Hacker News Reader

If your only had a piano, instead of a computer, your story wouldn't be particularly convincing. People who grew up with a computer, before most other people had one, were lucky to find a rapidly growing industry. Most other people are getting very little for their single focus.

If I only had a piano to entertain myself I probably would not be a professional piano player, you are correct. But that's not the point of the anecdote. Replace my computer with anything else, and the frustrations will still be the same. The boredom and experimentation and learning and moments of clarity and joy and pain will still be the same.

Whether I carry the piano into my adult life doesn't matter. I've still learned how to stick through something difficult without quitting and moving on to the next exciting thing. The most valuable lesson learned in this story is that everything worth doing is boring and difficult sometimes. If you never stick through it beyond that point, you'll never learn that lesson.

I do think it matters, because we are trying to establish some sort of utility of having focus in the context of the conversation. The theory of this thread is that a lack of focus is harmful and, at least partly, to blame for why young people are struggling.

You can be the most dedicated piano player, but if you later decides to channel that dedication into e.g. writing you are very likely to be struggling anyways. So now you are essentially in the same boat as everyone else.

Young people are mainly struggling because education, housing and long term careers are competitive and costly. Of course dedication can help with being successful in almost any sense of the word. But overall it is very likely overshadowed by other factors as e.g. your position in the housing market.

How many people who could afford a mortgage in a major city in their early twenties, by any means, are struggling with their lives today? Certainly a few, but surely a lot less than those who don't yet have a stable home in their thirties.

I personally think learning how to focus and power through a struggle is the important skill to learn, regardless of what form it takes. Finishing 10 imperfect paintings is more of a learning experience than never finishing one perfect painting. Finishing a terrible novel in NaNoWriMo is more important than giving up because your story is bad. Making it through school with a C+ is more important than dropping out because it's too hard. If you're going for a run, the first mile might be excruciating pain but then the runner's high kicks in. Now every time you go for a run after that, you'll know to grin and bear it because the pain will go away and it will get easier.

I'm arguing that it's not what skill you learn, but rather that you did. You moved past something being new and exciting, got to the point where it was frustrating and boring, and you kept going anyway. I'm now wishing I hadn't use a computer as my example because I still feel like you're taking the wrong lesson from my anecdote. I don't credit my childhood computer use for my successful career as an adult. I credit my (forced) single-minded focus, where giving up was not an option.

In this story, my siblings-in-law never knew that it gets easier, never knew that there is a plateau you can overcome, and never made it to the other side. Because they never had to. It's a story about not giving up, not a story about how everyone should learn to use a computer.

I just don't think it is accurate. Often pursuing something means giving up other things, which won't help you not to struggle in life. There is often no plateau in menial or highly competitive professions. Trying to e.g. become a writer will leave you struggling for a long time. Unless some can provide for you in the meantime, which has little to do with your own focus. I just don't think focus as such is that relevant for whether you will struggle or not in life. A lazy programmer is still on average very likely going to struggle less than a dedicated service worker. There are plenty of, say, high school football players who have more grit than most of us but are doing worse in life than the kid who barely knew how to tie his own shoes.

Maybe. My brother had access to a computer and a piano. For a while he was big into computer graphics and everyone in my family thought he'd be a graphics designer. He ended up becoming singularly focussed on music and is now a professional music producer. We're quite similar, we're both very focussed on a single skill and have reached professional levels in our respective areas.

So I'm not sure that sort of life is an inherent quality of growing up with a computer. It's perfectly possible to push through the hard parts and find a passion with music.

As far as I know that is a similar deal. Knowing how software works is an essential part of being a music producer today. You would have great benefit from already having extensive experience with a software suite. The same isn't true if he had been dedicated to music and dancing. People don't generally lack dedication so much as they lack opportunities. Learning about computers gives you opportunities, learning about something else might not.

You are onto something with letting kids be bored and struggle to create their own activities.

You taught yourself to use a computer, without taking an expensive "kids learn computers class", right?

Signing kids up for all these classes and structured activities can lead to a sort of passivity where they expect adults to tell them what to do.

And what if he had Fortnite etc back then? Would he have really excelled at computer work? Maybe.

We didn't have Fortnite but we had many other venues for entertainment on computers: MUDs, Ultima, DOOM, Duke Nukem 3D, Wolfenstein, Wing Commander, etc. etc. The list goes on.

My early family life resembled the parent's. The difference in my case and related to your point wasn't the absence of distractions it was to get at them I had to learn how to make the damn computer work. I once tricked my 286 into thinking it was a 386 so that I could install Windows 3.1. All for the purpose of... playing solitaire. Yeah, that's how bored I was.

I'm not even sure I could replicate doing that today. As a 9 year old I was better with a rudimentary BIOS than I am today with a modern one. I'm pretty sure it was because there was a barrier between me and what I wanted and the only way to get it was to figure out that horrendous system.

Well, now kids would be learning about overclocking video cards, messing with refresh rates, optimizing their gaming mouse etc. Same idea. I had Zork and PAC man growing up and while I enjoyed it I wasn’t completely addicted to it possibly because the graphics, multi player gaming etc weren’t there yet. It does bother me seeing my son play fortnite rather than learning python etc like I’d have been inclined to do if I were his age. Then again, I’d probably be addicted to fortnite as well.

I think all parents stress about video games. Mine did. Sometimes I'd get a new game and play it incessently. Eventually I'd get bored and go back to programming. If someone is interested in the topic fun games won't stop them exploring it, I'm sure.

So much truth. I must have beat Wing Commander 100 times. To play it, I had to tinker. I didn't want to tinker, but it was the only way to blow up evil cat people in space. Things are more stable and reliable these days. I prefer it for the usability, but I recognize the limited hackability of most modern computers means few people will take an interest.

My family was relatively rich. We also had a computer. With lots of games. I played Red Alert and then started programming. My brother played Counter Strike and now plays Dota or whatever, he never learned to program. I'm a successful programmer and he's a successful lawyer.

Anecdotes, is all.

I wasn't a "follow your heart" kid, but school came super easy to me and I never learned how to force myself to do things I don't want to do. It's a constant struggle.