3 ms·

I have learned that making relative comparisons is useless if you are not at the average. If you are more capable than the average person, sure you can settle

I have learned that making relative comparisons is useless if you are not at the average. If you are more capable than the average person, sure you can settle for an around average outcome, but that is very unsatisfying. The way I perceive things is that I'm going to do something, I'll do it really well or not at all.

david-gpu 6y ago
Holding ourselves to impossibly high standards leads to dissatisfaction. Accepting that we will sometimes be mediocre at what we do and knowing that we will do better over time is a healthier alternative.
- verisimilidude 6y ago
  This is especially true when it comes to raising kids. Children have their own personalities. Some will be introverts and others will be party animals. Some will be quiet and others will make trouble. If a person goes into the job of parenthood with perfect preparation and explicit expectations, then failure is guaranteed. The best approach requires some level of improvisation; we learn each child’s tendencies, accept them for who they are, and try to mold them into the best versions of themselves. I don’t see a way to prepare for this.
  - ZephyrBlu 6y ago
    I have no expectations of parenthood, but I want to be able to give my children (Assuming I have any) a large portion of my attention to try and nurture them as best as I can. That is what I mean by "doing it well" in terms of parenthood. This is partly driven by me viewing the education system as failing children, and also me wanting to try and impart more knowledge upon my children.
- ZephyrBlu 6y ago
  "Impossibly high standards" are different for every person. I fully expect to be mediocre at something when I start doing it, but I also expect to progress past being mediocre otherwise I see little point in doing that thing.
bigyikes 6y ago
I generally agree with your sentiment. However, I would say that this type of consideration is only useful when deciding to birth a child, not if you are considering adoption. In the latter case, the child is assumed to already exist in below-average circumstances.
munificent 6y ago
> sure you can settle for an around average outcome, Evaluating only a single outcome and deciding whether or not it is "average" is still doing an absolute evaluation and falling into the same trap. The actionable question is not, "How good of an outcome will I get if I do X?" It's "How will the outcome of doing X compare to the outcome of doing Y or Z instead?" I am in absolute terms a well below average medical practitioner. I haven't even taken a first aid class since I was a Boy Scout. Imagine I'm at the scene of a car crash and someone is bleeding out. Should I help? According to the philosophy "if I can't do something well I shouldn't do it at all", I should keep my hands clean. But if I'm the only person on the scene and they're about to die, trying a little direct pressure is better than nothing. My well-below-average in absolute terms medical care is the best choice because all of the other options are terrible. Maybe because we tend to be perfectionists, but I often see here on HN people completely underestimating how bad the alternative outcomes can be. Like they say about self-driving cars: the robot doesn't have to be perfect, just better than a human. You don't have to have the best solution, just the least bad one.
- ZephyrBlu 6y ago
  > According to the philosophy "if I can't do something well I shouldn't do it at all", I should keep my hands clean This is not what I meant. What I mean is if I am going to put effort into something I'm not going to accept being mediocre. There are plenty of things I suck at, and I'm fine with that because I put minimal effort into them. But I won't put 10% effort into 10 things because I know I'll never get good at any of them like that. I'd rather put all my energy into 2-3 things. If I'm to be a parent I want to be able to dedicate a lot of my energy towards it, not just the bare minimum (Which I understand is still a lot).

david-gpu 6y ago

Holding ourselves to impossibly high standards leads to dissatisfaction. Accepting that we will sometimes be mediocre at what we do and knowing that we will do better over time is a healthier alternative.

verisimilidude 6y ago
This is especially true when it comes to raising kids. Children have their own personalities. Some will be introverts and others will be party animals. Some will be quiet and others will make trouble. If a person goes into the job of parenthood with perfect preparation and explicit expectations, then failure is guaranteed. The best approach requires some level of improvisation; we learn each child’s tendencies, accept them for who they are, and try to mold them into the best versions of themselves. I don’t see a way to prepare for this.
- ZephyrBlu 6y ago
  I have no expectations of parenthood, but I want to be able to give my children (Assuming I have any) a large portion of my attention to try and nurture them as best as I can. That is what I mean by "doing it well" in terms of parenthood. This is partly driven by me viewing the education system as failing children, and also me wanting to try and impart more knowledge upon my children.
ZephyrBlu 6y ago
"Impossibly high standards" are different for every person. I fully expect to be mediocre at something when I start doing it, but I also expect to progress past being mediocre otherwise I see little point in doing that thing.

bigyikes 6y ago

I generally agree with your sentiment. However, I would say that this type of consideration is only useful when deciding to birth a child, not if you are considering adoption. In the latter case, the child is assumed to already exist in below-average circumstances.

munificent 6y ago

> sure you can settle for an around average outcome, Evaluating only a single outcome and deciding whether or not it is "average" is still doing an absolute evaluation and falling into the same trap. The actionable question is not, "How good of an outcome will I get if I do X?" It's "How will the outcome of doing X compare to the outcome of doing Y or Z instead?" I am in absolute terms a well below average medical practitioner. I haven't even taken a first aid class since I was a Boy Scout. Imagine I'm at the scene of a car crash and someone is bleeding out. Should I help? According to the philosophy "if I can't do something well I shouldn't do it at all", I should keep my hands clean. But if I'm the only person on the scene and they're about to die, trying a little direct pressure is better than nothing. My well-below-average in absolute terms medical care is the best choice because all of the other options are terrible. Maybe because we tend to be perfectionists, but I often see here on HN people completely underestimating how bad the alternative outcomes can be. Like they say about self-driving cars: the robot doesn't have to be perfect, just better than a human. You don't have to have the best solution, just the least bad one.

ZephyrBlu 6y ago
> According to the philosophy "if I can't do something well I shouldn't do it at all", I should keep my hands clean This is not what I meant. What I mean is if I am going to put effort into something I'm not going to accept being mediocre. There are plenty of things I suck at, and I'm fine with that because I put minimal effort into them. But I won't put 10% effort into 10 things because I know I'll never get good at any of them like that. I'd rather put all my energy into 2-3 things. If I'm to be a parent I want to be able to dedicate a lot of my energy towards it, not just the bare minimum (Which I understand is still a lot).