Some thoughts on success \ stacker news ~mostly

20.9k sats \ 44 comments \ @elvismercury 13 Apr mostly_harmless

Thread #1: Felix Stocker

I have never heard of Felix Stocker before, but this article on talent, and what talent is, is just ... astounding. Astounding enough that after I read it, I got up and came directly to my desk to write this post.

Thread #2: A personal anecdote

A few years ago I was on my CEO's private jet, and we were discussing a question I had posed to him about whether it's better to invest your time trying to mitigate your weaknesses, or exploiting your strengths.

I mention the "private jet" detail partly because it's true, but mostly to set the scene so that when I tell you that this was the most hard-working, intense, and driven dude I have ever met in my life, that you might get a sense of the scale I'm talking about. He had started off as a normal middle class guy from a nowhere town, and wound up someone whose phone call dignitaries of various governments would take. For these and other reasons, his opinion on the question of addressing one's strengths vs weaknesses seemed worth having.

He barely needed to think about the question. "Play to your strengths," he said. This surprised me; I'd thought he'd pick the other option for the same reason I would have, which was: whatever you're doing in life, your success is probably constrained by something stupid that you hate. Maybe (calling back to the Felix Stocker article) you despise math, which means that you avoid it at all costs and it limits your world accordingly.

But if you're currently an F in math skill, it's probably not that hard to get up to a C- in math skill with some focused intention. And what would that unlock, to not be so cripplingly bad at something so fundamental? To have whole areas of endeavor that are no longer closed off to you? What other doors would it open to someone with your abilities? If you widen the aperture of the rate-limiter by 300%, maybe that would result in outsized benefits?

That's how it seemed to me. I confess that I still can't really shake the idea. Which, again, is why the fact that one of us has a jet, and one does not, becomes a salient detail in this anecdote.

Thread #3: Charlie Munger

Here's a quote from Charlie Munger. I wrote it down years ago so have lost the original attribution but, you can probably find it in context if you google.

You have to figure out what your own aptitudes are. If you play games where other people have the aptitudes and you don’t, you’re going to lose. And that’s as close to certain as any prediction that you can make. You have to figure out where you’ve got an edge. And you’ve got to play within your own circle of competence.

If you want to be the best tennis player in the world, you may start out trying and soon find out that it’s hopeless—that other people blow right by you. However, if you want to become the best plumbing contractor in Bemidji, that is probably doable by two-thirds of you. It takes a will. It takes the intelligence. But after a while, you’d gradually know all about the plumbing business in Bemidji and master the art. That is an attainable objective, given enough discipline. And people who could never win a chess tournament or stand in center court in a respectable tennis tournament can rise quite high in life by slowly developing a circle of competence—which results partly from what they were born with and partly from what they slowly develop through work.

Thread #4: What you're interested in

There's a paper that made a big impact on me. Unless you're in a certain field you won't have heard of it, but you may know Carol Dweck for her work on mindsets.

O’Keefe, P. A., Dweck, C. S., & Walton, G. M. (2018). Implicit Theories of Interest: Finding Your Passion or Developing It? Psychological Science, 29(10), 1653–1664. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797618780643

If I summarized how this paper sits in my mind [1], it would be something like: a lot of what you believe about your own interests is backwards. It's not because you're interested in stuff that you work hard at it; rather, if you work hard at stuff, and progress at it and start to get good at it, the motivational machinery kicks in, and suddenly you're passionate about plumbing, or whatever (to call back to Munger). [2]

This is consequential for a few reasons, but one of them is that it's a corrective for a very wrong model of reality: if you go around doing stuff, not being interested in it, saying to yourself "Well, this clearly isn't the thing I'm meant to do!" and then giving up, then (according to the model from O'Keefe et al) you'll be doing it exactly backwards! and in fact, you will be stacking the deck heavily against ever finding yourself interested and passionate about anything!

My unease, and a question

So all this is jumbling in my mind. I'm trying to figure out how to live a passionate life, where I'm swept up in what I'm doing. To have the proper perspective. I think this is what we all want.

And then I think: there's a great deal of privilege wrapped up in this. If I was in some economic wasteland, unemployed, uncertain of where my meals were coming from, all of these issues would seem trivial. Hedonics adapt. People don't worry about self-actualization when they're focused on not dying. Which is a tiny kindness, I guess.

But I have the privilege of caring about this, and I'm looking around and wondering if I'm doing the wrong stuff, and that's why it isn't coming easy, as per Stocker? Or if I'm not working hard enough, and everything would fall into place if I doubled down, as per Munger and O'Keefe et al?

And I wonder if people around here are swept up in a passion for what they're doing, and if so, what you think of these different threads? Or perhaps you, like me, are not currently swept up, and if not, what do you make of it all?

Notes

[1] This isn't the paper's sole focus, and is a conclusion garnered from much other work; but the paper supports it.

[2] There was a post on Cal Newport recently; I vaguely recall that Newport made a related argument in one of his books, but I can't attribute it.

view all related items

1437 sats \ 4 replies \ @StillStackinAfterAllTheseYears 13 Apr

Wow. This is both a hell of a piece to think about, and one that's linked to a couple more (I literally zapped after reading the Stocker piece -- I'd never heard of him either -- and almost took a break before coming back and reading the rest; glad I didn't).

Like you, I'm not currently swept up, and I range from wanting to be, to wanting to not have to be (if that makes sense). I'm very good at my job in general, but it's not the sort of thing that leads to the feedback cycle Munger and O'Keefe talk about. But I'm also okay, I guess, with not being there. If I can enjoy my family and time with them and make a small part of the world slightly better, do I need to be swept up?

(And I'll take this over focusing on pure survival, of course).

I dunno. I guess the short answer is: This is giving me a lot to think about, and I'm about to spend some time diving into Stocker's blog to see if everything he's got is that good.

291 sats \ 2 replies \ @Undisciplined 13 Apr

If I can enjoy my family and time with them and make a small part of the world slightly better, do I need to be swept up?

This is mostly where I'm at, too. Although, I wouldn't mind having a job that I was getting swept up in either.

Generally, I have very little desire to be the best whatever in wherever. I like being in a position to engage with such people, though, and am fortunate to have some of those opportunities.

71 sats \ 1 reply \ @elvismercury OP 13 Apr

I like being in a position to engage with such people, though, and am fortunate to have some of those opportunities.

Being part of a good scene is worth a lot, I agree. That's an interesting way to look at it -- allocating your efforts to get you a ticket to those things, even if you're not necessarily the main player.

37 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 13 Apr

I don't think I have the requisite hubris or arrogance to ever believe I was the foremost expert in anything of significance, even if it were arguably the case (which it isn't).

42 sats \ 0 replies \ @elvismercury OP 13 Apr

and I range from wanting to be, to wanting to not have to be (if that makes sense)

Yup, that makes total sense. I know lots of people who are super capable but their lives are so rich outside of work that that's where they put their investment -- they are less "successful" by normal metrics, but as people they are super successful, and they're living lives they want. If I had a rich outside-work life I expect I'd probably be less angsty, too.

Although I've been wondering if angsty-ness is a trait more than a state thing, and this is how I'd be no matter what was going on.

1144 sats \ 1 reply \ @Voldemort 15 Apr

And I wonder if people around here are swept up in a passion for what they're doing, and if so, what you think of these different threads?

My problem is that I am passionate about learning. In grad school, I was obsessed with math. Spent every waking hour thinking about it, often woke up in the middle of the night with the solution to a problem I was trying to solve during the day. However, once I made it to a certain threshold of math skills, I became less passionate about doing it. I wasn't the best in the world, but I knew I could solve any problem I needed to.

I think of this as learning a language. Math is kind of a language in its own right, but that is not what I am getting at. I think of it as a sort of fluency and once I get fluent in a thing, I move on to the next thing. Things I am fluent in, or at least was at one point, are math, economics, cooking, pottery, cycling, and I am sure a few others. To me this makes sense - I am not going to keep trying to get better at Spanish when I am fluent in it. I will continue to practice it, but i don't need to continue to "learn" it.

It's not because you're interested in stuff that you work hard at it; rather, if you work hard at stuff, and progress at it and start to get good at it, the motivational machinery kicks in, and suddenly you're passionate about plumbing, or whatever (to call back to Munger).

I have long believed this is true, and to me it explains why most people don't take up new hobbies as they get older. No one wants to be the worst at a thing. Personally, I love being the worst at a thing because it means I get newb gains, and I get the experience of lots of "aha" moments.

I also think this is maybe more easily observed within fields. I mentioned my obsession with math - but it wasn't all math. I thought all math had interesting elements and results, but I was only obsessed with analysis and topology. I was okay in other areas, but my mental models work exceptionally well in analysis and topology and so progress came more quickly. The rate at which I received "aha" moments was higher.

All that said, I think 99% of shit people say about being passionate is BS, to be honest. You want to know my true passion? Leisure. Within that leisure, I choose what I want to learn on a given day or over a given month.

In reality, I was lucky to find a passion for math and economics. I still find them enjoyable but I would quit my job in a heart beat if I didn't need an income.

The phrase "if you do what you love you will never work a day in your life" simply does not resonate for me. That is only true for people who like to work. As an example - I love to teach. I am excellent at it. However, when I was teaching I often dreaded it.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @elvismercury OP 15 Apr

Such a great reply. Thank you.

Personally, I love being the worst at a thing because it means I get newb gains, and I get the experience of lots of "aha" moments.

[...]

The rate at which I received "aha" moments was higher.

This is true for me, too, to pathological degree. The phrase I say to people is something close to I like to be in the steep part of the S curve which means pretty early.

The very very very beginnings can be a slog for some things, and I often fall off; but if I can just get past that, I'm enamored of the rocket take-off. I gorge on that novelty, and then lose interest when it flattens out. I've managed to make a career of this due to good fortune, but it seems precarious.

You want to know my true passion? Leisure. Within that leisure, I choose what I want to learn on a given day or over a given month.

I'm afraid this might be true of me, too. The reason I say "afraid" is that there seems to be a competing need, in addition to that S-Curve need that could be served by leisure, where all of this needs to amount to something. And I don't quite know what would constitute amounting to something. It has been slippery.

357 sats \ 2 replies \ @davidw 13 Apr

Will certainly read again. But I wanted to jot these notes down quickly…

Many times I’ve also pondered asked myself and pondered why the world rewards such specialists.

The best reference point are the corporate structures where (specifically in software teams, agile) employees dare not step out of their own box because it does not appear in their job description.

In big corporate structures you get a lot of this, maximising efficiency & reporting lines with clear process to minimise chaos. In scrappy startups, you get the opposite. You need to be resourceful with your time in small businesses, competing with the big behemoths. Therefore if you hate process, people would be best served joining smaller teams.

The second half of the debate is that we would do well to also pay attention to the progression of technology, where we stand today. In a world where you can no longer outcompete people through effort or because you come from a certain country or background, we are all to some extent going to need to be specialists in our own disciplines. Otherwise someone somewhere, robot or not, will do it better for a fraction of the cost. When we’re no longer competing regionally, but globally or at least across continents… we must adapt and be known and recognised as experts in our fields. Unless of course that expert requires getting any job done and being resourceful in your own local area.

I believe that passion comes from growth itself, from learning and from a sense of expectation from the outcome. When we stop learning in our jobs or careers, or we no longer believe the pursuit is no longer meaningful, it is likely to lead to more questions than fulfilment. Following your passion is great, but impractical for many people. Finding a company or a mission that will exist and be in demand in 10 years is less so. That is a good place to start. Learning a new skill is empowering too, but don’t expect to become a specialist at it anytime soon.

121 sats \ 0 replies \ @elvismercury OP 13 Apr

Otherwise someone somewhere, robot or not, will do it better for a fraction of the cost. When we’re no longer competing regionally, but globally or at least across continents… we must adapt and be known and recognised as experts in our fields.

I think of this a lot, too. I figure if the competitive challenge is as you've described, then I need to do something that I'm elite at, which, tautologically, is being the most me in some market-relevant way. Which should be super humanizing, because I have a serious competitive advantage in being myself. So it's a matter of finding the projection of myself that somebody wants.

It's the closest thing I have to an "answer" to the question I posed.

27 sats \ 0 replies \ @davidw 13 Apr

Made it to the bottom of the article and I see someone reached the same conclusion…

So I guess it’s ok to bake bread even if you’re not a baker - we’re all allowed hobbies. Just don’t make it your full-time job.

328 sats \ 6 replies \ @Undisciplined 13 Apr

I've been a "play to your strengths" advocate for a while, although I agree with "whatever you're doing in life, your success is probably constrained by something stupid that you hate."

Big picture, that's the point of specialization and the division of labor. If you focus where you have a comparative advantage, you'll be productive enough pay someone else to that other stuff.

On a smaller scale, it's a lot easier to find the motivation to get around those kind of pain points, and just make yourself do it, when it's very specific and very costly. That's not at all the same as a general focus on improving weaknesses. It's clearing obstacles out of the way in order to unconstrain strengths.

171 sats \ 3 replies \ @elvismercury OP 13 Apr

Big picture, that's the point of specialization and the division of labor.

I agree provisionally, but my caveat is the same one that I told to our CEO on that flight. It was something like:

Outsourcing your weaknesses makes sense in the abstract as a comparative advantage play; but think of Coase as a counter. Why are there corporations at all, and not exclusively one-off networks of specialists? The most popular answer is transaction costs, and I think something comparable has bearing on this question.

Continuing the earlier example, it may be trivial to solve my math deficiencies by market-contracting whatever the math need is, but that's assuming I'm capable of knowing what needs to be contracted or understanding its proper scope. If I'm an F at math, the prospect of being able to make the requisite contract becomes tenuous.

More importantly than that, there is no contract that will give you access to the conceptual structures that the actual skill would provide. You see the world slightly different when you have different skills / capabilities -- this is an under-appreciated consequences of Heidegger's framework -- and that kind of leverage really matters, especially for the kind of creative work that I do.

I'm not an F at math, but I'm certainly no expert, and still I can't tell you how much leverage I've got over the years from an intermediate level of linear algebra knowledge, in applications that have nothing to do with linear algebra, regarding topics that have nothing to do with math.

How many other linear algebras are out there, waiting to transform how I see the world, if only I could move off of F? That's the countervailing headwind to the comparative advantage idea, which is admittedly compelling.

336 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined 14 Apr

In addition to my experience as a student in a bunch of mathy disciplines, I taught math for a few years. I know it's just an example, but I have not seen very many people who make it usefully far in mathematics through force of will.

I certainly agree with you about how transformative mathematical study is in how we process seemingly unrelated topics. My doubt is that it would be as transformative for people who had to buckle down and will their way through the material.

Like you suggest, people draw those transformative lessons from many places. My expectation is that looking for them in subjects that you find inspiring or interesting will be more fruitful. On that note, though, I do think it's important to give things a chance and not just assume there's nothing in it of value.

I certainly think this isn't a topic where one approach is correct and the other is incorrect. It's more that I think it more often makes sense to focus on your strengths, because that moves you into less dense parts of the skill distribution, which allows you to charge more of a premium.

The reality is that you should be evaluating how the benefit of learning something compares to the cost. Sometimes, that will mean doing something very costly, because it's a bottleneck for a bunch of other stuff you are good at.

162 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 14 Apr

I should add, as supporting evidence, my experience with music.

I'm pretty sure that I'm literally musically retarded. I took lessons on several different instruments as a kid and never got anything out of it, despite quite an investment of time and effort.

For many people, as I understand it, playing music helps them think about things other than music. While I was able to play some set of recognizable songs and answer many basic music questions, it made essentially no impact on my cognition and I think that's because I never connected with it.

104 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b 14 Apr

Outsourcing your weaknesses makes sense in the abstract as a comparative advantage play; but think of Coase as a counter. Why are there corporations at all, and not exclusively one-off networks of specialists? The most popular answer is transaction costs, and I think something comparable has bearing on this question.

The benefit of getting better at your speciality could outweigh the transaction costs of outsourcing your non-speciality.

Continuing the earlier example, it may be trivial to solve my math deficiencies by market-contracting whatever the math need is, but that's assuming I'm capable of knowing what needs to be contracted or understanding its proper scope. If I'm an F at math, the prospect of being able to make the requisite contract becomes tenuous.

You probably don't need an A in math to spot a great math person and you could always outsource the hiring to a trusted math friend (assuming one of your talents is finding such friends). You might get as much benefit discussing something with an outsourcee as you do having it all in your own brain.

50 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b 13 Apr

On a smaller scale, it's a lot easier to find the motivation to get around those kind of pain points, and just make yourself do it, when it's very specific and very costly. That's not at all the same as a general focus on improving weaknesses. It's clearing obstacles out of the way in order to unconstrain strengths.

I was going to say this a tenth as well.

193 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 13 Apr

This is a big part of my parenting approach, inspired by what I know of unschooling. I encourage my daughter to explore her interests. In doing so, she encounters difficulties that she has to navigate. Those difficulties are often things other parents might invest a bunch of energy and frustration into making their kid learn.

393 sats \ 2 replies \ @k00b 13 Apr

I usually say "I do what I want" which largely means playing to my strengths (and where I put my past efforts to validate O'Keefe). I try to be aware of my weakness and its cast that I mold into, but I don't try to break the cast directly. I'd rather grow where the cast doesn't constrain me as if my weakness is an involuntary neck ring helping transform me into a valuable mutant.

It's only a recent theory to me, but I think using your strengths to workaround weakness is a source of invention. It's the single most available source I've found at least, a source of mutant solutions some of which will occupy a significant niche before growing into a proper species.

It might help that I've always been a kind of mutant (or at least treated like one) and competing on being normal and well adjusted has never been an option. Stocker excelled at being normal and what people expected of him by his own account. As a mutant, I wonder what pressure could exist to make him risk the likely ruin of being a mutant?

110 sats \ 0 replies \ @elvismercury OP 13 Apr

I like the neck ring metaphor.

I had a version of this when I was a kid, growing up in the country without a lot of kids around who wanted to play basketball with me, so I just played in the driveway by myself. I developed this really weird style. When I played with other kids, years later, I was brilliant at some stuff, terrible at some others. It was like basketball having evolved on another planet.

I will ponder the "mutant solutions" idea more.

20 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b 13 Apr

Being normal could mean being skilled at ridding yourself of weakness. Maybe all Stocker has to do is let weakness bloom a bit as if it's a lever. As much effort as he spent getting good at Rugby, I bet he didn't lower his expectations to zero elsewhere.

278 sats \ 4 replies \ @cryotosensei 14 Apr

I woke up early enough to work on my resume. Your question fascinated me n I was about to answer it after I brushed my teeth etc. Now both my kids are awake…and I still want to answer this question.

Having read all these threads, I still believe in the conventional thinking that hard work trumps talent. I think the concept that you need to invest 10,000 hours into practising something has been proven to be flawed - but the premise still stands. We need to devote ourselves to honing our craft - and that cannot be achieved if we don’t work hard.

How do we know if an interest is worth pursuing in the first place? How do we avoid the heartbreak and disappointment that inevitable comes when we give of ourselves totally to something and realise that we suck at it compared to people who blow us away with their natural flair and aptitude? I am reminded of a Dance seminar (I am the teacher in charge of the Dance Club). An accomplished dancer said to the audience: You must enjoy the struggle. I doubt Felix Stocker regrets how he went all out to be the best rugby player.

(Aside to @Undisciplined, now my daughter is determinedly trying to crawl over the human barricade that is me. I agree that letting our kids solve problems is a worthwhile thing we ought to do for them.)

If Felix hadn’t invested all that time and energy, he might have been plagued by the what ifs. The uncertainty - be it cognitively or emotionally - incurred by not following your interest is a hurdle that prevents us from moving on to the next thing. Now Felix can say, “been that done that” and take the moral high ground.

And I’m sure his years as a rugby player has informed his writing. I think to be a truly unique and exceptional writer, one needs to have tons of lived experiences from many areas and synthesise his insights to create something that is original. Cross-pollination is key.

Personally, I am passionate about writing (Duh). That’s why I post every day. Writing is in my blood; it comes so naturally to me that if I suppress myself n not write, the words and paragraphs will still be floating around in my mind’s eye and taking up valuable cognitive space. It’s definitely something I want to get better at.

At the same time, however, I’m not obsessed about it. Part of it is due to raising two young kids. Parenting drains me. But a greater part of it has to do with my own disposition. I know the MBTI profiling tool is a pseudo-science but I’m ENFP n believe in it wholeheartedly. My mind just comes up with all these different ideas I should write about. I lack the patience to go all in on one idea and write about it thoroughly and profoundly. Something like what Natalia brings to this site. I should discipline my mind more and work on an idea consistently for days on end, but right now I don’t feel the inclination to do so.

Perhaps I want to painstakingly produce thoughtful pieces on Japan like Pico Iyer, but because my frame of reference is parenting, I find myself writing about them. This is not to say that I begrudge the inspiration they gift me though haha.

I think the pie is big enough for us all. Even if I’m not the best writer, I’m doing the best with the cards Life has dealt me - and that’s good enough.

Okay, I need to change their diapers! Thanks for putting together this thought-provoking post!

59 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined 14 Apr

I'm usually an INTJ. It's a miracle we get along so well!

50 sats \ 0 replies \ @cryotosensei 14 Apr

Wouldn’t you know? ENFPs get along well with INTJs.

Thanks for sharing. It got me thinking about my wife. Although she has never taken the MBTI, I would peg her down as an INFJ. I had a light bulb moment about why she seems relatively unperturbed about the stresses of parenting while I whine all the time about my lost social life. She is independent n doesn’t mind being alone if raising her household n kids demand her full attention. I need constant stimulation in the form of diverse groups of people. Thank God I married her haha

49 sats \ 1 reply \ @elvismercury OP 14 Apr

And I’m sure his years as a rugby player has informed his writing. I think to be a truly unique and exceptional writer, one needs to have tons of lived experiences from many areas and synthesise his insights to create something that is original. Cross-pollination is key.

I think this is a very deep idea, and one I wrestle with all the time. I tell myself: hey dude, all this weird random shit you waste time on, is actually super important to think all these interesting thoughts you want to think.

But I'm a little worried that I'm fooling myself, that it's an excuse. Actually, I'm a lot worried.

Thanks for putting together this thought-provoking post!

Thanks for such a meaty reply!

218 sats \ 0 replies \ @cryotosensei 14 Apr

Thanks for confessing your anxiety here. Ofc Sensei will not let your vulnerability go unnoticed haha.

I would suggest, just chill n go with the flow with whatever direction you have decided on for now. The Universe will intervene if it wants to whip you into shape. Case in point: Undisciplined mentioned the other day that he won’t zap me 33,333 sats because I confess my love for SN every day. He meant it in jest. It got me thinking nonetheless. Shouldn’t I be writing something out of character for once? His question tapped into my insecurity - I should be applying low time preference and spending my energy on a looooooong-form post if I want to step up as a writer.

So, thanks to him, I actually have an idea in mind and will take the effort to flesh it out. Stay tuned for it haha.

This is how the Universe intervened in my case. I guess your anxiety stems from a place of wanting to get it “right” the first time. In regard to this, I think a useful exercise to undertake is to write your own euology. That was what I did for a film appreciation module in teacher training college - and I think I can retrieve it from FB Notes if I make the effort. Anyway I remember writing about singing to my own tune and dancing to my own beat. That’s why I engage in weird random shit because I want to carve my own territory rather than be the best in an accomplished area. Case in point: I used a poem on light to teach my Science students about photosynthesis. It made it all the way to the FB page of my Ministry of Education. So I may never make it to Senior Teacher level, but it’s okay. I answer my own KPI: be an authentic n interesting teacher who can make links across different subjects like no other.

If you feel rushed by the passage of time, then fast iteration is the way to go. Just produce something quickly n gather feedback. Think about whether you should persevere or pivot. Rinse n repeat until you feel that you’re inching closer to the person whom you want people to reminisce during your funeral haha.

Do you need to be riding in a private jet for your life to mean the world to you? 😆

218 sats \ 8 replies \ @k00b 17 Apr

I was reminded today that the first chapter of Mastery is The Life's Task and it touches on some of this stuff. I went looking around for interviews where he summarizes it best and he repeatedly recommended Frames of Mind by Howard Gardner. Anyway, you might be familiar with all of this but I like what he has to say on the subject.

Here's an interview with Huberman where he describes his view well (the link has it start at the part he goes into it).

100 sats \ 7 replies \ @elvismercury OP 17 Apr

Thank you, these are great recs. I own the Mastery book but have only read the intro (this is sadly the dominant fate of most books I own) but this is a good reminder that it merits deeper engagement. Greene is a great synthesizer.

Fwiw, my major takeaway from the time I was engaged w/ the SDT and related models of motivation was: mastery of what? In other words, what is it that I am trying to be, that I can progress in my capability about? It introduced the disturbing (and interesting) idea that we have all mastered whatever it is that we are, by definition. So what is that? And is that the right thing?

218 sats \ 6 replies \ @k00b 17 Apr

It introduced the disturbing (and interesting) idea that we have all mastered whatever it is that we are, by definition.

That's a nice tautology, a thing that I normally like as it can show how different framings are identical, but I don't find it very motivating. As presented at least, it seems to miss that no one has mastered what they can (in the future) be.

So what is that?

Robert Greene implies its found by studying our childhoods, moments where our energy or excitement erupted during some mundane thing, revealing an inclination particular to us. He focuses on childhood because we tend to consciously collude with external influence as we mature. Meaning, when we're children, other people's expectations influence us but we don't yet alter our expectations of ourselves. He says you just go back to that trailhead and begin hiking.

This makes a lot of sense to me. You mostly look for where your energy is greatest and capture its wind in your sails over and over and over.

And is that the right thing?

Is this the right question? I feel like "what is that" is what matters. Figuring out "what is that" and doing that, assuming "that" isn't being a serial killer, is likely where you're most generative and that's the only "right," at a macro level, anyone should care about.

0 sats \ 5 replies \ @elvismercury OP 17 Apr

Robert Greene implies its found by studying our childhoods, moments where our energy or excitement erupted during some mundane thing, revealing an inclination particular to us.

That seems like an important signal, for the reasons you say; but perhaps not the important signal. Society's expectations for you, and the fields of play it permits at varying degrees of friction, are not irrelevant -- self-sovereignty in the way that many bitcoiners talk about it is an illusion.

What you want is a really nice intersection btwn what your innate tendencies predispose you to, and what society affords. Unless part of your innate tendencies is swimming upstream and fighting pointless fights, which some people do seem to be motivated by.

Is this the right question? I feel like "what is that" is what matters.

I think it's a useful question. If who you happen to be is someone who sets great store by being the smartest one in the room (a role I suspect many of us here have inhabited before) then two principal fates are open to you:

a) curate the rooms you go in aggressively; or b) feel like shit a decent amount of the time, depending on how smart you actually are

Both of those are Bad Outcomes, according to my value system; so if you've found that this is the answer to "what is that" for you, then "is this the right thing" will give you an answer it's important to attend to.

You mostly look for where your energy is greatest and capture its wind in your sails over and over and over.

Seems like you are excellent at this at this time in your life. Is that true? Was it always true?

1000 sats \ 3 replies \ @k00b 17 Apr

I'm operating under the impression that the problem statement here is "what's my purpose?" or "how do I fulfill my potential?" which might be off base. Also, forgive me, I get really passionate about this because people who are both smarter and more successful than me get hung up on these questions and it frustrates me more than almost anything. Either I'm confused, haven't answered these questions for myself, don't realize how difficult these questions are, and lack empathy or, as I suspect, these incredibly smart and successful people are preventing themselves from answering these questions by placing too many requirements on the answers.

Society's expectations for you, and the fields of play it permits at varying degrees of friction, are not irrelevant

Of course not, but it's beside the point and confuses the whole task by loading it with an unbearable burden. To me, indeed someone fond of illusory self-sovereignty, you couldn't design a better obstruction to answering "what is that." The expectations of you that society deserves to have are limited. If society were addressable (it isn't imo which is part of the problem), it should want to harvest the most good from you without regard for whether that takes the form of weaving incredible baskets or saving people from burning buildings. It should expect, at most, that it will fulfill its potential by you fulfilling yours alongside everyone else fulfilling theirs. Society doesn't deserve to expect the basket weaver to be a firefighter. How right is it, from society's point of view, to have miserable firefighters wishing they were basket weavers? How right is it for the firefighter to be miserable?

Anyway, I don't think you need to consider society's expectations directly. They are already part of any normal person. They will be baked into to your answers, aligned with "what is that," whether you want them to be or not. You will use "what is that" to society's aim because you're prosocial like most of us.

Seems like you are excellent at this at this time in your life. Is that true?

I'm at least under the illusion that it's true. It's certainly true on a basis relative to any other time in my life.

Was it always true?

No, which is why I get so fired up about this. I was led astray, then lost, and went through this process, more naively and less deliberately, a long time ago. It was extremely painful (like replacing my epidermis in full) and I felt like I was playing from behind for a long time, only to realize I was "ahead" on this question. If I had an advantage in answering this question, it was that no one, including society, had expectations of me. If society had a place to write, it would've written me off.

so if you've found that this is the answer to "what is that" for you

I might've gotten lost, but "this" is "being the smartest one in the room"?

"what is that" for you when you don't consider "is it right"?

100 sats \ 2 replies \ @elvismercury OP 18 Apr

Society doesn't deserve to expect the basket weaver to be a firefighter. How right is it, from society's point of view, to have miserable firefighters wishing they were basket weavers? How right is it for the firefighter to be miserable?

I don't disagree with this as much as you think, I don't think. I agree that miserable firefighters (or miserable anything) are a bad thing, and people shouldn't be miserable if they have an alternative. What I was getting at is that it might be better to be a lawyer (just to pick a random thing) if that inherently gave you a satisfaction level of 7, vs a basket-weaver, if that gave you a SL of 8.5, bc the other aspects of being a lawyer, and the social legitimacy that that job confers, probably outweighs in aggregate the benefits from basket-weaving.

Put another way, my usage of "right" was mostly pragmatic -- you're not independent of the world, so fixating on the purity of your love of basket-weaving is likely to be empirically a bad idea, if you're measuring something like aggregate life satisfaction.

If I had an advantage in answering this question, it was that no one, including society, had expectations of me. If society had a place to write, it would've written me off.

I would love to hear more about this, if you felt like relating it, but understand if you wouldn't. My recollection of your bio is that you went to a good college and did well, and then got a good job and also did well. Was this after a decadent youth where you felt written off?

I might've gotten lost, but "this" is "being the smartest one in the room"?

Yeah. My experience is that a lot of people (maybe also myself) get trapped into being a certain person. They are successful at being that person; they're good at it; perhaps they're well-rewarded for it. But it's somehow wrong. That's what I'm poking at here -- mastering a way of Being isn't that predictive of a happy person (objectively measured) or a good life (guessing). The "smartest person" example is an archetype that I actually know -- they have made a niche, been successful at it. But I think it's a trap.

"what is that" for you when you don't consider "is it right"?

There's a question.

1042 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b 18 Apr

I don't disagree with this as much as you think, I don't think.

I went hard on that point, but I take issue with even raising the question "is it right." Because, as much as a person thinks they can meter its influence, it's a mental sea monkey for nearly anyone and especially people who have high expectations of themselves. The people I'm talking about, all smarter and more successful than me, exhibit excessive concern about "is it right" and "what is the outcome." For smart prosocial people they will leverage "what is that" to do right and achieve a significant outcome regardless of all the "what is that" measuring they think is oh so rational.

The crux of the point I have to make is this. The feeling of finding one's purpose is mostly a matter of you respecting your own emotional wishes. It is a self-gratitude for choosing the most emotionally aligned task. Over rationalizing and quantizing these decisions is like telling everything you are to go fuck itself. No amount of societal righteousness or status or approval can heal the tear you create in your self by doing this.

I would love to hear more about this, if you felt like relating it, but understand if you wouldn't.

It's all so complain-y. Childhood turmoil -> flunking out of high school -> bankless, carless, small town grocery clerk, suicideating misery -> reading a lot -> have epiphany that I can be more -> go back to school for anything -> (re)discover an interest in computers and pursue it without concern for anything but the sense that it's "what is that" -> follow "what is that" forever.

But I think it's a trap.

I'm certain it is.

100 sats \ 0 replies \ @elvismercury OP 18 Apr

I must ponder. Thank you.

reply on another page

27 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b 17 Apr

I have to write release notes, but I'm going to come back here to comment immediately after because I think you're viewing it wrong and it's upsetting me. :)

218 sats \ 2 replies \ @SilkyNinja 14 Apr

I am swept up in a passion for what I do. I value creating cohesion across the vision of my life over a grindset. If you have a real passion, grinding can lead to an early grave.

I tend to capitalize on training my strength-skills daily and view my weaknesses strategically: what can I get better at today that will serve me best in the long-run and that is most readily applicable to a short-term goal?

Cohesion as a guidepost leads me to spiral around the same things that endlessly fascinate, interest, and motivate. Finding connections and patterns gives me direction, which illuminates my purpose and adds more fuel to the passion fire.

I highly value base skill/craft development (of the "passion") as the axis for creating passion about life. Passion --> Passion

It's not at all a trivial thing. In a context where "self-actualizing" is your primary concern, it could be said that is what you need to survive. We're always becoming is the thing; this is why I prefer to think in terms of cohesion and vision.

100 sats \ 1 reply \ @elvismercury OP 14 Apr

I would be curious to know what the vision is that you're pursuing with such obvious passion.

I highly value base skill/craft development (of the "passion") as the axis for creating passion about life. Passion --> Passion

This part I know to be true, at least about some things. Some things, the more you do the thing, the more energy it yields for the doing of the thing. A boring example is exercise: it takes energy and produces more energy. A handful of other things I've found are like that, too. I wish I could find more of them.

27 sats \ 0 replies \ @SilkyNinja 15 Apr

It is a vision which speaks to me a greater fulfillment of my life than I ever thought possible as a younger person. It is one particular image which is a greater anchor to my actions than any other fleeting image that speaks success.

64 sats \ 0 replies \ @leaf 14 Apr

He barely needed to think about the question. "Play to your strengths," he said

I would add the caveat that sometimes weaknesses make someone more exploitable: I'm thinking of the stereotypical academic or inventor who dies poor after others profit greatly from their work. In those cases, a little work on their weaknesses - building relationships with people who could protect them, or whatever - could have prevented their misfortune.

54 sats \ 2 replies \ @Bell_curve 14 Apr

I agree with your CEO: play to your strengths especially when you are young or starting your career.

Scott Adams has an interesting idea about stacking abilities. He is above average at a few things but together he was able to create Dilbert. I think stacking is a good idea but doesn’t apply to most people.

10 sats \ 1 reply \ @elvismercury OP 14 Apr

I had actually not written down that the Charlie Munger quote was from Munger, and thought at first it must be Scott Adams, for the reasons you say. I do think there's something to that idea, though I'm curious why you don't think it applies to most people?

27 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 14 Apr

Scott Adams was fortunate he was an above average cartoonist. His situation is unique.

I think it’s hard to stack different talents because most people don’t have talents that can be stacked for a single endeavor imo

I’m speculating. If I am wrong please tell me.

37 sats \ 1 reply \ @nym 13 Apr

I think this is good advice to play to your strengths.

6 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 14 Apr

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @BitcoinIsTheFuture 14 Apr

Wow great thoughts. Be the best at something and you’ll never regret it! You don’t get what you dream for, you get what you work for!