Loving what I used to hate | Hacker News Reader

Loving what I used to hate

sivers.org

76 pointsbjcubsfan20 comments

I'm glad Sivers focused on the positive, but our preferences don't only change to like more things. It would have been interesting to hear what Sivers used to love that he now hates.

In fact, I think we end up enjoying fewer things as we get older. After all, 90% of everything is crap[1], and decades of experience make us better at discerning quality. Also, the more memories we have, the less likely any new one will compare favorably to our best ones.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon's_law

> what Sivers used to love that he now hates

Talking with wantrepreneurs about their business ideas. :-)

Why do you hate it now?

Well really I was just making a little punchline here for HN.

But since you asked, after hearing hundreds of people's ideas, each wanting to know what I think of them, I feel like something short-circuited in my head, where the answer to all is just "I don't know, anymore."

It made me realize that it's not that I'm a fan of startups. I just like making things. I'm always way more interested in my own things than other people's things.

When someone asks you a question you are in no way obligated to answer.

Knowing that "90% of everything is crap" actually makes me more charitable towards new experiences, because I realize first impressions aren't necessarily representative. So I enjoy fewer things, but the things I do enjoy are much more diverse.

This is what scientific/rational beliefs are all about, open to new data and susceptible to change. Normally, when your long held beliefs somehow become part of your identity, it becomes harder to let go off them when contradicting data arrives. Being ambivalent is also seen as a negative trait since it signifies indecisive mind. There are shit loads of behaviors and expectations that evolution has invented which not only are not relevant today but also harm the society and individual in the long run.

Also, I'm not sure how you got to this being about scientific / rational beliefs. I'd posit a persons emotion response to music is as irrational and unscientific as they come. Changing ones mind about music down the track (pun!) has nothing to do with an analysis of the data because, with regard to music, "good" is entirely subjective, as distinct from "quality" with regard to acuity.

I think this is the part of the 'science' that some people take issue with. The 'scientific method' isn't always an appropriate way to view everything.

Yes, I agree with the music bit. I had other examples in mind that Sivers mentioned like his opinions about Indonesia and gym that changed overtime as he got more exposure to both.

Science might not be the best way to view everything but I was pointing out to the practice of constantly changing ones beliefs without putting extensive emotional investment in any of them.

If I love someone today and tomorrow they turn out to be a betrayer, I will be hurt but knowing humans are complex, I shouldn't be too surprised and change my views about that person instead of living in denial.

Ambivalence does have an upside: it reduces the propensity of a person to react. When reacting could lead to worse outcomes ambivalence can be the better strategy. I also don't think ambivalence and indecisiveness are the same thing. Ambivalence says "don't care" or "not interested", whereas indecisiveness says "not sure" or "confused".

ambivalence : "the state of having mixed feelings or contradictory ideas about something or someone"

While the historical meaning of "ambivalence" (literally -- strength in two directions) does mean a contradictory complex of feelings, I now almost exclusively hear it used to mean a low level of feeling or lack of caring. When you say ambivalence, this is most likely what people will understand to be the meaning.

Although, I am not a native speaker, I always interpret it as having contradictory feelings. Maybe because 'ambivalent' in my native language also has the original meaning. I agree with a peer poster that apathy is what you are describing.

Hmm, haven't noticed it since people around me dont speak enough English. "Apathy" is what I still see more to describe "low level of feeling or lack of caring".

'Ambivalence' can be used in a strategic context (ie, similar to 'strategic ambiguity'--in relation thought/intent). Whereas other notions of "muddled" are pertain to more passive states (apathy, confusion).

Dictionaries are not authoritative sources of word definitions for living languages. Current usage is the authoritative source, dictionaries are a high latency recording of word definitions based on usage.

I guess the opposite applies as well. Hating what you used to love :) at least for me this is very common.

I'll back him up on the strength training -- you owe it to yourself to read Starting Strength. I read it at the beginning of this year and can definitively say it's changed my life.

I'd change that to say: you owe it to yourself to do Starting Strength (or some other no-nonsense barbell program) for at least a month.

The reverse is why I'll never get a tattoo... or at least today I won't.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com