9 ms·

> I dont think that explains who you are (well, some might say braggart) or what you're about. Yeah, this is classical "rock and a hard place" thing. Someone a

> I dont think that explains who you are (well, some might say braggart) or what you're about. Yeah, this is classical "rock and a hard place" thing. Someone asks, "Who does this jerk think he is?" You can write a factual answer, and you come across either boring or as a braggart. You can write a flippant answer and you come across cheeky. You can ignore it and come across aloof. It's surprisingly hard to answer well when someone calls you out in an unfriendly way. If you want to know my personal interests, my favorite thing in the world is scubadiving, I like electronic music quite a lot and was just at a bar with a great DJ here in Saigon, my favorite piece of music in the world is Dvorak's 9th Symphony, I like guns a lot (this is partially an American thing, Europeans need not be alarmed), I snowboard, I'd like to travel to every place in the world, I read a ton of books... I'm a natural introvert, but I like people. Yeah, I'm aiming to be the greatest strategist of this generation. I reckon it'll take me another 20-25 years to get there. > I have never met you, but I know many users here have and every single one vouches for your credibility. That is something I believe in. Thanks. I think I'm a decent guy, but I rub some people the wrong way. But I mean, I knew I'd do that when I started. I write pro-wealth, pro-ambition, pro-winning, pro-excellence, pro-individualism, etc, etc, etc. That really bothers some people. Like, a lot. But it's also why my site got relatively popular relatively quickly - there's just not many places like that. I did a brainstorm a while back - I asked, how could I reach people that were just interested in what I have to say without rubbing people who don't want to hear it the wrong way? I don't want to antagonize who doesn't like what I have to say. Of course not... but I couldn't really find any way to write my site, share it with people who are interested, and have people who aren't interested not find it. I guess that's the nature of things - you take strong positions, you get criticized. Bothered me a little at first honestly, but you get over it pretty fast. When someone criticizes someone they don't know except via online, they're replying to their idea of you, not you yourself... it's just the nature of things. With some acclimation, the criticism isn't so bad, and you get to do some interesting stuff and meet some interesting people. Worth doing overall, definitely.

davidw 16y ago
> pro-winning, pro-excellence That's what rubs me the wrong way: that kind of phrase is a throwaway. You're pro-winning. Great. Until I read your blog, I was a firm believer in losing? Maybe it was because I was striving to be as mediocre as possible, rather than... "excellent"? I'm not trying to be a wiseass (well, maybe a little), but do you see what I'm getting at?
- lionhearted 16y ago
  > That's what rubs me the wrong way: that kind of phrase is a throwaway. You're pro-winning. Great. Until I read your blog, I was a firm believer in losing? Maybe it was because I was striving to be as mediocre as possible, rather than... "excellent"? Actually, maybe not you, but I think a lot of the modern world is fundamentally anti-excellence. Maybe America less than most places, but a lot of the world Tall Poppy Syndrome going on - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tall_poppy_syndrome http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tall_poppy_syndrome A Swedish friend of mine is a talented mathematician, professional poker player, and was a highly competitive athlete before a shoulder injury derailed him. He said he got all kinds of negativity and abuse and people really hating him for what he did, despite the fact that he's like the nicest, kindest, friendliest person I know. He says they have this phrase for it in Sweden - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jante_Law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jante_Law So yeah. I think a lot of the world is actually anti-winning, anti-excellence. Look how rich are always portrayed in movies. They're always the bad guys. Look at how the star players get booed. Look at how people cheer against the New York Yankees just because it's a successful and extremely well-run organization that wins. > I'm not trying to be a wiseass (well, maybe a little), but do you see what I'm getting at? I understand. Most people don't realize that things are like this because it's so normal. But if you seriously break the mold and go counter-mainstream/counter-culture, you're going to get serious abuse from people. Almost everyone that breaks the mold does. I think that's garbage, that ambition should be celebrated, that achievement should be celebrated, etc. I also spend a lot of time working on various time tracking and habits and reading lots of science and things like that, but that more pedestrian stuff never really gets spread around the internet - so if you only see my site on an occasional one that climbs HN or Twitter retweet, you're probably seeing the more controversial/aggressive stuff. I'm a believer in hard work and putting the time in too, I'm not a fan of rah-rah-go-go. But to answer your question, yeah, I think a lot of the world is fundamentally anti-excellence, anti-standing-out. And I think that's bad.
  - klbarry 16y ago
    Well said. Another metaphor for this is the crab bucket. If you've ever seen a bunch of crabs boiled in a bucket, you'll notice that don't have to use lids. If a crab tries to escape the other crabs pull it back down. This is often used as a metaphor for the slums.
JabavuAdams 16y ago
> Yeah, I'm aiming to be the greatest strategist of this generation. Who was was the greatest strategist of the previous generation? Who decides? Rommel was a great strategist. Is it better to be Rommel or to hurt fewer people and to be forgotten?
- lionhearted 16y ago
  Not sure if anyone is following this any more, but good questions here - > Who was was the greatest strategist of the previous generation? Of the last, say, 50 years? It's certainly debatable. Depends on what field. You probably know most of most of the excellent business strategists in finance and technology. For statesmen, probably Deng Xiaoping or maybe Lee Kuan Yew. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deng_Xiaoping http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deng_Xiaoping http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Kuan_Yew http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Kuan_Yew > Who decides? It's a subjective thing, like "best painting" or "best painter" - you could put metrics to it or rankings or something, but in the end it's all subjective. > Rommel was a great strategist. Is it better to be Rommel or to hurt fewer people and to be forgotten? Actually, interesting you chose Rommel. Rommel was executed by the Nazis (forced suicide, technically) for being part of the plot to overthrow Hitler. I think it's fair to say that if that plot had been better executed, then millions of lives would be saved. So that's the flipside - better strategy can save millions of lives as well. For what it's worth, Rommel is a hell of a comparison - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erwin_Rommel#Popular_perception http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erwin_Rommel#Popular_perception Super honorable guy. Was opposed to war crimes, opposed to the Holocaust, opposed slave labor, believed Hitler should be arrested and tried for crimes and replaced... he's the only member of the Third Reich leadership with a memorial or museum in Germany (he has both). But anyways, it's kind of a false dichotomy. The Romans had an expression - "Si vis pacem, para bellum" - "If you want peace, prepare for war" - I do believe in that, and sometimes - like Hitler blitzkreiging Europe or Saddam invading Kuwait - military action is necessary. But it's never desirable if avoidable.

davidw 16y ago

> pro-winning, pro-excellence That's what rubs me the wrong way: that kind of phrase is a throwaway. You're pro-winning. Great. Until I read your blog, I was a firm believer in losing? Maybe it was because I was striving to be as mediocre as possible, rather than... "excellent"? I'm not trying to be a wiseass (well, maybe a little), but do you see what I'm getting at?

lionhearted 16y ago
> That's what rubs me the wrong way: that kind of phrase is a throwaway. You're pro-winning. Great. Until I read your blog, I was a firm believer in losing? Maybe it was because I was striving to be as mediocre as possible, rather than... "excellent"? Actually, maybe not you, but I think a lot of the modern world is fundamentally anti-excellence. Maybe America less than most places, but a lot of the world Tall Poppy Syndrome going on - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tall_poppy_syndrome http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tall_poppy_syndrome A Swedish friend of mine is a talented mathematician, professional poker player, and was a highly competitive athlete before a shoulder injury derailed him. He said he got all kinds of negativity and abuse and people really hating him for what he did, despite the fact that he's like the nicest, kindest, friendliest person I know. He says they have this phrase for it in Sweden - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jante_Law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jante_Law So yeah. I think a lot of the world is actually anti-winning, anti-excellence. Look how rich are always portrayed in movies. They're always the bad guys. Look at how the star players get booed. Look at how people cheer against the New York Yankees just because it's a successful and extremely well-run organization that wins. > I'm not trying to be a wiseass (well, maybe a little), but do you see what I'm getting at? I understand. Most people don't realize that things are like this because it's so normal. But if you seriously break the mold and go counter-mainstream/counter-culture, you're going to get serious abuse from people. Almost everyone that breaks the mold does. I think that's garbage, that ambition should be celebrated, that achievement should be celebrated, etc. I also spend a lot of time working on various time tracking and habits and reading lots of science and things like that, but that more pedestrian stuff never really gets spread around the internet - so if you only see my site on an occasional one that climbs HN or Twitter retweet, you're probably seeing the more controversial/aggressive stuff. I'm a believer in hard work and putting the time in too, I'm not a fan of rah-rah-go-go. But to answer your question, yeah, I think a lot of the world is fundamentally anti-excellence, anti-standing-out. And I think that's bad.
- klbarry 16y ago
  Well said. Another metaphor for this is the crab bucket. If you've ever seen a bunch of crabs boiled in a bucket, you'll notice that don't have to use lids. If a crab tries to escape the other crabs pull it back down. This is often used as a metaphor for the slums.

JabavuAdams 16y ago

> Yeah, I'm aiming to be the greatest strategist of this generation. Who was was the greatest strategist of the previous generation? Who decides? Rommel was a great strategist. Is it better to be Rommel or to hurt fewer people and to be forgotten?

lionhearted 16y ago
Not sure if anyone is following this any more, but good questions here - > Who was was the greatest strategist of the previous generation? Of the last, say, 50 years? It's certainly debatable. Depends on what field. You probably know most of most of the excellent business strategists in finance and technology. For statesmen, probably Deng Xiaoping or maybe Lee Kuan Yew. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deng_Xiaoping http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deng_Xiaoping http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Kuan_Yew http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Kuan_Yew > Who decides? It's a subjective thing, like "best painting" or "best painter" - you could put metrics to it or rankings or something, but in the end it's all subjective. > Rommel was a great strategist. Is it better to be Rommel or to hurt fewer people and to be forgotten? Actually, interesting you chose Rommel. Rommel was executed by the Nazis (forced suicide, technically) for being part of the plot to overthrow Hitler. I think it's fair to say that if that plot had been better executed, then millions of lives would be saved. So that's the flipside - better strategy can save millions of lives as well. For what it's worth, Rommel is a hell of a comparison - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erwin_Rommel#Popular_perception http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erwin_Rommel#Popular_perception Super honorable guy. Was opposed to war crimes, opposed to the Holocaust, opposed slave labor, believed Hitler should be arrested and tried for crimes and replaced... he's the only member of the Third Reich leadership with a memorial or museum in Germany (he has both). But anyways, it's kind of a false dichotomy. The Romans had an expression - "Si vis pacem, para bellum" - "If you want peace, prepare for war" - I do believe in that, and sometimes - like Hitler blitzkreiging Europe or Saddam invading Kuwait - military action is necessary. But it's never desirable if avoidable.