If you're concerned about being inauthentic, you should write all your code on paper rather than using anything as performance-enhancing as a text editor. And forget about that morning coffee!
wow - you see no difference between coffee and a neural enhancer? this is way off the chart for me here. I have no difficulties seeing authenticity in what I do vs. the pill-popping programming regimen (maybe that's why I am getting downvoted here). I would also say it keep me very happy so far. So I wish good luck to those who choose that instead :)
Perhaps not coffee, but caffeine, the active ingredient, is a "neural enhancer." Wikipedia defines it as a "psychoactive stimulant drug" and says that it "has a generally disinhibitory effect on neural activity." You would have done better to call out the comparison between using drugs and a text editor ;-)
"I have no difficulties seeing authenticity in what I do vs. the pill-popping programming regimen"
Yeah, that's how cognitive dissonance works. Please articulate where the 'authenticity' line is. Plenty of people 'feel' the way you do, but I have yet to meet a single one who can rationally explain their 'feeling'.
"Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding conflicting ideas simultaneously."
You tell me what's conflicting in my feelings because I'd be curious to know.
On the other hand, anyone who feels they need to downvote me because I expressed feeling felt a bit troubled by their revelations about the way they pop pills to improve their programming skills is maybe downvoting me to feel better about themselves, don't you think? I mean if YC's majority opinion is that pill popping is OK, AND/OR that anyone disagreeing should be downvoted, I think I want nothing to do with YC. I surely hope it's not the case. Now tke shots at my karma all you want!
Well you don't have the uncomfortable feeling, because you rationalize it away by declaring coffee (caffeine) something entirely different from (other_ neural enhancers (in pill form). Cognitive dissonance is, like you say, the uneasy feeling of having two conflicting views at the same time. Your are 'pills are bad' and 'coffee is ok'. (If I may speculate, I'd say the both come from social conditioning, or rather, accepting the mainstream or conventional views on these issues without thinking about them critically. For which nobody can really blame you, I mean if everybody had to second guess every single thing we see every day ('regular' people drinking coffee), we'd get nothing done at all.)
Anyway so those are the two views, but when you link them through 'they're both cognitive enhancers', a problem arises. Why is one bad, and the other not? So this is then 'glossed over' or 'smoothed out' by the brain by internalizing a third cognition, namely 'they're not the same'. Note that this third cognition does not have to be elaborated on very much (actually this elaboration is what I asked for, because I don't think any argument in it can hold) to put your mind at ease and 'resolve' the cognitive dissonance.
Anyway, my point still stands. I challenge you to explain what is the fundamental difference between taking a chemical in pill form versus taking it in liquid form (this is what it, in my opinion, boils down to). I guess the most obvious argument is going to be that one is man-made and the other 'natural' (which somebody arguing this then usually interprets as "the precursor is readily available in nature, and extensive treatment in the form of drying, grounding, and preparing with hot water is 'pure' enough to all be 'natural".) I won't put any words in your mouth, I'm just pre-empting the usual first response and indicating what I see as weaknesses in that argument ;)
Finally, for the record, I didn't downvote you as far as I remember, but your comment did rub me the wrong way. The reason being that it states a very strong opinion or position, but offers nothing to rationally substantiate that opinion. On the contrary, the only attempt at convincing the reader seems to be in a 'proof by assertion' strategy, repeated across multiple posts. Furthermore from your claim that people only downvoted you because you hold a different opinion it seems that you are not very willing to critically examine your own position, nor to put in the effort to really (as in, rationally and in a dialectically sound way) defend it. I hope I'm wrong on this of course, I'm just letting you know how these couple of posts came across to me, hoping that this may help you understand why people reacted to your post the way they did (well, 'people', just 3 really, but still).
You can "challenge" me all you want but that still doesn't justify you or others downvoting my comments ;-) And it's just not three downvotes because I was up 6 at some point.
I worked briefly in the pharmaceutical industry and it taught me a few things about the level of testing and knowledge labs have about the pills that you compare to coffee. There has been much more research about coffee (which I remind you I don't drink either because I know of its side-effects) than there has been about the neural enhancers you kids take. You want to believe it's OK. Go ahead but don't blame me for saying it makes no sense to me. And you are right, I am not willing to put much more time into going in details on this. Too busy and the topic is really so off the charts to me that I am pretty sure of myself here.
I have heard so much of the same non-sense pseudo-chemistry from all the people advocating for one drug or another for their wellbeing. The argumentative here really sound of addiction. So I challenge you to explain in bio-chemical terms why these drugs are as harmless as coffee. Good luck!
Are you even reading what I wrote? I explicitly said I didn't downvote you. In addition, you still refuse to actually go into any substantial points, and still resort to the meaningless 'nahnahnah I can't hear you' style of 'discussion' common amongst toddlers.
"the topic is really so off the charts to me that I am pretty sure of myself here". Seriously? Your argument is 'I have a strong opinion about it, so I'm right"? "The argumentative here really sound of addiction." And your basic retort is "what do you know, you're all junkies"? No wonder you feel you're being treated hostile here - all anti-intellectualism is, as it should.
I am absolutely not anti-intellectual - more like the contrary in fact. However, I don't see any intellectualism here.
As I said, point me to serious research that shows coffee and neural stimulants are just as harmless as each other and and I'll side with you. I don't have to provide you research that shows they are vastly different. It's just so freaking obvious.
Finally, I am very familiar with these medications since I took several neural agents as a younger guy when experiencing epilepsy. I am not against them, I am just surprised about so much talk of self-medication and I think it's plain wrong for people to think this harmless. But this is free world, so why don't you just ignore me and keep popping instead of getting all flustered about my comments, if you are sure of yourself that is.
Oh I'm not flustered, a bit annoyed at best. This used to be a site where mostly bright people discussed in a mostly intelligent way, but lately I feel like it's being overrun by people like you who provide words to the database but no content, and that's a shame. (of course I'm doing so myself now, I'll justify that to myself by saying that it's buried so deep in an article way off the front page that it won't bother many people any more, but I fully recognize that that's cognitive dissonance too).
Anyway please stop the straw man 'that shows coffee and neural stimulants are just as harmless as each other'. That was never even a point of discussion, please pay attention. This started off with you stating "I have no difficulties seeing authenticity in what I do vs. the pill-popping programming regimen" and some other comments that basically declared some ethical difference between using coffee over chemical substances. Caffeine and other chemicals are not the same, they have different effect on the brain and different effects on the body, each chemical has. You claimed there was a moral chasm between caffeine and synthetic drug use, and afterward you refuse to either back down or defend the point, instead weaseling out with (by my count) 5 fallacies by now.
Finally I did not mention once taking any chemicals myself, on purpose since it's immaterial to the question at hand and discussions about me (or you, for that matter) are completely uninteresting. It seems like you find it hard to comprehend that people would take an abstract interest in something that is not immediately applicable in their world, or to hold opinions that are not directly relevant in that. But since you seem to think it's important, let me state for the record that I don't use any non-medical chemicals myself (save for the occasional caffeine).
hehe - just "a bit annoyed" but wasting hard drive space with this long and slightly insulting rant!? you either have lots of time on your hands or are really flustered. I agree, the discussion has lost all meaning at this point. going back to my startup now :)
