How a 'growth mindset' can lead to success
bbc.com
bbc.com
My theory is that active discouragement during childhood is a driving factor here. My father often yelled at me if I broke something physical, or asked „stupid“ questions while building an RC car together. He also wanted to do all the home improvement stuff alone, and never actively explained anything to me there. So for me, home improvement equals discouragement, resulting in a feeling of I-can‘t-do-that. (This kind of thing seems to be passed on - my father‘s father also shouted at him when doing something wrong).
On the flipside, my father at some point bought a PC and let me play with it, and seemed to not have any concerns whatsoever about that. He got some floppy disk games for me, installed the office suite, and let me have at it, sometimes grunting encouragement.
Now guess what my favorite activity is, and what I built my career around - home improvement, or computers?
My father also was both technical and handy, and while I would enjoy an afternoon working with him on something or other, I didn't naturally drift toward it. I had a couple of small projects (a weight bench is one I still remember) and I never got very far with it. It worked ok, but was kinda shitty. I never put any love into it.
But the Heathkit digital electronics course? I couldn't stay away.
Interestingly, many years later when I moved to a new country and fell into a job that required janitorial skills, the forced learning revealed my interest, enjoyment and capability. I now actively bust out the toolbox at the first indication of a leak, squeak or rattle...
But I've never realised that actually that behaviour of negating activities to the young myself was influencing so bad my actual self. Thanks for sharing it
By the way, between 'people', 'computers' and 'the trades', it's 'people' who have been the trickiest. When someone is impressed at what I do, I used to say "computers are easy its people who are hard".
The best I can surmise is that when you are a kid you get this sort of 'base programming' that is really, REALLY fucking hard to change. Even when you recognize it and you want to change it, whew, it's a mountain to climb. That's why they say "people don't change" because its so hard.
If your dad taught you something was 'not your cup of tea' then it is very hard to change that thought in your head. I am sure there is an evolutionary reason for this because it does not make logical sense to keep doing something well after you know it's not what you want to do.
I do not have the patience to deal with people for very long periods of time. I wish I could change that, I have tried to change it.
However, my dad taught me at a very young age that it's normal and very, very common to dislike someone; because of how much I disliked him. He treated me like I was in the way. A computer in my bedroom literally saved my life.
My brother didn't hate my dad because my dad liked my brother. So he had a completely different childhood in the same exact household. And guess what: my brother is a people person (and also not handy or technical).
So, you have to play the hand you are dealt. Someone always has it worse off than you.
Just remember your childhood when you are raising your own kids.
Treat those kids with understanding and both actually listen and talk to them. Don't tranquilize them with fucking videos. Read books, listen to music and show them that life is happy and normal and routine and they can do anything day after day. When they grow up, all they will know is that life is happy and normal and routine and they can do anything.
A persons base programming is a bitch to change; make it a good one!
People like that, myself included, tend to believe that because they can do it, it should be easy for other people to pick up. Or because other people can do it, it should be easy for me to do.
It took me a while to realize it doesn't work that way. Not everyone learns the same and not everyone has the same experience 'basic skills' as other people.
I've also been in your position, where I felt like I'm not good at something or wouldn't ever be able to do something because of someone yelling and being discouraging, that's not true either.
No matter what you're trying to learn, even if you're not good at it or you're not 'that kind of person' you can still learn with dedication and practice like anything else. The thing i've found is it's harder to get over that first 'ah I fucked up and feel stupid moment' that occurs with everything you learn and do.
I guarantee, you've had plenty of those with your computer stuff to, but they affect and discourage you less and you have more motivation to overcome those moments becauas you lack those memories and feelings of being yelled at over them.
This is just my own theories based on my observations in life, but they seem to have held true so far and there's been a few things i've actually pushed past those 'i'm a fucking idiot' moments and found i actually enjoy doing these things I used to dislike or be lousy at and i've found it's more my own fear of failing at them, than actual dislike of the activities themselves.
My father did the same to me but I still learned to build both software and DIY-type-things. We are shaped by my own decisions.
> You should also stop using this as an excuse.
I don't feel victimised by my father, but there's no denying his actions influenced me in a big way. And it's important to recognize that because I want to at least do better in this area with my own kids.
For a twitter summary of the above paper, see here: https://twitter.com/BrookeMacnamara/status/12247169045745459...
But the lesson I took from the idea was that people who think that people cannot grow find themselves in a self-fulfilling prophecy where they don't try to grow. They potentially can get stuck in their careers and potentially might get bitter about things if they are not satisfied, wondering why the world is unfair, while other people who apply themselves can continue to grow. Yes, many variables and factors also influence how things happen, but the fundamental idea that people actually do limit themselves for no good reason is also frequently seen. How many people in the world are like this, I don't know, but they exist, and we should encourage those people to change the way they think. I am not sure how anyone would be able to argue against that being true.
There are a ton of reasons why many "average" people don't become "exceptional". But the idea that many folks make an affirmative choice not to seems pretty far down the totem pole.
That's not really the point he was making. People internalize a lot of behaviours and beliefs that limit their realized potential. It doesn't require a conscious choice to limit yourself, it takes a bunch of internal, unproductive thoughts and emotions and decisions that sabotage you even though you may not be entirely aware of it.
It's made a difference in my life, things can always be done better - so I'm always thinking about how to do them better and then doing a fair number of relatively small things to make things better - boom - you are getting paid real money and have some success.
I don't believe that these exist, which was the point. Everyone knows that people can learn things and become more skilled, claiming that some people don't believe this is straw-manning and hence bad science.
It is true that some people give up and stop growing, but I don't believe at all that it is related to "growth-mindset". More likely they just feel that the growth isn't worth the effort, they are happy enough where they are. Claiming that these people lack "growth-mindset" is like claiming that people who fail to reach their fitness goal lacks "growth-mindset" instead of just lacking motivation to work hard but still having enough motivation to talk constantly about it.
To some extent, sure.. "Everyone knows that people can learn new things".
It's one of those aphorisms that we can probably agree on, however... if you examine how some people operate, across more than one spectrum of their life, those people may say it and yet not live it.
I believe that people have so many self-limiting factors front-loaded in their thoughts, action and speech that it can cumulatively operate as a hard coded mindset.
I've coached people, as a manager and as a volunteer CPT (certified personal trainer). Working through people's sense of self, typically broadcasted explicitly as a statement of limitation ("I can't do that...") or argumentativeness (as a coach, ask a question or dare to offer a statement of some kind, and the person who asked for coaching may well interrupt you, digressively, before you make any progress with your effort).
This can accumulate, over the course of a life, and embed itself as something that can be really difficult to disrupt, or even acknowledge.
I also suspect that a lot of people claiming that they just aren't interested or motivated to learn X are often covering for their own insecurities. I know I'm personally guilt of it.
And I am 100% sure that mathematical talent is a thing. I learned all concepts below college level the instant I saw them, and I completed a masters degree in math with just going to lessons and not studying at home, there is no way math is that easy for most people. A person like me will never feel they just aren't good at math, and people comparing themselves to me will rightfully acknowledge that they lack the kind of talent I have.
Now the situation is a lot less stark between most people, but I am pretty sure that the difference in talent is still there.
However, it's still the case that a huge quantity of people simply give up on the subject because they don't believe they'll ever be any good at it, without even giving it a real try. They shut themselves down. Just because that doesn't apply to absolutely everyone doesn't make it something that's not important to recognize and combat.
If you can't, this is still a useful way to categorize people, but not much use as self help.
I think it's important to have others to learn and inspire from, while also realizing you can actively work towards it yourself (directly and indirectly). It's imo quite hard though...
Changing who you are is a much more difficult battle. You need to be a certain type and have another overriding motivation to truly drive yourself to the change.
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/12/how-pr...
Something similar would be the Marshmallow Experiment, which is still to this day completely misinterpreted. People just need bases for what they want to believe; the loads of new psychological theories have the same function as modern fake news does.
> Everyone is a mixture of fixed and growth mindsets. You could have a predominant growth mindset in an area but there can still be things that trigger you into a fixed mindset trait.
I have no problem with this concept per se; as far as it goes, it seems eminently more realistic than most descriptions I've seen of mindset theory (which seem to treat it like what therapists sometimes call a "core belief"). But if mindset is significantly contingent on immediate circumstances, what are we saying when we say that someone "has" a fixed or growth mindset? Are the instruments used in the studies capturing any of this variation? If not, what needs to be done to ensure that studies are properly taking this into account?
There are a number of areas where it's widely believed that one must be a born X to be good at some skill. (Say, drawing, or mathematics).
The basic idea is that this is a limiting belief. People who think that drawing is amenable to hard work and practice grow more in that particular area.
But you can generally believe in the power of growth while also thinking that your least favorite subject (say math) is only for people with innate talent. In that case you grow in your "growth mindset" areas and plateau in your "fixed mindset" areas.
> Are the instruments used in the studies capturing any of this variation?
No, honestly probably not. The studies themselves may not replicate. But that doesn't mean that you can't measure such things better than we have.
Here is the main definition of fixed mindset (the opposite of growth mindset):
> In a fixed mindset students believe their basic abilities, their intelligence, their talents, are just fixed traits.
I don't believe this at all. I strongly believe that people cannot improve their intelligence, that some people are destined to be dumb their whole lives while others are brilliant. Of course I can still see the value of practice, and that working hard can immensely improve your performance, but I am still "fixed mindset" according to the definition.
Do you believe that people can improve their intelligence through hard work? If not, then you are fixed mindset like me.
The consolation prize is that anybody willing to dig in can often find a lot of value that other people overlooked. But what always gets me is that it becomes almost impossible to talk about that deeper value, because people already think they know it. Agile being a prime example here.
[1] My Agile postmortem is here: http://agilefocus.com/2011/02/21/agiles-second-chasm-and-how...
The original framing was about knowledge. Some kids were taught the concept of brain plasticity and then later scored higher on tests.
But what concrete actions did these kids take in between the lesson and the test? That's what's missing.
I helped my mom adopt this training for her third grade class and thus got a closer look. She trained the class with a three part YouTube series. The first was a Steph Curry video about practice. That was for motivation. The second was a cartoon about brain plasticity. That was the knowledge. The last was Janelle Monae on Sesame Street singing about the power of the word Yet. "I'm not good at math, YET."
So then for the rest of the year, the kids practiced saying the word yet. I don't know how to do X, yet. So essentially, my mom instituted a year long behavior change toward positive self talk, training these kids to be open to the idea that practice could make them better.
Presumably they did also practice more, although nothing in this story is really A/B testable. But I'm pretty confident that this is closer to the true story about growth mindset. Also, the kids did end up with huge improvements in their standardized test scores (which sadly mattered to the district).
I wrote this up on Medium. Here's the free version: https://medium.com/better-humans/growth-mindset-is-a-habit-y...
I'd never quite made the connection before, but growth mindset is the same sort of good-news/bad-news as steroids. It's not primarily that steroids make you directly stronger, it's that for the most part they help you train more and recover faster. The good news is that you'll get stronger. The bad news is that you end up working even more than if you weren't on steroids.
It's the same with growth mindset. The good news is that you will get smarter, better, more skilled. The bad news is that the way those improvements happen is still through hard work. In fact, a lot of growth mindset is about having an open mind to do even more work.
Why is this bad news?
when the fantasy ends (e.g. finding out it doesn’t work), the pain is overwhelming. there are better methods that do not require voodoo believery, but they just don’t sound as good (or hopeful or scientific).
psych: https://www.amazon.com/Unlocking-Emotional-Brain-Eliminating... https://www.amazon.com/Gestalt-Therapy-Excitement-Growth-Per...
taoism: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B003T0G9E4/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?... but really, search for a master
it’s choosing one that gives better results (and makes more sense).
you already have an implicit belief system, too
Advaita Vedanta is rather similar to Taoism.
Just did a very cursory reading, sounds nothing like Laozi.
The gist is: yes, there's crap in "self-help", but it's the current name for "the practical, applied branch of philosophy", i.e. methods and principles to live well, to cope, to grow, to grieve, to become. A rather ancient human tradition... There's no other name for that, as we speak. I don't think it's helpful nor relevant to blanket-judge an entire domain in such strong terms.
____
[Long version]
Wait, what?
What an impeccable way to grossly reduce an entire aspect of life —becoming, getting 'better', knowing oneself— to just about the shallowest, most commercial tip of the iceberg.
But then, how shall we call the "better methods"? See, there's a tension in vocabulary here that I'm not sure one perceives when criticizing "self-help" (been there myself, before I learned better).
Philosophy at the turn of the 20th century became a purely abstract object of academic study (doing away almost completely with the millennial tradition of "philosophy as life recipes, simple practices and principles to live well and better cope with things"). The real-world / "applied" branch of philosophy has now been excised the confines of universities and professors, and has been termed "self-help". Most people no longer know (forgotten recently, a century ago) that philosophy had forever been practical first and foremost, theoretical maybe as a distant secondary / academic concern; also that it was actually taught and practiced by every day people (life was harsher, and admittedly required a little bit more psycho-maintenance given the brutality of both nature and men). Montaigne, things like that. But we somehow took offense at the apparent "simplicity" or "narrow-mindedness" of simple, "common sense" maxims and principles — the 20th century was to be positively analytical to a fault, or it wouldn't be.
Self-help, what little actual widespread practice remains of ancestral philosophy today, is just a word. Just like putting spiritual or sci-fi terms on the same concepts doesn't in any way change their value (or lack thereof).
So self-help literally designates "the oldest, practical branch of philosophy" (as opposed to the theoretical studies taught for the obtention of degrees: see the rift between a random student working to get some 3-year degree and get on to journalism or politics or whatever versus someone— you, me —facing trials in life, searching for the deeper answers inside themselves...) Theory for the student seeking good grades, but a much more "physical" experience for all of us eventually.
Self-help as we find it today is quite literally the remnants of a battle-tested accumulation of thousands of years of learning to "deal with it" (in the very words of e.g. Ancient Stoics). If you read texts from 2,500 years ago or today's good flavor of the month, the similarities are striking — people remain people and that doesn't change at all in less than 10 or 100,000 years.
So if you mean that the good parts of "methods" should be called philosophy I agree, but again the term has now long been confiscated by academia (and to think philosophy is not science, it shouldn't be gated as such). Thus the term has become a turn-down for most people (like they perceive e.g. math: too abstract, analytical, boring, and absolutely not "educating" or "self-elevating" in any useful sense of the term unless it's for your job).
2,500 years since Pythagoras and Aristotle and here we are, by all accounts not much better at educating children and adults alike (just many more, that is a victory in economic terms). But I digress.
So we're left with "self-help". It's an umbrella word, an alley name for stores, who cares that there's poop in-between diamonds in there — the former's existence doesn't make the latter any less valuable. Actually, diamonds grow in poop at the end of the day — maybe some books are great precisely because the author was appalled like you today and me yesterday, and perhaps what stands between you and me today is just the read of one such 'great' book, profound enough to change you like great philosophy does¹.
I mean, not all programming books and courses are great either, and yet... we doubled the developer population every N months for 70 years quite steadily... 'Perfect' can sometimes be the enemy of 'good', especially on hard problems like the general becoming of human beings.
The problem we face is that any 'general' account of 'how to live well' must go through so many fields (some sciences, some not really, some cultural...) that it's virtually impossible to find a good name without emphasizing one too much over the rest — psycho-something, philo-stuff, evolutionary biology (i.e. social theory of information aka genes and behaviors), etc.
I see your problem, but I don't see a solution — change the name and the iceberg will follow, like the xkcd on standards. Gate it behind a "scientific" framework and suddenly half your objects are AWOL, N/A, no can do. Great to publish as a scholar but you just lost 99% of the effectiveness generally — as Joseph Campbell showed us so eloquently, culture matters to the making of mature beings.
Besides, there's this truth: the only one who will ever really "see" you is you. "Looking inside" is an exercise that only ever has one subject-object in life, your own self, and no one else, not in nor out. "Self-help", or "self-whatever", is a rather straightforward way to convey the idea: only you can help yourself.
In many ways, the word is much closer to its object than ‘philosophy’ ever was as an ontology².
Note that I personally opted to say "self-growth" for myself, partly inspired by this very book, and to differentiate my general synthesis from the trash you decry; but you should know also that I chose a different term precisely to avoid having to defend the value of my "principles" (by having to explain association by name with otherwise trashy content). Do you see the conundrum here? What good I found is hard to share because of the stigma perpetuated by such views/comments as yours, because the source is somehow lesser. But the blanket judgment is no more valid than saying "all Americans are..." or "all women are..."
The real trick is to brucelee through life: “take the best, leave the rest”. If one only intends to learn from Shakespeare-Plato level of execution, a lot will be missed. Most notably everything that science will not or cannot consider as an object for good reasons, that might yet "work" for you. The dirty (I think wonderful) secret in philosophy as in medicine is that a good two thirds of positive results are placebo effects. The art is about becoming a master writer of such effects for oneself —which requires intricate knowledge of the subject. In that sense, even bad books teach you about yourself — that's when anything external ceases to be an excuse but becomes a welcome obstacle, a worthy trial, XP to gain if you will.
As for blue-pill / red-ill, I don't have the faintest idea how it's related to this topic. I haven't looked for years at what these people are saying, but the core take-away³ applied to a rather limited subset of philosophy; so sure learning about RP/BP dynamics is part of self-growth⁴, but it's like hard drives vs computers, different level of objects.
Sorry for a long, but hopefully informative, rambling / post.
____
[1]: If I had to pick one, I personally recommend Stephen Covey's famous "7 habits" — as one of the best philosophy manuscripts I've ever read, it's just as good as the best Hellenist/Roman stuff.
[2]: Ontology = how linguists call a "namespace". (not the other meaning, related to metaphysical philo-stuff blabla). Notice that "philo sophia" (the love or pursuit of wisdom) is the general goal / process, whereas "self help" ("help yourself and the sky will help you") is already embedding a practical lesson in its very name: knowing the name is already enough to spread this one idea. It's very powerful, I think, sociologically.
[3]: That we should teach and learn "purple pill" or some higher-third way, not that you would hear it much but really it's the synthesis of this whole 'movement' IMHO.
[4]: My advice: skip RP/BP and move directly to evolutionary biology. The Moral Animal by R. Wright is a fantastic book.
My opinion is more from just my experience with self-help, and others who were also really into it. Self-help, and people engaged in it, have an undercurrent of anxiety. But that's just my experiential knowledge of it (I would say the same for psychology and philosophy majors).
Also I wouldn't place Marcus Aurelius or Aristotle or some of my favorite philosophers under the umbrella of 'self-help'. If you really wanted to take it out there, then self-help is really everything. What is the purpose of anything but to improve the set standard with which you measure the experience of a human being, a society, or a civilization? You could extend the umbrella forever, and include psychology, etc., with diminishing definitiveness.
The main gripes I have with growth-mindset is the rigidity of it. It is hard to think a positive thought while you are 'negative'. But also, it is hard to think a negative thought while you are 'positive'. To the mind, negative and positive sentiments do not matter because they are simply the responses that were generated by one's beliefs.
Now growth mindset proposes that you could magically make negative beliefs positive. This is poor psychological advice. There is a reason why those beliefs are negative. While direct examination of those beliefs (an interrogation of sorts) might not be the best way to re-form those beliefs, just plain forcing positivity on a negative belief is just as harmful as forcing negativity on a positive belief.
Forced hope is just as violent as forced hopelessness. It's one thing to encourage someone, and another to say that 'the reason for your failure is that you are not positive enough'. Or to say 'if you just change your mindset, you can succeed'. It really a) cheapens how difficult it is to change yourself and b) takes the person away from actually understanding themselves on a deeper level.
I really started changing when I stopped trying to change myself so much. Self-help (and basically zero Western philosophy) doesn't understand that.
You could take the route from modern clinical psychology (memory reconsolidation, etc.) and get there, or find a good martial arts master and learn taoism.
Yeah, thinking back on it, self-help sucks.
I totally agree with everything you said. What you are rightfully criticizing goes under different names — "positive thought", "creative thought", "the secret". It's all the same woowoo indeed, you described it perfectly.
For some reason you haven't grasped or recognized the 'correct' mechanism or technique in that book (or I guess many others in the domain), but you got it otherwise so it's likely just a matter of cultural / personal fit — language that speaks to you. Martial arts certainly is one way, not fit for everyone either, though.
The actual 'magic' IME is the discovery of that "third-eye" skill i.e. 'controlled' introspection (to look into oneself). That's why I recommend Covey because he's got some of the best paragraphs on the topic, and this one thing is literally a game-changer for people who never explored for themselves the immensely vast space (and time) that exists, when trained, between "input" (things outside, things inside too) and "output" (a response, both external and internal). This quote: (emphasis mine)
> “Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom.”
It really is a superpower from a cognitive standpoint (actually trained in cognitive therapy too, immensely, but sadly for now psychology is mostly focused like medicine on curing the ill, not improving the 'normal').
The Stoics saw that space —explicitly so, all of them. In Tao too I hear, though I have yet to read the Tao Te Chin myself.
It's a skill-with-no-name (probably had/has a Greek word for it) that pervaded cultures to this day obviously. But it is the actual key to what you referred as "magically make negative beliefs positive", except it's not magic, not by a long shot: it's work, it's hard on yourself, it requires effort and time, training, lots of failure. But there's only benefits and zero side effects so...
It's a trained skill. At first, you fail miserably, like anything. After about a year, it's become second nature (still de-trainable though, one must remain self-aware on occasion). At first it's conscious effort, spent willpower, it's tiring and you want to just stop, let it go. But it gets better. Effortless eventually, like riding a bike. It's certainly closer to Zen than any form of first-degree 'blind' emotional 'management' (I mean, all therapies and such help, but they merely pave the way to a deeper understanding and meaning that only one can create for oneself).
> I really started changing when I stopped trying to change myself so much.
This, to my ears, is when you began actually doing the work for yourself, by yourself, stopped believing in some shortcut-magic trick in any one book however classic or popular. Each 'real' skill is actually just the opener to a whole other level, bigger problem space. You became the creator of your own solutions, and that, if I may, is the Graal. Like literally I think it's what a lot of 'magical' metaphors (enlightenment, elevation, etc) quite physically or biologically refer to.
There is a fuckton of self-power to be released when you get serious about that path.
I'll tell you that in my anecdotal experience, most people run the other way (back to outside gratification / validation) upon discovery that "the enemy within" generally consists of getting what feels like mentally naked (vulnerable, opened, honest-to-Self) to your deepest oldest layers, and the battle is about healing the child in you left alone for so long, and welcoming him/her back into your life, in its right place.
I profoundly think that you heed those words, wherever they come from and in whatever shape or form however imperfect and partial, when you are ready to hear them, i.e. when you need them.
It's a survival thing, I don't know of going so deep otherwise (it's not like "deep inside" has an "up" or "left"; you need a pulling force like proverbial 'gravity', gravitas, i.e. emotions that run deep, to make sense of that inner space). You eventually find your way through the maze, if it's on your path, I suppose.
But honestly, taking education seriously in that regard (I argue starting with children, as important as managing physical health; and to boot with most adults thinking of this as a health matter, like exercising or nutrition) would do a huge service to society. We can and should train people massively. IMH opinion, experience, research.
So yeah, thinking back on it, I agree self-help sucks. A century later it's nowhere near realizing the social benefits it could claim because it's been too busy giving itself a bad name.
I would say that’s a wrong reading of what I said. But take what you will. It’s simple, I actually just stopped trying so damn hard. Nothing fancy or crazy.
The way you are talking about self-change makes it sound really toiling and gruesome, almost too serious. That is not what I really mean.
Just you know, enjoying daily life having good meals and such. Not taking myself too seriously. Reading less. Just going about. Indulging in laziness and entertainment.
So I don’t believe in some other version of self-help (like you are presuming). I just do whatever I feel like and say whatever feels right. I don’t have high goals, I am just living day-to-day with some aspirations.
I think I see. You come from a different place than me, surely. Our initial make-up I mean, whether innate or acquired.
The thing is, I speak of a "struggle" to really put down the "get-X-quick" approach versus actual compounded effort (tiny bits but long term).
People want to eat some psychedelic or read magical incantations and get-woke-quick but the reality of becoming a well-rounded individual is closer to cooking a nice meal every day (you just need to find and learn recipes that work for you, I guess that's what you found eventually? This emotional clarity, alignement, simplicity even? That's super-zen, you should know!)
I was also speaking of another bigger and clearly 'darker' thing (as in "opaque", non-conscious, that can't be seen but rather felt). I hate the term but you'll read "quantum change" in the mainstream, the idea of a "core" or "essential" change of personality / behavior (same thing here). It happens to some "survivors" notably (of any kind, it's what the person experienced that matters). There's a before and an after — the meaning of life, what bothers you (or not), what (now) inspires you, etc. It's all so much clearer on the other side of pain.
This surely isn't zen and roses, although for me it took going down that dark path and back to really smell the roses (for what they are, and not what I wanted them to be). The terseness of comments and my will to pack too much probably blurred the line between these two experiences — daily routines versus one-off life-changing internal event and its aftermath.
"How to Want What You Have" (Timothy Miller)
In particular this counter-intuitive idea that you should strive not to "do what you love" but rather adamantly to "love what you do". Understanding that relieved me of so, so much emotional burden, like dead weight I was carrying for who-knows-what reasons. It changes people in ways that make others say "maturity" or "wisdom" about it.
If you want to add more books, please feel free!
TL;DRs at the top are just like attention grabbing headlines and opening paragraphs that often don't tell you the whole picture, either on purpose or simply because it's impossible to do so in a sentence/paragraph.
I can plead guilty of seeking attention (I figure 'commenting' is the first such step), but I thought the very length of that post is already by far its most salient aspect. I don't think a foreword changes anything to the big picture. ;-)
Also, on HN of all places, I resent doing that (long pieces), I must delete 4 out of 5 such write ups before posting — self-restrain to keep the place neat, once done it must meet high enough standards for me to actually post, i.e. "would I learn something from this?". So there's structure, and an 'abstract' naturally emerges from that.
Now the "TL;DR" up top is really practical, I care not for sensationalism, not the slightest. I just want to inform people so they can quickly decide whether to dive or skip. I like that myself as a reader (call it anti-click-bait, honest-to-god synthesis).
From a reader perspective,, especially in a mobile ui setting, it would be nice to know up front the content is lengthy and there is a TLDR at the bottom. It’s not necessary to start with the TLDR. I just find a lot of content I bail on because my initial interest level did not align with the time investment. The New Yorker style of journalism.
Executive Summary slides are my analogy. They always lead, raise a ton of questions, and the answers are forthcoming if you want to sit through the presentation. But don’t be that guy who starts drilling in with granular questions during this stage of a presentation
I'm pro 'reader's choice' indeed! An informed 'skip' button up top is really just good hospitality while someone reads my post, me thinks. Like those "get started"-quick pages when hesitating to RTFM.
And they say sure.
They will research, then code, then hit a roadblock and pick a new direction, and repeat. They assume they can get past whatever roadblocks they have, and they're always correct.
Other people will research until they think they've got a plan to get around every bit of friction they'll encounter. The longer you take to get started, the longer achieving a workable solution will take.
Survivorship bias. For every fearless, boots'n'all person I know in a variety of fields (not just dev) who's "succeeded", I know many more whose headlong attempts crashed and burned. Consequences ranged from merely becoming more cautious, to homelessness and suicide.
Ok, some people who dive in and try things don't succeed. But do any people who don't dive in and try things succeed?
Yeah, if you try you might still fail. Most intelligent people realize this is a possibility. If you don't try you will definitely fail though.
Don't we all have some high school friend who didn't really work hard on anything and got pretty high scores on everything, somehow got offered a good job by some friend, smoked weed, went to parties, never worried much and seems to be quite successful or at least quite happy?
I think that's the main problem with all these discussions about success and growth and stuff - it is all anecdotal evidence and nothing more. No real science here and it can hardly ever be.
Failure is the mother of all learning.
The more you fail, the more experienced you are (it's almost an equivalence relationship that grows in time with effort, attempts), the more you become likely to 'succeed' at that thing. I don't know of any other way.
If you need investor money for a fast growth company, are not sure whether you can get it, but dive in, you might fail when nobody invests. If you realise that finding and convincing investors is a roadblock for you, you can choose to save more before starting, pick a slower growth approach or different goal or different funding model which doesn't require investor money at all and sidestep the problem.
There’s certainly a time and place for both approaches and people have their work ‘style’ preferences. This is also a big part of why most productivity software, todos, checklists is generally not for me. I lose too much productivity just by using the tool.
Edit. I should add context. I don’t work as a dev. I’m in Corp finance. This worked for me as individual contributor, mid manager and now in a leadership role. As IC it was how I worked as manager it’s how I delegate as leader it’s how I motivate my team. Again, I’ve had to take the other style at times. It’s not natural for me. Feels like a waste of time in effort not to waste time. I see the benefit of it at times. And I’ve been impressed by some people’s experience in doing it that way. (Eg. a relatively quick successful ERP implementation at a large company is a marvelous thing to witness).
To me it does; diving into water is the alternative to going in slowly and cautiously; your talk is more like "look before you dive" - and discussing by mixing metaphors won't clear anything up. You plan, anticipate roadblocks and judge how much you can overcome them in advance, and adjust the plan. To me, that's not diving in, even if you do it quickly; "Diving in" would suggest that you first learn about the roadblock when you get to it and then your progress stops until you overcome it or can't.
The talk was a variation of 'do what you love and you will be successful' and this woman used her own experience as proof. However this contrast with my own personal experience.
I spent the last few years of my life wearing many hats and jumping from role to role based on opportunities and whatever seemed exciting at that time. As such, now I feel stuck and lagging behind on my career. One of my mentors gave me as advice to stop swinging around and instead focus my attention in one set of skills. I can't help but wonder where I would be now if I had focus from the last 5 years instead of chasing 'whatever excited me'.
In that sense, those inspirational talks are survivorship bias in action, giving advice from the lens 'these actions made me successful' instead of 'I became successful DESPITE these actions'.
The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The next best time is now.
Stop wondering about what might have been and start thinking about what can be! So long as you have your health, the future brims with possibilities. If now is the time for focused attention on hard things, then make the time for that, focus, and improve your abilities.
Judging by some of your past comments, you have successfully reinvented yourself before. You're smart and experienced. Have fun with uncertainty and try to find adventure in your life once again.
(I know you didn't ask for this advice—truth be told, I think it's advice I'm giving myself, because I too find myself at a crossroads. Good luck!)
But it’s okay to procrastinate too. Let the future better version of you solve the problem.
The trick is finding balance.
Being fearless in solving someone else's problem has only benefits - feeling good for succeeding, even partially.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindset
> According to Carol Dweck,[11] individuals can be placed on a continuum according to their implicit views of "where ability comes from".
> Dweck states that there are two categories (growth mindset versus fixed mindset) that can group individuals based on their behaviour, specifically their reaction to failure. Those with a "fixed mindset" believe that abilities are mostly innate and interpret failure as the lack of necessary basic abilities, while those with a "growth mindset" believe that they can acquire any given ability provided they invest effort or study. In particular, an individual's mindset impacts how they face and cope with challenges, such as the transition into junior high school from elementary school or losing your job.[11] According to Dweck, individuals with a "growth" theory are more likely to continue working hard despite setbacks.
I have some poison I'd like to administer: You think this is great, but I find it sinister. It's a wonderful way to blame failure on the person, for if they were growers they'd win no matter what they had to work from. Are some people worse, or simply worse-off? "Use the growth mindset!" the growers can scoff! "There's nothing you can't achieve in the end!" and if you don't, well, they can just condescend. It's impossible to win against such philosophy; it allows them to ignore serious issues, and just fail to see a jammed-up or scammy underlying system, in which you can't rise and must always get pissed on.
But enough of my cynical snarling. I'm sure my growth mindset will let me be the first 36-year-old NCAA champion. You know, unless coronavirus destroys it utterly.
If I see a path toward the destination, but it will take me a million years of walking, then that's not a fault of mindset theory. It doesn't promise that I'll be able to muster the million mile walk, it just promises that if I look closely enough, I might be able to make out the path there.
I am somewhat skeptical of mindset theory but intuitively, it makes sense and tracks with how I expect a human mind to react to difficult projects.
fixed mindset: i'm an alcoholic, i'll always be an alcoholic, it's beyond my power to change that fact, so all I can do is try to let some other power help me to stop drinking.
the recent meta-analysis offering some limited support for AA got me thinking about this -- it's an interesting case where for a lot of people, a fixed mindset is what they need to make a positive change. i think there probably are many situations like this, where accepting something as a fixed trait actually helps you deal with it better.
He doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who is passionate about his job.
Probably enough said on that.