The Wrong Side of Right | Hacker News Reader

The Wrong Side of Right

fs.blog

29 pointsdurmonski13 comments

Whenever I encounter advice in this vein, I can't help but feel it significantly undermines the inextricable relationship between productivity/caring and ego.

To be able to care just enough about something to genuinely commit to it and yet not care too much to not find yourself entangled with it is incredibly difficult, if not inherently paradoxical.

Something has to do the caring—that's the ego. We're frequently told to meditate the ego away, but if we do that effectively, an overwhelming equanimity emerges that is essentially a thermodynamic equilibrium and effectively the end of what we generally mean by productivity.

> Something has to do the caring—that's the ego.

This is the narrative that we are told to believe, but ask people who did "meditate the ego away". They will tell you that productivity and all the other things in life still just happen, only "you" (whatever that is anyway) do not care so much about them any longer. It is not a paradox. The "ego" itself is a paradox.

If you can provide examples of durable productivity in the face of a deconstructed ego that would help. I've only been able to find examples to the contrary, such as some of the most ego-less people also being the least productive (in the traditional sense of the word implying labor and output), i.e. monks.

To be clear I'm not making any moral or value claims here, rather simply observing the correlation between ego and productivity/commitment.

Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj received people every day for decades and answered their questions. He made it very clear that the answering just happens without anybody doing it, and he continued doing it even in the presence of the pain of terminal cancer, weeks before his death. You could call that commitment, but Maharaj said otherwise. Source: Jean Dunn (Ed); "Consciousness and the Absolute"; Acorn Press, 1994

Then there are lots of books written by people whose "ego died" (although what does not exist cannot die), and from own experience I can tell you that writing a book requires a lot of momentum--or what you call commitment.

Wrong kind of productivity for the capitalist environment though. Once the ego is out of the picture it is easy to enjoy “having enough” and choosing more worthwhile pursuits than the rat race to make someone yet more wealthy.

It depends on how broadly you define 'ego', as people committed to a cause larger than themselves are often extraordinarily dedicated & productive. Priests, teachers, explorers, scientists (driven to find a cure for a genetic disease), etc. Their motivation might have a small component of individual ego ("I found it!"), but mostly it's egoless service to a significant problem they observe in their society/world.

That's a fair response, and we may disagree here somewhat, but to me there's a subtle redefinition of "ego" going on when we talk about traditionally "selfless" acts or charity or, as you put it, commitments to causes larger than individuals.

To me, certain egos are fed by selfless works and dedications to grand causes. This is not to say that's a bad thing or that we don't want to create incentives to have more of this, but I do think it circles back to the original problem of the ego. It's just that certain people's egos are more effectively fed when not focusing just on themselves.

The ego-less people tend not to spend a lot of time telling their stories. So such projects tend to be known by the result. Apollo 11 was one particularly prominent example of lots of people putting their egos aside for the common goal.

There is perhaps always an ego at the top, at least when the project itself is ego driven like Apollo. We only know the stories that somebody told.

I am skeptical of people that "meditate the ego away", for reasons highlighted in this article https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/10/21/the-pnse-paper/, which confirms the experiences I had with such people. While their mental landscape may be totally different, they usually haven't changed much as a person.

This has also been my impression. I think the paradox is roughly this:

- People who understand driving the most meaningful outcome may not be egotistic enough to want to drive it (they're content in life, their self-worth is unlinked to their outcomes)

- People who are willing to sacrifice lifestyle to drive meaningful outcomes also care about being right and are easily blinded by their ego when they're wrong

And the most depressing of all:

- Commanding the resources to drive meaningful outcomes too often goes hand-in-hand with being entrenched in some kind of a system that's too inefficient/bureaucratic/political to actually empower anyone to drive meaningful outcomes.

Another crutch:

- Driving meaningful outcomes can go hand-in-hand with absolute and utter obsession for navigating whatever is needed to drive it. Personally I understand it as the doing/reflecting dichotomy. Doing the doing leaves little room for reflecting and vice versa.

That seems plausible, but it's hard to disprove the truthiness of non-falsifiable statements, especially at (to use your excellent choice of words) that paradoxical intersection of ego and productivity.

(On the other hand, I may not care enough about this topic to genuinely commit to it, which probably means I'm right. ;) )

I had trouble at my previous job like this. I knew I was right and my boss was wrong and let him know. I also worked way too hard for the benefits I was getting there. It didn’t do much for my career and didn’t help my mental health, so I ended up leaving.

In my new job, I decided to care about the outcome a little less so that I can play my part better. Sure, we could fix all the stuff that I think is wrong here at the new place, but then we would not get the stuff done that will make more progress with our customers and product. Honestly, just caring a little less does wonders.

I sure wish I could quit and start my own business, though, because surely I could do better! At least my ego tells me that I could do better…

Be a rhizome. Not a tree. But a forest.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com