4 ms·

My reply to another similar comment: I think there must be some misunderstanding. My point is that everyone will have to deal with not being the best. For the

My reply to another similar comment: I think there must be some misunderstanding. My point is that everyone will have to deal with not being the best. For the vast majority of people being the best at anything is out of the question, regardless of effort or focus. Even if you are one of the lucky few who can be "the best", it'll only be for a moment in time. All of us age and our capacities fade. Then you're left dealing with the additional burden of having once kissed the sky and now being earthbound like the rest of us. The whole point of the philosophy is finding something else to focus on other than the (true but depressing) objective rank-ordering of you among your peers. Leaderboards are useless to all but a chosen few. However, everyone (even the ones that will place on the top of the leaderboards) can benefit from taking their focus off the leaderboard and putting it on their own process and effort (in some sense replacing the comparison to others with a comparison to their yester-selves).

cousin_it 5y ago
I think focusing on the process of self-improvement is still focusing on success in disguise. The root problem is that Western culture ties happiness to success instead of community, and it's hard to shake off (despite the obvious misery it causes) because everyone around still expects you to follow it.
- biren34 5y ago
  I 100% believe in "success" and the will to power--and I want my kids to succeed, full stop. I make no excuses. It's part of my value system, and I don't hide from it. I'm a second generation immigrant, and on my visits back to India, I've seen what real poverty looks like. I don't mean any offense in this, but here it is as plainly as I can say: The idea that "success" isn't crucially important in life is just wrong. I see it as coming from a softness that I associate with participation trophies and the general wimpification of America. I very much ascribe to G. Michael Hopf's philosophy of “Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.” The ability to succeed is essential. It's the ability set a goal and accomplish it. That ability is totally separate from the nature of the goal. That goal can be making a billion dollars or it can be building a neighborhood community group. If I had to guess--and I don't know you well enough to do anything but guess--you're confusing America's value of extreme individualism and a proper focus on internal control and self-improvement in order to be able to succeed.
ganafagol 5y ago
So you're replacing an external leaderboard with an internal leaderboard. With different versions of yourself on it. That's arguably worse than competing with other people, because with other people there is always the excuse of different contexts and conditions, while with yourself it's only you to blame if you don't come up on top. Which, coincidentally, is what the original article is about. I suggest a reread and a bit of meditation about it.
- biren34 5y ago
  First, I'm not looking for excuses for poor performance, and I don't want my kids doing that either. You screw up then own it. It's okay. You don't have to be perfect, no one is. But don't be a coward and hide from your own limitations. Second, I think you're glossing over the part about process-oriented goals. If one stays stuck on results-oriented goals, then your comment is pretty much on point. It doesn't matter who I'm competing with, I'll have bad days. But with process-oriented goals, the focus switches how you do what you're doing, and that's something purely in your control. To put it in exercise terms, you won't always be able to lift more than you did yesterday or run faster than you did 5 years ago--but you can always actually get off the coach and do it, you can always focus on your form, you can always push for that last rep or work hard into the last sprint. It's really about an internal focus PLUS a process-oriented approach. Not just one or the other.
  - loopz 5y ago
    You first need to follow their process. You realize, it's not working, following what others recommend for you. So you follow your process. You realize, your process is shit too, but you can at least amend it. You iterate on this, until you reach the center, where you give up. You follow NO-PROCESS. You retreat, from the world, into yourself. Into yourself, from the world, you don't, follow, you lead, yourself. You struggle to lead, others. That fails. So you continue. Not because virtue. Not because vice. You need to be of service, to make money, to survive, you need others. You find relation, a straw. Years pass. Decades pass. Are you here yet? You have a, silent voice, only few can hear. Every word counts, 10 and 20 times. Only then it can matter, more than the noise pollution around. Whispering. You tend to people who seek the better, version of themselves, the unborn you can show them. It's impossible. So you do it today. Every day. For the rest of days.
frereubu 5y ago
It feels like the leaderboard is still very present for you because of the huge effort and drive you're putting into ignoring it. At least that's the way it comes across to me in your comment. I think the core point of the article is to be a bit more Zen about it, and behave as if it doesn't exist. Moreover, I don't really think any "objective rank-ordering of you among your peers", which you seem to think does exist in a very real way, is actually meaningful. Perhaps an extension of the post would be that anything you can objectively rank yourself on is going to be a very narrow, unhelpful thing to consider.
- biren34 5y ago
  First, ambitious people will find ways to figure out if they're succeeding. There are good ways and bad ways. Second, objective rank ordering does exist. You can deny it or dismiss it, but it's there: - Who's fitter? - Who's prettier? - Who can run/swim/bike farther? - Who makes more money? - Who got in to a "better" school / got the better job / got promoted faster? - Who's got more friends? Then, the biggest zinger of them of all: who has more status? Humans may never know the entire leaderboard, but we're exceeding good at knowing our local neighborhood on these kinds of ordering systems. You can say that these things "don't matter", but to a vast fraction of humanity, they do matter. And as social animals, I'd argue that humans are more or less programmed to care about these things. Maybe not everyone, but imo, social status is core driver of human behavior, just like hunger and sex. And status is all about rank ordering.
  - frereubu 5y ago
    We're talking at cross-purposes. I don't really have much of an argument with what you're saying, but again, the idea of the post is that it's better if you can find a way not to do that at all. It's hard, and can take years, but it can be done.
mewpmewp2 5y ago
I disagree about ignoring the leaderboards. Rather than ignoring it, accept the fact that you are not the best. By ignoring the leaderboard you will have no clue if you are improving or not. The only way to know that for sure is to see how you compare to others. For instance I took up chess, and I can easily see if I improve when my ELO rises. If I didn't have ELO or leaderboards, I'd have no idea. I can never judge my improvement accurately if I can't compare it with others. And I'd rather say I'm strong enough to be okay with not being the best, as opposed to having to pretend that others and leaderboards don't exist. It seems like this strategy to not compare oneself to others is just turning your head to an issue, because you can't handle it.
- biren34 5y ago
  There's a very subtle distinction here, and you're right, I didn't articulate it well. I'm not advocating ignoring the leaderboards (especially for things like chess where they're essential to determining skill). But you don't focus on the leaderboard. It's not the center of your world--just one data point in a complex web of feedback. To take the chess example, sitting there and saying "I'm 1063rd and I want to be better" is barely a start. You have to do a lot of evaluation of your internal strengths and weaknesses as a chess player: do you get bored/hyperaggressive? Do you get too cautious? Do you lose focus after X hours? Then address those with a process in order to move up on the leaderboard. If you define "success" as executing that process, as opposed to winning the game, that's the ticket to both feeling good about yourself regardless of the result AND winning more games over time.

cousin_it 5y ago

I think focusing on the process of self-improvement is still focusing on success in disguise. The root problem is that Western culture ties happiness to success instead of community, and it's hard to shake off (despite the obvious misery it causes) because everyone around still expects you to follow it.

biren34 5y ago
I 100% believe in "success" and the will to power--and I want my kids to succeed, full stop. I make no excuses. It's part of my value system, and I don't hide from it. I'm a second generation immigrant, and on my visits back to India, I've seen what real poverty looks like. I don't mean any offense in this, but here it is as plainly as I can say: The idea that "success" isn't crucially important in life is just wrong. I see it as coming from a softness that I associate with participation trophies and the general wimpification of America. I very much ascribe to G. Michael Hopf's philosophy of “Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.” The ability to succeed is essential. It's the ability set a goal and accomplish it. That ability is totally separate from the nature of the goal. That goal can be making a billion dollars or it can be building a neighborhood community group. If I had to guess--and I don't know you well enough to do anything but guess--you're confusing America's value of extreme individualism and a proper focus on internal control and self-improvement in order to be able to succeed.

ganafagol 5y ago

So you're replacing an external leaderboard with an internal leaderboard. With different versions of yourself on it. That's arguably worse than competing with other people, because with other people there is always the excuse of different contexts and conditions, while with yourself it's only you to blame if you don't come up on top. Which, coincidentally, is what the original article is about. I suggest a reread and a bit of meditation about it.

biren34 5y ago
First, I'm not looking for excuses for poor performance, and I don't want my kids doing that either. You screw up then own it. It's okay. You don't have to be perfect, no one is. But don't be a coward and hide from your own limitations. Second, I think you're glossing over the part about process-oriented goals. If one stays stuck on results-oriented goals, then your comment is pretty much on point. It doesn't matter who I'm competing with, I'll have bad days. But with process-oriented goals, the focus switches how you do what you're doing, and that's something purely in your control. To put it in exercise terms, you won't always be able to lift more than you did yesterday or run faster than you did 5 years ago--but you can always actually get off the coach and do it, you can always focus on your form, you can always push for that last rep or work hard into the last sprint. It's really about an internal focus PLUS a process-oriented approach. Not just one or the other.
- loopz 5y ago
  You first need to follow their process. You realize, it's not working, following what others recommend for you. So you follow your process. You realize, your process is shit too, but you can at least amend it. You iterate on this, until you reach the center, where you give up. You follow NO-PROCESS. You retreat, from the world, into yourself. Into yourself, from the world, you don't, follow, you lead, yourself. You struggle to lead, others. That fails. So you continue. Not because virtue. Not because vice. You need to be of service, to make money, to survive, you need others. You find relation, a straw. Years pass. Decades pass. Are you here yet? You have a, silent voice, only few can hear. Every word counts, 10 and 20 times. Only then it can matter, more than the noise pollution around. Whispering. You tend to people who seek the better, version of themselves, the unborn you can show them. It's impossible. So you do it today. Every day. For the rest of days.

frereubu 5y ago

It feels like the leaderboard is still very present for you because of the huge effort and drive you're putting into ignoring it. At least that's the way it comes across to me in your comment. I think the core point of the article is to be a bit more Zen about it, and behave as if it doesn't exist. Moreover, I don't really think any "objective rank-ordering of you among your peers", which you seem to think does exist in a very real way, is actually meaningful. Perhaps an extension of the post would be that anything you can objectively rank yourself on is going to be a very narrow, unhelpful thing to consider.

biren34 5y ago
First, ambitious people will find ways to figure out if they're succeeding. There are good ways and bad ways. Second, objective rank ordering does exist. You can deny it or dismiss it, but it's there: - Who's fitter? - Who's prettier? - Who can run/swim/bike farther? - Who makes more money? - Who got in to a "better" school / got the better job / got promoted faster? - Who's got more friends? Then, the biggest zinger of them of all: who has more status? Humans may never know the entire leaderboard, but we're exceeding good at knowing our local neighborhood on these kinds of ordering systems. You can say that these things "don't matter", but to a vast fraction of humanity, they do matter. And as social animals, I'd argue that humans are more or less programmed to care about these things. Maybe not everyone, but imo, social status is core driver of human behavior, just like hunger and sex. And status is all about rank ordering.
- frereubu 5y ago
  We're talking at cross-purposes. I don't really have much of an argument with what you're saying, but again, the idea of the post is that it's better if you can find a way not to do that at all. It's hard, and can take years, but it can be done.

mewpmewp2 5y ago

I disagree about ignoring the leaderboards. Rather than ignoring it, accept the fact that you are not the best. By ignoring the leaderboard you will have no clue if you are improving or not. The only way to know that for sure is to see how you compare to others. For instance I took up chess, and I can easily see if I improve when my ELO rises. If I didn't have ELO or leaderboards, I'd have no idea. I can never judge my improvement accurately if I can't compare it with others. And I'd rather say I'm strong enough to be okay with not being the best, as opposed to having to pretend that others and leaderboards don't exist. It seems like this strategy to not compare oneself to others is just turning your head to an issue, because you can't handle it.

biren34 5y ago
There's a very subtle distinction here, and you're right, I didn't articulate it well. I'm not advocating ignoring the leaderboards (especially for things like chess where they're essential to determining skill). But you don't focus on the leaderboard. It's not the center of your world--just one data point in a complex web of feedback. To take the chess example, sitting there and saying "I'm 1063rd and I want to be better" is barely a start. You have to do a lot of evaluation of your internal strengths and weaknesses as a chess player: do you get bored/hyperaggressive? Do you get too cautious? Do you lose focus after X hours? Then address those with a process in order to move up on the leaderboard. If you define "success" as executing that process, as opposed to winning the game, that's the ticket to both feeling good about yourself regardless of the result AND winning more games over time.