12 ms·

How to Be Useless

206 points by robtherobber 5y ago

akprasad 5y ago
One of the great joys of my freshman-year humanities sequence was reading the Zhuangzi, and I still have the book we used on my shelf. I'm not an expert of the Chinese of that era, but I've heard the original is extremely vibrant and playful, so choosing the right translation is critical if you're reading the text for the first time. Here's one of the more famous passages from the Zhuangzi as told in the translation we used (The Essential Chuang Tzu, by Sam Hamill and J. P. Seaton): > Long ago, Chuang Chou dreamed he was a butterfly fluttering among trees, doing as he pleased, completely unaware of a Chuang Chou. A sudden awakening, and there, looking a little out of sorts, was Chuang Chou. Now, I don't know whether it is Chou who dreamed he was a butterfly, or whether a butterfly dreams he's Chuang Chou. But between Chuang Chou and the butterfly, we ought to be able to find some sort of distinction. This is what's known as Things Changing.
- detinho 5y ago
  Reminded me of a song from Brazilian singer Raul Seixas "O conto do sábio chinês" (a tale about the wise Chinese)[0]. I stopped to actively search about the meaning / sources of many of his songs and let the dots connected naturally. Today one more line has formed. [0] https://youtu.be/9Co4ORFSBlQ https://youtu.be/9Co4ORFSBlQ
- jianshen 5y ago
  I'm really happy to see ZhuangZi show up on HN and a good reminder to go back and re-read his work from time to time.
  - akprasad 5y ago
    I decided to take you up on that vicariously and spent most of the evening reading my copy again. How refreshing it is! I'm sure you have your own copy, but here is my transcription of the story about Ting the cook from chapter 3: https://arunkprasad.com/log/ting-the-cook-from-the-zhuangzi/ https://arunkprasad.com/log/ting-the-cook-from-the-zhuangzi/
- hawksprite 5y ago
  Thanks for picking such a striding passage. I may would have otherwise passed it over.
  - akprasad 5y ago
    Here is another passage I love. I hope you enjoy it: https://arunkprasad.com/log/ting-the-cook-from-the-zhuangzi/ https://arunkprasad.com/log/ting-the-cook-from-the-zhuangzi/
somewhereoutth 5y ago
I suspect that there is a class of people who've long since mastered the art of being useless, and continue to enjoy the bounty that that brings. However they know this depends on the toil of others, and are reluctant to share that bounty. Hence the results focused 'meritocracy' that the rest of us have to put up with.
themodelplumber 5y ago
I admit that after reading, the "useless vs useful" framing comes off a bit like a false or maybe just unnecessary dichotomy. Maybe there's more to the idea than what was presented though. It reminded me of the film _About A Boy_ which tackles a really similar set of themes and also avoids this "be useful" trap by getting at something more like the "subjective value of heroism" or in other words the perceived value of helpful interpersonal connection--to the subject. In any case the theme is IMO naturally attractive to humans and is a key part of cultural narratives. The Uncle Ben story from Spider-Man--it's great to be a hero but what are the real dilemmas there, _and_ what do we make of them. Etc. Heading in this direction naturally confounds the idea of social boundaries a bit, which IMO is a really good conversation to be having these days, since boundary-setting, having shown so much therapeutic value, is a crucial concept to reconcile with a more boundary-opening approach. Not to criticize too harshly, but if the only tool we are considering is this useful/useless filter, the outcomes might be unnecessarily not-so-great, for both others and ourselves.
bjeds 5y ago
I'm noticing a sad trend recently. * This article is one instance. * Within the past 24 hours there was a Hacker News submission "Self-improvement is embracing your messy, imperfect life" ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29928873 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29928873 ) * Combine this with the sudden appearance of subreddit "Antiwork". Are people depressed or anxious because of covid, or what's wrong? Trying to be a better person every day, in combination with the wonder of creativity and building, is what made the internet interesting in the early days. Who are these people who are turning communities into sad opposites of these values?
- PinkMilkshake 5y ago
  I don't think so, but I could be wrong. Japanese-style Niito (NEET), Chinese Tang ping (lying flat) and now the Antiwork movement in the West. They all have a similar sentiment, that the promise of a better life through hard work is a lie. I think the pandemic just accelerated what was already underway.
- 7888290 5y ago
  You should also read "Bullshit Jobs" book. The very purposelessness of this system and the exploitation killed every ounce of creativity from many individuals. Antiwork is not fueled by lazy people - there's nothing wrong with that subreddit or this movement in general. Life just got dull and boring and the routine of being a purposeful pushed people to their limits because at the same time, they see a pandemic and the planet's destruction via climate change. And we support to support this? Trying to be a better person every day, wonder of creativity and building got destroyed by modern capitalism.
  - spaceisballer 5y ago
    On one hand I’m happy people are wising up about how they shouldn’t take all this crap from workplaces and bad managers. You deserve to be respected and compensated for your work and not abused. All of that is great. I just hope it spurs movement to better us all not just bitching and being shitty just because screw work.
lionhearted 5y ago
Respectfully, I spent a few years fascinated with Taoism and quite a bit of time studying it and reckon you probably get some wrong impressions from this article. The challenge in learning from the Taoist writers is that almost no one can read their original works directly any more — the writing was so long ago that most modern-day Chinese people can't read it directly from Ancient Chinese without translating into modern first. The language has evolved. That's before even getting into the challenge of learning in English or another language, since the works tend to have lots of metaphors and idioms and poetic language in them. In my case, I had a really cool opportunity to go through over a dozen translations of the Taoteching with copies of the translation from ancient Chinese into modern Chinese and a translator's attempt at an English translation with a Chinese friend who is a scholar of linguistics. It was really fun and insightful. That all said, I think Rosenthal's "The Tao Te Ching: An Introduction" is a wonderful starting place. http://enlight.lib.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-AN/an142304.pdf http://enlight.lib.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-AN/an142304.pdf Rosenthal takes the very terse, poetic, and metaphorical lines of Laozi and turns them into extended prose while keeping a lot of the aesthetics. Like so: > THE TAO AND ITS NAME > 1. Naming things enables us to differentiate between them, but names are words, and words easily give rise to confusion. They do not replace the thing or direct experience of the thing which they name, but only represent or describe it. (And then it goes deeper into explaining on that point.) At least in Rosenthal's case, his take is quite different than the professors who wrote this article: > KNOWLEDGE OF 'THE TAO', AND EXPERIENCE OF THE TAO. > There is a way in which we may conduct our lives without regrets, and in such a manner as assists in developing and realizing our individual potential, without harming others, or inhibiting the realization of their potential, and which is beneficial to a healthy society. > Such a way of life may of course be conducted without a name, and without description, but in order that others may know of it, and so as to distinguish it from other ways in which life may be conducted, we give it a name, and use words to describe it. And then, critically — > 2. LETTING GO OF OPPOSITES. > It is the nature of the ordinary person, the person who is not yet at one with the Tao, to compare the manifestations of the natural qualities possessed by things. Such a person tries to learn of such qualities by distinguishing between their manifestations, and so learns only of their comparative manifestations. > So it is that the ordinary person might consider one thing beautiful when compared with another which he considers to be ugly; one thing skillfully made compared with another which he considers badly made. He knows of what he has as a result of knowing what he does not have, and of that which he considers easy through that which he considers difficult. He considers one thing long by comparing it with another thing which he considers short; one thing high and another low. He knows of noise through silence and of silence through noise, and learns of that which leads through that which follows. > When such comparisons are made by a sage, that is a person who is in harmony with the Tao, that person is aware of making a judgement, and that judgements are relative to the person who makes them, and to the situation in which they are made, as much as they are relative to that which is judged. The interaction and fusion of Taoist and various other Chinese thought with Buddhism, attributed typically to Boddhidharma traveling from India to China, became the foundation of Chan Buddhism in China and later Zen Buddhism in Japan. I reckon most scholars and practitioners from the tradition wouldn't accept the useful/useless distinction as correct or as "Follow[ing] the Daoist way" - like, some nice ideas in the article, but both a false dichotomy and unfortunate dualism there.
halfnormalform 5y ago
The story isn’t about being a lazy mooch. It’s about realizing if you only view yourself in terms of your utility to others, you will be consumed for your usefulness. Don’t laugh but there’s an excellent comic book version of Zhuangzi’s writings: https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691008820/zhuangzi-speaks https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691008820/zh...
- throwaway_JiY4E 5y ago
  > if you only view yourself in terms of your utility to others, you will be consumed for your usefulness. I have seen what you say firsthand in myself over the years. Concepts about treating yourself like a business and over emphasizing your "brand" are part of this. I'm not demonizing those concepts, just they can be overdone or overemphasized.
  - gumby 5y ago
    Mistaking the path for the journey. (Or more prosaically, mistaking the how for the what or the process for the goal)
thenerdhead 5y ago
The smartest people in the workforce know this. They aren't useless. They are perfectly capable of accomplishment, but know that taking on more responsibilities or assisting will make them miserable in the long run. I've seen this with some of the highest ranking & paid engineers/PMs in big tech. I usually give the benefit of the doubt that everybody: 1. Has a sense of autonomy 2. Has a sense of competence 3. Has a sense of relatedness If at anytime any of these are put into jeopardy, a wonderful tactic is to "be useless". There's many bullshit jobs out there that use you and your abilities for the bullshit job holder's personal gain. This is one of the best tactics to take a stand for yourself in corporate America.
- yboris 5y ago
  I love CAR - Competence, Autonomy, Relatedness :D These three I think are the pillars to a happy job! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination_theory#Basic_psychological_needs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination_theory#Basi...
  - chrisweekly 5y ago
    Mastery, Autonomy, and Purpose were the three job satisfaction pillars in a popular RSAnimate whiteboard presentation video a few years ago... and it resonated with me (while feeling incomplete, given it omits social / interpersonal factors). EDIT: Found the video: https://youtu.be/u6XAPnuFjJc https://youtu.be/u6XAPnuFjJc
    - thenerdhead 5y ago
      Very interesting! I've also seen this in a number of books about raising kids. The Self-Driven Child recently was the one on my mind.
- PragmaticPulp 5y ago
  I see a lot of these comments on Reddit and HN recently, but I have no idea where all of these people are working that doesn't do any sort of performance management. Outside of maybe the biggest, oldest tech companies that have so much profit that nothing matters, companies really don't enjoy burning cash on useless headcount. It's hard to tell if they're even actually practicing what they preach, or if it's just a sort of escapist fiction. At every reasonably well-run company I've worked for, the "useless" people were steadily sifted out of the company, either through PIPs or routine layoffs. That doesn't mean you had to monotonically increase your workload forever until you were crushed, but it did mean that management routinely did basic performance management and would look deeper into people or groups that weren't really doing anything (including maintenance, upkeep, and routine tasks that don't necessarily involve new features). Another common technique is to periodically restructure and shuffle teams around. It may be easy for someone to wiggle into a position where they can be useless while fooling their manager, but it's much harder to maintain this state across multiple teams and even divisions.
yboris 5y ago
A related classic: In Praise of Idleness by Bertrand Russell https://harpers.org/archive/1932/10/in-praise-of-idleness/ https://harpers.org/archive/1932/10/in-praise-of-idleness/
- squam 5y ago
  Yeah, it was referenced in the article.
roeles 5y ago
There are people who easily interpret Taoism's themes such as goallessness and stories like these as idleness. I used to be one of those people. This might be in part due to the western translations of the Tao Te Ching. Recently I found a page by Derek Ling[1], which shifted my perspective. I now think the point is closer to _balance_ than idleness. When it comes to goals, it means that you can have them... but don't expect to reach them. Goals give direction to your efforts. But in order to avoid suffering when life inadvertently gets in the way, hold them loosely. The same goes for this story, I think. Not being useful is not going to get you anywhere, but being too useful isn't either. An informative comparison of Tao Te Ching translations can be found here[2]. It shows how differently the same verse has been interpreted by different people. [1] https://truetao.blogspot.com/2010/04/sage-has-no-goals.html https://truetao.blogspot.com/2010/04/sage-has-no-goals.html [2] https://ttc.tasuki.org/ https://ttc.tasuki.org/
- hinkley 5y ago
  Tao that can be spoken of is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal name. I think I learned more about eastern philosophy by taking a taichi class than I ever did reading about it or listening to lectures. Taichi is not Taoist but good luck finding a good instructor who never mentions it. I've never met a group of martial artists so unanimous about the idea that there are some things you cannot learn from a book or videos. Both assert that there are some things you can know that you cannot put into words. Western psychology is coming at this from the opposite direction: Intellectualizing won't fix all of your problems. But by god are we (especially CS folks) gonna die trying.
  - amelius 5y ago
    > Western psychology is coming at this from the opposite direction: Intellectualizing won't fix all of your problems. But by god are we (especially CS folks) gonna die trying. Most CS folks are just modern age plumbers, though, who love to think of themselves as intellectuals.
    - DarylZero 5y ago
air7 5y ago
Our "Be Productive or Feel Bad" predisposition is a very powerful meme (in the original sense of the word) in that it is very good for Society at the expense of the individual.
- geranim0 5y ago
  ... except that societies are made of individuals
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
notreallyserio 5y ago
> Framed in terms of today, we should not reduce ourselves to tools that serve others, or the economy, the greater good, or even our future selves (for example, the urge for young workers to work very hard to secure their future career). I'm trying not to be cynical but when I read this sort of advice I can't help but think "it's easy to say this, but we all need money, and life's costs tend to go up". It seems like a lot of the folks talking about living simply or with less anxiety, etc, are already wealthy (but of course that is selection bias). How do you reconcile the need for money with the need for youth to not secure their careers?
- LesZedCB 5y ago
  right to a dignified life instead of need for money. guaranteed basic necessities: housing, healthcare, education, food. this is the platform of antiwork. what future is a future defined by a career? that may be satisfying for some, but for many others, it's not what life's all about.
  - mlac 5y ago
    Everything you mentioned to provide a dignified life requires labor to produce. If you have enough people who don’t find building houses, studying medicine, researching, and farming to be what their life is about, then those resources become scarce and more expensive (basic supply and demand). And there is a scale of quality in all of those areas. There’s good food and bad food, cheap basic housing and nicer upgrades, good schools and bad schools with parents who don’t care about their kids’ education. The doctor who graduated at the bottom of his class and practices once a week is a doctor, but not as good as a the person who is the best in the world at neurosurgery. Resources are scarce, and there are not enough to go around, especially in a sustainable way, to provide what some would consider a “dignified” life, because some people view “dignified” as equal, and others view it at all different levels. Ask 10 people and you will have 10 definitions. Almost none of them will be sustainable for 7 Billion people. In fact, it would mean that the US drops its standard of living and starts providing charity to the rest of the world. But that charity would require work, which again “may not be satisfying for some or what they think life is about”, so good luck there. A future defined by a career is very dark if that career is not a vocation or if the person doesn’t view it as a vocation and has nothing else in their life. But I’d argue one doesn’t have to let their career define them (and if someone lets a minimum wage job define them, it’s not healthy. They should find other work that adds greater value to someone so that they can attain a level of income to support a life that they deem dignified. But that’s it, right? The pursuit of happiness is protected in the US, but not guaranteed. We can’t guarantee that, or some other vague changing metric, because when we deal with 300m people it’s very, very hard to come to an agreement. There will always be edge cases, disabilities, and people who truly need the governments support. But if someone is mentally and physically able to work and contribute to society, they should reap what they sow. I do think it’s governments’ role to make its best effort to put people in a position to contribute to society (through education opportunities) and to provide for those who aren’t expected to contribute (kids under 18) so that they can grow into contributing members of society. But at that point, it should be up to the individual to work to attain the level of wealth they want, without any guarantees of success. I guess safety nets could be a minimum standard of living, but those do exist to some extent (unemployment and one could argue bankruptcy is a reset for those with major financial issues). They are an insurance policy and can’t exist if everyone is using them at the same time.
dash2 5y ago
Here's a phrase I like: "the world has no contract with you."
windows2020 5y ago
Some people, in some way, thrive relaxing in the shade of a tree. But for some, such idleness kills their soul. I tend to enjoy challenging myself by attempting to overachieve. Sometimes it pays off, sometimes it doesn't, but each time, lessons are learned. Although, I've asked myself why I bother when something doesn't work out. Then, this article was shared with me: https://www.earlytorise.com/spend-more-time-with-this-destructive-person/ https://www.earlytorise.com/spend-more-time-with-this-destru... I think it's better to be conscious of these different perspectives, and tread between them as necessary.
absolutelymild 5y ago
I have a friend witch schizophrenia who’s never been a lot hold down a job. He always talks about the sense of shame he has for not contributing anything to society. I think the way we bind our identity to our productivity can be super destructive for those of us who are like Zhuangzi’s knotty tree.
hkon 5y ago
So who exactly was John Galt?
rramadass 5y ago
Relevant Reading; * Master of the Three Ways: Reflections of a Chinese Sage on Living a Satisfying Life AKA The Unencumbered Spirit: Reflections of a Chinese Sage AKA The Roots of Wisdom: Saikontan (Vegetable Roots Discourse) by Hung Yung-Ming translated by William Scott Wilson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caigentan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caigentan

206 points by robtherobber 5y ago

One of the great joys of my freshman-year humanities sequence was reading the Zhuangzi, and I still have the book we used on my shelf. I'm not an expert of the Chinese of that era, but I've heard the original is extremely vibrant and playful, so choosing the right translation is critical if you're reading the text for the first time. Here's one of the more famous passages from the Zhuangzi as told in the translation we used (The Essential Chuang Tzu, by Sam Hamill and J. P. Seaton): > Long ago, Chuang Chou dreamed he was a butterfly fluttering among trees, doing as he pleased, completely unaware of a Chuang Chou. A sudden awakening, and there, looking a little out of sorts, was Chuang Chou. Now, I don't know whether it is Chou who dreamed he was a butterfly, or whether a butterfly dreams he's Chuang Chou. But between Chuang Chou and the butterfly, we ought to be able to find some sort of distinction. This is what's known as Things Changing.

detinho 5y ago
Reminded me of a song from Brazilian singer Raul Seixas "O conto do sábio chinês" (a tale about the wise Chinese)[0]. I stopped to actively search about the meaning / sources of many of his songs and let the dots connected naturally. Today one more line has formed. [0] https://youtu.be/9Co4ORFSBlQ https://youtu.be/9Co4ORFSBlQ
jianshen 5y ago
I'm really happy to see ZhuangZi show up on HN and a good reminder to go back and re-read his work from time to time.
- akprasad 5y ago
  I decided to take you up on that vicariously and spent most of the evening reading my copy again. How refreshing it is! I'm sure you have your own copy, but here is my transcription of the story about Ting the cook from chapter 3: https://arunkprasad.com/log/ting-the-cook-from-the-zhuangzi/ https://arunkprasad.com/log/ting-the-cook-from-the-zhuangzi/
hawksprite 5y ago
Thanks for picking such a striding passage. I may would have otherwise passed it over.
- akprasad 5y ago
  Here is another passage I love. I hope you enjoy it: https://arunkprasad.com/log/ting-the-cook-from-the-zhuangzi/ https://arunkprasad.com/log/ting-the-cook-from-the-zhuangzi/

somewhereoutth 5y ago

I suspect that there is a class of people who've long since mastered the art of being useless, and continue to enjoy the bounty that that brings. However they know this depends on the toil of others, and are reluctant to share that bounty. Hence the results focused 'meritocracy' that the rest of us have to put up with.

themodelplumber 5y ago

I admit that after reading, the "useless vs useful" framing comes off a bit like a false or maybe just unnecessary dichotomy. Maybe there's more to the idea than what was presented though. It reminded me of the film _About A Boy_ which tackles a really similar set of themes and also avoids this "be useful" trap by getting at something more like the "subjective value of heroism" or in other words the perceived value of helpful interpersonal connection--to the subject. In any case the theme is IMO naturally attractive to humans and is a key part of cultural narratives. The Uncle Ben story from Spider-Man--it's great to be a hero but what are the real dilemmas there, _and_ what do we make of them. Etc. Heading in this direction naturally confounds the idea of social boundaries a bit, which IMO is a really good conversation to be having these days, since boundary-setting, having shown so much therapeutic value, is a crucial concept to reconcile with a more boundary-opening approach. Not to criticize too harshly, but if the only tool we are considering is this useful/useless filter, the outcomes might be unnecessarily not-so-great, for both others and ourselves.

bjeds 5y ago

I'm noticing a sad trend recently. * This article is one instance. * Within the past 24 hours there was a Hacker News submission "Self-improvement is embracing your messy, imperfect life" ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29928873 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29928873 ) * Combine this with the sudden appearance of subreddit "Antiwork". Are people depressed or anxious because of covid, or what's wrong? Trying to be a better person every day, in combination with the wonder of creativity and building, is what made the internet interesting in the early days. Who are these people who are turning communities into sad opposites of these values?

PinkMilkshake 5y ago
I don't think so, but I could be wrong. Japanese-style Niito (NEET), Chinese Tang ping (lying flat) and now the Antiwork movement in the West. They all have a similar sentiment, that the promise of a better life through hard work is a lie. I think the pandemic just accelerated what was already underway.
7888290 5y ago
You should also read "Bullshit Jobs" book. The very purposelessness of this system and the exploitation killed every ounce of creativity from many individuals. Antiwork is not fueled by lazy people - there's nothing wrong with that subreddit or this movement in general. Life just got dull and boring and the routine of being a purposeful pushed people to their limits because at the same time, they see a pandemic and the planet's destruction via climate change. And we support to support this? Trying to be a better person every day, wonder of creativity and building got destroyed by modern capitalism.
- spaceisballer 5y ago
  On one hand I’m happy people are wising up about how they shouldn’t take all this crap from workplaces and bad managers. You deserve to be respected and compensated for your work and not abused. All of that is great. I just hope it spurs movement to better us all not just bitching and being shitty just because screw work.

lionhearted 5y ago

Respectfully, I spent a few years fascinated with Taoism and quite a bit of time studying it and reckon you probably get some wrong impressions from this article. The challenge in learning from the Taoist writers is that almost no one can read their original works directly any more — the writing was so long ago that most modern-day Chinese people can't read it directly from Ancient Chinese without translating into modern first. The language has evolved. That's before even getting into the challenge of learning in English or another language, since the works tend to have lots of metaphors and idioms and poetic language in them. In my case, I had a really cool opportunity to go through over a dozen translations of the Taoteching with copies of the translation from ancient Chinese into modern Chinese and a translator's attempt at an English translation with a Chinese friend who is a scholar of linguistics. It was really fun and insightful. That all said, I think Rosenthal's "The Tao Te Ching: An Introduction" is a wonderful starting place. http://enlight.lib.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-AN/an142304.pdf http://enlight.lib.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-AN/an142304.pdf Rosenthal takes the very terse, poetic, and metaphorical lines of Laozi and turns them into extended prose while keeping a lot of the aesthetics. Like so: > THE TAO AND ITS NAME > 1. Naming things enables us to differentiate between them, but names are words, and words easily give rise to confusion. They do not replace the thing or direct experience of the thing which they name, but only represent or describe it. (And then it goes deeper into explaining on that point.) At least in Rosenthal's case, his take is quite different than the professors who wrote this article: > KNOWLEDGE OF 'THE TAO', AND EXPERIENCE OF THE TAO. > There is a way in which we may conduct our lives without regrets, and in such a manner as assists in developing and realizing our individual potential, without harming others, or inhibiting the realization of their potential, and which is beneficial to a healthy society. > Such a way of life may of course be conducted without a name, and without description, but in order that others may know of it, and so as to distinguish it from other ways in which life may be conducted, we give it a name, and use words to describe it. And then, critically — > 2. LETTING GO OF OPPOSITES. > It is the nature of the ordinary person, the person who is not yet at one with the Tao, to compare the manifestations of the natural qualities possessed by things. Such a person tries to learn of such qualities by distinguishing between their manifestations, and so learns only of their comparative manifestations. > So it is that the ordinary person might consider one thing beautiful when compared with another which he considers to be ugly; one thing skillfully made compared with another which he considers badly made. He knows of what he has as a result of knowing what he does not have, and of that which he considers easy through that which he considers difficult. He considers one thing long by comparing it with another thing which he considers short; one thing high and another low. He knows of noise through silence and of silence through noise, and learns of that which leads through that which follows. > When such comparisons are made by a sage, that is a person who is in harmony with the Tao, that person is aware of making a judgement, and that judgements are relative to the person who makes them, and to the situation in which they are made, as much as they are relative to that which is judged. The interaction and fusion of Taoist and various other Chinese thought with Buddhism, attributed typically to Boddhidharma traveling from India to China, became the foundation of Chan Buddhism in China and later Zen Buddhism in Japan. I reckon most scholars and practitioners from the tradition wouldn't accept the useful/useless distinction as correct or as "Follow[ing] the Daoist way" - like, some nice ideas in the article, but both a false dichotomy and unfortunate dualism there.

halfnormalform 5y ago

The story isn’t about being a lazy mooch. It’s about realizing if you only view yourself in terms of your utility to others, you will be consumed for your usefulness. Don’t laugh but there’s an excellent comic book version of Zhuangzi’s writings: https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691008820/zhuangzi-speaks https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691008820/zh...

throwaway_JiY4E 5y ago
> if you only view yourself in terms of your utility to others, you will be consumed for your usefulness. I have seen what you say firsthand in myself over the years. Concepts about treating yourself like a business and over emphasizing your "brand" are part of this. I'm not demonizing those concepts, just they can be overdone or overemphasized.
- gumby 5y ago
  Mistaking the path for the journey. (Or more prosaically, mistaking the how for the what or the process for the goal)

thenerdhead 5y ago

The smartest people in the workforce know this. They aren't useless. They are perfectly capable of accomplishment, but know that taking on more responsibilities or assisting will make them miserable in the long run. I've seen this with some of the highest ranking & paid engineers/PMs in big tech. I usually give the benefit of the doubt that everybody: 1. Has a sense of autonomy 2. Has a sense of competence 3. Has a sense of relatedness If at anytime any of these are put into jeopardy, a wonderful tactic is to "be useless". There's many bullshit jobs out there that use you and your abilities for the bullshit job holder's personal gain. This is one of the best tactics to take a stand for yourself in corporate America.

yboris 5y ago
I love CAR - Competence, Autonomy, Relatedness :D These three I think are the pillars to a happy job! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination_theory#Basic_psychological_needs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination_theory#Basi...
- chrisweekly 5y ago
  Mastery, Autonomy, and Purpose were the three job satisfaction pillars in a popular RSAnimate whiteboard presentation video a few years ago... and it resonated with me (while feeling incomplete, given it omits social / interpersonal factors). EDIT: Found the video: https://youtu.be/u6XAPnuFjJc https://youtu.be/u6XAPnuFjJc
  - thenerdhead 5y ago
    Very interesting! I've also seen this in a number of books about raising kids. The Self-Driven Child recently was the one on my mind.
PragmaticPulp 5y ago
I see a lot of these comments on Reddit and HN recently, but I have no idea where all of these people are working that doesn't do any sort of performance management. Outside of maybe the biggest, oldest tech companies that have so much profit that nothing matters, companies really don't enjoy burning cash on useless headcount. It's hard to tell if they're even actually practicing what they preach, or if it's just a sort of escapist fiction. At every reasonably well-run company I've worked for, the "useless" people were steadily sifted out of the company, either through PIPs or routine layoffs. That doesn't mean you had to monotonically increase your workload forever until you were crushed, but it did mean that management routinely did basic performance management and would look deeper into people or groups that weren't really doing anything (including maintenance, upkeep, and routine tasks that don't necessarily involve new features). Another common technique is to periodically restructure and shuffle teams around. It may be easy for someone to wiggle into a position where they can be useless while fooling their manager, but it's much harder to maintain this state across multiple teams and even divisions.

yboris 5y ago

A related classic: In Praise of Idleness by Bertrand Russell https://harpers.org/archive/1932/10/in-praise-of-idleness/ https://harpers.org/archive/1932/10/in-praise-of-idleness/

squam 5y ago
Yeah, it was referenced in the article.

roeles 5y ago

There are people who easily interpret Taoism's themes such as goallessness and stories like these as idleness. I used to be one of those people. This might be in part due to the western translations of the Tao Te Ching. Recently I found a page by Derek Ling[1], which shifted my perspective. I now think the point is closer to _balance_ than idleness. When it comes to goals, it means that you can have them... but don't expect to reach them. Goals give direction to your efforts. But in order to avoid suffering when life inadvertently gets in the way, hold them loosely. The same goes for this story, I think. Not being useful is not going to get you anywhere, but being too useful isn't either. An informative comparison of Tao Te Ching translations can be found here[2]. It shows how differently the same verse has been interpreted by different people. [1] https://truetao.blogspot.com/2010/04/sage-has-no-goals.html https://truetao.blogspot.com/2010/04/sage-has-no-goals.html [2] https://ttc.tasuki.org/ https://ttc.tasuki.org/

hinkley 5y ago
Tao that can be spoken of is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal name. I think I learned more about eastern philosophy by taking a taichi class than I ever did reading about it or listening to lectures. Taichi is not Taoist but good luck finding a good instructor who never mentions it. I've never met a group of martial artists so unanimous about the idea that there are some things you cannot learn from a book or videos. Both assert that there are some things you can know that you cannot put into words. Western psychology is coming at this from the opposite direction: Intellectualizing won't fix all of your problems. But by god are we (especially CS folks) gonna die trying.
- amelius 5y ago
  > Western psychology is coming at this from the opposite direction: Intellectualizing won't fix all of your problems. But by god are we (especially CS folks) gonna die trying. Most CS folks are just modern age plumbers, though, who love to think of themselves as intellectuals.
  - DarylZero 5y ago

air7 5y ago

Our "Be Productive or Feel Bad" predisposition is a very powerful meme (in the original sense of the word) in that it is very good for Society at the expense of the individual.

geranim0 5y ago
... except that societies are made of individuals
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

notreallyserio 5y ago

> Framed in terms of today, we should not reduce ourselves to tools that serve others, or the economy, the greater good, or even our future selves (for example, the urge for young workers to work very hard to secure their future career). I'm trying not to be cynical but when I read this sort of advice I can't help but think "it's easy to say this, but we all need money, and life's costs tend to go up". It seems like a lot of the folks talking about living simply or with less anxiety, etc, are already wealthy (but of course that is selection bias). How do you reconcile the need for money with the need for youth to not secure their careers?

LesZedCB 5y ago
right to a dignified life instead of need for money. guaranteed basic necessities: housing, healthcare, education, food. this is the platform of antiwork. what future is a future defined by a career? that may be satisfying for some, but for many others, it's not what life's all about.
- mlac 5y ago
  Everything you mentioned to provide a dignified life requires labor to produce. If you have enough people who don’t find building houses, studying medicine, researching, and farming to be what their life is about, then those resources become scarce and more expensive (basic supply and demand). And there is a scale of quality in all of those areas. There’s good food and bad food, cheap basic housing and nicer upgrades, good schools and bad schools with parents who don’t care about their kids’ education. The doctor who graduated at the bottom of his class and practices once a week is a doctor, but not as good as a the person who is the best in the world at neurosurgery. Resources are scarce, and there are not enough to go around, especially in a sustainable way, to provide what some would consider a “dignified” life, because some people view “dignified” as equal, and others view it at all different levels. Ask 10 people and you will have 10 definitions. Almost none of them will be sustainable for 7 Billion people. In fact, it would mean that the US drops its standard of living and starts providing charity to the rest of the world. But that charity would require work, which again “may not be satisfying for some or what they think life is about”, so good luck there. A future defined by a career is very dark if that career is not a vocation or if the person doesn’t view it as a vocation and has nothing else in their life. But I’d argue one doesn’t have to let their career define them (and if someone lets a minimum wage job define them, it’s not healthy. They should find other work that adds greater value to someone so that they can attain a level of income to support a life that they deem dignified. But that’s it, right? The pursuit of happiness is protected in the US, but not guaranteed. We can’t guarantee that, or some other vague changing metric, because when we deal with 300m people it’s very, very hard to come to an agreement. There will always be edge cases, disabilities, and people who truly need the governments support. But if someone is mentally and physically able to work and contribute to society, they should reap what they sow. I do think it’s governments’ role to make its best effort to put people in a position to contribute to society (through education opportunities) and to provide for those who aren’t expected to contribute (kids under 18) so that they can grow into contributing members of society. But at that point, it should be up to the individual to work to attain the level of wealth they want, without any guarantees of success. I guess safety nets could be a minimum standard of living, but those do exist to some extent (unemployment and one could argue bankruptcy is a reset for those with major financial issues). They are an insurance policy and can’t exist if everyone is using them at the same time.

dash2 5y ago

Here's a phrase I like: "the world has no contract with you."

windows2020 5y ago

Some people, in some way, thrive relaxing in the shade of a tree. But for some, such idleness kills their soul. I tend to enjoy challenging myself by attempting to overachieve. Sometimes it pays off, sometimes it doesn't, but each time, lessons are learned. Although, I've asked myself why I bother when something doesn't work out. Then, this article was shared with me: https://www.earlytorise.com/spend-more-time-with-this-destructive-person/ https://www.earlytorise.com/spend-more-time-with-this-destru... I think it's better to be conscious of these different perspectives, and tread between them as necessary.

absolutelymild 5y ago

I have a friend witch schizophrenia who’s never been a lot hold down a job. He always talks about the sense of shame he has for not contributing anything to society. I think the way we bind our identity to our productivity can be super destructive for those of us who are like Zhuangzi’s knotty tree.

hkon 5y ago

So who exactly was John Galt?

rramadass 5y ago

Relevant Reading; * Master of the Three Ways: Reflections of a Chinese Sage on Living a Satisfying Life AKA The Unencumbered Spirit: Reflections of a Chinese Sage AKA The Roots of Wisdom: Saikontan (Vegetable Roots Discourse) by Hung Yung-Ming translated by William Scott Wilson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caigentan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caigentan