I turned 30 recently.

While far from old and wise, I have learned a few things along the way - on life, business, writing, investing, and growth.

Here are a few important lessons learned...

Embrace Failure

Put simply, failure leads to growth.

Do not hide from failure. Seek it out. Allow yourself to be uncomfortable. Embrace it.

The most transformative moments in your life will always come from failures.
Stand on the Shoulders of Giants

As Isaac Newton famously wrote, “If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.”

You will only go as far as you can see.

Seek out mentors who champion your cause and empower you to see further.
Prioritize People

Everything in life comes down to people and relationships.

Networks compound as well as any financial investment.

Build an army that is deep and wide.

Cultivate deep relationships, but also learn to appreciate the power of weak ties.
Give > Receive

Focus on what you can do for others, not what they can do for you.

Give more than you receive.

This mentality will lead to more success and growth, but also to more fulfillment and joy.
Play the Long Game

“Play long-term games with long-term people.” - @naval

The greatest riches in life - personal or professional - come from compound interest.

But it takes time. Lots of time.

So always play the long game. Let the magical power of compounding work for you.
Closed Mouths Don’t Get Fed

A little push goes a long way.

Don't sit back and wait for good things to happen.

If you want something (and you’ve put in the work for it), go ask for it.

Worst case - you’re told no and nothing has changed.

Best case - it’s yours.
Pay It Forward

No matter how far you go, realize that you didn’t make it on your own.

So pay it forward.

Be a mentor. Be a champion for others.

Their growth should become a source of tremendous joy and pride.
Those are a few of the most important lessons I’ve learned along the way. I hope they are helpful for you on your journey!

If you enjoyed this, follow me for more threads on life, business, money, finance, and economics. You can find all of my threads in the meta-thread below. https://t.co/Q2PggDh1lc
And if you are less Twitter inclined, sign up for my newsletter here, where you can find all of my old threads and receive all of my new threads directly to your inbox. https://t.co/qMB8i6hY66

More from Sahil Bloom

More from Life

You May Also Like

1/12

RT-PCR corona (test) scam

Symptomatic people are tested for one and only one respiratory virus. This means that other acute respiratory infections are reclassified as


2/12

It is tested exquisitely with a hypersensitive non-specific RT-PCR test / Ct >35 (>30 is nonsense, >35 is madness), without considering Ct and clinical context. This means that more acute respiratory infections are reclassified as


3/12

The Drosten RT-PCR test is fabricated in a way that each country and laboratory perform it differently at too high Ct and that the high rate of false positives increases massively due to cross-reaction with other (corona) viruses in the "flu


4/12

Even asymptomatic, previously called healthy, people are tested (en masse) in this way, although there is no epidemiologically relevant asymptomatic transmission. This means that even healthy people are declared as COVID


5/12

Deaths within 28 days after a positive RT-PCR test from whatever cause are designated as deaths WITH COVID. This means that other causes of death are reclassified as
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?