Making mistakes can be a fantastic way to learn, even if you sometimes make them intentionally. Given that they’re a way to learn, though, repeatedly making the same one isn’t going to be very effective.

In a conversation last year with Donald Miller, Seth Godin said something to the effect of:

“Encourage people to make mistakes, but also make sure you learn from them. Make mistakes once, but don’t make them twice.”

Giving people the freedom to make mistakes is an awesome thing, and I encourage it. Particularly if the decision to be made is a two-way door, the freedom to try things and potentially make mistakes is worthwhile.

Just don’t make them twice.

When deciding what content to dig into (books, podcasts, etc), I’m often faced with an interesting decision: do I want to explore something new, or revisit an old favorite?

Over the last year, I’ve been doing a lot of revisiting in place of new content. I’m still reading a few new books every month, but I’m also working on revisiting old content to help better understand it and solidify it in my brain. My new “Stacking Knowledge” podcast is a great example of that.

I thought more about this today while listening to a new(?) episode of Seth Godin’s “Akimbo” podcast. I wasn’t sure about the word “new” in that sentence, because while it was a fresh podcast in his feed, it began with “this is a special archived episode of Akimbo”, as many of his often do. It’s a rerun.

My initial thought was disappointment. I love Seth’s insights on various topics, and was sad to not have a new one to enjoy. However, this particular episode was a few years old and I had forgotten pretty much everything about it. To me, it was new! While parts of it were familiar, I still picked up quite a bit of info from it even though I had heard it before.

Generally speaking, if I’m consuming content I prefer for it to be new, but I’m slowly changing on that. My strategy for the past few years has been to consume quite a lot of new content, but also to find creative ways to revisit old content (like that podcast, or a book club, or some other event that will force me to dive back in).

It’s a tough balance, but there’s not a wrong answer. If I’m spending time digging into quality content, both the fresh content and the reruns are helping me to become a better person, so the exact mix of the two isn’t important.

Where do you stand on this? Do you intentionally try to focus on new content, or do you frequently revisit your old favorites?

We’ve always heard about how bad “half-baked ideas” usually are, but every idea goes through that stage at some point. It certainly could be problematic to move forward with a half-baked idea, but having a half-baked idea means that you might be on to something good.

In his book “Steal the Show“, author Michael Port explains his thoughts on this when working with the local District Attorney (DA):

In fact, the DA loves to poke holes in things and even relishes the role. The DA justifies his advocacy with statements such as, “We can’t take off with a half-baked idea.” The truth is, just as there are no fully baked cakes that don’t pass through a half-baked stage, the same applies to ideas.

The degree that you’re willing to share half-baked ideas depends largely on your comfort level, as well as how solid your personal board of directors is. Ask the people around me, and I share half-baked ideas quite often. Many times they’re (rightfully) shot down, but sometimes they turn into something great.

Either way, having a half-baked idea should excite you to resolve it, not scare you into thinking that you don’t have enough — you just don’t have enough yet.

For most of us, we can look back at ourselves from 10 years ago and think “wow, I had no idea what I was doing”. It’s uncomfortable to appreciate, but it stands to reason that in 10 years we’ll look back at ourselves today and think the same thing.

In his book “Clear Thinking“, Shane Parrish says it like this:

We have a limited perspective. It is very hard to understand a system that we are a part of. Just as you look back on your sixteen-year-old self and wonder what you were thinking, your future self will look back on your current self and think the same thing. Your present self is blind to the perspective of your future self.

We know that today we’re better than we were at 16. Most of us are more patient, empathetic, financially sound, wise, and we’re simply a better person than we were back then.

This blog is intended to make me into a better person, so it stands to reason that in a decade I’ll have improved myself and I’ll look back to 2024 and wonder what was going through my mind. Even though I’m intentionally trying to become better, it’s still strange to think how little I know today compared to future me.

Perspective can be a great thing, and this is one worth keeping in mind.

I’m a big fan of summaries, as they can be a great way to get a lot of information in a short period of time. Blinkist creates fantastic summaries, and I certainly read them quite often.

That said, summaries can leave you short. In his book “Clear Thinking“, Shane Parrish shares:

Reading a summary might be faster than reading a full document, but it misses a lot of details— details that weren’t relevant to the person summarizing the information, but that might be relevant to you. You end up saving time at the cost of missing important information. Skimming inadvertently creates blind spots.

Every summary, by design, omits a lot of the content in the original piece. That can be fine, but it might miss things that would have resonated well with you.

The other consideration is to think about who is writing the summary. If we’re learning from a summary, we’re a step further away from the true expert. Again from Shane’s book:

Many of us learn about a subject not by reading original research or listening to the expert for hours, but by reading something intended to be highly transmissible. Think again of the difference between reading an academic article and reading a newspaper article about it. While they know more than the layman, popularizers are not experts themselves. Instead, they are good at clearly and memorably communicating ideas. As a result, popularizers often get mistaken for experts. Keep that in mind when you’re in the market for an expert: the person with real expertise is often not the person who made the subject popular.

He’s essentially talking about me! I provide a lot of summaries and insights (which can be super helpful for me), but I hope you take the time to dig deeper into the source of the areas that interest you.

Summaries can give you a wide range of information, but it’s always worthwhile to pick the important pieces and go much deeper on those.

Sometimes just a little shift in wording can make a huge difference. In Adam Grant’s book “Hidden Potential“, he explains the difference between seeking feedback and seeking advice:

Instead of seeking feedback, you’re better off asking for advice. Feedback tends to focus on how well you did last time. Advice shifts attention to how you can do better next time.

While I can understand it from the perspective of the person asking, it makes a ton of sense to me when I consider it from the perspective of the person receiving.

If someone asks me for feedback, my default will be a positive response. Even if the event/performance in question was sub-par, I’ll feel inclined to give some kind of “you did great!” type of response.

However, if someone asks for advice, it feels that they’re more open to an actual evaluation. Depending on the situation I’d likely still default to a positive response, but I’ll be more likely to give some tactical guidance as well.

If I make a major mistake with something, I might default to just wanting consolation. In most cases, though, advice on how to improve for next time is the best gift that someone could offer.