Hacker News Reader

Comment by ThrowawayR2 | Hacker News Reader

Reminds me of a very old essay on Cracked that says something very similar: https://www.cracked.com/blog/6-harsh-truths-that-will-make-y...

View on HN

Good god, serious life advice targeted at young men (but applicable to anybody) before the manosphere, incels and culture wars took over. Unimaginable stuff today. What a relic.

This article seems to hinge on a rhetorical flourish whereby the literal meaning of 'you are not your job' is substituted with a criticism of 'you are not what you do'. Well, of course it doesn't make sense and isn't true if you redefine it like that - the original aphorism is instead more literal: your identity should not be conflated with the identity of your employer. The substituted argument leads to some fascinating philosophy, but doesn't deal with the more literal fact that plenty of things you can do for value to the world are still negatives, either net negative for the world or to the individual. Conflating one's identity with an employer is the latter, since the employer and the employee almost always have different requirements for well-being (in the case of a corporation then of course the employer in that sense has no requirement for well-being at all).

That article is crating the ground for manosphere, incels and culture wars. It tells the men they have no value and don't really matter as people. Have young men read that article, believe it and you will end up with them joining manosphere, incels and culture wars.

Also, it does in fact matter whether a guy is nice.

I think the article's central point is that being nice is the bare minimum. In fact, probably less than that. If you needed life-saving surgery, it would be great to have a nice surgeon, but you're still going to pick the arrogant surgeon at the top of his field rather than a random nice guy. I will say that I in fact agree that people are innately valuable, but that's more of a philosophical/religious debate here.

I think there might be that aspects, but not really the central point. On the niceness, the article claims that being nice or honest does not matter. And also that they are completely common. Neither are true.

I did not liked the surgery argument either. Of course you should not operate if you do not know how ... but that is issue of overblown ego and arrogance. Not of the niceness. No matter how awesome you are, there will be things you cant do. And framing a guy into as a useless idiot because he is a carpenter rather then surgeon and thus cant operate right there in the street is nonsense. The surgery issue simply wont happen with honest nice guy. That guy will call an ambulance which is certainly better then trying to operate.

Read article again: it literally tell guys that yes, they should be sociopathic and go get some money. That is manosphere in nutshel.

> If you needed life-saving surgery, it would be great to have a nice surgeon, but you're still going to pick the arrogant surgeon at the top of his field

In around about way, the automatic assumption that arrogance = capability did allowed quite a few cranks skate. The manosphere is fully into that point.

It matters to me. Therefore I try to be nice. I know it costs me some opportunities and some “success”. But I sleep well at night.

I think this perspective is false. You have no way of knowing how many more opportunities and success you would cost yourself by being not nice.

The author directly confronts and scolds incels in #4 and also plainly says that it isn't about money there so you clearly have the wrong impression of what the essay is about.

Well... it was 2012 so makes sense.

> they fall for those jerks because those jerks have other things they can offer.

Ha! That reminds me that I, somewhat unknowingly, in the past have emulated the good parts of a jerk to be more attractive myself.

What are the good parts of a jerk?

They are: adventurous, spontaneous, in the moment, doesn't take everything too seriously, thrill seeking and confident. It made me much more pro-active as I'm a fairly passive person (romantically speaking) normally. Oh and I still was nice too. And I emulated those things because they sounded fun as well, I just never thought of amping it up a bit.

> Oh and I still was nice too.

That is a judgment reserved exclusively to third parties, I’m afraid.

In part, but my intent of being nice didn't change. It stayed the same. Also some women explicitly called me kind and nice, not all of them to be fair. I definitely had some women being like "I normally don't go for nice guys but", but I was the exception :)

Which is why a lot of people are called jerks when in truth they're not actually doing anything wrong.

> before the manosphere, incels and culture wars took over.

Those are convenient boogeymen that give basically the same advice, just sometimes in very crass and very rude forms.

The advice stood 50 years ago, in 2012, and still stands today. What doesn't seem to stand is that american culture seems to have abandoned holding people accountable and responsible for anything ever.

I feel like that article contradicts the meaning of OPs article in almost every way.

The Cracked article comes from a very neoliberal, self-optimization hustle-grind culture: work on yourself so you're worth more for others: an incredibly, if not exclusively, extrinsic motivation. While OPs article seems more focused on your internal presence, your relationships and being with people, not for people. Cracked says to work hard and complain less, produce more so your skillset is more worthy to other people. OPs article says to practice presence and true connection.

The only thing I can find that connects both is that they have a mindset of anti-passivity, but that's all.

Ahh, edit: thought you replied directly to OP, that's why I thought you meant that the Cracked article is similar to OPs article. Sorry!

I read that relic just now for the first time.

There's some truth in there about in case of a serious emergency you mostly need competence over empathy. But, to me, it's always love, empathy and connectedness that wins. Why are you commenting on HN? Is it for bringing value in return for money or services or material goods? I don't think so. It is about human connection. In absence, life or death makes not much difference anymore.

Love, empathy, and connectedness are something you have to put in effort (lots of effort in some cases) and skill ( that has to be learned and honed) to express to the recipient in a way that gets through to them.

Your mention of "return for money or services or material goods" shows you didn't get the point of the article; the author plainly explains why it isn't about money in #4.

Well i wrote services as well. But anyways, since you were so kind as to take the effort of pointing me out the pointe, I took the effort of watching half of Baldwin's monologue and read the text below in more detail. Very interesting, it makes me understand better why the article today still is referred to. The douchebags for which some pretty women - knowingly or subconsciously - fall, often have a skill, other than just their slick douchebag appearances and schwung. So just being mister nice guy doesn't cut it. I can't help being a nice guy - - Thanks for giving me food for thought!

Reading content written by humans and not AI is a breath of fresh air. Thanks for sharing this.

Thanks very much for sharing this - despite his declaration of his majority audience, this is excellent, hard-hitting advice for anyone who feels lost in the gap between their achievements and their "potential."

An old classic. Thanks for reminding me about this article.

Thanks for sharing that article!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com