Hacker News Reader

Comment by sixhobbits | Hacker News Reader

"Mediocrity" is such an ill-defined concept. As you advance out of being mediocre, the pool of people you compare yourself to gets smaller, and you still end up feeling mediocre. When you get to Elon Musk levels, I would assume you switch from comparing yourself to those you know and instead compare yourself to historical figures (e.g. Henry Ford) and perhaps still feel mediocre.

Then add in the Dunning-Kruger effect (the real one, not the popular misinterpretation of "you're so dumb that you think you're smart") and judging what exactly mediocre means becomes even more difficult.

But in the end, sure you can convince yourself that the negative feeling of not achieving as much as you might have been able to isn't worth losing sleep over, and you might end up 'happier'. You can also try to leverage the feeling to stop yourself from wasting those 50+ hours rewatching Game of Thrones and instead putting that time into becoming more like someone who you perceive as being less mediocre than yourself.

View on HN

Mediocrity is an illusion. Elon Musk "level" is an illusion. Musk for example, is a great entrepreneur but just an average (maybe mediocre?) husband: had two wives, divorced three times from the same, is that even possible?

Now do i think he is mediocre? No way! Even as a husband only him can tell that, maybe not even his wives. Nobody know how hard it was for him to be in a marriage, or even get to marriage in the first place.

Take again an small entrepreneur from Brazil, India or Africa in a small village. Are they mediocre? Sure, low money, not visible for the world, no New York Times covers.

But how hard it really is to be a entrepreneur when all the education you had when you was a kid was how to ask for money in the streets?

There's no mediocrity there's just this illusion created by the very riches and powerful to make even more money, to create a crazy game to make us feel bad and always keep charging for the carrot.

In the end of the day, it's your job to respect everyone limitations, including yours, and never judge the guys next to you as mediocre, or yourself. You may not get in the history books, but a lot of people around you that need you and your "mediocrity" wont read then anyway.

> In the end of the day, it's your job to respect everyone limitations, including yours, and never judge the guys next to you as mediocre, or yourself. You may not get in the history books, but a lot of people around you that need you and your "mediocrity" wont ready then anyway.

History books are way overrated. I can name like 3 Roman emperors, one of them is famous for being killed. And those dudes are about on top of the world as you can get.

Not to mention that no reputation ever will last for anything but an instant on a cosmological scale.

I find this viewpoint too narrow. Just because you can name only 3 Roman emperors does not diminish or impair their 'greatness' of the rest.

There's reality, and there's the interpretation of reality. Reality is the location of atoms. It's the hard cold facts that all observers can agree on. The interpretation of reality, on the other hand, is fickle. If I am sad, I can listen to happy music, and I'm happy again.

I try to affect reality, not the interpretation of reality. I write software and sell to customers. This is reality. My software exists, my customer relationships exist, and the software is solving my customers' problems. There's really no good answer on whether my business is mediocre or not, so I try not to think along those lines.

While this this attempt at objectivity seems laudable, I don't think there is such a thing as objective value. All value is subjective and subject to interpretations. If you create a program that prints "Hello World" over and over again in a loop forever, you have made an objectively real piece of software, but it has no value to anyone. I would say that all actions, at a purely objective level, are completely pointless until we apply a value statement to them. For example, if like many people you believe that humans existing in the universe has value, and that we should try to optimize for humans existing as long and/or as prosperously as possible, then creating products that contribute to the survival and prosperity of human beings makes sense. I think it is useful to understand the basic values we are taking for granted whenever we state something has "objective" purpose, because those values don't always hold.

> Musk for example, is a great entrepreneur but just an average (maybe mediocre?) husband: had two wives, divorced three times from the same, is that even possible?

Modern marriage is hugely risky compared to what it used to be. Someone who marries the same person twice must revel in risk.

How is modern marriage hugely risky compared to what it used to be?

I can only imagine it's because of the high divorce rate (is it increasing?) and the cost of separation, including court fees and dividing up the assets. Divorce doesn't have the same stigma as it did 100 or even 50 years ago.

To me, to add, a pre-nup sounds like a romance killer. I couldn't imagine serving one to someone I intend to spend the rest of my life with since it amounts to plan B (that and I don't think it's possible in the UK).

It is very encouraging to hear people still feel this way.

Prenuptial agreements still have a value within the UK, they are considered intent towards your actions in the event of a divorce and unless there are significant extenuating circumstances leading to the divorce are normally honoured. As long as neither of you are cheating, abusive, performing illegal acts, etc, the prenup usually holds up.

> because of the high divorce rate (is it increasing?)

Falling. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/02/upshot/the-divorce-surge-i...

The divorce rate increased for the same reason it isn't now, swaths of social pressures that 'forced' people into getting married young, having kids and raising a family are either going away or simply ignored by more and more people. That these pressures are changing and divorce doesn't have the same stigma are good things.

> a pre-nup sounds like a romance killer

A pre-nup is dealing with the parts of marriage that have nothing to do with romance. If you're going into a marriage thinking it's nothing but romance, wine and roses, you may be in for a rude awakening.

Thanks for that. Very interesting and indeed a good thing.

A marriage has everything to do with romance in terms of the kind of relationship we're talking about: a romantic relationship.

Personally, I haven't made my perspective clear in my original comment. Me and my partner have lived together for some time, we have kids and our own home. I definitely don't expect a bed of roses after marriage. In fact, after the experience, it would be pretty damn foolish to expect that from a day to remember, a legal document, a few things and nice holiday.

Despite that, I still fail to see how I, myself, could serve my partner with a pre-nup after knowing, by this time, she is the person I want to spend the rest of my life with.

My opinion is perhaps related to your first paragraph in that I have 0 pressure to get married and I have hafthe luxury of giving myself the best part of a decade to make that decision. That is why in my case I wouldn't serve a pre-nup - it would pretty much say "hey were getting married after a decade of commitment and realisation we want to spend our lives together but I still don't fully believe we will so best sign this just in case". That doesn't really show commitment to me.

To conclude, I would absolutely get a pre nup if the relationship was quite new but then again I wouldn't get married like that so hastily.

To me, marriage is the highest honour you can bestow on someone. You are in effect both saying "yes I honour this person so damn much, I want us to join families". That's a major thing and it actually kinda hurts to see some people treat marriage in a way that decreases its great significance.

> A marriage has everything to do with romance in terms of the kind of relationship we're talking about: a romantic relationship.

Not legally it doesn't and that is where a pre-nup is involved. A pre-nup is related to all the contract law around the legal institution of marriage. The law doesn't care about how much you love each other. You could marry someone to set explicit inheritance rights, absolutely hate the other person and it is still a legal marriage.

Except that the point of marriage is closer union with someone you intend to spend the rest of your life with. I am talking specifically about this kind of marriage.

I'm not saying people don't marry for reasons other than lifetime union. I'm pretty certain I would have a prenup drawn up in the situations you give as examples. My point is that I would not treat marriage that way because it is an honour that you bestow only on the person you intend to marry.

Perhaps i'm getting confused too. I'm talking about serving what is in effect a contingency plan wrt division of assets in the event of divorce. If that is the case, I still stand by what I say in that if you feel this is necessary, perhaps you need to give it more time instead of jumping into what is the highest honour two people can bestow on each other.

If you want to regard marrying someone as 'bestowing upon them the highest honour you can' you can feel feel free to be that full of yourself. If you want to pretend there is nothing going on but romance, you can pretend that.

Legally there is no marriage until you sign that contract at which point you are in a partnership that is covered by many, many laws because it is a legal construct, pre-nups being just one. If you can not recognize this and you go into a marriage thinking of nothing but romance, you are going into it blind and delusional.

> Except that the point of marriage is closer union with someone you intend to spend the rest of your life with

That's actually a pretty new development. You married to stop wars, you married to care for your house, you married to have kids and have someone care for them, you married to carry of the family business.

Excuse me but was that called for? Honouring somebody is not being full of yourself. Its exactly that: honouring somebody. How is it not your biggest honour? You essentially say you love soneone that much you want to share the rest of your life with someone in the closest way possible. I think you are being just a little bit offensive and a touch unfair.

I'm sorry but what part of being in a committed relationship for the best part of a decade do you not understand? I am well aware what a marriage is legally. If you want to view marriage purely as a legal instrument, that's fine by me. To me, a marriage is, through means of law, making official a commitment I already experience. It would NOT change my day to day whatsoever and is purely a piece of paper that lays out how my long term relationship currently works anyway.

A marriage is a romantic event. It is not purely a romantic event but it is none the less. I place value in that but I also place value in the legal document that comes from it. By law, that document cements the way we have lived our lives for many years. Im not actually sure where I said it wasn't a legal contract?

As I said, I have been in a committed relationship for a long time. We have lived together and had children together. A marriage would not change that at all. Im not sure why that makes me blind or delusional? It certainly doesn't warrant the insult in any case.

That sounds very upper class and feudal in respect too. I am from a working class background and from peasantry before it. I doubt my ancestors would have been able to stop a war or continue a family business by marriage. Regardless I am not going down that rabbit hole only to be insulted.

I think the whole point here is that marriage today has many aspects, and the legal aspect is completely orthogonal to the romantic aspect. One should be aware of both. If you want to bestow great depths of meaning on it, it's ok - a marriage like you describe is indeed a profound moment for the two people involved. If you consider this as the essence of marriage, fine - but the legal layer exists independently. By law and custom, it's attached to the union of two people. It may not define the interpersonal meaning of marriage, but it defines its meaning for the rest of society. It doesn't diminish anything, and there's no point in ignoring it.

My partner and I signed a pre-nup. I'd rate our chances of divorce at like...less than 5%. We've both been through a ton of crap together and we are totally committed to making our relationship last.

The point is, we've both seen couples in our circles go from that to absolutely messy divorces. We simply decided that in the rare chance we don't work out, we'd have laid down the rules of separation while we still loved each other. While it certainly wasn't romantic, it didn't kill the romance.

Working out the pre-nup allowed us to really consider how harmful separation would be for both of us on an emotional level. That led to us trying to make the rules for separation as clear as possible. If anything, it strengthened our relationship.

It helps if neither party is interested in "If he/she/they cheats I get double" sorts of clauses and instead are interested in a clear, fair split regardless of the circumstances.

That is an incredibly interesting perspective - enough to step back and think through my stance.

Perhaps my view of this kind of agreement is tarnished by the stereotypical type (you mention it with "if you cheat then x" or how someone with a lot of wealth would aim to protect that when marrying on short notice).

Thank you!

>is it increasing?

No. It's falling. Except in the age group of 50+.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6256956

We can't know the divorce rates of the people who get married now, only the people who got married years ago. Since the people who get married now are very different than the people who got married previously we can't assume that divorce rates will follow the same trends. For example, people enter marriage now older and more educated. We know both of those decrease the probability of divorce.

There's no mediocrity there's just this illusion created by the very riches and powerful to make even more money, to create a crazy game to make us feel bad and always keep charging for the carrot.

Uh, no. There are a lot of medicore people (I'm one of them) and a few winners.

Life is a competition. Never, ever forget that! Those who are the strongest, smartest, richest, best-looking, socially-aware and most driven are the ones who will probably succeed. (There's always luck involved.) They will get the best jobs (or not have to work), the best mating opportunities, the best everything.

Every minute of every day you are not spending on improving yourself and your position in this world is wasted time. If you do not struggle, you will not succeed, period.

Now, having given you a motivational speech that a Chinese "tiger mom" would find barely adequate at best... the question is, what does this have to do with happiness and overall life satisfaction?

Well, almost nothing. Success can provide opportunities for happiness, but that actually has to be pursued on its own. And the things you need to do for happiness are often in opposition to the things you need to do for success.

What I really want people to do is to just be aware of the tradeoffs. If you want to coast through life, that's fine, as long as you have a good understanding of the costs and benefits.

But life really is a competition.

>They will get the best jobs (or not have to work), the best mating opportunities, the best everything.

This is very much impossible. Above average? Probably. But then they become satiated with the above average things that they do have, get bored, adopt a new definition of "average", and wish they had the bank president's salary. The bank president wants to be president of Goldman Sachs. The president of Goldman wishes he had a wife like so-and-so's.

Ambition is fine and all, but once you start measuring your life that way there's nothing but a black hole all the way down.

>If you want to coast through life, that's fine, as long as you have a good understanding of the costs and benefits.

Same thing definitely goes with viewing life as a competition.

Same thing definitely goes with viewing life as a competition.

As long as someone else views life as a competition, then it is. As long as there are limited resources, then it is. It doesn't matter what you think.

And if you choose not to compete at the highest levels, that's fine. I know I don't, and I don't look down at those who don't.

Of course competing is part of life. I don't conflate that with it being the existential meaning of my existence. Sneezing is part of life whether you like it or not. Is life just one big sneeze?

Oh young grasshopper! Your analogy is very flawed.

Competition defines your existence. It determines where you live, where you work, and what you eat. It has determined who you are and how you are made, for you are a product of evolution. It is woven deeply into the fabric of your existence, on a daily level as well as on geological timescales. It even determines how you think, according to some theories about how mental processes work.

You don't have to derive your existential meaning from competition, but ignore it completely at your peril.

What is this competition? What are the rules? What if I don't wish to play? When does the competition end? What is the prize when the competition ends and you are the winner?

What is this competition?

It is life itself, it is all around you.

What are the rules?

You choose them yourself, but choose wisely.

What if I don't wish to play?

Leaving the game is easy, people do it all the time. All you have to do is stop.

When does the competition end?

When you give up, or get too unlucky.

What is the prize when the competition ends and you are the winner?

The only prize is your own satisfaction, but no big prize at the end. The daily prize is that you get to keep playing.

> You can also try to leverage the feeling to stop yourself from wasting those 50+ hours rewatching Game of Thrones and instead putting that time into becoming more like someone who you perceive as being less mediocre than yourself.

Isn't that the point, though? You could spend those 50+ hours struggling to do something to pull yourself out of mediocrity yet still end up frustrated, defeated, and unhappy. For some people -- perhaps even most -- watching Game of Thrones again might just make them happier. I see nothing wrong with that. It's the relentless drive to achieve fame, wealth, importance, that can lead many to depression, constant self-criticism, and unhappiness. Choosing to spend that time on something enjoyable, even if to you it seems unworthy of your time, is a fine way to enjoy the fruits of one's labor.

I spend a few weekends implementing something that might save lots of time at work, mostly done now. If it works and is as useful as I believe, I'll ask for time off to compensate.

I don't do this to excel. Maybe I just don't have enough individual competitive spirit; too much of Nordic group orientation.

I can tell you this is the most fun work I did for a long time. I don't have to stress or cut corners, I can do things as they should be done.

(Maybe I just need another job?)

In my experience, my ability to handle stress is already lowered considerably after work. Learning something new afterwards by trying implement a ToDo app or build something that might make money (in my case) can add stress.

Don't get me wrong, I've learned tons of new stuff and I really like it. It even comes with some benefits. But we can't ignore how stressful it can be pre-finished product. Usually the rush comes after it finally works.

Now add on top of that a wife who doesn't want me at a computer, but instead doing something with her. Honestly, during those times when that one piece just doesn't work right, I prefer to not be debugging too. Yes I have the option to walk away, but then it never get's finished.

My point, it makes sense why so many of us, even very talented ones, aren't cranking out apps in our spare time. We'd rather do something enjoyable for a change and have healthy relationships.

I applaud anyone who both manages to enjoy their job, excel at it and have someone that's cool with you doing that thing when you get home too.

I don't think my situation is different -- I did write that to do things right at work was such a sublime and motivating experience, that I did it with my free time... :-(

I've got to the point where I don't feel comfortable unless I'm working of sideprojects or otherwise improving myself during my 'leisure' time. Even commenting here is me fooling myself that hacker news is 'productive' :(

from the outside, this approach creates tremendous success in life in long term. from the inside, it can easily lead to state of never-being-really-happy since there is always next thing to chase or learn. be careful there

in the end i do believe we all want to be happy, and this translates into many things (work success, affirmation of peers, creating family, adventures etc).

Fwiw, this isn't an approach as much as a troubling situation I have found myself in, where I get no enjoyment out of anything, and constantly feel the pressure to keep a roof over my head, and stave off the crises of age that is in everyone's future.

I've tried pills and therapy, but ultimately I've come to the realization that you can't medicate and therapize reality away, and the best way forward is acceptance that life is work, and work is life, and that 'work/life balance' is for kept housewives and millionaires, and people who are going to be going to be very desperate in their old age :(

You are probably better off than 95% of the population of your country. You can have a roof over your head, and food in your belly, for less than $20k per year. Surely you have enough confidence in your skills that you should be able to manage this salary?

Have you lived on $20k a year? It's desperation. You are constantly waiting for the next shoe to drop. Forget about medical costs, forget about the fact that anywhere you can do this is an unpleasant place to live, and far from everything. $20k a year and old age? There's a reason for the skyrocketing suicide rate of men in their fifties and sixties right now.

All I want for retirement is the same lifestyle I have now. Anyone who thinks that it's going to be somehow easier to live with less when they get older is fooling themselves. If you won't live like that now, you won't want to live like that later; you are just pushing the burden off onto your future self.

> All I want for retirement is the same lifestyle I have now.

So you are ultimately content with your current lifestyle?

You could always change it. There are people who lived for $5 a year if I recall correctly, for years[1].

What you feel and what you call "reality" is actually just an illusion. You can get away from it. Simply knowing that there are people who made it gave me enough hope and confidence to persevere through the shittiest times this society made me go through.

The way we live nowadays we have no time to really reflect on anything. Even if we feel the stereotypes and expectations of a society don't align with us very well and that we'd like to challenge them we have no time to come up with a plan. This is certainly a problem, but once you realize that there are totally different ways of living - that you can get away from it all - it becomes much easier to come up with and make small adjustments, which will make us happier over time.

[1] Ran Prieur, see http://www.ranprieur.com/essays/dropout.html for a quick taste and please go read the rest of his essays later. I have tremendous respect for the guy; he offers a completely different perspective on our society and lives according to it. Oh, and also sometimes comments on HN.

> since there is always next thing to chase or learn. be careful there

That's what I feel is missing from all the posts and books recommending constantly improving yourself. They mostly focus on the effects, which are not the (main) point in my opinion at all.

When you're climbing a mountain, the moment you step on top of it may feel cathartic, but is it really worth it if you hate climbing? Remember that there's also a way down; how much of your euphoria will remain if you hate every moment of your descent?

Constantly improving and getting better at something is only worth it if you enjoy the process.

>Constantly improving and getting better at something is only worth it if you enjoy the process.

Or if you want to stay employable in a technology job :|

Or if you need to distinguish yourself in a world where everyone is living paycheck to paycheck, and consequently content to take a salary that doesn't account for retirement.

I did that for many years. It made me better at my craft, at least until the next "big new way of thinking" comes around. I've recently stopped when I've come to the realization how precious time and experiencing good health is.

You only have so many days on this earth. Don't sell them all to someone else on the pretense that it makes you be able to sell them all to someone else for a little more money.

I'm mostly concerned that I'll be destitute when I'm too old to get hired. And hiring in software development is cutthroat, unless you are happy grinding out meaningless widgets to mostly line someone else's pocket.

Nobody around me seems to give this a second thought though. I don't see how they aren't setting themselves up for misery in the long run.

Honestly, in the US, you will be destitute unless you are immensely wealthy. Nursing homes cost $100K a year today, imagine what they will cost when it's your time to be in one. Insurance doesn't cover it, neither does Obamacare. If you go the Medicaid route, they will take all your income and assets minus your house and car, assuming they are paid for.

It gets depressing fast, enjoy it as much as you can until that day comes.

The question I always ask myself is "what do I really want?". Is what makes me happy finishing X project, or do I really want to finish X project so I can enjoy Y guilt-free? Doing it out of joy or guilt? For me, I've become a lot more consciousness of when I'm doing project-type stuff because I genuinely find it interesting and fulfilling, or I'm just pushing through so I can check a box.

Spending some time doing R&R might set the creative juices flowing. Over-focusing on one single problem might lead to burnout and then anxiety and the feeling of being mediocre. Humans have a few basic needs, and excelling at work is just one of them, if we ignore the others we might sabotage even the one we care explicitly about. It is good to switch back and forth between work, learning and just being passive and enjoying your senses.

Could you explain what the real Dunning-Kruger effect is? I always thought it was pretty much "you're so dumb that you think you're smart".

Wikipedia says: "The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which low-ability individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability as much higher than it really is"

Which, to me at least, pretty much reads as "you're so dumb that you think you're smart". (Or, to be slightly more accurate, "Your ability is so low that you think your ability is high")

I don't claim to know anything about this, just genuinely curious what you mean.

When I was 5 year old, I thought I was a maths genius. I had arithmetic absolutely nailed and I knew there were a few more things to learn, but arithmetic was easy so presumably there was just a little more to learn before I could be a professor.

I think that's what he means.

Dunning–Kruger showed that less competent individuals in a sample thought they performed much better than they actually did, whereas more competent individuals thought they had not performed as well as they actually did.

The less competent individuals did not think they were "smart" or on the same level as those that performed better in the tests. Just their perception of where they were was markedly different to the perception of those that did well in the tests

Or as Donald Rumsfeld would say, the less competent individuals are suffering from unknown unknowns

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_are_known_knowns

It's the conclusion that the curve of "how good you think you are" is basically flat.

Some studies find it a little positively sloped, some even find it negatively sloped, but it not nearly as sloped as the actual performance.

It has nothing to do with being smart or dumb. Consider the way expertise in one field seems to lead many to believe they are experts in other fields, or as I like to put it, "engineers know everything".

The ELI5 is everyone thinks they are closer to average than they are. Both people above and below average are effected. They still recognize which side of average they fall on though.

Lots of great discussions and links on D-N previously: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=Dunning-Kruger&sort=byPopulari...

If i didnt achieve immortality trough understanding and control of life i feel im absolute nobody. You people are ridiculous.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com