Hacker News Reader

England started becoming a super power only when King Henry read the book of King Arthur and his Knights of the round table. (King Arthur's story was a false story written by Thomas Malory - while in prison. A convict changed the fortunes of England which was until then a land of misfits and barbarians - by giving them a hero!)

I don't know much English history, but this is surely nonsense. Malory was a late compiler of the Arthurian legends, in no way their originator, and Henry V (whom I assume you have in mind?) was a generation earlier. Besides, history doesn't work this (fairy-tale) way.

You're right. I tried to cut corners and keep it short.

Thomas Malory got the legend of King Arthur from Geoffrey of Monmouth - a Welsh monk who lived in the early 12th century. Good 200+ years before Malory.

But Geoffrey of Monmouth's work was largely unknown until Thomas Malory revived it.

Thomas Malory's book Le Morte D'Arthur became a bestseller because of the right timing - Guttenberg invented his printing press at just about that time.

In either case - the Arthurian legend is entirely made up. Geoffrey of Monmouth weaved the story out of his imagination - which was later picked and spruced up by Thomas Malory.

About the King - I may have to check up on it - may have made a mistake.

Update: did some checking. Thomas Malory: 1405 - 1471. King Henry VII: 1457 to 1509.

King Henry VII was so influenced by Thomas Malory's work that he also named his first son Arthur (but who didn't live long enough to become the next King...)

Heroes creating history vs history creating heroes is debatable. But this is awesome reading: http://www.invisibleheroes.com/hero.asp?issue=116

Geoffrey of Monmouth (Wales != England) did not invent the Arthurian legend, he reinvented it. The Arthurian legend predates him & appears to have been based on a 'Roman' soldier who remained in the British Isles after the first Roman invasion:

184 - Lucius Artorius Castus, commander of a detachment of Sarmatian conscripts stationed in Britain, led his troops to Gaul to quell a rebellion. This is the first appearance of the name, Artorius, in history and some believe that this Roman military man is the original, or basis, for the Arthurian legend. The theory says that Castus' exploits in Gaul, at the head of a contingent of mounted troops, are the basis for later, similar traditions about "King Arthur," and, further, that the name "Artorius" became a title, or honorific, which was ascribed to a famous warrior in the fifth century.

Thanks sharpn. I'll have to read a bit more history... thanks for the leads.

To not let my lack of knowledge take away from the point of the comment - let me reiterate:

The point is not how Arthurian legends started. The point is King Henry VII got a hero from Thomas Malory's book. And this hero gave him the ambition to change England.

What evidence I can find indicates it was actually the other way around - that Henry VII co-opted the legend to reinforce his legitimacy, rather than being inspired by it. If anything, the other part of your original point (having strong problems to overcome) is probably more apt for that case.

Anyway, your broader point of having heroes is still valid.

About point 3, I think you have cause and effect backwards, most likely your 5 best friends are either friends from college or work, or maybe neighbors.

So it's not like having wealthier friends will make you earn more money, but rather earning more money will probably lead you to have wealthier friends.

I dont even have 5 friends.

You're not the only one. This isn't bad, not everyone is cut out to be gregarious...then again being a hermit isn't necessarily a winning business trait.

Maybe he is gregarious but also highly selective.

I think its like with smiling. It goes both ways.

If you're in a good mood - you'll smile more. And if you are in a bad mood - but you make a conscious effort to smile - your mood will change to become better.

Good mood leads to smiling. And smiling leads to good mood. Its circular.

Similarly - rich friends will lead you to become richer. And once you're rich you'll make more wealthier friends. It goes both ways.

What it sounds like you are saying is that it can, in the right circumstances, create a feedback loop in either direction. And you are right.

With that said, Nico had an excellent point. For most people their friends will include a peer group that almost certainly makes similar incomes to theirs, and for most people you will only really start making a lot of friends at a higher socio-economic point on the ladder when you move up to (or are in the process of moving up to) that same higher point yourself.

You're one level removed from cause and effect. Having wealthier friends won't make you wealthier by itself - but having more ambitious/hardworking friends will encourage you to be more ambitious and hardworking yourself. Similarly hanging out with athletes won't suddenly make you fit - but it will provide the support you need to pursue your own fitness goals.

About 1: Glucose is necessary, not sufficient. You don't have it and willpower suffers. You have in excess and you just get fat.

Good point.

I think it would also be interesting to ask religious folks how they get willpower to fast.

Fasting means lack of glucose in your body. Yet fasting is a showcase of willpower.

So maybe some interesting answers may come from them...

I am fasting at the moment from around 4am to 8pm. I was very apprehensive before I started this year as the days were longer this time round - I thought I would really struggle. However I have to say food has been the least of my worries.

It is all in the mind not in the stomach. Once you know you can't do something you don't consider it as an option. I didn't have to mentally or physically prepare I just got on with it. In the two weeks of fasting I have lost weight, I end up gorging in the evenings and find that I can pretty much eat what I want and not worry about it. For the non-religious it would be a good way to lose weight and discipline yourself (just don't call it a diet).

I do know though that if I break one of my fasts because I got hungry it will be very easy for me to break the next.

I do know though that if I break one of my fasts because I got hungry it will be very easy for me to break the next.

That's how I quit smoking :)

Well, fasting isn't literally no food. Ramadan for example is no food between sunrise and sunset. You can eat pies all night if you want to.

If you're talking about Ramadan, I'd say it's mostly habit reinforced from an early age.

I have lots of will power in general but limited self-control. Yet fasting is a piece of cake. It wasn't always like it. I remember when I initially started around the age of 9 I would fast till noon instead of sunset. Then gradually by the time I was 11 I could fast till sunset.

I've read in several places about monks and their years of meditating literally changes the circuits in the brain giving them hyper self-control. Check out the book Evolve Your Brain.

There is an element of habit from an early age, but I would argue that it is not the biggest factor. We only fast for one month out of 12 a year, the habit is broken for the other 11. If it was fasting day in day out from a young age then yes habit would be a big influence.

At the same time it's not random, meaning your brain knows very clearly from the get go that this is something that will be done 1) every year 2) for 30 days 3) based on moon sighting.

IMO this aids as opposed to random unpredictable nature where I pick up something, drop it then try to come back to it one day.

Additionally, I'd argue that every time I pray I am somewhat reaffirming my faith and thus fasting that is to come later in the year. Premise here that fasting becomes easy because your body is mentally prepared from years of programming and the constant reenforcing of my religious values when I'm not fasting. Remove those two elements(faith + practice) and fasting will be very difficult.

re item 1: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=661984