[HN Gopher] Being OK with not being extraordinary
___________________________________________________________________
Being OK with not being extraordinary
Author : tmatthe
Score : 440 points
Date : 2020-08-24 15:53 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.tiffanymatthe.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.tiffanymatthe.com)
| Animats wrote:
| _We need to redefine extraordinary._
|
| Or, if you can't win, move the finish line.
| sixstringtheory wrote:
| I think they should've written this line as "don't be afraid to
| reevaluate your understanding of extraordinary" as it's pretty
| clear that's what they're doing in the article. This statement
| followed statements like "extraordinary as I perceived it" and
| "I feel disappointed, jealous."
| [deleted]
| thisistheend123 wrote:
| Maybe this is offtopic, but I made my peace with this kind of
| anxiety once I met, interacted and worked with people who were
| really very very good at what they do.
|
| I let me ego go.
|
| It's ok to be normal. And it's ok to get to learn from the
| masters.
|
| I once read a O Henry short story where the three main characters
| are at different places in society financially and in terms of
| power. But they still found some meaning when they accidentally
| meet each other during the course of the story.
|
| Their relative stature and standing in the world didn't affect
| what they thought of each other when they met.
|
| It was kind of an uncanny, uplifting little story. Don't remember
| its name though.
| ImaCake wrote:
| This is a good lesson to learn. Pretty much everyone you
| interact with is interesting in some way. They can all teach
| you something you don't know, or share an amazing story. This
| is something you notice when you try to learn another language;
| suddenly literally anyone who can speak that language becomes
| someone who can teach you something. From the greatest king to
| the lowest prisoner, they all have at least this one thing that
| is interesting to you.
| sebringj wrote:
| ability = hours * talent^2 where average talent is 1
|
| Having an ego is just wasted energy, try to be happy with what
| you can achieve because you cannot control talent, just hours.
| SCAQTony wrote:
| Extraordinary is boring. If one wants to draw as good as
| Michelangelo Buonarroti, or play the alto sax technically as well
| as Charlie Parker, one has to put in the hours. Imagine only
| having one interest? Example: Michelangelo and Charlie practiced
| or executed their craft incessantly.
|
| "In an interview with Paul Desmond, Parker said that he spent
| three to four years practicing up to 15 hours a day."
|
| "If people knew how hard I worked to get my mastery, it wouldn't
| seem so wonderful at all." ~ Michelangelo
|
| I argue that one is more employable, more accomplished and has
| more opportunities if one is average, or above average, in five
| separate disciplines. Has more diverse friendships too.
| lowiqengineer wrote:
| I don't really want to be Charlie Parker extraordinary, I just
| want to be Harvard CS major who makes $500k as a T5 at Google
| extraordinary. I assure you, that person has more diverse
| friendships and more leisure time than I do.
| realbarack wrote:
| Note that "that person" is not actually a specific person,
| but merely your image of one.
| lowiqengineer wrote:
| I mean I can probably go on LinkedIn right now and find
| someone that fits these loose criteria. They're fairly
| common!
| m1117 wrote:
| I'm extraordinarily good at procrastinating!
| gojomo wrote:
| 10y ago, I posted some similar thoughts about how reading HN
| risks demotivation via a memetic mechanism similar to the
| 'negative allelopathy' in biological systems:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1537692
|
| Reproduced here, as it's just as relevant, or moreso, today:
|
| _I fear that what you 're feeling is a dark side of the net's
| otherwise positive aspects. (It's not just HN.)
|
| The net lets us see all the great output from the most talented
| writers, thinkers, doers of their fields -- including people who
| we could imagine to be our peer group. But what we see is not an
| accurate sample -- it's dominated by the most remarkable,
| outliers by both skill and luck. (That is, there's massive
| survivorship bias; see Taleb's Fooled by Randomness.) Still, if
| we choose to look, it's in our face every hour of every day, in
| our news feeds, our Twitter streams, our Facebook statuses.
|
| (Compare also: the quality of social networks whereby for almost
| everyone, your friends will have more friends than you [1]; the
| Matthew Effect, whereby small changes in initial endowment of
| power/fame/success can compound [2]; and how viewing top athletes
| can actually decrease someone's coordination in following
| challenges [3].)
|
| In the plant and insect world, sometimes as one organism thrives,
| it sends off chemical signals that suppress the growth of its
| siblings/peers/neighbors, in an effect called allelopathy.
|
| Information about others' great works and successes, transmitted
| by the net, may sometimes serve as a sort of memetic negative
| allelopathy. The message is: this territory is taken; you can't
| reach the sunshine here; try another place/strategy (or even just
| wither so your distant relatives can thrive). This can be be the
| subtext even if that's not the conscious intent of those relaying
| the information. Indeed, the reports may be intended as
| motivational, and sometimes be, while at other times being
| discouraging.
|
| What to do? Not yet certain, but awareness that this mechanism is
| in play may help. You can recognize that what you're reading is
| not representative, and that comparing yourself against prominent
| outliers -- or even worse, vague composites of outliers who are
| each the best in one dimension -- is unrealistic and mentally
| unhealthy.
|
| Actual progress for yourself may require detaching from the
| firehose a bit, picking a narrower focus. (HN's eclectic topic
| matter can be inherently defocusing.)
|
| And remind yourself that despite various reptilian-hindbrain
| impulses, most interesting creative activity today is far from
| zero-sum. The outliers can win, and you can win too (even if you
| don't achieve outlier-sized success). Their success can expand
| your options, and they may wind up being your collaborators
| (formally or informally by simply participating in a mutual
| superstructure) moreso than your 'competitors'.
|
| [1] https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-scientific-
| funda...
|
| [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_effect
|
| [3] Can't find the reference at the moment, but the study I
| recall showed people video of a top soccer player, and
| subsequently they performed worse on tasks requiring physical
| coordination._
| thomasfromcdnjs wrote:
| Cool piece, thanks.
| rvn1045 wrote:
| The internet has made everyone feel inadequate as it's easy to
| compare yourself to people you see on the internet. Couple of
| things to keep in mind if your comparing yourself:
|
| 1. There aren't as many uber successful people out there as the
| internet makes it seem. It's far fewer than you think. Lets take
| a simple example of dudes who go to the gym and are strong.
| Instagram makes it seem like all dudes bench press 400 lbs and
| have a 6 pack. In my 15 years of going to the gym (ive been to
| several dozen all across the world) there are less than 5 people
| I've personally seen who've bench pressed even 300 lbs. Apply
| this to any field and it's going to be true.If you take
| programming for instance I'm yet to meet a person who's
| performing at the standard I had set for myself (become a 10x
| programmer).
|
| 2. Lots of people are really good at marketing themselves, which
| inflates the number of people you think are extraordinary.
|
| There aren't that many people at the world class level, the
| internet makes it seem there are more of these than there are.
| Just relax and do the things you enjoy.
| mbar84 wrote:
| I remember feeling particularly inadequate when watching Google
| IO presentations in 2018. All these teams of highly payed
| engineers presenting the work of a year or more within a few
| days. Not a healthy thing to compare oneself to.
| ip26 wrote:
| 3. The successful people you are comparing yourself to are
| often older than you. Who knows if you'll wind up as successful
| as them, but I'm pretty sure many of them would trade it all
| just to be young again.
| Kinrany wrote:
| They'd want to keep their knowledge, which you don't have.
| lowiqengineer wrote:
| > There aren't as many uber successful people out there as the
| internet makes it seem.
|
| I live in a city with two elite universities (guess which one).
| They're literally _all around me_.
|
| Getting into either of those is my definition of "uber
| successful", with many of them being more successful at 17 than
| I'll ever be in my life!
| anonytrary wrote:
| > Lots of people are really good at marketing themselves, which
| inflates the number of people you think are extraordinary.
|
| Yes, and then those people get all of the promotions, so now
| even just being good at pretending to be extraordinary is
| sufficient, which is even more frustrating.
| remar wrote:
| Well, did you train at commercial gyms or
| powerlifting/weightlifting gyms? What if the lifters just
| happened to be on high volume blocks, or tapering for a meet
| whenever you visited?
| rvn1045 wrote:
| Yeah this is mostly at commercial gyms and there are a lot
| more at powerlifting/weightlifting gyms for sure. But even
| there there aren't as many as you would expect. It's probably
| more common to bench 300, but never seen anyone do a 405 lbs
| squat atg even at a powerlifting gym.
| kirse wrote:
| _never seen anyone do a 405 lbs squat atg even at a
| powerlifting gym_
|
| Well yea, a 4-plate ATG squat is gonna be an honest rep,
| probably by someone pushing 465+ for a parallel squat.
|
| I always figured you could take most men < 45 and hit
| 1/2/3/4-plate on OP/Bench/Squat/Dead given 2 years on a
| dedicated schedule w/ a simple plan like 5/3/1. Most people
| get in the gym for social-hour instead of hammering it hard
| (aka "fuck-around-itis")
| CM30 wrote:
| 100% agreed with this, with a few more items to add to the
| list:
|
| 3. The people you hear about most are heard about most because
| they're newsworthy in some way. That tends to mean someone
| who's extraordinary good at something, or at least has the
| marketing skill to make it seem that way.
|
| They'll also be the types who'll get a lot of attention on
| social media, since people are more likely to share
| extraordinary stories than ordinary ones.
|
| So you get an unrealistic picture, simply because you're seeing
| all the outliers.
|
| 4. People who aren't very good at something tend not to share
| that, whereas those who do will share it. If you're a fitness
| buff who can bench press 400 lbs, you're the type of person
| most likely to post to a fitness subreddit, or Discord server,
| or on relevant hashtags on Twitter/Facebook/Instagram. The many
| others who are out of shape? Not so much.
|
| Either way, it all leads to a situation where success/skill is
| drastically overrepresented online compared to its commonness
| in the population as a whole.
| nicbou wrote:
| University also taught me that some people are genuinely better
| than me. I'm a much happier person since I learned to let it be
| so.
| anonytrary wrote:
| University taught me that I was better than everyone, and
| then real life taught me that I was just another smart idiot
| with a lot to learn. The problem is that universities don't
| really prepare you for living your best life.
| pombrand wrote:
| I think there's something to be said for being a specialized
| generalist.
|
| Being a true jack of all trades can mean you're mediocre at
| everything, it's better IMO to specialize on certain skills
| within different fields - ideally ones that synergize.
| ARandomerDude wrote:
| > Extraordinary also comes in many forms, and its value does not
| have to be measured in terms of money.
|
| Great point though underdeveloped in the article. Clocking out at
| 5 so you can spend time with a healthy, happy, well-adjusted,
| loving family is pretty extraordinary these days.
| lowiqengineer wrote:
| I doubt there's anyone at Google that doesn't clock out after 8
| hours and they make $200k starting. With my tenure closer to
| $300k.
| heleninboodler wrote:
| For what it's worth, you may have a heavily skewed view of
| what's extraordinary "these days." There are lots of tech
| companies that are mature enough to not flog their people to
| death. Companies with strong engineering cultures that also
| highly value _seasoned_ developers tend to be this way. Where I
| work, the office is (well, _was_ pre-covid) pretty empty by
| 5:30.
| cyberpunk wrote:
| There are two sides to this coin; sometimes some late hours
| are unavoidable -- I don't blame my employer for it, they're
| not forcing me to work these hours at all, but I think if
| you're a professional you can't avoid such circumstances
| sometimes and that's why we get $megabucks right?
|
| The right mix for me is working like a daemon about 9 months
| a year then having 3 months off, but YMMV..
| bluGill wrote:
| I find most people working those long hours to save the day
| could have designed a better solution up front and not
| needed those late hours at the last minute. Not always, but
| often they should have known and fixed the problem long
| before then.
| heleninboodler wrote:
| I think it sometimes comes down to a matter of choice in
| working styles. Some people thrive on killing themselves
| at times. I've been there. I will still occasionally pull
| a late-nighter because I get in "the zone" and am
| actually enjoying the productivity and I still get the
| condescending comments about how if you planned properly,
| that wouldn't be necessary, but I think that some people
| just don't get that working like that can actually be
| very gratifying. I'm getting a bit old for doing it more
| than about once a quarter, though, whereas I used to do
| it a couple times a week.
| sh461 wrote:
| > they're not forcing me to work these hours at all, but I
| think if you're a professional you can't avoid such
| circumstances sometimes and that's why we get $megabucks
| right?
|
| No, you could make the exact opposite statement and it
| would sound just as valid. Watch:
|
| _" they're not forcing me to work these hours at all, and
| if you're a professional who does get the megabucks, you
| can avoid such circumstances."_
| jcadam wrote:
| I'm the most extraordinary software engineer in my office. I
| mean, it's my home office, but that still counts, right?
| sethammons wrote:
| I dunno, you sound kind of average for the folks in your
| office.
| bitxbitxbitcoin wrote:
| It also seems like he's the least extraordinary software
| engineer in his office. The things you can do when you
| control the sample size.
| neonate wrote:
| https://archive.is/oOMFR
|
| https://web.archive.org/web/20200824155533/https://www.tiffa...
| tmatthe wrote:
| Thanks for posting this! My website is currently down and I'm
| in the process of fixing it.
| mattbillenstein wrote:
| How are you hosting this?
| ZainRiz wrote:
| > creators can get just as much value out of creating their
| original content and connecting with like-minded people.
|
| Strong resonance here. I recently became more prolific about
| blogging, and this was the mindset that helps me stay consistent.
| I find that the mere act of writing an essay helps me clarify my
| own thoughts, and the essay often changes in the process.
|
| As a recent example, I started writing out about how I struggled
| and got over impostor syndrome. But while writing it I realized:
| wait, I never actually get over it. Rather, I learned how to use
| it to my advantage [1]
|
| How to do that became the message of the article.
|
| If my writing never brings fame, I won't care. It helped me
| understand myself and it will help me better advise the people I
| care about
|
| [1] https://www.zainrizvi.io/blog/the-impostors-advantage/
| KallDrexx wrote:
| This is the reason I started working towards getting better a
| note taking. Describing what I'm learning in my own words may
| help me retain the information better.
|
| I don't publish it because I don't know anyone cares but I feel
| like it helps myself regardless, and keeping them searchable
| seems like it should pay off at some point.
| O_H_E wrote:
| Any notes :) or resources on note-taking you can share? I am
| currently studying and have been struggling in that area.
| KallDrexx wrote:
| Haha unfortunately I don't have any :)
|
| I've gotten through high school, college, and 12 years of
| post-career without literally any note taking. I've come to
| realize that I am no longer able to be as spongey as I used
| to be with academic style learning (non-exploratory) and I
| just decided one day to start taking notes under the idea
| that if I rephrase what I'm learning I will better retain
| it (based on the adage that if you can't explain something
| then you don't actually understand it).
|
| So my notes are mostly focused on non-literal summaries of
| what I have gotten through using my own words and phrases.
| So far that seems to have helped but I've only been at it
| for a few months so I don't have much data points.
|
| The real test is now as I"m learning Linear Algebra and
| computer graphics, which I tried learning before and I
| don't remember much of anything from it (even though it was
| only a year ago).
| jennasys wrote:
| I agree with the premise here in general. There have certainly
| been times when I've wanted to accomplish something, but then I
| see someone else being exceptional at that task and I stop
| wanting to do it because I know I'll never be that good at it.
|
| When you see someone doing something you do or want to do, and
| they are exceptional at it, it either becomes inspirational or
| discouraging based on just how extraordinary it is and how
| emotionally attached you are to the subject. If you are
| emotionally committed to it, seeing someone else doing it well
| will likely be inspirational. If not, you're more likely to give
| up before you even start.
| hinkley wrote:
| For some people this starts in childhood. People see a sibling
| excelling in an area and decide to cultivate other traits
| instead, so they are not living in their shadow.
|
| I discovered at a young age that I am a parrot - that I find it
| fairly straightforward to repeat back complex sound patterns to
| people. There are a couple families of language in SE Asia and
| Africa that trip me up, but other than that my coordination is
| unusual. It made parts of music and foreign language classes a
| non-event, which made more time to perfect other parts.
|
| What I didn't know until much later is that my brother also has
| this trait, but he got tired of being "hinkley's younger
| brother", and he completely burnt out on music (although that
| was due to pressure from our parents) and foreign language by
| high school. I had a sense of this by the time he was picking a
| foreign language in HS, and I gently encouraged him to try a
| different language. He didn't. Our teacher always found the
| parrot trait highly fascinating, to the point of bringing it up
| in class. It turned out this had only happened a couple times
| in his career and here were two brothers back to back. I kind
| of laughed it off, while my brother found it pretty cringe-
| worthy and he eventually dropped the class.
| hrnnnnnn wrote:
| What can help here is to understand that you'll never be able
| to do it exactly like the person you're comparing yourself to
| because you are not them.
|
| Conversely, no one else will be able to do it exactly like you.
| So figure out what it is about how you do it that's uniquely
| you and try to develop that.
| hinkley wrote:
| Even in a professional setting, it's important to remember
| this and not give up.
|
| Even a person with outsize presence in your field, they can't
| be everywhere at once. So their rates climb and climb and the
| size of their projects increases to try accomplish more in
| the time available. They also literally don't have time for
| people arguing with their vision.
|
| There are a lot of people that could never be their
| customers, but could easily be yours, and nobody's perfect.
| Trying to get skilled at things they overlook will make you
| your own person.
| nonbirithm wrote:
| > If you are emotionally committed to it, seeing someone else
| doing it well will likely be inspirational. If not, you're more
| likely to give up before you even start.
|
| Complete opposite for me. The things I get discouraged at doing
| because there is already an extraordinary talent pool are the
| ones I keep saying are the most interesting to me. To me, those
| things are too important to me to get wrong.
|
| As a result I shut myself off from most books that are fiction,
| because regardless of what the content is, if I find the style
| of writing or content too engaging, it will plunge me into
| abject misery. So much so that sometimes I just can't being
| myself to do anything else for the day. Knowing myself, I
| figure that getting away with working on things that are not
| truly what I believe I exist on this Earth to do, but am
| already competent enough at this point in my life (programming)
| is a more productive use of my time if it means I don't
| catastophize at every turn. So in a sense I'm just locking
| myself into my current skillset in a vain attempt at self-
| preservation.
|
| Statements like "just do it" have become dogma to me at this
| point and I seem to just shut off my mind at amy mention of
| them. I can't seem to legitimately enjoy doing anything unless
| I'm being productive and my expectations match up with reality,
| and you can't realistically expect to achieve this if you
| haven't already yet put years into a hobby.
|
| Being as good as someone else isn't even what I wanted, it's
| merely being recognized at all as a somebody who does X. I
| don't get this recognition from anyone I know, so it feels like
| there is nothing at all to carry you forward except your shitty
| art and a vague notion that you'll eventually improve in two
| years, and it is the most empty feeling imaginable. There are a
| lot of unique ideas I carry, which none of the artists I know
| have ever had, but it still takes enough competence to depict
| those ideas according to a set standard.
| kerabatsos wrote:
| I look at this in terms of the sport of distance running. I was a
| fairly accomplished runner, but I could only see who was a better
| runner - not those who were not. It's a matter of perspective.
| The top tier marathoners all faced faster runners in front of
| them - all of them, at some point. So I guess my point is that
| what constitutes extraordinary is often subjective.
| tonymet wrote:
| Being mediocre is a perfectly healthy aspiration.
| tonymet wrote:
| It's ok to aspire to mediocrity
| JohnBooty wrote:
| I'm not 100% sure you're being literal but I agree with this
| statement when taken at face value.
|
| Being "extraordinary" often means you're just making somebody
| else richer. There are some objectively extraordinary folks
| working at e.g. Facebook, but what does that really gain them?
| What has that given the world? It's a mixed bag, to put it
| mildly.
|
| Probably the only real reason to strive for being
| "extraordinary" at your career so that you can stop working for
| other people, or if the craft itself brings you more joy than
| anything else in life.
| tonymet wrote:
| I think it's unfair that "mediocre" is seen as a bad word. We
| have so many things to do, I think it's perfectly good to be
| mediocre in many ways. We're competing on a global scale,
| it's impossible to be exceptional on many dimensions.
|
| I'd like to encourage more people to be happy being mediocre.
| xandris wrote:
| This is my steady state. I don't think people shouldn't be
| valued by their output, and I'm content to spend time with my
| family, learn about the world around me, have fun, and do my
| best at work. I do go through episodes where the need to create
| something worthwhile takes ahold of me, though, and it can be
| debilitating for a few days.
| [deleted]
| pgcj_poster wrote:
| If you're a 1 in 100 type, you've likely had feeling that because
| you're more capable than literally almost everyone, you should be
| achieving things more like the people you read about in books or
| online. But unless you've read 80 million biographies, those
| people are _not_ 1 in a 100. They 're more like 1 in million. And
| once you reach the truly great, like Einstein, then it's 1 in a
| billion (or more).
|
| You are not 1 in a billion. You may very well be 1 in 100,
| though. And that's still pretty incredible. Take, for example the
| author of this article. She might think that she's not
| extraordinary because she's not an Einstein, or whatever.
| However, she works somewhere called "the Quantum Matter
| Institute" -- that's something that 99% of people probably could
| not accomplish. So honestly I would be surprised if most people
| who knew her _didn 't_ think that she was extraordinary.
| MaximumYComb wrote:
| I feel there is a common trait of extraordinary people that
| anyone can develop and it pays dividends. That trait is
| industriousness. When you listen to interviews from successful
| people like Elon Musk all the way through to Arnold
| Schwarzenegger, they all talk about working hard.
|
| Terry Toa almost failed the general exams at Princeton due to
| slacking off, and it was a valuable lesson for him. I don't care
| how gifted you are, you won't reach the top without working
| harder than others.
| chasd00 wrote:
| Given the massive variation and diversity in humanity, to have a
| problem with not being extraordinary is like having a problem
| with existence itself.
|
| When I think of extraordinary people i think of names like
| DaVinci. I'm perfectly happy not being on that level, i would be
| forever miserable otherwise.
|
| Maybe i lack the intelligence to see my own short comings but at
| 44 i'm pretty sure I am who I'm going to be. I feel pretty ok
| about it. I don't have a Porsche GT3 in the garage and my name
| isn't on/in any books but it turned out not having those things
| aren't that big of a problem.
| non-entity wrote:
| > is like having a problem with existence itself.
|
| To be fair, I'm sure there are more than a few people who feel
| like this.
| nserrino wrote:
| A fixation on being extraordinary tends to indicate too much self
| absorption and a lack of perspective. It seems like another
| antidote is focusing more on the impact you want to have on the
| world and those around you, even if no one ever knew about it.
| EGreg wrote:
| Can we feel the same about our relationships?
|
| Many people search for years for "the one" and an amazing
| connection, then settle for someone they can tolerate, and it
| turns out they have a good marriage and children and a lot of
| shared adventures. Looking back on it... would you say it's
| better to have spent decades searching for Mr/Ms Right, or
| married the one right now you can make a life with?
| thelean12 wrote:
| There are lots of people reacting to the extraordinary with
| "inspiration", "disappointment", and "jealousy".
|
| I'd say none of these are as useful as reacting with _curiosity_.
| There 's an endless amount to learn from the extraordinary in any
| field or sport or hobby. It's easy to write off the extraordinary
| as naturally talented or lucky or something else surface level.
| Most of the time it's anything but.
|
| I play golf. It's a game that can be extraordinarily frustrating
| to beginners. It often takes years of hard work to just be
| moderately adequate at the game. Going into it with
| disappointment or jealousy of extraordinary golfers will quickly
| lead them to quit as they'll be way too stressed out to enjoy the
| game. Those who go into it with inspiration or admiration of
| those who are better won't be able to sustain it when the
| inspiration burns out.
|
| _Curiosity_ is the only emotion I 've found that is sustainable.
| Endless curiosity as you try to figure out and piece together
| what makes someone good at what they do. It's an emotion that
| sustains because it's the only emotion that is useful both when
| you hit a bad shot and when you hit a good shot. It's useful both
| when you watch someone who is worse than you, and when you watch
| someone who is better than you.
| benn0 wrote:
| This is a really great perspective. As someone who dealt with
| the external pressures of being 'extraordinary' at a young age,
| it seems to me that curiosity is one of the easiest things to
| lose, and hardest to bring back, when your focus is on others'
| expectations.
|
| Somewhat unexpectedly, discovering some parts of Stoic
| philosophy has definitely helped to rediscover the joy of
| curiosity that can be found almost anywhere.
| PaulStatezny wrote:
| Disclaimer: I ask this to explore the truth in your comment,
| not to be pedantic about your choice of terms.
|
| > Curiosity is the only emotion I've found that's sustainable.
|
| It jumped out at me that curiosity technically isn't an
| emotion, but might be better labeled a state of mind. So the
| natural follow-up question for me is: What are some ways to
| help oneself get in that state of mind?
|
| The professor that taught my "logic" class in college would say
| that feelings and actions come about as a result of _beliefs_.
| So what kinds of beliefs lead to feeling
| inspired/disappointed/jealous? And in contrast, what kinds of
| beliefs tend to lead one to curiosity?
| thelean12 wrote:
| Emotion, reaction, state of mind, whatever floats your boat.
| I think I got my point across.
|
| As for how to get into the curiosity mindset, and how to push
| away the other states of mind, I don't have a full answer for
| you. My personal strategies stem from a somewhat related area
| of study: Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. I'm able to push away
| the negative thoughts like disappointment/jealousy/anger and
| substitute it with curiosity. I don't necessarily find
| inspiration or other "positive" states of mind something I
| need to push away, I'm just aware that it's fleeting.
| theloneshark wrote:
| Very good question for psychology & neuroscience. We are yet
| to find why some are born with a state of mind of "why" &
| "how" while others have to try to learn it(and yet, might not
| perfect it)
| theloneshark wrote:
| I have a senior who tells me to hire people who are naturally
| curious(in-spite of any skill shortages). Your explanation is
| bulls eye to that theory.
| munificent wrote:
| _> Curiosity is the only emotion I 've found that is
| sustainable._
|
| The other one I know is gratitude.
|
| When I'm in the right headspace, instead of being intimidated
| or jealous of the accomplishments of others, I'm grateful that
| they shared those accomplishments with us all, and that I'm
| able to learn from them.
|
| Half the time when I watch Jacques Pepin, I think that I'll
| never make an omelet that good. But the other half the time,
| I'm so thankful that he's shown me how to make mine better than
| they ever were before.
| tmatthe wrote:
| I really like this take. Haven't thought about sustainable
| emotions much, but this hits the mark.
| sixstringtheory wrote:
| Totally agree. When I think about the maxim "it's about the
| journey, not the destination," I think that curiosity is what
| keeps you taking that next step, and lets you stay immersed in
| the journey. Every place you get to along the way, if you find
| something in sight to explore, sooner or later you'll find
| yourself far beyond where you started.
|
| I don't play golf, but I imagine there are so many minutiae,
| from driving, choosing which iron to use, putting, stance, hand
| positions, comparing clubs of the same type from different
| manufacturers, and same for golf balls. Each has a breadth and
| depth to explore as you get more and more into that topic.
|
| I'm willing to bet the people that rise to the top are the
| people who love to tinker with all those parameters, not
| necessarily because they know it will make then X% better, but
| because they just want to see the effect.
| eslaught wrote:
| I agree, and I've thought for a long time that "natural
| talent" is usually just "natural curiosity" that has been
| given enough time to grow into something bigger. After all,
| if you regularly spend your attention focused on something,
| you'll inevitably become better over time. I think a lot of
| topics that people consider to be "impenetrable", like
| programming, science or math, can be tackled with this
| attitude.
| scott31 wrote:
| This is also the motto of Golang, which is also the reasons it is
| one of the most practical programming language out there for
| getting stuff done.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| Thanks for sharing that.
|
| In my experience, a lot of what we perceive as "extraordinary,"
| is actually marketing. Some people are extraordinary self-
| promoters. It seems that every other person I see on LinkedIn
| announces that they are a "polymath."
|
| Many of these folks are, in fact, really brilliant/creative/hard-
| working/whatever, but I have known folks that no one notices,
| that absolutely blow me away in their products and skills. No one
| notices them, because they don't stand around with megaphones.
|
| They're too busy being extraordinary.
|
| For me, I'm pretty good at what I do. Am I "extraordinary"? I
| don't really care. There's always some kid in a Hanoi Internet
| cafe that can shred my best, so I need to be happy with what I
| can do.
| wombatmobile wrote:
| "There is a real magic in enthusiasm. It spells the difference
| between mediocrity and accomplishment."
|
| - Norman Vincent Peale
| pmohun wrote:
| I wrote this for myself when considering a big career move a few
| years ago:
|
| It's easy to focus on the next promotion or the completion of a
| big project that will elevate your career.
|
| By succumbing to the natural instinct of mimicry, we rarely ask
| ourselves the question: are we climbing the right hill?
|
| In this analogy, the hills represent any long-term goal: career,
| fulfillment, financial security. Our natural instinct is to walk
| upward, chasing the next promotion or job opportunity. However,
| we lose the virtue of randomness by doing this. If your only
| benchmark is the hill you've always known, you have no way to
| gauge its relative steepness. It's a good way to reach a local
| maxima, but not necessarily the best long-term option.
|
| Instead, I allow myself to explore other options, even if it
| seems "downhill". For naturally ambitious people, it can seem
| downright impossible to avoid this instinct. It's hard, and often
| feels unnatural. However, the perspective gained from these
| excursions improves my mental map and I'm able to learn what lies
| on other hills. Taking this mindset means letting go of the
| mimetic behavior that leads to jealousy or comparison.
|
| After all, why should it matter if someone else is higher? Your
| peak is somewhere else entirely.
|
| https://sundayscaries.substack.com/p/climbing-the-right-hill...
| throw51319 wrote:
| Very good point. This is something that is easy to understand
| but difficult to internalize.
|
| You gotta step back, relax, and live your life. That's why all
| the social media etc is poison.
| bradlys wrote:
| I think it's important to also reframe what extraordinary even
| means. Many people are comparing themselves to the most
| privileged of backgrounds - where they were at the top from birth
| and only had to get a bit higher. I'm considered extraordinary in
| comparison to the place I grew up - just because of my background
| and where I am now.
|
| On top of this - I am wary of being singly great at something.
| Living in Silicon Valley has reinforced this hard. I'm obviously
| comparing myself (unfairly) to people who are incredibly well
| compensated, maybe with some bullshit job title, and so forth.
| I've learned that - usually - those people are fucking terrible
| at everything else but that one thing they do. (Sometimes I'm not
| even sure what that one they do good at is - kiss ass?) I'm
| talking _really_ bad at everything else. They might be an
| excellent programmer and think up some fancy architecture or
| whatever - but they don 't know how to install an app and follow
| some directions of their phone without some hand holding. Could
| they even build a computer from parts? Nah. Change oil in their
| car? It ain't happening in a million years. COOK!? Sorry - I only
| order out, my nanny cooks for the family, eat company food, or
| put pizza rolls in the oven. Take care of my kids and be an
| inspiring role model?! No - no, sorry, I didn't sign up for
| that... I had kids because I was bored after my second startup.
| Children aren't my passion!
|
| Extraordinary usually requires compromise and I'm not one to
| compromise. I tend to look at things a bit like: I could be first
| place in one thing or 2nd in everything.
| shoes_for_thee wrote:
| "A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an
| invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write
| a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort
| the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone,
| solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a
| computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly.
| Specialization is for insects."
|
| Robert A. Heinlein
| dkarl wrote:
| Practically speaking, being adequate at everything is as
| overwhelming as being great at everything. Different people
| have different things they consider essential. Some people
| consider self-defense essential; I would put sewing higher on
| the list. Overseeing a group of children seems like a
| fundamental skill, but I will never have the opportunity to
| learn it until the first time I need it. I don't have the
| genetics to sing, and I don't enjoy playing a musical
| instrument enough to make the hundreds of hours of practice
| worthwhile. Cutting my hair also has a learning process with
| unacceptable costs.
|
| Basic social dancing: I took the classes, but they didn't
| stick.
|
| Bushcrafting. Haskell. Fixing wiring in a house. Leveling
| ground. Driving a standard transmission. (I did it once twenty
| years ago, but presumably I could not do it again without
| instruction.)
|
| Sharpening knives? I use my kitchen knives every day, but the
| guy at the farmer's market does a perfect job for practically
| no money.
|
| Playing bridge: I don't even know why my brain thinks this is a
| fundamental skill. I don't know anybody who plays bridge. But,
| irrationally, it feels like one of the more important things
| separating me from being James Bond.
|
| Ultimately you have to pick a small subset even of the basics,
| and I have a hard time seeing that big a difference between the
| realistic approach of learning a few things that are
| particularly important to you and not learning anything at all
| outside your profession. Sure, it makes sense to put effort
| into the things that are important to you. I know plenty about
| cooking, for example. But I still lack the skills to produce or
| maintain 97% of the things that are essential for my
| complicated daily life. Is there a big difference between 99%
| and 97%? Or even between 97% and 90%?
|
| But now I'm thinking about sewing again. Someday....
| neutronicus wrote:
| I appreciate what you wrote, OP - moderating my ambition is both
| essential to my mental health and an ongoing process. I do not
| exaggerate when I say that in my case I believe the stakes are
| life and death.
|
| One thing that has helped me a lot to find peace here has been
| becoming a father. Culturally, it comes with a kind of license to
| finally just accept mediocrity which I find freeing. Bills are
| paid, I can watch my son grow up, doesn't matter than I'm not the
| best at anything.
| hycaria wrote:
| Child rearing does not last forever though, and if you
| practiced nothing for those 20-30 years you will fall into the
| same traps again. Accepting mediocrity is not freeing when it
| leads to giving up all efforts (And that's a recurrent scheme)
| tmatthe wrote:
| It's nice to hear that you've found some peace! There's no
| point in being the best if you will crash and burn quickly.
| luplex wrote:
| Archive.org cache:
| http://web.archive.org/web/20200824155533/https://www.tiffan...
| l00sed wrote:
| Great post. :) Thanks
| Minor49er wrote:
| I'd like to mention the book "Missing Out: In Praise of the
| Unlived Life" by Adam Phillips which carries a similar sentiment.
| It might be worth checking out if anyone regularly feels anxiety
| or frustration about where they are in life when they could just
| as easily feel satisfaction instead.
| prvc wrote:
| Most people are not extraordinary, by definition. I have never
| detected any cultural message which states that everyone ought to
| be extraordinary in order to be worthwhile. The opposite seems to
| be valourised, in this cultural moment, in my observation.
| [deleted]
| mfer wrote:
| extraordinary is "Beyond what is ordinary or usual."
|
| This word brings about three thoughts...
|
| 1. What is beyond ordinary? Who sets the direction? If it's more
| technical work, more creating, or more money... who sets that as
| a good or useful direction?
|
| For example, a software developer who is ordinary as a developer
| but guides their children well could be extraordinary in that
| aspect. It may not make a list on the Internet but it is
| extremely valuable to people that (I assume) the software
| developer cares about.
|
| Who is setting the direction for extraordinary we should care
| about?
|
| 2. Ordinary is normal. If everyone becomes extraordinary that
| because the new normal. The target is constantly moving.
|
| 3. Why does being extraordinary matter? Consider it for a moment.
| Should the goal to be contentment, happiness, or something else?
| Who is even setting the goal of being extraordinary anyway? Why
| would it make your (or my) life a good life?
| lloyddobbler wrote:
| See also: _The Infinite Game_ by Simon Sinek. Great read (based
| on a previous work, _Finite and Infinite Games_ by James Carse)
| on the need to play on a different playing field than the one
| that supposedly has a 'winner' and a 'loser.' Applies to
| companies, individuals, organizations, relationships...you get
| the idea.
|
| To beat a dead analogy, if you're climbing to reach the top
| 'ledge' you started out looking for, you might not start...or you
| might climb with such a singular focus that you miss another path
| that would take you off to the side and up another, higher route.
|
| _Edited for formatting._
| louwrentius wrote:
| I don't think people should take anything from Simon Sinek. His
| presentation skills are great I must admit.
| sixstringtheory wrote:
| Could you expand on this? I've certainly been enamored with
| his presentations, although I don't think the ideas he
| presents are necessarily original, but he has a great knack
| for formulation/synthesis and distilling the ideas to their
| essence.
|
| Like this article, he's not the end-all-be-all but certainly
| worthy of consideration as part of forming a grander
| perspective in life.
| eggsbenedict wrote:
| So, as of this comment, all I know is that Simon Sinek has a
| book called The Infinite Game. This book has an interesting
| premise, about which I just read a short writeup and
| analysis. I have also been told that Sinek has excellent
| presentation skills.
|
| Strangely, in the middle of these two comments, I was told
| that people should not take anything from Simon Sinek. Why?
| faichai wrote:
| He has a tendency to substantiate his views with bad takes
| on science.
| unnouinceput wrote:
| We all are extraordinary actually. Human race is in a continuous
| evolution, so absolutely any of us is an extraordinary person
| compared with 2000 years ago great minds. A high-school student
| is better educated then Pythagoras for example.
|
| Conversely, even the greatest minds of today (Hawking, Einstein,
| etc) will be below high-school kids of the future.
| JohnBooty wrote:
| That's a great thought, but is it true?
|
| We're standing on the shoulders of giants, that's for sure. We
| begin our adult lives with knowledge they could have only
| dreamed about.
|
| But I really don't see anything to suggest our brightest minds
| are brighter than the brightest minds of those times.
|
| On _average_ , at least, I think we outshine the _average_
| human from 2000 years ago, just thanks to more common childhood
| education and better nutrition...
| samatman wrote:
| This is a dangerous point of view to take.
|
| "evolution" means "adaptation". It does _not_ mean "progress".
|
| A doctor of the 18th century would bleed their patients to
| balance humours, but would, at least, not shove an icepick into
| their frontal lobe as a form of exorcism. A doctor of the early
| 20th century wouldn't do the former, but might well do the
| latter.
|
| Which is not to say that progress doesn't exist, only that it's
| a fraught concept, with many caveats, regressions, and no firm
| ground to judge its status at any given point. You will have a
| more productive engagement with history, and with the ancients,
| if you consider them as your equals, just situated differently
| in time and place.
| qrybam wrote:
| Personal anecdote - I became very good at one activity early on
| in life. This was at the expense of other things such as
| education and a social life. The dedication required to reach a
| high level of skill, and the journey overall was great fun and
| taught me a lot about what it takes to reach the top.
|
| What impact has this had on me? It opened a lot of doors for me
| early on. Ultimately I faced a decision, do I pursue a single
| thing to its sharpest point, or do I widen my range and create my
| own category to become sharp in?
|
| There is something deeply rewarding in being a master of one
| trade. But becoming a jack of all trades offers a different kind
| of reward which I feel is more sustainable (at least in my case).
|
| I have a deep affinity towards people who have pushed the
| boundaries in some area of their life, and feel very lucky to
| have experienced the same.
|
| Which path would I pick? Jack of all.
| ErikAugust wrote:
| "Fall in love with some activity, and do it! Nobody ever figures
| out what life is all about, and it doesn't matter. Explore the
| world. Nearly everything is really interesting if you go into it
| deeply enough. Work as hard and as much as you want to on the
| things you like to do the best. Don't think about what you want
| to be, but what you want to do. Keep up some kind of a minimum
| with other things so that society doesn't stop you from doing
| anything at all." -- Richard P. Feynman
|
| "Comparison is the thief of joy." - Teddy Roosevelt
|
| To me, "extraordinary" is a state of being rather than doing.
| Don't worry about what you want to be, but just what you want to
| do. Do things and be alive in the experience, and stop worrying
| so much about how you stack up against others. You're all going
| to die, live while you can.
| WhompingWindows wrote:
| It's too easy for rich successful people who have made it to
| declare that you should follow your passion. We wouldn't hear a
| quote from the dozens of lesser-known physicists who struggled
| and wouldn't recommend the field, we just hear the quote from
| Feynman who was the lucky one.
|
| For instance, I love painting and woodworking, but I suffer no
| illusions that I would do "well" in those fields, as even far
| more talented and experienced individuals that I know in those
| fields are struggling mightily and envy my hobbyist status.
| grasshopperpurp wrote:
| Quote would have been better if he said "and can" after "and
| want." But, as general advice, I think it's still pretty
| good.
| ErikAugust wrote:
| They clearly aren't struggling if you think they are far more
| talented. They are just struggling _financially_. Which is
| what all these hang-ups are about, including your own.
| irishloop wrote:
| It's not a hang up if you can't pay your bills or afford to
| take a vacation once in a while. Mazlow's Hierarchy of
| Needs does require us to meet some basic needs regardless
| of our passions.
|
| Even if you are an extraordinary woodworker, if you can
| barely meet rent, you are unlikely to find any happiness
| due to the stress you will need to manage day-to-day.
| lazerpants wrote:
| I know and deal with some physicists and they all seem really
| happy and only one of them is famous/rich. The fact that you
| can always bail and go to finance seems to be a good backstop
| for them.
| wearsshoes wrote:
| It took me a long time to really believe quotes like that. It's
| just not too convincing when the people quoted as saying "you
| don't need to be extraordinary" are quotable because they're
| extraordinary.
| tines wrote:
| > Don't think about what you want to be, but what you want to
| do.
|
| I would agree, as long as we differentiate between "'what' you
| want to be" and "'how' you want to be." I'd say that "what" is
| a function of other people and their evaluation of you---in the
| "what" category are "famous," "respected," "talented,"
| "recognized," etc. Chasing these is vain.
|
| But "'how' I want to be" is completely internal, and I don't
| rely on the approval of others for them: I want to be
| "disciplined," "thoughtful," "kind," "honest," etc. These are
| worth chasing, even though technically they do not deal what
| "what you want to 'do'" and could be construed to conflict with
| Feynman's thoughts (though I think they don't really).
| [deleted]
| neves wrote:
| I prefer Call Newport's point o view:
|
| Beyond Passion: The Science of Loving What You Do
| https://www.calnewport.com/blog/2010/01/23/beyond-passion-th...
| SeerKlein wrote:
| Excellent read! I enrolled in my second bachelors for
| Computer Science because of Cal Newport's influence on me:
| Choose something that is valuable and get good at it
| (competence). Then, use the career capital to get autonomy
| and relatedness. It also reminds me of why I want to become a
| part time software developer instead of full time, because I
| want to have the autonomy associated with being part time!
| cyberpunk wrote:
| Eh, I mean.. Okay. Maybe this is true for the first steps into
| your profession, but after so many years in tech the amount of
| things I have to do that are, compared to my initial 'love' for
| tech, really horrible tasks vs the things I would like to be
| doing definately isn't in balance...
|
| It's a nice idea, but this "do what you love" doesn't scale.
|
| I mean, did it too, there was a day where I was super excited
| to be working as a developer or a sysadmin with tech I loved
| but after a while if you want to actually get anywhere that
| thing that you loved doing turns out to be a very small subset
| of what it takes to be great at something, or be senior enough
| to have responsability enough to steer things towards your
| interests..
|
| So yeah. Do what you love at first; but what you love won't be
| enough in the long term and you're going to have to spend
| months of 12 hour shifts to migrate some horrible app or other
| at some point, or many points, and without doing some things
| that go against 'what you want to do' you'll never be able to
| do more of what you actually want to do...
|
| Not sure if that makes sense..
| non-entity wrote:
| I really wish I didn't go into software development as a
| profession, and instead went to school for something that
| still pays ok but could still enjoy programming on the side.
| cyberpunk wrote:
| Yeah, it's a nice idea for me too. It's a (for me anyway)
| impossible to make call to give up the kind of salary we
| make as a senior in tech just because I miss coding for fun
| though..
|
| I've had pretty good success with replacing programming as
| a hobby with other things though (biking, woodwork,
| parenting etc) and I don't really miss 'coding for fun'
| much anymore. Between clients I'll maybe do some to keep up
| to date, but that has a different feel to what it was like
| when I was young ;)
| saalweachter wrote:
| I mean, "do what you love" is a fine plan A. It will work out
| for some people, either in the "their passion makes them the
| best makes them rich" sense or at least the "because they
| love their work, they are happy even though they are not
| rich" sense.
|
| But it doesn't hurt to have a "find something to do for money
| that you don't hate and maybe even enjoy some parts of, and
| then find some other stuff to do on the side that makes you
| feel like your life has meaning" plan B in your back pocket.
| jogundas wrote:
| Your comment reads like a quote from Rick&Morty!
| api wrote:
| There are over 7 billion people on Earth. You aren't
| extraordinary, so you're going to have to get used to it. If you
| think you are you're probably either in a small pond or not
| paying attention.
| umvi wrote:
| > Climbing to a higher vantage point can also unlock new forms of
| extraordinary that you might have never noticed before.
|
| I read an article once about how the amount of work to get into
| the top tier in a single area is astronomical, but the amount of
| work to become top tier in a combination of 2-3 fields is
| attainable by almost anyone.
|
| For example, becoming a top tier statistician is hard. But
| becoming a top tier statistician/programmer is easier. In other
| words, if you can get to a state where you know more statistics
| than your average programmer and more programming than your
| average statistician, then suddenly you are an above-average
| programmer/statistician. Keep improving those two skills and you
| may start to "unlock new forms of extraordinary". Or maybe you
| are a music teacher, and also pretty good at programming, and so
| you can make extraordinary music teaching software that is way
| better than the competition's because you understand the nuances
| of music teaching intimately enough that you capture them clearly
| in software requirements. Or maybe you are pretty good at art,
| pretty good at music composition, pretty good at programming,
| pretty good at story telling (not necessarily top tier in any one
| category though)... and you combine all of those skills to
| single-handedly create a game that by many measures is
| extraordinary[0][1].
|
| Something like that. Anyway, the point being, you may not be
| extraordinary in any one field, but it isn't too hard to achieve
| extraordinary things due to a combination of skills in multiple
| fields if you work at it.
|
| [0] https://undertale.com/
|
| [1] https://www.cavestory.org/
| munificent wrote:
| I can't find the quote now, but I recall Bill Bailey saying
| once that he's not a good enough musician to just play music
| and not funny enough to just be a comedian. But he's the
| funniest musician and the most musical comedian out there.
| Noos wrote:
| No, the problem is that what is defined as top tier keeps
| rising, and raises the bar just to be average. You also now
| have to compete with a huge cohort of people due to the net
| now.
|
| Going with the videogame focus, if you ever play competitive
| games you actually see how brutal it can be. In Overwatch for
| example you have an absolute mountain to climb in ranked
| because you can't just improve, you have to improve above
| average to increase your rank. This means a lot of people are
| getting better at the game over time but are going down in
| ranking simply because everyone else is getting better faster.
|
| Essentially the internconnectedness of everything is making it
| hard to find the niches you speak of. There's always someone
| who loves his job so much and works at it so much that he
| defines the meta, so to say. This is a problem in computer
| science, even.
| pm90 wrote:
| While this is true, there are simply so many problems that
| need solving and too few humans to solve them, which makes it
| not too hard to do well in life. Luckily, life isn't a zero
| sum game unlike video games.
| nkohari wrote:
| > Essentially the internconnectedness of everything is making
| it hard to find the niches you speak of. There's always
| someone who loves his job so much and works at it so much
| that he defines the meta, so to say. This is a problem in
| computer science, even.
|
| Then, seek out those people and work with them. Computing is
| collaborative. It's rather difficult (and unnecessary!) to
| create anything meaningful entirely by yourself.
| d23 wrote:
| This is a ridiculously defeatist attitude, and the quicker
| you can drop it the better off you'll be.
| bluGill wrote:
| If video games are the subject the attitude should be am I
| having fun, not am I getting better. Some people can make
| money at playing games (both video and otherwise), but most
| people need to be okay with doing it for fun and never
| being world class.
| tmatthe wrote:
| AH yes that is exactly what I meant! I love the examples you
| put out here.
| simias wrote:
| I definitely recognize myself in this. I consider myself a
| decent programmer but I also know quite a bit about electronics
| and even a bit of Verilog/VHDL. Not enough to work as an
| ASIC/FPGA engineer, but enough to understand the broad concepts
| and how it all fits together. If you talk to me about timing
| violations and setup times and clock trees I'm not _completely_
| out of my depth.
|
| All that happened pretty much by accident, mainly because I was
| always interested in all things low level, but it proves really
| advantageous in my career. Basically if a problem stands at the
| interface between hardware and software I tend to be massively
| more productive than a very good software engineer who knows
| very little of electronics or vice versa. If we have a problem
| like "we have this driver that seems to lock up because it
| misses an IRQ, but we're not sure if it's a software race or a
| hardware problem" I can usually help.
|
| Of course that's all fairly niche, but as long as the niche is
| big enough that's not an issue. It's all about finding
| complementary skills. There might be a need somewhere for a
| good software dev that also very good at Sumo, but that's
| probably not very common...
| shostack wrote:
| I first encountered this notion playing D&D of all things.
|
| The concept of dual/multi-classing, and what later became
| prestige classes/archetypes in later editions was all about
| highlighting that the sum of the parts was greater than the
| whole.
|
| There was a trade-off of course, especially in the early/mid
| levels as other solo-class characters started coming into their
| stride with higher-tier abilities. If you made it past that
| stage as you continued developing your other class(s), you
| really ended up with a unique character.
| rotexo wrote:
| The benefits of multi-classing go beyond the combat mechanics
| of the game, as well. If you develop a character-driven
| reason for multi-classing, that's character growth in action.
| Great for role-playing as well as for driving the plot of the
| campaign forwards.
| shostack wrote:
| Great point. This was one of my favorite aspects of it
| actually.
|
| I started as a rogue and would gradually "harvest" some
| sort of arcane trophy from various monsters we defeated or
| quests we went on. I gradually cobbled together a spellbook
| as I grew my rogue, including some hacked together spells
| that had some wild magic type surprises at first as I was
| learning. These were the most fun levels by far.
| [deleted]
| friday99 wrote:
| I first heard that advice referenced from Scott Adams the
| creator of Dilbert. Where he notes that he is not a very good
| artist or very funny, but combining the two with his background
| in business is why he was successful.
|
| https://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/07/car...
| pizza234 wrote:
| I respect Scott Adams for his comic, but his blog is (in my
| opinion) a bunch of mass-produced rhetoric-pseudo-rational
| ramblings1, trading out quality for (a very large) quantity.
|
| Scott Adams is definitely not famous because "he is an ok
| graphic artist and has an ok humor". He's famous because his
| satire was fairly unique and very sharp. I think he's very
| talented in the humor department; in addition to his creating
| invention and sharp wit, very often his strips have two
| punchlines - in the middle and the last panel - which take
| twice as much effort as a "standard" comic strip.
|
| His drawing skill didn't/don't really matter, as a matter of
| fact, he wasn't particularly good at the beginning, and his
| style is generic and simple anyway.
|
| It's very unlikely that somebody with "he is an ok graphic
| artist and has an ok humor" will get his success just because
| of such qualities.
|
| 1=A very ridicolous example of whom was when he was proving
| that Trump will be successful because, based on his
| observations, leaders who were great in the long term,
| typically had a rough start. Can't find the post.
| coldtea wrote:
| > _I respect Scott Adams for his comic, but his blog is (in
| my opinion) a bunch of mass-produced rhetoric-pseudo-
| rational ramblings1, trading out quality for (a very large)
| quantity_
|
| Not so sure about the "rhetoric-pseudo-rational ramblings".
| He writes his opinions and gives arguments. Nothing
| "pseudo" about them, though they could still be (and often
| are) wrong, either factually or as a reasoning.
|
| > _It 's very unlikely that somebody with "he is an ok
| graphic artist and has an ok humor" will get his success
| just because of such qualities._
|
| Well, if they also knew about business workings, and did
| business-related comic strips at a time when nobody else
| (or very few) was doing them, then they might. Humor, like
| drawing, is honed over time anyway.
|
| > _A very ridicolous example of whom was when he was
| proving that Trump will be successful because, based on his
| observations, leaders who were great in the long term,
| typically had a rough start._
|
| Well, his prediction did pan out, when all pundits said
| otherwise. Could be dumb luck, but he has been lucky often
| enough.
|
| Theirs [the pundits'] arguments then, would be even worse
| "pseudo-rational arguments" that Scott's: because on top of
| claiming rationality, facts, legitimacy, and statistics on
| their side and being presented with fanfare on prime time
| (unlike a mere personal blog), they were also proven wrong.
| zikzak wrote:
| I'll probably regret posting this at some point because
| Scott Adams is smart (just not particularly aligned with
| my own moral compass). I don't think he is AS smart as he
| thinks he is but that doesn't mean he isn't smart, it
| just means he has a particularly large ego.
|
| See, I predicted Trump would win as well. It seemed
| incredibly obvious to me despite it being the worst
| possible outcome I could imagine. I based my "prediction"
| on my time spent in the US and a gut feeling. I guessing
| Adams did as well, and found ways to justify it (not
| exactly unique to him).
|
| Adams tends to think in terms of "persuasion" as a skill.
| In that sense, he probably sees the world transactionally
| and cynically. I have heard him debate people with a good
| command of the facts and a similar combination of ego and
| articulation. He comes off as smug, too confident, and
| more like a small fish in a big pond than he does when he
| is just writing on his blog or "destroying" someone in
| social media.
| cpursley wrote:
| I'm take a gander that your view about his blog is based on
| your pre-existing political leanings.
| entropicdrifter wrote:
| I mean... https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scott_Adams#Views
| _on_science_a...
|
| The guy has a ton of crank views
| ulucs wrote:
| As if RationalWiki has any business calling people cranks
| ZainRiz wrote:
| +1
|
| And as patio11 says, combining engineering with good writing
| skills makes it very easy to be one of the top with your
| combined skills
|
| I've been trying to lean more into that advice the past
| couple months by publishing on my blog :)
|
| Surprisingly enough, just this morning I woke up to realize
| someone had shared an article I wrote and it was on the HN
| front page!
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24251068#24262190
| non-entity wrote:
| But does being in the top of those combined skills command
| top pay?
| arcticbull wrote:
| Engineering and writing/communication/organization is
| basically the definition of a tech lead. If you find me a
| good engineer with good communications skills, I'll get
| you a mid-6-figure salary no question.
| infermore wrote:
| I'm pretty sure it does, but I'm also pretty sure it's
| okay if it doesn't.
| ansible wrote:
| If you're at the level where you can write a decent book
| on programming or something... that means guaranteed job
| offers for the rest of your career.
|
| Like, I haven't seen Raymond Chen's resume, but if he
| calls me up tomorrow looking for a job, I'll find
| something for him, even if we're not hiring.
|
| Ditto for Steve Klabnik, Carol Nichols, and some other
| people in the Rust community.
| julianlam wrote:
| Depends what those two or more skills are.
|
| You might be a top flight musical basket weaver but that
| won't pay too well.
| ZainRiz wrote:
| You don't need to get paid directly for those skills to
| be valuable.
|
| I started brushing up on my writing skills since at the
| higher levels of engineering (and prob all other fields)
| communicating your ideas more effectively will open up
| way more opportunities down the line.
|
| Some of those may have monetary rewards. But the reward
| can be something else as well
| wjossey wrote:
| This is my career so far in a nutshell.
|
| I'm an average programmer.
|
| I'm an excellent problem solver.
|
| I have an above average work ethic.
|
| I'm an excellent communicator.
|
| Basically, I combined all of these traits and found roles that
| leveraged these traits to maximize my impact.
|
| Not for nothing, but this is why my liberal arts college was
| profoundly impactful for me, despite not getting a "top tier"
| CS education. My writing abilities were given a shot in the
| arm, because I had to write so many analysis papers for my
| government minor. My understanding of human behavior was
| expanded by my psychology courses. My understanding of how I
| should never design a UI was solidified by how poorly I did
| during a year of art classes.
|
| Some days I wish I was as strong mathematically as my friends
| who went to MIT, or as talented with programming languages as
| my friends who went to Cambridge, but each one of us have been
| able to have successful careers, despite our differences in
| breadth/depth.
| dominotw wrote:
| > I'm an excellent problem solver.
|
| Don't mean this to be a mean comment but how did you assess
| this?
|
| I think i am good problem solver but i don't know if i am
| better than anyone else.
| taylorlunt wrote:
| Problem solving ability is basically just IQ.
| georgeecollins wrote:
| If that were true, everyone with a very high IQ would be
| a great poker player, a great negotiator, a great writer,
| a great leader, a great investor.. etc.
|
| IQ is as proxy for problem solving if the problems look
| like a standardized test. The problems people face in the
| real world require more specialization and a more complex
| combination of skills and traits.
| gucciTheWizard wrote:
| IQ is a general measure for pattern recognition. Most
| modern IQ tests are heavily dependent of things like
| ravens matrices.
|
| Pattern recognition in obviously helpful when problem
| solving.
| MaximumYComb wrote:
| IQ is one of the strongest predictors we have for many
| life outcomes, such as career success, wealth, lower risk
| of death. This doesn't mean "everyone with a very high IQ
| will blah blah blah" but it does mean that those with
| high IQs are more likely to achieve certain things.
| outworlder wrote:
| I suspect that also goes for products as well.
|
| An iPod
|
| A phone
|
| An internet communicator
| TheRealNGenius wrote:
| nice. I understood that reference.
| mettamage wrote:
| How do you do leverage these strengths? I have a somewhat
| similar profile and I simply feel like a fish judged by its
| ability to climb a tree.
|
| Yet, I:
|
| - Help with hiring/marketing/leading scrum sessions (when the
| actual scrum master is ill)
|
| - Conduct pentests
|
| - Do the frontend and backend (what I was hired to do)
|
| If they'd let me, I'd help with the writing efforts as well
| as my writing ability is better than that of the average
| developer, if I have to believe my grades on any report in
| any degree that I did (game studies, psychology and CS).
| turdnagel wrote:
| Join a smaller company.
| afpx wrote:
| One of my favorite colleagues is just an average developer,
| but he's also very funny. He has figured out his niche and
| excels at it. To leverage strengths, it's often helpful to
| understand the team.
| petra wrote:
| How is him being funny helpful for career advancement ?
| sghiassy wrote:
| People like working with others with whom they like.
| Being a smart-asshole, by contrast, is a difficult way to
| get ahead.
|
| Being funny is one way to be like able
| weaksauce wrote:
| an aside, being funny in this context is where everyone
| gets a benefit of being happier. some types of humor is
| denigrating to a particular group or person and that's
| generally not going to take you very far in a lot of
| fields.
| benhurmarcel wrote:
| "Well-well look. I already told you: I deal with the god
| damn customers so the engineers don't have to. I have
| people skills; I am good at dealing with people. Can't
| you understand that? What the hell is wrong with you
| people?"
| rhombocombus wrote:
| Being consistent, personable, and kind has helped me
| advance more in my career than any one specific technical
| skill. Funny people are generally endearing, and it is
| usually easier and more productive to work with folks you
| get along with than ones you don't.
| CarbyAu wrote:
| My very first service desk job interview began with:
|
| Interviewer _decidedly nervous, shaking even!_
|
| Me _Pours glass of water for them, and for me, take sip._
|
| Interviewer _Takes a sip, notably calms down_
|
| Rest of the interview was: Interviewer:"Do you know XYZ
| software we have to use?"
|
| Me:"No."
|
| Got the job.
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| Soft skills. Having everyone around you like you is more
| important than being a _good_ programer.
| sghiassy wrote:
| Unless your Chuck Norris... he decides if you get to like
| him or not ;)
| econnors wrote:
| Not OP, but had a similar experience.
|
| The key, I've found, is figuring out the role that
| maximizes your strengths, and converting your current role
| into that (gradually) or finding a company that has a
| position that matches.
|
| For example, I loved a lot of aspects of being a PM
| (leading the team, breaking down complicated
| tasks/releases, designing great UX) but am an engineer at
| heart. So I worked with my PM to take over responsibilities
| that leveraged those skills, and then I used that
| experience to get a new role where I'm able to do those
| same things to a greater degree (at a company now that
| combines typical tech lead + PM responsibilities into one).
| syndacks wrote:
| >How do you do leverage these strengths?
|
| What is your goal? I identify with the parent comment here,
| (the parent of that too) and feel like I've reached a point
| where the most obvious answer to your question (on
| leveraging strengths) is management.
|
| If you can code, project manage, and communicate
| effectively with [non]tech people and don't mind the stress
| of dealing with other people's issues, then it might be up
| your alley.
| mettamage wrote:
| Say if that were true (as it might be), one doesn't just
| go into project management. There is no company who'd
| hire me as that as I have no prior experience in it.
| syndacks wrote:
| >I have no prior experience in it
|
| Well based on the comment I replied to, you communicated
| that you did! Don't sell yourself short. Talk to your
| manager; is there opportunity at your current org to do
| the kind of work you are looking for? If not, look
| elsewhere; the challenge is communicating that you have
| the relevant experience (ideally with something to show
| at your current role (hence my previous comment)).
| ornornor wrote:
| No but if you have a job right. Ow you can take in PM
| responsibilities on top of your current work. After 6-12
| months you have PM experience you can parlay into a PM
| job.
| robviren wrote:
| Sounds like you might want to try out being a product
| manager. I'm a sub par engineer, but I think my diverse
| skills worked out pretty well for a PM job.
| j45 wrote:
| An HR leader once shared with me: "Because every hire is a
| compromise between available candidates.. there is no perfect
| hire, and no two candidates are truly comparable."
|
| It's really an eye-opening statement for tech roles, and how
| formally taught and self-taught/transferred folks can work
| side by side successfully.
|
| The unique thing about tech skills is there's more than one
| valid way to solve a problem or do something "right". It's
| hard to measure that.
|
| Not even two CS majors who may be equivalently capable (in
| different ways) on the outset will be identical, nor will be
| the outcome of how they grow their strengths and
| capabilities.
|
| I look forward to HR continuing to evolve better to
| understand technical roles and contributions as being beyond
| a binary yes/no measurement.
|
| Current hiring practices continue not to extend well from a
| bricks and mortar approach to a abstracted online/digital
| measurement.
|
| In the meantime... knowing how to leverage and communicate
| your skillet in a transferable way is really what's
| important. There's no better way to do that than learning to
| write and communicate well, and better than others.
| triyambakam wrote:
| In terms of concrete specifics, I've found having
| interviews with at least 3 engineers on the team you will
| potentially be working with to be really helpful for both
| sides to evaluate, and more specifically when the
| interviews are pair programming problem solving. You get to
| see how the candidate works through a problem and they
| don't have to code for an exact solution (or I don't think
| that should be the requirement anyways, it should be more
| about approach and communication than an exactly correct
| implementation , especially given limited time)
| jrumbut wrote:
| This is also why processes are often not transferable,
| because the people are different.
|
| Better leaders are always taking stock of what they have or
| don't have and reorienting the process rather than trying
| to stuff the new team into the old process.
| rjsw wrote:
| There are not very many people with defined Erdos-Bacon numbers
| [1].
|
| [1]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erd%C5%91s%E2%80%93Bacon_numbe...
| gvurrdon wrote:
| Apparently there are sufficient (even I have one - 7 IIRC)
| that an even more exclusive club as been formed:
| https://rosschurchley.com/blog/who-else-has-an-erdos-
| bacon-s...
| framecowbird wrote:
| > To have a defined Erdos-Bacon number, it is necessary to
| have both appeared in a film and co-authored an academic
| paper, although this in and of itself is not sufficient.
|
| This surprised me. I guess you could star in a tiny indie
| film completely closed off from the Bacon graph...
| dmurray wrote:
| Probably easier to co-author a paper with another novice
| author.
| read_if_gay_ wrote:
| I imagine there would be one massive connected component
| and a large number of really tiny ones.
| ctvo wrote:
| Stated differently:
|
| Diminishing returns on time invested to expertise gained
| becomes unattractive at the highest expertise levels. A lot of
| time is required for a small growth in expertise (pushing to
| expand the frontier of knowledge in physics, for example).
|
| You can be an expert, but not the world class expert, with less
| time invested (before diminishing returns becomes prohibitive).
| I like to think of this as catching up to the state of the art,
| but not actively working to advance it (much, much harder).
|
| Do this in multiple fields and you may have a unique skillset
| or perspective that's valuable.
| throwaway1777 wrote:
| A relevant analogy is small fish in a big pond or big fish in a
| small pond. You are effectively making the pond smaller by
| going into a more specific niche.
| op03 wrote:
| What people haven't realized is you dont need to think in terms
| of Hierarchy anymore.
|
| Which is the way people have thought about anything for
| thousands of years. Fitting into domination or skill based
| hierarchies was optimal when resources where limited.
|
| The Network and its explosion in the last 20-30 (not even one
| generation old) challenges the reliance on anything
| Hierarchical. Just one example - I can connect to my boss's
| boss's boss with a tweet or an email or whatsapp message and
| establish a connection. A deep one if I am of value. I dont
| need to go through my boss or through multiple levels anymore.
| It changes everything. The more networked everything gets the
| harder and harder its going to get for hierarchies to maintain
| their stability.
|
| Why are Experts and Famous people's weaknesses so easy to find
| and pounce on today? Because of the network.
|
| Stop thinking about Hierarchies and how to climb up or what
| pushes ppl down. Its outdated. Those who climb and pretend
| there is some safe summit, their weaknesses will be scrutinized
| by thousands more people than in the past. You can see it from
| Obama to Gates to Trump to Xi to your favorite scientist or
| celeb who has fallen from grace.
|
| So think about Networks. Think about how they are created, how
| connections strengthen, how two networks connect, how to grow
| them etc. Networks change the value of all people. Just as in
| the Brain. There is no one extraordinary neuron.
|
| Book recos - Niall Ferguson - The Square and the Tower -
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07KKYostAJ0
|
| Albert-Laszlo Barabasi - The Formula
|
| Moises Naim - The end of power
|
| The Hierarchies of Skill and Domination will continue to face
| major pressure the likes they haven't seen in the past from
| ever changing network configurations.
| nitrogen wrote:
| _I can connect to my boss 's boss's boss with a tweet or an
| email or whatsapp message and establish a connection_
|
| And then your 3boss recommends firing you for insubordination
| regardless of your value.
| langitbiru wrote:
| In other words, generalists triumphs over specialists.
|
| But the best of them is the multi-specialists.
| https://techcrunch.com/2020/07/19/the-dual-phd-problem-of-to...
| andygcook wrote:
| Sam Altman posted a tweet storm about this topic a couple of
| hours ago. You'd probably find it interesting:
| https://twitter.com/sama/status/1297912739206242306
| amelius wrote:
| There are some problems with that though. Let's pick your first
| example and say you are a statistician/programmer. The problem
| is that whenever you talk to your peers, which are either
| better statisticians or better programmers, you will have a
| hard time earning their respect.
|
| Also, most people will know intuitively that it is easier to
| diversify than it is to specialize.
|
| And by combining skills you aren't going to make it into the
| history books. However, hard work in one area may actually get
| you there one day.
| samatman wrote:
| I learned this lesson from Clifford Stoll.
|
| He said that astronomers figure he must be an exceptional
| programmer, since he's clearly a mediocre astronomer. While
| programmers figure he must be an exceptional astronomer, since
| his programming is strictly middle-of-the-road!
|
| Of course, these days, he's the best dang Klein bottle glass
| blower in the game. No substitute for finding your niche.
| jakeva wrote:
| Not to mention a pretty good writer. I recently finished "The
| Cuckoo's Egg" and found it both highly informative and
| entertaining.
| borroka wrote:
| I disagree. It is one those things that are said once, repeated
| enough and make enough sense to be believed, although I suspect
| they are not true. If you combine an average programmer with an
| average statistician, you get a profile that is not
| particularly attractive. If the comment that follows is: but is
| it not what data scientist are? the answer is that good data
| scientist have good (or great) programming for what the
| programming they need to do.
|
| My undergrad and Master's are in an interdisciplinary field,
| which had at the time felt needed by Universities offering
| those degrees, but in the end the professional profile was not
| of interest. An average knowledge of chemistry, engineering,
| physics, and other sciences does not make you an
| interdisciplinary scientist, but someone who can do a little
| bit of many things, but not at the level that is required in
| order to get paid for it.
|
| The Dilbert's creator has excellent drawing abilities for the
| comics he is drawing --- here the lesson is that you need to do
| excellent relative to the quality that is needed, not that if
| you combine average talents you get world-class results.
| phkahler wrote:
| >> If you combine an average programmer with an average
| statistician, you get a profile that is not particularly
| attractive.
|
| Nobody said being average at both was enough. The parent post
| specifically said if you know _more than average_ in both
| areas. You still need to be good, but the combination of good
| in multiple areas is claimed to be sort of like being
| extraordinary in one. I think there 's some truth in that.
| devtul wrote:
| Curiously enough Scott Adams(Dilbert creator) talks a lot
| about what he call the "talent stack", which is what we are
| discussing here.
|
| If you have a combination of skills that have synergy then
| you can have great results.
| ska wrote:
| I suspect you are looking at this the wrong way. Someone who
| is average at a number of things is probably a decent
| generalist; valuable but not particularly are.
|
| But the argument is being _above average_ in two or more
| areas can make you as impactful as being top of your field in
| one area, even though you are nowhere near that talented in
| any different field.
|
| Even with your example, I would counter that a huge number of
| people successful in data scientist roles would not be
| successful (or at least, much less so) either as programmers
| or statisticians. It seems many of the earliest wave of data
| scientists (e.g. pre bootcamps etc.) have failed to thrive at
| at least one of the two before ending up in "data science"
| (caveat, agree this is poorly defined).
| borroka wrote:
| A decent generalist that nobody may want, though.
|
| You are right that "successful in data scientist roles
| would not be successful (or at least, much less so) either
| as programmers or statisticians", assuming they do not
| train a bit more and become better statisticians (a subject
| in which world-class experts have wildly different opinions
| about the very foundations of the field) or programmers (a
| 1X, say).
|
| What I had maybe issues articulating is that the Dilbert's
| creator is focusing on the system of skills (and, what does
| "better than average" mean? Better than the population
| average or better than the average of people professionally
| working, say professional comic artists? Because we are
| talking about two different things) instead of the
| application of the skills. He had a brilliant (a
| posteriori) idea that did not require to be neither
| Caravaggio nor Dave Chapelle. The lesson is that you can
| have success drawing like a 6-year old (which is better
| than what I can do) and some deadpan humor about office
| work which is funny one every ten times. Which is, IMO, way
| below the average skills of professionals.
|
| His "lesson" is between "nothing new" and "so what":
| nothing new because we have seen many successful people
| having near-zero talents or skills (that would be a long
| book for me), and so what because it is not the above
| average skills (and I ask again: average of what?) but the
| more or less fortuitous choice of a profession or activity.
|
| We have vague-casting, vague-posting, and, in this case,
| vague-philosophizing.
| ska wrote:
| A decent generalist that nobody may want, though.
|
| Right - but I think that pretty clearly wasn't what he
| was talking about.
|
| I don't love Adam's formulation, but it is close to
| something real.
| patmorgan23 wrote:
| I think the idea is be the a good (better than average)
| programer and good statistician radther than being a amazing
| top 1% statistician or programmer.
| JohnBooty wrote:
| I like your examples: those two games were amazing to play and
| very inspirational to me personally, for the reasons you
| articulated so well.
|
| I once heard another example of a man who'd washed out of both
| medical school and art school, lacking the apitude and/or drive
| to really make it in either field. He wound up finding a very
| successful career as an illustrator of medical textbooks, as
| the number of people versed in both medicine and art is
| extremely small. He's booked up _years_ in advance.
|
| (That man's story was, I believe, part of an NPR news story
| roughly 15 years ago. I've not been able to find any mention of
| it since then!)
|
| I've been able to combine good-but-not-elite skills in my own
| career in order to find success.
| roystonvassey wrote:
| This is spot on.
|
| For a while, in my career, it felt like I was pursuing multiple
| career paths and in fact, there were many times I wondered if
| those were wasted years.
|
| Turns out, that being a fairly good jack of a few trades does
| pay off. A mix of knowledge of analytics, statistics that was
| honed through a few years in economic research and most
| importantly, business understanding. I see that all of these
| skills, together, help me understand and grasp problems much
| better.
|
| I am not the best cloud ops guy or the one with the best code
| or in-pace with the latest arxiv paper on machine learning but
| when faced with the latest business question on how to use data
| to help drive sales or reduce costs, I know enough to piece the
| different bits together and build a prototype at the least.
|
| This is hugely empowering. I owe it to luck and fortune of
| course, but when the opportunity presents I felt these cross-
| domain skills made me more confident and helped visualise the
| solution better.
|
| PS: I have not mentioned the most important skill though - how
| you work with people but I believe that is only gained through
| experience
| giantg2 wrote:
| Too bad society generally doesn't reward that sort of combined
| expertise due to rigid licensing/credentialing/organizational
| structures.
| jcaguilar wrote:
| I think you talking about this one?
| https://forge.medium.com/how-to-become-the-best-in-the-world...
| umvi wrote:
| Yes, that was exactly the one I was referring to in my OP,
| but I couldn't remember enough keywords to find it. Thanks!
| danhak wrote:
| I like this idea very much. "Find your niche," in other words?
| dstick wrote:
| I remember reading this somewhere as well. If I recall
| correctly it was called something like "compound skills".
| Could have been... Linchpin.
| postsantum wrote:
| Skill stacking
| dredmorbius wrote:
| There is the notion of skill shapes. Typically, I, T, M
| (sometimes P, N, or E), and X (describing leadership),
| sometimes dash ("--", pure generalist), also tree.
|
| The idea being to have some mix of depth and breadth.
| Multiple depths is often quite useful.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-shaped_skills
|
| Horrible quickly DDG'd blogs (the concept tends to attract
| -- shallow exposition):
|
| https://peoplecentre.wordpress.com/2017/06/19/the-m-
| shaped-e...
|
| https://www.leadingagile.com/2017/02/e-shaped-staff/
|
| https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/which-letter-shaped-future-
| em...
|
| https://tcagley.wordpress.com/2016/06/14/productive-agile-
| te...
|
| https://aboutleaders.com/skill-shape-leader/
| jarbus wrote:
| Something I've struggled with for a long time is finding the
| point of trying when people better than you have failed. The only
| answer I could come up with is because "you aren't them." Going
| for my PhD in AI, going to give it my all, and see what I can do.
| m0zg wrote:
| Just work in a couple of prominent research labs, like I did.
| You'll be quickly disabused of the notion that you're in any way
| "extraordinary". At best you can say that you know more than
| other people in your particular niche. But then you have to
| concede that other people know more than you do in their niche.
| There are, however, real freaks out there who know more than you
| in any niche they decide they need to know something in. What
| takes you year takes them hours. What takes you hours takes no
| effort at all - it's immediately obvious. Some of them are humble
| about this, some aren't humble at all. It can be fascinating or
| demoralizing, depending on how attached you are to the false
| notion of your "extraordinarity". Unfortunately for humanity
| there are only very few of such people. I can't help but think
| that this is how human mind is supposed to be, and the rest of us
| are just deficient.
| lowiqengineer wrote:
| I know I'm not anywhere close to extraordinary, but it still
| makes my heart ache seeing someone with a Google or MIT hoodie
| or a RocksDB jacket on my evening walk.
|
| I'll settle for being considered more than just a mental
| defective just because I work at Amazon.
| jeandejean wrote:
| Very refreshing and inspiring. Reminds me of that well known
| quote: "done is better than perfect". It could be rephrased as
| "good is better than extraordinary" to summarize that post.
| yazanradaideh wrote:
| for more information about travel visit this link
| https://flowingtravel.com/
| Subsentient wrote:
| Yes.... Yes..... Consume, work, run in your hamster wheel.
| Mediocrity is okay, it's what your overlords desire. Enough to be
| useful, not enough to affect change.
| tcskeptic wrote:
| I think you are conflating being extraordinary with excellence
| -- the opposite of extraordinary is not mediocrity. We can all
| achieve excellence -- by definition being extraordinary is
| rare.
| sumtechguy wrote:
| I like to use the movie Amadeus as an example of this. The
| movie portrayed Salieri as a man who could barely play. When
| that was just not true at all. The problem is they were
| comparing someone who is top of their field to someone who
| was extraordinary. In fact if you look at the movie semi
| closely you would see Mozart could not even keep the rest of
| his life together.
| tabtab wrote:
| I thought of that movie also. Although half fiction, it's a
| wonderful flick; I highly recommend it for anybody
| frustrated with their position in life.
|
| Re: "The movie portrayed Salieri as a man who could barely
| play. When that was just not true at all."
|
| That was the King, not Salieri, as I remember it. But
| Salieri's playing did lack the flair that Mozart's had, as
| shown. However, the King himself seemed to prefer Salieri's
| simpler style, based on various conversations.
|
| In actuality, Salieri was probably financially more
| successful than Mozart, but less remembered, so there is an
| element of truth to it.
|
| In general Mozart's music did tend to please musicians more
| than regular audiences. He was perhaps a bit ahead of his
| time. This is similar to Beethoven, who was probably
| considered to be in the top 10 at the time, but not the
| greatest of his era. Beethoven practically invented the so-
| called Romantic era, so to some he was doing "weird stuff".
| It took a while for mainstream to "get" Jimi Hendrix also.
| I know it's a politically-incorrect cliche, but pioneers
| often do take arrows in the back.
| IBCNU wrote:
| If you play music in modern times, this movie is also
| informative. I think most musicians who really make
| innovative tunes are aware of these trade offs, it maps
| to real life well. There's musicians who make music for
| other musicians and they're trying to say something they
| know most people will have a little difficulty hearing.
| tabtab wrote:
| Being Mozart was often in debt, it wouldn't make sense
| that he wanted to please musicians over paying customers.
| But who knows. Maybe his desire to test the limits of
| music subconsciously overrode financial worries, and
| that's why he was always in debt.
|
| Most creative pioneers have a personality quirk or two.
| NewEntryHN wrote:
| Except extraordinary is correlated with excellent because
| this premise:
|
| > We can all achieve excellence
|
| is false in practice.
| samatman wrote:
| I don't entirely agree.
|
| In this context, _excellence_ is a stand in for what
| Aristotle calls _arete_ in the Nicomachean Ethics. Or if it
| isn 't, it should be; this conversation spans millennia.
|
| For any given field of endeavour, we may aspire to
| excellence, but it isn't given to all of us to achieve it.
|
| However I must believe that _arete_ is, if not available to
| absolutely everyone, at least, an accessible part of the
| human condition, to the point where someone who was born
| with such a paucity of gifts as to make this impossible, I
| would consider disabled.
|
| Schizophrenia comes to mind as an example of a condition
| which makes this very difficult. But Terry Davis shows us
| that it isn't impossible.
| [deleted]
| rabidrat wrote:
| "can" I think is true for some large majority of people.
| It's just that most people get discouraged well before the
| point at which they've devoted enough of their lives to
| their endeavor to be truly excellent. So in that sense,
| maybe they "can't", but it is not due to an innate talent
| deficit, but a psychological deficit (which I believe can
| also usually be addressed with enough attention and
| intention).
| TwelveNights wrote:
| Looking at extraordinary people can be both encouraging and
| disheartening. I've always wanted to practice drawing after
| seeing all the incredible things that extraordinary people can
| make. However, the more you dig into something, the more that
| chasm between you and the peak seems to widen.
|
| The one point I appreciate about this article is how it points
| out that there are physical constraints that come with being
| extraordinary. With the example of drawing, reaching a higher
| level of understanding could be possible with more time
| dedication, though I personally may want to use my time for other
| purposes.
| anticsapp wrote:
| backup as the site is down: https://archive.vn/DGhBi
|
| This tweet bubbled up this weekend and it touched me:
| https://twitter.com/ambernoelle/status/1297191195584663554
| lowiqengineer wrote:
| I fully relate to this, but the worst part is being judged as
| being defective and unsophisticated by the extraordinary people
| that I surround myself with. It feels like I've already failed at
| life most days.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-08-24 23:00 UTC)