Hacker News Reader

Comment by Nursie | Hacker News Reader

I find that hilarious.

Particularly "While others would come to class without their homework done because they were reading about an interest of theirs, I never missed an assignment", "while others sat in class and doodled..." and "while others were creating music..."

This seems remarkably naive. The doodlers did not all become artists, many were just bored or uninterested. The ones missing assignments were probably not reading books that fascinated them, they were probably playing video games or smoking/drinking somewhere out of sight. The musicians probably did have more fun than you.

But none of these people had life any more figured out than you. And if you're the sort of person that can excel at anything they put their mind to, just because they want to, then the world is yours to do with as you please.

That doesn't make you a robot, it makes you a god.

View on HN

>The doodlers did not all become artists, many were just bored or uninterested.

In fact, the doodlers were likely attending to the lecture, e.g. http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1882127,00.ht...

This is not so much motivating, as in saying doodlers actually doodle to absorb content without letting the mind wander. I don't attend to classes for absorbing content (books are fine for that), I do to think deeply about the subject as it's exposed and interact with the teacher with questions, making the exposition richer. This just confirms the doodler stereotype.

Not sure why you were downvoted. You may well be right, as a lifelong fidgeter myself, it helps me concentrate.

And if you're the sort of person that can excel at anything they put their mind to, just because they want to, then the world is yours to do with as you please.

That doesn't make you a robot, it makes you a god.

There is no such "sort of person". Which is fine, because that person is a strawman of yours: that graduation speech is about people who can excel at anything others put their mind to. Being the best at following orders is like the top price from the consolation price shelf of skills. As Plutarch said, the mind is a fire to be kindled, not a vessel to be filled, and if you can't distinguish the interesting from the idiotic assignments, and fulfill them all with equal dog-like obedience, that's not very smart, and to think otherwise would be just as naive. If you don't, then that's not your graduation speech.

There is nothing wrong with learning for tests instead of coming up with your own challenges, or with learning instead of being lazy, or a mixture of both. There isn't even anything wrong with fulfilling the expectations of others even, as long as you know why you're doing it. If you don't, if you fulfill them just because they're there, not even to relieve your boredom but to because others expect you to, then you ARE on a conveyor belt without even knowing why and how you got there, rationalizations nonwithstanding.

Do you think people who blindly follow orders grow on trees, or are aware of the fact that's essentially all they're doing? Because I'd say no to both.

>> There is no such "sort of person".

Of course there is. Some people excel effortlessly, some are able to (and want to) dedicate themselves to a task and excel. Some can't excel despite effort and some cannot focus themselves to make the effort at all. We are all different. Or do you live in the kind of imaginary utopia where anyone can be the best at anything if they just apply themselves?

>> that graduation speech is about people who can excel at anything others put their mind to.

If you can excel at anything others put your mind to, simply because you want to excel (which was directly what was in the cartoon), then you can do it for anything you can put your mind to as well. This sets you up to win at life in almost any way you want to and is not something to lament.

The cartoon (to me) is about someone waking up to the fact they have choices and that they get to figure out what they want. Awesome. Good for them.

It also betrays a very naive (as you would expect from someone of that age) view of the working world and the rest of humanity and makes the assumption that all of the other people that do go to college and on to work have never had these thoughts.

>> if you can't distinguish the interesting from the idiotic assignments, and fulfill them all with equal dog-like obedience, that's not very smart

If she can excel at any task set, she's very smart and she's proved to herself she can do anything if she tries. She has a lot of life left to figure out where she wants to go.

>> Do you think people who blindly follow orders grow on trees, or are aware of the fact that's essentially all they're doing? Because I'd say no to both.

No, I think that the image of school as a robot factory and point of government control is overblown, almost to the point of a conspiracy theory.

Of course there is

Someone who can do anything just because they put their mind to it? Then why did nobody ever put their mind to curing cancer in 5 minutes then? Too busy with more interesting stuff?

If you can excel at anything others put your mind to, simply because you want to excel (which was directly what was in the cartoon), then you can do it for anything you can put your mind to as well.

Not unless you know and respect yourself. Not if you're too glued to authority to do it.

If she can excel at any task set, she's very smart and she's proved to herself she can do anything if she tries.

You responded to ZERO of the point you were just quoting. You just ramble on and on. I'm sorry, but I get nothing out of this and you're just talking to yourself.

No, I think that the image of school as a robot factory and point of government control is overblown, almost to the point of a conspiracy theory.

"conspiracy theory"? Really? That's your best shot? Bye!

>> Someone who can do anything just because they put their mind to it? Then why did nobody ever put their mind to curing cancer in 5 minutes then? Too busy with more interesting stuff?

You deliberately twist my words just to try to make your point. I said "the sort of person that can excel at anything they put their mind to". Brilliant cancer researchers can excel at their chosen field without having to have the whole field sewn up by the end of the week, no?

>> Not unless you know and respect yourself. Not if you're too glued to authority to do it.

I've said in several places this seems to be a girl realising she has choices. I just don't think it's unusual, damning of the school system or a reason for anyone to lament her life up until now, I think it's a normal part of adolescent development expressed naively (which is to be expected of adolescents!).

>> You responded to ZERO of the point you were just quoting. You just ramble on and on. I'm sorry, but I get nothing out of this and you're just talking to yourself.

Back at you, see top of this post and twisting words.

>> "conspiracy theory"? Really? That's your best shot? Bye!

Bye then.

Twisting words? You said "sort of person". There is no such "sort". That you then say "oh that means people can't excel at stuff blah blah blah" is of your own making.

Brilliant cancer researchers can excel at their chosen field

Sure, but that doesn't mean they automatically are great at basketball or rocket science. I mean yeah, if I put my mind to the things I know I can excel at, then I can excel at anything I put my mind to. Big whoop.

I've said in several places this seems to be a girl realising she has choices.

I'd say it's reflecting on robot like tendencies. Why would one even have to realize that unless they had some kind of issue before that? Ever saw kids play, heck, toddlers cry? Knowing you have choices is the default, and it gets broken and beaten out of some. How can you deny this? Because there are also people who excel and do so out of their free will? That's just throwing a wrench into a perfectly good discussion just because it goes over your head.

I mean, just to switch gears for a sec, ever noticed the plague of "achievement hunting"? People ticking off boxes just because those boxes exist and they have nothing better to do with themselves? Same thing. This can also be found in school among some, and in businesses as well. How could you possibly miss it?

Back at you, see top of this post and twisting words.

That somehow means you are not just quoting parts of my post, then talking stuff that addresses none of or isn't even about anything related to the quote?

I thought you said bye?

>> Twisting words? You said "sort of person". There is no such "sort". That you then say "oh that means people can't excel at stuff blah blah blah" is of your own making.

Yes, twisting my words to make your ridiculous point. This comment specifically is nonsense - "Then why did nobody ever put their mind to curing cancer in 5 minutes then? Too busy with more interesting stuff?" And yes, by excelling at everything in school she has shown she's the sort of person that can excel at many things, by studying and applying herself. Not everyone has it in them to excel in one space, let alone lots. I'm not really sure what your problem is here.

>> Sure, but that doesn't mean they automatically are great at basketball or rocket science.

No, why on earth would it? But it might mean that they are at a crossroads now and can excel at whatever direction they decide to take their life, be that cancer research, rocket science, whatever. She's smart and shown a capacity for dedication, so can probably be nearly anything she wants. Seriously, what is your problem with this?

(--edit-- hell, maybe she wants to buy some land and run a drum workshop, it's her choice too, I'm not trying to constrain the discussion to academic disciplines)

>> I mean yeah, if I put my mind to the things I know I can excel at, then I can excel at anything I put my mind to. Big whoop.

Now you're just spouting nonsense again.

>> I'd say it's reflecting on robot like tendencies. Why would one even have to realize that unless they had some kind of issue before that?

Because they're an adolescent just waking up to the extent of the world around them. It happens. Her parents and teachers probably have influenced her thinking about how her life is due to unfold. She probably had an internal roadmap that was partly put there by society, partly by the adults in her life, and partly by her own assumptions. She's realising it's not set in stone. Good for her.

>> Ever saw kids play, heck, toddlers cry? Knowing you have choices is the default, and it gets broken and beaten out of some. How can you deny this? Because there are also people who excel and do so out of their free will? That's just throwing a wrench into a perfectly good discussion just because it goes over your head.

I'm not sure I have any idea what you're talking about any more.

>>I mean, just to switch gears for a sec, ever noticed the plague of "achievement hunting"? People ticking off boxes just because those boxes exist and they have nothing better to do with themselves? Same thing. This can also be found in school among some, and in businesses as well. How could you possibly miss it?

No, really no clue.

>> That somehow means you are not just quoting parts of my post, then talking stuff that addresses none of or isn't even about anything related to the quote?

At least I'm quoting what you actually said instead of making shit up.

Please stop.

>There is no such "sort of person".

Well that's a depressing thought. That the world is nobody's oyster, and it's only because nobody cares enough about what they choose.

(Unless you're arguing that devoted work doesn't lead to excelling, in which case I think you're crazy or using completely different definitions than me.)

There is no person who can do literally anything just "because their put their mind to it", and the world is nobodies oyster because it's not an oyster. Also, because it has other people in it.

"Love and knowledge, so far as they were possible, led upward toward the heavens. But always pity brought me back to earth. Echoes of cries of pain reverberate in my heart. Children in famine, victims tortured by oppressors, helpless old people a burden to their sons, and the whole world of loneliness, poverty, and pain make a mockery of what human life should be. I long to alleviate this evil, but I cannot, and I too suffer." --- Bertrand Russell, "Autobiography"

Unless you're arguing that devoted work doesn't lead to excelling

I'm not arguing it doesn't, why wouldn't it. I just don't see how that makes anyone a god, whatever that's even supposed to mean other than "epic" or "awesome" or other nonsense. No, that's simply being a human. Heck, it even applies to plants.

As I just said, it's not about YOU putting your mind about something, it's about someone ELSE putting your mind to something. That this crucial distinction keeps getting missed is kinda creepy :/

The quote in question is, again "the sort of person that can excel at anything they put their mind to, just because they want to". That's very clearly YOU putting your mind to something, not someone else putting your mind to it.

And you kind of ignored my entire point. It's not that you can 'do literally anything', obviously you can't become the incredible hulk through force of will. It's about being able to excel at any chosen field by being highly devoted to it. And on top of that, the 'godliness', is being able to chose a topic to be exceptionally devoted to. It's the choice of what to be passionate about that I would be depressed that nobody can do.

But apparently you were just interpreting 'excel at anything' as 'do literally anything' and never meant any of what I was responding to.

Pretty much anyone can excel at the level of dedication shown in the speech. The question is whether you can conjure up that dedication at will, to point at a chosen goal. If yes, god, if no, robot.

My reading of the speech (full here[1]), was the opposite of your conclusion.

She makes the case that people are naturally passionate about (different) things, and should be free to follow that passion.

She makes the case that many jobs could be automated out of existence, if the objective was to free people from the need to work, rather than to perpetuate a status quo that keeps them tired and passive.

These are fairly common thoughts, on the new left. I know that in the 1970s in the UK, it was expected labor intensive manufacturing jobs would be replaced by automation, and the government had conferences to decide what to do, to give people purpose without work. As it turned out, the jobs were destroyed, by outsourcing in the 1980s, and a great bulk of service jobs that were unnecessary just a few years before were created to take up the slack.

Western economies are hugely over-weighted towards the service sector, but think - in a country where 40% of jobs are industrial, how do they get by with such a low proportion of servants? Does it not follow that those jobs are unnecessary?

Isn't it immoral to force people do do them? Shouldn't we recalibrate society so they don't have to? So they can spend more time creating, launching startups, live longer due to earlier retirement?

Personally, I'm on the fence on this one. I get a lot of purpose and enjoyment from my job, and not having one takes a huge toll on the unemployed. I find it hard to understand why unemployed friends don't just create jobs for themselves, to provide the self respect they so desperately want. Maybe people need a system that creates jobs for them so they can have a purposeful life.

But anyway, the ability conjure up dedication towards a chosen goal? Certainly that would make you a productive god, a robot even, but not (according to the author) a fully realized human. That would require passion.

[1]http://americaviaerica.blogspot.com.au/p/speech.html

When everything is standardized and trained with specificity, as our school system is, we are turning people into automatons. The trouble with automatons is they get automated.

We have been moving, for the past 50 years, into an era where there is still a staggering amount of work that needs to be done but there is no singular defined "job" to employ a person from their early 20s until their mid-60s retirement.

This is the classic "education" vs "training" argument. For a variety of weird political/cultural/doublespeak reasons we're not allowed to discuss the difference, they're supposed to be synonyms. However, an education lasts a lifetime and gives meaning to life and a lifetime of interesting things to think about, and ways to think. Job training is just a meal ticket.

You can guess which philosophies applied in pre-industrial vs modern K-12 .edu and which applied in pre-tuition bubble and post-tuition bubble university .edu in the USA.

There is quite an impedance bump going from HS senior to Univ Freshman because of this conversion from pure training automaton setting to at least still partially an educational setting.

What's the difference between passion and true dedication? I would have said there wasn't one.

I meant that dedication is when you make yourself do something in order to achieve a goal, while passion is doing that thing for it's own sake. That's what I think the girl meant. Which is the opposite of what the GP was talking about.

Clearly, doing anything significant requires dedication - you aren't going to enjoy every moment. And people become passionate about whatever they do. Or they have passion for the goal they are dedicated to. The contradiction is artificial.

But I can see that, if the speaker felt like her life was full of dedication, without passion, she'd feel very unfulfilled.

I suppose so. And the realisation that it is (or at least could be) you that controls that choice is probably what this is really about.

--edit-- actually I'm not 100% sure everyone can excel at anything even with that level of dedication, and I am 100% sure that not everyone has it in them to give that level of dedication to anything.

I disagree. While the majority of smart kids at school do follow the traditional route, doing their work, conforming to the system (sometimes because it's easy for them, and they may as well take advantage of their brains to get a decent job, and sometimes because they're simply blind), there are always a number of exceptions. You have exceptionally-bright kids who don't know what to do with their lives and slack in school because they're bored and lazy, but you also have exceptionally bright, almost enlightened kids who are extremely passionate about learning, but find themselves disgusted by the mindless conformism required to excel in such an institution. Not every person who can excel wants to excel at something so pointless.

I don't mean to be dismissive of the exceptions, I just wanted to say that the pursuits of the other students that she suddenly finds so worthy are not necessarily so.

And I tend not to think that many people at all have life figured out very well at that age. Revelations are to be expected :)

Mind if I quote that sometime? You explained my thoughts on the issues of education exactly.

Go for it :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com