[zandl]

This is what I find fascinating about the annals of Lü Buwei (239bc Qin Dynasty), in that he brought together the best philosophers of the time to create a book of all the knowledge, arts, sciences, food, almanacs and state leadership for future generations. Some of his leadership advice I actually haven’t seen elsewhere and learned from. So exactly what he had in mind after over 2200 years ago.

I think the other thing one realizes with history is how much makes up the present, it’s part of our cultures today. We didn’t invent ideas of equality, women and animal rights, Aristotle references ancient states with these ideals — notably he mentions them as vulnerable to demagogues. Almond milk was used as a milk substitute in medieval French cooking since it’s easier to use. I feel we’re dismisive of previous generations and think of our selves as better when really nothing has changed outside of technology and our physical sciences.

[techopoly]

Right on point. We in the modern age -- and technologists especially, and I speak for myself -- are very prone to assuming advances in technology translate to advances in the essence of humanity. The base human condition is still the same, though we may now have easier access to food and modern conveniences, which is certainly good. But the previous generations have so much wisdom that can we learn from, despite their faults.

[chimprich]

> Some of his leadership advice I actually haven’t seen elsewhere and learned from.

Intriguing, could you give us a flavour?

[zandl]

One example, the leader of a state shouldn’t be doing anything since this biases their judgment, instead they should always rely on their ministers to be experts, and the fewer decisions one makes the more ideal the leader. It’s not just simple delegation that they’re talking about, it’s that at least on person has to have a clear view of the whole picture to make subtle adjustments, and if the leader is wrapped up in doing the work himself then it’s no longer possible. They have very strong words for leaders who do work themselves as being unfit and bluntly stupid. It certainly resonated for me as being completely correct, and adjusted my management style.

[lostconfused]

Ah that sounds pretty much the same type of management philosophy as espoused in "Clouds Above The Hill" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saka_no_Ue_no_Kumo

The author attributes the successes of early Imperial Japanese Navy to the men in leadership roles being wise enough to focus on enabling their competent subordinates do their jobs and nothing more. At least a lot early 2nd volume is spent on organization and management structure. Japan spent a lot of time studying Chinese culture so it would make sense that they would addopt similar ideas.

This article https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2002/07/22/the-talent-myt... claims this "loose tight" for of leadership is responsible for collapse of Enron.