4 ms·

TBH I think most quotes can be over analyzed like this to the point that the quote seems ridiculous. IMO quotes are just ways to remind you of lessons learned;

TBH I think most quotes can be over analyzed like this to the point that the quote seems ridiculous. IMO quotes are just ways to remind you of lessons learned; you take them at face value and move on. A literary analysis of quotes seems out of scope of day to day life. Of course this doesn't mean you shouldn't analyze things, but this quote does have an obvious face value meaning that is..well valuable.

jerf 10y ago
"TBH I think most quotes can be over analyzed like this to the point that the quote seems ridiculous." But I think this one is special that way, which is why I call it out. It is not "sane" to do the same thing over and over and expect the same results, either. The implicit dichotomy the English creates is simply false. I'm actually rather big into "wisdom", to a degree that the average HN reader would probably find rather quaint and old-fashioned. This is not a wise saying. The "kernel" in its center is not true. The truth that it sorta-kinda points out is not in its center.
- betenoire 10y ago
  Can you give an example or two where it is not sane to expect the same results over and over?
  - btschaegg 10y ago
    Flipping a coin? Edit: (except of course you generalize the result to "the coin falls down").
    - betenoire 10y ago
      Or "you get heads or tails" or "it spins through the air before bouncing around a bit". I think most of the examples one could give can be mitigated by rewording your expectations. Which, incidentally, is the reason for the quote in the first place.
      - btschaegg 10y ago
        Well, by that logic, everything could be reduced to "stuff might happen".
        betenoire 10y ago
        Right, and if you reduce a quote to a tautology, you miss the point. It's like complaining that a metaphor isn't literal.
        btschaegg 10y ago
        Not entirely. I don't really have a quarrel with the quotes message (I wouldn't really care, TBH), but with how it's used. And sadly, it usually is used to dismiss someone's efforts by misinterpreting the other person's motives (or "expectations") - which coincides with exactly this pattern. So basically, whenever I read the phrase so far (luckily, I never had to hear it in a personal discussion yet), someone uses it to belittle someone else without taking his/her perspective into account. Or any changes to the world as a whole for that matter.
        betenoire 10y ago
        I can see that, thanks for sticking with me :)
  - jerf 10y ago
    It is a common idea that we can just "go back" to the past and if we just, say, rekajiggered union laws back to what they were at the height of unions, or rekajiggered immigration laws back to what they were in 1950, or reset the healthcare system back to what worked in whatever time, that we could recover the same results of that time. It won't work, because the world has changed too much. (Which is not to say that they are good or bad ideas, or that they wouldn't have some kind of effect of some sort. But they certainly would not simply recreate the past.) Politically, it is difficult to convince people of the oncoming disaster of guaranteed-benefit entitlement programs, because they've worked up to this point so why can't we just keep doing the same thing and expecting the same result? But if you've got changing ratios of number of people on the programs vs. the number of people supporting them, you can't expect the same results to obtain. You can't expect to just keep using the same antibiotics over and over indefinitely and getting the same results. As we creep closer and closer to the possibility of being able to recreate extinct species and re-introduce them back into their original ecosystems, there's an interesting debate occurring about whether that's even a good idea. Once a species is removed from a niche, is it possible the ecosystem rearranges itself such that reintroduction would be a net negative? (This gets into its own tricky issues about how one can actually define "net positive result to an ecosystem" which so far we've been able to sort of skirt around with various heuristics, but with this sort of power becomes an unavoidable issue.) In your personal life, there's really quite a bit that over the span of decades you can't expect to keep doing the same thing and getting the same result. Getting drunk and staying out all night doesn't have the same result at 22 as it does at 52. Exercise programs have to change. Careers have to change. Children change everything. Your own political opinions will have to change (is it really sane for a 55-year-old to have the same opinions about everything that they did at 15? what a weird world that would have to be). Your financial practices will probably have to change. Change is the only constant in life.
  - zuminator 10y ago
    Generally when you do the same thing over and over, you expect to improve over time; we call that "practice."
    - betenoire 10y ago
      I don't follow. If you get better each time, then you aren't "doing it the same" each time when you practice. Each practice is naturally unique and fine tuned to the level you are at. If you are saying that every time I practice, I get a little better, then this is in accord with repeating consistent results.
BeetleB 10y ago
>TBH I think most quotes can be over analyzed like this to the point that the quote seems ridiculous. >IMO quotes are just ways to remind you of lessons learned; you take them at face value and move on. If that were how they're used, I'd agree. But a lot of people will "misapply" the quote, as well as present it as fact. The reason GP felt compelled to complain about it is that this is one of those quotes that is often presented as fact when it isn't. Also, people often say these things as an excuse not to go in depth or justify their stance. When discussing an issue, they provide this as a reason. One of the most common examples is "Well, where there's smoke there's fire". This one really bothers me as it's almost always wrong whenever it is invoked (i.e. allegations were usually false). Not only that, the literal statement is plain wrong.

jerf 10y ago

"TBH I think most quotes can be over analyzed like this to the point that the quote seems ridiculous." But I think this one is special that way, which is why I call it out. It is not "sane" to do the same thing over and over and expect the same results, either. The implicit dichotomy the English creates is simply false. I'm actually rather big into "wisdom", to a degree that the average HN reader would probably find rather quaint and old-fashioned. This is not a wise saying. The "kernel" in its center is not true. The truth that it sorta-kinda points out is not in its center.

betenoire 10y ago
Can you give an example or two where it is not sane to expect the same results over and over?
- btschaegg 10y ago
  Flipping a coin? Edit: (except of course you generalize the result to "the coin falls down").
  - betenoire 10y ago
    Or "you get heads or tails" or "it spins through the air before bouncing around a bit". I think most of the examples one could give can be mitigated by rewording your expectations. Which, incidentally, is the reason for the quote in the first place.
    - btschaegg 10y ago
      Well, by that logic, everything could be reduced to "stuff might happen".
      - betenoire 10y ago
        Right, and if you reduce a quote to a tautology, you miss the point. It's like complaining that a metaphor isn't literal.
        btschaegg 10y ago
        Not entirely. I don't really have a quarrel with the quotes message (I wouldn't really care, TBH), but with how it's used. And sadly, it usually is used to dismiss someone's efforts by misinterpreting the other person's motives (or "expectations") - which coincides with exactly this pattern. So basically, whenever I read the phrase so far (luckily, I never had to hear it in a personal discussion yet), someone uses it to belittle someone else without taking his/her perspective into account. Or any changes to the world as a whole for that matter.
        betenoire 10y ago
        I can see that, thanks for sticking with me :)
- jerf 10y ago
  It is a common idea that we can just "go back" to the past and if we just, say, rekajiggered union laws back to what they were at the height of unions, or rekajiggered immigration laws back to what they were in 1950, or reset the healthcare system back to what worked in whatever time, that we could recover the same results of that time. It won't work, because the world has changed too much. (Which is not to say that they are good or bad ideas, or that they wouldn't have some kind of effect of some sort. But they certainly would not simply recreate the past.) Politically, it is difficult to convince people of the oncoming disaster of guaranteed-benefit entitlement programs, because they've worked up to this point so why can't we just keep doing the same thing and expecting the same result? But if you've got changing ratios of number of people on the programs vs. the number of people supporting them, you can't expect the same results to obtain. You can't expect to just keep using the same antibiotics over and over indefinitely and getting the same results. As we creep closer and closer to the possibility of being able to recreate extinct species and re-introduce them back into their original ecosystems, there's an interesting debate occurring about whether that's even a good idea. Once a species is removed from a niche, is it possible the ecosystem rearranges itself such that reintroduction would be a net negative? (This gets into its own tricky issues about how one can actually define "net positive result to an ecosystem" which so far we've been able to sort of skirt around with various heuristics, but with this sort of power becomes an unavoidable issue.) In your personal life, there's really quite a bit that over the span of decades you can't expect to keep doing the same thing and getting the same result. Getting drunk and staying out all night doesn't have the same result at 22 as it does at 52. Exercise programs have to change. Careers have to change. Children change everything. Your own political opinions will have to change (is it really sane for a 55-year-old to have the same opinions about everything that they did at 15? what a weird world that would have to be). Your financial practices will probably have to change. Change is the only constant in life.
- zuminator 10y ago
  Generally when you do the same thing over and over, you expect to improve over time; we call that "practice."
  - betenoire 10y ago
    I don't follow. If you get better each time, then you aren't "doing it the same" each time when you practice. Each practice is naturally unique and fine tuned to the level you are at. If you are saying that every time I practice, I get a little better, then this is in accord with repeating consistent results.

BeetleB 10y ago

>TBH I think most quotes can be over analyzed like this to the point that the quote seems ridiculous. >IMO quotes are just ways to remind you of lessons learned; you take them at face value and move on. If that were how they're used, I'd agree. But a lot of people will "misapply" the quote, as well as present it as fact. The reason GP felt compelled to complain about it is that this is one of those quotes that is often presented as fact when it isn't. Also, people often say these things as an excuse not to go in depth or justify their stance. When discussing an issue, they provide this as a reason. One of the most common examples is "Well, where there's smoke there's fire". This one really bothers me as it's almost always wrong whenever it is invoked (i.e. allegations were usually false). Not only that, the literal statement is plain wrong.