3 ms·

I think you have too much optimism regarding the value of people's earnest expressions. Children are children and so their earnestness is cute and endearing (in

by boh 6y ago

I think you have too much optimism regarding the value of people's earnest expressions. Children are children and so their earnestness is cute and endearing (in most instances)--adults are far less charming and far more petty, self-indulgent, spineless, fickle, fearful. Social media is a cesspool largely due to all this earnestness. Fear of retribution and shame is helpful in mitigating the self-absorption embedded in most people. We'd all like to think there's something special in all of us and that the world will benefit from the light of our creativity if it was set free. Truth be told, very few people are capable of much past mimicking and repeating what already exists. People should appreciate the template of conformity that allows them to find a place in the world and not let advertising, that often leverages the idea of uniqueness to sell things, diminish the value of their mediocrity. No, given the proper "freedom" to be "earnest" you wouldn't be the next Picasso or Steve Jobs. We know because if that's who you were, that's who you'd be. Some people seem to find success in art and innovation operating in the same repressive environment, so maybe the environment is not the problem. Maybe earnestness just isn't your thing and fear/conformity is the better strategy. *grammar edits

nitrogen 6y ago
No, given the proper "freedom" to be "earnest" you wouldn't be the next Picasso or Steve Jobs. We know because if that's who you were, that's who you'd be. This statement cannot be allowed to stand uncontested. It suggests that everyone is exactly where they ought to be, that all bullying and harassment and isolation that keeps people from reaching their potential is right and just.
- legel 6y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hear,_hear https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hear,_hear
- boh 6y ago
  The only thing I'm suggesting is that freedom doesn't spare you from mediocrity. Real oppression, an experience the US professional middle class is largely spared of, the type experienced by the citizens of Venezuela or the people currently being held in Xinjiang re-education camps, is truly insurmountable and requires large macro shifts to institute change. To suggest individual bullying, harassment and isolation are counted as so insurmountable to a person's theoretical "potential" that the environment must change first to prompt it, is an illustration of the deep self-absorption very few people have the privilege to experience. Nothing is right or just in this context.
  - ResearchCode 6y ago
    I thought it was about becoming the next Steve Jobs, as in billionaire founder. They tend to grow up with great privilege. Evidently there are great obstacles for the middle class, such as favoritism for the already affluent. As in any country, it has little to with actual capability. Surely Venezuela could have less social mobility, but it isn't actually that great in the west.
  - claudeganon 6y ago
    By your thesis, there shouldn’t then be people who, having achieved greatness, fall from it because of a negative experience. But of course every field is littered with these examples, great people crippled by the loss of someone they love, an injury, or simply being unable to cope with some awful thing that happened to them in childhood. It’s practically a cliche. Really, your argument is a fairly irrelevant appeal - because worse circumstances exist in the world (something so inevitably true as to be pointless to state), there is nothing to complain about. While it’s good to have perspective about where one is more fortunate than others, people deal with their own circumstances and not those of others, so it’s functionally meaningless to raise this point. Someone being abused by their spouse or grieving over the loss of a child can maybe take intellectual comfort in the fact that their lot is better than someone in a prison camp, but this kind of diversion does absolutely nothing to alleviate their circumstances.
ehnto 6y ago
> Some people seem to find success in art and innovation operating in the same repressive environment, so maybe the environment is not the problem. The environment is still a problem, it's just that these people found a way to work past it (through great privilege or uncontested personality) I find it funny you chose Steve Jobs, a renowned narcissist in what could reasonably be called an argument warning against embracing narcissism.
CuriouslyC 6y ago
It isn't so much that people are incapable of doing anything but mimicking what already exists, as most people only notice and appreciate things that conform to what they already know. There's a large amount of art and music just waiting for blessing to get super popular, not because it's good, but because people need to be told what "good" is.
wolverine876 6y ago
> We'd all like to think there's something special in all of us and that the world will benefit from the light of our creativity if it was set free. Truth be told, very few people are capable of much past mimicking and repeating what already exists. ... > No, given the proper "freedom" to be "earnest" you wouldn't be the next Picasso or Steve Jobs. There's a premise here that unless you are Picasso or Steve Jobs, you have nothing to contribute - and that if you aren't changing the world in a significant way, you are mediocre. People change themselves, their families, their communities, their friends and neighbors lives - most of what we get from the world is in those micro, personal interactions. Friends have done infinitely more for me than Jobs or Picasso. There's also an assumption that "very few people are capable of much past mimicking and repeating what already exists", which doesn't at all match my experience of people. I find that almost everyone has much to offer, but you need to give them space and confidence to be earnest. You need to listen, and each one has so much to tell - perspectives that open up new worlds. If your attitude is the one you describe, it's self-fulfilling. So this should be good news to you. Why is it important to you to advocate for bad news?
- boh 6y ago
  > People should appreciate the template of conformity that allows them to find a place in the world and not let advertising, that often leverages the idea of uniqueness to sell things, diminish the value of their mediocrity. Being mediocre is such a scary prospect given the requirement of differentiation for professional and personal attainment, that people seem to ignore its existence entirely. Any minor differentiator is magnified to represent a "uniqueness" which frees the person from the burden of the mediocre. I agree, everyone has something to contribute and the large swaths of mediocre people drive our civilization forward--but why can't they just be mediocre? Why is it bad news?

by boh 6y ago

nitrogen 6y ago

No, given the proper "freedom" to be "earnest" you wouldn't be the next Picasso or Steve Jobs. We know because if that's who you were, that's who you'd be. This statement cannot be allowed to stand uncontested. It suggests that everyone is exactly where they ought to be, that all bullying and harassment and isolation that keeps people from reaching their potential is right and just.

legel 6y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hear,_hear https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hear,_hear
boh 6y ago
The only thing I'm suggesting is that freedom doesn't spare you from mediocrity. Real oppression, an experience the US professional middle class is largely spared of, the type experienced by the citizens of Venezuela or the people currently being held in Xinjiang re-education camps, is truly insurmountable and requires large macro shifts to institute change. To suggest individual bullying, harassment and isolation are counted as so insurmountable to a person's theoretical "potential" that the environment must change first to prompt it, is an illustration of the deep self-absorption very few people have the privilege to experience. Nothing is right or just in this context.
- ResearchCode 6y ago
  I thought it was about becoming the next Steve Jobs, as in billionaire founder. They tend to grow up with great privilege. Evidently there are great obstacles for the middle class, such as favoritism for the already affluent. As in any country, it has little to with actual capability. Surely Venezuela could have less social mobility, but it isn't actually that great in the west.
- claudeganon 6y ago
  By your thesis, there shouldn’t then be people who, having achieved greatness, fall from it because of a negative experience. But of course every field is littered with these examples, great people crippled by the loss of someone they love, an injury, or simply being unable to cope with some awful thing that happened to them in childhood. It’s practically a cliche. Really, your argument is a fairly irrelevant appeal - because worse circumstances exist in the world (something so inevitably true as to be pointless to state), there is nothing to complain about. While it’s good to have perspective about where one is more fortunate than others, people deal with their own circumstances and not those of others, so it’s functionally meaningless to raise this point. Someone being abused by their spouse or grieving over the loss of a child can maybe take intellectual comfort in the fact that their lot is better than someone in a prison camp, but this kind of diversion does absolutely nothing to alleviate their circumstances.

ehnto 6y ago

> Some people seem to find success in art and innovation operating in the same repressive environment, so maybe the environment is not the problem. The environment is still a problem, it's just that these people found a way to work past it (through great privilege or uncontested personality) I find it funny you chose Steve Jobs, a renowned narcissist in what could reasonably be called an argument warning against embracing narcissism.

CuriouslyC 6y ago

It isn't so much that people are incapable of doing anything but mimicking what already exists, as most people only notice and appreciate things that conform to what they already know. There's a large amount of art and music just waiting for blessing to get super popular, not because it's good, but because people need to be told what "good" is.

wolverine876 6y ago

> We'd all like to think there's something special in all of us and that the world will benefit from the light of our creativity if it was set free. Truth be told, very few people are capable of much past mimicking and repeating what already exists. ... > No, given the proper "freedom" to be "earnest" you wouldn't be the next Picasso or Steve Jobs. There's a premise here that unless you are Picasso or Steve Jobs, you have nothing to contribute - and that if you aren't changing the world in a significant way, you are mediocre. People change themselves, their families, their communities, their friends and neighbors lives - most of what we get from the world is in those micro, personal interactions. Friends have done infinitely more for me than Jobs or Picasso. There's also an assumption that "very few people are capable of much past mimicking and repeating what already exists", which doesn't at all match my experience of people. I find that almost everyone has much to offer, but you need to give them space and confidence to be earnest. You need to listen, and each one has so much to tell - perspectives that open up new worlds. If your attitude is the one you describe, it's self-fulfilling. So this should be good news to you. Why is it important to you to advocate for bad news?

boh 6y ago
> People should appreciate the template of conformity that allows them to find a place in the world and not let advertising, that often leverages the idea of uniqueness to sell things, diminish the value of their mediocrity. Being mediocre is such a scary prospect given the requirement of differentiation for professional and personal attainment, that people seem to ignore its existence entirely. Any minor differentiator is magnified to represent a "uniqueness" which frees the person from the burden of the mediocre. I agree, everyone has something to contribute and the large swaths of mediocre people drive our civilization forward--but why can't they just be mediocre? Why is it bad news?