= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
CasioTheSane comments on What makes you different from Tim Ferriss? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (46)
You have a good point about motivation, but I don't think Timothy Ferriss is a good example person to use for explaining this idea to LWers. Perhaps a very successful and motivated scientist such as Feynman?
Personally, I don't find Timothy Ferris' motivation level that impressive- on the contrary, I think he's dangerously lazy.
For example, he presents himself as an elite and highly experienced biohacker in 4HB, but he's just copying methods from already published books that he doesn't understand well. He's using relatively dangerous and ineffective techniques, because he never invested the time to understand the relevant biology, history, and many key methods surrounding the ideas he talks about.
This is actually a very traditional kind of over-caution. It's being lazy by pretending not to be, and never actually doing anything. You learn more about how effective a diet is for you by trying it for two months than you do by studying nutrition science for 4 years, but one is a scary difficult life change and the other you can leave to the experts and do nothing.
He's put in way more time and effort into figuring out his own body and its reactions to things than you ever will. What's lazy about this? It may be inefficient or incorrect if you believe in the primacy of research, but in what universe does it count as lazy?
I was not arguing for studying theory over practical experience- but to argue that he is far from an expert at either approach.
It's true that most effective fitness techniques lack any solid theoretical basis and were discovered by self experimentation. However, his knowledge level of these practical fitness techniques is shallow.
For example his workouts were copied nearly verbatim from the book "Body by Science" but are missing important advice from that book on how to perform them safely and effectively. He also seems unaware of the methods developed by self-experimentation/bodybuilding pioneer Vince Gironda, which are generally more effective than the methods he talks about in 4HB.
Another example- The low rep/low duration/infrequent lifting methods in 4HB don't work without EXTREMELY high effort/intensity levels. He does mention this in his book (I think he says lift like you have a gun to your head), but the vast majority of people can't do this without specific mental techniques that increase intensity. By leaving "intensity mental hacks" out of his book, the workouts will do nothing for most people.
I'm glad that he's popularizing alternative fitness and nutrition ideas, but at the same time I'm frustrated that he didn't take the time to do a better job of researching and understanding what's out there first.
You are wrong. Any definition of 'lazy' which makes your claim true would be ridiculous. And, in case you were wondering, suicide bombers aren't cowards either.
Bravo.
Unsubstantiated claim that I have no reason be believe. His understanding seems to be more than adequate, even if oriented more towards practice than theory.
This seems false (except the parts that explicitly say "this is dangerous", "don't do this without medical supervision").
Invest some time looking into modern bodybuilding methods and "paleo 2.0" diets, and you'll quickly see that his knowledge level of practical fitness methods is shockingly shallow (and outdated) for someone who claims such a longstanding interest in them.