20 ms·

The social obligation to be bad at things

297 points by luu 6y ago

thenoblesunfish 6y ago
To perhaps state the obvious, the reason we don't encourage people to say that they're good at things is that it's hard to judge for yourself. It has as much to do with your general view on yourself, and what your standard of "good" is, than what the average other person would think. So, you try to prove you are good by doing things, not saying things.
- Godel_unicode 6y ago
  I have worked with people who could say they were good at things without sounding arrogant, and after a great deal of thought I have concluded that it's because of two things. 1. those same people are quick to say when they're bad at things as well. 2. their competency is never the point of the sentence, it's always a supporting argument on the way to the point. E.g. I'm an expert in this library and I struggle with using that part correctly, we should consider reworking it so it's possible for novices to use it.
  - themacguffinman 6y ago
    3. Express it in terms of experience, which is a quality that I think people are more comfortable with because it doesn't imply innate or "fixed" talent. Experience is widely understood as a function of time & effort so people feel less insecure about it because everyone can gain experience. Eg. I would say "I'm pretty familiar with this library, so here's my perspective"
commandlinefan 6y ago
Can I agree with his overall premise but disagree with thinking that scheduling weekly one-on-one's with your wife is in any way a good idea? I also wonder if the social obligation to be bad at things - that is, to avoid arrogance at all costs, even at the risk of withholding potentially useful advice - is more an American thing than a worldwide phenomenon. Not being embarrassed when you can't spell words correctly seems to be unique to American culture.
- Godel_unicode 6y ago
  > Can I agree with his overall premise but disagree with thinking that scheduling weekly one-on-one's with your wife is in any way a good idea? No. That's the whole point. If it works for them why would it be bad? Let's try and not shame people for having different approaches to things.
  - jmaa 6y ago
    Well, depends what he means with "your"; OP specifically, or an arbitrary person? Because I think we are getting dangerously close to shooting down useful criticism and discussion for fear of hurting someones feelings. It's obviously insensitive to say that OP is a bad person because he is doing one-on-ones, but it should be totally acceptable to say "this is weird (from my perspective), I can see several issues with this, I wouldn't personally do this, but you-do-you", and often "(from my perspective)" and "but you-do-you" parts are implied; their absence shouldn't necessarily be taken as proof of mocking. (Disclaimer: I have no opinion on partner one-on-ones.)
    - Godel_unicode 6y ago
      Weird is one of those truly terrible words that's used to control people who are different than us. It's nice for the person using it, since it doesn't actually mean anything and is thus impervious to arguments stronger than "nuh uh". It's almost never actually the right word, and should be avoided in favor of more descriptive language. In order for criticism to be constructive, it must be easily understandable by the person receiving it. "Don't call people weird" seems like a good general principle (unless they self-identify as weird, in which case knock yourself out). I don't understand this compulsion to try and get people to fall in line and stop being weird. The from-my-perspective and you-do-you parts are the most important parts, why would you leave them out? You're not in charge.
- dpeck 6y ago
  It sounds silly, but set aside time for a purpose is a good thing. A friend of mine and his spouse do a twice a year “offsite” where they go camping somewhere and spend half of the Saturday talking about where they are in the year financially, relationship, what they want to accomplish as a couple, etc
nickthemagicman 6y ago
I've always thought that most people either judge you for being below them or worship you for being above them. Very few people occupy that middle ground where they are just happy for you and treat you as a person with motivations, flaws, and gifts. I'd gander to say this hierarchical primitive behavior is a major impediment to human progress.
- danharaj 6y ago
  There's a lot to unpack here.
- whytaka 6y ago
  I have noticed the opposite. My impression is that most people's identities are so coloured by their insecurities that people usually come together more on being able to laugh at their common insufficiencies and also on the things they hate in common. But this is perhaps because I'm still relatively young and the people I encounter are still working on realizing themselves.
  - nickthemagicman 6y ago
    Well you work in a remarkably status free place or, possibly, you're one of the privileged ones and might not even know it!
RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago
> A thing I got pissed off at a while ago was reactions to someone talking about having weekly one-on-ones with his wife My guess is that it would have gone over a lot better if the person had stated that he had weekly scheduled dates with his wife. > When someone tries to do something good and we don't think it's the right thing, we punish them. Why are you announcing your good deeds to the whole world? A lot of religions and cultures condemn things like that. Do good for its own sake, not to be rewarded and praised by your peers. I think a lot of the issues the author describes are a backlash from oversharing.
- cwojno 6y ago
  Example of author's point?
  - hundchenkatze 6y ago
    I think it is, yes.
- matt_morgan 6y ago
  You don't know that there was oversharing. Or in any case, consider situations in which they're not oversharing. Everything he says might still be true in those cases. So your argument kind of slides around the point, it doesn't counter it. The author is using a blunt kind of language that may encourage us to disagree. You're right that it could be said better ("date" is a good example). But there's still truth in it.
- quadrifoliate 6y ago
  > Why are you announcing your good deeds to the whole world? A lot of religions and cultures condemn things like that. Most religions are built upon stories of other people's good deeds. It seems hardly fair to disallow people from airing their own :)
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    Most religions are built on third-party narratives of other people's good deeds; it's absolutely self-consistent for them to have negative view of first-party narrative of the same topic.
kerkeslager 6y ago
I'm glad the author is talking about this problem, but I think there's a slight misidentification of the cause. I don't think it's that we're supposed to be bad at things, it's that we're expected to already be good at things. This still applies (irrationally) even when: 1. There is no mechanism provided for becoming good at the things we're expected to be good at. 2. Most people aren't good at the things we're expected to be good at. The underlying thing here, is that ignorance, a temporary condition, is conflated with stupidity, a permanent condition. Carol Dweck puts this another way: she describes a "fixed" mindset, where people believe that mistakes are examples of their inherent value, and therefore fear taking risks, and try to hide their mistakes. This is contrasted with a "growth" mindset, in which mistakes are seen as a necessary part of growth and risks are seen as learning opportunities. Also related is Brene Brown's theory of vulnerability as being a necessary part of forming relationships. I will say, I'm not entirely convinced by all the details of either Carol Dweck's mindset theory or Brene Brown's vulnerability theory, but the generalities seem to be evident in my own life. EDIT: I'll also add that this conflation is particularly damaging to people and communities where intelligence is highly valued, and people base much of their self-worth in being knowledgeable. My personal experience is that growing up I based a lot of my self-worth in "being smart" so anyone disagreeing with me or pointing out something I didn't know felt like an attack on the very thing that made me feel worthwhile. Building real self-esteem made it possible for me to start seeing that when I don't know something that doesn't decrease my value as a person. This has allowed me to admit I don't know things more often, and actually fill in some of those gaps with real knowledge. I'm still a growing person, and I'm still not good at this, but the progress I have made has improved my life immensely.
- s0rce 6y ago
  This was my experience in most of my primary and secondary education (K-12) in Canada. If you were good at something right away, math, science, 2nd language, art, even gym class, you basically got some instruction and were able to learn a bit more and maybe even excel. This was my experience in Math and Science (I'm a Scientist/Engineer now). However, learning French, I struggled and rapidly fell behind. If you didn't excel you didn't really get enough teaching or attention to learn. Basically, as you say, you were expected to already just be good at stuff even from a young age and the system appeared to be designed around this idea. Learning (and critically practice) takes a lot of time for most things and everyone isn't good at it right away. I had a similiar experience with driving lessons, I didn't take naturally to it and the limited number of lessons and the relative ease by which you can pass the test means I never really learned adequately during the "learning period" before you are granted a full license. In this case my mom forced me to continue and I continued to practice and eventually became competent and mostly comfortable. Many other activities I just gave up, no one wanted me on their T-ball team.
evmar 6y ago
I found that, as a person who (sometimes) creates things, my attitude towards other people who create things has significantly shifted. When I was younger I would just see the fault -- the typos, the narcissism, the pointlessness, the already-been-done-better-by-others -- of people's work. But after trying a bit, it sometimes (for the same reasons the OP talks about) creating anything new ends up being really hard in part because while you struggle everyone is shouting "lame!" from the sidelines (and doing nothing). You see this a lot on this site in particular -- the "middlebrow dismissal" HN is famous for. So now, even when I see something that I genuinely think is lame, I think of this problem and keep my negativity to myself. I might give useful criticism but I try to keep the balance in mind. Even if you publish something you've made that is kinda lame, I still think it is awesome that you are taking the effort to finish something. The best way to get better is by making multiple attempts.
- pierrebai 6y ago
  That's one way of looking at growth. Another is to learn from the mistakes; this sometimes requires others to point them out. A lot of the issues around it comes down to ego and how one takes criticisms. One needs to learn not to take it too personal. A lot of times, the weak points of one's work is often the bit we're lazy. Of course, many times we already know very well where we're weak, and getting it pointed out repeatedly can sting. And to make it back to the obligation to be bad, it comes down to recognizing you can always get better. In fact, the more I learn about a subject, the more I see how little I know.
- heavenlyblue 6y ago
  It’s easy to see the world in this black-and-white separation; however there’s a lot of creators who are there to rip you off for some money and they deserve every critique you can get. Moralising stories like that mask the actual complexity of telling the people who try to be better and are shit (and thus deserve your understanding) from people are fake trying to be better while taking advantage of you (“oh my god I didn’t realise the engine I was selling you is completely covered in rust!”). The complexity here is not selecting one of the two; but rather consistently selecting one of the two for any given moment in life. And that’s hard.
fullshark 6y ago
Just ignore the idiots if it works for you. If you are a public figure online and your ideas/thoughts are viewable by the entire planet, don't expect everyone to think they are good ones. The entire planet is not your friends, just a bunch of idiots looking for temporary amusement/distraction.
dec0dedab0de 6y ago
I have observed this behavior, but never really understood it. Sometimes I have to think of people as having left over bits of event based code that overrides everything else in certain circumstances. Trying to remember what effects which people in which ways is my biggest challenge in work and probably life in general.
antisthenes 6y ago
I haven't found this to be a problem. Sounds like the author needs better friends and/or a more supportive social circle.
drivers99 6y ago
"When you say you are good at something, that's arrogant." Learned that the hard way. When I was young (college in the 90s), I had a Software Development class. We formed small teams and created a piece of software in a waterfall methodology.[1] Why I thought I was so great: I had taken independent study in high school to learn algorithms and data structures to take the Computer Science AB(now discontinued) AP test (covers recursive algorithms and dynamically allocated data structures, in Pascal at the time) and got a 5 out of 5. So when we got together to discuss who would work on what, and we needed to code our own data structures in C/C++ for the project, I was excited and said "I'm the master!" of that. There was an older member of the team (who even developed and sold his own software product, a program to print booklets, for DOS already) who later in the meeting made a very sarcastic reference to me being the "master" of that and it really stung. [1] Looks like they still have it. They added github, UML, and user stories. C S 371 https://pixl.nmsu.edu/files/2017/05/syllabus-SDev-2017-1-V10.pdf https://pixl.nmsu.edu/files/2017/05/syllabus-SDev-2017-1-V10... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP_Computer_Science#AP_Computer_Science_AB_(discontinued) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP_Computer_Science#AP_Compute...
- xfan009 6y ago
  I have to question why someone with that level of seniority would need to be in a software development class. Generally my experience with people who are demonstrably successful is that they are not insecure like you described. Is it possible they were bluffing?
  - drivers99 6y ago
    I think he was just going back to get his degree. I should say that it was just a shareware product he had developed that I was talking about. I don't remember what he had done for a living up to that point.
  - dj_mc_merlin 6y ago
    Software development classes are mandatory for some courses, and it is not that uncommon to find some already-not-so-green programmers in them. Some are just looking for the certification at the end of their programme. > Generally my experience with people who are demonstrably successful is that they are not insecure like you described. Is it really insecurity? Teasing someone about their previous arrogance when they're actually a beginner is one of the better forms of putting-down IMO. Teaches 'pride cometh before fall' and all that. And a group project is a quite informal space to do that in.
zelly 6y ago
Stop caring what other people think of you. The ego is the problem.
- kerkeslager 6y ago
  Ehhh, I think I might agree with what you're trying to say, but I don't think I'd say it this way. What other people think of you is a great source of information which shouldn't be discounted. In fact, I think there's a lot of value in soliciting feedback from the people around you. We have a name for people who don't care what other people think: narcissists. What I think you're getting at is that you can't please everyone, and there are many cases where risking someone's opinion of you is the right thing to do.
- zadkey 6y ago
  I agree this works on an individual level. But if other people few insecure by your confidence, security or success, they may try to sabotage you. You still need to be aware of this dynamic so that you aren't blindsided people jealous or angry over your success and their own relative failure by which they are comparing you to even you are not comparing them or judging them yourself.
wallflower 6y ago
I remember the Car Talk guys Click and Clack talking about their tongue-in-cheek (or maybe not) advice for being married. It was something like: "The very first time that they ask you to do the laundry, say 'Yes, honey! I'd love to!'. Then, do it so horribly bad. Turn everything pink or whatever. Shrink, ruin some clothes. Then, they'll never ask you to do the laundry again."
- Erwin 6y ago
  This is often called "strategic incompetence" (or feigned incompetence).
- nullc 6y ago
  I really miss Car Talk. I wish there were a good comprehensive catalog of all their old episodes online...
Osmose 6y ago
The point about space and understanding to try new things and not be amazing at them isn't a bad one, but the thing about having 1:1s with your partner that is drawing ridicule isn't the idea of having a scheduled, weekly check-in with your partner; it's that business-talk is intentionally de-personified and using it in a personal context implies a lack of respect for the human you're dealing with. Consider that I called it a "weekly check-in with your partner" above. That phrasing focuses on the existing relationship and the consideration of checking on how they're doing. A "1:1" is called that to distinguish it from other meetings that involve more than two people, and drops all the connotations of concern or supporting an existing relationship. That's what people are reacting negatively to.
- kerkeslager 6y ago
  Yes, you're right that business talk is depersonified and implies a lack of respect for the human you're dealing with. And this is an assertion backed up by lots of other business talk--referring to humans as "resources" is probably the worst I hear often. And this assertion is further supported by the frequent, sociopathic behavior of businesses which goes beyond how they communicate. But surely the fact that they are married to this other person is a bit stronger evidence that they cares for them, than a slightly off wording? And further, it's completely absurd to hear this objection from Hacker News, where the most common viewpoint seems to be "if it makes money then it must be ethical". If this is really dehumanizing, then isn't the bigger problem that most people are totally okay with dehumanizing language in a business context? Is the objection here that he doesn't stand to turn a profit?
  - Osmose 6y ago
    > But surely the fact that they are married to this other person is a bit stronger evidence that they cares for them, than a slightly off wording? No one's saying they don't really care about their partner. It's possible to be put off and derisive of that language without judging whether they truly care. > And further, it's completely absurd to hear this objection from Hacker News, where the most common viewpoint seems to be "if it makes money then it must be ethical". If this is really dehumanizing, then isn't the bigger problem that most people are totally okay with dehumanizing language in a business context? Is the objection here that he doesn't stand to turn a profit? I mean, yeah. That part of Hacker News is pretty appalling. We _should_ be angry about dehumanizing language in a business context.
jack_pp 6y ago
This is because people have egos. Most people have fragile ones. All this pussyfooting is to protect their egos. Watching Revoler (2005) is very eye opening in this regard.
- clairity 6y ago
  don't dismiss so quickly the importance of some "pussyfooting". we're all thrown together randomly, at different points in our various growth cycles, so we stub toes and step on foots constantly, in that relentless sorting of status in the midst of developing ability. it's good to remember that we need to constantly build our own fragile egos, protecting them when necessary, and do the same for others. chicks are encouraged out of the nest when their wings are likely strong enough to fly, not before.
leroy_masochist 6y ago
> I was at a liberating structures event recently, and one of the people I was working with related an anecdote in which he tried a party game as an ice breaker. Many of those are cringe, but this one sounded fun and inoffensive (it was a sentence continuation game where each person said a word following on from a previous one, in an attempt to construct something that sounded like an aphorism). Most people were reluctant initially but got into the swing of things, but a few people just dug their heels in and would not engage properly with it because of concern over looking weird. Perhaps some of them were indeed concerned about looking weird. I guarantee you that at least a few of them didn't want to engage because they're introverts who just generally hate awkward group getting-to-know-you games.
- war1025 6y ago
  Amen.
- ngerrity 6y ago
  I don't think there's anything wrong with not wanting to participate in silly games like that all the time, but if you never try to step out of your comfort zone in a public setting, I think you're missing out on an opportunity to grow as a person. You might just have fun doing something you thought was stupid or you thought you would hate.
  - kubanczyk 6y ago
    Ahh hello there, good'ol FOMO. Let me show you a little trick: I don't think there's anything wrong with not wanting to participate in silly games like that all the time, and if you never try to step out of your comfort zone in a public setting, I don't think you're missing out on an opportunity to grow as a person.
    - cutemonster 6y ago
      Not fomo IMO. Rather, experimenting and discovering new things, incl about oneself.
_aleph2c_ 6y ago
"You can either do something, or be someone" -- John Boyd
fewaw2322 6y ago
I can't see the original tweet, so I don't know the full details. But my first reaction to hearing "weekly one-on-ones with the wife" is that it sounds impersonal and disrespectful. You don't describe personal relationships with business jargon. It's an unspoken social rule, so maybe the person who said that wasn't aware. If that's the case, they deserve leniency for an honest mistake. Or, maybe the person really thinks of their relationship in terms of a business arrangement. Maybe the husband and wife have a mutual understanding of that. Or maybe the husband sees nothing wrong with treating love like a business transaction, and the wife does. Of course people would call that out, to re-enforce the norm that this is not okay. So what's the reality? You don't know. You don't know this person, and they don't know you. So why are they posting this, to an audience of strangers, who have no context for their remarks? And why are you replying to it, acting like you understand the context? Twitter is designed to nurture this sort of discourse. It's the perfect medium for drive-by commentary, arm chair experts, and context-free conversations. Not to mention, the perfect vacuum for bad faith actors to spread bullshit.
kgin 6y ago
There isn’t an obligation to be bad. But there are things in life that people generally feel lose their meaning when subjected to the dispassionate tools of efficiency and productivity. For many “engineering types”, we may not feel the distinction as acutely (isn’t all the world just problems to solve?)
082349872349872 6y ago
A "Culture Club" seems to have been a place people went in soviet times when they were bad (or even already halfway decent) at things, in order to improve in a supportive environment. So far, the only clue I have as to how close practice came to theory is the 1956 film "Carnival Night", in which old-school russian hackers mess with the power and information nets of their club in order to save their New Year's party from a Party functionary who takes his leadership role entirely too seriously. (would a community college be a rough US equivalent?)
standardUser 6y ago
"When you say you are good at something, that's arrogant. When you say you're bad at something, people tell you that you're not, or treat it as weakness." There are a thousand ways to say you're good at something. Some of them will make you appear arrogant, some will make you appear humble, with endless options in between. I don't know who this author is or what specific axes they have to grind, but instead of taking broad swipes at all of society, maybe consider your own communication skills and how they are not leading to the results you desire. If you're starting from a position of "there is one way to express a thought and it will always be met with this specific response", you are a pretty far way from actually improving your situation.
draw_down 6y ago
I think it's ok to laugh at silly things. Having weekly 1:1s with someone you love is funny, it's a silly thing to do. I'm not saying it's a bad idea- maybe it works for you and your relationship improves or whatever, it's still a silly thing. I dunno, I really hate the implication that laughing at something a person does means you hate them or whatever. For all we know the original person is laughing along.
munificent 6y ago
I think about this all the time. I am simultaneously someone who wants to learn and create a lot of things, likes to share stuff online, and is very self-conscious about failure. So this challenge with facing my own not-goodness-at-things is one of the major emotional themes and challenges of my life. I believe that broadcast social media is the primary reason why this is such a big thing these days. Everyone is so self-conscious all the time. It's like we've created a giant world-spanning panopticon where we can all see everyone at their worst moments all the time. We spend our days tip-toeing around the Earth hoping we don't get caught having our own personal "Stars Wars kid" moment and being shamed for it for the rest of our lives. It used to be if you did something dumb or awkward, the five people around you laughed at you, told stories about it for a while, and that was it. Now it's literally captured from five different perspectives in high definition video and stereo audio and uploaded to the Internet for all to see until the end of time. It's no wonder awkward teens flocked to Snapchat and its ephemeral videos. I used to go out to clubs dancing a lot when I was younger. I love dancing (which is unusual for a skinny nerdy white dude, but I guess you don't get to pick your passions). I believe moving your body to music is one of the fundamental human experiences. You don't have to love it, of course, but it's something we have been doing since the caveman days. It is as primal to being human as feasting. It kills me that so many people who do have that desire don't get to satisfy it because of cripping self-consciousness about getting on a dancefloor. When I went out, I often heard people on the sidelines making fun of people out there dancing. I recognized that it was really their own insecurity being projected onto others. They were saying what they feared people would say about them if they were out there. My response was always, "Anyone who has the courage to dance at all is better than everyone on the sidelines." I try to maintain that perspective with all activities, especially online. The world has enough criticism to last until the end of time. Today, anyone who at least tries is a winner in my book. Is it often cringy or mediocre? Yup. Will I tell them that? Hell no. They're at least trying. As Jake in Adventure Time says "Dude, suckin' at something is the first step to being sorta good at something."
- nicbou 6y ago
  I see things a bit differently. Being on the dance floor brings me happiness. Wooing the people on the sidelines brings me nothing at all. I tried to appeal to everyone. It made me miserable and boring. I'd rather market myself to my target demographic.
hateful 6y ago
It isn't always the case, but a lot of times people do this to other people because they themselves are insecure.
LouisSayers 6y ago
Reminds me back when I went skiing for the first time with my gf at the time. She had lots of experience skiing and I guess wanted to “show me the slopes”. In showing me how to do the pizza stop, I said “but all the pros do the side to side thing...” so I did that instead. By the end of the day I was going down all the slopes with her (I still lost my skis a couple times), but she seemed a bit pissed off and I remember her saying “how can you do in one day what took me three months?!”. She did not seem happy...
- themacguffinman 6y ago
  The correct answer is "because I had a great teacher". She probably learnt skiing with less guidance and had to figure out a bunch of stuff on her own. I still empathize with the phenomenon though. No matter what mindset you have or humility or conscious understanding of the differences between human ability, it's often viscerally frustrating to see others pick stuff up way quicker than you could ever hope to.
  - LouisSayers 6y ago
    > I still empathize with the phenomenon though. No matter what mindset you have or humility or conscious understanding of the differences between human ability, it's often viscerally frustrating to see others pick stuff up way quicker than you could ever hope to. The irony of this is that she had a high IQ so was used to learning things much quicker than others. > The correct answer is "because I had a great teacher". She probably learnt skiing with less guidance and had to figure out a bunch of stuff on her own. The reason I was good at skiing was because a) I had done aggressive inline skating for many years, and b) I had been snowboarding a few times The confidence and similarity from rollerblading along with familiarity of how the snow moves from snowboarding allowed me to pick it up quickly.
crazygringo 6y ago
> 1. You will be punished for trying new things. > 2. You will be punished for trying things that don't work. > 3. You will be punished for trying to understand how good you are at something. > 4. You will be punished for succeeding. This is a fascinating conclusion, and first of all, I think it's entirely valid to feel that way. And it must feel incredibly frustrating. But I think if we zoom out a bit, we can gain a broader perspective. Which is that, no matter what you do, you'll always be "punished" by some people. There's no right answer here. But other people will also reward you. (Also, funnily, sometimes when you don't even deserve it.) And part of being an adult is in finding the right groups of people who are constructive and supportive, rather than tearing you down due to their own insecurities and egos. This applies in finding a supportive spouse, supportive friends, and a supportive workplace. And it takes work to identify and find the right supportive people. Supportive people will celebrate you for trying new things, celebrate you for trying things even when they don't work, celebrate you for trying to understand how good you are, and celebrate you for succeeding. It's also very easy to have been surrounded by negative people for so long that you feel helpless, that you don't even know how to find supportive people or trust that they're there. And that's a hard rut to be in, and there are a bunch of techniques to help you get out of it, which you might need a therapist to identify for you if it gets really bad. But one that really speaks to this specifically is enrolling in local improv comedy classes. You spend three hours in a group of equally embarrassed "newbies" learning to follow the cardinal rule of "yes, and". Everyone is forced to be supportive. Improv is about literally coming up with new things for three hours straight, and everyone celebrating it no matter what happens (the only limit is not being offensive). I know people that credit it for turning their lives around, and where they made their best friends. Obviously improv isn't the answer for everyone. But I hope the author can find the support they're looking for.
felipemnoa 6y ago
>>Why don't we want people to be good at things? In general it may be that it reminds people of their own failings and nobody likes to feel like a loser.
- seph-reed 6y ago
  Most people are just "professionals." As in they talk a lot of shit at work, but don't really care about the field. It's role playing, and they usually have imposter syndrome. When someone comes in who isn't an imposter, the "professionals" best strategy to keep their ill-earned position is to attack what makes a true scholar: their "unprofessionally uncertain" curiosity, and their "unprofessionally risky" willingness to try something new. True creatives aren't very "professional" because they don't act like they know everything, and they don't just do the same thing over and over again.
stared 6y ago
See: The myth we love new ideas - people resist change, including progress from https://scottberkun.com/2013/ten-myths-of-innnovation/ https://scottberkun.com/2013/ten-myths-of-innnovation/ > We are a conservative species: try something as simple as standing, rather than sitting, in your next group meeting. How accepting were your peers? Conformity is deep in our biology. While talking about creativity is very popular, actually being creative puts your social status at risk. All great ideas were rejected, often for years or decades, yet we bury this in our history (see Myth #1 & #2). The history of breakthroughs is a tale of persistence against rejection. Much of what makes a successful innovator is their ability to persuade and convince conservative people of the merits of their ideas, a very different skill from creativity itself. Your problem is likely not your ideas, but your skills for pitching ideas to others. Ideas are rarely rejected on their merits; they’re rejected because of how they make people feel. The bigger the idea, the harder the persuasion challenge.
khazhoux 6y ago
Author is overlooking an important point: we tend to only judge people who compete with us directly. To paraphrase Nietzsche: "The vanity of others offends our taste only when it offends our own vanity."
- yesenadam 6y ago
  La Rochefoucauld (1670s) : "What makes the vanity of others insufferable to us is that it wounds our own."
Traster 6y ago
>When you say you're bad at something, people tell you that you're not, or treat it as weakness. As a Brit who has worked with Americans I think this is very cultural. From my judgement of my interactions if I say "I know nothing about this but..." there's probably a 50% chance I know more about the thing than you. If I say "Have you considered..." that means you're talking about my area of expertise. That's not been my experience of how Americans approach things -often from a perspective of trying to prove themselves. From a social point of view I've always found it more useful to under-estimate my own abilities than to ever-estimate. There's good reason too, if you claim authority and are wrong then you burn a lot of credibility. Having said this, I also subscribe to the idea that criticising other people primarily makes you look bad no matter the truth of the matter and that sounds a lot like what the people the author describes is doing.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- naveen99 6y ago
  Arrogance can sometimes get you in the door quicker. You can be modest once you are in. Or take the slow road with modesty from the beginning.
ericmcer 6y ago
Is there really droves of people waiting to shame others who aren’t good at things? Generally every community I have joined (rock climbing, lifting, programming) has been really supportive to new people. Maybe most of this shame OP is feeling is internal? I can relate to that, it’s hard to be weak/bad at something.
renewiltord 6y ago
This is the same misunderstanding as the one that leads to angst at interview selection. You don't have a social obligation to do anything. It's just that you share some characteristics with a lot of kooks. For instance, I have a few views that would flip the bozo bit on most people (I am anti-organ-donation, pro-lower-quality-healthcare, anti-Office-of-the-First-Lady, and I think people tried to scapegoat Andrew Wakefield for a lot of shit) so I don't usually state those views and attempt to explain until people know I'm not a bozo. I know that P(bozo | having these views) is pretty high, so I first have to demonstrate that P(bozo) is low in the first place. P(can't write code | can't write code in an interview) is pretty high. P(isn't that good | claims to be good) is pretty high. You know you so you know you are not a bozo, that you can write code, that you are good. But the other party is operating in the space of not-just-you. It's just an information asymmetry that works against you. So, if the social validation matters to you, you have to symmetrify that in a trusted fashion. And honestly, life is short, no human has infinite time to evaluate another human, so your symmetrification had better be speedy if you want the effects you desire.
- cutemonster 6y ago
  > pro-lower-quality-healthcare What does that mean? What bigger goal lies behind that? > you have to symmetrify that in a trusted fashion. Yes I think so too. And I suppose sometimes someone who, say, wears formal clothes and a suite, does that not because s/he wants to dress like that, but because s/he knows about this too
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    Haha we both know it's probably best for me not to elucidate here but the gist of it is that I'm convinced that cutting healthcare requirements can vastly increase healthcare access and that access to bad care is far superior to inaccessible good care and that we are in a situation where we are forcing the trade-off. I don't really care to speak more of it on this forum because it's hard to get the nuance out in text. > And I suppose sometimes someone who, say, wears formal clothes and a suite, does that not because s/he wants to dress like that, but because s/he knows about this too Almost suspected you knew me. Except that I've since developed an appreciation.
stevens32 6y ago
I think anything anyone does will get varying types of attention if enough people see it, some of it will be negative and some of it positive. Each of the "You will be punished for X" could just be "Someone will try to punish you for X".
WalterBright 6y ago
> Why don't we want people to be good at things? Because if A and B start out at the same place, and A succeeds, then B lacks an excuse to justify his non-success. So B needs to tear down A in order to feel better about himself.
- cutemonster 6y ago
  Yes, precisely. Well, minor thing: "in order to continue seeming to be a useful member of the group", I'd say. And there're other strategies too, of course, one includes trying to help A become even better
cfitz 6y ago
I beleive this thread would be even more popular with the last line in the article as its title on HN: "Why don't we want people to be good at things?" This is what we need to be asking ourselves in our current society, especially given the often very real torturous cycle regarding success and others which the author outlined in their post.
ImaCake 6y ago
Maybe part of the problem is the author is engaging with people on Twitter. Twitter appears to me, an outsider, as a messy hateful place where people throw one-liners of hate at each for reasons that are very difficult for outsiders to understand. Somewhat unrelated, but last night I was trying to make sense of the trans-activist hatred towards J. K. Rowling and I could not understand what was going on. Like, it wasn't that I couldn't understand the argument that was generating such strong emotions, it is that I couldn't even find the argument in the first place. There was just a heap of hatred and anger being spewed across twitter and I had no idea who they were really angry at and what their argument was. Frankly, I think we would all be better off if Twitter didn't exist. It seems to be a very stupid place.
mlthoughts2018 6y ago
This is basically a restatement of the core of Robin Hanson’s years-long set of Overcoming Bias posts about “homo hypocritus”. The short answer is status. The game you are playing with others (whether you want to or not) is all about political status. It’s not at all about objective successful outcomes. It’s about who can utilize politics as a resource to take what they want and entrench their hold of it. For example in medieval times, decrying scientific progress as heretical served the purpose of allowing monarchs and religious figureheads to retain power. Who gives a shit how planetary orbits work if you can decapitate your enemies becuz god. This is a very deeply ingrained evolutionary aspect of humans and we are not modern or sophisticated in terms of defeating it. To expect otherwise is naive & frankly frustrating.
carapace 6y ago
> If I sat down and tried to design a set of social norms for discouraging people from being their best selves, I honestly don't think I could have done a better job than this. > Why don't we want people to be good at things? Historically most people were peasants or serfs. The only thing they were expected to be good at was that, and were actively discouraged from doing anything else. We have gone from "Civilization and Its Discontents" to the Human Potential Movement in the blink of an eye. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization_and_Its_Discontents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization_and_Its_Disconten... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Potential_Movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Potential_Movement
jonnypotty 6y ago
We do want to be good at things but humans are very good at putting structures in place with easy to see benifits and difficult to see costs.
cranium 6y ago
I think it's a social status quo deadlock. People want to appear flawless because any flaw in one domain will affect how they are seen in other domains. It's a signal that says "Look at this person making mistakes, he/she is worst than all these other people that didn't make one!" [1]. Best way to avoid making mistakes ? Not trying.
mrfusion 6y ago
I was at an interview once and the job description said they wanted an expert in sql. So when they asked me to rate my sql skills I felt I should say expert since that’s why I’m there. Well the “expert” word triggered them and they said “well, if you’re an expert you can answer these obscure questions ...” and obviously I failed it. This article made me think of that.
fmajid 6y ago
This is known as the Law of Jante: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante
bartread 6y ago
This is why it's important to choose very carefully who your friends are and who you associate with: you want people around who are going to be positive and encouraging, not tear you down no matter what you do. You also need to develop a very thick skin. One also needs to be careful not to fall into the same trap of criticism and negativity oneself - it's just way too easy to be a hypocrite. (An aside: constructive criticism can be helpful, although I think almost any kind of criticism too early in any learning/exploratory/discovery process can be counter-productive. Some people couch tearing you down as "constructive criticism". Again, it's a good strategy to simply avoid such people, or manage them out of your life, where you can.)

297 points by luu 6y ago

To perhaps state the obvious, the reason we don't encourage people to say that they're good at things is that it's hard to judge for yourself. It has as much to do with your general view on yourself, and what your standard of "good" is, than what the average other person would think. So, you try to prove you are good by doing things, not saying things.

Godel_unicode 6y ago
I have worked with people who could say they were good at things without sounding arrogant, and after a great deal of thought I have concluded that it's because of two things. 1. those same people are quick to say when they're bad at things as well. 2. their competency is never the point of the sentence, it's always a supporting argument on the way to the point. E.g. I'm an expert in this library and I struggle with using that part correctly, we should consider reworking it so it's possible for novices to use it.
- themacguffinman 6y ago
  3. Express it in terms of experience, which is a quality that I think people are more comfortable with because it doesn't imply innate or "fixed" talent. Experience is widely understood as a function of time & effort so people feel less insecure about it because everyone can gain experience. Eg. I would say "I'm pretty familiar with this library, so here's my perspective"

commandlinefan 6y ago

Can I agree with his overall premise but disagree with thinking that scheduling weekly one-on-one's with your wife is in any way a good idea? I also wonder if the social obligation to be bad at things - that is, to avoid arrogance at all costs, even at the risk of withholding potentially useful advice - is more an American thing than a worldwide phenomenon. Not being embarrassed when you can't spell words correctly seems to be unique to American culture.

Godel_unicode 6y ago
> Can I agree with his overall premise but disagree with thinking that scheduling weekly one-on-one's with your wife is in any way a good idea? No. That's the whole point. If it works for them why would it be bad? Let's try and not shame people for having different approaches to things.
- jmaa 6y ago
  Well, depends what he means with "your"; OP specifically, or an arbitrary person? Because I think we are getting dangerously close to shooting down useful criticism and discussion for fear of hurting someones feelings. It's obviously insensitive to say that OP is a bad person because he is doing one-on-ones, but it should be totally acceptable to say "this is weird (from my perspective), I can see several issues with this, I wouldn't personally do this, but you-do-you", and often "(from my perspective)" and "but you-do-you" parts are implied; their absence shouldn't necessarily be taken as proof of mocking. (Disclaimer: I have no opinion on partner one-on-ones.)
  - Godel_unicode 6y ago
    Weird is one of those truly terrible words that's used to control people who are different than us. It's nice for the person using it, since it doesn't actually mean anything and is thus impervious to arguments stronger than "nuh uh". It's almost never actually the right word, and should be avoided in favor of more descriptive language. In order for criticism to be constructive, it must be easily understandable by the person receiving it. "Don't call people weird" seems like a good general principle (unless they self-identify as weird, in which case knock yourself out). I don't understand this compulsion to try and get people to fall in line and stop being weird. The from-my-perspective and you-do-you parts are the most important parts, why would you leave them out? You're not in charge.
dpeck 6y ago
It sounds silly, but set aside time for a purpose is a good thing. A friend of mine and his spouse do a twice a year “offsite” where they go camping somewhere and spend half of the Saturday talking about where they are in the year financially, relationship, what they want to accomplish as a couple, etc

nickthemagicman 6y ago

I've always thought that most people either judge you for being below them or worship you for being above them. Very few people occupy that middle ground where they are just happy for you and treat you as a person with motivations, flaws, and gifts. I'd gander to say this hierarchical primitive behavior is a major impediment to human progress.

danharaj 6y ago
There's a lot to unpack here.
whytaka 6y ago
I have noticed the opposite. My impression is that most people's identities are so coloured by their insecurities that people usually come together more on being able to laugh at their common insufficiencies and also on the things they hate in common. But this is perhaps because I'm still relatively young and the people I encounter are still working on realizing themselves.
- nickthemagicman 6y ago
  Well you work in a remarkably status free place or, possibly, you're one of the privileged ones and might not even know it!

RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago

> A thing I got pissed off at a while ago was reactions to someone talking about having weekly one-on-ones with his wife My guess is that it would have gone over a lot better if the person had stated that he had weekly scheduled dates with his wife. > When someone tries to do something good and we don't think it's the right thing, we punish them. Why are you announcing your good deeds to the whole world? A lot of religions and cultures condemn things like that. Do good for its own sake, not to be rewarded and praised by your peers. I think a lot of the issues the author describes are a backlash from oversharing.

cwojno 6y ago
Example of author's point?
- hundchenkatze 6y ago
  I think it is, yes.
matt_morgan 6y ago
You don't know that there was oversharing. Or in any case, consider situations in which they're not oversharing. Everything he says might still be true in those cases. So your argument kind of slides around the point, it doesn't counter it. The author is using a blunt kind of language that may encourage us to disagree. You're right that it could be said better ("date" is a good example). But there's still truth in it.
quadrifoliate 6y ago
> Why are you announcing your good deeds to the whole world? A lot of religions and cultures condemn things like that. Most religions are built upon stories of other people's good deeds. It seems hardly fair to disallow people from airing their own :)
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  Most religions are built on third-party narratives of other people's good deeds; it's absolutely self-consistent for them to have negative view of first-party narrative of the same topic.

kerkeslager 6y ago

I'm glad the author is talking about this problem, but I think there's a slight misidentification of the cause. I don't think it's that we're supposed to be bad at things, it's that we're expected to already be good at things. This still applies (irrationally) even when: 1. There is no mechanism provided for becoming good at the things we're expected to be good at. 2. Most people aren't good at the things we're expected to be good at. The underlying thing here, is that ignorance, a temporary condition, is conflated with stupidity, a permanent condition. Carol Dweck puts this another way: she describes a "fixed" mindset, where people believe that mistakes are examples of their inherent value, and therefore fear taking risks, and try to hide their mistakes. This is contrasted with a "growth" mindset, in which mistakes are seen as a necessary part of growth and risks are seen as learning opportunities. Also related is Brene Brown's theory of vulnerability as being a necessary part of forming relationships. I will say, I'm not entirely convinced by all the details of either Carol Dweck's mindset theory or Brene Brown's vulnerability theory, but the generalities seem to be evident in my own life. EDIT: I'll also add that this conflation is particularly damaging to people and communities where intelligence is highly valued, and people base much of their self-worth in being knowledgeable. My personal experience is that growing up I based a lot of my self-worth in "being smart" so anyone disagreeing with me or pointing out something I didn't know felt like an attack on the very thing that made me feel worthwhile. Building real self-esteem made it possible for me to start seeing that when I don't know something that doesn't decrease my value as a person. This has allowed me to admit I don't know things more often, and actually fill in some of those gaps with real knowledge. I'm still a growing person, and I'm still not good at this, but the progress I have made has improved my life immensely.

s0rce 6y ago
This was my experience in most of my primary and secondary education (K-12) in Canada. If you were good at something right away, math, science, 2nd language, art, even gym class, you basically got some instruction and were able to learn a bit more and maybe even excel. This was my experience in Math and Science (I'm a Scientist/Engineer now). However, learning French, I struggled and rapidly fell behind. If you didn't excel you didn't really get enough teaching or attention to learn. Basically, as you say, you were expected to already just be good at stuff even from a young age and the system appeared to be designed around this idea. Learning (and critically practice) takes a lot of time for most things and everyone isn't good at it right away. I had a similiar experience with driving lessons, I didn't take naturally to it and the limited number of lessons and the relative ease by which you can pass the test means I never really learned adequately during the "learning period" before you are granted a full license. In this case my mom forced me to continue and I continued to practice and eventually became competent and mostly comfortable. Many other activities I just gave up, no one wanted me on their T-ball team.

evmar 6y ago

I found that, as a person who (sometimes) creates things, my attitude towards other people who create things has significantly shifted. When I was younger I would just see the fault -- the typos, the narcissism, the pointlessness, the already-been-done-better-by-others -- of people's work. But after trying a bit, it sometimes (for the same reasons the OP talks about) creating anything new ends up being really hard in part because while you struggle everyone is shouting "lame!" from the sidelines (and doing nothing). You see this a lot on this site in particular -- the "middlebrow dismissal" HN is famous for. So now, even when I see something that I genuinely think is lame, I think of this problem and keep my negativity to myself. I might give useful criticism but I try to keep the balance in mind. Even if you publish something you've made that is kinda lame, I still think it is awesome that you are taking the effort to finish something. The best way to get better is by making multiple attempts.

pierrebai 6y ago
That's one way of looking at growth. Another is to learn from the mistakes; this sometimes requires others to point them out. A lot of the issues around it comes down to ego and how one takes criticisms. One needs to learn not to take it too personal. A lot of times, the weak points of one's work is often the bit we're lazy. Of course, many times we already know very well where we're weak, and getting it pointed out repeatedly can sting. And to make it back to the obligation to be bad, it comes down to recognizing you can always get better. In fact, the more I learn about a subject, the more I see how little I know.
heavenlyblue 6y ago
It’s easy to see the world in this black-and-white separation; however there’s a lot of creators who are there to rip you off for some money and they deserve every critique you can get. Moralising stories like that mask the actual complexity of telling the people who try to be better and are shit (and thus deserve your understanding) from people are fake trying to be better while taking advantage of you (“oh my god I didn’t realise the engine I was selling you is completely covered in rust!”). The complexity here is not selecting one of the two; but rather consistently selecting one of the two for any given moment in life. And that’s hard.

fullshark 6y ago

Just ignore the idiots if it works for you. If you are a public figure online and your ideas/thoughts are viewable by the entire planet, don't expect everyone to think they are good ones. The entire planet is not your friends, just a bunch of idiots looking for temporary amusement/distraction.

dec0dedab0de 6y ago

I have observed this behavior, but never really understood it. Sometimes I have to think of people as having left over bits of event based code that overrides everything else in certain circumstances. Trying to remember what effects which people in which ways is my biggest challenge in work and probably life in general.

antisthenes 6y ago

I haven't found this to be a problem. Sounds like the author needs better friends and/or a more supportive social circle.

drivers99 6y ago

"When you say you are good at something, that's arrogant." Learned that the hard way. When I was young (college in the 90s), I had a Software Development class. We formed small teams and created a piece of software in a waterfall methodology.[1] Why I thought I was so great: I had taken independent study in high school to learn algorithms and data structures to take the Computer Science AB(now discontinued) AP test (covers recursive algorithms and dynamically allocated data structures, in Pascal at the time) and got a 5 out of 5. So when we got together to discuss who would work on what, and we needed to code our own data structures in C/C++ for the project, I was excited and said "I'm the master!" of that. There was an older member of the team (who even developed and sold his own software product, a program to print booklets, for DOS already) who later in the meeting made a very sarcastic reference to me being the "master" of that and it really stung. [1] Looks like they still have it. They added github, UML, and user stories. C S 371 https://pixl.nmsu.edu/files/2017/05/syllabus-SDev-2017-1-V10.pdf https://pixl.nmsu.edu/files/2017/05/syllabus-SDev-2017-1-V10... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP_Computer_Science#AP_Computer_Science_AB_(discontinued) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP_Computer_Science#AP_Compute...

xfan009 6y ago
I have to question why someone with that level of seniority would need to be in a software development class. Generally my experience with people who are demonstrably successful is that they are not insecure like you described. Is it possible they were bluffing?
- drivers99 6y ago
  I think he was just going back to get his degree. I should say that it was just a shareware product he had developed that I was talking about. I don't remember what he had done for a living up to that point.
- dj_mc_merlin 6y ago
  Software development classes are mandatory for some courses, and it is not that uncommon to find some already-not-so-green programmers in them. Some are just looking for the certification at the end of their programme. > Generally my experience with people who are demonstrably successful is that they are not insecure like you described. Is it really insecurity? Teasing someone about their previous arrogance when they're actually a beginner is one of the better forms of putting-down IMO. Teaches 'pride cometh before fall' and all that. And a group project is a quite informal space to do that in.

zelly 6y ago

Stop caring what other people think of you. The ego is the problem.

kerkeslager 6y ago
Ehhh, I think I might agree with what you're trying to say, but I don't think I'd say it this way. What other people think of you is a great source of information which shouldn't be discounted. In fact, I think there's a lot of value in soliciting feedback from the people around you. We have a name for people who don't care what other people think: narcissists. What I think you're getting at is that you can't please everyone, and there are many cases where risking someone's opinion of you is the right thing to do.
zadkey 6y ago
I agree this works on an individual level. But if other people few insecure by your confidence, security or success, they may try to sabotage you. You still need to be aware of this dynamic so that you aren't blindsided people jealous or angry over your success and their own relative failure by which they are comparing you to even you are not comparing them or judging them yourself.

wallflower 6y ago

I remember the Car Talk guys Click and Clack talking about their tongue-in-cheek (or maybe not) advice for being married. It was something like: "The very first time that they ask you to do the laundry, say 'Yes, honey! I'd love to!'. Then, do it so horribly bad. Turn everything pink or whatever. Shrink, ruin some clothes. Then, they'll never ask you to do the laundry again."

Erwin 6y ago
This is often called "strategic incompetence" (or feigned incompetence).
nullc 6y ago
I really miss Car Talk. I wish there were a good comprehensive catalog of all their old episodes online...

Osmose 6y ago

The point about space and understanding to try new things and not be amazing at them isn't a bad one, but the thing about having 1:1s with your partner that is drawing ridicule isn't the idea of having a scheduled, weekly check-in with your partner; it's that business-talk is intentionally de-personified and using it in a personal context implies a lack of respect for the human you're dealing with. Consider that I called it a "weekly check-in with your partner" above. That phrasing focuses on the existing relationship and the consideration of checking on how they're doing. A "1:1" is called that to distinguish it from other meetings that involve more than two people, and drops all the connotations of concern or supporting an existing relationship. That's what people are reacting negatively to.

kerkeslager 6y ago
Yes, you're right that business talk is depersonified and implies a lack of respect for the human you're dealing with. And this is an assertion backed up by lots of other business talk--referring to humans as "resources" is probably the worst I hear often. And this assertion is further supported by the frequent, sociopathic behavior of businesses which goes beyond how they communicate. But surely the fact that they are married to this other person is a bit stronger evidence that they cares for them, than a slightly off wording? And further, it's completely absurd to hear this objection from Hacker News, where the most common viewpoint seems to be "if it makes money then it must be ethical". If this is really dehumanizing, then isn't the bigger problem that most people are totally okay with dehumanizing language in a business context? Is the objection here that he doesn't stand to turn a profit?
- Osmose 6y ago
  > But surely the fact that they are married to this other person is a bit stronger evidence that they cares for them, than a slightly off wording? No one's saying they don't really care about their partner. It's possible to be put off and derisive of that language without judging whether they truly care. > And further, it's completely absurd to hear this objection from Hacker News, where the most common viewpoint seems to be "if it makes money then it must be ethical". If this is really dehumanizing, then isn't the bigger problem that most people are totally okay with dehumanizing language in a business context? Is the objection here that he doesn't stand to turn a profit? I mean, yeah. That part of Hacker News is pretty appalling. We _should_ be angry about dehumanizing language in a business context.

jack_pp 6y ago

This is because people have egos. Most people have fragile ones. All this pussyfooting is to protect their egos. Watching Revoler (2005) is very eye opening in this regard.

clairity 6y ago
don't dismiss so quickly the importance of some "pussyfooting". we're all thrown together randomly, at different points in our various growth cycles, so we stub toes and step on foots constantly, in that relentless sorting of status in the midst of developing ability. it's good to remember that we need to constantly build our own fragile egos, protecting them when necessary, and do the same for others. chicks are encouraged out of the nest when their wings are likely strong enough to fly, not before.

leroy_masochist 6y ago

> I was at a liberating structures event recently, and one of the people I was working with related an anecdote in which he tried a party game as an ice breaker. Many of those are cringe, but this one sounded fun and inoffensive (it was a sentence continuation game where each person said a word following on from a previous one, in an attempt to construct something that sounded like an aphorism). Most people were reluctant initially but got into the swing of things, but a few people just dug their heels in and would not engage properly with it because of concern over looking weird. Perhaps some of them were indeed concerned about looking weird. I guarantee you that at least a few of them didn't want to engage because they're introverts who just generally hate awkward group getting-to-know-you games.

war1025 6y ago
Amen.
ngerrity 6y ago
I don't think there's anything wrong with not wanting to participate in silly games like that all the time, but if you never try to step out of your comfort zone in a public setting, I think you're missing out on an opportunity to grow as a person. You might just have fun doing something you thought was stupid or you thought you would hate.
- kubanczyk 6y ago
  Ahh hello there, good'ol FOMO. Let me show you a little trick: I don't think there's anything wrong with not wanting to participate in silly games like that all the time, and if you never try to step out of your comfort zone in a public setting, I don't think you're missing out on an opportunity to grow as a person.
  - cutemonster 6y ago
    Not fomo IMO. Rather, experimenting and discovering new things, incl about oneself.

_aleph2c_ 6y ago

"You can either do something, or be someone" -- John Boyd

fewaw2322 6y ago

I can't see the original tweet, so I don't know the full details. But my first reaction to hearing "weekly one-on-ones with the wife" is that it sounds impersonal and disrespectful. You don't describe personal relationships with business jargon. It's an unspoken social rule, so maybe the person who said that wasn't aware. If that's the case, they deserve leniency for an honest mistake. Or, maybe the person really thinks of their relationship in terms of a business arrangement. Maybe the husband and wife have a mutual understanding of that. Or maybe the husband sees nothing wrong with treating love like a business transaction, and the wife does. Of course people would call that out, to re-enforce the norm that this is not okay. So what's the reality? You don't know. You don't know this person, and they don't know you. So why are they posting this, to an audience of strangers, who have no context for their remarks? And why are you replying to it, acting like you understand the context? Twitter is designed to nurture this sort of discourse. It's the perfect medium for drive-by commentary, arm chair experts, and context-free conversations. Not to mention, the perfect vacuum for bad faith actors to spread bullshit.

kgin 6y ago

There isn’t an obligation to be bad. But there are things in life that people generally feel lose their meaning when subjected to the dispassionate tools of efficiency and productivity. For many “engineering types”, we may not feel the distinction as acutely (isn’t all the world just problems to solve?)

082349872349872 6y ago

A "Culture Club" seems to have been a place people went in soviet times when they were bad (or even already halfway decent) at things, in order to improve in a supportive environment. So far, the only clue I have as to how close practice came to theory is the 1956 film "Carnival Night", in which old-school russian hackers mess with the power and information nets of their club in order to save their New Year's party from a Party functionary who takes his leadership role entirely too seriously. (would a community college be a rough US equivalent?)

standardUser 6y ago

"When you say you are good at something, that's arrogant. When you say you're bad at something, people tell you that you're not, or treat it as weakness." There are a thousand ways to say you're good at something. Some of them will make you appear arrogant, some will make you appear humble, with endless options in between. I don't know who this author is or what specific axes they have to grind, but instead of taking broad swipes at all of society, maybe consider your own communication skills and how they are not leading to the results you desire. If you're starting from a position of "there is one way to express a thought and it will always be met with this specific response", you are a pretty far way from actually improving your situation.

draw_down 6y ago

I think it's ok to laugh at silly things. Having weekly 1:1s with someone you love is funny, it's a silly thing to do. I'm not saying it's a bad idea- maybe it works for you and your relationship improves or whatever, it's still a silly thing. I dunno, I really hate the implication that laughing at something a person does means you hate them or whatever. For all we know the original person is laughing along.

munificent 6y ago

I think about this all the time. I am simultaneously someone who wants to learn and create a lot of things, likes to share stuff online, and is very self-conscious about failure. So this challenge with facing my own not-goodness-at-things is one of the major emotional themes and challenges of my life. I believe that broadcast social media is the primary reason why this is such a big thing these days. Everyone is so self-conscious all the time. It's like we've created a giant world-spanning panopticon where we can all see everyone at their worst moments all the time. We spend our days tip-toeing around the Earth hoping we don't get caught having our own personal "Stars Wars kid" moment and being shamed for it for the rest of our lives. It used to be if you did something dumb or awkward, the five people around you laughed at you, told stories about it for a while, and that was it. Now it's literally captured from five different perspectives in high definition video and stereo audio and uploaded to the Internet for all to see until the end of time. It's no wonder awkward teens flocked to Snapchat and its ephemeral videos. I used to go out to clubs dancing a lot when I was younger. I love dancing (which is unusual for a skinny nerdy white dude, but I guess you don't get to pick your passions). I believe moving your body to music is one of the fundamental human experiences. You don't have to love it, of course, but it's something we have been doing since the caveman days. It is as primal to being human as feasting. It kills me that so many people who do have that desire don't get to satisfy it because of cripping self-consciousness about getting on a dancefloor. When I went out, I often heard people on the sidelines making fun of people out there dancing. I recognized that it was really their own insecurity being projected onto others. They were saying what they feared people would say about them if they were out there. My response was always, "Anyone who has the courage to dance at all is better than everyone on the sidelines." I try to maintain that perspective with all activities, especially online. The world has enough criticism to last until the end of time. Today, anyone who at least tries is a winner in my book. Is it often cringy or mediocre? Yup. Will I tell them that? Hell no. They're at least trying. As Jake in Adventure Time says "Dude, suckin' at something is the first step to being sorta good at something."

nicbou 6y ago
I see things a bit differently. Being on the dance floor brings me happiness. Wooing the people on the sidelines brings me nothing at all. I tried to appeal to everyone. It made me miserable and boring. I'd rather market myself to my target demographic.

hateful 6y ago

It isn't always the case, but a lot of times people do this to other people because they themselves are insecure.

LouisSayers 6y ago

Reminds me back when I went skiing for the first time with my gf at the time. She had lots of experience skiing and I guess wanted to “show me the slopes”. In showing me how to do the pizza stop, I said “but all the pros do the side to side thing...” so I did that instead. By the end of the day I was going down all the slopes with her (I still lost my skis a couple times), but she seemed a bit pissed off and I remember her saying “how can you do in one day what took me three months?!”. She did not seem happy...

themacguffinman 6y ago
The correct answer is "because I had a great teacher". She probably learnt skiing with less guidance and had to figure out a bunch of stuff on her own. I still empathize with the phenomenon though. No matter what mindset you have or humility or conscious understanding of the differences between human ability, it's often viscerally frustrating to see others pick stuff up way quicker than you could ever hope to.
- LouisSayers 6y ago
  > I still empathize with the phenomenon though. No matter what mindset you have or humility or conscious understanding of the differences between human ability, it's often viscerally frustrating to see others pick stuff up way quicker than you could ever hope to. The irony of this is that she had a high IQ so was used to learning things much quicker than others. > The correct answer is "because I had a great teacher". She probably learnt skiing with less guidance and had to figure out a bunch of stuff on her own. The reason I was good at skiing was because a) I had done aggressive inline skating for many years, and b) I had been snowboarding a few times The confidence and similarity from rollerblading along with familiarity of how the snow moves from snowboarding allowed me to pick it up quickly.

crazygringo 6y ago

> 1. You will be punished for trying new things. > 2. You will be punished for trying things that don't work. > 3. You will be punished for trying to understand how good you are at something. > 4. You will be punished for succeeding. This is a fascinating conclusion, and first of all, I think it's entirely valid to feel that way. And it must feel incredibly frustrating. But I think if we zoom out a bit, we can gain a broader perspective. Which is that, no matter what you do, you'll always be "punished" by some people. There's no right answer here. But other people will also reward you. (Also, funnily, sometimes when you don't even deserve it.) And part of being an adult is in finding the right groups of people who are constructive and supportive, rather than tearing you down due to their own insecurities and egos. This applies in finding a supportive spouse, supportive friends, and a supportive workplace. And it takes work to identify and find the right supportive people. Supportive people will celebrate you for trying new things, celebrate you for trying things even when they don't work, celebrate you for trying to understand how good you are, and celebrate you for succeeding. It's also very easy to have been surrounded by negative people for so long that you feel helpless, that you don't even know how to find supportive people or trust that they're there. And that's a hard rut to be in, and there are a bunch of techniques to help you get out of it, which you might need a therapist to identify for you if it gets really bad. But one that really speaks to this specifically is enrolling in local improv comedy classes. You spend three hours in a group of equally embarrassed "newbies" learning to follow the cardinal rule of "yes, and". Everyone is forced to be supportive. Improv is about literally coming up with new things for three hours straight, and everyone celebrating it no matter what happens (the only limit is not being offensive). I know people that credit it for turning their lives around, and where they made their best friends. Obviously improv isn't the answer for everyone. But I hope the author can find the support they're looking for.

felipemnoa 6y ago

>>Why don't we want people to be good at things? In general it may be that it reminds people of their own failings and nobody likes to feel like a loser.

seph-reed 6y ago
Most people are just "professionals." As in they talk a lot of shit at work, but don't really care about the field. It's role playing, and they usually have imposter syndrome. When someone comes in who isn't an imposter, the "professionals" best strategy to keep their ill-earned position is to attack what makes a true scholar: their "unprofessionally uncertain" curiosity, and their "unprofessionally risky" willingness to try something new. True creatives aren't very "professional" because they don't act like they know everything, and they don't just do the same thing over and over again.

stared 6y ago

See: The myth we love new ideas - people resist change, including progress from https://scottberkun.com/2013/ten-myths-of-innnovation/ https://scottberkun.com/2013/ten-myths-of-innnovation/ > We are a conservative species: try something as simple as standing, rather than sitting, in your next group meeting. How accepting were your peers? Conformity is deep in our biology. While talking about creativity is very popular, actually being creative puts your social status at risk. All great ideas were rejected, often for years or decades, yet we bury this in our history (see Myth #1 & #2). The history of breakthroughs is a tale of persistence against rejection. Much of what makes a successful innovator is their ability to persuade and convince conservative people of the merits of their ideas, a very different skill from creativity itself. Your problem is likely not your ideas, but your skills for pitching ideas to others. Ideas are rarely rejected on their merits; they’re rejected because of how they make people feel. The bigger the idea, the harder the persuasion challenge.

khazhoux 6y ago

Author is overlooking an important point: we tend to only judge people who compete with us directly. To paraphrase Nietzsche: "The vanity of others offends our taste only when it offends our own vanity."

yesenadam 6y ago
La Rochefoucauld (1670s) : "What makes the vanity of others insufferable to us is that it wounds our own."

Traster 6y ago

>When you say you're bad at something, people tell you that you're not, or treat it as weakness. As a Brit who has worked with Americans I think this is very cultural. From my judgement of my interactions if I say "I know nothing about this but..." there's probably a 50% chance I know more about the thing than you. If I say "Have you considered..." that means you're talking about my area of expertise. That's not been my experience of how Americans approach things -often from a perspective of trying to prove themselves. From a social point of view I've always found it more useful to under-estimate my own abilities than to ever-estimate. There's good reason too, if you claim authority and are wrong then you burn a lot of credibility. Having said this, I also subscribe to the idea that criticising other people primarily makes you look bad no matter the truth of the matter and that sounds a lot like what the people the author describes is doing.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
naveen99 6y ago
Arrogance can sometimes get you in the door quicker. You can be modest once you are in. Or take the slow road with modesty from the beginning.

ericmcer 6y ago

Is there really droves of people waiting to shame others who aren’t good at things? Generally every community I have joined (rock climbing, lifting, programming) has been really supportive to new people. Maybe most of this shame OP is feeling is internal? I can relate to that, it’s hard to be weak/bad at something.

renewiltord 6y ago

This is the same misunderstanding as the one that leads to angst at interview selection. You don't have a social obligation to do anything. It's just that you share some characteristics with a lot of kooks. For instance, I have a few views that would flip the bozo bit on most people (I am anti-organ-donation, pro-lower-quality-healthcare, anti-Office-of-the-First-Lady, and I think people tried to scapegoat Andrew Wakefield for a lot of shit) so I don't usually state those views and attempt to explain until people know I'm not a bozo. I know that P(bozo | having these views) is pretty high, so I first have to demonstrate that P(bozo) is low in the first place. P(can't write code | can't write code in an interview) is pretty high. P(isn't that good | claims to be good) is pretty high. You know you so you know you are not a bozo, that you can write code, that you are good. But the other party is operating in the space of not-just-you. It's just an information asymmetry that works against you. So, if the social validation matters to you, you have to symmetrify that in a trusted fashion. And honestly, life is short, no human has infinite time to evaluate another human, so your symmetrification had better be speedy if you want the effects you desire.

cutemonster 6y ago
> pro-lower-quality-healthcare What does that mean? What bigger goal lies behind that? > you have to symmetrify that in a trusted fashion. Yes I think so too. And I suppose sometimes someone who, say, wears formal clothes and a suite, does that not because s/he wants to dress like that, but because s/he knows about this too
- renewiltord 6y ago
  Haha we both know it's probably best for me not to elucidate here but the gist of it is that I'm convinced that cutting healthcare requirements can vastly increase healthcare access and that access to bad care is far superior to inaccessible good care and that we are in a situation where we are forcing the trade-off. I don't really care to speak more of it on this forum because it's hard to get the nuance out in text. > And I suppose sometimes someone who, say, wears formal clothes and a suite, does that not because s/he wants to dress like that, but because s/he knows about this too Almost suspected you knew me. Except that I've since developed an appreciation.

stevens32 6y ago

I think anything anyone does will get varying types of attention if enough people see it, some of it will be negative and some of it positive. Each of the "You will be punished for X" could just be "Someone will try to punish you for X".

WalterBright 6y ago

> Why don't we want people to be good at things? Because if A and B start out at the same place, and A succeeds, then B lacks an excuse to justify his non-success. So B needs to tear down A in order to feel better about himself.

cutemonster 6y ago
Yes, precisely. Well, minor thing: "in order to continue seeming to be a useful member of the group", I'd say. And there're other strategies too, of course, one includes trying to help A become even better

cfitz 6y ago

I beleive this thread would be even more popular with the last line in the article as its title on HN: "Why don't we want people to be good at things?" This is what we need to be asking ourselves in our current society, especially given the often very real torturous cycle regarding success and others which the author outlined in their post.

ImaCake 6y ago

Maybe part of the problem is the author is engaging with people on Twitter. Twitter appears to me, an outsider, as a messy hateful place where people throw one-liners of hate at each for reasons that are very difficult for outsiders to understand. Somewhat unrelated, but last night I was trying to make sense of the trans-activist hatred towards J. K. Rowling and I could not understand what was going on. Like, it wasn't that I couldn't understand the argument that was generating such strong emotions, it is that I couldn't even find the argument in the first place. There was just a heap of hatred and anger being spewed across twitter and I had no idea who they were really angry at and what their argument was. Frankly, I think we would all be better off if Twitter didn't exist. It seems to be a very stupid place.

mlthoughts2018 6y ago

This is basically a restatement of the core of Robin Hanson’s years-long set of Overcoming Bias posts about “homo hypocritus”. The short answer is status. The game you are playing with others (whether you want to or not) is all about political status. It’s not at all about objective successful outcomes. It’s about who can utilize politics as a resource to take what they want and entrench their hold of it. For example in medieval times, decrying scientific progress as heretical served the purpose of allowing monarchs and religious figureheads to retain power. Who gives a shit how planetary orbits work if you can decapitate your enemies becuz god. This is a very deeply ingrained evolutionary aspect of humans and we are not modern or sophisticated in terms of defeating it. To expect otherwise is naive & frankly frustrating.

carapace 6y ago

> If I sat down and tried to design a set of social norms for discouraging people from being their best selves, I honestly don't think I could have done a better job than this. > Why don't we want people to be good at things? Historically most people were peasants or serfs. The only thing they were expected to be good at was that, and were actively discouraged from doing anything else. We have gone from "Civilization and Its Discontents" to the Human Potential Movement in the blink of an eye. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization_and_Its_Discontents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization_and_Its_Disconten... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Potential_Movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Potential_Movement

jonnypotty 6y ago

We do want to be good at things but humans are very good at putting structures in place with easy to see benifits and difficult to see costs.

cranium 6y ago

I think it's a social status quo deadlock. People want to appear flawless because any flaw in one domain will affect how they are seen in other domains. It's a signal that says "Look at this person making mistakes, he/she is worst than all these other people that didn't make one!" [1]. Best way to avoid making mistakes ? Not trying.

mrfusion 6y ago

I was at an interview once and the job description said they wanted an expert in sql. So when they asked me to rate my sql skills I felt I should say expert since that’s why I’m there. Well the “expert” word triggered them and they said “well, if you’re an expert you can answer these obscure questions ...” and obviously I failed it. This article made me think of that.

fmajid 6y ago

This is known as the Law of Jante: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante

bartread 6y ago

This is why it's important to choose very carefully who your friends are and who you associate with: you want people around who are going to be positive and encouraging, not tear you down no matter what you do. You also need to develop a very thick skin. One also needs to be careful not to fall into the same trap of criticism and negativity oneself - it's just way too easy to be a hypocrite. (An aside: constructive criticism can be helpful, although I think almost any kind of criticism too early in any learning/exploratory/discovery process can be counter-productive. Some people couch tearing you down as "constructive criticism". Again, it's a good strategy to simply avoid such people, or manage them out of your life, where you can.)