2 ms·

> If by "modesty" you mean keeping your work unpublished, or presenting yourself as worse than you are, that's neither a useful nor a desirable quality. To be

> If by "modesty" you mean keeping your work unpublished, or presenting yourself as worse than you are, that's neither a useful nor a desirable quality. To be fair, historically the entire point of modesty was to present yourself as worse than you are (historically this was done with attractiveness specifically). Has modesty taken on a new definition where it means simply not bragging? I honestly wasn't aware.

JoshTriplett 5y ago
I don't see much value in arguing over the definition or intepretation of the word "modesty", beyond the degree to which that started this subthread in the first place. I'm suggesting that either you can interpret modesty as a positive trait (moderation, unpretentiousness) that is perfectly compatible with what this article suggests, or you can interpret it as a negative trait, or you can interpret it as an entirely unrelated trait. But anything that suggests you shouldn't publish your work is unhelpful and not something to admire or aspire to.
- tolbish 5y ago
  In reality, modesty is not used in the way you say it is. You call someone modest when it is a slightly negative trait. You would otherwise call them unpretentious or humble. Posting on GitHub and having a decent internet presence seems like something a humble person may do, not something a modest person may do. A modest person would have all of their code on private servers, or would have nothing impressive associated with their public/resume persona.
  - JoshTriplett 5y ago
    That's exactly the point I'm getting at: to the extent modesty is incompatible with publishing your work, it's not a positive trait, and nobody should lament it "going the way of the dodo". (I was, earlier in the thread, attempting to find a charitable interpretation of modesty that was compatible.)
aethertron 5y ago
>historically this was done with attractiveness specifically And money. Mostly money, at some times and places. Many examples of ostentatious displays of wealth being discouraged or forbidden. Lots of good reasons for that, social and individual. e.g. 1 Timothy 2:9.

JoshTriplett 5y ago

I don't see much value in arguing over the definition or intepretation of the word "modesty", beyond the degree to which that started this subthread in the first place. I'm suggesting that either you can interpret modesty as a positive trait (moderation, unpretentiousness) that is perfectly compatible with what this article suggests, or you can interpret it as a negative trait, or you can interpret it as an entirely unrelated trait. But anything that suggests you shouldn't publish your work is unhelpful and not something to admire or aspire to.

tolbish 5y ago
In reality, modesty is not used in the way you say it is. You call someone modest when it is a slightly negative trait. You would otherwise call them unpretentious or humble. Posting on GitHub and having a decent internet presence seems like something a humble person may do, not something a modest person may do. A modest person would have all of their code on private servers, or would have nothing impressive associated with their public/resume persona.
- JoshTriplett 5y ago
  That's exactly the point I'm getting at: to the extent modesty is incompatible with publishing your work, it's not a positive trait, and nobody should lament it "going the way of the dodo". (I was, earlier in the thread, attempting to find a charitable interpretation of modesty that was compatible.)

aethertron 5y ago

>historically this was done with attractiveness specifically And money. Mostly money, at some times and places. Many examples of ostentatious displays of wealth being discouraged or forbidden. Lots of good reasons for that, social and individual. e.g. 1 Timothy 2:9.