard. This seems pretty off; after all, we already established that all of these students had the same underlying traits! Well, perhaps this is something to think about, further down the road.
[image error]
Join my email list
Processing…
Success! You're on the list.
Whoops! There was an error and we couldn't process your subscription. Please reload the page and try again.
July 13, 2020
The Life Cycle of a Business
If you don’t find product-market fit, your company dies. But if you do survive long enough to find fit, an interesting thing happens; all companies go through just about the same life cycle every time.
The cycle begins with what I will refer to as the “the ladder”. The ladder involves random shots of popularity for a product, mostly driven by marketing and viral efforts. This is where product-market fit comes into play; if the fit is good, the ladder will only serve to help the firm; this is because customers are more “sticky”, i.e. they will stay with the product longer after the popularity shot. If there is no fit, you’ll see something more akin to a spike of hope; a large splash in popularity followed by 0 use yet again. This survival of the ladder is called the “innovative start”, innovative in that the fit proves the product is a needed change for its current market.
From here, we see the period of massive growth. This is typically spread by word of mouth, or otherwise increased marketing spend thanks to inflowing revenues. This is marked by a surge of new hires, new products, and new media controversies; among other things. It is the perennial “startup” stage, a stage where one might say the fun stuff happens. Unfortunately, the fun stuff doesn’t last forever.
Many companies die during the massive growth stage, particularly in recessions. But those that survive only live to see the period of bureaucratic end. The end of growth is marked by a complex interweaving of divisions, project plans, and budget sheets; such that the only way to control this complexity is by developing a bureaucratic structure. Now, many companies can survive extended periods in the bureaucratic end — companies like Coca Cola and GE are a testament to that — but from here on out, the firm moves too slowly to defend itself against ever changing market conditions and other, younger companies at the innovative start or massive growth stages.
From here, the slow decline starts. Think Macy’s or Sears: companies that once were the stars of their industry have now been taken down by a falling retail market as well as ecommerce starts like Amazon. Such is the eventual fate of all companies, given the aspects of mobility and market adaptation. From here, the companies are slowly picked apart by these forces until their eventual end.
This sounds like a doom and gloom filled depiction, but also understand how long these lifespans are. Macy’s was founded in 1858, 161 years ago. Coca Cola, which is still doing quite fine in the bureaucratic end stage, is 133 years old. And even then, some companies manage to revive themselves like a phoenix; still following the lifecycle process but using their slow decline to instead pivot into an innovative start in a new path. Nintendo is possibly the best example of this; a 130 year old card game company in decline, that decided to take a risk in the modern era and ended up developing a massive share in one of the biggest markets of the current era. The lifecycle is law; but you can always use it to your advantage.
[image error]
Join my email list
Processing…
Success! You're on the list.
Whoops! There was an error and we couldn't process your subscription. Please reload the page and try again.
July 6, 2020
Suicide and the Self
Suicide is a massively taboo topic. In addition — perhaps by causation — it is immensely interesting to discuss. In this post I’m going to go over some basic theory on suicide, and perhaps give some useful tips to help those dealing with suicidal tendencies.
The most important thing to know about suicide is that it is inherently rational. Suicide itself is a reaction to an intense pain of sorts; perhaps mental pain, which is the most common, but it can also occur for physical pain as well. When our bodies’ pain receptors act up, we act in a way to remove the stimulus. But, if the pain is all encompassing, the only way to remove the stimulus is to remove the body.
This analogy makes pretty clear sense for physical pain, but we need to dive a little bit deeper when it comes to mental pain. Most consider the fact that mental pain isn’t “real pain”, as it doesn’t trigger the aforementioned pain receptors. However, just because mental hurt doesn’t trigger physical pain doesn’t mean that it can’t qualify as a pain in itself. Rather, the process just takes a detour; things like depression and anxiety hit the brain directly, imbalancing brain chemicals and causing what is ultimately the same effect: remove the body.
There’s also a less biology heavy explanation to all this, which I think is also appropriate to consider. It is very easy, on a depressive mindset, to justify suicide. One of the major features of the depressive mindset is its focus on short-term forecasting rather than long-term forecasting. Obviously, when things are bad now, they’ll probably be bad later… but they won’t be bad forever. This statement is what many people start off with in trying to persuade someone out of a suicidal tendency, but the truth is that those within the tendency cannot actually see forever, at least in an abstract way.
So, there’s two ways we can combat this. One is the major way that’s used by therapists in general. Another is a way that I think helps hit at the issue more abstractly, and is the method I used when I was in suicidal tendency many years ago.
The therapist way is simple; it’s to listen and not try to provide solutions. To most, this can seem very, very counterintuitive. However, the Socratic method actually works quite well here. If you let the individual find out their own missteps, they’ll create cognitive dissonance; a cognitive dissonance that fortunately tends to lead them down the right path.
The second way, and the way I personally like to think of things, lends credence to the second part of this article’s title: the self.
There are both external and internal pressures that affect the self. External pressures — a lost job, a breakup, death of a loved one — cannot be controlled. However, external pressures lead to internal pressures — “I’m not good enough”, “I will never amount to anything” — which can, in some aspects, be controlled.
Internal pressures can be controlled by controlling the state of the self. By the state of the self, I mean how the self portrays itself, via self esteem, inner happiness, etc. These factors don’t cure depression, but they do a very good job of protecting against it. A person who has a solid state of the self is less likely to have to worry about external pressures becoming internal pressures.
This factor seems much more preventative than something you can use while you’re in the middle of it, but my mindset change in this regard during my depression I think helped quite a lot. The first thing I recognized is that my internal world was a lot more important than what was going on externally. This wasn’t a big jump to make, even in a depressive mood. You are with yourself permanently, 24/7, whereas the external environment comes and goes; the logic is there and it isn’t closely related enough to the pressure for there to be any major refusal. Secondly, there is the understanding that the majority of what is happening in the internal world is self-inflicted, whereas most of the overall pain is coming from the external world. Pretty difficult to weasel out of this one; pain as a definition is external, and the only way you can truly feel bad about yourself is if you make yourself believe that you are bad. These two points together (given enough repetition) was enough to convince me that perhaps my troubles weren’t as strong as I thought they were.
Hopefully all this together helps. Any of these topics (mental health, suicide, self concept, etc.) I would be willing to write more on in the future, and likely will. Let me know in the comments if you all have any of your own personal thoughts/strategies when it comes to this topic!
…
[image error]
Join my email list
Processing…
Success! You're on the list.
Whoops! There was an error and we couldn't process your subscription. Please reload the page and try again.
June 29, 2020
People Productivity
When we think of productivity, we typically think about machines, or automation, or efficiency planning. But can you get to a higher level of productivity using nothing but people?
When I think about people productivity, I typically think it regards the influence of two major stakeholders: the customers and the employees. These represent the two sides of supply and demand: the customers are the ones who want your product, whereas the employees are supplying it. Therefore, if you maximize for these two audiences, you in turn maximize your supply and demand.
How do you maximize? Well, the best way to get people to do what you want them to do is to make them happy. In all simplicity, it goes as follows:
Happy Customers + Happy Employees = Maximum People Productivity
So, how do you get these stakeholders happy? This, in all honesty, is a subject all to itself and it is impossible for me to fully describe in a single blog post. However, I won’t leave you completely empty handed, so I’ll drop a few good tips.
The first is to make sure your stakeholders are happy, but not docile. You can make employees happy by giving them a lot of free time and snacks, but that’s not going to make them more productive. The way you make them happy really matters. Give them meaningful work, and control over their position, and they will work at their fullest. Same thing for customers; give them free stuff, and they’ll come… but you’ll be bankrupt before that even means anything. Make them work for it by assigning giveaways to referrals, or stay away from the strategy entirely.
Another tip: start with extrinsic motivation and end in intrinsic motivation. Motivation is really the key to this entire formula. I’m sure you can even see the connection to it in the first tip. Start by roping people in with the extrinsics (employees: high salary, good growth; customers: referral rewards, gamification) but make sure you cement the deal with intrinsics (employees: the meaningful control I mentioned above; customers: true brand loyalty).
These things; motivation, meaningful work, loyalty… they aren’t easy. If they were, they wouldn’t be competitive advantages. Take this information in mind, especially if you’ve already maximized productivity on other fronts, and it will serve you well.
…
[image error]
Join my email list
Processing…
Success! You're on the list.
Whoops! There was an error and we couldn't process your subscription. Please reload the page and try again.
June 22, 2020
Biological Evolution, Cultural Evolution
Most of us know how biological evolution works; good old Darwinian science, natural selection, etc. etc. But, in the modern age, our societies transform and evolve at a much faster rate than any possible mutation. So, why is that?
I believe there are two types of evolution: biological evolution and cultural evolution. Not only that, but also that cultural evolution is much more important to the current state of humanity.
Cultural evolution can be defined as the development of societies over time based on the stories and traditions taught from one generation to the next. These mutations, based on events, are then transferred over to different groups. “Natural selection” occurs in the form of the ideas ability to spread; if the idea is shot down easily, then that line of the “mutation” will falter and die.
This develops through the nature/nurture theory, where the analog is of course nature -> biological evolution and nurture -> cultural evolution. Both of these combined help shape much of the individual, though their influence can decrease over time.
This might be very similar to Dawkins’ original theory of genes and memes. To be honest, I actually haven’t read too much into that theory; though I imagine if this does explain it then Dawkins’ interpretation is probably much more fleshed out.
I think, especially in the modern environment, it’s really important to understand how cultures evolve with time. Given our current political climate, and the crucial decisions that lie in our near future, tied with the fast pace of cultural evolution… some big changes are about to occur, for better or for worse.
…
[image error]
Join my email list
Processing…
Success! You're on the list.
Whoops! There was an error and we couldn't process your subscription. Please reload the page and try again.
June 15, 2020
The Ben Carson Effect
There are some people that I hear on videos or otherwise read about, and think Why the hell did they get so dumb? What happened?. These aren’t the traditional morons, no — these are the people who made sweeping, revolutionary changes in their industry or are otherwise considered geniuses of their craft, who have gone on to a different venture only to sod the whole thing up. This event is what I’d like to call the Ben Carson effect.
The Ben Carson effect is named after perhaps the greatest example of such a thing; Ben Carson, the famed neurosurgeon who went on to completely embarrass himself in the domain of politics. There’s plenty of other examples as well, such as Jordan B. Peterson, or Bill Nye, or Neil DeGrasse Tyson — all people who started out with great enough reputations, only to soil them. Now, the interesting things about these cases, and the Ben Carson effect in general, is that the things these individuals pivoted to aren’t too different from what they’ve been doing. For example, Ben Carson was well known for becoming one of the lead speakers for the anti-vaccine movement… yet, being one of the leaders in the medical industry, really should’ve known better. Same with Jordan B. Peterson, whose background is in psychology and yet decided to speak out on the psychology of gender.
I think a lot of this effect boils down to the negative effects of fame. This might be controversial to say, but I don’t think Ben Carson or Jordan B. Peterson really believe what they say; or, at least, didn’t believe what they said at the beginning. Each of their downfalls started with a small comment or event that drove people to attention… I believe that, once they noticed people were giving them attention for saying such things, they sought to exploit that attention, and eventually things got to such a point that they were consumed by this community so much that they started genuinely believing it.
Now, is there a way to reverse the Ben Carson effect? Probably. However, like most things discussed on this blog, this can solely be influenced by the individual themselves. If Ben Carson believes he has gone astray, then he can rectify it; however, he needs to believe it first, which takes quite a lot of trouble in itself. There could also be a sort of sunk cost effect to all this, where people might think they’re in too deep to turn back now. I think overall this concept would be interesting to explore more into the future.
…
[image error]
Join my email list
Processing…
Success! You're on the list.
Whoops! There was an error and we couldn't process your subscription. Please reload the page and try again.
June 8, 2020
The End of Education
My number one prediction for the 2020s is that education will end. Not education in general, of course, but certainly education as we know it.
In the education world, we see two key trends. The first trend is the consistent rising of tuition rates, followed by heavy issuance of both government and privately sponsored student loans. The second trend is the rise of edutech solutions; primarily internet based nonprofits, such as KhanAcademy and FreeCodeCamp.
You may already see where I’m going here, but I’ll continue to elaborate. As the free edutech solutions get wider in scope — better specialties, greater depth — they’ll begin to outclass secondary education. At some point, the only thing that will be an advantage of going to a traditional university are resources and prestige. And then, the crash happens.
Everyone who knows investing knows that you can’t issue debt forever. Eventually, a big portion of that debt is going to remain unpaid by those who default and go bankrupt. This means that anyone who issues debt — educational institutions, private investors, etc. — will eventually flee from the market. This leads to a lack of available financing for the students. Traditionally, this would lead to either lower tuition (causing universities to either bite the costs or go bankrupt) or to students seeking other means of financing. However, now we live in this world where you can learn all those things you would have learned for free; where prestige no longer matters, as the world moves closer and closer to remote work and personal branding. Where online schools give just as good of resources as the stationary institutions of old. And so, there is a full-on flight from traditional universities, and those universities go away.
Now, there’s still a couple of ties here that remain. For example, what happens to graduate work — primarily PhDs? Or specialty schools, like Medicine or Law? These, as far as we’re aware, require stationary institutions, as they focus very much in labs or clerk work. This conundrum I think is yet to be solved, but has a great chance of being solved in the 2020s.
There is, of course, much time left until we figure out whether this is true at all. But I do have the firm believe that the tides of modern education are leading somewhere that will leave it changed forever.
…
[image error]
Join my email list
Processing…
Success! You're on the list.
Whoops! There was an error and we couldn't process your subscription. Please reload the page and try again.
June 4, 2020
LEVIATHAN: AVAILABLE NOW
I am the lord thy God, and thou shalt have no other Gods before me.
Leviathan is a cyberpunk horror novel I had originally started writing around 2015 to 2016, gave up on, then came back to finish in 2018 and 2019 and finalize editing and formatting today. It’s a book that I’ve long been promising a release for, and I’m happy to say it’s finally out.
Not much more I wanted to say for this post. Go check it out here.
