4 ms·

I like the point that "winning" requires abnormal behavior, but I don't like the phrasing as "winning". Winning implies a competition, when many worth-while th

I like the point that "winning" requires abnormal behavior, but I don't like the phrasing as "winning". Winning implies a competition, when many worth-while things in life aren't a competition and often simply passing a personal bar will suffice. It is a good point that doing extraordinary things requires extraordinary devotion, but the focus on overworking and beating an opposition bothers me. I'd like to think that accomplishing extraordinary things requires an extraordinary goals and extraordinary passion. You need to have a goal to direct your energy towards, and you need the passion to pursue that goal even when it feels like it might be out of reach. I think the real message of this article is just that accomplishing extraordinary things requires a lot of hard work, persistence, and patience. I think it misses the love and passion that is required to do that long-term.

kiba 16y ago
To do extraordinary thing also require you to believe in something that's accurate and correct but not many people believe to be true.
jasonshen 16y ago
You're totally right Periodic. I didn't talk about passion but that's definitely one of the main drivers of my efforts (the others being parental pressure and personal ambition). I think competition is healthy and good as long as it doesn't consume your life. Whenever you engage in an activity where you can compare your performance to others, there will be competition. So why not try and be better? More broadly speaking, winning can also more a general term for "being successful" or "achieving your goals".
potatolicious 16y ago
I think the missing (but important) point from the post is that life really is a zero sum game. I've "won" at a large number of things throughout my life, some of which I wholeheartedly value, others I consider to have been an unwise waste of time. To win at something you must sacrifice another, and the bigger the win the bigger the loss on the other end. When you see a huge win but no downside, check your surroundings and tread carefully. Unless you've invented ways to artifically extend your lifespan, or have tripped into a time warp, time is the ultimate limiting factor in everything. The author mentions that he often wished to have a "normal" childhood, but then dismisses that (all too quickly, IMHO) given the scope of his accomplishments. This is not to denigrate his achievements in the least, but rather that in hindsight many of the things that I sacrificed and fought for had hidden costs that didn't make themselves evident until much later on. The advantage of leading at least a marginally "normal" childhood is your ability to identify, internalize, and connect - something I dismissed in my youth as being either irrelevant, or fixable later. It is definitely not the former, and the latter gets exponentially harder as you get older. All in all, this is not a discouragement from going nuts and working hard, but rather a strong warning that one's time resources are severely limited even if you push your body to the limit, and that the price you pay for these achievements is non-zero and often hidden.
- robrenaud 16y ago
  I am sorry if this is an overly literal interpretation of your post, but it doesn't seem to me like you are applying the correct meaning of zero sum game. In a zero sum game, every win for you is an equal and opposite loss for your opponent. Who is your opponent in life? Now I'll certainly agree that every decision made rules out other possible options, and hence there is an ever present opportunity cost for all decisions.
  - potatolicious 16y ago
    > "Who is your opponent in life?" Yourself, I imagine. My meaning with the term is that every win (measured by some metric) for you is also an equal and opposite loss for yourself (measured in some other metric). > "and hence there is an ever present opportunity cost for all decisions." Well said. My point of my post was that often we are dismissive about these opportunity costs (I know I was, along with my other overachieving peers), and often not fully aware of their scope. To bring some specificity to vague concepts: I didn't put the time in to really socialize, connect, and date during high school. I did better at it during college, but to be perfectly honest I still put too much time towards achievements that don't in the end make me happier. I'm still recovering from the effects of that now; IMHO it's easy for high-performers (in the scholastic sense) to be blindsided by this later on. I've had more than one depressing/uncomfortable conversation where the true cost of this sacrifice dawns upon a high-performer. I've had this realization myself.
    - lukeschlather 16y ago
      >Yourself, I imagine. My meaning with the term is that every win (measured by some metric) for you is also an equal and opposite loss for yourself (measured in some other metric). If your metrics are real metrics, and actually have some bearing on utility/happiness, that can't be true. The trivial counterexample is a situation where you're attempting to get out of a burning building. No metric I personally would use would give the option of dying in a fire equal weight to the opportunity cost of the rest of your life. And there are countless lesser examples where there's a "losing" choice and a "winning" choice when we're going across the tree of all possible life outcomes.
sliverstorm 16y ago
You're taking it too literally. It's not saying everyone who is not winning is a looser; I think you could replace every instance of "winning" in that article with "doing extraordinary things" and retain exactly the same meaning.

kiba 16y ago

To do extraordinary thing also require you to believe in something that's accurate and correct but not many people believe to be true.

jasonshen 16y ago

You're totally right Periodic. I didn't talk about passion but that's definitely one of the main drivers of my efforts (the others being parental pressure and personal ambition). I think competition is healthy and good as long as it doesn't consume your life. Whenever you engage in an activity where you can compare your performance to others, there will be competition. So why not try and be better? More broadly speaking, winning can also more a general term for "being successful" or "achieving your goals".

potatolicious 16y ago

I think the missing (but important) point from the post is that life really is a zero sum game. I've "won" at a large number of things throughout my life, some of which I wholeheartedly value, others I consider to have been an unwise waste of time. To win at something you must sacrifice another, and the bigger the win the bigger the loss on the other end. When you see a huge win but no downside, check your surroundings and tread carefully. Unless you've invented ways to artifically extend your lifespan, or have tripped into a time warp, time is the ultimate limiting factor in everything. The author mentions that he often wished to have a "normal" childhood, but then dismisses that (all too quickly, IMHO) given the scope of his accomplishments. This is not to denigrate his achievements in the least, but rather that in hindsight many of the things that I sacrificed and fought for had hidden costs that didn't make themselves evident until much later on. The advantage of leading at least a marginally "normal" childhood is your ability to identify, internalize, and connect - something I dismissed in my youth as being either irrelevant, or fixable later. It is definitely not the former, and the latter gets exponentially harder as you get older. All in all, this is not a discouragement from going nuts and working hard, but rather a strong warning that one's time resources are severely limited even if you push your body to the limit, and that the price you pay for these achievements is non-zero and often hidden.

robrenaud 16y ago
I am sorry if this is an overly literal interpretation of your post, but it doesn't seem to me like you are applying the correct meaning of zero sum game. In a zero sum game, every win for you is an equal and opposite loss for your opponent. Who is your opponent in life? Now I'll certainly agree that every decision made rules out other possible options, and hence there is an ever present opportunity cost for all decisions.
- potatolicious 16y ago
  > "Who is your opponent in life?" Yourself, I imagine. My meaning with the term is that every win (measured by some metric) for you is also an equal and opposite loss for yourself (measured in some other metric). > "and hence there is an ever present opportunity cost for all decisions." Well said. My point of my post was that often we are dismissive about these opportunity costs (I know I was, along with my other overachieving peers), and often not fully aware of their scope. To bring some specificity to vague concepts: I didn't put the time in to really socialize, connect, and date during high school. I did better at it during college, but to be perfectly honest I still put too much time towards achievements that don't in the end make me happier. I'm still recovering from the effects of that now; IMHO it's easy for high-performers (in the scholastic sense) to be blindsided by this later on. I've had more than one depressing/uncomfortable conversation where the true cost of this sacrifice dawns upon a high-performer. I've had this realization myself.
  - lukeschlather 16y ago
    >Yourself, I imagine. My meaning with the term is that every win (measured by some metric) for you is also an equal and opposite loss for yourself (measured in some other metric). If your metrics are real metrics, and actually have some bearing on utility/happiness, that can't be true. The trivial counterexample is a situation where you're attempting to get out of a burning building. No metric I personally would use would give the option of dying in a fire equal weight to the opportunity cost of the rest of your life. And there are countless lesser examples where there's a "losing" choice and a "winning" choice when we're going across the tree of all possible life outcomes.

sliverstorm 16y ago

You're taking it too literally. It's not saying everyone who is not winning is a looser; I think you could replace every instance of "winning" in that article with "doing extraordinary things" and retain exactly the same meaning.