
Please, make yourself uncomfortable - buf
http://bufr.tumblr.com/post/6768971854/please-make-yourself-uncomfortable
======
ctide
Articles like this make me really happy I am who I am. The fact that you need
to sell most of your belongings and turn your apartment into a barren
wasteland to be happy is no better than feeling like you need to buy things to
be happy.

~~~
momotomo
Agreed. Attachment to not owning things is exactly the same issue as
attachment to owning things. All you're doing is completing some actions to
avoid a certain feeling or outcome.

I went through a phase where I just donated anything I thought was a
distraction to charity, solved a lot in the short term, was insignificant in
the long term. Addressing the fact I was bored with my career and hadn't had a
break in years solved a lot more.

~~~
latch
I understand the spirit of what you are saying, I don't think I fully agree
with it.

Beyond the self though, I think an attachment to not owning is more beneficial
to humanity (I use the term broadly). Less consumption is simply more
sustainable for our planet. That simple.

~~~
rimantas

      > Less consumption is simply more sustainable for our planet.
    

The best take on this: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw>

What it does even mean, to be sustainable planet? To keep the status quo
adapted for current human civilization and its perception of what's right?

~~~
mapleoin
_What it does even mean, to be sustainable planet?_

How about just keeping the wild polar bears alive?

~~~
rimantas
This answer is exactly the reason I asked what does it mean. Serious question:
why keeping polar bear alive makes planet sustainable? Who kept dinosaurs
alive? Or any other species which went extinct before we even were there? I
think we vastly overestimate our influence on the earth (just compare total
mass of humans to that of bacteria, not to mention plants) and our
responsibility for it.

If human brings some alien seeds and the new plant starts to dominate the
"locals" we see that human as criminal. Would winter or water do the same it's
natural then. We are not the children of nature. We _are_ the part of nature,
and the small one. Sure, we have an ability to reflect on our actions and
inflict disproportional changes to environment, but still.

Just for some context. Fukushima nuclear disaster: nobody killed, 39 injured.
Japan earthquake and tsunami: more than 15 000 killed, more than 5000 injured,
more than 7000 missing. The sentiment is still "get rid of nuclear, save the
planet". Who is killing whom? Indian Ocean tsunami? Haiti earthquake?

George got it right: no matter what we do planet is here to stay, it is not
going anywhere. We cannot in any way affect the sustainability of it. Only of
our own lives.

~~~
gnosis
_"no matter what we do planet is here to stay, it is not going anywhere. We
cannot in any way affect the sustainability of it"_

The earth is undergoing one of the largest mass extinctions in its entire
history. And it's largely humans' fault.

The eath is undergoing massive climate change. And it's largely humans' fault.

Humans are polluting their environment on an unprecedented scale. We are
causing enormous losses in biodiversity. And this does not even begin to
address the devastation that a large-scale nuclear war would cause --
something that's still a very real possibility.

Sure, Earth's geology will survive, as its surface is like the rind on an
apple and it doesn't matter much to the Earth's interior what happens on the
surface.. and we can barely affect the geology of the surface.

But we can and certainly do affect life on Earth. Sure, humans might have a
hard time killing off all life, but we're doing a pretty good job killing off
a good fraction of it. And yes, humans are a part of nature, but a
particularly destructive part.

------
fourk
'Now when people ask, “Hey Buf, happy hour? A bunch of us are going out to
Bloodhound,” I don’t have to spend my night at home watching Battlestar
Gallactica in my boxers eating cheetos off my fat naked belly.'

Hate to break it to you, Buf, but you didn't _have_ to spend your night like
that. You had a choice, and it may make sense for _you_ to restrict your
options for future decision making by getting rid of your material things, but
it's sort of presumptuous to assume that most people are just as bad at making
decisions.

Edit: Maybe I'm in the minority here, how many of you also feel totally and
uncontrollably compelled to sit at home and interact with your material
possessions when offered a choice between that and an opportunity to go out
and interact with friends?

------
rawsyntax
I did this once... about 4 years ago. I found that I became a very
uninteresting person. I worked and had no hobbies.

Now I have more stuff, but not so much stuff that it restricts me from hanging
out with friends. I think it's more important to not buy stuff that will take
away your time, or increase your obligations.

~~~
sliverstorm
_I think it's more important to not buy stuff that will take away your time,
or increase your obligations._

Heh... maybe I better not get a dog after all.

------
iskander
Everyone has their own balance. I sold my car 4 years ago (biking feels
better), I never bought a TV, etc...

On the other hand, I like inviting people over for drinks, potlucks, etc...
So, owning decent cookware and some living room furniture adds a lot to my
life. The important thing seems to be to step outside automatic assumptions
and actually figure what makes you happier (and what drains your energy).

~~~
bambax
> _owning decent cookware and some living room furniture adds a lot to my
> life_

Yes. The debate between "having things" and "not having things" seems wrong-
headed and the OP sounds a bit like a thing-vegan. "I gave up things and now
I'm sooo much healthier".

Things are tools. You should own things in order to do something with them,
not because merely having them makes you happy (or because not having them
makes you look cool (you think)).

Also, you find that good tools are often old tools, because you know them
well; since you know their flaws they slow you much less than having to learn
the workings of a shiny new version. (Joel Spolsky talks about this somewhere
when he says he's still using Corel Draw).

My motorbike is 14 years old. I'd find it hard to live without a motorbike,
but I certainly don't need to buy a new one when the current one is still
running.

------
keeptrying
I think your "stuff" should be a reflection of your present goals/way of
thinking. I dont believe in minimalism per se because it can get in the way of
achieving things you want. For eg: if you want to get good at a sport, your
going to have a lot of sports gear - (the better you are the less you usually
need but as a beginner you need much more stuff).

I do however think that minimalism is useful as a tool to get to the right
amount of stuff for people who presently have huge amounts of stuff. Get rid
of all your stuff and then afterwards buy back what you realize that you need.
This will be a much faster way than trying to decide one-by-one which of
pieces of stuff you should keep.

What usually happens is that "stuff" accumulates - it doesnt disappear on its
own. You have to put in extra effort to get rid of it.

Having old and useless crap around you does distract the mind - a lot. Also
you worry about it and there is also the associated guilt of not having taken
the time to get rid of it. That is the problem with having too much stuff. It
deadens you without you realizing.

I have recently gotten rid of a lot of my stuff for a cross country move. And
I basically got rid of anything that I didnt use in the last 2 years. Books
were actually the hardest to get rid of.

In the end what I discovered was, that without any stuff, my _real_ problems
became abundantly clear. Clear as daylight. And I could focus on solving only
them.

~~~
gnosis
I don't find owning lots of stuff distracting at all. It's just all there
should I need any of it.

For instance, if I need some super-glue, it's there. Should I need a certain
color marker, it's there. If I decide to go camping, I'm not going to have to
buy all sorts of camping gear (from sleeping bags to tents and everything in
between) because I've already got it. Etc..

However, I do admit that owning lots of stuff has some serious disadvantages.
In particular, it makes moving from place to place a huge pain in the butt,
and makes it that much less likely that you'll move at all.

Without many possessions, you are much more easily able to just pick up and go
wherever you feel like going on a moment's notice... and that is a real gift.

~~~
keeptrying
Unless you've lived with less stuff, youd never know how much of a difference
it makes. It's very freeing.

Also I'm talking about stuff u haven't used in 2 years.

------
potatolicious
Agreed on all points except the selling off of the wardrobe.

Like it or not, the world rewards well-dressed, well-manicured people in a
pretty absurdly extreme way.

~~~
fleitz
You can pack a pretty good wardrobe with a few items. One nice suit jacket, a
pair of jeans, a couple ties and a couple shirts. The shirts and ties you pick
colors carefully so the mix, it will look like you're wearing a different suit
everyday. Jeans for casual events, or mix with the jacket. All thats really
missing is a pair of dress shoes and a pair of walking shoes.

With a little thinking you can mostly fit your life in carry on.

~~~
potatolicious
Agreed, was more referring to the "just pants and tech t-shirts" thing... it's
passable, particularly in our industry, but one might be surprised at how many
doors open (and how many open doors fall into your lap) when you just happen
to be well-dressed.

~~~
nostrademons
Ask HN: Where can a nerdy hacker go to find out what sort of casual clothes
are in style and look pretty good?

I'm thinking specifically of dates, where you won't be wearing a suit or
anything terribly formal, but still want to give off the impression of being
successful, stylish, handsome, and hip without being overbearing. I have no
intention of actually becoming well-dressed, but I figure it'd be nice to have
a couple of outfits that show that I do, in fact, clean up pretty nicely.

~~~
rdouble
Gilt's manual, a continuous lean, the sartorialist, hickorees, selectism (and
related sites), hypebeast, styleforum, and so on. Go to those sites and there
will be links to loads more similar sites. There was a lot less cognitive
fashion overhead required for males when everyone just wore the same suit
every day.

That said, if you bought all your clothes from j.crew and maybe some hoodies
and t-shirts from american apparel, you'd be covered for 98% of north american
dating and office working situations. (losing out on dates with extreme
hipsters, goths, gutter punks, fashion plates, ravers, nudists, hell's angels,
and the amish)

------
ISeemToBeAVerb
I'm somewhat like the OP, but my intentions were nothing like his.

I got rid of 95% of my stuff, not because it was distracting, but because I
never used most of it. I also move a lot and I hate lugging inessentials
around from place to place.

To this day, I can basically live out of a duffel bag (minus my desktop
computer and guitar). I like to travel a lot, so that works for me. Is it
right for everyone? Absolutely not.

One commenter pointed out below that after getting rid of everything he felt
"uninteresting". I can relate to that because that's exactly how I felt when I
got rid of most of my stuff. However, I now believe the opposite to be true.
Personally, I put a lot of who I was into all the cool toys and records I had
amassed, but when that is gone, either due to intention or accident (such as a
fire), what are you left with? A big gaping hole, that's what. Filling that
hole can be difficult, but I've found it to be a very rewarding experience for
my own personal growth.

In the end, I kept the things that allow me to create and ditched most of the
things I simply consumed. I'm not at all anti-owning-stuff, I just believe
that if I buy something it needs to be something I'll use over and over again.

Really, how much you want to own is nothing more than a personal choice based
on how you want to live your life and where you want to allocate your
resources.

Not that controversial a topic in my opinion.

------
gomphus
Many of the comments here debate materialism vs. minimalism, in terms of which
provides a truer path to happiness. But the author of the post wasn't trying
to be happy - his goal is to become "uncomfortable", in order to work more
productively.

The main issue is not how much stuff the author has or doesn't have, but
rather his spiritual and cultural impoverishment.

He insists that progress in life is driven by unhappiness, and that
comfortableness begets complacency. This simplistic argument says a lot about
his personal failings and very little about the human psyche in general. Yes,
some great things are born of discontent. But this dude is a computer
programmer, not Ghandi. It apparently has not occurred to him to nurture a
sense of sustained excitement over the creative process, to channel the joy
and endless amusement of a life spent problem-solving and pushing intellectual
boundaries, or to get happily enthused about developing his own original
ideas.

If drooling over video games and giggling at Reddit memes is your default
'comfortable' behaviour, then yes, by all means, take drastic measures to
suppress your immaturity. (I'd personally keep very quiet about it.)

~~~
samlevine
Video games are immature? I thought the average gamer was in his mid 30s (I
can look up the source if you'd like).

~~~
chadgeidel
<http://www.themarysue.com/gaming-statistics/>

------
ek
Let me start by stating that I think I understand the point of this article.
As a student, for example, I often opt to study in the library in lieu of
getting work done in my own domicile because I know that the relative
discomfort combined with the silence and isolation will help me do the
needful.

I understand selling the TV and all that, but I don't understand why OP would
sell a bicycle or see not cooking as an expression of a minimalistic
lifestyle. I mean, I suppose that if you rode your bicycle so infrequently
that it was actually just sitting around and taking up space, it would be good
to sell it, but a bicycle seems like one of those things that isn't really a
distraction and sometimes comes in quite handy.

Similarly, I don't understand why I've met and heard about so many people that
take this strange sort of pride in not cooking for themselves. Cooking is one
of these things like taking regular exercise that it seems important to make
time for, because by not knowing how or making time to cook, you are exposing
yourself to a waste of money and generally worse nutrition than you would be
able to achieve in your own kitchen.

~~~
Tsagadai
There is also a "I don't cook" worst case scenario which occasionally hits
people hard, social unrest. Try going to a restaurant when the streets are in
full riot mode. I had a conversation with a guy who found himself in this
exact situation. He spent three days hungry because it wasn't safe to go
outside and he had no food in his house. This situation happens a lot and can
happen suddenly, and has happened at least once almost everywhere.

------
rdouble
Living in an architect designed minimalist space is one thing, but having an
empty "regular" apartment can put a strain on interpersonal relationships.
It's a turn off to a lot of people if your apartment looks like a temporary
crack den and there's no place to sit down.

~~~
pavel_lishin
Aside from interpersonal considerations... why would you make your home an
uncomfortable place to be?

~~~
olliesaunders
To disincentivize being there. If you have an office, being at home is
actually a pretty crappy place to be. You’re neither out meeting people and
having fun nor working; lose the video games and go do some improv or
skydiving I say.

~~~
pavel_lishin
I'm one of those classical introverts who needs a lot of downtime to recharge.
If I were to do improv on Tuesday, it effectively guarantees that I'll be
staying in on Wednesday and reading a book, or writing some code, or doing
something that I find enjoyable.

------
derrida
I've got one: Don't have a computer/video-console/television at home (I admit
I am writing this from work). Basically by not having a computer at home, I
don't have a bottom-well of comfort called 'reddit' around, so I might go over
some other humps to get to another well of comfort, at the moment that is
Hofstadters "Godel, Escher, Bach". Also, books are above watching television
but below working in effort. Get some. They are great. Also, about 30% of the
university educated population maintains a rule, that I myself follow; If you
don't have decent books lying around, I won't sleep with you... books are an
indicator of what you accept as relaxing, beautiful and comforting. I am sorry
to say, that even the most intelligent people who relax using the internet,
probably have something like reddit or hacker news as their comfort zone.

~~~
grannyg00se
What's so special about "decent books"? What if you prefer to use an Ereader?

And what's wrong with Hacker News? Through HN I've found TED and KhanAcademy.
I'll put Hacker News, TED, and KhanAcademy up against your "decent book"
library for comfort and see no reason why someone would discriminate based on
that. Interesting criteria you have. I'm highly skeptical of your 30%
statistic.

~~~
derrida
What is special about them is that I can judge their covers and thus judge the
person reading them. If your e-reader permanently displays everybook you have
read or showed a vague interest in at some point on your wall without seeming
like its immodest bragging, then your e-reader may woo me into bed (starup
idea!).

I am skeptical of my 30% statistic myself, otherwise I might have had more
sex.

~~~
Psyonic
If you've got them back to your apartment to view your books you're 75% of the
way there (not true for house parties, etc, but you get my point). I really
don't think many people are going to bail at that point due to a lack of
displayed books.

------
hxa7241
As Eckermann recorded Goethe saying, on Friday 1831-03-25:

Goethe showed me an elegant green elbow-chair, which he had lately bought at
an auction.

"However," said he, "I shall use it but little, or not at all; for all kinds
of commodiousness are against my nature. You see in my chamber no sofa; I
always sit in my old wooden chair, and never till a few weeks ago have I had a
leaning-place put for my head. If surrounded by convenient tasteful furniture,
my thoughts are absorbed, and I am placed in an agreeable but passive state.
Unless we are accustomed to them from early youth, splendid chambers and
elegant furniture are for people who neither have nor can have any thoughts."

[http://www.hxa.name/books/ecog/Eckermann-
ConversationsOfGoet...](http://www.hxa.name/books/ecog/Eckermann-
ConversationsOfGoethe-1831.html#v12_1831-03-25)

------
pavel_lishin
> I don’t have things to hang on the walls. I rarely visit the kitchen. My
> apartment is a barren place. I dislike spending long hours there.

That part sounds stupid. Why are you making your _home_ an uncomfortable
environment? That's not minimalism, that's self-flagellation. Is he spending
all of his time at work?

~~~
matthavener
The idea is that you're a working machine. You think the terminator hangs
photos in his house? Trick question, the terminator doesn't have a home. I bet
this guy wouldn't either if he didn't need to. He lives to work

~~~
pavel_lishin
Kahm with me eef you vant to code.

------
seanalltogether
This post reminds me of the adage "Americans Live to Work".

------
kmfrk
First I thought this was satire. Then I got the idea that he might be serious.
Then I was convinced it was satire. Now I just don't know anymore.

------
rospaya
How about practicing self control? I have an Xbox one meter away from where I
work, but don't use it unless I have friends over and we have fun. Something
probably unknown to a person that sold his bike because he dislikes comfort.

------
sliverstorm
Mild discomfiture can be a great motivator to spur yourself to change.

The trick, I have been learning, is to make sure you don't grow to accept the
discomfiture. You can totally get used to things like sleeping on the floor or
eating bland food, but really you gain nothing from it, and it's just kind of
sad. (spoken as a guy who has done this before)

------
drewblaisdell
This post should have been called "having ADD sucks."

------
jabo
Balancing materialism and minimalism would be the best thing to do IMO. At
either extremes you will always have people who have switched over from the
other extreme, thinking the grass is greener on the other side. You will also
have people arguing religiously about how their respective extreme is good.
But at the center there's balance, low entropy and equilibrium.

------
wccrawford
I'm exactly the opposite. If I'm not comfortable, I will spend all my time and
money working towards being comfortable. Once I'm comfortable, then I can
actually get other stuff done.

This goes for home (play vs side projects) and work (fixing my working
environment to remove pain points) and pretty much everything I do.

------
zavulon
Am I the only one who thought this was sarcasm? I mean, seriously:

> I don’t have things to hang on the walls. I rarely visit the kitchen. My
> apartment is a barren place. I dislike spending long hours there.

> I even stand all day to make sure I don’t get too sleepy in my comfortable
> chair.

> There was this guy at work that loved to talk, and he frequently came by my
> desk just to chat. I tried everything from asking him to leave to closing
> the door in his face. The motherfucker simply wouldn’t shut up. The solution
> was to kill him (explain to him that he’s distracting me). Unrelated note:
> There’s an opening for a front end engineer at Eventbrite.

It's pretty clear to me that entire thing is a joke (and not only the last
thing I quoted).. no one can seriously be that detached from reality... right?

~~~
Evgeny
_It's pretty clear to me that entire thing is a joke_

No it's not ... these things you quoted do not seem extreme to me.

I'm living alone now. I have no idea why someone would hang stuff on walls. I
wouldn't stand all day, but I don't spend all day at home and my chair is a
cheap wooden one from IKEA. Between work, lifting weights/doing martial arts
and some extra studies I'm doing, I don't have that much time to spend at home
anyway, other than sleeping.

I spend time in the kitchen because I prefer to cook my food, but I only have
the most basic stuff and I spend as little time in the kitchen as possible -
i.e. cook enough for several days so I don't have to worry about that every
day.

And I do hate small useless talk too. Don't get me wrong, it's fine to have a
short conversation about the weekend plans or something like that. But,
indeed, there are people that just don't know when to stop or don't understand
when they go from polite to annoying. I totally understand where the author is
coming from.

Of course, when I start living with someone else again that will change, but
for now that's how it is.

------
nsomaru
Spiritual masters have been declaring these truths for millennia.

More recently, in the Bhagavad Gita, Krsna states (paraphrase): "That which is
nectar in the beginning becomes poison in the end/ That which is poison in the
beginning becomes nectar in the end"

Your experiences seem to verify this.

------
lhnz
There are some technical solutions for the problem of distraction online. Some
of these are addons for browsers while others affect the whole computer. :)

<https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/leechblock/>

[https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/gpdgmmdbbbchchonpf...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/gpdgmmdbbbchchonpfanphofpplhmcmn)

<http://anti-social.cc/>

[http://blog.binaryswitch.com/2010/02/binaryswitch-
eclipse.ht...](http://blog.binaryswitch.com/2010/02/binaryswitch-eclipse.html)

------
mcantor
This reminds me of a less developed version of the advice Leo Babauta gives in
his short book, "Focus":

<http://focusmanifesto.com/>

I highly recommend it. It takes maybe a couple of hours to read, and it's very
dense with good ideas, suggestions and observations about how we interact with
distractions. He doesn't go the extreme route of destroying them like this
article's author; instead, he acknowledges that distraction can be fun and
even a necessity to inspiration, but that we need the tools to quash it when
we need to focus.

------
thekevan
I have trouble taking someone seriously when they pepper what could have been
an insightful post with reddit meme references.

------
petercooper
_These days, I find myself doing the things I’ve always wanted to do, like
being amazing. And when I’m tired of being amazing, I take a nap and be
amazing again._

Losing your attachment to "things" could help _you_ be more amazing too - and
how!

------
yock
I don't think I'm on board with all of his suggestions (who would want to make
their home uninviting?), but he makes a couple good points in a pleasantly
amusing way.

------
Mz
I own very few possessions. I have done this to make myself far more
comfortable than it is supposed to be possible for me to be. I have a serious
medical condition and getting rid of things has also gotten rid of germs and
dust and such. My brain also works better because I'm not so sick, thus
concentration and the like have improved. Clearly, I have a strong personal
bias, but I read this and can't help but wonder if he feels better and gets
more done and all that for the same reason I feel better and get more done and
all that: He's simply healthier.

------
product50
Unfortunately, I think the author is actually making himself comfortable. He
is uncomfortable with his current state rather than his future state..

------
andrewcross
I kept thinking of Fight Club while I was reading this blog post. More or less
the same minimalism, just without the ass kicking.

~~~
mcantor
The last paragraph is a Chuck Palahnuik quote! Seems like you got the mindset
the author was coming from. :->

------
eridius
The takeaway I got from this is that I need to handle my sofa issue. Only then
will I be happy.

------
dolvlo
Bad advice, bad writer

