If you're wondering what to read, here are two simple ideas that we can combine to help guide what you read.
Are you making the most of your reading time?
While I read a lot of books that doesn't mean I don't spend a lot of time thinking about how I read. I am constantly asking myself if I'm making the most use of my reading time.
It turns out that most of the time the best way to improve your Reading Return on Invested Time (RROIT) is to carefully filter the books you actually read in a cover to cover way.
If you're interested in reading, you might find this simple process I use to filter books useful.
Step 1. Understand Deeply
“The more basic knowledge you have … the less new knowledge you have to get.”
— Charlie Munger
The first idea is getting back to basics. Understanding the basics, as boring as it sounds, is one of the key elements of effective thinking.
Unfortunately most of us prefer the complext to the simple. Understanding a simple idea deeply, however, creates more lasting knowledge and builds a solid foundation for complex ideas later.
Building a foundation is hard work. The key here is brutal honesty with yourself about what you really know. Take the time to do a Feynman One Pager on an idea you think you know really well. This simple process will show you the knowledge that you're missing. The foundation of success is understanding deeply.
Basic ideas are the foundation to building multidisciplinary mind. You don't need to understand the latest study in biology, but you sure as heck better understand the concept of evolution because it applies to so much more than animals.
The depth at which we master the basics is an indicator of how well we predict which variables matter and how they interact. Put simply, people who understand the basics are better at understanding second and subsequent order consequences. Plus, how are we to have a chance of understanding complex ideas without a firm understanding of the basics.
Remember, the slightest wind blows over a house without a foundation.
The Lindy Effect
The second idea is the Lindy Effect, which is just a fancy way of saying what's been around will continue to be around.
In his book Antifragile, author Nassim Taleb, who builds on the idea of Benoit Mandelbrot, writes:
For the perishable, every additional day in its life translates into a shorter additional life expectancy. For the nonperishable, every additional day may imply a longer life expectancy. So the longer a technology lives, the longer it can be expected to live.
The nonperishable is anything that does not have organic or avoidable expiration dates.
While produce and humans have a mathematical life expectancy that decreases with each day, some things, like books, increase in life expectancy with each passing day.
The perishable is typically an object, the nonperishable has an informational nature to it. A single car is perishable, but the automobile as a technology has survived about a century (and we will speculate should survive another one). Humans die, but their genes—a code—do not necessarily. The physical book is perishable—say, a specific copy of the Old Testament—but its contents are not, as they can be expressed into another physical book.
When I see a toddler walking down the street holding the hands of their grandparents, I can reasonably assert that the toddler will survive the elder.
With something nonperishable that is not the case.
We have two possibilities: either both are expected to have the same additional life expectancy (the case in which the probability distribution is called exponential), or the old is expected to have a longer expectancy than the young, in proportion to their relative age. In that situation, if the old is eighty and the young is ten, the elder is elected to live eight times as long as the younger one.
Here is a chart Taleb provies in his book:
Not all things age with years. The longer something non-perishable has lived, the longer we can expect it to live.
If a book has been in print for forty years, I can expect it to be in print for another forty years. But, and that is the main difference, if it survives another decade, then it will be expected to be in print another fifty years.
This is where Taylor Pearson helped me put something together that I was just too stupid to do myself.
He connects reading to the Lindy effect. Whereas before my heuristic was simply older is better, now I know older is exponentially better. More importantly, I have an idea why.
If you were to look at a typical person’s reading list, the vast majority of books would be crammed into the recent, low-value portion of the curve while many fewer books would occupy the much larger high-value, older section of the curve.
So your ROI on reading and understanding a concept from 500 years ago is highly likely to be exponentially greater in the long run than one presented only 5 years ago.
What I’m trying to get at is that the more fundamental or closer to the source that you move, the better the ROI in the long run.
So let's combine these ideas and focus on reading basic ideas that have stood the test of time as a means to understanding them better.
Knowledge has a half-life. The most useful knowledge is a broad-based multidisciplinary education of the basics. These ideas are ones that have lasted, and thus will last, for a long time. And by last, I mean mathematical expectation; I know what will happen in general but not each individual case.
In the words of Charlie Munger, “take a simple idea and take it seriously.”