Hacker News Reader

Comment by jondubois | Hacker News Reader

I think this is an inversion of cause and effect. The reality is much less inspiring; It's "What you achieve affects what you believe" not so much the other way around.

I know this for a fact because as I become more sceptical/pessimistic over time, my achievements increase. If I was a blind optimist, I would probably fail as soon as reality reared its ugly head.

If someone is really lucky throughout their lives, they will have an optimistic view about the world and the people around them.

Unfortunate people might find a statement like this offensive because they know for a fact (based on their own experiences) that this isn't true - It's almost like saying "It's your fault for being poor; it's all in your head!".

View on HN

I don't think this means an inversion

What comes first? - belief or achievement or self-confidence?

You won't achieve something if you don't believe in it. You just won't persevere and will give up or find workarounds.

But if you believe in it and keep failing consistently, your self-confidence will go down and so will your trust in self. It gets to that miserable "I'm no good" belief until one breaks out of that.

Once you achieve something, it will boost your self-confidence and trust in self will rise and your belief is validated. Then your belief will make you try more and achieve more. Sometimes it leads to overconfidence and bouts of overconfidence will break that trust within oneself - and we just need avoid getting into that downward spiral.

Many times "starters" define limits that are just self-imposed limits. People fall into the ugly 'I can't do that' loop without trying. And they have to be forcibly, inconveniently and painfully pushed out of that. This quote from Star Trek sounds so true "stallion has to be broken to reach it's potential"

I'm a pessimist but I don't believe that pessimism motivated achievements can make one happy unless it is a side-effect. Such achievements root from a negative inner rebellion behaviour. And if we aren't truly happy with those achievements, that makes us doubt and kill our own inner beliefs that led to those achievements. I'm not saying we should be a blind-optimist but stay close to reality.

My brother used to tell me that I need to hit rock bottom first before I will decide to activate the inner strength which is required to get up. I wasn't very successfull after receiving my "Higher School Certificate" because I started studying computer science but quit it after a year. I had no job, no money and I felt miserable. That's the point where I hit bottom and step by step I started to improve my situation.

I still don't see myself as successfull but I'm definitely grateful considering I picked up my first job as a frontend developer at the beginning of 2011 and after 3 companies, I'm working for a subsidiary of eBay in Germany since August 2014.

I apologize if telling a bit about myself is off topic but I think being successfull isn't just about the mindset but there are so many other factors. One of the most important ones is the willingness to take risks. I had a very comfortable job (before I joined eBay) but I realized that I won't be able to grow there at some point. A lot of people thought I was stupid because I quit my job. These are the same type of people who refuse to step out of their comfort zones.

I've read some interesting articles that suggest consciousness may actually be a parallel construction of the brain; the allusion of free will being constantly back-filled. If so, it would be the case that what you achieve effects what you believe quite literally.

Source?

Here's a famous paper on the subject. It's not a new paper, it's from 1977.

http://people.virginia.edu/~tdw/nisbett&wilson.pdf

In short, people often have no idea why they chose to do what they did. However, when asked, "why did you choose to do that?" they will rarely say, "I don't know" but will instead concoct stories that explain their choices -- explanations that are often wrong.

"but will instead concoct stories that explain their choices"

Piggybacking on SCHiM's comment, and changing "choices" to "beliefs", this is also something you will learn from looking at tribal societies (creation myths, etc).

Now I'm reminded of this clip from the Star Trek TNG episode Who Watches the Watchers (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uii5WrmChbE)

This is something you will hear from disinterested teens too when their teachers try to make them vocalize their opinions on some school subject:

Teacher: What did you think about <subject>

Teen: I think it's fun

Teacher: Why do you think it's 'fun', just saying it's 'fun' is not a valid opinion.

Teen: Because it engages my curiosity and I want to learn more about <subject>

Teacher: That's good, you shou...

Later you'll hear the pupil complaining, that such exercises are pointless, because the second clarification of the pupil's opinion is just as circular and empty as the initial declaration of 'fun'. You can play this game to infinity, and you will never get to the point that any words have any real intrinsic value.

If you find this subject interesting I'd like to suggest Sam Harris' "Free Will."

I'd rather suggest "Four Views on Free Will"[1], much more in touch with the state of the art and not difficult to read.

[1]: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1405134860

For those who don't want to drop $30 on a kindle book (don't feel bad, it's not really your choice) the Sam Harris YouTube video is pretty good and has nothing to do with his views on Islam(ism).

I don't think it's anyone's fault for starting out poor, or becoming poor from outside factors (war, medical condition, etc.)

But barring all those factors, if you don't make a deliberate choice to change something, the world around you will keep you down.

> if you don't make a deliberate choice to change something, the world around you will keep you down.

One of the problems is that usually poor people is a lot less educated. They don't event know the actual value of the knowledge that they lack. So it's quite easy that when they try to "improve" their situation they take ineffective or even harmful steps.

That's why education is so important for a well working society. It will give a more fair start to every one even if the resources that that people have are not fairly distributed. We tend to underestimate the value of our knowledge of the world that offers our cultural background.

In some places I know of, a lot of the poor are hostile towards education because they see it as a cultural affront to their values and self-sufficiency and as a form of counter-culture of sorts. This is something that Bill Gates may not have observed much in his travels because this is something I think may be perversely unique to the United States, but I have seen it for myself and it's one of the things that makes me wonder whether encouraging people to do anything beneficial is of value nor even a morally correct choice when they don't want help and would literally rather die than go to college or leave their impoverished communities in search of self improvement. These are areas where even public education is considered "brainwashing" and while maybe somewhat approaching cult-like societal tendencies they're still aware to a degree of what their situation is.

Yes, but you might try very hard and still not move up. It's debatable whether it's better to "Fail never having tried at all" versus "Fail having tried as hard as you could".

Trying hard does not guarantee success. But not trying at all does guarantee not-success.

Probably in developed countries, trying hard might be an option where in poverty means you most likely have cell phone, laptop and roof over your head. But in developing countries like India, where abject poverty its ugly head, the people even are not aware that there are opportunities which could enable them to move up. All they have time and energy to think about is how to get the next piece of meal for their family. This also partly due to social structure which is deliberately designed to keep them that way for the benefit of upper class people.

So what you're saying is that not trying hard will leave them starving, posdibly dead? Sounds like pretty strong incentive to try hard ...

Trying hard to get the next meal... If getting a meal is s being successful then I think we have very different definition of success.

Yes, we do. That's the whole point. You define what success means for you.

That's also why "what you believe shapes what you achieve".

> But not trying at all does guarantee not-success.

It might guarantee less pain.

Some kinds of success are achieved through not doing things. And then we get into the question of "to do" vs. "not to do".

Think of it as a function. Privilege ia the y-intercept, trying hard is the multiplier, doing are all the factors with an x, and success is your desired Y.

Solve the equation and voila. Doing can be negative if your desired Y goes in that direction from your y-intercept. Remember, you can also control which way axes point.

This can be a multivariate function/equation. It can also have multiple dimensions. The important part is that all of it is definable by you.

Your question is basically "should you bet or not?"

Said like that the answer becomes obvious: It varies from situation to situation. Some bets are good and some are bad.

You reminded me of this article[1] by Scott Adams, whereby, one should have a system rather than relying on passion.

Heck, there is even a slide[2] for this.

[1] http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240527023046261045791218...

[2] http://www.slideshare.net/Scottadams925/goals-are-for-losers...

One rule I really try to follow is "Always remember how stupid you are".

Yup, mine is similar, "Always remember your roots."

Success, of course, begets success. And vice versa.

That's kind of what this article was all about. That you can break through that barrier if you can understand what is shaping your thinking about how the world works.

Do you think it's possible you're conflating scepticism and pessimism with an increased understanding of how the world works? That is, with more experience?

I know I was very optimistic of life what I was in my 20s. Then, in my 30s, that optimism faded. Now, in my 40s, I've come to realize that I'm optimistic again, and I was just naive in my 20s. Perhaps this cycle will repeat or take a new form as I grow older. I'm kind of excited to see what happens.

Same here! I didn't start achieving until I started becoming skeptical, mostly about other things or people.

I am super optimistic about things that I control however.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com