6 ms·

Separate comment: this question is framed with a fixed mindset and an unhealthy sense of what self-discovery is.l You "are" "good at" nothing. You are not a b

Separate comment: this question is framed with a fixed mindset and an unhealthy sense of what self-discovery is.l You "are" "good at" nothing. You are not a block of marble with David inside, something to be chipped away at until it is apparent for all to see. You are a ball of clay, malleable, reshapable and shapeless, fluid and formed, able to absorb new bits and grow into something wildly different, day by day if needed. Try some growth mindset handbooks and techniques to reframe your thinking.

pr07ecH70r 4y ago
Thanks for the tip! Do you have any book suggestions from experience? Otherwise, I would randomly google and pick.
- cwb 4y ago
  Mindset by Carol Dweck (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/40745.Mindset https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/40745.Mindset) So Good They Can't Ignore You by Cal Newport (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13525945-so-good-they-can-t-ignore-you https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13525945-so-good-they-ca...)
- mightybyte 4y ago
  Can't Hurt Me by David Goggins (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/41721428-can-t-hurt-me https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/41721428-can-t-hurt-me) Also see my sibling comment above.
mightybyte 4y ago
I heard someone say once that one of the best things that helped them develop a growth mindset was lifting weights. Consistently doing 3x5 heavy squats, deadlifts, and presses just three days per week will make a visible change in most people's body remarkably quickly. And seeing that change in yourself really helps reinforce that you can change your situation. I thought that was an interesting observation but I'd like to suggest expanding it to physical activity in general rather than specifically powerlifting. There are many different activities (for example HIIT, martial arts, gymnastics, rock climbing just to name a few) that will make a significant physical change in your body. When you stick to one of those activities and document your progress with data, photos, etc there's something about seeing that change happen to the blob of matter that is "you" that really expands what you consider achievable for yourself.
- raspberry1337 4y ago
  >Consistently doing 3x5 heavy squats, deadlifts, and presses just three days per week As an armchair gymmer, this routine lacks pull exercises for back musculature. Add row pulls or pullups!
  - spit2wind 4y ago
    What about the deadlifts they mention? (Or maybe that wasn't present in their response at the time you wrote yours)
    - ex-leper 4y ago
      Deadlifts will hit most of the posterior chain, but to really grow thickness in the upper and mid back you'd need to add in heavy rows and/or pull-ups as OP mentioned.
      - decaffjoe 4y ago
        Might as well chime in with the basic back-of-a-napkin strength program -> One movement for: (1) vertical push, (2) vertical pull, (3) horizontal push, (4) horizontal pull, (5) glutes/"back of your legs", (6) quadriceps/"front of your legs". To beat the dead horse, deadlifts definitely involve pulling but it's primarily a glutes exercise. Adding in dedicated pulls like pullups and rows will give you a lot of bang for your buck.
        userlog4051 4y ago
        Well, if we're all chiming in: another requirement is a caloric surplus. Beginner gains are a real thing, but at a certain point (say 8-10 weeks) a caloric surplus will be required to continue seeing changes in strength and muscle mass. And that reminds me, the weights also need to get incrementally heavier.
        raspberry1337 4y ago
        This programme lacks core! You should have atleast (7) horizontal push (situps) (8) horizontal pull (back extensions)
mg 4y ago
While I agree with the statements in your answer, they are not the whole story. If the complete answer to "How to find what I am good at?" would be "You are a malleable ball of clay", then what? Go for whatever seems tempting? Go for becoming a rockstar? You might answer "If that is what you really want". Then we are back to OP's question. The shiny rockstar career might seem tempting for a few months or years. And then frustration kicks in like for 90% of wannabe rockstars. The question what path is the right one for a person is still legit.
- ambicapter 4y ago
  Although it is tough for an individual to find what they click with, it's even harder for a third party. So the only advice people can give you really IS "just try things until you find what works for you". I mean, it's doubtful that if you forced a person to try something new, they try something that they know they will absolutely hate. Also, "Be a rockstar" is not a smart goal to pursue (in that it has a high probability of failure), but playing an instrument with some level of mastery is. If you base your satisfaction on goals with a strong degree of randomness or innate ability to their achievement, you will probably be unsatisfied. Better to base goals on things you can (almost) fully control.
jstrebel 4y ago
That is a blatantly false answer. Of course, there is an ongoing debate about nature vs. nurture, which means that the genetic makeup of the individual strongly influences the individual's life. Look at musicality, look at sociopathy, look at general intelligence - all areas where genes exert their influence (as an example). So yes, you can try to grow around your talents, and develop strengths there. But by the same token, you should not try to grow in areas that you are not cut out for. No amount of whishful thinking or practice will turn me into a top-notch musician or singer, for example, as the genetic component is missing.
- afpx 4y ago
  How do you know that the genetic component is missing in you? Were both of your parents failed musicians?
  - jstrebel 4y ago
    No, they weren't. They had only little interest in anything musical. Why would you start as a musician (and then fail), if music does not interest you?
- lnwlebjel 4y ago
  Your response carries much too much confidence. There is no debate any longer - the story is pretty well worked out [1][2]. Nature only gets you so far. See for example how much top pro golfers practice (or musicians, or whatever ..). (Not that it matters but I learned this late in life and was able to apply the knowledge to make it near the top of my admittedly very narrow field). Sure, at the top 0.1%, maybe even 1%, your nature really matters, but you still need to practice. You, meaning anyone, could probably practice hard and join the upper x% of just about anything (setting aside things like the NBA that overvalue nature). What x is, well that is subject to debate. So is the source of motivation, and that is almost the most important thing. [1] Peak, by K. Anders Ericsson and Robert Pool [2] talent code, by Daniel Coyle
  - scarface74 4y ago
lucideer 4y ago
Agree with sibling commenters here critiquing this for being an oversimplification- nature vs nurture is not a binary. But even aside from the core of the argument, I find your phraseology oddly formulaic. It's ironic you're accusing the OP of having a "fixed mindset" when so much of your contributed "opinion" is clearly copypasted from books. I'd suggest opening your own mindset to forming a worldview of your own rather than following growth gurus so blindly.
- robertlagrant 4y ago
  Phrasing and mindset aren't the same.
  - roey2009 4y ago
    They are more indicative of one another, than a direct analogy. Whether you blame another, view some traits as faults, idolise some concept or are blind to some thing, all are appearant in your writing and speech.
    - robertlagrant 4y ago
      You're overreading into a message typed into a forum. I've noticed mistakes in your post, but I don't then assume you're careless in every aspect. You could just be having a bad day, or English could be a second language. I don't know, so I don't assume.
  - lucideer 4y ago
    True and fair. My observations may be misguided- I thought them appropriate to voice regardless purely in the context of the condescending & ironic nature of the observations the gp made about the op.
- kthejoker2 4y ago
  Thanks for the patented HN contrarian view! :) It's true, comment boards reward the "oddly formulaic" - cliches and well-worn passages carry extra weight. They also lead to weird leaps of illogic, like your assumption I follow any growth gurus at all! Happy to have a longer conversation offline if you'd rather address a man instead of a strawman.

pr07ecH70r 4y ago

Thanks for the tip! Do you have any book suggestions from experience? Otherwise, I would randomly google and pick.

cwb 4y ago
Mindset by Carol Dweck (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/40745.Mindset https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/40745.Mindset) So Good They Can't Ignore You by Cal Newport (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13525945-so-good-they-can-t-ignore-you https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13525945-so-good-they-ca...)
mightybyte 4y ago
Can't Hurt Me by David Goggins (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/41721428-can-t-hurt-me https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/41721428-can-t-hurt-me) Also see my sibling comment above.

mightybyte 4y ago

I heard someone say once that one of the best things that helped them develop a growth mindset was lifting weights. Consistently doing 3x5 heavy squats, deadlifts, and presses just three days per week will make a visible change in most people's body remarkably quickly. And seeing that change in yourself really helps reinforce that you can change your situation. I thought that was an interesting observation but I'd like to suggest expanding it to physical activity in general rather than specifically powerlifting. There are many different activities (for example HIIT, martial arts, gymnastics, rock climbing just to name a few) that will make a significant physical change in your body. When you stick to one of those activities and document your progress with data, photos, etc there's something about seeing that change happen to the blob of matter that is "you" that really expands what you consider achievable for yourself.

raspberry1337 4y ago
>Consistently doing 3x5 heavy squats, deadlifts, and presses just three days per week As an armchair gymmer, this routine lacks pull exercises for back musculature. Add row pulls or pullups!
- spit2wind 4y ago
  What about the deadlifts they mention? (Or maybe that wasn't present in their response at the time you wrote yours)
  - ex-leper 4y ago
    Deadlifts will hit most of the posterior chain, but to really grow thickness in the upper and mid back you'd need to add in heavy rows and/or pull-ups as OP mentioned.
    - decaffjoe 4y ago
      Might as well chime in with the basic back-of-a-napkin strength program -> One movement for: (1) vertical push, (2) vertical pull, (3) horizontal push, (4) horizontal pull, (5) glutes/"back of your legs", (6) quadriceps/"front of your legs". To beat the dead horse, deadlifts definitely involve pulling but it's primarily a glutes exercise. Adding in dedicated pulls like pullups and rows will give you a lot of bang for your buck.
      - userlog4051 4y ago
        Well, if we're all chiming in: another requirement is a caloric surplus. Beginner gains are a real thing, but at a certain point (say 8-10 weeks) a caloric surplus will be required to continue seeing changes in strength and muscle mass. And that reminds me, the weights also need to get incrementally heavier.
      - raspberry1337 4y ago
        This programme lacks core! You should have atleast (7) horizontal push (situps) (8) horizontal pull (back extensions)

mg 4y ago

While I agree with the statements in your answer, they are not the whole story. If the complete answer to "How to find what I am good at?" would be "You are a malleable ball of clay", then what? Go for whatever seems tempting? Go for becoming a rockstar? You might answer "If that is what you really want". Then we are back to OP's question. The shiny rockstar career might seem tempting for a few months or years. And then frustration kicks in like for 90% of wannabe rockstars. The question what path is the right one for a person is still legit.

ambicapter 4y ago
Although it is tough for an individual to find what they click with, it's even harder for a third party. So the only advice people can give you really IS "just try things until you find what works for you". I mean, it's doubtful that if you forced a person to try something new, they try something that they know they will absolutely hate. Also, "Be a rockstar" is not a smart goal to pursue (in that it has a high probability of failure), but playing an instrument with some level of mastery is. If you base your satisfaction on goals with a strong degree of randomness or innate ability to their achievement, you will probably be unsatisfied. Better to base goals on things you can (almost) fully control.

jstrebel 4y ago

That is a blatantly false answer. Of course, there is an ongoing debate about nature vs. nurture, which means that the genetic makeup of the individual strongly influences the individual's life. Look at musicality, look at sociopathy, look at general intelligence - all areas where genes exert their influence (as an example). So yes, you can try to grow around your talents, and develop strengths there. But by the same token, you should not try to grow in areas that you are not cut out for. No amount of whishful thinking or practice will turn me into a top-notch musician or singer, for example, as the genetic component is missing.

afpx 4y ago
How do you know that the genetic component is missing in you? Were both of your parents failed musicians?
- jstrebel 4y ago
  No, they weren't. They had only little interest in anything musical. Why would you start as a musician (and then fail), if music does not interest you?
lnwlebjel 4y ago
Your response carries much too much confidence. There is no debate any longer - the story is pretty well worked out [1][2]. Nature only gets you so far. See for example how much top pro golfers practice (or musicians, or whatever ..). (Not that it matters but I learned this late in life and was able to apply the knowledge to make it near the top of my admittedly very narrow field). Sure, at the top 0.1%, maybe even 1%, your nature really matters, but you still need to practice. You, meaning anyone, could probably practice hard and join the upper x% of just about anything (setting aside things like the NBA that overvalue nature). What x is, well that is subject to debate. So is the source of motivation, and that is almost the most important thing. [1] Peak, by K. Anders Ericsson and Robert Pool [2] talent code, by Daniel Coyle
- scarface74 4y ago

lucideer 4y ago

Agree with sibling commenters here critiquing this for being an oversimplification- nature vs nurture is not a binary. But even aside from the core of the argument, I find your phraseology oddly formulaic. It's ironic you're accusing the OP of having a "fixed mindset" when so much of your contributed "opinion" is clearly copypasted from books. I'd suggest opening your own mindset to forming a worldview of your own rather than following growth gurus so blindly.

robertlagrant 4y ago
Phrasing and mindset aren't the same.
- roey2009 4y ago
  They are more indicative of one another, than a direct analogy. Whether you blame another, view some traits as faults, idolise some concept or are blind to some thing, all are appearant in your writing and speech.
  - robertlagrant 4y ago
    You're overreading into a message typed into a forum. I've noticed mistakes in your post, but I don't then assume you're careless in every aspect. You could just be having a bad day, or English could be a second language. I don't know, so I don't assume.
- lucideer 4y ago
  True and fair. My observations may be misguided- I thought them appropriate to voice regardless purely in the context of the condescending & ironic nature of the observations the gp made about the op.
kthejoker2 4y ago
Thanks for the patented HN contrarian view! :) It's true, comment boards reward the "oddly formulaic" - cliches and well-worn passages carry extra weight. They also lead to weird leaps of illogic, like your assumption I follow any growth gurus at all! Happy to have a longer conversation offline if you'd rather address a man instead of a strawman.