Being OK with not being extraordinary (2021)
tiffanymatthe.com
tiffanymatthe.com
However, you can be extraordinary in your own unique way. For example, running. You may not be the best runner, but you could have a lot of insight into running and a good writer at the same time, and thus be extraordinary at writing about running.
If you take the entire sum of your own unique talents, and find a way to combine them properly, you can become extraordinary simply by finding a new way of looking at the world, even if the individual talents you have are not outstanding compared to others.
Take programming as another example. You may be just a "good" programmer, a "good" teacher, but not necessarily outstanding at either. But maybe you have a third skill that will make you stand out when you are teaching programming. Maybe it's your sense of humour, or your ability to put people at ease, or even a talent for drawing that comes out when you draw diagrams.
Being outstanding or extraordinary in my mind means combining everything you have to be inspiring, because the proximal/end result of extraordinary really is just that: having the ability to inspire. Sometimes one-dimensional measurements like amount of money or raw strength measure that, but sometimes they don't.
(The Art of impossible) https://www.amazon.com/Art-Impossible-Peak-Performance-Prime...
It guides you through discovering your mix of passions and strengths to land on what you might make you uniquely extraordinary.
I think that this isn't so different from the article's point, just phrased differently. But I also think it's worthwhile to remember that, while you can be extraordinary, you don't have to be. Giving someone permission just to enjoy something, without having to worry about whether they are extraordinary at it, is as important as reassuring them that they can be extraordinary.
Also, being extraordinary in one thing (e.g. running) doesn't mean what people think it means because how many people actually try to become a professional runner? If everybody tried, Usain Bolt would be ranked #1000 or perhaps even lower.
I’m skeptical. The people who do become professionals are heavily weighted towards the fastest runners. People naturally gravitate towards what they’re best at.
SI ran a fantastic story[1] about Naomi Girma, a top young talent who's already cemented a starting position on the US women's national team, the holding and four-time World Cup champions. Considering the size and depth of the US talent pool, itself massive due to the relative dearth of women's team sports and the accessibility fostered by Title IX, and likewise also rife with abuse and corruption, the USWNT is arguably one of the world's hardest soccer teams to become a starter for.
Girma had none of the advantages of many of her teammates. She's Black, which is still uncommon on the USWNT and even less common among natural defenders. She's the daughter of an Ethiopian refugee and another Ethiopian immigrant, another rarity. She was discovered by a travel team — often difficult to join and expensive youth clubs — while playing at a YMCA, and stayed on a worse-performing team because she relied on getting rides from a friend's family on that team.
When it was overwhelmingly evident that she belonged on the better team, the team itself covered her rides to practice because her parents couldn't — in part by a parent driving Girma to a private school for pickup. Her coach promoted a feeder program to the youth national teams to her, without which neither Girma nor her parents would have any idea what her ceiling would be.
> “You know, my parents had no idea about the college recruiting process. They didn’t even know how to get me onto a club team. Even, like, what is AYSO? The concept of rec—all these little things—you have to learn that, and if you didn’t grow up here, why would you ever know what AYSO is? You’re not going to look that up. So I feel like a lot of things fell in place on my path because of the people I was surrounded by, and I’m extremely thankful for that, because I know I would probably just still be playing at the park on Saturdays—still having fun, but I wouldn’t have gotten where I am today.”
She went on to get a full-ride scholarship to Stanford, won national championships, became a first-overall draft pick in the US pro NWSL, and started for a San Diego expansion team that went to the semifinals in its first year. Girma was Rookie of the Year. She's considered a lock for the 2023 World Cup roster, playing for the defending world champions.
Her contemporaries as exciting young talents are in stark contrast: Sophia Smith, this year's league MVP and USWNT teammate, came up through a sports family where her mother, unlike Girma's, could afford to quit her job to cover the three-hour practice commute. She also had the advantages of a Colorado youth system that produced several other USWNTers.[2] Trinity Rodman is Dennis Rodman's daughter (itself a complex and fraught oversimplification of her relationship[3]). Olivia Moultrie's family was rich enough to build her a sophisticated practice facility, complete with her own pitch, as a pre-teen on her way to a Nike sponsorship and pro contract at 15.[4]
But if Girma didn't have a friend on a youth team who's mom would give her a ride to practice? If, instead of a supportive coach, she had an abusive one?[5] By her own estimation, she might still be playing weekend ball in a park with her dad.
Bolt's story is extremely well documented. But on top of the talent, and on top of the work to excel, to think there aren't hundreds of other kids out of billions with that same potential is difficult to reconcile. A faster kid, a better soccer player, a better wide receiver, a more clever pitcher might just not have a mom who can get them to practice.
[1]: https://www.si.com/soccer/2022/06/29/naomi-girma-san-diego-w...
[2]: https://www.today.com/parents/dads/trinity-rodman-opens-rela...
[3]: https://www.today.com/parents/dads/trinity-rodman-opens-rela...
[4]: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/soccer-pro-olivia-moultrie...
[5]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2022/02/08/rory-dames-...
I also don't think you can assume the greatest outlier who has been discovered would be significantly exceeded by others who weren't discovered. If they could be better, my intuition is it would be by a very small margin.
Would Bolt be #1000? Dunno, but if this were the multiverse then yes there is always someone better.
It's a bit like if a 12 year old is 6'6" and athletic... there's a pretty high chance someone is going to try to teach that kid to play basketball.
Usain Bolt is only about 15-20% faster than a decent high school runner. The difference was even less when Bolt was in high school.
That kind of difference isn’t even noticeable unless you’re timing it or racing. It’s not something that’s immediately obvious to everyone.
In a 40 second race a 5% margin would be 2 seconds - enough to quickly turn around, sit down, and feign some yawns as you wait for the #2 guy to come in. A 20% margin? That'd be 8 seconds in a 40 second event. It'd look plainly comical.
Also Usain Bolt was 15-20% faster at his peak than a decent high schooler. He was nowhere near that when he was in high school. In addition to genetics he was also training much more than a decent high school runner would.
A huge component of genetic potential is a greater response to training. Someone like Usain Bolt could easily slip under the radar just by being uninterested in running.
Incidentally he also wasn't interested in running. He was much more interested in football, but seeing one kid Bolt across the field led others to convince him to try out track and field.
>Incidentally he also wasn't interested in running. He was much more interested in football, but seeing one kid Bolt across the field led others to convince him to try out track and field.
Being seriously into any team sport makes being identified as a gifted athlete of any kind much more likely. Most kids are either not involved in team sports or aren't trying hard enough to really be noticed even if they are genetically gifted.
In addition in many countries almost half of the kids are overweight, obese, or just out of shape, which probably swamps out any genetic benefits in terms of sprinting.
>He ran a 20.4s 200m in 2003 at the age of 17. His ultimate personal best and still world record would be 19.19 in 2009.
That's about 10% faster than what's considered a good time for someone that age, and that was after, by that time, a ton of practice. My point was that he probably wasn't beating other "fast" kids by 20% margins.
My overall point isn't that when participating in athletic events, a genetically gifted kid isn't going to be noticed. My point is it's very possible for a kid with Usain Bolts genetics to go unnoticed, simply because they aren't interested in sports.
The differences in speed between young kids are likely small enough that it's not obvious just from playing tag a few times that this kid is freakishly fast. And many kids will just never run 40 second races. It's very possible that whatever genetic advantages Usain Bolt had didn't even show up till puberty.
Maybe the kid is just bookish and doesn't play outside much, maybe he plays with older siblings so his natural ability is dwarfed by the extra year or 2. Maybe he gets fat because his parents feed him too much etc...
The current 200th highest world record for a U18 is 21.04. Usain's record is 20.13 (my mistake). In the 200m you're generally looking at around 4.2 strides per second with each stride covering around 2.4 meters. So we have all we need. The difference at the end would be (21.04 - 20.13) * 4.2 * 2.4 = 9 meters, or more than 30 feet - multiple car lengths!
And that 200th fastest 17 year old of all time is not just a "fast kid". He's a physical outlier several sigmas away from the mean that would be creating similarly lopsided finishes at nearly nearly every local, state, and even national competition he entered. But Usain is just on an entirely different level than even that. So Usain racing against anybody even remotely normal would look like "fast kid" vs "extremely slow kid."
---
Basically it's not really possible to fail to notice this sort of achievement. In PE he'd casually run laps around everybody without even trying. And by football, I don't mean any sort of team event - just a bunch of kids grabbing a football, imagining some nets, and playing. Nobody would be even close to being able to keep up to him. Literally anytime there is any sprint movement in anything, he would be on top - by far.
As for the hypotheticals beyond this, I don't know. We might have to just agree to disagree. I tend to think people are drawn to the things they're good at. And with running it's basically impossible to not notice that you're this many sigmas away from the mean. It's not like we're talking the best Polo player.
Yes in a 200m foot race someone who is 5% faster is very noticeable (in a 20m race, which is closer to what little kids are doing, it's much less noticeable at 1 meter). But by that time Usain Bolt was already a well trained athlete competing in organized events, so of course he was noticed.
My argument can be broken down into 2 parts.
1. If we accept that Usain Bolt's genetic speed boost is the same throughout his life, so that at 4 years old he had a 10-15% boost compared to other other fast 4-year-olds with similar fitness levels--I'm saying that given the kinds of running and games 4-year-olds play, and who they play them with, that isn't a big enough difference to guarantee that someone notices it. That is, it isn't guaranteed to swamp out other variables. Bolt at 4 wasn't likely faster than his 6-year-old cousin or any faster in a short race than the kid who starts half a second before him. Hypothetical fat Usain Bolt at 4 wasn't likely faster than his fast 4 year old friend. Hypothetical indoor sheltered Bolt who never played outside, probably wasn't faster than his fast friend who ran outside all day long.
2. We shouldn't accept that his genetic speed boost stays the same throughout his life. It's very unlikely that Usain Bolt was the fastest 8 month old in the world. It's very likely that at least some of the physiological differences that enable his freakish speed didn't develop until puberty. Kids are not scaled down mini adults.
Kids generally stop running around for fun outside of organized activities well before puberty. Potentially giving hypothetical Usain 2, plenty of time to develop other interests based on other things that he might also be good at.
A deconditioned couch potato 12-year-old isn't going to be lapping his peers who play soccer every day after school, no matter his genetic potential--especially if he doesn't care enough to really try.
> Well, Bolt himself was born into a poor family
Sure, but what about the really fast kid who was shot in Somalia or the other one who lost a leg to an unexploded antipersonnel mine. Or as innocuous as the really fast kid who didn't like the pressure of competition.
What about the people who were simply born earlier? Technology showed up in the 2 years that's making people even faster. Those throughout history were not given the same opportunity, but if they were, could they have been faster that Bolt? Possible.
Your skepticism requires that everyone be given an equal chance which simply isn't grounded in reality.
Also, as it takes some time to get past the amateur level and explore whether one actually had generic potential to be great at a sport, and that there are more sports than time, there's an element of chance whether someone hits upon the right sport.
In other words, what made Usain Bolt a gold medal winner wasn't merely physical potential and chance, but the mental ability to push his body to extremes and work at it every single day because he desired it that much and had the mental stamina to do so. In the "what if" reality, you would have to change everyone's mind to have the same psychology. You can have all the physical attributes and potential of a runner, but if you hate running and generally don't have much "grit", you aren't going to get far.
What if someone had the potential but not the determination to follow through. Or they did not have a way to train, or got injured the day they had the first competition, or the first training, or they did not like the coach or the teacher, or they preferred dancing or music instead of running, etc.
Usain Bolt redefined the limits of the human body.
He's literally a rocket man.
There aren't enough extraordinary runners to make him rank #1000 or even lower.
I do not want to diminish Bolt's achievements, but how do you know this?
See Michael Jordan trying baseball or every programmer who thinks they know everything about everything else because they know programming. One of my favorites is when an athletic guy comes into Jiu-Jitsu the first time and gets submitted over and over by one of the kids or women.
Very insightful!
I'm not the best programmer there by a long shot. I didn't grow up programming at the age of 10. I don't have a CS degree.
But then I thought how nobody has the same experience as I do. I have a mixture of things I'm good at that make me unique and valuable.
Especially if you add some social skill to figure out what exactly needs to be built instead of taking ticket comment at face value then figuring out author of request had something else in mind once it lands in test environment.
Oh, my Lord, you type a people are just incredible. If everyone is extraordinary, no one is extraordinary. You’re only afraid to say this because saying it means that plenty of people will not be extraordinary and that kills not only their dreams but your dreams.
Just because you want to put all that stress in your life, does not mean you have to put the stress on everybody else’s life. My shoes are
The generalists that don’t have the particular intersection of skills to be CEO end up being outcompeted by specialists for specialized roles. See: poor wages and working conditions for unskilled workers, who certainly have skills outside of work, but no skills that matter enough in the economy to get specialized jobs
Picking something that is not only interesting to you but also needed by the market is generally a good idea if you want to earn money. Otherwise it’s just a hobby.
But getting tenured? Here, where I live (Western Europe), only the number of papers and european projects you've been into matters, even if the outcome of the "research" of those papers or projects is nothing to be seen (who really controls that?).
If you feel like you’re reaching a glass ceiling, don’t be afraid to go outside that box. Record some lectures and put them online. Self publish a book. Start your own school. Etc. (The exact way you can color outside those lines will heavily depend on your context, but you want to be coloring outside the lines).
Yeah, I have an introductory programming course that I'm developing (like how to think algorithmically with flowcharts and pseudo-code for beginners) adapted from another class I teach, and I'm exploring teaching platforms such as Thinkific and Teachable. I also have some other courses (building a 16-bit OS from scratch, basic data structures, etc.) that I would like to develop as well. This semester I have a lot of class hours, but next semester I plan to put them online (and maybe do a Show HN).
But thanks for your words! It is a confirmation that I really need to do something else (by the side, at least).
Of course, like most simple things, this is far easier said than done.
We all dream of making it to the top at one point or another. Nearly everyone fails to get there.
Early in life other people will indulge your fixation on this because you're young, but most of them aren't extraordinary either, so as you age, their patience with it grows thin. If you cling to a fixation on being extraordinary it will ultimately isolate you and tear you apart psychologically.
Fortunately there is an alternative which some discover as time passes. It is infinitely more powerful and useful than worrying about whether you're extraordinary or not, and will propel you to heights you never realized you could achieve.
The alternative is to compare yourself today only to who you were yesterday, and focus on always pursuing new personal bests.
By putting in the time and staying focused you can become uncannily good at almost anything this way. Far better than most people, and grinding out one little win at a time is surprisingly satisfying.
Will it make you the best? I don't know. This tactic is surely some part of how the best got to where they are. I doubt I am the best at anything but I have not bothered to check. In the end it doesn't really matter, you are able to become great and be happy, and that is more than enough.
Now look at your life through every facet. Are you really not in the top 1% of anything? 1% is not even that high a bar. You don't even have to be the best on your block to be in the top 1%. Or even tenth best on your block.[0]
It could be anything that you're extraordinary at remember. Even if you want to limit it to creative pursuits, there are so many different musical instruments, art forms, styles of writing, types of dance, that with a bit of effort and specialisation, becoming 'extraordinary' is not that difficult, even before you start 'multiplying' skills (the best writer on running, the best ballroom dancing photographer, etc).
[0]: https://vlesdesigns.com/blogs/facts/how-many-people-live-on-...
The reason this is so significant is because now, your extraordinariness depends not just on you, but the thing.
If you're a drummer, for example, there are about 1 million drummers in the US. To be in the top 1% of drummers, you need to be one of the best 10 000 drummers in the US. One of the best 200 in the state. There are about 20 000 places incorporated in the US, meaning you need to be the best drummer in both your town and the next to be in the top 1% in the US.[0]
Compare that to go players.
There are around regular 50 000 Go players in the US. To be in the top 1%, you need to be in the top 500. Top 10 in your state. Best in your town and the next 39.[1]
But crucially, if you learn how to play go, and you practice, you only have to play better than 49500 players. If you learn how to drum, you have to play better than 990 000 people. And if you want to be an extraordinary guitarist, well, god help you.
Wanna be an extraordinary Tanana[3] speaker in the world? You can be the best if you can beat just 29 other people. Probably wouldn't take much study to be the best Tanana poet.
Examples are contrived and I've massacred the maths, but being extraordinary is not hard in an extraordinary field. It is hard to be extraordinary in a very ordinary field.
I agree though, coming to terms with whether you want to be extraordinary, and if so, whether you want to be extraordinary in a very ordinary field, is a part of growing up.
[0] https://www.drummerworld.com/forums/index.php?threads/how-ma...
[1]: Yeah, obviously this isn't true, because not all incorporated places are the same size. Spherical drummers in a vacuum here.
[2]: http://www.intergofed.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/2016_Go...
While I haven't yet framed it this way using your language, I'll share the belief that complexity science thinking is slow-brewing within me:
That the very network structure of our social fabric (as it has evolved) is selected to be just so, such that we have the maximum chance to each be extraordinary, given the existing meme pool. Small world networks are a goldilocks zone of clustering and nearness of any two nodes. The subjective experience of this small-world feature is that the average path length between any two random points is "surprisingly close". The math is such that any two people, aka any two ideas, aka any problem and its corresponding best solution -- that all these things are on average as close together as the math allows (while still preserving high clustering), by virtue of the small-world networks properties of the social graph.
The universe wants you to remix ideas, wants your mind to be a recombinator of the most diverse ideas, wants you to be a memetic vessel containing the most extraordinary set of ideas the universe can offer you. Because that's good for the collective endeavour of humanity :)
Getting to the top 1% isn't really hard. There are 8 billion people on the Earth getting to the top one percent means being in the top 80 million. I can think several things that I'm in the top 1% because most of the people newer do it.
The problem with the internet your reach is higher and you can see people who are one in the million or billion in one aspect of their life, but don't see anything else.
If you want an average successful life, it doesn’t take much planning. Just stay out of trouble, go to school, and apply for jobs you might like. But if you want something extraordinary, you have two paths:
1. Become the best at one specific thing. 2. Become very good (top 25%) at two or more things.
The first strategy is difficult to the point of near impossibility. Few people will ever play in the NBA or make a platinum album. I don’t recommend anyone even try.
The second strategy is fairly easy. Everyone has at least a few areas in which they could be in the top 25% with some effort. In my case, I can draw better than most people, but I’m hardly an artist. And I’m not any funnier than the average standup comedian who never makes it big, but I’m funnier than most people. The magic is that few people can draw well and write jokes. It’s the combination of the two that makes what I do so rare. And when you add in my business background, suddenly I had a topic that few cartoonists could hope to understand without living it.
I always advise young people to become good public speakers (top 25%). Anyone can do it with practice. If you add that talent to any other, suddenly you’re the boss of the people who have only one skill. Or get a degree in business on top of your engineering degree, law degree, medical degree, science degree, or whatever. Suddenly you’re in charge, or maybe you’re starting your own company using your combined knowledge.
Capitalism rewards things that are both rare and valuable. You make yourself rare by combining two or more “pretty goods” until no one else has your mix. I didn’t spend much time with the script supervisor, but it was obvious that her verbal/writing skills were in the top tier as well as her people skills. I’m guessing she also has a high attention to detail, and perhaps a few other skills in the mix. Probably none of those skills are best in the world, but together they make a strong package. Apparently she’s been in high demand for decades.
I guess that's what you're extraordinary at, making super stars with just one comment ;-)
maybe i'm too pessimistic in the opposite direction but this kind of argument always sounds like appealing nonsense to me. appealing because we'd like it to be true, and because the number of possible combinations is great enough that it's not immediately obvious that it isn't true. but in reality, skills don't generally exist in isolation, and as long as we're still attaching some kind of objective qualitative value to being 'extraordinary' beyond just being unique, most people who are mediocre at two things are not going to significantly exceed being mediocre at their combination, whereas people who are extraordinary at one thing are (in my experience) quite often at least near-extraordinary at a few others.
And this is just a mental trick to stroke ego more.
All I get from looking at people better than me at thing is desire to plunder their knowledge and experience to be a bit better at it myself. And working with people better than me is just easier, as I have to worry only about my own fuckups, not someone's elses. Well, except people that can eat what they want and not get fat, that I do envy, but then that's not a skill to learn.
These are the words of a young person who was trained to see everyone else's success as an implicit criticism of their own ability and effort. It is not the author's fault. A mentally healthy person, when shown a display of excellence, is impressed, energized, and motivated.
I have never thought that "participation trophies" do any damage to young people. Young people are smart and know that participation trophies are bullshit. What actually hurt young people was the constant reinforcement that "anyone can do anything/anyone can be the best". The corollary of "anyone can be the best" is "if you are not the best, then something is wrong with you/you're not trying hard enough". Not everyone can be the best; many people have genetic and network-based advantages that will guarantee them better results at a skill than 99% of their competitors.
Young people have very little free time. The time they spend actually focused on their responsibilities is constantly overshadowed by fear and anxiety about The Future (grades, college, etc.) The remaining time they have is spent on their phones and computers, which is the only reliable way to make the fear and anxiety turn off for a few minutes. When they do have free time for extracurriculars, they're in sports playing against future D1 athletes and having metrics and social status tracked against them, or in theater getting cast as extras while the good roles go to the handsome kids, or in music listening to the musicians' kids and the international students play like professionals.
If you want to be okay with not being extraordinary, you need a lot of free time to get properly bored, and a social network with which to practice your hobby completely free from the judgement of The System. Practicing to try to beat a rival school headed by a college-bound athlete is stressful, but practicing to try and impress your friends at pickup soccer purely for fun is not.
On the whole though, the entire concept of “best” is a mess in a world of eight billion. At this point it’s more up to the whims of the contest, and doesn’t seem very correlated with life outcomes. Better by far to be one of the best, working shoulder to shoulder with the others, and forget entirely about who holds the podium.
This is a “thanks I’m cured” statement, no different from saying depressed people should smile more.
Put down the internet drama machine and go do small good things in the real world.
—————
> considered subhuman by the rest of society!
Unless you are literally an AI, then as a member of society I can tell you that this is factually inaccurate. I think you are a human.
I also know that there is a tiny fraction of society that consider me subhuman. HP Lovecraft would be horrified by my very existence. The fraction of society that calls people subhuman is really bad at maintaining healthy relationships and so they don’t tend to hold onto power so I don’t care about them.
> just terrible at everything and have accomplished nothing
Do you have solid evidence that this is factually accurate, or does it only feel true?
If it feels true, then get up and go for a walk or roll outside, occasionally doing pushups or waving your arms about. That will help you see reality more clearly.
Also, teach yourself how to make scrambled eggs well. That way when you remember the parts of your life that do suck, you’ll at least be able to remind yourself of your ability to make scrambled eggs for someone.
What happens if you don't? What do you tell someone who managed to find something at which they are respectably competent, but not the best? Is that not sufficient?
That does not mean that a given person should not try to get better, because this is the only way you will start getting to a level of competency and maybe, with some additional luck and push, to a top performer level. Not everyone can be number one, but extraordinary ( the attached article ) definition allows for that. And being second best at 'whatever' sure beats just complaining about everything you did not get a chance to accomplish.
<< Is that not sufficient?
I honestly don't know. It is a very personal question each of us should answer internally. I, personally, want to do better and you do want to keep giving yourself progressively harder goals. I am currently working on a plan for 23-25 and I am getting kinda excited, because I believe it will move me to a better place in terms of my career ( and by extension better family life ) and interests, but I know it will require some buckling down and really polishing some skills. Maybe it is spending too much time on HN watching other people's 'Show HN' threads that got me to question myself "Why can't I do this?/"What is missing?"
I already know I can't be best. As mentioned in the very fist paragraph I do not believe it is even possible, but I still think there is a lot of untapped potential. Wasting it would be a shame.
edit: also probably untrue, I bet there are lots of songwriters who could make songs about your life that the vast majority of people would agree are better than yours
Whose decision is it that the other songwriters are better at expressing this one dude’s experiences? Thats not an objective question. It is a choice.
Writing is hard, and there are very good reasons people work with experts to make things about themselves.
Related, have you ever seen this clip? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4Y6zimxi-Q
Upon reflection, I think you are right.
> writing is hard
Oh definitely. I’ve certainly had the experience of Lin-Manuel Miranda expressing something more clearly than I can.
It would have been sometime in the late 2000s and I was visiting dear old dad in Christchurch, NZ, and my buddy James, aka Lawrence Arabia was playing a gig at the Wonderbar in nearby Littleton on Christmas Eve. I happened to meet a nice young lady, shit you not, named Eve, and we ended back at her place… her parent’s place. At 2am on Christmas Eve. Then her dad comes down and finds us fooling around on the couch in front of the tree. My ride had left hours ago so I had to call up pops. Surprisingly he was very pleased with my escapades and not too bothered with the wake up call.
Here’s James’s take on the event: https://fabulousarabia.bandcamp.com/track/give-me-love-tonig...
While it’s a fine song, it is definitely not his best, and I’m sure he’d admit that it is not as good as my better ones!
It is, however, better than my song about that night: https://williamcotton.bandcamp.com/track/eve-of-eve
My wife and I, complete strangers beforehand, were two of maybe 15 people who went to see James play at a small bar in SF about ten years ago. That dude has been getting me laid for decades!
Anyways, unless I happen to steal a steam engine high on cocaine or some other act of epic folklore there’s no chance in hell that some songwriter out there is ever going to write a better song about my life than yours truly.
If it somehow happened it would be an amazing honor.
Let's follow the thread. We have an article about learning to be OK with not being extraordinary. We have a comment about the article stating that you can be the best at something, you just need to find your niche. Then we have someone who says it's wrong to lie to people about being able to find a niche. Then I point out that for something like songwriting there is indeed a niche if you're writing about things that are personal. Then this person calls that a coping mechanism and says:
I bet there are lots of songwriters who could make songs about your life that the vast majority of people would agree are better than yours
Well, funny enough, I do know a very talented and accomplished songwriter and he happened to write a song about a memorable night. I happened to write a song about that same memorable night. It's a good enough story that it inspired two songs to be written, professionally recorded, mixed, mastered, and put onto albums with artwork and all of that hoopla and I'm not skittish about retelling a brief synopsis. Tragically, I say that James' song is actually better than my song about the event!
The only song that James has ever written about me is something that triggers your insecurities. Normal adults can indeed mention topical memorable nights like this in casual conversation. Normal adults can joke about "getting laid"... with their wife. Do you get why I added the part about my wife? We literally met at one of James' concerts.
Can you now see the poetry in all of this?
If there is anything at all to be critical of it is that I'm going out of my way to share my music. This is something that I am a bit insecure about! I made the decision awhile ago that my life would be better off if I focused on a career in software engineering as opposed to a career in music. Honestly, I haven't fully come to terms with this choice. I still seek validation for my art. I still hold onto the hope that once the kids are a bit older that perhaps I'll give it another go.
This implies there are at least 8 billion “things to be good at” which I don’t think is necessarily true. I suspect most people are not the best at anything.
At a slightly less extreme level, it's always possible to find something niche enough that is just so obscure that you can become the best by persistence alone. Maybe you're the world expert on blue umbrellas manufactured in 1993.
(to be fair, there is also inner satisfaction coming from deep understanding and mastering of some activity, but alone it's rarely enough without any external validation to motivate people)
That sounds intuitively true, but it's not.
I thought the same thing, until I met an actual board game genius who beat me at every single game we played that I invented and practiced before playing against him.
That's why he makes a pretty good living creating and selling board games and I don't.
People with talents do exist, unless board games is your thing, it won't work.
this is a good thing.
again, this is a good thing, they’re happy.
And the person you were talking to didn't even say they were happy! They just said they're the best at some combination of things. Even assuming they are happy, they're probably not near the top of the happiness charts. "best at making yourself happy" looks to me like a completely unfounded guess/hope.
Top 10% doesn't necessarily make me "extraordinary", depending on how you define it. It's enough for it to be part of my something, though.
But okay, let's say 95th percentile to make it more achievable. Well, a normal person can reach 95th percentile in several things, but that's out of a list of hundreds of things or more. Being 95th percentile in most things is not going to happen, let alone all things.
Same thing with the best musicians, lawyers, researchers and a whole lot of other professions, particularly those that we hold in high esteem - there are a lot of people who want to be at the top, and you can't stop to take a break because plenty of those people will be working more while you rest.
I'd rather be good at a bunch of different things and have enough free time to read a book or play videogames on the weekends than be extraordinary at one thing.
They are working hard, but many people are for far less impressive feats.
Whereas a postman or police officer work 8 hours a day...
The way I’ve expressed this sentiment before in the context of music was to find hope when I hear outstanding musicians, as my thought was usually, “we now know there is at least one human capable of such expression, so it’s possible for us to reach this level,” or simply to say “such an individual does exist.”
I think the author has deeper seated issues to deal with, especially if they spend time languishing over this, and then writing these posts to justify/circumvent their negative emotional reactions by reframing and then echoing their internal troubles to the rest of us like we need to be enlightened.
The author does have deep-seated issues to deal with, but I really don't think the author is uniquely broken. I would bet that at least half of the modern western population struggles with similar feelings.
Seen as such, these articles do little to show the authors attempting to turn the other cheek as much as they try to justify and reframe their negativity.
Each year they do a show at one of their houses, and the same core group of 6 or 7 guys shows up in different permutations in various acts. They also tend to bring in one or two "away team" bands as well. This year, they put on a show with a total of 8 acts.
Last year, when I went, I was in awe of what they'd built together. In a very punk DIY ethos kind of way, they've assembled their own little music fest. There were probably something like 60 people there through the night. Seeing these guys run through their music was so impressive to me. The level of technical skill and musicianship varies between the group, but none of them are what you'd think of as professional musicians. Some of the songs lack polish, or do awkward chord changes. There's plenty of sloppy guitar work. The vocalists are generally less than amazing.
But damn it, they're out there making music and sharing it with people. Don't like their stuff? Well, it's their house and their show!
In my own musicianship I've always been overly perfectionistic. How can these guys get up in front in random people and play these imperfect songs? And how can it be that the net result turns out to be the best show I've seen all year?
Because all of them care more about making music than being perfect at it. They'd rather be on stage with imperfect material than relegate their playing to the bedroom or garage trying to polish technique for no one.
I got the opportunity to jam with them after the show, and felt intimidated after having watched them all play. How was I going to stand up to these guys who just put together an entire concert?
But the thing is, I was able to hang with them. I was probably the worst player in the room, but I have enough skill to get up there and make music. It doesn't have to be perfect. We played the same chord for almost 20 minutes and the 6 people left in the crowd danced like we were the greatest show on earth
Sorry, this got long - but here's my point: Put yourself around people who do what you love. Don't worry about who's 'better' - there are so many dimensions that it's meaningless anyway.
The joy of life comes from going out into the world and playing your heart out whether you're great or terrible. I've been so much more inspired to play in the weeks since that show, and I hope to have some of my own imperfect original material to play next year.
Seriously. It is loud and clear. The justification of their own pathological behavior is wildly unhealthy. Too bad they don't see a therapist.
I don't think that's universally accurate. While this is something I have observed living in the US, growing up in Germany was a completely different story: The people in small town Northern Germany went so far as to criticize and attack you for your achievements that far surpassed what they have accomplished. It appears to make them feel jealous and threatened, which in their view is best dealt with by making you less threatening instead of feeling inspired themselves.
I've seen this personally, including from family. Actually managed to get to a point with one family member where we could honestly talk about it, and it was a complicated sort of jealousy.
In their case, they correctly noted that I'm not so much smarter or otherwise distinguished as to "deserve" what I've accomplished so much more than them, and they felt cheated. When asked why they didn't do something like what I did, it came down to personal conservatism and fear. I was willing to risk moving to the "big city" without support (my family is poor). They were afraid to try.
You become evidence of their missed opportunities, and that makes them angry at you. So much worse if you are childless and have the temerity to be happy about it - that really pisses off some of them, too.
Isn’t this a salient feature in US culture? We attack the wealthy, celebrities, politicians. I’m not saying these people are saints by any means or it’s completely unwarranted, but the US seems to have an increasing victimhood culture. It manifests in different shapes and forms, but the outcome is more or less an attack on some person or group of people who we consider to be relatively more “privileged”, and we use that to dismiss their actual accomplishments or whatever good they may have also done. The root of the issue is always about comparing yourself to someone or some group and their accomplishments and justifying one’s or short comings.
Many of the diversity, equity, inclusion initiatives, regardless of good intentions, are spin offs from this.
To be clear, I’m not taking a swing at the social justice movements. But what I am saying is that in US culture, there’s definitely massive resentment of those who are successful.
I agree. Especially equity (as opposed to equality of opportunity) I think is very closely related to the extreme “egalitarianism” we have in the Nordics. The Law of Jante [1] is a great summary of our particular variety.
Be very afraid of this BTW… :)
What's your definition of mentally healthy, then?
Negative emotions aren't necessarily an indicator of mental unhealthiness; resentment, disgust, rage, anger, etc. are all healthy responses to the right set of circumstances. However, when these feelings are experienced when there's no danger, deceit, harm, or violation of a bargain or relationship, it implies an inability of the person experiencing the feelings to be content with their own life, and a desire for goodness to go out of the world (I'd rather you not be excellent at all then have to sit here and compare myself to your excellence).
When people start to realize that the pool isn't limited, and that you aren't actually competing with anyone else (except in certain circumstances), it's a lot more freeing. You can differentiate yourself, your product, or your startup along any lines, and you will be unique and extraordinary. The only thing that's left is finding other people who think that.
It's human to struggle with jealousy like this, but the competition isn't reality. It's all a social construct.
I think most damage to kids is done by people who claim participation trophies are bullshit.
These trophies are for encouraging people to try and do something and not thinking: "I am not going to win anyway so why bother trying at all".
Kids are smart and they also know that running that 5km run and finishing first is hard work. They might not be happy about participation trophy but still they should be praised for the effort of putting on shoes and trying.
There is a lot of psychology about effects of encouraging positive behaviors that is misunderstood. Even if you have employees it is much more effective to praise them on positive behaviors than scolding them for mistakes. Because scolding for mistakes will push them into direction "I am not going to do this task at all because if I make mistake I will get scolded, so why bother doing this task at all".
The reward you get is learning that hard work is its own reward.
Maybe for some people the internal feeling is good enough, for others, some token (however worthless you might think it is) works.
Why make people feel bad when its so easy to make them feel good?
Isn't the answer to this question point of the thread?
Participation trophies aren't just about tokens. Everyone who runs a race can get a shirt or something to show they were there. This kind of thing has always been around. Participation trophies are for protecting people from knowledge that there were winners and losers in a competition and that they are one of the losers.
I was very aware of that fact and nevertheless I went and participated. Mainly because my parents encouraged my personal progress and celebrated small victories and effort.
The particular sport I did also provided small tokens (usually a slightly "fancy" certificate, sometimes a cap or shirt or sth)
Did that help me become good at that particular sport? No not at all.
But the mindset of curiosity and going for your personal best even if others are better did help me later in live.
Preservation goes a long way and encouraging kids to do their best is not a bad thing. Keep it grounded in reality though ("You did good today, great process . Others will make that their career but you showed up and put in the work which is good by itself")
Have you ever seen a participation trophy?
I have some from youth sports. They're a tenth the size of the actual placement trophies. They were not an attempt to fool people.
That's exactly what they are. The whole reason People started pushing them was to pursue an agenda to affect developmental psychology. Perhaps you are misreading my point, as are others who seem to equate not being a loser with first place. A third place trophy is not fooling anyone that the winner is equal to the first place winner either. Participation trophies allow children to accumulate a room full of trophies and praise from relatives.
Od course I am not paying anything because hard work is its own reward.
I can just watch you paint the walls and get credit for just showing up.
This whole thing got me thinking about my time in Panama. It was a combat zone but we weren’t doing war stuff so didn’t get combat patches even though we qualified because the 82nd doesn’t give out participation trophies. Hell, they were talking about not giving us Combat Infantry Badges for the Gulf War even though we were running ops in Iraq before the ground war started because they all surrendered once it did. Though…I used to call my CIB “my participation trophy” when I was in the reserves years later.
The whole concept of participation trophies came out of the “self-esteem” movement, which has mostly panned out to be BS.
The quotes from experts say that "too much" and "undeserved" praise is bad.
A participation trophy is generally very minor in terms of praise.
Much more specific expert quotes are needed here.
I have two participation medals from international sporting competitions. I throw them in the trash after I get them.
I've kept the two bronze medals.
I would add "inspired" to your list … I frequently visit digital art sites well known for the excellence of the work of their many artists, and scroll through the "showcase" areas especially, seeking out that specific thing. That which impresses me also often inspires me. Helps get the "creative juices" flowing before working with any of my favorite art creation tools (Blender 3D, Inkscape, Krita, Godot game engine, etc…).
I think Ratatouille corrects this idea well - Not everyone can become a great artist, but a great artist can come from anywhere.
So true. So, so true.
> A few notable examples of power laws are Pareto's law of income distribution, structural self-similarity of fractals, and scaling laws in biological systems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_law#Power-law_functions
An opinionated comparison of the bell-curve and Pareto distribution:
> (1) The power law is often an empirical fact (the way things are) but not necessarily the platonic idea (the way things ought to be); and
> (2) We can tame or mitigate at least some of the negative aspects of the power law by encouraging eclectic and diverse strategies.
Tyranny of the Power Law - http://econophysics.blogspot.com/2006/07/tyranny-of-power-la...
I don't understand how some people can set their mind up and just _do_ stuff. I struggle with not doing stuff but when I try to my brain is violently asking why.
Is the goal to accomplish or do you want to accomplish because you think it'll make you happier?
I'd recommend taking a step back and thinking about what's truly important to you, and see if you can identify an activity or a goal where the journey itself makes you feel inspired and energized. In my experience, if you can find something with a positive feedback loop like that, one day you'll wake up and realize you've made it a lot further down that path than you initially thought possible.
You may not have it but if you do then it can be a life changing diagnosis and subsequent medication and learned coping mechanisms/coaching.
Exercise and get good sleep. Caffeine helps but isn't as good as ADHD medication.
Remove distractions aggressively. Don't beat yourself up when you fail; expect it and move on.
Use people in your life to help be your executive function for you. It isn't really fair on them but if they love you they may be willing to anyway. A gym buddy or sports team is another way of achieving this without needing them to love you particularly.
Block all the sites you lose hours to, aggressively. You're not smart enough to build a system you can't get out of but you can make it high friction. Same for games or media or whatever it is.
Pair programming is tiring but it works for using an external party as your executive function. Keeps you on track.
Negative external consequences are motivating but stressful, use sparingly.
Try find a job with or structure your life with enough variety to keep you entertained; I find people to be stimulating but YMMV.
Medication is far more effective than any coping mechanism.
I have one such passion that played out well. The consistent work felt natural, while it rarely does otherwise. I can't stick to a gym or guitar practice schedule, but I can spend a few months building a slightly better tax calculator. Go figure.
When people compliment me on my Mandarin I say "thank you" but I really want to say that it's not really "talent" or "hard work", unless finishing Game of Thrones or reaching high level in World of Warcraft also counts as hard work.
I wish my passion was in something more useful and impressive (in my opinion) though, like having a side project that I don't lose interest in after a week, which could become my own start-up eventually, but alas.
Extraordinary people usually aren't like that. They have this strange ability to be "always on". So why can't the rest of us be like that?
Some people can just focus. Eight hours in the office, tune out all other distractions, head down, work effectively and well. But that's merely very good, not extraordinary.
So how can you be "always on"? By having an overriding passion that makes you want to be. For some people this is just material success. Laser focused on the most profitable career. Is that what you want? Badly enough? Others really want to do, say, theoretical physics. Either it's inherently satisfying, or they want to pursue a particular research goal. Whatever the overriding goal, it's the first thing you think about when you wake up and the last thing you think about before you fall asleep.
But is that what you want? In your 40s or 50s, ignored life's other pleasures, maybe never had a family, or haven't spent enough time with them, can't remember the last time you really relaxed, but boy, you've accomplished extraordinary things?
Anyway early middle age will probably take care of it. Where you take stock of who you actually are, rather than who you thought you should be. And then make the best of that.
For the record, most people of high ability aren’t on 24/7 like that.
What's wrong with that? The first half of your comment is insightful, but is it really that hard to believe that maybe some people do derive satisfaction from accomplishment?
ive been partial to this poem since i discovered it: https://twitter.com/nktgill/status/1550429172786515968
i will reproduce it here.
Do Not Ask Your Children to Strive
Do not ask your children
to strive for extraordinary lives.
Such striving may seem admirable,
but it is the way of foolishness.
Help them instead to find the wonder
and the marvel of an ordinary life.
Show them the joy of tasting
tomatoes, apples and pears.
Show them how to cry
when pets and people die.
Show them the infinite pleasure
in the touch of a hand.
And make the ordinary come alive for them.
The extraordinary will take care of itself.
- William Martin
Mama told me when I was young Come sit beside me my only son And listen closely to what I say And if you do this it'll help you Some sunny day oh yeah
Oh take your time don't live too fast Troubles will come and they will pass Go find a woman yeah and you'll find love And don't forget son there is someone up above
And be a simple kind of man Oh be something you love and understand Baby be a simple kind of man Oh won't you do this for me son if you can
Forget your lust for the rich man's gold All that you need is in your soul And you can do this oh babe if you try All that I want for you my son is to be satisfied
Personally too what I make outside of work is probably crude/crap but I enjoy the process of it. Even as a mediocre developer/software person I'm still able to have a good life.
I also acknowledge my mental shortcomings I can see someone else read an algorithm problem and know the question/spit something out much faster than me. Same for math. I just aim for personal freedom/happiness at this point, not to be the best/stick out.
It would be nice to contribute/have a legacy of some sort not just be forgotten once I'm gone but that's ego I suppose. There is also the desire to stay under the radar.
It does sound like coping eg. you could try harder eg. did I fail because I'm not FAANG level.
I find it fascinating that some people are able to achieve so much in the same time I have on this planet. I believe it’s those super-talented and hard working individuals that actually push our species forward. Newton, von Neumann, von Braun, etc etc.
How can one not feel sad when they think about similar people.
Because when your individual success becomes your entire sense of self worth you cease to see the power of collective action whether it is to accomplish some goal or to raise your standard of living.
In fact, this obsession creates a contempt for "average people" because they are the signifier and the constant reminder of one's own failure to self actualize. So not only does the culture of extraordinaryness create the grounds for alienation but even worse it reinforces that alienation by creating a class of untouchable peers due to their contemptible ordinariness.
Reconnecting with the human social organism and consciously developing a love for commonness is the only antidote as far as I know.
Now, I don't _love_ this phrase because it implies life is a zero sum game, and that if you haven't achieved success you're a loser -- neither of which I think is true. But I do think it gets to something important, which is that the best way to find success is to focus on how it relates to you, not to someone else. I'd love to be running my own successful company, but if I look at my own script, what do I need to do to be the kind of person that could pull that off? What are the intermediate steps? I think when you compare yourself to others, you're essentially trying to live by someone else's script, but why should their script ever work for you? They have entirely different advantages and disadvantages. I think you're almost always going to fail trying to do that.
So if you have this type of envy, you have to question why you want to be extraordinary. If it is because you think it will make you happy ... pause for thought and think again. It is far from a given that would happen. And then if you decide it's not to make yourself happy? Perhaps you should evaluate whether actually pursuing happiness is a more worthwhile purpose in your life.
If you have a rich local network of in person friends and family, I think that mostly resolve the unhealthy need to be extraordinary. Because I think that need often comes from feeling socially isolated and relying on online social interaction for validation.
When the public commons where you are seen is run by social media aggregators that only highlight the world's best of everything, it's very easy to fall into a trap where you feel like unless you are front page material, you're nothing.
But the real answer is to get a handful of friends who think you're front page material in their actual lives.
They do that because we all enjoy reading about them, and there's nothing wrong with that as such.
But just don't expect to be in any of these groups automatically, certainly don't feel pressurized that you ought to. But by any means if you're passionate about something, try hard to master it as best you can, with your focus on the passion for the activity and not the "must-be-#1-at-all-cost". Chances are you might become the #1 by focusing on the activity, not comparing yourself with others all the time.
Alan Rusbridger, the former Guardian editor-in-chief, wrote a lovely little book about his aspiration to be an amateur pianist. He was passionate about the piano, but realistic about his limitations of it being a hobby (subordinate to his true vocation of being a journalist) and not properly trained since age five like the piano geniuses. But he set himself the goal to learn to play one classical piece by practising regularly, as well or as badly as he could master, and he eventually performed it in front of friends. A real pro would probably still cringe listening to him, but I admire that he took up a self-set challenge that commensurate with his circumstances (prior piano skills, available time), and went all in to reach his goal. That's the spirit...
Striving to be extraordinary implies that you are motivated by others opinions and feedback, and putting that above your own judgement, e.g. the number of followers on a youtube channel. Being actually extraordinary requires vision and leadership, which is basically the opposite of "doing whatever I can to make people think I'm extraordinary."
Most people I admire that did things I consider extraordinary were motivated by an internal passion or vision about how they wanted something to be, and didn't waste any energy on the opinions of strangers. Mostly, they didn't expect anyone to care about it, but focused hard because they wanted to for some internal reason, e.g. they enjoy it. In many cases they initially never even planned to ever share the work with others, they did it for themselves.
I think the author here is close with the final point of "extraordinary should not be the end goal" but is missing the importance of having a personal creative vision, and a goal that is resistant to others opinions.
The intro outlines the fact that the author is not familiar with the promotional industry.
Allowing for some rare exceptions all the people whose name you know are the people who want to be known and go out of their way to self-promote.
It's not about the quality of the work per se but the noise being generated around it. All those stories of mega-success are generated by PR and marketing firms and the person who is the protagonist most likely went for a stroll in Central Park after the meeting, and be sure that nobody genuflected or got on their knees to kiss the ring. Michael Bloomberg took the subaway every day.
Which could in theory be an equaliser in itself. Not the best programmer or writer or musician in the world? Well, you can still be 'extraordinary' by convincing other people you're extraordiary and outmarketing those who are better than you. The person who gets the job isn't necessarily the best candidate on a technical level, but the one who can talk a better game in the interview.
You could in theory put a white blanket on your head and pretend to be a Saudi Sheikh to pickup chicks at nightclubs but come showtime you’d not be able to get hard due to lack of self-confidence which brought you to lie in the first place, so what’s the point?
The best is to be able to put together a certain initial capital and just outsource self promotion.
Every person who handles their own self-promotion are people who have mental issues, especially in the tech world. Compare it with how chill are those who outsource such as musicians. Rappers nowadays or rockstars in the 80s. Their managers have to drag them kicking and screaming away from drugs and parties to do media and promotion
2 - the saddest thing about this very sad piece is the idea that "extraordinariness" is about accomplishments and success.
3 - I think it is fair to say that many actually "extraordinary" people would say that it is at best a mixed bag and not automatically something to feel jealous about. We live in a society where being "not ordinary" aka abnormal is not accommodated and often not accepted or tolerated - and where being right in the center of the bell curve of human experiences and realities means that the world is optimized for you.
What we do after that is so-called gravy.
But seriously. Measuring ourselves against the Einsteins is a path leading nowhere.
What you do adds to the universe.
I think it's a good point, but some may also interpret these words differently - I would be careful not to take these words as permission to be mediocre.
I think mediocrity is extraordinarily boring.
If an activity is boring to you unless you’re better at it than other people, maybe it’s just…boring to you, and you simply crave validation?
Ah I understand that my pivot in the second sentence has thrown you off, I will edit my original comment so it flows better.
You can absolutely become extraordinary, just not overnight.
The author touches on this when she says, "Extraordinary should not be the end goal." This is very true. The goal is the satisfaction of a job well done.
By adding up enough repeats of the satisfactions of a job well done you will find yourself extraordinary at something. If you complete a task and you don't get that satisfaction of a job well done then re-evaluate the process and fix it for the future.
I only have 25 years of experience at enjoying the satisfaction of a job well done. Look for extraordinary people in your life and ask them how they started and what made them better at what makes them extraordinary.
Remember: Keep up the good work.
I am extraordinary! Some people see it. Most don't. I'm fine with both.