11 ms·

The Myth of Self-Reliance: An encounter with Emerson’s essays

165 points by prostoalex 7y ago

api 7y ago
This is a case where I think both sides are true. One can be both self-reliant and reliant on others, and it turns out that's pretty much reality. One cannot rely on someone who is not self-reliant, nor can one be self-reliant without others' help.
- fdavison 7y ago
  I think "I, Pencil" would blow Odell's mind.
saas_sam 7y ago
This is going to sound terrible to some but as someone who believes strongly in self-reliance, I get a little giddy when I see anti-self-reliance commentary get promoted in the media. It's the same feeling when I see advocates pushing shorter work weeks, more time off, more lax leave policies, and so on. Why do I like these things if I disagree with them? Because it's convincing people they shouldn't have to work as hard as me! Which is making me so, so valuable to companies. My compensation is shooting up like a rocket. And I'm no workaholic either. I put in a solid 50 or so hours a week and take vacations and occasional personal days. I still ask for help when I need it. Yet, I'm becoming more and more of a rarity in the modern workforce. This is going to get me downvoted, but I thought it was valuable to share my perspective. I suspect others are the same as me and are secretly cheering for people to buy into the notion that they aren't personally responsible for their success. We'll pick up the slack. ;)
- clswords 7y ago
  passive aggressive bragging isn't very helpful. maybe get back to your work
- ph4 7y ago
  This comment has nothing to do with the article. You responded to half of a headline.
- frostburg 7y ago
  Most work is likely useless or counterproductive.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    That’s kind of like saying “every employer is paying trillions in compensation and healthcare benefits for work that conveys no benefit.” It takes staggering hubris.
    - Ericson2314 7y ago
      > every employer is paying trillions Um, that's not how division works. In seriousness, the argument isn't that employers are stupid, but that has some local value (and inertia) but far less global value because the nature of the economic distributed system. Kinda like how micro services are often a terrible idea yet in some examples of that each service is justified given the others.
    - frockington1 7y ago
      I believe this is a new talking point on cable news, probably going to receive a negative canned reply
- jgwil2 7y ago
  People obviously have to take responsibility for themselves in order to be successful, but this kind of article is a valuable corrective to the notion that individuals are solely responsible for their successes and failures. This seems self-evident to me on reflection; we are all products of the families and societies in which we grew up.
  - toomuchtodo 7y ago
    > This seems self-evident to me on reflection; we are all products of the families and societies in which we grew up. And luck. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610395/if-youre-so-smart-why-arent-you-rich-turns-out-its-just-chance/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610395/if-youre-so-smart-... (If you’re so smart, why aren’t you rich? Turns out it’s just chance.)
    - lanternslight 7y ago
      Not just chance. You have to see the opportunities AND work to take advantage of them. Worries the work, they wouldn't happen.
      - toomuchtodo 7y ago
        You can still see the opportunity, attempt to succeed, and fail, through no fault of your own. And conversely, you can do everything wrong and still succeed. There's a reason we have the term "failing upwards", or businesses that succeed not because of their actions, but in spite of them. Chance is a substantial (but not the only) component to success.
    - esotericn 7y ago
      The idea is about increasing expected value. I give you a machine, once per year say, and put it at the entrance to your home. It's broken. If you fix it, it will, with 5% probability, give you a ton of money. In the other 95% of cases you get nothing, it disappears, wait for next year. Is chance a major component? Of course. But not tinkering with that machine is lower EV than tinkering with it. If you stay in bed all day, ignore the machine and do something else instead, you're not going to get anything, ever. It will never spontaneously open by chance. You post below that "you can do everything wrong and still succeed". No, you actually can't. If you're picturing a startup founder that makes a lot of seemingly silly decisions - well, they still made the (high risk) decision to start that company. If you lay in bed all day, or work your corner shop job forever, then you are not increasing your EV. I work in a field that is very heavily based on probability; I literally bet for a living. Luck is a considerable component, but if you want to tell me skill is irrelevant, then I'd like to show you what happens if I just tweak this parameter here...
- esotericn 7y ago
  Ha. I have the opposite response! I also believe strongly in self reliance and the power of the individual to affect their environment. To me though, that makes the seemingly increased focus as of late immensely frustrating, because to me, it's seeking to take away agency from people. Exactly the _worst_ thing you can do to someone who's in a bad situation is tell them that they're just helpless and that's how it's gonna be. Feeling like you have no control over your life situation is not an ingredient that will produce a healthy mind. There's a fine line between having an awareness of your limits and fighting for what's right, and running around blaming all of your problems on others.
  - jgwil2 7y ago
    The article seemed to be more about appreciating the networks that have allowed the author to be successful (in her case especially the authors she has discovered in her neighborhood bookstore). I don't think anyone is telling people in bad situations that they shouldn't bother trying to help themselves; rather, we are suggesting that no successful person becomes successful alone.
    - esotericn 7y ago
      Right, but that's completely self evident and thus pointless to discuss. I'm typing to you from a screen that I couldn't produce alone, that's ignoring the 50 billion other objects in my life that depend directly or indirectly on the activities of others. An entire article isn't needed in order to make that viewpoint clear. I address this in a post above - it's a strange cartoonish stereotype that there are people out there who think that they are completely 'self-made'. Those that advance it in public as a genuine belief are either mentally ill, or deliberately playing a character.
- the_snooze 7y ago
  It's a matter of moderation. Yes, working hard and smart is great. But don't give yourself too much credit. There are people who helped you along the way, and you should recognize when you're in a position to give others a boost too when they need it. That's more productive and kind than putting yourself at the center of the universe.
  - saas_sam 7y ago
    Agreed. I appreciate the help of others and am considered by most to be a generous giver of help myself. I think the idea that self-reliant people don't care about others or don't genuinely appreciate giving & receiving help is cartoonish hyperbole akin to the cigar-smoking rich man bulldozing the youth community center to build a shopping mall. Like, okay, maybe that exists somewhere in real life, but it's usually an exaggeration under-achievers use to self-soothe.
    - the_af 7y ago
      > "[...] I think the idea that self-reliant people don't care about others or don't genuinely appreciate giving & receiving help is cartoonish hyperbole [...]" Note this isn't what other people are saying. They are saying self-reliant people are not entirely self-reliant. It's not a matter of appreciation, it's a matter of understanding we're the products of society, family, luck, and the efforts of others, as well as our own merit -- i.e. we're not entirely self-reliant. The same critique can be made of the overestimated notion of "meritocracy".
      - esotericn 7y ago
        Yes, but as saas_sam says, no-one actually believes they are truly completely self reliant in that cartoonish way. When people speak of being self-reliant, they obviously don't literally mean that they were spawned from some sort of spontaneous reaction, that they farm their own cotton, sew their own shirts, invent their own scientific disciplines and produce semiconductors in their garage in the clean room they built from scratch. They're referring more to building their own path in life and going out and getting what they want rather than waiting for it to be handed to them. It's similar to how you or I might say we "need" something, when really it's qualified, because almost all use of language is.
- toofy 7y ago
  do your thing! i think having a variety of humans with different priorities and interests is absolutely a good thing. i think it’s amazing that you enjoy putting in that time at work and it’s amazing that others prefer to spend a bit more of theirs on family or other projects. as a person who advocates for shorter work weeks (as long as we place a higher emphasis on _occasional_ crunch times) i totally understand both sides. i do think the article makes some great points though–it borders on delusion how a subset of people convince themselves they “did it alone.”
- downerending 7y ago
  For a variety of reasons, I learned early in life that I couldn't really count on anyone, and I had to learn/do everything for myself. Not sure I'd choose that for someone else, but it has indeed been an extremely useful work skill. In pretty much every job I've ever had, I've ended up being the final go-to person for the hardest problems. Especially with respect to computers, there's essentially no problem I can't solve/mitigate/triage at this point in my career. That said, this skill doesn't seem to be very useful for getting hired. Maybe I'm not marketing myself correctly. Once I'm in, though, I'm generally gold after a few months. Once had a manager burst into tears when I gave notice. It does feel like this is rarer these days. In my current org of about 5000 people, I'm not aware of a single tech person on par with me in this respect. That might sound like a boast, but it's very much a lament.
  - hugey010 7y ago
    I struggle with this too. I think it's people applying the "jack of all trades, master of none" saying too far or too literally. To be a truly successful (backend, frontend, web, mobile, crypto, etc...) developer, it is a requirement to have firm grasp of nearly all technologies, methodologies, and practices at play in the ecosystem.
  - AQuantized 7y ago
    Not that this is exactly a massive disadvantage for you, but I routinely see guys such as yourself, not being exploited as such, but essentially never having their compensation match their productivity. I believe the original poster in that they could be much more productive than their coworkers. However, in my experience, that has only a loose correlation with wealth, and playing the game right / nepotism take precedence for real earning.
- homonculus1 7y ago
  Working hard, working long, maximizing productivity, and maximizing value are all separate things. They do not necessarily correlate positively across the whole scale let alone perfectly at the peaks. You should be optimizing for value. If you optimize for one of the other three you're making a sucker tradeoff by definition. You will have to work some hours with some effort to generate some productivity to maximize value for yourself, but anything past that more value is going to your employer than the opportunity cost for you of your time. This is tautological but it's worth saying because your language fits the pattern of someone who chases productivity as a proxy for personal value. Or in other words you value the possessions money can buy more than the experiences you could have with free time. The tell for workaholism isn't always 80 hours a week or some numerical threshold, it's also that you look down on people who value free time more than you do. That's an indicator that you aren't adjusting your own values, that you've delegated that function to the companies you're so happy to please--which always optimize to extract from you rather than maximize value in your own life.
- EliRivers 7y ago
  And I'm no workaholic either. I put in a solid 50 or so hours a week Sounds pretty workaholic to me. I guess everyone thinks of themself as the norm.
- zzzeek 7y ago
  your success is the mostly the result of a massive amount of luck and privilege you've received. just imagine that you had an accident that reduced your brain capacity by 20%... you could then have worked three times harder but sadly not achieved the same success. While your hard work is an element of your success, it is not at all the foundation of it. It's more akin to a chef putting the correct seasoning on a fully prepared dish. It's definitely needed, but it's not the basis.
  - refurb 7y ago
    That seems like a pointless argument. Sure, I'm successful because I wasn't run over by car when I was 12.
    - Psyladine 7y ago
      Yeah, you are. So when you're talking to someone who lost a beautiful person in their life because someone else decided they were fine driving after a night out of drinking, you can realize how arbitrary and random life really is.
      - friendlybus 7y ago
        Sorry for your loss. Being alive is a pre-requisite for success, but doesn't make it guaranteed.
        Psyladine 7y ago
        The fact there is no guarantee makes it inherently luck based.
    - zzzeek 7y ago
      it seems like you missed the argument entirely. hard work means nothing if you are not fortunate enough to have the foundation with which to work upon. the person with 20% less brain capacity can do way more work than you, and not get anywhere, which proves that there is no linear relationship between hard work and success. something else has to be present for "hard work" to lead towards success. There are some people working much harder than you at their job at McDonalds, and they will not be as successful as you. Your hard work did not create your success, your circumstances did most of the work in making the conditions right, just like human evolution would not have happened if there weren't a perfectly conditioned Earth present that took billions of years to create. Your hard work was just one of many prerequisites for your success to occur (and of course, many people don't need to work very hard at all to be successful, due to their circumstances as well), and additionally, your capacity, desire, and stamina for such hard work are also things that you were lucky enough to have.
- loblollyboy 7y ago
  How can you be both a strong believer in self reliance and also want to spend more of your time working for someone else?
- deckar01 7y ago
  You find pleasure in the idea that your relative value is increasing due to the value of others decreasing? This sounds psychopathic. It is one thing to take comfort in the belief that you can control your own destiny, but to believe your control is diluted by the control of others is delusional and short sighted.
  - frockington1 7y ago
    Its the same reasoning I support marijuana legalization. More people sitting at home high on their parents couch is less competition for me
    - sethammons 7y ago
      I know plenty of very, very well off pot users. I also know several very, very unsuccessful pot users. I'm tempted to believe that the "high on their parent's couch" types would be otherwise on their parent's couch, irrespective of access to pot.
  - s1artibartfast 7y ago
    I think the argument is that relative value to an employer translates to absolute value to the employee. The rewards of effort, ambition, and talent are absolutely diluted by that of others.
- quotemstr 7y ago
  Yes, essays like this give people like you and me a short term advantage. But these anti-work-ethic pieces also poison the minds of the next generation and justify political agitation on the part of the suckers who believe this stuff and squandered their time instead of contributing. There will always be a market for soft words that tell us that our vices are actually virtues.
- billjings 7y ago
  Pick up some game theory, too! Your strategy works great when you're the only one who follows it. But if everyone follows your strategy, everyone gets screwed.
influx 7y ago
I really tried to read this, but it was so bad I wonder if it was generated by a script. The whole thing was pointless minutiae. Surely the author was getting paid by the word.
- annuate 7y ago
  Perhaps getting paid by the word is too extreme, but I also felt the same way. Enough so to finally have me create an account to leave a comment similar to what you have just said.
- thrower123 7y ago
  It's par for the course for this kind of outlet. "Literary" magazines like Paris Review and the New Yorker are almost always like this, flowery and baroque and overwrought, signifying nothing.
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    Well... they're the literary version of "it's the journey, not the destination". They're for people who have more time than they have things to fill it, so something that takes time to go on a journey are perfect for them. If you have more to read than you have time, it drives you crazy. "Just make your point, already!" I suspect that many of us here are not part of their target audience.
- chadcmulligan 7y ago
  I agree these "literary" things can be hard to read, but try treating the words as a stream of consciousness designed to evoke a feeling rather than say a usual newspaper article to say something concrete. I regard literary works as an art form to be experienced much the same as you'd experience a painting in a gallery, and I think thats how they are meant to be interpreted. Like picking a random phrase from the article "including the sandpipers whose murmurous flocks contain more than a little of the transcendental" - murmorous flocks evokes a large number of birds making a noise, the art is in the use of words to evoke a feeling and a picture. I think its designed to be read more slowly and thought about a lot more than you would a usual article - an experience to be savoured with a fine wine on a Sunday afternoon, rather than something to read on the way to work on the train.
castlecrasher2 7y ago
I'll admit I'm biased in that I'm the opposite of what I think the author's stance is but even after reading it I'm not entirely sure what their point is. In my mind self-reliance, is growing and having strength unto one's self but giving freely of that strength to others to build relationships. I feel like the author is speaking to an author audience, though, so maybe that's why the article is obtuse to me.
- shkkmo 7y ago
  > In my mind self-reliance, is growing and having strength unto one's self but giving freely of that strength to others to build relationships. I think that the point is that "strength unto one's self" exists within a myriad of external supports. That strength exists because of the the physical and mental tools built and maintained by a multitude of other individuals. This is not saying that there isn't variance in levels of dependence external, but that true independence is not possible. To acknowledge only the gifts you give, and not the gifts you receive and have received is to miss out on some of the beauty of life.
- pknight 7y ago
  Those who grow in strength are able to do so by receiving the support of others. It's a causal relationship. The myth is that we arrive at strength through overcoming the need for support, having grown our metaphorical muscles through force of will. Many have it as a goal, in fact. They think that the measure of strength is the ability to function without external help of some kind and to indulge in the fantasy that it is their unique individual application of their mindset that is the source of that strength. This illusion is actually quite easy to penetrate by looking at our biology. Our body grows and heals to the degree it perceives it has external support. There's a built-in biological feedback system that requires these external inputs for our bodies to function to the peak of our abilities. At it most extreme it can be seen in babies. If they are deprived of touch and attention, their brain development stunts, they don't grow as healthy. It has a lasting effect through life. People think that reliance only is required at these more vulnerable phases of life, but not, say, as we become adults. But that's a fairy tale, our physiology continues to respond positively to cues of support, growing in strength when in receipt of support through all stages of life, On the other hand it declines in the face of lack of support. The effects are large and predictable, we are social creatures and our physiology is setup that way, we don't have a choice over it. The concept of self-reliance tries to tell a story that defies and in a sense denigrates our basic nature. Rather than questing for self-reliance to indulge in the fantasy of independence, it is far more empowering, to me at least, to live in the knowledge that as individuals we have the ability to make others stronger.
zMiller 7y ago
- There comes a time in every man's education when he arrives at the conviction that envy is ignorance; that imitation is suicide; that he must take himself for better, for worse, as his portion - To believe your own thought, to believe that what is true for you in your private heart is true for all men, — that is genius. and most poignant of all : - Your isolation must not be mechanical, but spiritual, that is. I remember the exact moment of my life when I read "Self reliance for the first time, I'll never forget that moment.
reggieband 7y ago
Sounds like the author is having an existential crisis moment. I recall reading Sartre's Nausea and there was a scene where the protagonist is riding a bus. He focuses on a bolt in the seat or some other trivial object and is overwhelmed by the idea that someone put that bolt there. IIRC, this is at a point in the story where the protagonist is having a bit of a mental break. That is, it is emblematic of the exact kind of malaise the author of this piece is experiencing (or was experiencing when they contemplated their privilege at Thanksgiving dinner). In my experience, this kind of thinking leads to nowhere other than the nausea mental state described by Sartre's novel. It isn't my fault the modern world is structured around me any more than it is my fault that the Earth is perfectly suited for the kind of life that exists on it. I bear exactly the same responsibility and blame for both of those circumstances. A better line of thought is the boring old chestnut of encouraging compassion for the suffering of others.
- ixtli 7y ago
  I generally agree but would like to add the old notion that being unhappy in a bad situation is normal. Feeling upset at a violent status quo even though you're not the direct target of that violence is normal and evidence of empathy, which is good. Ultimately we need to come to terms with the objective reality that not all problems can be solved individually: some require collective action and solidarity.
  - graeme 7y ago
    Is it? This seems like something distinctly modern, and enabled first by the mass media and now by hyperpresent images and video on our phones. Modern = past 1800 or so, with newspapers and the printing press and widespread literacy. I’m trying to think of past examples and religious ones are the main ones I can come up with. To be clear, I’m taking you to refer to an abstract violent status quo, where the violence is present but not tangible. (Unlike past status quos where you might readily see brute physical force directly rather than in video)
    - AstralStorm 7y ago
jeffdavis 7y ago
There's a difference between relying on others in general and relying on some specific entity or some particular way of doing things. In general, I rely on lots of people. But for the most part, I choose who I rely on, and in some cases the set of people I rely on changes over time. I value that choice and the freedom to change. The distinction is important. If you rely on a single person or entity, they have some kind of claim to your success or failure. If you rely on people in general but nobody specifically, then your success or failure is attributable to you, and that's what "self-reliance" means to me. I'm not suggesting that self-reliance is all-important or an unqualified good. But I don't think that it's a myth, either. You don't have to be abandoned in the jungle as a baby to be called self-reliant.
- vkou 7y ago
  > In general, I rely on lots of people. But for the most part, I choose who I rely on, and in some cases the set of people I rely on changes over time. I value that choice and the freedom to change. You don't have as many choices as you think, many of the choices that you do have are meaningless, and many of the choices you can make are only possible because of the particular level of wealth, power, and social standing that you currently have. If I'm unhappy with the scummy behaviour of a credit rating agency, my only recourse is to cut off my nose to spite my face. (Opt out of credit entirely.) If I'm unhappy with the scummy behaviour of my bank, I could switch to a competitor, which has the exact same policies, that bring about the exact same outcomes as the one I'm currently with. I could move to a different city, and the players in this game will change, but the rules, and the outcomes, will remain the same. Even when you have actual freedom to choose (Do you want to buy unorganic poor-person kale, or fully-woke, hand-raised, cruelty-and-gmo-free, organic kale?) - your choices are highly constrained by powers and circumstances you have absolutely no control over - and by your current personal level of wealth and status. Someone with cash in the bank, in-demand skills, useful connections, and no debt hanging over their head has the choice to tell an unreasonable boss to back off. Someone without that level of wealth, power, and status doesn't have a meaningful choice in this regard. (And, ironically, are more frequently in a situation where they have to make that non-choice.)
  - 7y ago
jeffdavis 7y ago
"And by placing the will so high above circumstance, it projects an untruthful image of equal opportunity in which the unfortunate should have just tried harder." This seems to be the thesis of the whole piece, but ignoring the role of free will is self-defeating. Recognizing that people can make decisions, and encouraging them to make good decisions, is ultimately what leads to better outcomes. Telling people that they have no free will doesn't lead anywhere useful, even if it's true. You can still acknowledge that improving opportunities for everyone is a good thing without dismissing the importance of good decisions.
neap24 7y ago
This reminds me of a lesson I learned in an intro to Economics class : everyone's lot in life is a combination of luck, effort, and ability. Those whose view of the world from a left-of-center perspective (those who downplay self-reliance) really just think luck far outweighs the other two. Someone right-of-center thinks that effort is the most important. Most right-of-center people I know don't discredit the impact of other people on their lives. They just live as if effort and self-reliance can help them overcome bad luck.
- mech1234 7y ago
  I figure a lot of folks are angry at the broad generalization you've stated, but I can corroborate it a bit with statistics. Conscientiousness broadly correlates with affiliation with right-wing parties. This personality trait would trend towards admiration for self-reliance (by my figuring). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886911002911 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01918... I've linked 1 study above but there are many more studies with the same conclusion. I also think that your generalization makes obvious sense, even without having to rely on statistics.
- AstralStorm 7y ago
  If by right of center you mean Republicans and not say Chinese or Japanese, who also fit the bill. (All of which are just as conservative. Chinese believe in circumstance, Japanese believe in maximum effort in current circumstance with a few key choices, Republicans believe any decision is mostly on the individual.) It's never an absolute, but there is a big difference between living as if effort is a major thing that matters and believing it is the only thing that matters or more important than the other two. Former can get you to push harder, latter brings nothing good - it is a problem because it brings pathologies especially blame, false hope and exploitation. Ultimately there are only a few impactful things most of us can control. Therefore these things are important. These are key decisions and it is rather hard to change them. The unfortunate fact is that we get to make them too early when we're inexperienced and some are still dumb. And you get few or no retries. (High school, college, these impact where you live, with whom, your late life social circles, even health.) Whether you become bitter because of this is up to you.
selfishgene 7y ago
Jenny Odell's essay was well-written. No further comment here on the nurture vs. nature debate, except to mention for those interested in learning more about recent research into volition and agency (i.e. what is commonly referred to as "free will"), Rita Carter's Mapping the Mind is a good place to start. Remember though that this book covers recent experimental work in psychology, so the usual disclaimers apply.
WalterBright 7y ago
I view self-reliance a bit differently. I see it as taking the initiative to solve one's problems, and accepting the consequences of one's decisions. It's the opposing viewpoint to being a victim. For example, I recently had a root canal. The dentist told me it was not my fault. But I know it was, and I accept the consequences of my choices, despite being unhappy about it. Maybe I can choose better and avoid getting another one.
jancsika 7y ago
I might agree more with the author if many of the problems in the modern world weren't as trivial as they are. How many times are respondents here passive aggressive because a poster clearly didn't read an article? How many of the posters who argue either side about Damore's bibliography come armed with their own annotated bibliographies on the subject? How many comments here start by apologizing for what the poster knows is an inadequate sample size of one... followed by an opinionated anecdote that cannot be verified because HN only requires a handle and a password (and HN disallows talk about how inadequate this is for functional social media)? If self-reliance is the tale that must be told to get respondents to do any meaningful work at all, its practical value far outweighs any questions about truth value. If you're reading this and are now amp'd up to actually go to the woodshed, please help reverse engineer the touchpad for the Pinebook Pro because it's not working very well for me atm[1]. 1: https://github.com/jackhumbert/pinebook-pro-keyboard-updater https://github.com/jackhumbert/pinebook-pro-keyboard-updater Most of the work done seems to be on the keyboard. There are some i2c captures of the touchpad in /firmware plus some labeling of the hardware. I thought at first that it might just be a problem of not polling often enough, but after some more use it seems like the noise filter might be too greedy.

165 points by prostoalex 7y ago

api 7y ago

This is a case where I think both sides are true. One can be both self-reliant and reliant on others, and it turns out that's pretty much reality. One cannot rely on someone who is not self-reliant, nor can one be self-reliant without others' help.

fdavison 7y ago
I think "I, Pencil" would blow Odell's mind.

saas_sam 7y ago

This is going to sound terrible to some but as someone who believes strongly in self-reliance, I get a little giddy when I see anti-self-reliance commentary get promoted in the media. It's the same feeling when I see advocates pushing shorter work weeks, more time off, more lax leave policies, and so on. Why do I like these things if I disagree with them? Because it's convincing people they shouldn't have to work as hard as me! Which is making me so, so valuable to companies. My compensation is shooting up like a rocket. And I'm no workaholic either. I put in a solid 50 or so hours a week and take vacations and occasional personal days. I still ask for help when I need it. Yet, I'm becoming more and more of a rarity in the modern workforce. This is going to get me downvoted, but I thought it was valuable to share my perspective. I suspect others are the same as me and are secretly cheering for people to buy into the notion that they aren't personally responsible for their success. We'll pick up the slack. ;)

clswords 7y ago
passive aggressive bragging isn't very helpful. maybe get back to your work
ph4 7y ago
This comment has nothing to do with the article. You responded to half of a headline.
frostburg 7y ago
Most work is likely useless or counterproductive.
- rayiner 7y ago
  That’s kind of like saying “every employer is paying trillions in compensation and healthcare benefits for work that conveys no benefit.” It takes staggering hubris.
  - Ericson2314 7y ago
    > every employer is paying trillions Um, that's not how division works. In seriousness, the argument isn't that employers are stupid, but that has some local value (and inertia) but far less global value because the nature of the economic distributed system. Kinda like how micro services are often a terrible idea yet in some examples of that each service is justified given the others.
  - frockington1 7y ago
    I believe this is a new talking point on cable news, probably going to receive a negative canned reply
jgwil2 7y ago
People obviously have to take responsibility for themselves in order to be successful, but this kind of article is a valuable corrective to the notion that individuals are solely responsible for their successes and failures. This seems self-evident to me on reflection; we are all products of the families and societies in which we grew up.
- toomuchtodo 7y ago
  > This seems self-evident to me on reflection; we are all products of the families and societies in which we grew up. And luck. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610395/if-youre-so-smart-why-arent-you-rich-turns-out-its-just-chance/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610395/if-youre-so-smart-... (If you’re so smart, why aren’t you rich? Turns out it’s just chance.)
  - lanternslight 7y ago
    Not just chance. You have to see the opportunities AND work to take advantage of them. Worries the work, they wouldn't happen.
    - toomuchtodo 7y ago
      You can still see the opportunity, attempt to succeed, and fail, through no fault of your own. And conversely, you can do everything wrong and still succeed. There's a reason we have the term "failing upwards", or businesses that succeed not because of their actions, but in spite of them. Chance is a substantial (but not the only) component to success.
  - esotericn 7y ago
    The idea is about increasing expected value. I give you a machine, once per year say, and put it at the entrance to your home. It's broken. If you fix it, it will, with 5% probability, give you a ton of money. In the other 95% of cases you get nothing, it disappears, wait for next year. Is chance a major component? Of course. But not tinkering with that machine is lower EV than tinkering with it. If you stay in bed all day, ignore the machine and do something else instead, you're not going to get anything, ever. It will never spontaneously open by chance. You post below that "you can do everything wrong and still succeed". No, you actually can't. If you're picturing a startup founder that makes a lot of seemingly silly decisions - well, they still made the (high risk) decision to start that company. If you lay in bed all day, or work your corner shop job forever, then you are not increasing your EV. I work in a field that is very heavily based on probability; I literally bet for a living. Luck is a considerable component, but if you want to tell me skill is irrelevant, then I'd like to show you what happens if I just tweak this parameter here...
esotericn 7y ago
Ha. I have the opposite response! I also believe strongly in self reliance and the power of the individual to affect their environment. To me though, that makes the seemingly increased focus as of late immensely frustrating, because to me, it's seeking to take away agency from people. Exactly the _worst_ thing you can do to someone who's in a bad situation is tell them that they're just helpless and that's how it's gonna be. Feeling like you have no control over your life situation is not an ingredient that will produce a healthy mind. There's a fine line between having an awareness of your limits and fighting for what's right, and running around blaming all of your problems on others.
- jgwil2 7y ago
  The article seemed to be more about appreciating the networks that have allowed the author to be successful (in her case especially the authors she has discovered in her neighborhood bookstore). I don't think anyone is telling people in bad situations that they shouldn't bother trying to help themselves; rather, we are suggesting that no successful person becomes successful alone.
  - esotericn 7y ago
    Right, but that's completely self evident and thus pointless to discuss. I'm typing to you from a screen that I couldn't produce alone, that's ignoring the 50 billion other objects in my life that depend directly or indirectly on the activities of others. An entire article isn't needed in order to make that viewpoint clear. I address this in a post above - it's a strange cartoonish stereotype that there are people out there who think that they are completely 'self-made'. Those that advance it in public as a genuine belief are either mentally ill, or deliberately playing a character.
the_snooze 7y ago
It's a matter of moderation. Yes, working hard and smart is great. But don't give yourself too much credit. There are people who helped you along the way, and you should recognize when you're in a position to give others a boost too when they need it. That's more productive and kind than putting yourself at the center of the universe.
- saas_sam 7y ago
  Agreed. I appreciate the help of others and am considered by most to be a generous giver of help myself. I think the idea that self-reliant people don't care about others or don't genuinely appreciate giving & receiving help is cartoonish hyperbole akin to the cigar-smoking rich man bulldozing the youth community center to build a shopping mall. Like, okay, maybe that exists somewhere in real life, but it's usually an exaggeration under-achievers use to self-soothe.
  - the_af 7y ago
    > "[...] I think the idea that self-reliant people don't care about others or don't genuinely appreciate giving & receiving help is cartoonish hyperbole [...]" Note this isn't what other people are saying. They are saying self-reliant people are not entirely self-reliant. It's not a matter of appreciation, it's a matter of understanding we're the products of society, family, luck, and the efforts of others, as well as our own merit -- i.e. we're not entirely self-reliant. The same critique can be made of the overestimated notion of "meritocracy".
    - esotericn 7y ago
      Yes, but as saas_sam says, no-one actually believes they are truly completely self reliant in that cartoonish way. When people speak of being self-reliant, they obviously don't literally mean that they were spawned from some sort of spontaneous reaction, that they farm their own cotton, sew their own shirts, invent their own scientific disciplines and produce semiconductors in their garage in the clean room they built from scratch. They're referring more to building their own path in life and going out and getting what they want rather than waiting for it to be handed to them. It's similar to how you or I might say we "need" something, when really it's qualified, because almost all use of language is.
toofy 7y ago
do your thing! i think having a variety of humans with different priorities and interests is absolutely a good thing. i think it’s amazing that you enjoy putting in that time at work and it’s amazing that others prefer to spend a bit more of theirs on family or other projects. as a person who advocates for shorter work weeks (as long as we place a higher emphasis on _occasional_ crunch times) i totally understand both sides. i do think the article makes some great points though–it borders on delusion how a subset of people convince themselves they “did it alone.”
downerending 7y ago
For a variety of reasons, I learned early in life that I couldn't really count on anyone, and I had to learn/do everything for myself. Not sure I'd choose that for someone else, but it has indeed been an extremely useful work skill. In pretty much every job I've ever had, I've ended up being the final go-to person for the hardest problems. Especially with respect to computers, there's essentially no problem I can't solve/mitigate/triage at this point in my career. That said, this skill doesn't seem to be very useful for getting hired. Maybe I'm not marketing myself correctly. Once I'm in, though, I'm generally gold after a few months. Once had a manager burst into tears when I gave notice. It does feel like this is rarer these days. In my current org of about 5000 people, I'm not aware of a single tech person on par with me in this respect. That might sound like a boast, but it's very much a lament.
- hugey010 7y ago
  I struggle with this too. I think it's people applying the "jack of all trades, master of none" saying too far or too literally. To be a truly successful (backend, frontend, web, mobile, crypto, etc...) developer, it is a requirement to have firm grasp of nearly all technologies, methodologies, and practices at play in the ecosystem.
- AQuantized 7y ago
  Not that this is exactly a massive disadvantage for you, but I routinely see guys such as yourself, not being exploited as such, but essentially never having their compensation match their productivity. I believe the original poster in that they could be much more productive than their coworkers. However, in my experience, that has only a loose correlation with wealth, and playing the game right / nepotism take precedence for real earning.
homonculus1 7y ago
Working hard, working long, maximizing productivity, and maximizing value are all separate things. They do not necessarily correlate positively across the whole scale let alone perfectly at the peaks. You should be optimizing for value. If you optimize for one of the other three you're making a sucker tradeoff by definition. You will have to work some hours with some effort to generate some productivity to maximize value for yourself, but anything past that more value is going to your employer than the opportunity cost for you of your time. This is tautological but it's worth saying because your language fits the pattern of someone who chases productivity as a proxy for personal value. Or in other words you value the possessions money can buy more than the experiences you could have with free time. The tell for workaholism isn't always 80 hours a week or some numerical threshold, it's also that you look down on people who value free time more than you do. That's an indicator that you aren't adjusting your own values, that you've delegated that function to the companies you're so happy to please--which always optimize to extract from you rather than maximize value in your own life.
EliRivers 7y ago
And I'm no workaholic either. I put in a solid 50 or so hours a week Sounds pretty workaholic to me. I guess everyone thinks of themself as the norm.
zzzeek 7y ago
your success is the mostly the result of a massive amount of luck and privilege you've received. just imagine that you had an accident that reduced your brain capacity by 20%... you could then have worked three times harder but sadly not achieved the same success. While your hard work is an element of your success, it is not at all the foundation of it. It's more akin to a chef putting the correct seasoning on a fully prepared dish. It's definitely needed, but it's not the basis.
- refurb 7y ago
  That seems like a pointless argument. Sure, I'm successful because I wasn't run over by car when I was 12.
  - Psyladine 7y ago
    Yeah, you are. So when you're talking to someone who lost a beautiful person in their life because someone else decided they were fine driving after a night out of drinking, you can realize how arbitrary and random life really is.
    - friendlybus 7y ago
      Sorry for your loss. Being alive is a pre-requisite for success, but doesn't make it guaranteed.
      - Psyladine 7y ago
        The fact there is no guarantee makes it inherently luck based.
  - zzzeek 7y ago
    it seems like you missed the argument entirely. hard work means nothing if you are not fortunate enough to have the foundation with which to work upon. the person with 20% less brain capacity can do way more work than you, and not get anywhere, which proves that there is no linear relationship between hard work and success. something else has to be present for "hard work" to lead towards success. There are some people working much harder than you at their job at McDonalds, and they will not be as successful as you. Your hard work did not create your success, your circumstances did most of the work in making the conditions right, just like human evolution would not have happened if there weren't a perfectly conditioned Earth present that took billions of years to create. Your hard work was just one of many prerequisites for your success to occur (and of course, many people don't need to work very hard at all to be successful, due to their circumstances as well), and additionally, your capacity, desire, and stamina for such hard work are also things that you were lucky enough to have.
loblollyboy 7y ago
How can you be both a strong believer in self reliance and also want to spend more of your time working for someone else?
deckar01 7y ago
You find pleasure in the idea that your relative value is increasing due to the value of others decreasing? This sounds psychopathic. It is one thing to take comfort in the belief that you can control your own destiny, but to believe your control is diluted by the control of others is delusional and short sighted.
- frockington1 7y ago
  Its the same reasoning I support marijuana legalization. More people sitting at home high on their parents couch is less competition for me
  - sethammons 7y ago
    I know plenty of very, very well off pot users. I also know several very, very unsuccessful pot users. I'm tempted to believe that the "high on their parent's couch" types would be otherwise on their parent's couch, irrespective of access to pot.
- s1artibartfast 7y ago
  I think the argument is that relative value to an employer translates to absolute value to the employee. The rewards of effort, ambition, and talent are absolutely diluted by that of others.
quotemstr 7y ago
Yes, essays like this give people like you and me a short term advantage. But these anti-work-ethic pieces also poison the minds of the next generation and justify political agitation on the part of the suckers who believe this stuff and squandered their time instead of contributing. There will always be a market for soft words that tell us that our vices are actually virtues.
billjings 7y ago
Pick up some game theory, too! Your strategy works great when you're the only one who follows it. But if everyone follows your strategy, everyone gets screwed.

influx 7y ago

I really tried to read this, but it was so bad I wonder if it was generated by a script. The whole thing was pointless minutiae. Surely the author was getting paid by the word.

annuate 7y ago
Perhaps getting paid by the word is too extreme, but I also felt the same way. Enough so to finally have me create an account to leave a comment similar to what you have just said.
thrower123 7y ago
It's par for the course for this kind of outlet. "Literary" magazines like Paris Review and the New Yorker are almost always like this, flowery and baroque and overwrought, signifying nothing.
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  Well... they're the literary version of "it's the journey, not the destination". They're for people who have more time than they have things to fill it, so something that takes time to go on a journey are perfect for them. If you have more to read than you have time, it drives you crazy. "Just make your point, already!" I suspect that many of us here are not part of their target audience.
chadcmulligan 7y ago
I agree these "literary" things can be hard to read, but try treating the words as a stream of consciousness designed to evoke a feeling rather than say a usual newspaper article to say something concrete. I regard literary works as an art form to be experienced much the same as you'd experience a painting in a gallery, and I think thats how they are meant to be interpreted. Like picking a random phrase from the article "including the sandpipers whose murmurous flocks contain more than a little of the transcendental" - murmorous flocks evokes a large number of birds making a noise, the art is in the use of words to evoke a feeling and a picture. I think its designed to be read more slowly and thought about a lot more than you would a usual article - an experience to be savoured with a fine wine on a Sunday afternoon, rather than something to read on the way to work on the train.

castlecrasher2 7y ago

I'll admit I'm biased in that I'm the opposite of what I think the author's stance is but even after reading it I'm not entirely sure what their point is. In my mind self-reliance, is growing and having strength unto one's self but giving freely of that strength to others to build relationships. I feel like the author is speaking to an author audience, though, so maybe that's why the article is obtuse to me.

shkkmo 7y ago
> In my mind self-reliance, is growing and having strength unto one's self but giving freely of that strength to others to build relationships. I think that the point is that "strength unto one's self" exists within a myriad of external supports. That strength exists because of the the physical and mental tools built and maintained by a multitude of other individuals. This is not saying that there isn't variance in levels of dependence external, but that true independence is not possible. To acknowledge only the gifts you give, and not the gifts you receive and have received is to miss out on some of the beauty of life.
pknight 7y ago
Those who grow in strength are able to do so by receiving the support of others. It's a causal relationship. The myth is that we arrive at strength through overcoming the need for support, having grown our metaphorical muscles through force of will. Many have it as a goal, in fact. They think that the measure of strength is the ability to function without external help of some kind and to indulge in the fantasy that it is their unique individual application of their mindset that is the source of that strength. This illusion is actually quite easy to penetrate by looking at our biology. Our body grows and heals to the degree it perceives it has external support. There's a built-in biological feedback system that requires these external inputs for our bodies to function to the peak of our abilities. At it most extreme it can be seen in babies. If they are deprived of touch and attention, their brain development stunts, they don't grow as healthy. It has a lasting effect through life. People think that reliance only is required at these more vulnerable phases of life, but not, say, as we become adults. But that's a fairy tale, our physiology continues to respond positively to cues of support, growing in strength when in receipt of support through all stages of life, On the other hand it declines in the face of lack of support. The effects are large and predictable, we are social creatures and our physiology is setup that way, we don't have a choice over it. The concept of self-reliance tries to tell a story that defies and in a sense denigrates our basic nature. Rather than questing for self-reliance to indulge in the fantasy of independence, it is far more empowering, to me at least, to live in the knowledge that as individuals we have the ability to make others stronger.

zMiller 7y ago

- There comes a time in every man's education when he arrives at the conviction that envy is ignorance; that imitation is suicide; that he must take himself for better, for worse, as his portion - To believe your own thought, to believe that what is true for you in your private heart is true for all men, — that is genius. and most poignant of all : - Your isolation must not be mechanical, but spiritual, that is. I remember the exact moment of my life when I read "Self reliance for the first time, I'll never forget that moment.

reggieband 7y ago

Sounds like the author is having an existential crisis moment. I recall reading Sartre's Nausea and there was a scene where the protagonist is riding a bus. He focuses on a bolt in the seat or some other trivial object and is overwhelmed by the idea that someone put that bolt there. IIRC, this is at a point in the story where the protagonist is having a bit of a mental break. That is, it is emblematic of the exact kind of malaise the author of this piece is experiencing (or was experiencing when they contemplated their privilege at Thanksgiving dinner). In my experience, this kind of thinking leads to nowhere other than the nausea mental state described by Sartre's novel. It isn't my fault the modern world is structured around me any more than it is my fault that the Earth is perfectly suited for the kind of life that exists on it. I bear exactly the same responsibility and blame for both of those circumstances. A better line of thought is the boring old chestnut of encouraging compassion for the suffering of others.

ixtli 7y ago
I generally agree but would like to add the old notion that being unhappy in a bad situation is normal. Feeling upset at a violent status quo even though you're not the direct target of that violence is normal and evidence of empathy, which is good. Ultimately we need to come to terms with the objective reality that not all problems can be solved individually: some require collective action and solidarity.
- graeme 7y ago
  Is it? This seems like something distinctly modern, and enabled first by the mass media and now by hyperpresent images and video on our phones. Modern = past 1800 or so, with newspapers and the printing press and widespread literacy. I’m trying to think of past examples and religious ones are the main ones I can come up with. To be clear, I’m taking you to refer to an abstract violent status quo, where the violence is present but not tangible. (Unlike past status quos where you might readily see brute physical force directly rather than in video)
  - AstralStorm 7y ago

jeffdavis 7y ago

There's a difference between relying on others in general and relying on some specific entity or some particular way of doing things. In general, I rely on lots of people. But for the most part, I choose who I rely on, and in some cases the set of people I rely on changes over time. I value that choice and the freedom to change. The distinction is important. If you rely on a single person or entity, they have some kind of claim to your success or failure. If you rely on people in general but nobody specifically, then your success or failure is attributable to you, and that's what "self-reliance" means to me. I'm not suggesting that self-reliance is all-important or an unqualified good. But I don't think that it's a myth, either. You don't have to be abandoned in the jungle as a baby to be called self-reliant.

vkou 7y ago
> In general, I rely on lots of people. But for the most part, I choose who I rely on, and in some cases the set of people I rely on changes over time. I value that choice and the freedom to change. You don't have as many choices as you think, many of the choices that you do have are meaningless, and many of the choices you can make are only possible because of the particular level of wealth, power, and social standing that you currently have. If I'm unhappy with the scummy behaviour of a credit rating agency, my only recourse is to cut off my nose to spite my face. (Opt out of credit entirely.) If I'm unhappy with the scummy behaviour of my bank, I could switch to a competitor, which has the exact same policies, that bring about the exact same outcomes as the one I'm currently with. I could move to a different city, and the players in this game will change, but the rules, and the outcomes, will remain the same. Even when you have actual freedom to choose (Do you want to buy unorganic poor-person kale, or fully-woke, hand-raised, cruelty-and-gmo-free, organic kale?) - your choices are highly constrained by powers and circumstances you have absolutely no control over - and by your current personal level of wealth and status. Someone with cash in the bank, in-demand skills, useful connections, and no debt hanging over their head has the choice to tell an unreasonable boss to back off. Someone without that level of wealth, power, and status doesn't have a meaningful choice in this regard. (And, ironically, are more frequently in a situation where they have to make that non-choice.)
- 7y ago

jeffdavis 7y ago

"And by placing the will so high above circumstance, it projects an untruthful image of equal opportunity in which the unfortunate should have just tried harder." This seems to be the thesis of the whole piece, but ignoring the role of free will is self-defeating. Recognizing that people can make decisions, and encouraging them to make good decisions, is ultimately what leads to better outcomes. Telling people that they have no free will doesn't lead anywhere useful, even if it's true. You can still acknowledge that improving opportunities for everyone is a good thing without dismissing the importance of good decisions.

neap24 7y ago

This reminds me of a lesson I learned in an intro to Economics class : everyone's lot in life is a combination of luck, effort, and ability. Those whose view of the world from a left-of-center perspective (those who downplay self-reliance) really just think luck far outweighs the other two. Someone right-of-center thinks that effort is the most important. Most right-of-center people I know don't discredit the impact of other people on their lives. They just live as if effort and self-reliance can help them overcome bad luck.

mech1234 7y ago
I figure a lot of folks are angry at the broad generalization you've stated, but I can corroborate it a bit with statistics. Conscientiousness broadly correlates with affiliation with right-wing parties. This personality trait would trend towards admiration for self-reliance (by my figuring). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886911002911 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01918... I've linked 1 study above but there are many more studies with the same conclusion. I also think that your generalization makes obvious sense, even without having to rely on statistics.
AstralStorm 7y ago
If by right of center you mean Republicans and not say Chinese or Japanese, who also fit the bill. (All of which are just as conservative. Chinese believe in circumstance, Japanese believe in maximum effort in current circumstance with a few key choices, Republicans believe any decision is mostly on the individual.) It's never an absolute, but there is a big difference between living as if effort is a major thing that matters and believing it is the only thing that matters or more important than the other two. Former can get you to push harder, latter brings nothing good - it is a problem because it brings pathologies especially blame, false hope and exploitation. Ultimately there are only a few impactful things most of us can control. Therefore these things are important. These are key decisions and it is rather hard to change them. The unfortunate fact is that we get to make them too early when we're inexperienced and some are still dumb. And you get few or no retries. (High school, college, these impact where you live, with whom, your late life social circles, even health.) Whether you become bitter because of this is up to you.

selfishgene 7y ago

Jenny Odell's essay was well-written. No further comment here on the nurture vs. nature debate, except to mention for those interested in learning more about recent research into volition and agency (i.e. what is commonly referred to as "free will"), Rita Carter's Mapping the Mind is a good place to start. Remember though that this book covers recent experimental work in psychology, so the usual disclaimers apply.

WalterBright 7y ago

I view self-reliance a bit differently. I see it as taking the initiative to solve one's problems, and accepting the consequences of one's decisions. It's the opposing viewpoint to being a victim. For example, I recently had a root canal. The dentist told me it was not my fault. But I know it was, and I accept the consequences of my choices, despite being unhappy about it. Maybe I can choose better and avoid getting another one.

jancsika 7y ago

I might agree more with the author if many of the problems in the modern world weren't as trivial as they are. How many times are respondents here passive aggressive because a poster clearly didn't read an article? How many of the posters who argue either side about Damore's bibliography come armed with their own annotated bibliographies on the subject? How many comments here start by apologizing for what the poster knows is an inadequate sample size of one... followed by an opinionated anecdote that cannot be verified because HN only requires a handle and a password (and HN disallows talk about how inadequate this is for functional social media)? If self-reliance is the tale that must be told to get respondents to do any meaningful work at all, its practical value far outweighs any questions about truth value. If you're reading this and are now amp'd up to actually go to the woodshed, please help reverse engineer the touchpad for the Pinebook Pro because it's not working very well for me atm[1]. 1: https://github.com/jackhumbert/pinebook-pro-keyboard-updater https://github.com/jackhumbert/pinebook-pro-keyboard-updater Most of the work done seems to be on the keyboard. There are some i2c captures of the touchpad in /firmware plus some labeling of the hardware. I thought at first that it might just be a problem of not polling often enough, but after some more use it seems like the noise filter might be too greedy.