You, as a Failure
Jay Hayley has an essay called The Art of Being a Failure as a Therapist and in it he does something interesting. He tries to argue for a method of psychiatry (directive) by discussing all the ways it can be done poorly. By showing specifically where it can go wrong, Hayley knows he is proving it to be quantifiable rather than some vague, indescribable notion. In other words, he tested for falsifiability.
Jake Lodwick used the same idea in a thought experiment that is worth running through occasionally. Try to think, he says, of one thing that would finally convince you that Keynesian economics don’t really work.
A better example might be Umair Haque. Is there anything he doesn’t see as confirmation of his theories? His approach makes for a entertaining record of pithy blog posts but it also makes him callous, excessively general, and open to criticism.
If you combine Hayley’s approach with the thought experiment you have a nice way to test yourself. Think about your job. Can you write out, concretely, what you would have to do to be a failure at it? If you can’t then maybe you don’t really do anything. Or, think about something you have faith in or hold in high esteem. Can you articulate, exactly, what would have to happen for it to lose your respect? If you can’t, maybe it’s closer to worshiping than believing.
This reminded me of an older post by Ian Claudius (http://turningpro.net/feynmans-notebook), discussing how Richard Feynman prepared for his oral examinations by “disassembling each branch of physics, oiling the parts and putting them back together, looking all the while for the raw edges and inconsistencies.”
It seems to follow the adage of having to take the time to really learn how much you don’t know.
Figuring out what you’d have to do to fail can also help you understand how to be better at something. An important part of knowing how to win is knowing how not to lose.
I’m often disturbed by how gleeful Umair is when describing how fucked we all are.
I have often tried to get strong-minded people to understand this concept by asking them if there were any conditions that could happen for them to lose their convictions, or strongly-held philosophies. They invariably answer that they can’t foresee any such circumstances. I then attempt to argue that they must not have a complete conception of their philosophies, that they haven’t thought them through enough if they can’t go through such a simple thought exercise.
The conversations don’t go well after that.
I’m very glad that you are calling out Umair Haque. Fred Wilson called his work ‘obtuse’ but I think a better word to describe it would be ‘meaningless’. He’s so vague that his blog posts just read like socialistic blabber.
Well, I’m not calling him out. I think he’s right. I just also think that it’s time to start being concrete and direct. If you can’t be then maybe you’re being disingenuous.