Lots of people I admire have made the case that most people can do more good by being extremely ambitious. The argument is this: a bet on an outcome with a very small probability of occurring can still do a huge amount of good if the upside (the outcome if things go
ok Im inspired.
Two articles (and a small comment reference) that extends on the idea:
It is better to have some high-ambition dense-control smart gambles and large amount of low-ambition sparse-control "routine work", but never mid-ambition and insufficient-control projects https://swellandcut.com/2018/09/26/in-plain-sight/
It is always best to find ways to mix asymmetric gambles with hyper-conservative minimal footprint habits, but not some feel-good "self-help" behaviors that leaves people vulnerable https://dwarkeshpatel.com/barbell-strategies/
There is extreme "exception to the rule" and "cognitive dissidence" at play for those have ambition but don't listen, also a lot of intellectual dark matter (unspoken rules) to observe. https://luttig.substack.com/p/timeful-advice/comment/6924003
Question 1: how does one visualize the ambition-control matrix? https://www.thecuriosityvine.com/post/our-investment-barbell-strategy
Question 2: Is the ambition-control matrix congruent to the reward-risk (or RR-complexity) matrix? https://www.bill4time.com/blog/ultimate-guide-virtual-assistants-law-firm/ https://expertprogrammanagement.com/2011/07/risk-and-reward-analysis/ https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2020/12/16/crypto-is-a-low-risk-high-reward-career-move-these-days/
Just read this when clearing email backlog.
Thought you might be interested in reading this piece: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1frIDWDYBbMQybvEZAtXmcFC_lBpvzrNV/view