In the context of this post it's not about preserving or sharing the thoughts. Writing, in this case, is a "thinking tool". Forcing yourself to materialise the thoughts as actual, written, text helps form clear ideas.

that’s so alien to me. for me, writing by hand is frustrating to the point of distraction. if I want to think clearly, my best bet is to do it silently, in my head.

That's great if you can do it!

To me, if the problem is too complex, or more likely, if I expect to be distracted by family and chores, "building in my head" is not the best option as it all falls apart and need to build it up from scratch (though admittedly faster than last time).

My brain has enough memory

Are there any good forums where people do have good market knowledge and share it?

By no means it is an outdated phrase. Ask any startup sales person!

I personally know a VP who was fired for buying "IBM Cloud." You can absolutely get flak for choosing IBM these days, even at a stodgy enterprise.

The gist is still current, but you need to fill in AWS as the current uncontroversial choice.

Must be a very terrible company to work for if they are firing people solely on them picking X over Y.

But isn't this one of the points of all this. Figuring out which thnigs work and which don't? Which can be thrown out and which can be "condensed"?

I think it makes sense. He's doing the most extreme things to find things that work. And then be able to say, "This subset of intervention worked very well, let's try to reproduce it in a larger population."

More likely he'll publish a book (like Tim Ferris mentioned elsewhere) aand... that's it.

Min/maxing your lifestyle is a privilege and wealth thing - mainly having to do with time and mental leftover energy.

Maybe if he was not doing anything, his score would be 1.1?

Also, I don't think the point is doing fancy things. The people that beat him might just be doing "common sense" healthy things. Something which most people don't do. See SAD (Standard American Diet).

Yeah, of course, maybe it would be 1.1. What I am trying to say is that the results could be reported in a more scientific manner.

For instance, about epigenetic clocks, there are a lot of them now. There is GrimAge for mortality, FitAge for fitness, and dozens of different clocks for chronological age. I cannot know for sure, but I am almost sure Bryan tried at least a few. Why did they select to showcase only this one? Is it because they liked the results the most?

Same for all other markers. All of them are "optimal" "above 95%", etc. Is there no marker that is not so great and can still be improved? Also showing the history of the measurements (how they fluctuate during years Bryan is on the protocol) would be wonderful. Or measuring the same markers for a different person, who is above him in the leaderboard, but not going through the protocol.

I want to repeat that I love what he is doing. But for some reason the website gives a marketing vibe. This is our protocol, everything is optimal, here is our olive oil. Which is a bit of a weird look, given the lengths Bryan Johnson is going through.

"Maybe" isn't exactly scientific; what he should've done was keep his existing lifestyle, have the same measurements taken, but not actually look at them because they would influence the measurements.

Without a baseline, the numbers are meaningless. What if most people are under 1 but there's a few outliers that skew the numbers?

Although even then it could be 1 thing out of 100 things he does to actually be helpful, e.g. exercise.

That's right. What matters most here is whether he might be just as healthy if he'd just exercise regularly and eat a decent diet.

I built one myself. https://framedbyher.com/the-story/ I can share more in depth guide if you'd be up for that.

Exactly this! I haven't been interviewed for a long time now, but since the beginning of my career, when I have interviewed people I ask deeper questions. Even with tech tests, I use them as a jumping board for diving deeper into language design, tradeoffs and experiences. Even a trivial, reverse-a-string kind of questions can take you deep into candidate's knowledge.

I think the implied question was "It isn't affecting me, here is the data I see around myself. That data is incongruent with the headlines, can you offer an explanation and show me what I am missing?"

And the answer is if someone surveys the inside of an office, they'll report very high employment rates.

The world is large and diverse. To understand it, one has to look at statistics. Looking at people runs in to hard limits very quickly, because it is only possible to see people who are in the same place as the viewer.

That's a generous interpretation. I think someone capable of negotiating themselves a new tech job at higher pay could only be asking this question rhetorically and not because they are incapable of answering it themselves.

I don't think OP meant in general not thinking about a stiff back. OP was talking about telling yourself the story that you have a stiff back because you're getting older.

I hope so. I posted for the sake of people who (like past me) took the "don't tell yourself a story" advice too far. Turns out if possible, you want to root cause your issues before dismissing. :)