Comment by johnwheeler | Hacker News Reader

Comment by johnwheeler | Hacker News Reader

This article hits home. Five years ago, I created a SaaS app that did well, followed by one that did less so, and another that flopped (all eBay selling software).

New projects weren't having as much an impact and making me feel good, so I sat around reading books.

A turning point came when I read two: Flow by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi and On Writing by Stephen King. The first teaches we get optimal experience out of what we spend our attention on. It really got me psyched about chasing that feeling of being in the zone with my work. On Writing did that too. I saw another HN poster refer to King's "blue collar work ethic" -- totally true. He works hard because he loves to.

I recently started working again for pleasure, less encumbered by insecurities. I'm still working on it, still practicing. I created an open source framework for Amazon Echo development, and it's starting to get some traction. I think I was able to produce the work to get the traction because I've had a clearer mind.

I'm struggling with this as well. Working for the sake of pleasure. It seems that I'm so fixated on how the end result will turn out that I've forgotten the joy of actually doing the work.

If you want a more sociological take on this, read "The Craftsman" by Richard Sennett.

Allow my to chime in w/ Steven Pressfield's "The War of Art" - same concept, framed in the term "the resistance".

On a slightly different wavelength, Peter Korn's "why we make things and why it matters" really hit home to me.

Looking back on it, how much of the problem was the segment you were working on (ebay, retail, auctions), versus the specific product itself (its design, upkeep, et al)? Were you able to narrow those types of factors down when it came to what was creating the negative feeling?

I know why I did well to start. I had low expectations and no basis for self-comparison. I focused on the work instead of the results, so the results ended up being pretty good.

> I know why I did well to start. I had low expectations and no basis for self-comparison.

This happens to everybody who achieves an initial "success":

- A band or artist that puts out a great first album or single that is well received and then struggles to write any more hits. These guys are called "one hit wonders" - what a horrible name for somebody who achieved success even if it was once!

- An entrepreneur who launches a successful first business, sells out for millions, and struggles to come up with an idea for a second business let alone execute and replicate the success of the first.

- The writer that has a successful first book but can't come up with a story line for a second.

I'd estimate 99% of people never have one "success", let alone repeatedly create successful things - it seems unfair your brain beat you up for not having replicated your first success. Glad to hear it's getting better.

Can be also luck on first try, while all subsequent attempts are "regression towards the mean" as Kahneman puts it.

However I agree with the idea that being motivated by the process of creation is more robust than being totally goal-oriented, especially when chance of achieving a goal is low and it may take many unsuccessful attempts before producing a hit.

I just got a library card .. you can guess what mindset I'm in. For a few times MOOCs managed to boost my confidence by allowing a bit of challenge and groupwork/competition. But that faded as I tried more abstract ones. Maybe I should use my new card to rent your books instead of Prolog/OCaml ones.

it depends on what you like to read. mihaly c. is a psychology professor, but very philosophical. i love his work. im reading creativity now.

The flip side of being in the flow is that you're not learning much (the task is literally so easy for you that you can lose yourself in it).

Not necessarily true. If the task is too easy then you will get bored fairly soon.

I know many grandmas that don't ever seem to get bored knitting :)

My understanding of flow is that it is triggered when the task is neither too easy or too hard. It's a sweet spot that maximizes your engagement with the task at hand.

Why can't so easy for you that you can lose yourself in it fall within neither too easy or too hard range?

Because it fails to emphasize that there is any difficulty at all.

Engagement != learning. If anything, I'd say engagement is closer corelated to output.

According to studies done on musical students (for what these studies are worth), the ones who practiced in "flow" progressed much slower than those who constantly and deliberately pushed themselves far outside their comfort zone.

I guess that's the point, to step back from the desire to always find something better. This somehow implies that you don't actively challenge yourself to learn new stuff. You could however learn new things nevertheless, but I guess the idea is not self-improvement, but getting at peace with yourself, and maybe also your limitations.

(Not advocating that, that's just how I would understand the concept)

Not at all. Flow is reached the moment I tackle a challenge that is just a bit above my skills. Then I learn. Learning something new does not have to be unpleasant. It is not easy to find the adequate challenge at each moment but it's possible and that's why some teachers, courses, books etc are much better than others.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com