Humility | Hacker News Reader

Humility

3 pointsmotoko6 comments

Response to "Reflections of a YC Dropout" http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=330470

"Be humble" is bad advice. Humility isn't an independent trait like "smart" that means "self-critical." It's socially contextual that means "benevolently knows his place." For example, Jesus is the most humble man possible, yet he claimed to be God. Yet, a nerd is openly disrespected for merely claiming to be good at video games. Jesus was so humble that even him _existing_ was a sacrifice. Yet, a nerd is disrespected the more he tries to do anything, and nerds are notoriously self-critical.

So "humility" can't simply mean "self-critical." Yet, when one _tries_ to be humble, that's what one tries first. The result is arrogant people acting pathetic. When one _is_ humble, it's not self-criticism itself that matters, but the right amount of it.

There's something about "networking" that attracts people who try to be better and repels by people who are better. I don't know what it is precisely, but it's the difference between that and "networking" without the quotes.

And, there's something about "growing out of geeky" that makes one sensitive to that difference. Maybe the difference _is_ humility.

For example, I wrote this post in Paul-Graham-essay style. Does that make me less humble? It doesn't feel humble to post this. It makes me uncomfortable. But, saying that it makes me uncomfortable makes me more comfortable.

"For example, Jesus is the most humble man possible, yet he claimed to be God. "

Assuming you believed someone called Jesus existed, and believe in the bible, Jesus did not say he was God.

He actively avoided bringing this topic up, but did agree with others who said he was the Son of God and King of the Jews.

i view being humble as being receptive to input, whether it is constructive criticism or disparaging condemnation. being strong is what you do with that from there onwards.

adapt and overcome, a good proposition to live by

No, because famously humble people were entirely unmoved by "input." Again, Jesus is considered to be the _most_ humble person in Western civilization, yet did he ever accept "input?" Never. Other archetypal humble figures like Gandhi and Lincoln were also famous for stubbornly persisting in their innate correctness despite "very strong constructive criticism."

hate to break it to you, but jesus is not a real person.

and really does the definition of humble apply to people who are decidedly NOT so? especially considering the definition covers a broad range of classification

1. not proud or arrogant; modest: 2. having a feeling of insignificance, inferiority, subservience, etc.: 3. low in rank, importance, status, quality, etc.; lowly: of humble origin; 4. courteously respectful:

those people could easily be humble by one definition and not by another. you have to take this kind of disposition with a grain of salt

"hate to break it to you, but jesus is not a real person"

Irrelevant. Jesus is the archetype for "humble," but your description doesn't fit your description of humble, so your description is incomplete.

You are saying that being "low in rank and importance" is humility? Complete nonsense. That only applies for people who ARE low in rank and importance. Does that describe the President? The rebel leader who defied the most powerful empire in the world? Some guy who started his own religion?

This is in no way a religious discussion. You're not addressing my idea, you're taking potshots at religion and repeating the self-critical nerdy sentiments I refuted in my hypothesis.

uhh.. that's the dictionary definition sir. it's not open for your interpretation or dispute.

and it completely validates my statements. so i don't understand why you're continuing to stamp your feet about it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com