What if doing your best -- at what you're best at -- isn't enough? | Hacker News Reader

What if doing your best -- at what you're best at -- isn't enough?

tedquarters.net

150 pointsDanLivesHere36 comments

This is such a good article in two ways.

First this is an internal dialogue that is a natural offshoot of 'imposter syndrome'. And for me it actually becomes more frequent as I progress further in my career as a dev. This is because it becomes more apparent to me how much I don't know, and I begin to wonder if I'll ever be good enough to attain the level of expertise that I aspire to.

What makes it more poignant for me is that I've pursued something like this before (sports career) and didn't quite make it (understatement), and I'm currently trying to reconcile myself with all the time and effort I invested in the process and how to ramp down from something that was my overriding ambition for so long. The good thing is that I've learned a lot of lessons from the experience and the main takeaway for me was ... if it isn't working, get out ... life is too short and there are many many other things to try your hand at.

The second thing that I liked about it was how it shows exactly why we should have empathy for other developers. I loved this section

For every dude I dismiss, every footnote in a roundup post, every guy deemed worthy of mere shrugs or raised eyebrows — all of whom are well-compensated for their work, no doubt — there is someone far away on the other end of the phone coaching him or advising him or loving him who wants desperately for him to succeed and be happy

because one of the things I try to live by is this

Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle --- Plato

I've had endured a few insults in my life as a dev ("You'll never be an engineer son, maybe a scripter or something, but never an engineer"), by people who thought I'd never make it as a programmer. Many years, later, here I am ... doing a pretty decent job at it, and I'll never forget all the kind people who encouraged me, took a time out to explain something to me ... again, just like I'll never forget the couple of times someone was a complete dick to me, because they thought I had no prospects as a developer.

I guess what I'm saying is, whenever you feel the need to dismiss someone who has no skills ... maybe take a step back and see if what they need is encouragement, coaching and a little bit of direction instead.

Speaking as someone who started literally from 0 in terms of developer knowledge a scant 3 years ago, and having been spat on, insulted and otherwise ridiculed for ever believing I could join the cult, I will say this: What doesn't kill you makes you stronger.

I had code with security holes that you could drive a Mack truck through. I learned security. I had sloppy copypasta code. I learned OOP. I had inefficient code. I learned memory management processes and how to structure code better for efficiency.

Could those who spoke down to me have been more helpful? More coddling? Not said anything at all? Sure. But who knows how that would have stunted my growth.

It's good to have compassion, and it's good to care. But if you really want to be the best at something, you're going to have to want it. And if you really want it, when someone beats you down, you're not going to stay down. You're gonna learn how to hit back.

As far as ultimately being where you want to be, sometimes it's simply the luck of the draw, and you have to understand how large a role that luck plays, as well, especially when you're being enchanted by stories of multi-million dollar startup investments.

All my life I have been known as the cold asshole because I am very critical and non-accommodating. So I just want to say something from a person that has always and still does believe that most people are weak. People don't do __, and are not good at ___ because they are weak etc. What that implies is that you can condition yourself to be stronger.

Anyway, now that you know who I am, I just want to say, I wouldn't word it so much as

    And if you really want it, when someone beats you down,
    you're not going to stay down. You're gonna learn how to hit back.

There is no need to hit back. Hitting back is a waste of effort on your part because it validates the hitter's position ; it gives him power.

I know this sounds all philosophical but this is important to me because I have always been that guy (unknowingly) putting people down (to me I think I'm making them stronger).

You can only control yourself and there will be a lot of assholes in life. The best thing you can do is to discipline yourself, over time, to see negative input and influence for what it is - negative. "Hitting back" (I know you mean this metaphorically) is also negative though, so that's why I say it's better to just focus on goodness. The goodness of yourself, and the fact that no matter how relatively terrible you may be, if you are better at it than yesterday, well that is a GOOD thing.

Ok that's it.

Again, I probably got a bit carried away with the language, but when I say "hit back", I mean what my examples said: They got me with x, so I learned how to defend from x. They got me on y, so I learned how to defend from y.

Sometimes it takes a gut punch to learn how to block a gut punch.

I will say this: What doesn't kill you makes you stronger.

This saying has always bothered me, Nietzsche or not.

What doesn't kill you, in the literal sense, can often cripple, maim, or psychologically impair you. It could make you hesitant, lose confidence, or refuse to try again.

Whether it's your life, or your professional career, the "failure or luck against adversity makes you stronger" bit seldom matches reality.

Sorry to take that sidetrack, but it happens to be a saying that I wish would disappear.

> refuse to try again

The ways I've heard it are, "never let it happen again" and "learn from your mistakes", in other words don't make the same mistake again. Sure one refuses to try the exact same strategy again... because it didn't work the first time. That doesn't mean one stops trying altogether. Refactor/pivot and give it another go.

Agreed, it's trite, overused, and arguably obsolete phrasing. My point was more that we often face large degrees of adversity early on when we approach a difficult challenge. If we get up and walk away after we're knocked down in the beginning, we probably didn't want it that badly to begin with.

I think the phrase is used metaphorically.

In other words it probably means. Tough circumstances may kill your(Bring you big failures) but you emerge stronger out of it once its over.

An important thing to remember about those insulting your abilities to your face and behind your back. They have their own agenda and issues. That insult might not even have anything to do with you. You might just be collateral damage.

Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle --- Plato

If this were reddit I'd have to make a novelty account for these.

That sure don't sound like Plato, and in this case we're lucky -- the best website in the business has already tracked this one down: http://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/06/29/be-kind. A Scottish theologian called Ian Maclaren wrote it as a Christmas message in 1897. The original: "Be pitiful, for every man is fighting a hard battle."

"Pitiful" meant "merciful", of course, not "pathetic" as we mean it today.

Thanks for the correction

Analogy to startups: - Filter out all the background noise just like athletes filter out the media. Stop caring about what [insert tech blog here] just posted about your competition, who got what funding, who's presenting at Disrupt. Focus on yourself - the rest is just fluff.

Analogy to personal development: - If you love what you do and your best isn't cutting it at your role then consider a minor pivot. The best basketball and football coaches at the professional level are usually not the best players and yet they managed to find a role that leverages their love for the game while pivoting away from their physical disadvantages.

The best basketball and football coaches at the professional level are usually not the best players and yet they managed to find a role that leverages their love for the game while pivoting away from their physical disadvantages.

Even players themselves can be in systems that don't work for them and they may not seem like good players until they get into a system that fits them. Minor pivots are a good thing and should be tried.

Doing what you're best at in a field with limited places for the best - like baseball - may set you up for failure.

There's a relevant concept in economics called comparative advantage - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage. Even if you are not the best at anything, there are some things that are "enough" - that create surplus.

Another important economic concept that bears on this issue is "positional goods." Baseball abilities are positional goods because the value is almost all in being the best or among the best, and any other level of ability has no value to society. This is not the same as, for example logging. Half the ability in logging is half as useful economically.

>Worrying about the above-listed peculiarities of playing the sport professionally and actually playing it professionally are likely, in many cases, mutually exclusive.

There is a fantastic book called, "The Inner Game of Tennis" that helps describe that the ability to reach your max potential is to silence the self-criticizing ego and essentially just do it by seeing and feeling.

Anecdotal? Sure Interesting? Absolutely.

If you can find the video of the author, Timothy Gallwey, teaching a middle-aged out of shape lady in a muumuu to play tennis in one hour, it's really inspiring.

Here: http://vimeo.com/6152948

Video was worth watching.

Just because someone is doing something, it doesn't mean that is what they are best at. Maybe this particular baseball player would be much better at being a lawyer. But he wants to play baseball--so there he is, struggling in Florida.

How does one know what they are best at, anyway? I try to be reflective, and I ask people whom I trust what they think. Often the answers don't agree, or they reflect the subjectivity of each relationship (e.g. my lawyer telling me I'd be a good lawyer--but how would he know if I'd be a better cook?). Sometimes they are things that I actually don't like doing. So where does that leave me?

I guess that's why baseball players are encouraged to remain even-keeled, and not be stuck in a high, or low. Just focus on execution, and forget about the drama, and mental noise.

If you're doing your best at what you're best at, but in a field that gives you no pleasure, will success even be enough?

Doubtful.

What about doing your best at something you're terrible at? Sometimes no matter how hard you try, you still make a little impact in a big industry.

If you got into your field of expertise with ease, find it lacking in challenges. with little impact, maybe it's time to try your best at something new & difficult and therefore perhaps more rewarding.

Even moving into a field with a wider scope, something critical that benefits others greatly. Success and job satisfaction can be found in many places other than 'being the best' or being in an enviable position.

Upvoting you because the redditors are at it again, voting based on agreement rather than quality contribution to the discussion.

NB that the article is not about "doing your best" but about "doing what you are best at doing."

Baseball must be especially tough for players, considering it is mostly just individual contests over and over, pitcher versus batter. On team sports like basketball or hockey you can always rationalize that the rest of your team should have done more.

What?? The pitcher in particular absolutely depends on the rest of his defense.

Batters depend on those behind them to move them around.

I think golf or tennis would be a better analogy for your point.

It's like a less tongue-in-cheek version of the despair.com poster: http://www.despair.com/fail24x30pri.html

Why would you even consider this question? I know why you would, but on a deeper level, spending time on this is not healthy or constructive.

Maybe you can't ever be at your best. Maybe you'll always improve, no matter how long you train. Idealistic? You bet your ass. It's taken me further in life than I ever thought possible--and it will continue to carry me.

Don't forget: they don't know who you are. You don't know fully who you are.

I'm getting a 403 response.

Me too. I found it subtly ironic.

Here's a mirror: http://i.imgur.com/gZ4xB.jpg

(well, it's more a simple screenshot of the page rather than a mirror, but you get the idea)

good writing for sure but so much set up for so little insight? I you're gonna do that you might as well just get to the point!

Go blue ocean. If you're being true to your vision and individuality, it will always be good enough.

P.S. I'd like to qualify "good enough". I've poured blood, sweat, tears and spit into ideas that ended up being completely ignored by the world. I still consider them good enough though. I am still proud of what I accomplished.

You are the ultimate decider of what is good enough.

What blue ocean would you suggest a baseball player enter, pray tell?

I was simply responding to the title. I didn't read the blog post (misread it as an Ask HN).

Slap my wrist accordingly.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com