
Why “just do it” is bullshit - dwynings
http://wayoftheduck.com/why-just-do-it-is-bullshit
======
steve8918
Sorry, but this is the dumbest blog post I've read in a while. I'm not even
sure why he even bothered posting this. Is it really to say "Hard work is
never enough if you want to be the top person in the world at something"? Did
he just recently come to the conclusion that he has been "lied" to in that
hard work isn't enough some times, and that luck and natural advantage could
somehow trump everything else?

 __Of course __not everyone can become an Olympic athlete just by trying. And
__of course __not everyone will be the next Steve Jobs or Zuckerberg no matter
how hard they try, either. That's not the point.

The point is that most people don't even bother trying, and if you try, if you
even just show up on a regular basis, you can probably reach above the 50th
percentile in __anything __.

I would bet that almost anyone who puts a concerted effort into any endeavor
could get to the top 25th percentile in just about anything. Hard work and
hustle can bridge a lot of gap that natural ability and luck may create.

But if he is somehow just now coming to some epiphany that hard work can't
trump luck and/or natural advantage (either thru ability or status), then my
answer is: "Welcome to the real world." You need to temper any goals you have
with maturity and realism. I'm a terrible basketball player, but I'm sure if I
spent 1hr/day every day playing pickup for 1 year, by the end of a year, I'll
be better than at least half of the regulars. But if my expectations are that
I'll be able to dunk and beat Michael Jordan, I'd be delusional.

~~~
olliesaunders
You haven’t actually criticized any particular point of this article only
stated how obvious it is and how other stuff is more important. OK, it may be
obvious to you but this might be quite enlightening to other people especially
those who have been fed on the kind of self-help bullshit the author is
debunking. A lot of people are into that, sadly, and not smart enough--or
perhaps too desperate--to understand why it is bullshit. If it’s so beyond you
then just move on. If you want to enlighten us do it without making slurs
against other people less fortunate than yourself.

~~~
signalsignal
I didn't see any slurs in what he wrote. Try to be more constructive.

~~~
ryguytilidie
"dumbest blog ever" would be a pretty easy point to see. Seemed constructive
to me...

~~~
signalsignal
How is that a slug? It sounds more like an opinion after all.

------
samstokes
While his complaint about "stating the problem as the solution" resonates with
me, I found this post gained a lot more meaning when I noticed who the author
was: Buster Benson, founder of a number of startups with the explicit goal of
helping people make beneficial changes to their own behaviour. He's not just
whining "this stuff is hard, give us a break" - he's calling for more
attention on _techniques for doing hard things_.

This post from the same blog is one of the most positive and insightful "my
startup is shutting down" posts I've read: <http://wayoftheduck.com/a-duck-
bears-no-grudges>

> _I’m not going to wait until I have a success story to start telling it._

------
BlackJack
What a bunch of negative bullshit. What do you expect Michael Phelps to say?
"Hey kids who look up to me, don't follow your dreams because you probably
don't have the right set of genes. Just acknowledge it's difficult and move
on."

People act like being "world class" is some big mystery, but not in the 21st
century. Extensive research has come to the conclusion that deliberate
practice, over a long period of time, with the appropriate guidance of coaches
and mentors is necessary and mostly sufficient to produce expertise in a
field.

No, I don't think anyone can be Michael Phelps. In fact, it is clear that
physical advantages go a long way in sports and athletic events. In almost
everything else though, the right approach can produce mastery. The Polgar
family is a living example of that w.r.t. chess. And most people are not
looking to become world champions - they simply want to be successful in their
endeavors. For that to happen, you must apply the same principles. To lose
weight, I agree that saying "just diet and work out" is difficult, but most
effective programs are either a result of intrinsic motivation or someone
implementing a gradual program where you first cut out some sugar, then all
soda, then cake, then you start eating one good meal a day, and so on and so
forth.

In my view, this post marginalizes human willpower, which I consider one of
the strongest forces in the world. Sure you won't be Michael Phelps, but you
could say "No matter how hard you try, you will never become a Redwood," and I
think the result is the same. Most people don't aspire to be world champion
swimmers or extremely tall trees. They want to be successful in their
endeavors, and for reasonably well off people in the Western world (which I
think describes a large part of this board), there really isn't anything
holding you back.

Ericsson et al. published a review of this field (expertise) in The Cambridge
Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance
([http://www.amazon.com/Cambridge-Expertise-Performance-
Handbo...](http://www.amazon.com/Cambridge-Expertise-Performance-Handbooks-
Psychology/dp/0521600812)). It's 900 pages but if you can't make it through a
serious book then you sure as hell can't succeed in anything that requires
real dedication.

~~~
xiaoma
An emotional reaction to this kind of realism is understandable considering
how much people _want_ to believe they can be be great at anything.

But the truth is that innate differences matter not just in athletics, but in
any endeavor. Even the famous Polgar sisters you mention both trailed men who
had later starts and less formal early training for their entire careers. UK
marathoner Paula Radcliffe's career is similar in many respects.

In general, the "purer" an endeavor is the more decisive innate differences
are. By this I mean that innate differences will matter more for runners than
for basketball players, more for speed skaters than hockey players, more for
mathematicians than for hedge fund quants, etc...

But there is a great deal of evidence that innate differences create
uncrossable chasms in skills far outside of athletics.

Music: <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1209186.stm>

Motor Skills: <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1209186.stm>

IQ & Cortical Thickening:
<http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/30/science/30brain.html?_r=1>

Language:
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/05/050517063228.ht...](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/05/050517063228.htm)

Facial recognition: <http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/01/face-
recognition/>

None of this means that willpower doesn't matter. Of course it does. However,
at least accepting the reality that we don't all have the exact same potential
at every pursuit can be beneficial. For one thing, it's signal _not_ to
heavily invest in a tournament-style career, such as modelling or concert
violin playing, unless you have a clear aptitude. Even for more forgiving
careers, where merely being competent is enough to make a good living, it's
rational to choose a career that aligns with your natural talents. Why put X
amount of effort to be in the 70th percentile of some field when the same
amount of effort would make you 90th percentile in another comparably in-
demand field? Most people are happier doing what they're good at.

~~~
NathanRice
I agree that world champion level aspirations are not realistic for everyone.
This doesn't mean the people who do not have innate talent are leagues below
world champions though. In my observations, talent causes an athlete to become
proficient faster, and to end up being _very slightly_ better than untalented
people who work very hard. Of course, at the level of world champions, very
slightly better is the difference between first place and middle of the pack.

~~~
xiaoma
The problem is that in tournament-style professions, their prospects are
leagues below that of the world champions.

One heart breaking example I witnessed personally was a family member. He
wanted more than anything to be a classical musician. From the age of four, he
was taught by the same teacher who trained a very successful NY Philharmonic
pianist (opera coach). He practiced many hours a day all through his school
years and earned both undergraduate and graduate degrees in clarinet
performance. By any objective measure he was a very good clarinetist. But he
wasn't good enough to make a real living at it. Unlike his mother, who had
perfect pitch by the end of grade school, he never developed it. He saw more
than one talented peer surpass him in despite his extreme work ethic. In the
end, after putting over 25 years of his life and his passion into it, he
finally gave up on his dream and became a programmer. Unlike his experiences
in music, he very quickly rose to the top of development groups and it was he
who was the one surpassing others who had been working at it longer and
harder.

I often wonder what he could have done if he'd given up his initial dream
after just 10 years instead of 25.

------
zzzeek
"just do it" is the _opposite_ of the "anything is possible if you put your
mind to it" slogan. The "anything is possible" slogan implies that failure is
always surmountable, which it obviously isn't.

"just do it" means specifically, "so what if you won't be an olympic star,
won't lose 200 pounds or win a marathon, won't become a millionaire, even if
your attempts fail and you totally suck at something, if you truly are
interested in it and have a passion for it, don't discourage yourself, just
_do it anyway_." Life is all about showing up and trying.

I played for years with a singer-songwriter who was just awful - tone deaf,
fairly dorky, lame songs, guitar strings popping out, pretty bad. We were
booed on stage more than once. After a couple of years I couldn't take it
anymore and I quit that band. Years later I saw him play and he was totally
great, had a fanbase and everything, and had done several tours in europe
where he got really polished.

He kept at it for years, learned as much as he could from everyone he
interacted with, and eventually learned enough to start playing first
acceptably, then actually pretty well, within his niche, and today he makes
his living full time as a musician. He was simply incapable of was taking to
heart all the negative responses he got. They kind of just bounced off of him,
and he persevered. When I saw him perform, one of his songs was called
"Everything Sucks", and it was specifically about _me_ and the really negative
attitude I always had when we used to play together. Fans in the audience
cheered for the song and they knew the words. It was sort of a teaching moment
about negativity for me.

Anyway that's what "just do it" means. It means don't let negativity get in
the way of what you feel like doing.

~~~
NathanRice
Thanks for the unique perspective Mike :) Next time I'm in NYC I definitely
need to buy you a beer.

------
tkiley
Before my wife and I got married, we had a very intense year-long running
argument about this exact topic. She told me I could do anything I wanted to
do; I told her that was bullshit. I think this argument may have delayed our
marriage significantly. :)

Since then, I've noticed that naively optimistic views are relatively common
among people who accomplish interesting things. It's almost as if naive
optimism is a semi-necessary precursor to remarkable achievement.

"You can do anything" is nonsense. It's a crutch. But many people use this
crutch to get to really cool places, and I can't help but respect their
accomplishments in the end.

~~~
jessedhillon
I posted an article earlier this week that got no traction, but discusses
exactly this.

According to the article and the paper it references, people fall
predominantly into two populations which are distingquished by their beliefs
vis-a-vis achievement. The first population believes, inherently and without
evidence, in the supremacy of accomplishing achievements. People in second
population have as their primary motive the avoidance of failure.

The paper and the article go on to detail the set of post-hoc rationalizations
which support these beliefs, and how these were discovered.

Article and paper: [http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/youre-
hired/201110/how-d...](http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/youre-
hired/201110/how-do-high-achievers-really-think)

HN (non-)discussion: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4307947>

~~~
nandemo
Thanks. That's much more interesting and informative than the post in question
and the comments in this thread.

------
ryguytilidie
Wow these responses are pretty shocking to me. To me this reads much more like
the Steinbeck quote of “Socialism never took root in America because the poor
see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed
millionaires.”

We end up talking about how amazing it is that these people have accomplished
what they have but don't bother to consider that there are others who could
not possibly have gotten that because they don't have the advantages the other
person did.

I'm not super familiar with Phelp's backstory, but I assume he swam a fuckton
when he was younger, his parents drove him around the country to events, etc.
Many people don't have the time, money and resources to do these things.
Telling a poor kid "just do what Michael Phelps did" while ignoring the vast,
vast difference between their situations is completely ridiculous and kind of
the way our society now works.

Not successful because you couldnt afford to go to school because you had to
bring home money to help your parents pay the rent? Hearing "just work as hard
as I did" from some white republican kid who got a trust fund is basically the
same thing you guys are saying everyone should just overcome.

~~~
wonderzombie
Yep. This is what I took away from it.

Let's be honest: the predominant socioeconomic class among hackers and
entrepreneurs is a set who have a relatively large set of advantages, many of
which are unexamined. This comment thread is a textbook reaction to an
accusation that maybe, just maybe, some people have advantages which have
directly or indirectly contributed to their success, perhaps as much as any
other factor.

Some people call this "loser" talk, when I'd say, aggregated across not just
our own extremely narrow cross-section of society, it's pretty realistic.

As he says, the corollary to "just do it" is that if you didn't succeed, it's
because you weren't trying. That may not be what anyone here is suggesting (or
it may!), but it's undeniable that there's an entire political party in the US
which takes this as an article of faith. If you're wealthy, it's because you
earned it; if it's poor, you're not working hard enough.

See also: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error>
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actor%E2%80%93observer_asymmetr...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actor%E2%80%93observer_asymmetry)
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_phenomenon>

I do think there is something to the idea of XX% of success is just showing
up. It's just that "showing up" elides plenty of complexity and it's not often
I see people acknowledge that.

------
xiaoma
If you or I had started swimming at age 4 and had top coaching, There would be
little hope against a genetic freak like Phelps. Also, the existence of him
and many other slightly less extreme genetic freaks means that it would be a
very, very poor idea to invest time in trying to become a great swimmer.
Unlike them, we'd have no career prospects.

The author was right. It's much better to invest time and effort into a
pursuit where you have an advantage. And it follows logically that if you
don't have any natural advantages, then you should stay the heck away from
winner-take-all professions.

------
postfuturist
More inane babbling by svbtle bloggers. How is this hacker news worthy?

~~~
autodidakto
First time I've seen a front page article blasted by 100% of the comments.
Finally, complete agreement in the comment section! I'm wondering how it got
to the front page too.

------
jhuckestein
This article seems to be all about the definition of "everything" in
"everything is possible if you put your mind to it". For the author
"everything" includes swimming faster than Michael Phelps even if you didn't
start swimming at an age of 7. That's a tough one.

The saying is much more useful if you consider only the things that are
possible given the current circumstances. I may not become as fast as Michael
Phelps, but I can definitely become as fast as I can possibly be given my
current situation. If you look at it that way, "Just do it" applies and it's a
good motto to live by.

~~~
ngokevin
Well put, the article takes 'everything' a bit literally. Why strive to swim
better than Michael Phelps? Just swim to swim and get better (forget trying to
be the best in the world and just simply do it).

------
dinkumthinkum
Was this written by a high schooler? I mean, if some freshman said this, most
of us would just chock this up to being a smart aleck, sheltered kid with too
much time on their hands and thus points the most banal things "You can't swim
100m butterfly in 1ns." Is that supposed to be edifying?

Obviously, when people say "anything is possible you just have to work at it"
or things like that, they assume the audience is reasonable. They aren't
saying a 100 year old in a nursing home is going to be able to play in the NHL
competitively by just working hard. What kind of gibberish is this?

------
justin
Loser's attitude. Yes, it might be impossible to be the best just by putting
in hard work. But hard work and belief that you can accomplish is prerequisite
to ever finding out if you can be the best.

------
nsmartt
The point here is that natural advantages make you more capable for some
things than others. You can't be blamed for not being able to achieve
something that you shouldn't have realistically expected to achieve.

That said, some things are your fault. I still bite my nails at 19. Forcing
myself to quit is possible, and I have only myself to blame if I don't. It's
the same for weight-loss, so that's a horrible example.

------
jamesmcn
I don't find the world's best athletes inspiring, precisely because they often
benefit from quirks of their physiology that I don't share or training that
dates back to their single-digit years, or both.

I do find athletes in technical sports like sailing, rock climbing, extreme-
depth diving inspiring because those sports require a combination of physical
ability and problem solving. Sailing is particularly inspiring because even
the least able sailor is able to leverage some of the most powerful forces on
earth to their advantage. But even Dennis Conner can't sail directly into the
wind.

Getting back to the original post, I do find it useful as an engineer to
attempt impossible things from time to time. Often the impossible is just
inside our heads. Sometimes our expectations for our self are too low. But
sometimes our egos are too big and we benefit from failing at something
impossible too.

There's some truth to Phelps' statement. But if you find yourself on an alien
planet, don't take off your space suit and start petting the weird snake-
creatures.

~~~
fluorescentLAMP
>because those sports require a combination of physical ability and problem
solving

I don't understand. Are you saying popular sports like soccer don't require
problem solving?

~~~
jamesmcn
I can see how team sports are interesting, I'm just not that into them. They
definitely require problem solving.

------
Xcelerate
I've always thought that at a local level, you can become the best with enough
hard work. Want to be the fastest runner, swimmer, or the student with the
highest grades at your high school? Just work harder.

It gets more difficult when you reach world-class. That's where genetics come
into play, because at that point it's hard to argue that anyone is really
outworking anyone else.

------
alexshye
IMHO, this blog post only sees a narrow part of the picture, and gets it
wrong.

To get anything done, we need to (1) have the desire, (2) turn this desire
into action, and (3) continue the action and fight through barriers until we
achieve what we want. "Just do it" works well as a mantra to turn the desire
into action.

However, after this step, there is a whole lot more. How much natural ability
do you have? How hard are you working? How much competition is there in the
area? Are there political, legal, or other barriers in the way? There are many
factors determining how far you will go. But, getting started is better than
not getting started at all. This is an important step that is often not taken.

A more accurate way to put is is that "just do it" is necessary, but not
sufficient.

I should say that I just wrote a blog post in the "just do it" camp so it may
skew my views:

[http://alexshye.wordpress.com/2012/07/10/the-most-
important-...](http://alexshye.wordpress.com/2012/07/10/the-most-important-
lesson-i-ever-learned/)

------
NathanRice
Natural advantages are typically a fairly small boost. In most cases it is
possible to modify the way you do things to take advantage of your anatomy and
physiology. File this one under "know thyself".

Also, don't forget that there are enough people out there that someone with
all the natural advantages is going to be working insanely hard. This is why
having olympic aspirations is unrealistic; in a realm where a few tenths of a
second is the difference between gold and going home empty handed, natural
advantages matter.

Don't just work hard, think hard, explore all your options, understand what
you are trying to do on a deeper level, then attack it as if your life or
death depended on the outcome. Failure cannot be an option.

------
danso
The argument that Phelps's success is paritularly reliant on his genetic build
is slightly begging the question. His physical features are considered to be
ideal for a top swimmer because, well, a top swimmer happens to have them.

This does not automatically rule out the possibility that a swimmer with a
shorter wingspan could break Phelps' record...because that person may have
adapted to that deficiency by improving on a quality that was less important
to someone of Phelps' wingspan...in the way that people with a missing limb or
sense become stronger in the other ones.

This is all just to say that not-trying can't be predicated on "well, I don't
share the same qualities as the current record holder"

------
kkotak
I think the points here are -

1\. Phelps is at the top based on the system of measurement we've agreed upon.
No need to worship him. 2\. Use him to inspire yoursleves in the endeavours
YOU want to undertake, and NOT to become Phelps. 3\. Stop feeling bad about
yourselves for not being Phelps. 4\. Use happiness as your yardstick and not
what others think about you. 5\. Don't force yourself to immitate others,
instead spend time on discovering what you love and allow/push yourself to
excel in it. 6\. If you do, you'll enjoy watching Phelps and move on with your
life. 7\. Replace Phelps above with Jobs/Jordan/James Bond...

Peace.

K

------
bialecki
Not to commercialize the conversation, but this Nike ad (pretty creative IMO)
speaks well to this issue: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsXRj89cWa0>.

The problem with this post is it says nothing about what the alternative is. I
guess it's implicit: give up. I'd rather believe I can do it, work like hell
and then see where I come up short. But if others would rather sit on the
couch explaining why they didn't try, that's cool too.

------
dredmorbius
Wanking article.

I've known several (relatively) late-blooming competitive swimmers who didn't
begin training until their teenage years, and a few other athletes who began
later than that (20s, 30s, and beyond), reaching national or international
class.

Gail Roper comes to mind. She was largely passed over for swimming in high
school, but came to be one of the most dominant masters and open-water
swimmers of all time. A few decades back I had the distinct pleasure of being
beat by over 4 minutes by her, which I figured was fine given that she had a
40 year head start. [http://www.girlscantwhat.com/meet-gail-roper-the-most-
domina...](http://www.girlscantwhat.com/meet-gail-roper-the-most-dominant-
swimmer-ever/)

The "you can do anything" mentality is, of course, false on its face.
Athletes, entrepreneurs, and artists, when confronted with a microphone shoved
into their face, will say whatever damned fool thing pops into their head,
sometimes honestly, often not. If you want to know the real secrets to their
success, look at what they do, not what they say.

And yes, Phelps is a genetic freak pretty much uniquely suited to swimming.

He's also just another human being. And at the end of a race, his muscles and
lungs are burning just like anyone else's would be.

That said, the accomplishment domain most of us are competing in is "doing
stuff", surrounded by others trying to do the same thing. _If you want to
become accomplished at something_ , then a mix of innate ability, talent, and
hard work will push you somewhere toward the envelope. Perhaps well inside,
perhaps outside.

A huge part of success, beyond what you _can't_ control (your genes,
circumstances, starting at age 7) is to practice efficiency in how you go
about reaching your goal. As many hours as a person puts into pursuing a given
goal, there are far more hours spent _not_ pursing it. In the tech world, most
of us come to realize that beyond a few hours a day, if we're lucky, we're not
terribly productive.

Athletes may spend a few hours a day engaged in training, but the real pay-off
moments may be a few minutes of Tabata intervals, or a set or two of max-
effort lifts. Everything else is preparation, support, preventive measures,
recovery, or just plain goofing around. What's impressive is how _little_ of
the _right_ effort is required to _improve_ your ability. Perhaps not win you
a gold medal, but at least to nudge you in that direction.

In another context I saw yet another question of the form "how much can I
expect to progress if I do X?", and saw the usual responses, some backed with
links to substantial research, of what typical and outstanding progress might
be. One response came close to what I realized was the right answer: "and if
you don't hit some goal rate of progress, are you going to quit?".

The answer is: you'll make more progress than if you don't do X.

So: pick a reasonable goal, within the realms of physics and biological
attainability. Find out if it really suits you (are you doing this for you,
for for someone else). Find effective means of attaining your goal. Apply
those methods. Monitor your progress. You may find you are able to go further.
You may find the goal is out of reach. You may find the goal doesn't interest
you.

But you tried, and you learned something.

~~~
zobzu
To be honest, people wouldn't pursue or even try swimming if they weren't
predisposed to. You implicitly know if you can progress to a certain level
when you start.

YES some people have the capability and DO NOT try. Maybe the message works
for them. But for the VAST majority that's not the case.

Following that logic we'd (almost) all be champions by now.

But then you go with "you may find the goal is out of reach". That's the
freaking point of the article. Can't have it both ways.

~~~
dredmorbius
I I also know a lot of pretty slow swimmers who nonetheless manage to do some
pretty impressive feats.

With training, there's a response. You'll get faster, improve your endurance,
power, strength, skill, whatever. This applies to programming, project
management, swimming, gymnastics, painting, or chess.

Some people have the innate ability to go further. Some don't. _All_ human
ability falls along a spectrum, and most of us for any given activity are
somewhere in the middle. Depending on the activity, the curve may be longer or
shorter (you'll reach your ability after more or less training). Early
adaptation is frequently fast, progress tapers off with time.

As I said above: with appropriate training, you'll be better than if you
hadn't trained. How much better really depends. In most cases, though, you'll
learn fairly quickly -- perhaps a few days, perhaps a few years -- how much
talent you have. Developing that talent is then a matter of developing the
skill. In some cases, skill/ability development can occur over many years,
even decades. Pablo Morales and Dara Torres have shown that Olympic class
swimmers can compete in their 30s and 40s, strength athletes may have similar
careers. Some skill activities (conjuring, dance) even longer. Other skills
peak early (few gymnasts compete past their teen years).

My point about the article was that there was a hell of a lot of defeatism and
lack of rigor to arguments provided, on a topic that's blatantly obvious to
start with.

I'll still bet most people could, if they tried, pursue a given goal further
than a casual assessment would suggest.

So: no, "anything is possible" doesn't apply, but "some things are possible"
does, and

------
chubbard
Dude it's just a pep talk we tell each other to focus us on executing over
psyching ourselves out with over thinking, over strategizing, and noise of
others telling us its stupid. Kinda like you're doing now. Apparently you'll
need a new customized phrase to help you focus so here it is: Shut up and just
do it.

------
DanielRibeiro
Counter point from the VC Mark Suster, from 2009[1]:

 _What Makes an Entrepreneur? Four Letters: JFDI_

[1] [http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/2009/11/19/what-makes-
an-...](http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/2009/11/19/what-makes-an-
entrepreneur-four-lettersjfdi/)

------
lancefisher
Olympians are the best in the world by definition. Anymore, it takes a
combination of talent, hard work, and opportunity to compete at that level.
However, almost anyone who really tries can get fit. That takes perseverence,
and it is possible.

------
slimemold
I don't have a prob with the post, but as someone trying to "just do it," this
quote helps me: "The greater danger for most of us lies not in setting our aim
too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low, and achieving our
mark."

------
djt
I think there is a problem with the algorithm that is used for pages getting
to the front page, to be honest. Pretty much every comment on here is about
how vapid this post is, but how did it get to the front page???

------
rapind
I'm a fan of the Dan Plan. Pretty cool idea. You should check it out:
<http://thedanplan.com/>

------
madamepsychosis
It's not really true, but I've always thought of it as a slogan to dispel
irrational fear around trying something new. In that it has it's use.

------
jakeonthemove
Add to that the fact that disadvantages are just as real as the advantages and
it's pretty much spot on.

------
BklynJay
Well that blog post was a self-wallowing waste of time.

------
zobzu
Bullshit is beautiful. I like that :)

------
humbyvaldes
Jeremy Lin... need I say more

------
natarius
dumbest blog post I read in a while. sorry that you had a shitty day
dude...but don't worry, there is better ones coming up :)

