Naval on getting rich.

Discuss all general (i.e. non-personal) investing questions and issues, investing news, and theory.
Lynette
Posts: 1883
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2014 9:47 am

Re: Naval on getting rich.

Post by Lynette » Thu Feb 28, 2019 12:05 pm

Texanbybirth wrote:
Thu Feb 28, 2019 10:45 am
Lynette wrote:
Thu Feb 28, 2019 9:34 am
VictoriaF wrote:
Tue Feb 26, 2019 10:20 pm

Hi Lynette,

Naval came to the U.S. as a child and grew up in multicultural New York. He reads widely, and I think his life philosophy is influenced more by his reading than by his family's heritage.

Victoria
Hi Victoria,

He was nine when he came to the USA from India. He appears to have been close to his mother even though she was absent much of the time as she was working or studying. In the interview he states: "I think human beings are entirely creatures of habit. Young children are born with no habit loops. They’re essentially born as blank slates. Then they habituate themselves to things and they learn patterns and they get conditioned and they use that to get through everyday life." I am not sure about the "blank slate" theory as I am not an expert on early child development but he thinks that reading contributed much to his philosophy. Maybe he is correct .. maybe ..?
Food for thought: we're two for two on having children who have the following "habit loop" from the moment of birth: eat, poop, sleep, (maybe) cry, eat, sleep...you get the point. I'm pretty sure our third will fall into this habit, too.

The tabula rasa view of the human person (not directly addressed in my previous sentences) is a highly contested area of psychology, philosophy, and child development. I certainly wouldn't take one man's musings on it as gospel.
There is also the additional component of "culture" however one defines that. Both Victoria and I emigrated to this country as adults. I am not entirely sure how that affected our thinking. Maybe it did not affect Naval as much as he was a child when he emigrated. I know that I have an instinctive affinity with some Indians I met at work. They emigrated as adults and we both grew up in former British colonies. On a lighter note, I know that of my Indian colleagues were enthusiastic about my knowledge of cricket :D

The Outsider
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2018 1:07 pm

Re: Naval on getting rich.

Post by The Outsider » Thu Feb 28, 2019 12:26 pm

VictoriaF wrote:
Wed Feb 27, 2019 10:38 am
Ivygirl wrote:
Wed Feb 27, 2019 7:47 am
Blueskies123 wrote:
Sun Feb 24, 2019 1:46 pm
Naval is too smart for most mortals. I suspect he is a genius which you will see evidence of if you have the time to listen to the links below. He could never work at a job and save money, he would be fired in a few days. However, he does have some good insights. At first, I violently disagreed with what he said about hard work but after simmering on it for a year there is some truth is what he says.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iu4RkmUIfR4
https://blog.dilbert.com/2019/02/12/epi ... ant-stuff/
It's a pleasure to watch two really smart people talk about high-level things.
Me too!
Ivygirl wrote:
Wed Feb 27, 2019 7:47 am
I don't think high-IQ persons whose minds run on continuous simulations themselves though are trustworthy for knowing what the universe is really like. A better way of finding out would be to look at the behavior and ideas of simpler people, because they see life closer to the way it is without making clever simulations. Their kind of wisdom is collected in proverbs and expressed in work and religion, also dance, song, and crafts.

Hard work is how a person who is not a genius makes and holds their place in the world. It's a 10 out of 10 in importance for me personally.
Hard work is admirable but you need to look into the details. What's preferable:
- Having several jobs in college and an easy major with inferior grades? OR Pursuing a difficult major with top grades while working in the areas supplementing your major?
- Cutting down on your sleep to fit more tasks into the day? OR Having a full 8-hour sleep to consolidate your memory and have a clear mind for learning and decision making?
- Using your phone throughout the day for responding to messages? OR Allocating 2-3 hours per day for uninterrupted reading and thinking?
- Visible work such as long hours in the office and being immediately responsive? OR Invisible work of thinking and coming up with novel ideas?

Victoria
I think you're both right. One needs to work hard AND work smart. Easy to say, hard to do (for me)

mak1277
Posts: 993
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2015 4:26 pm

Re: Naval on getting rich.

Post by mak1277 » Thu Feb 28, 2019 1:38 pm

Texanbybirth wrote:
Thu Feb 28, 2019 10:45 am
Food for thought: we're two for two on having children who have the following "habit loop" from the moment of birth: eat, poop, sleep, (maybe) cry, eat, sleep...you get the point. I'm pretty sure our third will fall into this habit, too.

The tabula rasa view of the human person (not directly addressed in my previous sentences) is a highly contested area of psychology, philosophy, and child development. I certainly wouldn't take one man's musings on it as gospel.
I'm not sure equating biological necessities with habits is an entirely fair way to critique someone's argument. But perhaps you're right, in which case I"m going to hang on to my habit of breathing as long as possible.

I do think that infants pick up genuine habits incredibly quickly...**when I cry, that lady picks me up and hugs me**...so what you're seeing might not actually debunk the point he was making.

Texanbybirth
Posts: 1125
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 12:07 pm

Re: Naval on getting rich.

Post by Texanbybirth » Thu Feb 28, 2019 1:50 pm

mak1277 wrote:
Thu Feb 28, 2019 1:38 pm
Texanbybirth wrote:
Thu Feb 28, 2019 10:45 am
Food for thought: we're two for two on having children who have the following "habit loop" from the moment of birth: eat, poop, sleep, (maybe) cry, eat, sleep...you get the point. I'm pretty sure our third will fall into this habit, too.

The tabula rasa view of the human person (not directly addressed in my previous sentences) is a highly contested area of psychology, philosophy, and child development. I certainly wouldn't take one man's musings on it as gospel.
I'm not sure equating biological necessities with habits is an entirely fair way to critique someone's argument. But perhaps you're right, in which case I"m going to hang on to my habit of breathing as long as possible.

I do think that infants pick up genuine habits incredibly quickly...**when I cry, that lady picks me up and hugs me**...so what you're seeing might not actually debunk the point he was making.
Meh, then why do infants cry? There must be something built-in there, no? It could easily be seen as a chicken-egg situation, and not defining what he means by "habits" (apparently firstly they're non-biological) before starting the convo really hurts the discussion; (not) working out, (not) drinking alcohol, (not) eating paleo: those kinda seem "biological" to me. I think that's what appears most sophomoric to me about the discussion, to use poster GCD's imagery. (Unless I missed the definition, in which case mea culpa.)
"Knowledge and innocence are both excellent things, and they are both very funny. But it is right that knowledge should be the servant and innocence the master." - GK Chesterton

mak1277
Posts: 993
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2015 4:26 pm

Re: Naval on getting rich.

Post by mak1277 » Thu Feb 28, 2019 1:59 pm

Texanbybirth wrote:
Thu Feb 28, 2019 1:50 pm
mak1277 wrote:
Thu Feb 28, 2019 1:38 pm
Texanbybirth wrote:
Thu Feb 28, 2019 10:45 am
Food for thought: we're two for two on having children who have the following "habit loop" from the moment of birth: eat, poop, sleep, (maybe) cry, eat, sleep...you get the point. I'm pretty sure our third will fall into this habit, too.

The tabula rasa view of the human person (not directly addressed in my previous sentences) is a highly contested area of psychology, philosophy, and child development. I certainly wouldn't take one man's musings on it as gospel.
I'm not sure equating biological necessities with habits is an entirely fair way to critique someone's argument. But perhaps you're right, in which case I"m going to hang on to my habit of breathing as long as possible.

I do think that infants pick up genuine habits incredibly quickly...**when I cry, that lady picks me up and hugs me**...so what you're seeing might not actually debunk the point he was making.
Meh, then why do infants cry? There must be something built-in there, no? It could easily be seen as a chicken-egg situation, and not defining what he means by "habits" (apparently firstly they're non-biological) before starting the convo really hurts the discussion; (not) working out, (not) drinking alcohol, (not) eating paleo: those kinda seem "biological" to me. I think that's what appears most sophomoric to me about the discussion, to use poster GCD's imagery. (Unless I missed the definition, in which case mea culpa.)
Please...you can't possibly equate the biological NEEDS of sleep and food to the biological habit of working out, or eating a specific diet. You're not being intellectually honest.

interestediniras
Posts: 81
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2019 2:06 am

Re: Naval on getting rich.

Post by interestediniras » Thu Feb 28, 2019 2:01 pm

Texanbybirth wrote:
Thu Feb 28, 2019 1:50 pm
Meh, then why do infants cry? There must be something built-in there, no? It could easily be seen as a chicken-egg situation, and not defining what he means by "habits" (apparently firstly they're non-biological) before starting the convo really hurts the discussion; (not) working out, (not) drinking alcohol, (not) eating paleo: those kinda seem "biological" to me. I think that's what appears most sophomoric to me about the discussion, to use poster GCD's imagery. (Unless I missed the definition, in which case mea culpa.)
The fundamental fallacy in the tabula rasa model, IMHO, is the implicit assumption that humans are categorically different from other animals, the vast majority of which innately exhibit truly complex behaviors. It is an uncomfortable truth, borne out by hundreds of genetic studies for every possible psychological trait you could imagine over the last two decades, that how we end up is highly predictable even before birth.

For someone who is smart and accomplished, like Naval, I am sure it must be nice to believe that his success is the result of his own efforts, rather than just the statistically probable result of his genetic predisposition.

Thesaints
Posts: 2632
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2017 12:25 am

Re: Naval on getting rich.

Post by Thesaints » Thu Feb 28, 2019 2:05 pm

interestediniras wrote:
Thu Feb 28, 2019 2:01 pm
It is an uncomfortable truth, borne out by hundreds of genetic studies for every possible psychological trait you could imagine over the last two decades, that how we end up is highly predictable even before birth.
You mean that if Paul Revere were adopted today by an Asian-american family in New England chances are he would still end up working as a blacksmith and lighting lanterns on church steeples ?

Texanbybirth
Posts: 1125
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 12:07 pm

Re: Naval on getting rich.

Post by Texanbybirth » Thu Feb 28, 2019 2:10 pm

mak1277 wrote:
Thu Feb 28, 2019 1:59 pm
Texanbybirth wrote:
Thu Feb 28, 2019 1:50 pm
mak1277 wrote:
Thu Feb 28, 2019 1:38 pm
Texanbybirth wrote:
Thu Feb 28, 2019 10:45 am
Food for thought: we're two for two on having children who have the following "habit loop" from the moment of birth: eat, poop, sleep, (maybe) cry, eat, sleep...you get the point. I'm pretty sure our third will fall into this habit, too.

The tabula rasa view of the human person (not directly addressed in my previous sentences) is a highly contested area of psychology, philosophy, and child development. I certainly wouldn't take one man's musings on it as gospel.
I'm not sure equating biological necessities with habits is an entirely fair way to critique someone's argument. But perhaps you're right, in which case I"m going to hang on to my habit of breathing as long as possible.

I do think that infants pick up genuine habits incredibly quickly...**when I cry, that lady picks me up and hugs me**...so what you're seeing might not actually debunk the point he was making.
Meh, then why do infants cry? There must be something built-in there, no? It could easily be seen as a chicken-egg situation, and not defining what he means by "habits" (apparently firstly they're non-biological) before starting the convo really hurts the discussion; (not) working out, (not) drinking alcohol, (not) eating paleo: those kinda seem "biological" to me. I think that's what appears most sophomoric to me about the discussion, to use poster GCD's imagery. (Unless I missed the definition, in which case mea culpa.)
Please...you can't possibly equate the biological NEEDS of sleep and food to the biological habit of working out, or eating a specific diet. You're not being intellectually honest.
Your ending "you're not being intellectually honest" doesn't obviate the point. I'm not talking about sleep and food (or physical exercise, or "diet", which is really just food, right?), I'm talking about the crying that indicates (does it?) those needs, whether it's an early "habit" or not. Mr. Naval hasn't given me a framework to argue with him because he hasn't helped me understand his definitions, he's only stated something as true (tabula rasa) that isn't so obviously true to me or a large population of humanity. He's very much in favor of falsifiability (permit me a term if it isn't one) when it suits him. That's my issue.
"Knowledge and innocence are both excellent things, and they are both very funny. But it is right that knowledge should be the servant and innocence the master." - GK Chesterton

mak1277
Posts: 993
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2015 4:26 pm

Re: Naval on getting rich.

Post by mak1277 » Thu Feb 28, 2019 4:05 pm

Texanbybirth wrote:
Thu Feb 28, 2019 2:10 pm
mak1277 wrote:
Thu Feb 28, 2019 1:59 pm
Texanbybirth wrote:
Thu Feb 28, 2019 1:50 pm
mak1277 wrote:
Thu Feb 28, 2019 1:38 pm
Texanbybirth wrote:
Thu Feb 28, 2019 10:45 am
Food for thought: we're two for two on having children who have the following "habit loop" from the moment of birth: eat, poop, sleep, (maybe) cry, eat, sleep...you get the point. I'm pretty sure our third will fall into this habit, too.

The tabula rasa view of the human person (not directly addressed in my previous sentences) is a highly contested area of psychology, philosophy, and child development. I certainly wouldn't take one man's musings on it as gospel.
I'm not sure equating biological necessities with habits is an entirely fair way to critique someone's argument. But perhaps you're right, in which case I"m going to hang on to my habit of breathing as long as possible.

I do think that infants pick up genuine habits incredibly quickly...**when I cry, that lady picks me up and hugs me**...so what you're seeing might not actually debunk the point he was making.
Meh, then why do infants cry? There must be something built-in there, no? It could easily be seen as a chicken-egg situation, and not defining what he means by "habits" (apparently firstly they're non-biological) before starting the convo really hurts the discussion; (not) working out, (not) drinking alcohol, (not) eating paleo: those kinda seem "biological" to me. I think that's what appears most sophomoric to me about the discussion, to use poster GCD's imagery. (Unless I missed the definition, in which case mea culpa.)
Please...you can't possibly equate the biological NEEDS of sleep and food to the biological habit of working out, or eating a specific diet. You're not being intellectually honest.
Your ending "you're not being intellectually honest" doesn't obviate the point. I'm not talking about sleep and food (or physical exercise, or "diet", which is really just food, right?), I'm talking about the crying that indicates (does it?) those needs, whether it's an early "habit" or not. Mr. Naval hasn't given me a framework to argue with him because he hasn't helped me understand his definitions, he's only stated something as true (tabula rasa) that isn't so obviously true to me or a large population of humanity. He's very much in favor of falsifiability (permit me a term if it isn't one) when it suits him. That's my issue.
But your original comment talked about "habits" like eating, sleeping and pooping in addition to crying. Forgive me for assuming you meant those things as being habits too.

interestediniras
Posts: 81
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2019 2:06 am

Re: Naval on getting rich.

Post by interestediniras » Thu Feb 28, 2019 4:26 pm

mak1277 wrote:
Thu Feb 28, 2019 1:59 pm
Texanbybirth wrote:
Thu Feb 28, 2019 1:50 pm
mak1277 wrote:
Thu Feb 28, 2019 1:38 pm
Texanbybirth wrote:
Thu Feb 28, 2019 10:45 am
Food for thought: we're two for two on having children who have the following "habit loop" from the moment of birth: eat, poop, sleep, (maybe) cry, eat, sleep...you get the point. I'm pretty sure our third will fall into this habit, too.

The tabula rasa view of the human person (not directly addressed in my previous sentences) is a highly contested area of psychology, philosophy, and child development. I certainly wouldn't take one man's musings on it as gospel.
I'm not sure equating biological necessities with habits is an entirely fair way to critique someone's argument. But perhaps you're right, in which case I"m going to hang on to my habit of breathing as long as possible.

I do think that infants pick up genuine habits incredibly quickly...**when I cry, that lady picks me up and hugs me**...so what you're seeing might not actually debunk the point he was making.
Meh, then why do infants cry? There must be something built-in there, no? It could easily be seen as a chicken-egg situation, and not defining what he means by "habits" (apparently firstly they're non-biological) before starting the convo really hurts the discussion; (not) working out, (not) drinking alcohol, (not) eating paleo: those kinda seem "biological" to me. I think that's what appears most sophomoric to me about the discussion, to use poster GCD's imagery. (Unless I missed the definition, in which case mea culpa.)
Please...you can't possibly equate the biological NEEDS of sleep and food to the biological habit of working out, or eating a specific diet. You're not being intellectually honest.
Genetic determinants of voluntary exercise
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3665695/

A study of 1022 pairs of twins estimated broad-sense heritability of total physical activity to be near 50%, and heritabilities of individual components of total activity (occupational, leisure time excluding sport, sport during leisure time) ranged from 40% to 65% [19]. Additional human studies have estimated the heritability of physical activity to be anywhere between 18% and 92%, with variable environmental contributions [20,21].

Genomic analysis of diet composition finds novel loci and associations with health and lifestyle
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/383406v1

We conducted genome-wide association study (GWAS) meta-analyses of relative caloric intake from fat, protein, carbohydrates and sugar in over 235,000 individuals. We identified 21 approximately independent lead SNPs. Relative protein intake exhibits the strongest relationships with poor health, including positive genetic associations with obesity, type 2 diabetes, and heart disease (rg ≈ 0.15-0.5). Relative carbohydrate and sugar intake have negative genetic correlations with waist circumference, waist-hip ratio, and neighborhood poverty (|rg| ≈ 0.1-0.3). Overall, our results show that the relative intake of each macronutrient has a distinct genetic architecture and pattern of genetic correlations suggestive of health implications beyond caloric content.

interestediniras
Posts: 81
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2019 2:06 am

Re: Naval on getting rich.

Post by interestediniras » Thu Feb 28, 2019 4:37 pm

Thesaints wrote:
Thu Feb 28, 2019 2:05 pm
interestediniras wrote:
Thu Feb 28, 2019 2:01 pm
It is an uncomfortable truth, borne out by hundreds of genetic studies for every possible psychological trait you could imagine over the last two decades, that how we end up is highly predictable even before birth.
You mean that if Paul Revere were adopted today by an Asian-american family in New England chances are he would still end up working as a blacksmith and lighting lanterns on church steeples ?
Genetics affects choice of academic subjects as well as achievement
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep26373

Here, for the first time, we show that choosing to do A-levels and the choice of subjects show substantial genetic influence, as does performance after two years studying the chosen subjects. Using a UK-representative sample of 6584 twin pairs, heritability estimates were 44% for choosing to do A-levels and 52–80% for choice of subject.

Thesaints
Posts: 2632
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2017 12:25 am

Re: Naval on getting rich.

Post by Thesaints » Thu Feb 28, 2019 4:48 pm

First thing that comes to mind is that we can't tell MZ twins apart. Likely they can't tell themselves apart either.
I would have trusted a study were twins are separated at birth and show a propensity to take A-levels over the general population.

interestediniras
Posts: 81
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2019 2:06 am

Re: Naval on getting rich.

Post by interestediniras » Thu Feb 28, 2019 5:21 pm

Thesaints wrote:
Thu Feb 28, 2019 4:48 pm
First thing that comes to mind is that we can't tell MZ twins apart. Likely they can't tell themselves apart either.
I would have trusted a study were twins are separated at birth and show a propensity to take A-levels over the general population.
Entrepreneurship and occupational choice: Genetic and environmental influences
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 8110001150

We applied quantitative genetics techniques to a sample of 347 pairs of monozygotic and 303 pairs of dizygotic twins taken from the MIDUS database to examine the influence of genetic factors on the variation across people in the tendency to be self-employed and to choose other occupations. We found that a heritability hypothesis is supported for the tendency to be self-employed, both currently and ten years prior, with no influence of the shared environment. We also found that this heritability is substantive for male as well as female twins. Moreover, we found support for a heritability hypothesis for the intention to be self-employed in the future and for a bivariate heritability model between entrepreneurial intentions and the tendency to be self-employed. Finally, we found support for a heritability hypothesis for other occupational choices, specifically the choice to be a teacher, manager or salesperson.

User avatar
VictoriaF
Posts: 18893
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:27 am
Location: Black Swan Lake

Re: Naval on getting rich.

Post by VictoriaF » Thu Feb 28, 2019 5:31 pm

Accrual wrote:
Wed Feb 27, 2019 2:27 pm
VictoriaF wrote:
Sun Feb 24, 2019 1:10 pm
sf_tech_saver wrote:
Sun Feb 24, 2019 1:23 am
I think every Boglehead should also study some Naval on investing.
I became a fan of Naval Ravikant after listening to the podcast of his discussion with Shane Parrish on Farnam Street, https://fs.blog/naval-ravikant/ . The discussion was so good that Shane has made the transcript available to non-subscribers. Naval is one of the smartest people around, but I don't think that every Boglehead will appreciate him. Some can't distinguish investing and life philosophies from cookbook recipes, as witnessed in the ongoing thread about Taleb's concept of antifragility.

Victoria
Hi Victoria,

I just read the transcript during my lunch break and enjoyed it very much. I am now fascinated by Farnam Street and all that it provides (currently looking at the Mental Model blog post now). My question to you: as a paid subscriber to FS, do you believe the content warrants the yearly subscription fee? How active is the community? Just looking for some more general information about the 'premium' services from a current user. Thank you very much for linking!
Hi Accrual,

The annual subscription fee is justified for me. For a long time I was not sure if I should become a paying member. I could listen to free Shane's podcasts, but I had frequently to interrupt them to take notes. I took a plunge when I decided that the membership fee was the price for my time, for my ability to read full transcripts, mark them up, and cite as appropriate.

Now, I am actively reading and posting in the Farnam Street/Learning Community Forum. FS/LC has some of the smartest people in the world, and I am getting exposure to topics that I did not know or did not think about. Some of the most useful topics for me were those related to organizing personal information and workflow and to biohacking.

Once a month, or so, FS/LC conducts Ask Me Anything (AMA) with authors of popular books. The last one was with James Clear, the author of Atomic Habits. There is also a book club, for which people read the same book and discuss it online. (I have not participated in this yet.) Last Saturday, the Washington DC members had a face-to-face meetup. We had six people, and I quite liked the group.

At this time, the value for me extends beyond the access to the transcripts. I enjoy reading comments and ideas from some of the smartest people from around the globe and being a member of community where people are on the same basis when they discuss mental models, productivity, books, and related topics.

Victoria
Last edited by VictoriaF on Thu Feb 28, 2019 5:38 pm, edited 2 times in total.
WINNER of the 2015 Boglehead Contest. | Every joke has a bit of a joke. ... The rest is the truth. (Marat F)

Thesaints
Posts: 2632
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2017 12:25 am

Re: Naval on getting rich.

Post by Thesaints » Thu Feb 28, 2019 5:32 pm

What their are saying is that MZ twins are more likely than EZ twins to take a similar career path. But it is any career path.
What I'm saying is that those two grew up with everybody around them unable to tell them apart. No big surprise if they end up being showing similar character, taste, inclinations.

I'd like to see a study on MZ twins that were separated at birth. Unfortunately no such control group exist.

Topic Author
sf_tech_saver
Posts: 129
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2018 9:03 pm

Re: Naval on getting rich.

Post by sf_tech_saver » Thu Feb 28, 2019 7:07 pm

Thanks everyone for the great discussion. I'm not a Naval Zealot but I had a LOT to think about in terms of other compounding impacts in life after studying him a bit.

I haven't watched this yet, about to tonight:

"Seek wealth, not money or status. A short interview on getting rich."

https://twitter.com/naval/status/1101245088452161536

Thanks to Mr. Bogle I feel I have a GREAT plan for passive income/investing of any assets I can save and I want to use that free time to do as much with my time as possible. That's why I think the two are related.

Thesaints
Posts: 2632
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2017 12:25 am

Re: Naval on getting rich.

Post by Thesaints » Thu Feb 28, 2019 7:47 pm

sf_tech_saver wrote:
Thu Feb 28, 2019 7:07 pm
"Seek wealth, not money..."
Is it like an Oriental thing ?

Enganerd
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2015 8:22 pm

Re: Naval on getting rich.

Post by Enganerd » Fri Mar 01, 2019 7:56 am

AlohaJoe wrote:
Tue Feb 26, 2019 11:18 pm
Enganerd wrote:
Mon Feb 25, 2019 8:25 pm


I listen to too many podcasts, after reading Deep Work I have been cutting back on my constant media consumption. But podcasts were always my favorite because you can listen while doing chores, working out, running, commuting etc.
This seems like almost exactly the opposite lesson to learn from Deep Work. If you're listening to podcasts while doing something else then you are definitely not doing Deep Work and are actually doing Shallow Work.
You're correct in that constant input from podcasts while doing other things contradicts the idea of taking some time to intensely focus on a subject and allowing for solitude, lack of input from others, during other periods of the day. It is likely actually detrimental to building the skill of focus. I was trying to say that although I no longer am an avid podcast listener but I used to listen to quite a bit of them, and 3 of Naval's interviews were some of my favorites.

Ivygirl
Posts: 144
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 1:36 pm

Re: Naval on getting rich.

Post by Ivygirl » Fri Mar 01, 2019 8:07 am

The Outsider wrote:
Thu Feb 28, 2019 12:26 pm
VictoriaF wrote:
Wed Feb 27, 2019 10:38 am
Ivygirl wrote:
Wed Feb 27, 2019 7:47 am
Blueskies123 wrote:
Sun Feb 24, 2019 1:46 pm
Naval is too smart for most mortals. I suspect he is a genius which you will see evidence of if you have the time to listen to the links below. He could never work at a job and save money, he would be fired in a few days. However, he does have some good insights. At first, I violently disagreed with what he said about hard work but after simmering on it for a year there is some truth is what he says.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iu4RkmUIfR4
https://blog.dilbert.com/2019/02/12/epi ... ant-stuff/
It's a pleasure to watch two really smart people talk about high-level things.
Me too!
Ivygirl wrote:
Wed Feb 27, 2019 7:47 am
I don't think high-IQ persons whose minds run on continuous simulations themselves though are trustworthy for knowing what the universe is really like. A better way of finding out would be to look at the behavior and ideas of simpler people, because they see life closer to the way it is without making clever simulations. Their kind of wisdom is collected in proverbs and expressed in work and religion, also dance, song, and crafts.

Hard work is how a person who is not a genius makes and holds their place in the world. It's a 10 out of 10 in importance for me personally.
Hard work is admirable but you need to look into the details. What's preferable:
- Having several jobs in college and an easy major with inferior grades? OR Pursuing a difficult major with top grades while working in the areas supplementing your major?
- Cutting down on your sleep to fit more tasks into the day? OR Having a full 8-hour sleep to consolidate your memory and have a clear mind for learning and decision making?
- Using your phone throughout the day for responding to messages? OR Allocating 2-3 hours per day for uninterrupted reading and thinking?
- Visible work such as long hours in the office and being immediately responsive? OR Invisible work of thinking and coming up with novel ideas?

Victoria
I think you're both right. One needs to work hard AND work smart. Easy to say, hard to do (for me)
I had to go away and think about this, and even sleep on it. There is so much to unpack here.

When I was 46 I woke up one day and realized that I had nothing after many years of hard work. I had a crapped-out 11-year-old car with a busted fender and $900 in credit card debt and was earning $50k, the most money I had ever made in my life. I wasn't a gambler or an addict or a shopaholic or a donator to shifty megachurch pastors or collector of bad boyfriends or any of the other "crash landings" that usually leave people in such a situation. I had just made low wages my whole life. Why did I end up there?

We used to have a saying "Never let anyone know you can type, or you'll never do anything else." It's like being "type"-cast in Hollywood I guess. It was true. I was an excellent typist. I also let people see me cleaning the office refrigerator and I (a single person) took on the extra work of people who had kids. I believe that all work has dignity so I got a lot of work. Most people do not believe that all work has dignity. They pursue their interests, they do not do what needs to be done.

Because of the Boglehead principles (invest early and often, never take too much or too little risk, etc.) I am going to retire with some dignity. I am 54 now and I bought a house with 20% down and a 15 year loan. I have a newer paid-off car. I have cracked the $100,000 ceiling in net worth. With 15 more years of work, with Medicare at 65 and Social Security at 70, I am going to be OK.

I would humorously advise anyone who wants to "get rich" never to be the person who cleans the office refrigerator. Now, what happens when everybody catches on, and nobody will clean the refrigerator - I don't know. :D

Rus In Urbe
Posts: 375
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2017 2:12 pm

Re: Naval on getting rich.

Post by Rus In Urbe » Fri Mar 01, 2019 8:59 am

Naval seems to have no insights on "getting rich" --- at least in my book.
But I'm always interested in reading what others have found out about the weird experience of consciousness and being alive.

I found Naval to be an "Aggregator-Philosopher"---one who, rather than going deeply into his own ideas, borrows and re-states the ideas of others. These days there are a lot of them around, replacing the former "Public Intellectuals." That's okay as far as it goes and there's nothing wrong with reading this kind of writing----it's not very original, but it often introduces one to books and thinkers that are.
I'd like to live as a poor man with lots of money. ~Pablo Picasso

cdu7
Posts: 267
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2017 2:34 pm

Re: Naval on getting rich.

Post by cdu7 » Fri Mar 01, 2019 9:17 am

Here is what it takes to get rich quickly:

Step 1: Have a decent amount of capital to invest
Step 2: Have a higher than normal ability to emotionally withstand extreme risk
Step 3: Be in the right place at the right time (I.e. get lucky in terms of an investment opportunity / being made aware of it.... an easy example here would be bitcoin)
Step 4: Be willing to sell when you feel rich enough / somehow know when to sell.

Seems easy enough, but this will end in utter ruin or breaking even for 95-99% of the people who attempt it.

This isn’t the bogleheads way, period. This guy is talking about how to be a successful tech entrepreneur. We are mostly low risk taking people working in high paying professional positions. (I know there are some amazing small business people on here as well). The bogleheads way is a foolproof way to get rich slowly, not an uncertain way to get rich quickly.

Enganerd
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2015 8:22 pm

Re: Naval on getting rich.

Post by Enganerd » Fri Mar 01, 2019 9:24 am

Rus In Urbe wrote:
Fri Mar 01, 2019 8:59 am
Naval seems to have no insights on "getting rich" --- at least in my book.
But I'm always interested in reading what others have found out about the weird experience of consciousness and being alive.

I found Naval to be an "Aggregator-Philosopher"---one who, rather than going deeply into his own ideas, borrows and re-states the ideas of others. These days there are a lot of them around, replacing the former "Public Intellectuals." That's okay as far as it goes and there's nothing wrong with reading this kind of writing----it's not very original, but it often introduces one to books and thinkers that are.
Interesting take on Naval, and I think he would likely agree with being more of and aggregator-philosopher than original thinker. But I am skeptical how binary the concept of original thinker vs aggregator really is. So who are some of your favorite original thinker or favorite original books?

Rus In Urbe
Posts: 375
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2017 2:12 pm

Re: Naval on getting rich.

Post by Rus In Urbe » Fri Mar 01, 2019 12:15 pm

Enganerd » Fri Mar 01, 2019 9:24 am

Rus In Urbe wrote: ↑Fri Mar 01, 2019 8:59 am
Naval seems to have no insights on "getting rich" --- at least in my book.
But I'm always interested in reading what others have found out about the weird experience of consciousness and being alive.

I found Naval to be an "Aggregator-Philosopher"---one who, rather than going deeply into his own ideas, borrows and re-states the ideas of others. These days there are a lot of them around, replacing the former "Public Intellectuals." That's okay as far as it goes and there's nothing wrong with reading this kind of writing----it's not very original, but it often introduces one to books and thinkers that are.
Interesting take on Naval, and I think he would likely agree with being more of and aggregator-philosopher than original thinker. But I am skeptical how binary the concept of original thinker vs aggregator really is. So who are some of your favorite original thinker or favorite original books?
Of course, Enganerd, you are right: Any new idea stands on the shoulders of those who thought before!

Some "favorite authors/books" that have affected my thinking in various ways (some of them Naval cites) is what I think you are asking:

A few in the nonfiction category:
Viktor Frankl, Man's Search for Meaning (I read this a little too young, when I was twelve, but it changed my thinking forever).
Thomas Pikkety, Capital in the 21st Century
Tao Te Ching
Stephen Batchelor, Buddhism without Beliefs (or anything else by this author)
Lawrence Krauss, A Universe from Nothing
Christopher Hitchens, everything he wrote
Martha Nussbaum, ditto
Shunryū Suzuki, Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind

On the lighter side in terms of maximizing time and efficiency:
Stephen Covey, 7 Habits
David Allen, GTD series
Cal Newport, Deep Work

Just for starters.....we could get into great fiction and poetry (which have contributed to my own philosophy), but that is a lengthy list . . .

What about you, Enganerd? Best books and authors?.....or ones that Naval cites?
I'd like to live as a poor man with lots of money. ~Pablo Picasso

User avatar
VictoriaF
Posts: 18893
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:27 am
Location: Black Swan Lake

Re: Naval on getting rich.

Post by VictoriaF » Fri Mar 01, 2019 12:28 pm

Ivygirl wrote:
Fri Mar 01, 2019 8:07 am

Because of the Boglehead principles (invest early and often, never take too much or too little risk, etc.) I am going to retire with some dignity. I am 54 now and I bought a house with 20% down and a 15 year loan. I have a newer paid-off car. I have cracked the $100,000 ceiling in net worth. With 15 more years of work, with Medicare at 65 and Social Security at 70, I am going to be OK.

I would humorously advise anyone who wants to "get rich" never to be the person who cleans the office refrigerator. Now, what happens when everybody catches on, and nobody will clean the refrigerator - I don't know. :D
Great job looking for your welfare, Ivygirl!

You may be interested in Adam Grant's book Give and Take. The book does not moralize on the ethics of being a giver as opposed to taker. It describes three types of people, givers, matchers, and takers, and analyzes their interactions in various situations.

Best wishes for pursuing your plans,

Victoria
WINNER of the 2015 Boglehead Contest. | Every joke has a bit of a joke. ... The rest is the truth. (Marat F)

Enganerd
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2015 8:22 pm

Re: Naval on getting rich.

Post by Enganerd » Fri Mar 01, 2019 2:35 pm

Rus In Urbe wrote:
Fri Mar 01, 2019 12:15 pm
Enganerd » Fri Mar 01, 2019 9:24 am

Rus In Urbe wrote: ↑Fri Mar 01, 2019 8:59 am
*Naval seems to have no insights on "getting rich" --- at least in my book.
But I'm always interested in reading what others have found out about the weird experience of consciousness and being alive.

I found Naval to be an "Aggregator-Philosopher"---one who, rather than going deeply into his own ideas, borrows and re-states the ideas of others. These days there are a lot of them around, replacing the former "Public Intellectuals." That's okay as far as it goes and there's nothing wrong with reading this kind of writing----it's not very original, but it often introduces one to books and thinkers that are.*

Interesting take on Naval, and I think he would likely agree with being more of and aggregator-philosopher than original thinker. But I am skeptical how binary the concept of original thinker vs aggregator really is. So who are some of your favorite original thinker or favorite original books?
Of course, Enganerd, you are right: Any new idea stands on the shoulders of those who thought before!

Some "favorite authors/books" that have affected my thinking in various ways (some of them Naval cites) is what I think you are asking:

A few in the nonfiction category:
Viktor Frankl, Man's Search for Meaning (I read this a little too young, when I was twelve, but it changed my thinking forever).
Thomas Pikkety, Capital in the 21st Century
Tao Te Ching
Stephen Batchelor, Buddhism without Beliefs (or anything else by this author)
Lawrence Krauss, A Universe from Nothing
Christopher Hitchens, everything he wrote
Martha Nussbaum, ditto
Shunryū Suzuki, Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind

On the lighter side in terms of maximizing time and efficiency:
Stephen Covey, 7 Habits
David Allen, GTD series
Cal Newport, Deep Work

Just for starters.....we could get into great fiction and poetry (which have contributed to my own philosophy), but that is a lengthy list . . .

What about you, Enganerd? Best books and authors?.....or ones that Naval cites?
I'm afraid I like the idea of being a prolific reader more than I actually am, but I am working on that. From my humble up bringing in rural midwest I read quite a bit relative to my peers but nothing like you or Naval. Here are books that were significant for me but not many of them would be considered original (of course some of the significance is simply timing of my age and emotions when I read certain works).

non-fiction:
Apology-Plato
1984-Orwell
Brave New World-Huxley
End of Faith and especially Waking Up-Sam Harris (I like all of his books and most of his podcasts)
The God Delusion and The Blind Watchmaker - Richard Dawkins
Hitchens (I've watched several debates and read multiple articles but only read 4 of his books: God is Not Great, Why Orwell Matters, Letters to a Young Contrarian, and Hitch 22)
Common Sense on Mutual Funds -Bogle
The Rational Optimist*-Matt Ridley (*Naval Recommended)
Sapiens*- Yuval Noah Harari (I like his other 2 as well but not near as much)
Surely You'r Joking Mr. Feynman-Feynman
Enlightenment Now-Steven Pinker
Skin in the Game -Taleb (I'm on the fence with Taleb, wasn't impressed by this book but based off of reviews Fooled by Randomness or Antifragile would be a better match for me.)
The Happiness Hypothesis- Jonathan Haidt
Deep Work-Newport (most recently, really wished I could have read this 15 years ago)

Fiction: I will only mention Snow Crash-Stephenson because it was recommended by Naval and I rarely read fiction (never read anything in the Cyberpunk genre) and was really impressed with the depth of story. Highly recommend, even if one is leery of dystopia sci-fi, give this one a chance because it turns out to be a deep story and interesting commentary on society and technology. Oh and also I was influenced by Mark Twain as a child-adulthood, great writer.

Back to Naval on Getting Rich

I think his thoughts on personal priorities and the nature of work in today's world would be useful for a lot of bogleheads. We like to think that because we are high earning (relatively speaking) professionals with a low time preference (so we can invest and make sound financial decisions) we will be handsomely rewarded. This will likely be true, but ignoring the disruption technology advancement and the scalability of internet businesses is likely to be a larger opportunity cost than we admit.

heyyou
Posts: 3439
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 4:58 pm

Naval on getting rich.

Post by heyyou » Fri Mar 01, 2019 2:53 pm

I'm glad I didn't need to get rich, all I wanted was to retire.

Rus In Urbe
Posts: 375
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2017 2:12 pm

Re: Naval on getting rich.

Post by Rus In Urbe » Fri Mar 01, 2019 3:07 pm

Enganerd...you are entirely too modest.
Great reading list! Some new ones to me, I'll look up.
Yes, Twain. Essential. Always makes me laugh! And marvel at the English language.
by Enganerd
Back to Naval on Getting Rich
I think his thoughts on personal priorities and the nature of work in today's world would be useful for a lot of bogleheads. We like to think that because we are high earning (relatively speaking) professionals with a low time preference (so we can invest and make sound financial decisions) we will be handsomely rewarded. This will likely be true, but ignoring the disruption technology advancement and the scalability of internet businesses is likely to be a larger opportunity cost than we admit.
What an interesting comment. If I understand you correctly, it has to do really with admitting the slipperiness of probability----or certainty, for that matter. When you get right down to it, the ur-subject of the Bogle-board (and perhaps all financial writing) is mostly probability/certainty.

I've always thought disruption is just a new (Silicon-Valley-coined) word for what ole Heraclitus was writing about.
And yes, a couple millennia later, we're still puzzling over the mystery and inevitability of change.

Here's to human puzzlement! :beer
I'd like to live as a poor man with lots of money. ~Pablo Picasso

User avatar
7th_Diagram
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2019 11:37 pm

Re: Naval on getting rich.

Post by 7th_Diagram » Tue Jun 11, 2019 7:43 pm

I heard Naval on Joe Rogans podcast last week and I was wondering where I heard of him and of course it was the Bogleheads forum.

I immensely enjoyed the podcast. Bogleheads would be pleased to hear that when he spoke of retirement he mentioned living below your means and having a high savings rate.

Highly recommended :sharebeer
"You have to understand, most people are not ready to be unplugged,and many of them are so injured, so hopelessly dependent upon the system, that they will fight to protect it." | ~Morpheus

User avatar
abuss368
Posts: 13825
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Where the water is warm, the drinks are cold, and I don't know the names of the players!

Re: Naval on getting rich.

Post by abuss368 » Tue Jun 11, 2019 8:19 pm

Interesting. There is another personal finance website in the bay area: www.financialsamurai.com
John C. Bogle: "You simply do not need to put your money into 8 different mutual funds!" | | Disclosure: Three Fund Portfolio + U.S. & International REITs

Starfish
Posts: 1166
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2018 6:33 pm

Re: Naval on getting rich.

Post by Starfish » Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:13 pm

Thesaints wrote:
Thu Feb 28, 2019 5:32 pm
What their are saying is that MZ twins are more likely than EZ twins to take a similar career path. But it is any career path.
What I'm saying is that those two grew up with everybody around them unable to tell them apart. No big surprise if they end up being showing similar character, taste, inclinations.
I know it's an older topic, but I am grew up with couple of pairs of MZ twins around me (neighbors, friends, classmates) and EVERYBODY could tell the apart after about 2-3 days of knowing them.
Actually it is very interesting to me how genetically identical individuals end up SO different. Of course they are still a lot more similar than DZ twins or just regular siblings, but they are still very different.
We could recognize our twin friends from very far away, because they even walked differently. Their face was slightly different. Their voices were VERY different. Manner of talk, personality, everything was different. They had different physical abilities and different hobbies and interests.
All pairs of twins I know have an older and a younger one (perceived as, probably no relationship with order of birth) and kids called them like that.

Post Reply