Do you actually want to be 10x agentic or 95th percentile? [for most people, I suspect the answer is no]
reddit.com![Thumbnail of Do you actually want to be 10x agentic or 95th percentile? [for most people, I suspect the answer is no]](https://www.redditstatic.com/icon.png){kind=icon}
Do you actually want to be 10x agentic or 95th percentile? [for most people, I suspect the answer is no]
Agency > Intelligence
I had this intuitively wrong for decades, I think due to a pervasive cultural veneration of intelligence, various entertainment/media, obsession with IQ etc. Agency is significantly more powerful and significantly more scarce. Are you hiring for agency? Are we educating for agency? Are you acting as if you had 10X agency?
Gr... See more
A gem form the LessWrong community: 'Humans are not automatically strategic.'
"A large majority of otherwise smart people spend time doing semi-productive things, when there are massively productive opportunities untapped." https://t.co/5eR7t5YXLN
A while ago I got interested in being more agentic. Emmett Shear tweeted that it was teachable. He would train people by prompting them with certain questions. I gathered those questions and put them into a flow chart that I go through to problem-solve: https://t.co/kM0MID8bT5... See more
Reaching 95%-ile isn't very impressive because it's not that hard to do. I think this is one of my most ridiculable ideas. It doesn't help that, when stated nakedly, that sounds elitist. But I think it's just the opposite: most people can become (relatively) good at most things.
Atul Gawande • 95%-Ile Isn't That Good
That got me thinking: What would be the most interesting and useful information anyone could get their hands on?
Years ago I asked that question to Yale economist Robert Shiller. “The exact role of luck in successful outcomes,” he answered.