- Albert Einstein
but by those who watch them without doing anything."
- Albert Einstein
- Albert Einstein
But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid."
- Albert Einstein
- Albert Einstein
Something you did or something you didn't do."
- Albert Einstein
• Make time for stillness
• Master over your mind
• Practice decision-making skills
Work on your mental models. Practice critical thinking
get your copy:
https://t.co/Dsp8zPhmjV
More from Philosophy Thoughts
More from Principles
How to find (and operate in) your Zone of Genius:
A few weeks ago, I shared a thread—How to Win (without talent or luck)—that got a lot of attention.
One of the most popular insights I shared was the idea of operating in your Zone of Genius.
But I got a lot of questions about how to practically achieve that...
Your Zone of Genius is where your interests, passions and skills align.
Operating in it means you stop playing *their* games and start playing *yours*.
This thread shares my framework—built through personal struggle—for finding and operating in your Zone of Genius:
First, let's get one thing straight.
Everyone has a Zone of Genius.
"Genius" here is a relative term, not an absolute.
It's not about being top 1% at something—it's about the unique space where your relative strengths are accentuated (and relative weaknesses masked).
Furthermore, everyone’s Zone of Genius is different and unique to them as an individual.
The goal of a founder, startup, or organization, therefore, is to build a team with complementary—not conflicting—Zones of Genius.
This is where 1+1=3!
A few weeks ago, I shared a thread—How to Win (without talent or luck)—that got a lot of attention.
One of the most popular insights I shared was the idea of operating in your Zone of Genius.
But I got a lot of questions about how to practically achieve that...
How to Win (without talent or luck):
— Sahil Bloom (@SahilBloom) October 16, 2021
Your Zone of Genius is where your interests, passions and skills align.
Operating in it means you stop playing *their* games and start playing *yours*.
This thread shares my framework—built through personal struggle—for finding and operating in your Zone of Genius:
First, let's get one thing straight.
Everyone has a Zone of Genius.
"Genius" here is a relative term, not an absolute.
It's not about being top 1% at something—it's about the unique space where your relative strengths are accentuated (and relative weaknesses masked).
Furthermore, everyone’s Zone of Genius is different and unique to them as an individual.
The goal of a founder, startup, or organization, therefore, is to build a team with complementary—not conflicting—Zones of Genius.
This is where 1+1=3!
You May Also Like
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?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
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?
1/“What would need to be true for you to….X”
Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?
A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody:
2/ First, “X” could be lots of things. Examples: What would need to be true for you to
- “Feel it's in our best interest for me to be CMO"
- “Feel that we’re in a good place as a company”
- “Feel that we’re on the same page”
- “Feel that we both got what we wanted from this deal
3/ Normally, we aren’t that direct. Example from startup/VC land:
Founders leave VC meetings thinking that every VC will invest, but they rarely do.
Worse over, the founders don’t know what they need to do in order to be fundable.
4/ So why should you ask the magic Q?
To get clarity.
You want to know where you stand, and what it takes to get what you want in a way that also gets them what they want.
It also holds them (mentally) accountable once the thing they need becomes true.
5/ Staying in the context of soliciting investors, the question is “what would need to be true for you to want to invest (or partner with us on this journey, etc)?”
Multiple responses to this question are likely to deliver a positive result.
Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?
A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody:
Next level tactic when closing a sale, candidate, or investment:
— Erik Torenberg (@eriktorenberg) February 27, 2018
Ask: \u201cWhat needs to be true for you to be all in?\u201d
You'll usually get an explicit answer that you might not get otherwise. It also holds them accountable once the thing they need becomes true.
2/ First, “X” could be lots of things. Examples: What would need to be true for you to
- “Feel it's in our best interest for me to be CMO"
- “Feel that we’re in a good place as a company”
- “Feel that we’re on the same page”
- “Feel that we both got what we wanted from this deal
3/ Normally, we aren’t that direct. Example from startup/VC land:
Founders leave VC meetings thinking that every VC will invest, but they rarely do.
Worse over, the founders don’t know what they need to do in order to be fundable.
4/ So why should you ask the magic Q?
To get clarity.
You want to know where you stand, and what it takes to get what you want in a way that also gets them what they want.
It also holds them (mentally) accountable once the thing they need becomes true.
5/ Staying in the context of soliciting investors, the question is “what would need to be true for you to want to invest (or partner with us on this journey, etc)?”
Multiple responses to this question are likely to deliver a positive result.