Hacker News Reader

Comment by kthejoker2 | Hacker News Reader

Separate comment: this question is framed with a fixed mindset and an unhealthy sense of what self-discovery is.l

You "are" "good at" nothing.

You are not a block of marble with David inside, something to be chipped away at until it is apparent for all to see.

You are a ball of clay, malleable, reshapable and shapeless, fluid and formed, able to absorb new bits and grow into something wildly different, day by day if needed.

Try some growth mindset handbooks and techniques to reframe your thinking.

View on HN

I heard someone say once that one of the best things that helped them develop a growth mindset was lifting weights. Consistently doing 3x5 heavy squats, deadlifts, and presses just three days per week will make a visible change in most people's body remarkably quickly. And seeing that change in yourself really helps reinforce that you can change your situation.

I thought that was an interesting observation but I'd like to suggest expanding it to physical activity in general rather than specifically powerlifting. There are many different activities (for example HIIT, martial arts, gymnastics, rock climbing just to name a few) that will make a significant physical change in your body. When you stick to one of those activities and document your progress with data, photos, etc there's something about seeing that change happen to the blob of matter that is "you" that really expands what you consider achievable for yourself.

>Consistently doing 3x5 heavy squats, deadlifts, and presses just three days per week

As an armchair gymmer, this routine lacks pull exercises for back musculature. Add row pulls or pullups!

What about the deadlifts they mention? (Or maybe that wasn't present in their response at the time you wrote yours)

Deadlifts will hit most of the posterior chain, but to really grow thickness in the upper and mid back you'd need to add in heavy rows and/or pull-ups as OP mentioned.

Might as well chime in with the basic back-of-a-napkin strength program -> One movement for: (1) vertical push, (2) vertical pull, (3) horizontal push, (4) horizontal pull, (5) glutes/"back of your legs", (6) quadriceps/"front of your legs".

To beat the dead horse, deadlifts definitely involve pulling but it's primarily a glutes exercise. Adding in dedicated pulls like pullups and rows will give you a lot of bang for your buck.

Well, if we're all chiming in: another requirement is a caloric surplus. Beginner gains are a real thing, but at a certain point (say 8-10 weeks) a caloric surplus will be required to continue seeing changes in strength and muscle mass. And that reminds me, the weights also need to get incrementally heavier.

This programme lacks core! You should have atleast (7) horizontal push (situps) (8) horizontal pull (back extensions)

One of the things with physical culture is how easily it is to spot bullshit. You can either lift X or you can't. You can either fight a round with a boxer or you can't. None of the handwaving and smoke and mirrors which are effective in intellectual disciplines work when you're facing a physical challenge. Things become black and white and success and failure are easily visible to everyone. Conquering that gives one a certain kind of resilience and confidence that's hard to get in any other way.

>You can either lift X or you can't. performance enhancing drugs, bad form that may not be visible (ex it going to chest on bench), and what "lifting X" even means when the amount can vary vastly depending on number of reps and sets

I started lifting weights 3 years ago on this program (it's basically the Starting Strength novice linear progression).

For background I'm in my mid 50s, never did weight training in my life before 2019. I've progressed more I thought I could and my muscle tone and strength is better than it's ever been in my life.

However none of this has changed my outlook on work, or accomplishing other stuff in general. It hasn't unlocked any new drive or energy or passion. I don't feel like a different person from before. In fact I am tired earlier in the evening and sleep more now.

I don't say this to be discouraging but personally I've never found that "just do this one thing you're not doing" will make a dramatic difference aside from getting better at doing that thing. If you want to get strong, lift weights. That's good in its own right. It may or may not change anything else in your life.

> I don't say this to be discouraging but personally I've never found that "just do this one thing you're not doing" will make a dramatic difference aside from getting better at doing that thing.

Oh, I definitely agree and do not subscribe to a "just do this one thing" philosophy. I wasn't trying to suggest that this one thing will solve all problems. Only that it is something that a person who is striving to adopt more of a growth mindset might consider trying. It is fairly straightforward to get reliable success if you're a novice here, and having tangible successes is at least useful (and very arguably important) in making a substantial change in mindset. Also, my comment was specifically generalizing to more than just the Starting Strength novice lifter program.

While I agree with the statements in your answer, they are not the whole story.

If the complete answer to "How to find what I am good at?" would be "You are a malleable ball of clay", then what? Go for whatever seems tempting? Go for becoming a rockstar? You might answer "If that is what you really want". Then we are back to OP's question. The shiny rockstar career might seem tempting for a few months or years. And then frustration kicks in like for 90% of wannabe rockstars.

The question what path is the right one for a person is still legit.

Although it is tough for an individual to find what they click with, it's even harder for a third party. So the only advice people can give you really IS "just try things until you find what works for you". I mean, it's doubtful that if you forced a person to try something new, they try something that they know they will absolutely hate.

Also, "Be a rockstar" is not a smart goal to pursue (in that it has a high probability of failure), but playing an instrument with some level of mastery is. If you base your satisfaction on goals with a strong degree of randomness or innate ability to their achievement, you will probably be unsatisfied. Better to base goals on things you can (almost) fully control.

Agree with sibling commenters here critiquing this for being an oversimplification- nature vs nurture is not a binary.

But even aside from the core of the argument, I find your phraseology oddly formulaic. It's ironic you're accusing the OP of having a "fixed mindset" when so much of your contributed "opinion" is clearly copypasted from books. I'd suggest opening your own mindset to forming a worldview of your own rather than following growth gurus so blindly.

Phrasing and mindset aren't the same.

They are more indicative of one another, than a direct analogy.

Whether you blame another, view some traits as faults, idolise some concept or are blind to some thing, all are appearant in your writing and speech.

You're overreading into a message typed into a forum. I've noticed mistakes in your post, but I don't then assume you're careless in every aspect. You could just be having a bad day, or English could be a second language. I don't know, so I don't assume.

True and fair. My observations may be misguided- I thought them appropriate to voice regardless purely in the context of the condescending & ironic nature of the observations the gp made about the op.

Thanks for the patented HN contrarian view! :)

It's true, comment boards reward the "oddly formulaic" - cliches and well-worn passages carry extra weight.

They also lead to weird leaps of illogic, like your assumption I follow any growth gurus at all!

Happy to have a longer conversation offline if you'd rather address a man instead of a strawman.

I found your comment condescending: the tone assumes you have absolute knowledge and that the OP is immediately "wrong" in their approach. It's an extremely dismissive way to respond to someone asking for pretty specific advice.

So I addressed that. I didn't intend it as ad hominem against your character - I only intended to address the specific contents of your comment, so apologies for the guru comment (I just assumed you followed them since you were recommending their handbooks).

Thanks for the tip! Do you have any book suggestions from experience? Otherwise, I would randomly google and pick.

Mindset by Carol Dweck (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/40745.Mindset)

So Good They Can't Ignore You by Cal Newport (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13525945-so-good-they-ca...)

Can't Hurt Me by David Goggins (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/41721428-can-t-hurt-me)

Also see my sibling comment above.

That is a blatantly false answer. Of course, there is an ongoing debate about nature vs. nurture, which means that the genetic makeup of the individual strongly influences the individual's life. Look at musicality, look at sociopathy, look at general intelligence - all areas where genes exert their influence (as an example). So yes, you can try to grow around your talents, and develop strengths there. But by the same token, you should not try to grow in areas that you are not cut out for. No amount of whishful thinking or practice will turn me into a top-notch musician or singer, for example, as the genetic component is missing.

How do you know that the genetic component is missing in you? Were both of your parents failed musicians?

No, they weren't. They had only little interest in anything musical. Why would you start as a musician (and then fail), if music does not interest you?

Your response carries much too much confidence. There is no debate any longer - the story is pretty well worked out [1][2]. Nature only gets you so far. See for example how much top pro golfers practice (or musicians, or whatever ..). (Not that it matters but I learned this late in life and was able to apply the knowledge to make it near the top of my admittedly very narrow field). Sure, at the top 0.1%, maybe even 1%, your nature really matters, but you still need to practice.

You, meaning anyone, could probably practice hard and join the upper x% of just about anything (setting aside things like the NBA that overvalue nature). What x is, well that is subject to debate. So is the source of motivation, and that is almost the most important thing.

[1] Peak, by K. Anders Ericsson and Robert Pool [2] talent code, by Daniel Coyle

This is clearly not true for anything where being the top C requires innate physical abilities. You mentioned basketball. But the same applies to anything physical.

My own little anecdote. I have Cerebral Palsy. This isn’t a woah is me statement. It really only affects my left hand and slightly my left leg. Most people wouldn’t even notice besides a really slight limp.

I spent 12 years as a fitness instructor as a working hobby. No matter how much I practiced, I wouldn’t have been able to do what other instructors could do. I synthesized my own none choreography heavy, fairly simple, very athletic style. But it got to the point that I knew I was the best that I could possibly be and I once my style started going out of fashion (step, cardio kickboxing) and the industry got to be more dance focused, it was time for me to hang it up. I also start focusing more on my career and my then new marriage and step sons.

During the latter part of the period when I was teaching, I also started running. I was decent - under a 10 minute mile up to a 15K. But every time I tried to push harder - either longer or faster - my slightly favoring my left leg caused my right leg (good leg) to experience problems or my left ankle to start hurting.

Even lifting weights, something I have always had an affinity for (and my CP doesn’t affect) and at my strongest I could bench press 300 pounds at 5 foot 4 and a weight of 175 pounds, I would never be able to lift what my 6 foot 3 200 plus pound step son can get to with much less training.

The books cited are weird self help-y "non" fiction books that misrepresent research: when you look at the actual articles is nature all the way down.

Well this is a weird non sequitur.

Growth mindset has literally nothing to do with "top notch performance", or a guaranteed way to achieve success in any and every field of practice.

It's simply a framing exercise for how you handle failure and how you approach new topics and challenges.

And I will cheerfully disagree, many top notch musicians can't sing, and many great singers are no musicians. You could have been great - you could still be great!

But effort and persistence is a much wider gulf than talent.

Well, humans are not made of silly putty, that can be shaped in any way by simple wishful thinking. Please read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blank_Slate

Reply on news.ycombinator.com