Hacker News Reader

Comment by wccrawford | Hacker News Reader

From the title, I thought this was going to be a negative article.

Instead, it says something which should be obvious: Self-help gurus are successful because they address current issues that people are having.

... That sounds so amazingly obvious that you are now wondering why it had to be said, I'm sure. I know I am.

But after thinking for a bit, I've decided that maybe the guru doesn't fit the times... Maybe the guru would have been successful at any time, if they lived then? They have an eye for the world, how to fix it efficiently, and how to tell people how to.

Ferriss' books have been on my to-read list for a while... I guess I should get around to it.

View on HN

"Addressing the issues people are having" defines finding a market - a good thing here :-)

However, I would like to question these issues in the first place.

They look a lot like an existentialist crisis to me - basically finding no purpose in one's own worth, and thus spending time doing something deemed worthwhile and in line with individualistic values : "improving" oneself.

Better abs, travel, less time spend at work - that's what's popular today, but is this the successful recipe for reaching happiness? I strongly doubt that.

What about using some of these wits to actually create some economic activity or solving different problems? You know, mastery, independence, purpose? At least there are more proofs there.

I fear this investment on the self is misguided - since it has a negative interest rate (because until we get better at cryogenics you still die in the end).

I could believe in an investment of the self if it was consistent - but besides the revasterol thing mentionned in the article (which doesn't work on primates unless you have a special gene removed IIRC), it seems very lowball.

That's how I'd sum it up - minimalist in the "minimal effective dose" sense, low risk - low gain, no passion. Mod that down if you want, but I'm sure we can do much better as a species.

Exactly. Ferris rails against what he describes as "the deferred life," or traditional work-and-retire life planning. But he swings the pendulum too far in the opposite direction, advocating living entirely in, and for, the present.

What both of these philosophies seem to miss is that the self exists to create something enduring. This can be a legacy, or a company, or children, or a work of art, or essentially anything that outlasts the expiration of one's body and mind. Neither the deferred life nor Ferris's "4 Hour Workweek" places any sort of priority on this type of long-term goal, and achieving such a goal requires a necessary degree of sacrifice. It certainly requires focus, cumulative effort directed toward a tangible outcome, and more than 4 hours a week.

Everything is an adventure for Ferris, but it's an adventure without direction or destination. It is an eternal, guilt-free spring break, bankrolled by ad hoc projects and detachment from any forms of obligation. That may indeed be an improvement over cubicle slavery for most readers. But it'll still be a fundamentally hollow existence for anyone inclined to build or seek meaning.

> "It is an eternal, guilt-free spring break, bankrolled by ad hoc projects and detachment from any forms of obligation."

I stopped reading here. Where do I sign?

> "This can be a legacy, or a company, or children, or a work of art, or essentially anything that outlasts the expiration of one's body and mind."

I disagree completely that a legacy is a necessary component of having led a fulfilled life - even though I personally seek to leave behind some legacy myself. That said, how hasn't Ferris left a legacy? He's published something that's been read by more people than just about any of us would ever achieve in our lives, and that's at age 33.

The best most of us can hope for is to influence a few people in the form of children.

In my experience, "eye on the prize" styles of living is the surest way to miss out on all the flowers along the road.

I'd dare say being with money but no purpose can be a curse.

I have no proof to offer and some heirs and trust fund kids seems to be doing just fine, but I believe part of being human includes finding or having purpose - what you call something enduring. It can be a cause, a religion, a business, children, whatever - something!

Maybe we are all different and some people are happy living a purposeless life. To me, what Ferris advocates seems a lot like waiting for death in the best shape possible, to leave a good looking cadaver behind.

We are a different crowd here - as others replied, having less free time, they enjoy the hack provided in his book to get better health. Using his advice in this way, picking up interesting tidbits, to fix self-identified issues is one thing.

But drinking the koolaid on the 4 hour work week and leaving the purpose to be defined to today's guru is totally different. IMHO, that's very close to the "lifestyle business" quite often promoted here, and it might be a reason why it's so well received.

Yet it seems very wrong on so many levels. It's basically settling for a status quo, giving up on life and hope, trying to find some meager contentment in maintaining control over a self built prison-paradise.

What both of these philosophies seem to miss is that the self exists to create something enduring.

Citation needed.

> Better abs, travel, less time spend at work - that's what's popular today, but is this the successful recipe for reaching happiness? I strongly doubt that.

I agree better abs probably isn't going to do much for your long term happiness, but better overall health and fitness might help you live longer with more overall energy to pursue enjoyment.

As for travel and less time spent at work: I completely disagree with you there. Those (potentially at least) provide enjoyable experiences/memories and time to spend with friends, family, and loved ones. There is no more likely path to reaching happiness than that.

I have certain issues that I know I need to fix in myself, and while I know they won't make me happy just because I did them, improving myself makes me happy.

However, I don't have time. I probably have the time to actually do the work... What I don't have time for is figuring out how to do the work efficiently.

I think that's why his '4 hour' books are so popular. He's done the work of figuring that out. (I haven't read them, so I can't be sure of this.)

> From the title, I thought this was going to be a negative article. Instead, it says something which should be obvious: Self-help gurus are successful because they address current issues that people are having.

I'm not sure. The article reads to me as a lot of boring details of events, half-relevant biography, and situation interspersed with some mildly amusing snarky commentary.

I wonder what the effect of the piece would have been in the hands of a master like Tom Wolfe. I expect he would have had me rolling on the floor.

i believe it is a negative article, but it's very well hidden.

  And it recommends funding all this by discovering a “muse,”
  which Ferriss defines, as Seneca did not, as “an automated vehicle
  for generating cash without consuming time.” "

There are a number of other similar jabs in the article, in various degrees of obviousness.

If anything, i'd say the author was more than kind.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com