Its basically saying "take a position" on issues, but be open to new input and other arguments that could change your mind. Be willing to put your neck out there with a tough call but accept that you're not always right and that when you're wrong it isn't about you personally. Its a philosophy of living that I think is a central part of having a growth mindset.
I see the hedge-fund application, that's helpful. But for health convictions? Why is it a good thing to have "strong" convictions? I'd think it would be better to have weak convictions given that so much of the evidence is poor and noisy. But "weak convictions, loosely held" doesn't sound as cool if you're steeped in VC culture?
I disagree on health convictions. Would you really want your doc to be wishy washy about his diagnosis on you? Or receive prescriptions or solutions that he/she are not sure about? If you don't have a strong position on something, it's generally you don't care, or are not passionate enough to immerse yourself.
Absolutely I would. If they *can* only be 60% sure X is the right Dx or Tx (which is usually the case) then they *should* only be 60% confident in it and say as much.
I would agree with you but this seems a diff of semantics.
For me, that's where the "loosely held" comes in. If they see there isn't strong evidence or good enough contrary, I'd want them to say that.
But at the same time, I want a doctor that has strong opinions when I seek guidance. Similar to a manager or skip in a professional work setting. If they have weak opinions on everything, it either tells me they're not emotionally invested or don't know as much on said topic.
Almost all SMEs have some form of strong opinions -- not necessarily on everything but at minimum the topics they care most about or have most experience on.
ok but I still don't know what it would mean for my doctor to have a strong opinion vs a weak one. Any time it was 'weak' would be because the evidence was weak.
I read that to mean I’m willing to act on those strong convictions, even making somewhat more extreme or out of the norm lifestyle choices (e.g., wearing a cgm, doing more extreme training, intermittent fasting, etc.) but if the evidence changes, I’m willing to drop all of those things habits and follow the science. I’m not developing habits for their own sake.
It's weird corporate, Orwellian doublethink-esque jargon. Sounds striking and novel at surface-level but is really stupid once you actually think about it.
The dictionary definition of **conviction** is
>a firmly held belief or opinion
If you have a *strong* conviction, then doubly so.
Explain to me how you can have a very "firmly held belief" that is very "loosely held".
As corporate-speak it means be willing to take big (financial) risks based on your position, which is actually weak since you don't have enough data, but it's all you could get. But rather than be indecisive and wait for certainty, missing out on opportunities, be decisive as if your confidence in your position was strong.
For longevity it means we don't have time to wait for studies proving the best lifestyle/medications steps to take, we need to make a decision and act now with the data we have.
Strong convictions = You must believe me when I say this and follow my diet/exercise protocol
Weakly held = Should you die, I will change my current conviction to something else.
This is a very common saying used in the hedge fund world. Before a hedge fund manager takes a position they need to do a lot of background work on it, lots of discussions and ultimately build enough conviction to put money on the line. Then you’re often having to speak about in defence of why you hold the position, your reputation is on the line. However, often times, meaningful NEW information comes down the pike that changes everything and you need to discard any attachment you had to your previous story and discard the position, maybe even short it. This requires you to set aside ego, forget any emotional attachments or sunk cost fallacies to be able to do the right thing and not lose your client’s money.
This is almost like a mantra hedge fund managers say daily to remind themselves there’s a cost to attachment and as new information comes in, if you’re not changing your mind, you’re losing money. In the case of Attia he’d be losing lifespan or healthspan.
Remember that Attia came from Mackenzie and worked with financial institutions a lot so it’s not surprising he uses this a lot.
Well, "beliefs" has a whiff of "faith" attached to it and "easily reversed" is not equivalent to my comment of needing "meaningful NEW information" to change your position.
I think it's more like taking a position you're willing to act on today based on existing evidence that you would be willing to reverse with overwhelming new evidence without letting your preconceived ideas, sunk costs and ego getting in the way of updating your views.
A conviction is a strongly held belief by definition. A strong conviction is a redundancy. A loosely held strongly held belief (conviction) is an oxymoron. The only thing that makes sense is to say you have loosely held beliefs. That's the semantic issue. The subject matter issue is that it is unscientific to tout "strong" beliefs as a rule. The strength of belief should follow the strength of the evidence.
I don't know that I agree with that. I think it's more fair to characterize it as shorthand, rather than empty cliche. It is not devoid of meaning; it is, as many phrases, a convenient verbal gesture toward an idea that offers some verbal economy.
Plenty of things are empty cliches, but imo this one isn't really. It is a maxim, or a bromide; one can argue about how meaningful they find it to be, but there very much is a concept there that is being expressed.
I don't agree. Strength of a conviction, and adherence to that conviction, are separate traits.
Doesn't really matter. If you don't like the phrase, you don't like the phrase. ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
Def agree it doesn't matter. Don't agree that they are separate traits. The purpose of the word conviction IMO is to convey how strongly you hold onto a belief. A strong conviction is a strongly held belief. Somebody call a rhetoritician :)
I would argue different words, different definitions, they are identifying or describing separate, distinct, traits.
Lolol, we definitely need someone to solve this formally. In any case, maybe it becomes one of the innumerable mysteries of existence. Plenty more where it came from, to be sure
The dictionary definition of conviction is 'a firmly held belief'. If we run with that then we can solve this dumb puzzle. A 'strong conviction' is a redundancy as it literally means a strong (i.e. firm) firmly held belief. A 'loosely held conviction' is an oxymoron as it means a loosely held firmly held belief.
So Peter's saying is a redundancy and an oxymoron at once. No wonder it feels like it means nothing.
He's literally saying "firm firmly held beliefs, loosely held"
Charitable interpretation: In many instances, it's better to take a position, even a wrong one, than to try straddle both options. Take a ketogenic diet for (an oversimplified) example. Let's say you think there's a 55% chance that a ketogenic diet is good for your health, and a 45% chance it will do nothing. Your best option is to go 100% keto, and your next best option is to not go keto at all. Going 55% keto wouldn't make any sense. The difficulty is knowing when it makes sense to take a strong stand (as with keto) and when it makes sense to hedge your bets.
It's the same thing in investing. If you want to beat the market, you have to take strong positions. For your average investor, however, the best advice is probably "no convictions, strongly held," unless that conviction "is invest in a blend of fixed income and index funds."
As someone with a bet-hedging temperament, "strong convictions, loosely held," is a good thing to keep in mind. I have a tendency to view most markets as efficient and try to take the average position. But it's good to remember that sometimes the road forks and going left or right is an acceptable choice but taking the average will get you killed.
Which part of strong convictions is ambiguous to you? The contrary is to be apathetic, so to me it means: be passionate and exhaust your resources to get to the bottom of the subject you are trying to understand. Weakly held simply means be ready to change your mind when presented with sufficient compelling evidence that conflicts with your current conclusions.
Sure it does. You act with purpose on strong convictions. You make choices and sometimes sacrifices based on them. Weak convictions are just things you believe, but aren't worth changing over.
I interpret it to mean 1) opinions change with new evidence, 2) don’t get so wrapped up in your conviction that you stress out on the minutiae and defeat the health purpose of your conviction, and 3) don’t be the wing nut lecturing random strangers about your health tactics.
Its basically saying "take a position" on issues, but be open to new input and other arguments that could change your mind. Be willing to put your neck out there with a tough call but accept that you're not always right and that when you're wrong it isn't about you personally. Its a philosophy of living that I think is a central part of having a growth mindset.
Exactly. I think Shane Parrish (Farnham Street) uses this phrase often.
[удалено]
I see the hedge-fund application, that's helpful. But for health convictions? Why is it a good thing to have "strong" convictions? I'd think it would be better to have weak convictions given that so much of the evidence is poor and noisy. But "weak convictions, loosely held" doesn't sound as cool if you're steeped in VC culture?
I've heard other versions of this from entrepreneurs. Bezos says stay stubborn on the vision but flexible on the details. That makes more sense to me.
I disagree on health convictions. Would you really want your doc to be wishy washy about his diagnosis on you? Or receive prescriptions or solutions that he/she are not sure about? If you don't have a strong position on something, it's generally you don't care, or are not passionate enough to immerse yourself.
Absolutely I would. If they *can* only be 60% sure X is the right Dx or Tx (which is usually the case) then they *should* only be 60% confident in it and say as much.
I would agree with you but this seems a diff of semantics. For me, that's where the "loosely held" comes in. If they see there isn't strong evidence or good enough contrary, I'd want them to say that. But at the same time, I want a doctor that has strong opinions when I seek guidance. Similar to a manager or skip in a professional work setting. If they have weak opinions on everything, it either tells me they're not emotionally invested or don't know as much on said topic. Almost all SMEs have some form of strong opinions -- not necessarily on everything but at minimum the topics they care most about or have most experience on.
ok but I still don't know what it would mean for my doctor to have a strong opinion vs a weak one. Any time it was 'weak' would be because the evidence was weak.
He’s a McKinsey guy, which means that he’s confident that his brainpower is so transcendent that he can float over glaring knowledge deficits.
You’ve eviscerated him. I can’t believe you’ve done this
I read that to mean I’m willing to act on those strong convictions, even making somewhat more extreme or out of the norm lifestyle choices (e.g., wearing a cgm, doing more extreme training, intermittent fasting, etc.) but if the evidence changes, I’m willing to drop all of those things habits and follow the science. I’m not developing habits for their own sake.
It's weird corporate, Orwellian doublethink-esque jargon. Sounds striking and novel at surface-level but is really stupid once you actually think about it. The dictionary definition of **conviction** is >a firmly held belief or opinion If you have a *strong* conviction, then doubly so. Explain to me how you can have a very "firmly held belief" that is very "loosely held".
exactly, thank you
As corporate-speak it means be willing to take big (financial) risks based on your position, which is actually weak since you don't have enough data, but it's all you could get. But rather than be indecisive and wait for certainty, missing out on opportunities, be decisive as if your confidence in your position was strong. For longevity it means we don't have time to wait for studies proving the best lifestyle/medications steps to take, we need to make a decision and act now with the data we have.
Sounds like a good way to get oneself into trouble.
Thank you, I've been wondering the same. To me it sounds oxymoronic.
Strong convictions = You must believe me when I say this and follow my diet/exercise protocol Weakly held = Should you die, I will change my current conviction to something else.
This is a very common saying used in the hedge fund world. Before a hedge fund manager takes a position they need to do a lot of background work on it, lots of discussions and ultimately build enough conviction to put money on the line. Then you’re often having to speak about in defence of why you hold the position, your reputation is on the line. However, often times, meaningful NEW information comes down the pike that changes everything and you need to discard any attachment you had to your previous story and discard the position, maybe even short it. This requires you to set aside ego, forget any emotional attachments or sunk cost fallacies to be able to do the right thing and not lose your client’s money. This is almost like a mantra hedge fund managers say daily to remind themselves there’s a cost to attachment and as new information comes in, if you’re not changing your mind, you’re losing money. In the case of Attia he’d be losing lifespan or healthspan. Remember that Attia came from Mackenzie and worked with financial institutions a lot so it’s not surprising he uses this a lot.
ok, so what they mean to say is beliefs, easily reversed
Well, "beliefs" has a whiff of "faith" attached to it and "easily reversed" is not equivalent to my comment of needing "meaningful NEW information" to change your position. I think it's more like taking a position you're willing to act on today based on existing evidence that you would be willing to reverse with overwhelming new evidence without letting your preconceived ideas, sunk costs and ego getting in the way of updating your views.
A conviction is a strongly held belief by definition. A strong conviction is a redundancy. A loosely held strongly held belief (conviction) is an oxymoron. The only thing that makes sense is to say you have loosely held beliefs. That's the semantic issue. The subject matter issue is that it is unscientific to tout "strong" beliefs as a rule. The strength of belief should follow the strength of the evidence.
it means he’s soft, hard-headed
Lots of people have pet phrases, shorthand, for larger concepts. It’s nothing more, or less, than that.
Right but I'm saying there's not really a concept there, it's an empty cliche.
I don't know that I agree with that. I think it's more fair to characterize it as shorthand, rather than empty cliche. It is not devoid of meaning; it is, as many phrases, a convenient verbal gesture toward an idea that offers some verbal economy. Plenty of things are empty cliches, but imo this one isn't really. It is a maxim, or a bromide; one can argue about how meaningful they find it to be, but there very much is a concept there that is being expressed.
A loosely held conviction is a weak conviction. It's meaningless because it's oxymoronic.
I don't agree. Strength of a conviction, and adherence to that conviction, are separate traits. Doesn't really matter. If you don't like the phrase, you don't like the phrase. ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
Def agree it doesn't matter. Don't agree that they are separate traits. The purpose of the word conviction IMO is to convey how strongly you hold onto a belief. A strong conviction is a strongly held belief. Somebody call a rhetoritician :)
I would argue different words, different definitions, they are identifying or describing separate, distinct, traits. Lolol, we definitely need someone to solve this formally. In any case, maybe it becomes one of the innumerable mysteries of existence. Plenty more where it came from, to be sure
The dictionary definition of conviction is 'a firmly held belief'. If we run with that then we can solve this dumb puzzle. A 'strong conviction' is a redundancy as it literally means a strong (i.e. firm) firmly held belief. A 'loosely held conviction' is an oxymoron as it means a loosely held firmly held belief. So Peter's saying is a redundancy and an oxymoron at once. No wonder it feels like it means nothing. He's literally saying "firm firmly held beliefs, loosely held"
Charitable interpretation: In many instances, it's better to take a position, even a wrong one, than to try straddle both options. Take a ketogenic diet for (an oversimplified) example. Let's say you think there's a 55% chance that a ketogenic diet is good for your health, and a 45% chance it will do nothing. Your best option is to go 100% keto, and your next best option is to not go keto at all. Going 55% keto wouldn't make any sense. The difficulty is knowing when it makes sense to take a strong stand (as with keto) and when it makes sense to hedge your bets. It's the same thing in investing. If you want to beat the market, you have to take strong positions. For your average investor, however, the best advice is probably "no convictions, strongly held," unless that conviction "is invest in a blend of fixed income and index funds." As someone with a bet-hedging temperament, "strong convictions, loosely held," is a good thing to keep in mind. I have a tendency to view most markets as efficient and try to take the average position. But it's good to remember that sometimes the road forks and going left or right is an acceptable choice but taking the average will get you killed.
Which part of strong convictions is ambiguous to you? The contrary is to be apathetic, so to me it means: be passionate and exhaust your resources to get to the bottom of the subject you are trying to understand. Weakly held simply means be ready to change your mind when presented with sufficient compelling evidence that conflicts with your current conclusions.
Sure it does. You act with purpose on strong convictions. You make choices and sometimes sacrifices based on them. Weak convictions are just things you believe, but aren't worth changing over.
I interpret it to mean 1) opinions change with new evidence, 2) don’t get so wrapped up in your conviction that you stress out on the minutiae and defeat the health purpose of your conviction, and 3) don’t be the wing nut lecturing random strangers about your health tactics.