Hacker News Reader

Comment by slip_shoe | Hacker News Reader

It's funny how western (probably American) HNers are mentioning the "how to succeed everywhere" books all over this thread. This is silly, methinks. I would mildly suggest those people to take a bit wider look at where they live and why they consider those books important to be read as early as possible.

For me, I don't regret about not having read anything, I'd rather regret about having read too much and nothing substantial at all at the same time. But regardless of the fact that I've read a ton of bulls*t books and virtually nothing fundamental, I don't see a need to catch up. No haste = no waste. We can live very productive, moral and full lives without reading anything.

View on HN

I'm not a fan of "how to succeed everywhere" books myself - if they claim that on the cover, they're usually not advertising the type of success I would wish to build my life on.

Having said that, books have been invaluable (and indeed essential) to western society in general, and to many people of my acquaintance for whose accomplishments I have the highest respect. I don't think that's a coincidence.

Books allow you to think with somebody else's mind, they allow you to share in the combined experience of all the authors you have ever read. They show you a world beyond the world you yourself are restricted to. They let you talk to the greatest thinkers, not just of our time, but of all times. Tapping into this accumulated wisdom is a mind-broadening, and quite often life-changing, experience.

I have not always lived in the West. I know first-hand a society that, though technically literate (in the sense that many can read), is nowhere near being a literature-based society like the one I live in now. And I have seen the consequences: people stuck in the vicious circle of poverty and ignorance, one feeding the other ad infinitum. I'm not just talking about financial poverty, either, but rather about the deeper-seated poverty of the mind that quells so much potential for personal and social development. And lastly, I have seen that almost all the progressive thinkers, the men of action of that society, had something in common: They loved their books.

Agree with comments re: books are invaluable sources for one to experience, learn and empathize etc.

But it's so true that the entire trend amongst my peers (and the greater North American) attitude towards "life hacking" and "self optimization" is becoming overkill. This is an article I recently read that articulates really well on this whole cultural focus of "how to succeed" books:

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/01/15/improving-ours...

Some quotes: "In our current era of non-stop technological innovation, fuzzy wishful thinking has yielded to the hard doctrine of personal optimization. Self-help gurus need not be charlatans peddling snake oil. Many are psychologists with impressive academic pedigrees and a commitment to scientific methodologies, or tech entrepreneurs with enviable records of success in life and business. What they’re selling is metrics. It’s no longer enough to imagine our way to a better state of body or mind."

"There is a great deal of money to be made by those who diagnose and treat our fears of inadequacy; Cederström and Spicer estimate that the self-improvement industry takes in ten billion dollars a year."

Thank you for sharing that article, quite thought-provoking!

I think the problem we're facing is not in itself the desire to improve ourselves. Rather, it's doing it with the wrong focus and for the wrong reasons.

I found this quote from the article illuminating: "Spicer reflects that he has spent the year focusing on himself to the exclusion of everything, and everyone, else in his life." There is nothing inherently bad about improving your diet, working on your physical fitness or boosting your self-discipline. Becoming healthier and more productive can be worthy goals, but if they cause you to forget the people around you, they are the wrong goals. Self-improvement that is limited to the self is nothing but glorified egocentrism. We can become better athletes, better workers, better anything; but if we don't become better friends/neighbours/partners while we're at it, it won't make us better people.

Secondly, the reasons why we wish to improve ourselves. This is something I cannot talk about without reference to my Christian faith, because the two are deeply intertwined. For my faith tells me that I am not perfect and never can be on this earth, but that that is all right, because God loves me just as I am. At the same time it tells me that God loves me too much to let me stay the way I am, that He has given me an incredible potential that I can develop and that I can work on my imperfections knowing that He will help me. Therefore, when I read books or form habits to improve myself, I am not doing so because I need to, but because I can. I don't have to prove anything to anybody, but I can joyfully grow and develop in areas in which God has given me a greater potential than I have currently reached.

>"There is a great deal of money to be made by those who diagnose and treat our fears of inadequacy; Cederström and Spicer estimate that the self-improvement industry takes in ten billion dollars a year."

That seemed a strange sentence, so I read the article; still seemed as strange. Not sure what you'd have to believe to be able to write that. If I write—

"There is a great deal of money to be made by those who diagnose and treat our fears of inadequacy; the medical industry takes in ten billion dollars a year."

—hopefully the incoherence is more obvious. It seems the original was ridicule dressed up as science.

I guess I could perceive that because I bought quite a few self-help-type books of various kinds, and got a lot from them; they helped me immeasurably. I'm not really a course/group kind of guy, but I did one 2-week course that was amazing. I don't think any of it was due to my "fears of inadequacy". It was more my wanting to learn about myself/humans, to overcome problems I had from childhood, to be happier, to have better relationships; stuff like that. And I think I've achieved all that. :-D (Well, it's a neverending journey..)

Western civilization is based on merit and it is based on being very competitive. (It's true in your mates, your social standing, your financial situation, etc) That's the reason for the improvement books.

Is it merit based? I would say it's capital based.

Capital generally being a measure of how people evaluate you, yes.

> Western civilization is based on merit

This is one of the larger falsehoods I've read in a while.

It's based on money, connections, favors, historical precedent and power. And it's not the only one.

The book Moneyball talks about this. Well I thought it would be about baseball, but it was kind of about our ability to judge merit. It's hard even in a measurement driven sport like baseball. Sports are arguably the purist meritocracy, yet scouts were routinely missing on their evaluation of talent.

Man, this is both naive and very negative. Can you say more about why you think the civilization is based on that?

Sadly, in most fields of employment, measure of merit is either hard or downright impossible. Hence, people have to invest a ton of time into creating an illusion of superior competence. Just look at developers - nerd-posturing discussions in the office, chasing latest frameworks, faking passion by doing open-source commits etc. It's a sad world we live in.

Never said that merit was purely based on work.

I'm just saying the West doesn't have positions that are based on how close you are to the king, family connections, caste, or other mystical reasons.

The funny thing that I've gotten in response is that people seem to believe that merit is only based on how your technical skills are. That's just one part of the job in the tech field.

On the contrary, there are many positions which are filled based on connections and belonging to a certain elite. That may not be prevalent in tech, but that's because tech is viewed as unglamorous, hard and boring work, and who would want to do that. But, in fields such as politics, diplomacy, professorships on major universities, directors of museums and countless others of major influence, the candidates very often get selected on the basis on family connections, or at least belonging to a certain clique. Of course, the candidate must meet some minimum requirements for perceived competency (a diploma from a top school, strong CV otherwise), but there's plenty of such people and, amongst them, connections will decide on who will get the position.

I'll check back with you in 10 years and see if you still believe this to be true.

You make a reasonable point, but I'm not sure I like your alternative:

> We can live very productive, moral and full lives without reading anything.

I have not read much and i am in my 30's and wished i had worked like crazy in my teens and 20's because i did not had much fun either. My personal wisdom is its better to go bad by overuse rather than no use.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com