Hacker News Reader

I've reflected long and hard on the same pattern of thinking in myself. Despite lots of downsides, it's been a hard thing to part with.

I think rooting my self-worth in competence is the only reason I've been able to achieve anything remotely worthwhile through a learning disability which affects focus and concentration. It's a great way to summon determination.

The downside of this way of thinking is that it ties one's internal qualities (which can always been controlled) through uncertain exterior outcomes (competence being measured by the capacity to affect a desired change within the scope of possibility). The consequence is an excessive degree of uncertainty in one's own skills, and assessments that are doomed to be imprecise because luck now uniquely has the ability to affect the outcome of a self-assessment of character.

I think what you're describing is that clowning moves the assessment to a more consistent measure (intent, divorced from outcome). Shifting from a consequentialist to a non-consequentialist perspective on the self is indeed a tremendous change. From the perspective of wellbeing, a non-consequentialist worldview is probably easier to reckon with over the long term because the outcome is more controllable.

Good on you. I'll have to put clowning on the bucket list.

> I think rooting my self-worth in competence is the only reason I've been able to achieve anything remotely worthwhile through a learning disability which affects focus and concentration. It's a great way to summon determination.

This echoes what I'm discovering the hard way in my own life: to have learned to force oneself through grit and determination and be successful and self-confident in those aspects of life where that grit is a major contributor (work, sport, empirical accomplishments), only to notice that interpersonal relationships and inner self struggle with self-worth, connection, compassion and empathy, especially towards one-self. The fight for competence and some form of perfection become the battle cry leading into abject loneliness.

Maybe this is part of many men's struggle to not end up at the bottom of the rat race, inadvertently failing to tend to inner wounds and needs in the process.

In this thread I feel like I'm among my people.

This year is the one where I've been reflecting. Over the past N years of being focused on self-improvement and perfectionism and a self-evaluation/grind/progress loop in quantifiable fields (code, research, combat sports, exercise), in an ugly twist, led to sort of entitlement or an implicit expectation of rewards from the interpersonal domain.

Echoing exactly what others above me have said, "if I'm good enough, do xyz well enough, people will have no choice but to like me and love me."

Turns out that the parts of _myself_ I admire when it comes to my pursuit of "things" are not at all what people like about me.

Things, you can pursue - if you want to get good at C++, C++ has no choice in the matter, right? It's up to your own grit and determination. C++ can't reject you if you learn it well enough.

People? People like each other for unknowable, unmeasurable reasons and I need to understand more of how, not just that interpersonal is "out of my hands", but specifically treating interpersonal relationships as "things to improve on" is counterproductive, pushes it farther away.

Have you ever heard the expression "if you stop chasing things so hard, you'll get them?" When it comes to things, bullshit; the best in their field are the ones who chase it the hardest.

But maybe when it comes to people, it's actually true...

I realized this for different reasons, but it resonates with me.

I’m a perfectionist. The pursuit of success can be consuming. When you achieve it and try to connect with people over it, you’re typically coming from the wrong place. It isn’t really sincere, it’s misguided, it’s often achieved through unsustainable behaviour. The whole thing is a bit uncomfortable. Whether people are conscious of it or not, you aren’t coming from a relatable place. People will typically be kind and supportive, but typically, the perfectionist causes people to pause and analyze. They might make others feel worse about themselves, they might be obnoxiously modest or self-deprecating, and so on. It’s a hard way to be and it’s hard to be around.

You can turn it into something great, though. A retired perfectionist can be one of the most compassionate, supportive, understanding, and encouraging types of people once they let go of their inward obsession and put that energy towards others.

    I, like you, have flaws
    Let me be sincere and straight
    I am too perfect

If you enjoy characters accepting the flop, you'll love the Czechoslovakian stop motion series "A je to!". Might just be my nostalgia goggles, but I think it's a gem. Example: https://youtu.be/tQ_sBzSaJIo?si=asx9J2nLex6QMpIy

> We don’t like people who are perfect. We like people for their flaws.

Entirely this. It even applies to physical beauty. People who appear physically flawless are generally perceived as less beautiful than ones that don't.

The paradox seems to be, by trying to be flawless or perfect, we will/want to climb the social ladder in hope of getting respect and being taken seriously. But being higher, means more people are below you, leading to jealousy, envy and people trying to compete with you to get to the same level. They want to prove they are at least as good as you. In fact, just the opposite of what we tried to achieve; admiration, respect, love.

Yes, although it's not always (or maybe even often) that the reaction is because of jealousy or because people want to compete to get to the "same level".

I think that it often has more to do with the fact that nobody is actually "perfect", and so people who seem to be, or are perceived as trying to be, appear inauthentic or "fake". People tend to like real people, and real people have real flaws.

> “I believe if I’m “good” enough, nobody will reject me for being “bad” and people will like me.”

My philosophy is different. If I know my values are where they should be and I live in accordance with them then it does not matter if people like my actions or not. Judgments slide right off. It's an impenetrable armor.

I hear that. I would have said something very similar a few years ago.

But now, I think it’s healthy to have our armour penetrated by the world. To be seen. To be vulnerable. To fail and have it fall apart and be able to weep.

As far as we know, we will die. And so with everyone we know and love. I don’t want impenetrable emotional armor. I want to, sometimes, sob uncontrollably. Feeling our feelings fully is the only path through life that is truly present with the reality of it all. Being impenetrable is too close to being numb.

I'm not saying you should become an emotionless robot. I'm saying you should build a strong foundation and know where to go from there. People will question you along the way. Consider their opinions but always reserve the agency to move your foundation. They don't do that just by scaring you.

Here's a conversation between two British comedians I enjoy talking about something very similar, you might enjoy it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqZZ9uXomhg

You might want to check the news about Russel Brand. Probably not the best person to link to.

Try to Separate the art from the artist here, the clip is worth watching if you have 15mins

Also the interesting bits are from Richard Ayoade, who as far as I know isn't a rapist.

What, that he was a sex addict for much of his career and made some regrettable choices during that time? I'm aware. He's mentioned it once or twice.

He's been accused of rape and sexual assault by multiple women.

He's still a subject matter expert when it comes to comedy, though.

There’s a school of thought that says if it turns out the inventor of fire was a rapist, we must never be warm.

Then I think we should all be cold, because I'm sure that at the time fire was invented by cavemen, that they were all rapists by today's standards ;). Unless it was a woman that invented fire.

What school of thought is that anyway?

Has he? All I've heard are insinuations by the same institutions who covered up Saville's crimes.

A world where we let people's failings and faults dominate their success and virtues is a world inherently destined for incredible mediocrity and the creation of only tepid works.

A world where we ignore "failings and faults" like being a serial rapist so long as said rapist creates profitable works is no better.

Lots of conversations on RLHSTP (Richard Herring's podcast) about comedy that end up in similar discussions : https://www.rhlstp.co.uk/

I perform stand-up comedy a few nights a week. I completely relate to this. Whenever I "bomb" a joke now I'll say something like, "Well everyone, you just witnessed the first, and last, time I will ever say THAT joke" or "Well, THAT didn't work!" and I'll always get the laugh.

Classic beginner's mistake is to try to make yourself "look good" on stage. I did the same thing. Nobody wants to laugh at jokes told by someone who thinks they're better than the audience :)

I love that approach!

I go to every live standup show I can, especially small ones where new comedians are learning the craft. Being in the audience when one is bombing is incredibly uncomfortable (probably not as much for the audience as for the comedian, but still...).

I like it a lot when the comedian "acknowledges the suck" in a way that isn't self-pitying or audience-blaming. It really decreases the discomfort level a lot.

The audience is (usually, anyway) on the comedian's side and wants the comedian to be successful, so doing that makes the "we're all on the same team here" aspect more overt.

I think you're on the right track, but it's more complicated than that. It's not just success/failure, it's success/failure relative to one's perceived innate abilities. Take this example:

https://old.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/17ql19y/how_to_work_...

The fact that the audience member wearing the cargo pants clearly had a learning disability changed everything. The source of the comedy switched from teasing someone about poor fashion choices to being in the presence of a zen master who wore whatever the fuck he wanted. (It was actually a brilliant response on the part of the performer.)

This is almost universal. We celebrate (say) people confined to wheelchairs playing basketball, but only if they have no choice but to use a wheelchair. Able-bodied people playing wheelchair basketball would be a grotesque farce. (But it's not completely universal. The DAAA games [1], for example, are not nearly as widely known as (say) the special olympics [2].)

[1] http://www.daaa.org/

[2] https://www.specialolympics.org/

I see a parallel with that to "art". My favorite description of art is that it is "creativity under constraint". Pure, raw creativity isn't art -- art happens when that creativity is expressed inside of limitations. The limitations of paint, for instance, or of a particular literary or musical form, etc.

That is beautifully said. I too have had to learn in my life with a not entirely neurotypical brain that what connects people in everyday life is just that flawed humanness, and one's attitude towards it in oneself. There is admiration and dislike and other, more generic feelings towards others, but true connection comes from those little points of cognition and relating. Maybe that insight comes more naturally to many, but some of us had to think about this a bit more than others.

I can't seem to resist the urge of asking, what was haunting about it?

The process of learning clowning - at least where I went - was a process of getting up on stage, again and again, and being made vulnerable to the audience and to our own inadequacies. Which is a nice way of saying that the instructors were low key abusive. They encouraged us in the audience to yell “money back!” when the performers were boring us. Or the teachers would give feedback like (direct quotes): “I didn’t understand why women want to date other women until I saw you on stage. You are so unlovable that I understand abandoning men completely.”. “Do you not think he looks like a tub of yoghurt trying to dance?”. “This one is a cancer on the stage.” And so on. A few days after clown school my partner and I were chatting to a pair of American sisters from an army family on a bus. The older one had served. Before we mentioned clown school she said we had the same haunted look people had right out of basic training.

It was definitely abusive. But we’re also definitely looser for it. 1 month of class and my social anxiety is basically gone. It feels a bit like I have an opportunity to relearn how I want to show up socially and on stage. It’s taken a few months to recover, but I’m so much more present with people. I don’t understand why, but I’m really not sure we could have learned what we learned without feedback like that. I’ve done improv comedy classes for years. But clowning at Gaulier melted so much of my bullshit. We spent a month being seen. And then told, honestly, brutally and repeatedly what people see when they look at us. Once you get over the shock of it, there’s a joy in that. A game. But it’s been months and I still haven’t quite put myself back together again yet.

If anything, saying the experience was haunting is a massive understatement. For good and ill, that class will be with me until the day I die.

>We don’t like people who are perfect. We like people for their flaws.

Also wrong, though. But I'm glad you're in some sort of path to self improvement :D.

Yeah, but anything that can be said with words will always be a bit wrong. “The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.” and all that.

How would you fix it?

IMO the moment you start questioning why you like/don't like somebody you're already on a precarious path.

The reason why you like someone is just because you like them; or the opposite. No need to complicate things. Learn to trust your gut and let your own inner self tell you if you feel like another person should be in your life or not. Things fall naturally into place this way.