
People Who Are Obsessed with Success and Prestige - _davebennett
https://www.bennettnotes.com/post/obsessed-with-success-and-prestige/
======
bumby
From David Brooks:

"I’ve been thinking about the difference between the résumé virtues and the
eulogy virtues. The résumé virtues are the ones you list on your résumé, the
skills that you bring to the job market and that contribute to external
success. The eulogy virtues are deeper. They’re the virtues that get talked
about at your funeral, the ones that exist at the core of your being — whether
you are kind, brave, honest or faithful; what kind of relationships you
formed.

Most of us would say that the eulogy virtues are more important than the
résumé virtues, but I confess that for long stretches of my life I’ve spent
more time thinking about the latter than the former. Our education system is
certainly oriented around the résumé virtues more than the eulogy ones. Public
conversation is, too — the self-help tips in magazines, the nonfiction
bestsellers. Most of us have clearer strategies for how to achieve career
success than we do for how to develop a profound character."

Maybe we'd all do better to be focused on those 'eulogy virtues' rather than
obsessing over our external success. For me at least, it's a constant battle
to hold back the pull of the weasel trying to measure myself against external
validation.

~~~
hedgedoops2
Cusins. By the way, have you any religion?

Undershaft. Yes.

Cusins. Anything out of the common?

Undershaft. Only that there are two things necessary to Salvation.

Cusins [disappointed, but polite] Ah, the Church Catechism. Baptism and —

Undershaft. No. Money and gunpowder.

Cusins [surprised, but interested] That is the general opinion of our
governing classes. The novelty is in hearing any man confess it.

Undershaft. Just so.

Cusins. Excuse me: is there any place in your religion for honor, justice,
truth, love, mercy and so forth?

Undershaft. Yes: they are the graces and luxuries of a rich, strong, and safe
life.

Cusins. Suppose one is forced to choose between them and money or gunpowder?

Undershaft. Choose money and gunpowder; for without enough of both you cannot
afford the others.

Cusins. That is your religion?

Undershaft. Yes.

([https://opentextbc.ca/englishliterature/chapter/major-
barbar...](https://opentextbc.ca/englishliterature/chapter/major-barbara-act-
ii/))

~~~
christiansakai
As someone with a seminary background, this hits too close to home

"Cusins. Excuse me: is there any place in your religion for honor, justice,
truth, love, mercy and so forth?

Undershaft. Yes: they are the graces and luxuries of a rich, strong, and safe
life."

~~~
state_less
I hold the old view that justice is a source of strength rather than something
bought independent of it.

There is honor even among thieves. For example, a just group of thieves splits
the bounty and return to steal together again as a team with improved skill,
trust and cohesion. Sure they are scoundrels to their community, but they are
just with each other. If they weren't, they'd in-fight and become weaker. This
is true of militias and painfully obvious when two groups of forces lose
faith, trust and a sense of justice with each other.

So I think justice is a virtue, and I think it's safe to say virtue is a
source of strength.

~~~
christiansakai
Average-wise, would you think majority of humanity fits within this view?

I was born in a 3rd world country, grew up there and now live in a 1st world
country. I think in many 3rd world countries, a lot of small time criminals
and prostitutes did that because they have no other choice. They have no good
jobs, or any jobs. They have no home, no family, no means to pay for their
sick children or families. Not saying that people who have those still won't
steal.

------
astuyvenberg
This post also resonated with me, especially the quote from
/r/cscareerquestions

> Got an awesome internship at an interesting company? Well, it wasn’t FAANG,
> so who cares? Got a FAANG internship? Well it wasn’t one of the good FAANGs,
> so if you really think about it, you really didn’t accomplish anything. Got
> into a “Good FAANG”? Well, the other intern works on his own startup idea
> when he goes home. Why aren’t you working on your startup idea? Do you even
> have a startup idea? Are you even trying?

It's absolutely not limited to new engineers. Take a look at the replies to
the "Levels.fyi Annual Report" here on HN.

> You can't move to the US/SF/NYC? Good luck eeking out a living. You didn't
> get an offer from a FAANG? Well, you don't really belong in the bay area
> then. You got a FAANG offer but you didn't negotiate 400k+ total comp? Good
> luck ever getting a raise. You made it to the top of your salary band? Well,
> they'll never move you up, better plan your exit now.

The tech rat race mentality is very real and very pervasive.

~~~
asdfman123
I've noticed something about subreddits that focus on lifestyle design and
center around advice: they all start to converge on fairly narrow groupthink.
/r/personalfinance is all about super frugal living and passive investing. In
/r/backpacking, the general advice is to go as light as possible and spend
money reducing weight. /r/cscareerquestions is about the leetcode grind and
getting into FAANG. /r/malefashionadvice only really recommends a narrow range
of personal styles and is not helpful if you don't want to look like that.

Now, the advice is often pretty decent in those subs, but it's not helpful if
you don't want exactly what they recommend. And they put way too much emphasis
on the narrow range of things they think are worthwhile.

Anyway, back to commenting on the article:

> So why are we all doing this? Why do so many smart people fall victim to
> this trap of chasing success and prestige purely for the sake of it?

Survivorship bias. There are a lot of smart people everywhere living quiet,
normal lives. They don't necessarily seem that different unless you know them
well, because they're not trying to rock the world with their brilliance.

In fact, what we think of as "smart" does not correspond to "has high natural
ability." "Smart people" are people who have decided to make their identities
center around being smart. They've worked hard at it.

My brother and I were from a normal middle class background but both went to
fancy private schools. My uncles apparently all got tested high IQs and they
have thick Texan accents, they like handball and guitar and fishing. They're
normal people. Their Facebook comments aren't even all that articulate. But
you can tell they're intelligent because they seem to "get" things and they
don't say dumb stuff.

~~~
Loughla
>In fact, what we think of as "smart" does not correspond to "has high natural
ability." "Smart people" are people who have decided to make their identities
center around being smart. They've worked hard at it.

I would also argue it's the combination of smart and naturally outgoing or
extroversion. Being extroverted seems to be naturally correlated to being
successful or being a successful leader for most people. It doesn't make sense
to me, other than I guess if you're your own cheerleader you're more likely to
find opportunities.

~~~
thebean11
Not sure about that, at least in my workplace some of the people considered
the smartest and best engineers are very quite, almost shy.

~~~
Loughla
I have the opposite experience. I work in higher education, at an institution
full of very smart, very talented people. There's a mix of both extroverted
and introverted. The extroverts are all moving up the chain, while the
(generally more talented) introverts stagnate earlier in their careers.

I'm sure there's something there to study, but I'm also sure I don't know what
it is.

~~~
asdfman123
Keep in mind "extroverted" does not mean socially skilled.

My fiancee is a social ace. She knows how to make everyone feel good and
always has a big smile. She connects deeply with people.

But when she's done she has to spent the next three days binge watching The
Wire to recover.

A lot of introverts are very socially skilled, they just require time to get
their energy back.

------
pjc50
> She would say, “Dave, you only got one award this year. Remember when you
> won seven last year?”

> If it wasn’t that, maybe it was also because I am gay. My mother was never
> really happy about this

Ah, the absolute pinnacle of neurosis parenting. That's a solid one-two punch
to the child's psyche, which gives them a drive to please while at the same
time ensuring it can never be met. Well done; you ensured your child would
work hard forever by guaranteeing that no matter how hard they work they won't
actually be happy, because they can never meet your standard for approval.

~~~
LandR
> She would say, “Dave, you only got one award this year. Remember when you
> won seven last year?”

I've had stuff like this from parents.

Nothing is ever good enough, I have a friend who is massively more successful
than me that I've been friends with since we were children. Went to same
nursery, school and university.

When I told my parents I got a bonus one year, instead of great, well done. I
got asked how much, followed by asking what bonus did my friend get (them
knowing his position, that his bonus would be a couple of orders of magnitude
more), seemingly, just to put me down.

I've been told by my dad, despite me having my own place and what I consider a
decent job, that I failed in life as my friend has so much more money than me
and a better title.

I now just don't care what my parents think.

~~~
coward267376
I feel you. My parent are same way. The constant comparison and criticism has
driven me anxious and depressed. I am from Pakistan, and this is pretty common
for our community.

The worst part is that they went above and beyond for our education. So now I
constantly hear about how they sacrificed their pleasure for us and how we are
so ungrateful. They complain that I cannot take a little bit of constructive
criticism. Which makes me feel even more guilty. Perhaps I am too sensitive.

I am pretty successful, more successful than most people my parents are
actually friends with. I support them financially more than most of my
friends. But, of course, that's not good enough for them. Lately, my mom
stopped talking with me because I defended my son against their criticism.

In our culture, parents and elders are like God, we are not supposed to say
anything back. From childhood, they start programming our heads with stuff
like children owe so much to parents, there is heaven under mother's feet, and
a lot other such sayings.

I have been to therapists for this and they all recommended that I distance
myself from my parents but this is something I just cannot do. They provided
food, shelter, the best education. They were there, it is not like they
abandoned me. So how can I leave them.

There is a lot of support and literature about parents who abandoned their
children or were physically abusive but you don't hear songs about parents who
emotionally abused their kids. I don't know how to deal with this.

~~~
selimthegrim
I drew the line with my dad when he looked down my girlfriend’s shirt and said
he could see why I liked her and when he made anti-Semitic remarks about the
faculty at my brother’s graduation. (I’m not Pakistani by birth but my mother
was and my dad’s grandfather migrated). It started with that sort of behavior
you describe as well as misogyny. If you don’t nip it in the bud now there’s
no telling where it will end up. This isn’t the pind in Punjab (where his
grandfather was from) where you can scratch your balls in public for eternity
and no one will say anything.

------
lordleft
“People who are excited by posthumous fame forget that the people who remember
them will soon die too. And those after them in turn. Until their memory,
passed from one to another like a candle flame, gutters and goes out.”

Marcus Aurelius

"19\. You may be unconquerable, if you enter into no combat in which it is not
in your own control to conquer. When, therefore, you see anyone eminent in
honors, or power, or in high esteem on any other account, take heed not to be
hurried away with the appearance, and to pronounce him happy; for, if the
essence of good consists in things in our own control, there will be no room
for envy or emulation. But, for your part, don't wish to be a general, or a
senator, or a consul, but to be free; and the only way to this is a contempt
of things not in our own control."

Epictetus

~~~
ALittleLight
The Aurelius quote is a bit ironic since Aurelius is still remembered despite
the passage of many generations.

~~~
andreilys
On a long enough timeline the memory of Marcus Aurelius will extinguish.

~~~
OscarCunningham
That's a strong claim given that we don't yet fully understand the laws of
physics.

~~~
andreilys
It's a pretty open-ended claim, I'm happy to hear your rebuttal though if you
think Marcus Auerlis will be remembered 1,000 to 1 billion+ years from now.

~~~
OscarCunningham
If humanity survives, which isn't guaranteed but has some chance, then I think
it's almost certain that there will be people who care about early writers, in
the same way that classicists exist today.

~~~
andreilys
“On a long enough time line, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.”

~~~
OscarCunningham
[https://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/reports/2012-1.pdf](https://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/reports/2012-1.pdf)

> If an individual entity endures a fixed probability μ < 1 of disappearing
> (”dying”) in a given fixed time period, then, as time approaches infinity,
> the probability of death approaches certainty. One approach to avoid this
> fate is for individuals to copy themselves into different locations; if the
> copies each have an independent probability of dying, then the total risk is
> much reduced. However, to avoid the same ultimate fate, the entity must
> continue copying itself to continually reduce the risk of death. In this
> paper, we show that to get a non-zero probability of ultimate survival, it
> suffices that the number of copies grows logarithmically with time.
> Accounting for expected copy casualties, the required rate of copying is
> hence bounded.

------
lordnacho
Heh this is only a very mild version of status obsession. To a degree it's
actually a good thing to want, so long as you stay committed to doing the
actual work of getting successful.

What amuses me to no end is when I see a rich guy who wants to keep being in
the news. As if to say "see, I actually deserve all this wealth". I've seen
several of these people over the years. Somehow the media keep calling them to
comment on all manner of things unrelated to their field of expertise. One guy
I've seen has articles about how he's a great art lover. Then one about how
his wife worked so hard to help him. Then commentary on how startups work.
Then he buys a sports team. And another. And another. Everythings he does has
to be in the news. Another guy is a little bit wiser about it, but also sticks
his comments in where he really isn't an expert (economics, politics).
Sprinkle in a bit of bragging about expensive wines and restuarants, and it
just looks like an old child doing the "look at me" routine.

I really don't get it. I suppose that external validation is a huge factor for
some people, something similar to substance addiction. People can't see it,
but they are swapping dignity for attention.

~~~
jacknews
"People can't see it, but they are swapping dignity for attention."

Nice observation, though in rare cases not necessarily true.

The thing is, as you point out, status does actually bring potentially huge
benefits; People start to come to you with proposals, rather than the other
way. Success/Status attracts opportunity. So to some extent we're hardwired to
strive for it.

~~~
lr4444lr
What does that have to do with dignity? Dignity can mean choosing to starve
rather than take $10 to buy a meal if the person dangling it demands you do
some trick like a trained dog for his amusement. It's about choosing your
actions on your own morals rather than on someone elses.

------
kstenerud
I have the opposite problem. I have zero drive for status & prestige, but
rather follow my passions no matter how unfashionable they are.

And it hurts my career. I don't have twitter followers who fall over
themselves to offer me a job the very second I enter the job market. I can't
shame a company or other big entity for behaving badly. I have very little
leverage for many important career-improving opportunities because I lack the
social clout to take advantage of them.

You NEED to attain some status and influence if you want the best control over
your destiny. I'm trying to do this now, but it's hard because it doesn't come
naturally.

~~~
collyw
I hate the idea that developers should have blogs. I see the advantage in
using it to market yourself, but I write code for a living not blogs.

There isn't that much information that I feel the need to share with the
world, and for the things I do (that would be career related), I don't usually
have the time and motivation to write them up properly.

~~~
cr0sh
> I hate the idea that developers should have blogs.

I hate the reality that developers can't easily develop a portfolio of work
because generally their work is owned lock, stock, and barrel by the companies
they work for, and can't be legally shared outside of those places.

So we have github, but even that is suspect and many potential employers don't
look at it, unless you are some well known contributor or founder to one or
more open-source projects. Even then it can be a crap shoot; I've read on more
than one occasion somewhat famous developers of tools being turned down for
positions at companies that use the very tools they developed. It is somewhat
maddenning.

You can just about forget it if your repositories are for your own personal
projects, but that's better than nothing - and that's also where a blog has
some influence. Basically, as a place to show something of your coding ability
and knowledge, and the value you can bring as a new hire.

But honestly, that can get tiring; sometimes when I go home from work, I'll do
something interesting - but many times, I just want to relax and not think
about coding or other projects too much. I've found myself becoming more this
way as I've grown older (currently approaching 50).

I've been an SWE for over 25 years now, but every time I find myself looking
for a new position, it feels as though my previous experience counts for
nothing. I can't show any future employer what I worked on in the past (and in
many cases, that work is long gone along with the previous employer), they
rarely want to look at my github or (back when it existed - I really need to
restart it - sigh) my personal blogging site. It feels like every such
interview and encounter I am starting fresh.

It sickens me. I don't know of any other kind of career where this kind of
thing is the norm, except software development and engineering. If you aren't
extremely famous and known, or you don't have a deep and wide network, or
whatever - you can't just drop your resume, have a decent conversation about
your past work and skills, and be given a chance. Instead, you are more often
than not forced to jump thru a variety of ill-conceived hoops (many of them on
fire, too!), which in the end might get you the position, or more often than
not, you are rejected without any explanation or reasoning that might help you
to understand what you need to work on in order to be more successful the next
time around.

It's fairly absurd when you are on the younger end of the scale; now imagine
you are old enough in some cases to be the parent of the person interviewing
you, and still being questioned in such a manner, after likely being employed
in the past longer than they've been alive.

It's almost Kafkaesque.

~~~
benhurmarcel
I think that is the reality for most professionals, not just developers and
engineers.

Your HR technician, your barber, your baker, your supermarket team leader,
aren't going to be able to show more than their CV either.

------
everdrive
"People who are excited by posthumous fame forget that the people who remember
them will soon die too. And those after them in turn. Until their memory,
passed from one to another like a candle flame, gutters and goes out.

But suppose that those who remembered you were immortal and your memory
undying. What good would it do you? And I don't just mean when you're dead,
but in your own lifetime. What use is praise, except to make your lifestyle a
little more comfortable?"

\- Marcus Aurelius Antoninus

~~~
sullyj3
Ironic that that quote comes from someone who died in the year 180. If I got
2000 years of fame, I'd be pretty satisfied.

~~~
ak39
Marcus Aurelius is asking exactly how will that be of _use_? (Even when you’re
alive)

~~~
WilliamEdward
Feeling better about yourself is not useful? Influencing a large number of
people is not useful?

~~~
beaconstudios
Marcus Aurelius being a writer on stoicism, I feel I have to point out that
stoicism would suggest that you control how you feel about yourself and are
only tying your feelings to external factors. You can feel good about yourself
without external validation.

Influencing others is only practically useful in your lifetime, so posthumous
fame doesn't really do you anything.

~~~
WilliamEdward
But it does other people good after i die, and i care about other people even
after i die.

~~~
beaconstudios
but that's a different perspective - stoicism addresses the hedonism treadmill
and how to get off of it (as well as how to respond to misery) - it isn't in
opposition to charity or altruism. It's a totally different thing to try to
have a great influence for posthumous fame and recognition, versus just trying
to help people whether they know it was you or not.

------
wsxcde
Thought-provoking article.

I got over my obsession with emulating others' success when I realized that a
lot of supposedly successful people were successful primarily because they
were also lucky. Once you accept that a big factor in whether you'll end up
"successful" is just chance, it becomes easier to accept that it may not be
entirely under your control and so there's no reason to obsess about it.

PG's advice, which in some ways is a restatement of the Bhagvad Gita's best-
known verse, really speaks to me. Just focus on doing the best you can on the
things that actually interest you. The rest will follow, and if it doesn't,
that's okay. At least you'll have had fun doing your thing.

~~~
philbarr
> At least you'll have had fun doing your thing.

Whilst working 40+ hours a week for someone who was lucky enough that "the
rest did follow."

~~~
bagacrap
It sounds like you're bitter about working "for" someone else. This might be
an ego problem and the solution is not to just be an entrepreneur because that
won't solve the root issue.

~~~
slothtrop
Maybe entrepreneurs are in part driven by ego. Taking on huge risk takes
motivation.

------
pkhamre
> Should I learn to make pasta from scratch? No, that’s crazy. Nobody cares if
> you can make pasta from scratch and it’s not going to make any money.

I think the author got it wrong here. He mixes the words "successful" with
"fame". By learning a skill like making pasta from scratch, you can make
yourself and other people happy. And if you go deep into the field, you can
even make money on it, if that's important to you :)

I started baking pizza and obsessed at making the perfect tomato sauce, the
perfect dough, the perfect crust. Basically, the perfect pizza. I do know that
perfect does not exist, but I got to a point where I make a pretty damn good
pizza. I like my pizza better than most pizzi I can get in a restaurant. My
next step is to build my own wood-fired outdoor oven, so I can reach the
temperatures I need to get the pizza even better.

Being able to make this amazing pizza makes me so happy. It makes people
around me happy. And I learn my friends and family how to make proper pizza. I
smile and laugh and dance when I make pizza.

This is true success in my opinion.

And after I learned the baking skills, success kind of started snowballing in
other areas as well.

Why are famous people successful? They do what makes them happy :) Why am I
starting to be successful? I do what makes me happy :) How can you start to be
successful? Do what makes you happy :)

If you think going down a certain path for happiness might seem a little
crazy, that's a good sign.

~~~
odonnellryan
Do you have a recipe? :)

~~~
pkhamre
Yes.

Tipo OO flour (Caputo Classic), 63% hydration, 3% salt, 5% browning agent
(sugar, syrup, malt, or something similar) and instant dry yeast or liquid
sourdough according to how long time I got to rise the dough. I use PizzApp+
to calculate the recipe.

I did obsess about making the perfect pizza, and I did spend a year to make
the perfect sourdough bread.

To recap it very simple, I think the recipe for success is having fun and
enjoying what you do :)

~~~
theFeller00
Bread flour > 00 flour in a regular home oven. The guys over at the
pizzamaking.com forum would agree

------
asveikau
> Should I learn to make pasta from scratch? No, that’s crazy. Nobody cares if
> you can make pasta from scratch and it’s not going to make any money.

I stared at this for a long time in complete disbelief thinking "But it's so
delicious!" And I guess, if you do it for friends or acquaintances it will
give you prestige, you will be the prestigious person who makes totally
awesome pasta. Although personally I would rank doing something nice for
people above the prestige you might get from it, so I guess the article is not
for me.

~~~
RookyNumbas
I feel somewhat sorry for the author. He ends the post with the realization
that the search for success has not turned out like he was led to believe, and
then questions how he should proceed with life.

My advice would be to go make pasta and share it with a beautiful woman (or
man in his case).

~~~
asveikau
Well, I do respect that part, because they are open about it and it's never
too late to recognize such a thing. And we probably all get some version of
this problem in differing amounts. I feel a little conflicted making fun of
the pasta thing in this light.

But the pasta still sounds delicious.

------
bambax
OT, and possibly unpopular here, but this really gets on my nerves:

> _In Paul Graham’s essay on,_ How to Do what You Love* he warns us about the
> prestige trap: (...) you have to like the actual work of novel-writing if
> you’re going to be good at it; you have to like making up elaborate lies*

PG's contempt for anything literary pervades in many of his essays, which may
reveal some kind of unhealthy obsession, esp. for someone who brands himself a
"writer".

But this quote shows a deep misunderstanding of what literature is. Literature
is about the TRUTH. It may be the only way to gain an actual comprehension of
human nature.

A novel can be viewed as an experiment: put characters in a controlled setting
of your design, and then see what happens. This is the best tool we have for
this.

~~~
philwelch
Novels don't contain some otherwise ineffable TRUTH (in all-capital letters),
they're just made-up stories for entertainment. Which is a perfectly fine
thing for people to work on and to enjoy.

If anything this bizarre attitude that literature "may be the only way to gain
an actual comprehension of human nature" might be an artifice of people's
desire for success and prestige--puffery motivated by a personal insecurity
about the significance of one's interests or work. You want to gain an actual
comprehension of human nature? Read history. Go to the bar. Have some kids.
Sit down on the curb and talk to a homeless person. Travel. Put yourself in
extreme situations with other people (like joining the military or something).
You'll learn a hell of a lot more that way than by reading novels.

~~~
bambax
I do have kids. Did they teach me something about human nature? Not that I
noticed. I still go to the bar often. Do I learn anything about human nature
there? A little, yes, but not much (in essence, that people act stupid when
drunk. They can be very funny though). Do I travel? Yes. What does that teach
me? Mostly, that there's no place like home.

I maintain you will learn a lot more, and a lot faster, by reading
Shakespeare, or Flaubert, than by talking with any number of people.

It's likely that putting yourself in "extreme situations" will teach you
something about yourself, and by extension, about human nature in general. But
you may die learning. There must be a better way.

If you think novels are "made-up stories for entertainment", chances are you
didn't read many of them, or many good ones.

~~~
philwelch
Novels are literally made-up stories. If they actually happened, they wouldn't
be novels, they would be memoirs or history or something.

We do disagree on whether the purpose of novels is to entertain or to deliver
what you call TRUTH. Now, to be as generous as possible to your point, some
writers can distill a lifetime of wisdom and experience into a work of
literature in a way that expresses some meaningful sense or generality about
the human condition. How do we tell those people apart from the ones who fall
short of that? I don't think you can tell them apart by just reading their
work. You'd need to have enough of a base of reference to understand whether
the literature you're evaluating actually matches up to human nature. In other
words, you have to already have some understanding of the human condition
before you can accurately judge whether a work of literature actually contains
the TRUTH about the human condition.

It's true that putting yourself in extreme situations will teach you a lot
about the human condition. It's also true that you might die learning. It's
especially true that most people who have actually been in those situations
will almost universally agree that if you weren't there and you didn't
experience it yourself, you will never actually know. You can tell because
they write about it in their memoirs sometimes.

Between the base-of-reference problem and the nothing-perfectly-matches-up-to-
the-real-thing problem, I just think it's bizarrely hyperbolic to write in
all-capital-letters that novels are the only path to the TRUTH. That's an
absurd and unrealistic expectation. Based on what you said, it would certainly
imply that the best way to get even more TRUTH would be to have someone spend
their life locked in a room doing nothing but reading fiction, and then
whatever fiction they wrote based on that would really be the TRUTH. But
that's not really how it works at all; most good novelists actually have some
interesting real-life base of reference.

~~~
bambax
Capitalization really seems to have upset you! It was more shouting than
praying, though. I meant to say NO! to the statement that novels are "lies".
They are the opposite of that. Lies are meant to deceive and exploit. Novels
want to _help_ you find the truth, any which way you want to type it.

And to respond to your 2nd paragraph, I'm not saying that (good) novels
contain wisdom plainly stated as clever observations every few sentences. That
would be a kind of diluted essay and would be of very little value.

That's not the point at all. Novels are machines. They work or they don't. You
don't need to have extensive wisdom to decide if they do, just like you don't
need to be a mechanic to know if your car won't start.

When they work, they show you a true situation. They don't "deliver" anything.
They show. They make plain. They are not a list of interesting tidbits ("10
hidden truths about yourself!!"); they are an experience.

~~~
philwelch
> I'm not saying that (good) novels contain wisdom plainly stated as clever
> observations every few sentences

I'm well aware that you're not saying that, and I'm utterly mystified where
you got that idea from. By "wisdom", I meant the basic understanding of the
human condition. An author who understands the human condition can express
aspects of it in literature by constructing characters, placing them in
narrative situations, and so forth. And on that count, I agree that literary
fiction can be a way to show the human condition.

But that's not what you said. What you said was that literature--in context,
meaning fictional literature--"may be the only way to gain an actual
comprehension of human nature". That's a ludicrous and hyperbolic statement
and if you hadn't gone that far I wouldn't have bothered responding because
otherwise I do, in fact, have some sense for what you're getting at.

------
lm28469
> Unfortunately, after a year of purposely trying, I was still not becoming
> Elon Musk nor any other “successful” person. Despite reading everyday,
> meditating, getting up early, taking cold showers, and many more things. But
> what makes these guys successful anyway? Their fame? Money? Contribution to
> society?

And wearing grey t-shirts won't make you Zuckerberg [0]. You don't become a
0.00000001%er by mimicking the most meaningless aspect of their life.

Seems to me that this is particularly affecting people who aren't satisfied
with themselves / rarely reflect on themselves and get caught in the rat race
without ever pausing to look around. You can always be more successful, earn
more money buy more gadgets, have a nicer car, more awards, it's an endless
quest, but if you're empty inside these things won't help you.

[0] [https://careers.workopolis.com/advice/the-reason-mark-
zucker...](https://careers.workopolis.com/advice/the-reason-mark-zuckerberg-
wears-the-same-shirt-every-day/)

~~~
mywittyname
Also, it's unlikely there will ever be another Musk or Zuckerberg in tech.
Technology is a largely established industry and it's very unlikely that a
single person is going to found and maintain control of another trillion
dollar company.

Zuck-a-bees need to get in on the ground floor of the next, next big thing,
which barely exists right now.

~~~
klik99
This may be correct, but you cannot be certain of this at all.

Everyone always thinks they're at the end of history in one way or another.
Saying that current big tech companies have reached a critical threshold and
will remain static for a certain amount of time is like watching a stock price
go up - you may think it's a sign that it will continue growing, or that it's
peaking and will go down, but you can only say that with certainty in
hindsight. Nassim Taleb would go as far to say that there are much less actual
underlying trends, and that more is governed by randomness than you think.

In terms of emerging technology, growth and consolidation is a pattern that
happens throughout history, and the current state does appear to match that
pattern, but this situation is more volatile because the big companies don't
have as much physical assets which vastly changes the ability for smaller
companies to compete (source: capitalism without capital).

~~~
cambalache
It is not correct. Visit Slashdot archives during the post early 2000s boom
era. Every poster saying that the era of getting rich from the Internet was
over. See any technology or industry and 90% of the commenters would say that
it is too late to get in the bandwagon, the right time was 4,8,12 years ago.
Every year the comments are pretty much in the same vein.

I am not saying it is easy, far from it, but the idea that there is no chance
for unknown person/companies cannot grow to establish themselves as giants is
ludicrous.

------
jcims
I think i have a modified version of this where i abhor attention, rarely
state opinions (except quasi anonymously) and definitely am happy for my
contributions to go unrecognized, but i man do i get an endorphine rush when
people come to me because they remember i fixed some tricky stuff for them
before. Also i really try to get the younger people on my team to _not_ follow
on my footsteps here, it’s not the best way to build a career.

Also, Dave, given the subject matter i did sneak in a little chuckle that you
were the one posting this to HN. I’m glad you did though, interesting view
into the headspace.

~~~
soneca
:) good catch

To be fair, he never claimed to have overcome his obsession. It was a very
nice post to read, so I am glad he shared too.

------
owens99
Great article. The part that stands out to me:

> Unfortunately, after a year of purposely trying, I was still not becoming
> Elon Musk nor any other “successful” person. Despite reading everyday,
> meditating, getting up early, taking cold showers, and many more things.

There’s a ridiculous amount of bro science in Silicon Valley tech. And this
stuff doesn’t matter at all. All that matters is product-market fit.

~~~
pjc50
"Bro Science" _is_ product-market fit. The market is people obsessed with
success and prestige, and bro-science is ideas (and products) marketed at
helping them think they have it.

People who self-define as "rational" are harder to sell to upfront, but once
you're past the defenses and hooked into their identity they'll actively
defend what you've marketed to them.

~~~
Cougher
I think you're redefining bro-science.

------
willberman
About a year ago, a similar sentiment hit me very hard. I was in a situation
where I had actually checked all the boxes I wanted to check. My boxes didn’t
involve working at FAANG, but they weren’t insignificant. I was very confused
why I wasn’t happy.

There’s a very good short story by Alastair Reynolds called Understanding
Space and Time. The protagonist is the last human alive. He finds his purpose
in understanding the universe. Even once he completes this goal, he must go on
living his life.

It may sound trite, but I tell people to put themselves in that position. What
would you spend your time doing if you were the last human alive? Now
obviously you don’t do that verbatim, but I think it should be an influential
datapoint on your choice of career path.

The best news is that if you’re a half decent technical mind with a half
decent network, the odds of you ever starving are quite low (not including
dependents. That’s a different story). As a result, you have ample opportunity
to carve out whatever corner of the universe you want for yourself :)

------
omarhaneef
It is okay to be "obsessed" with success or prestige so long as you are a
satisficer and not a maximizer:

[https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/science-
choice/20150...](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/science-
choice/201506/satisficing-vs-maximizing)

If you are a satisficer, getting a better brand name
company/school/accelerator etc will help you in the long run.

If you are a maximizer, you may be unhappy for all the reasons stated in the
article and in the comments.

But we shouldn't confuse the benefits of a brand with the impossible
standards.

------
DoubleGlazing
I look at this from the opposite perspective, the person who doesn't care much
for success and prestige but has to deal with the toxic side-effects of those
that do.

I grew up an only child in as single parent household where I was taught that
it's better to quietly build a stable secure foundation for your life, rather
than to put yourself "out there" and hope for the best. My mothers attitude
was that it is better to have a boring stable job that provides enough for you
and your family than to be rich or famous. For example she implored me to
study for a fall-back manual trade in case the computing degree thing didn't
work out.

Recently, I decided to go self-employed and do my own thing in my own time.
This was driven by the fact that having worked for a few startups I couldn't
deal with the success at all costs approach of some of the founders and
managers. For example being forced to push out new features before they are
ready, knowing that the technical debt is mounting and that it will come back
to bite me one day. Trying to explain why stuff like this was a bad idea would
be met with a response implying I didn't care for the company and didn't value
success. I also got frequently reprimanded for refusing to do overtime on a
regular basis, preferring instead to be with my family. Plus all this was
usually coupled with some horrific "Fake it till you make it" promotional
activities that we'd get roped in to.

One of the founders went out and got himself a Porsche 911 and put an email
around the office showing it off and telling us if we worked hard to make the
company a success we too could afford a similar car. Lord knows how he paid
for it as the company was losing €3million a year at that point.

All the while I would be acutely aware of the fact that the founders had
already churned through four or five failed startups. They were trying out
ideas in the hope that one was succeed and make them rich and famous. If
another failed they wouldn't care for the people being let go as they would
just move on to their next idea.

Having ambitions is good, but I think we as a society are pressured in to
setting those ambitions far too high. I am worried by the rising suicide rates
in many places, are we pressuring people to chase unattainable life goals
until they crack? I think that is part of it.

~~~
philbarr
How do people like that ever get investment? Like, surely the investors must
think, "well, they just screwed up their last 4 or 5 startups so maybe I'll
keep my money."

~~~
DoubleGlazing
Be good at selling yourself and your ideas. Try to hide your failures. Go
after smaller niche VCs who don't have the resources to do proper due
diligence. Play to investors greed and ego. Manipulate figures. Claim you are
speaking with multiple potential funders.

At the end of the day investors are human too and suscetiple to.maniulatiin,
even though they may think they are more savvy than they actually are.

------
code4tee
The major fallacy I often see is that people driven by “status and prestige”
often fail to realize that those they are hoping to impress don’t care as much
about these things.

It’s a bit like LinkedIn. Lots of people are on LinkedIn trying to impress
people but the people they’re trying to impress aren’t on (or barely use)
LinkedIn.

~~~
0x445442
Ah, LinkedIn... Recruiter spam central.

------
robbrown451
"would not pursue anything unless he knew people cared about it"

This one struck me as a bit odd. I don't see a problem with being motivated by
whether you are creating value for other people.

"Should I learn to make pasta from scratch?"

That's fine if someone wants to do that, but I hold higher admiration for
people who have some drive to make the world better, even in fairly small
ways, rather than spending all their time on something so trivial.

And yeah, trying to earn my admiration isn't what you should probably be
doing. But doing something that is admirable? That's a good thing. To me,
anyway.

------
salex89
On a side note, didn't know about the whole Siraj Raval "controversy". I
always found him shallow and more form over function, just stopped following
him and didn't speak about it because everyone was raving over him. Looks like
there was something after all...

~~~
upstandingdude
Yeah at first I liked him but after exery video I felt stupid and had learned
exactly nothing, so I stopped. Glad its not me :D _sweating_

------
akhilcacharya
> Got a FAANG internship? Well it wasn’t one of the good FAANGs, so if you
> really think about it, you really didn’t accomplish anything.

This is funny because I’ve been straight up told this by multiple people. It’s
not neuroticism, it’s the simple fact that hierarchies exist.

~~~
philbarr
Which ones are the "bad" FAANGs?

~~~
barry-cotter
I believe Amazon has much more variable hiring standards than Google so
probably Amazon. Don’t know enough to think of any other candidates though I
doubt Google or Netflix are among them given the former’s ludicrous hiring
process or the latter’s policy of firing fast with very generous severance for
people they don’t think reach their standards once hired.

------
gdubs
Something that’s perhaps only clear with time and perspective is that no
matter how much success people attain, they still find plenty of ways to be
miserable. Some of the happiest people I’ve met in my life aren’t necessarily
the luckiest or most successful - they’re the most grateful and compassionate.
For those of us lucky to find “success”, the real question is: why did we want
it so bad, and what are we going to make of it?

------
SCHiM
Notice what the quote in the article, and the points made in the comments
below, reveal?

Humans compare with their reference group. As your status increases you'll
step out of your old group and into a new one. And then the cycle starts
again. Your peers are again ahead! You've traded your group of 'job seeking
undergrads' for 'ladder climbing professionals'.

I'm not sure if it's possible to have control over this automatic comparing,
but the cure is not to keep climbing. It's to hack your mind to set your
reference group to people that have lower status, aka: be gratefull for what
you have, and think about the ways in which you are furtunate that others are
not.

~~~
huffmsa
The cure is to not play the game and go do your own thing.

~~~
Bahamut
I was going to reply something to this effect - it's ok to climb or whatever,
but do things on your own terms without caring about how other people are
doing. You can still be happy for their success and should be, but as long as
you give an effort you're happy with, that should be enough.

------
klik99
It's rare to see such honest self-reflection on a sensitive topic like this.

The need for recognition in some way or another is hardwired into us, and I
don't believe it's intrinsically bad - we are a communal animal and we want to
provide value for our community, our brains want success and prestige as a way
to motivate us to do that - like feeling hungry motivates us to nourish
ourselves. It's a basic need to feel useful, and prestige is the metric our
primitive brains use to measure that usefulness, hence office drones find
happiness as little league coaches.

Like any force, it can be both good or bad, and it turns bad when your ONLY
concern is success and prestige, leading you to optimize external appearances
and get some of that sweet sweet second hand prestige. But when combined with
something you enjoy doing, and that can provide real value to the world, this
desire can be truly world changing, and I think it's a vast oversimplification
(being HN I can say it's over-fitting to a one-dimensional metric) to say that
the Jobs, Musks, Gates and other folks weren't motivated to some degree by it.

Side note: I remember flying out of LA a few years back and seeing FIVE gaunt
bald men dressed in black turtle necks and blue jeans. Either there was a call
for a Steve Jobs biopic and nobody took off their costumes, or LA is the the
poster child for over-optimizing external appearances.

------
cgs
You are trying to fill a basic human need, which is simply beeing seen by
others. What could alleviate some of this pain is simple social connection. I
was always reading about how important it is and kind of blew it off, but as I
get older I'm understanding how important it is to our well being. Reach out
and make connections. Get coffee with a friend who listens to you. Find a
hobby where you are interacting with people in meatspace. This may even lead
to finding deeper purpose in ways you may not have expected.

------
alexashka
It's just people who only think about themselves, coupled with being an idiot.

The thought process goes like this: 'person on tv is getting love and
attention; I want love and attention; I'm going to mindlessly try and copy
everything about them, down to what underwear brand they wear'.

This is how advertising works.

That's usually the feminine version. The masculine version goes 'I'm going to
win at all costs'.

Here is how an intelligent person thinks: 'This society is a disaster, I am
going to learn to distance myself and pursue my calling, while doing my best
to provide a safe environment for myself and my loved ones'.

Notice how there is a calling, there is coming to terms with harsh realities
of mob mentality and there is an attempt at creating a mini eco-system of love
for a small number of people.

Idiots' calling is 'other people need to like me!' or 'I need to be
better/higher up the dominance hierarchy than others!'. They _need_ mobs
because they think they can get a mob to like them and not turn on them
afterwards, or they derive their self worth from comparing themselves to the
mob by being 'better' than them or even worse - they _need_ the mob to _use_
it to achieve their psychotic visions of a better world (every war general)!
They don't create ecosystems because they are fine with living in pig shit, as
long as other pigs tell him/her how great he/she is or they get to 'win' (Gary
Vee is a prime example of this lately).

Just my thoughts on it at this point in my life of course :)

------
tempy26960
One of the problems is HR. It's their job to lower your salary in the
interview process, that's how they get paid. No matter what you do, they will
always find some flaw in your resume and even though you have 10 years
experience, match every single technology framework they listed in the job
posting (planets aligned), and were a top engineer at all of your previous
companies. The field of technology is too broad. Ideally we'd have some
control to have a division of labor to specialize in certain areas like
networking, security, data, backend, frontend, linux admin, etc. which already
sort of exists but when you talk to companies they seem to want the rockstar
programmer that does everything and look at you like you're crazy for wanting
to specialize in one thing. Unlike lawyers and doctors, who have many clients,
we can really only have one client at a time, our employer, and they will
treat us like shit unless they know that we can find a job easily at another
employer. Sadly, the only thing worth working on is being able to get a job
quickly, as opposed to actually do a good job for your employer... which is
not valued.

------
esotericn
Isn't this basically just what happens to some number of people when they
'train' their brains to get out of the hole everyone is in to begin with (the
requirement to make a living)?

Status and prestige are more powerful multipliers than anything else. Even
outside of business. You can be the best 'x' in the world, but winning the
Olympic gold will multiply your earnings by probably an order of magnitude or
more.

~~~
kangnkodos
Many things are winner-take-all. Olympic Gold. Company founder. CEO.

And looking past the top one person, there are power laws too. The number 2
person in a company gets paid twice what the number 3 person gets, and so on.

And it's not just money. There's power - politicians. And fame - actors, and
others. They all follow the same pattern.

Given that this is the world we live in, there's a huge incentive to move up
one rung on the ladder relative to the people around you.

Part of this drive to move ahead of other people is rational because of the
geometrically increasing rewards.

------
xivzgrev
I took a happiness course once. It said that instead of chasing status, we
should chase flow. The idea being status is dependent on what others think,
which is inherently unstable, while flow is joy for yourself.

There’s a book I read, can’t remember name but basically it said instead of
chasing recognition, we should chase knowing. Recognition was lots of random
strangers liking some surface thing about you. For example I like band X - if
I saw them in public I’d want to say “hey I love your music!”. Or conversely,
I think band X sucks, and I want to say that. It’s a shallow opinion held by
many.

Knowing is respect by people who have the authority to actually evaluate your
talents. In this case, it would be experienced musicians. What do they think
of the band’s music? These people actually have the relevant experience to
evaluate your work. If a group like that admires your work, it’s a deeper,
more satisfying “like” than a bunch of random people. Yet we are typically
wired to chase the approval of the masses.

These things can be hard, I certainly don’t do them all the time, but it’s
helpful direction if you can relate to this article.

------
pansa
> A guy who [...] wants to be known as the creator of something.

I have this problem. I’m frequently distracted from doing what I want to _do_
by ideas for things that I want to _have done_ (and wouldn’t enjoy actually
doing day-to-day).

The search for prestige is about the only reason to switch paths and start
working on any of these ideas, but it’s hard to ignore.

------
TrackerFF
My observation has been that the kids that fall prey for the prestige trap,
tend to come from families that push that mentality very hard. Often families
with relatively successful parents, i.e white-collar professionals and the
likes.

I think there's also an element of insecurity and lack of identity among those
kids. They've been measured and held to high standards all their lives, and
they have close and clear references of success. Maybe their parents, grand-
parents, or other family members.

They get pushed to ace their school works, they get pushed to do stuff that
pads their school applications and resumes. This seems to be even worse when
your parents come from cultures where there are a handful few of "correct"
careers to choose between.

These kids sacrifice a lot, so the obsession with clear-cut goals could be
some rationalization or their sacrifices and lack of identity.

But then again, we're all driven by different things. Some set their mind at
17 to be retired by 30, and will do whatever it takes to accelerate that
process.

Others may not need money at all (due to things like inheritance), but want to
fit in with their peers - so chasing prestige becomes just another case of
keeping up with the Joneses...if nothing else for the bragging rights.

With that said, in my later years I've realized that chasing prestige (for my
own part) was nothing more than vanity, and a need for external validation.

But it turned out that I did not have passion for the things that were
prestigious, and I felt miserable pouring all my focus and energy into
something I did not care for.

In the end, I took a stand with myself, and figured out that it's better to be
happy and create something I love, and create value for others (as well as
myself) - and if success comes with it, then that's a bonus.

Not having a cloud of professional / career anxiety hanging over me is great.

------
danielovichdk
Never underestimate low self-esteem. It's a bitch to be around and so obvious
it's caused be deeper issues.

My own subjective belief about male subjects around this matter - success and
fame - , is circeling around father-issues and the lack of gratitude and
applause from him.

I have worked with so many 9f these kinds, and IT is full of them. Most of
these people are boring, exactly because their goals lean towards being
someone or something. Ego-centric and primadonna individuals who will run you
over, if they can be successful.

Decency is lost and forgotten virtue in too many people. But in the end, they
will realize that being a success will not make you happy and What a waste of
time.

Also, What is it you want to be known for? A frame work? An app?

Give me a break. Your grandkids will have forgotten you by the time they have
their own kids.

I don't have a lot of money, but I am so successful you can't measure it.

------
joelbluminator
Read a research that said above a certain amount of money (75K yearly or so)
you won't be any happier. What makes us happy is finding meaning in
relationships and the work we do (meaning, not money). If what you do feels
important to you , odds are you are happier. If you work for Google but
struggle to find any meaning in your work odds are you aren't that much
happier than the average cop or teacher. Marriage and kids can help but are
not the only way to get there.

~~~
grandmczeb
That study is extremely misunderstood and frankly the idea that money isn’t
correlated to happiness after some moderate income level (e.g. 75k) is flat
out not supported by evidence.

[https://www.vox.com/2015/6/20/8815813/orange-is-the-new-
blac...](https://www.vox.com/2015/6/20/8815813/orange-is-the-new-black-piper-
chapman-happiness-study)

~~~
joelbluminator
Intuitively it makes sense to me. I can see how someone who makes 160K might
feel a bit better about himself than someone who makes 80K, but that's not
really happiness is it? It's some kind of contentment. And how much happier is
he? He makes 2x as much so he's 2x happier? Obviously the correlation more
money = more happiness isn't strong and declines after a certain amount.

~~~
joelbluminator
Putting that specific research aside, there's a wealth of data on what makes
humans happy and money/social status isn't as high on the list as you'd
expect.

------
elbear
This sounds a lot like the defectiveness and unrelenting standards lifetraps I
mentioned in another comment. I encourage the author, and anyone else who
recognizes themselves in his words, to go to therapy about this.

You can also read the book I mentioned in a previous comment. In the opened my
eyes to the lifetraps that have been affecting me the most and how they're
playing out.

I wish you success with overcoming this!

------
Vysero
There seems to be a lot of talk in the article about what the writer wants.
Also, there is talk about some life style changes. However, the author seems
to be lacking a detailed plan of attack.

My suggestion to the author would be to move their motivations out of the
picture long enough to frame it. The biggest difference between successful
people and others is action, not motivation.

------
ken
It seems so bizarre to me that there is an r/cscareerquestions at all. And the
only other r/__careerquestions are computer-related (IT, UX, DS). It's not
like dentists and architects haven't discovered the internet yet.

Computers are the new gold rush. It seems like most people today got into this
field just looking to strike it rich.

~~~
tpmx
(It does explain the whole webdev/javascript situation a bit, I would claim.)

I don't mind people entering this field with a goal of getting rich. The
problem is when that is their _only_ motivation.

There are definitely lots of other factors at play here, but I kinda look back
at the late 90s/early 00s with nostalgia. It seemed like most of the people
you worked with, or even interviewed back then had some basic level of sincere
passion for the field. Today that's not really the case. That makes the work
less fun.

------
emsy
This behavior can also have bad consequences for people in unexpected ways.
Want to land a job? Create a highly used npm package and put it in your
portfolio. It doesn’t matter if it’s supported long after, has a ton of
dependencies or is even really necessary in the first place. And shit like
this is how we end up with things like left pad.

------
rb808
What no mention of elite colleges, Ivy League? Children get on the treadmill
very early now, best feeder schools to get into Stanford/Harvard. I find it
easy to ignore most of the time, but maybe that great company that I wanted to
work for would interview me if I had that background...

------
bar_de
He who is not contented with what he has, would not be contented with what he
would like to have. - Sokrates

------
starpilot
Note to OP, the link for your name in the page footer is broken:
[https://www.bennettnotes.com/bennettnotes.com](https://www.bennettnotes.com/bennettnotes.com)

------
goatinaboat
_Should I learn to make pasta from scratch? No, that’s crazy. Nobody cares_

If you are single and invite your date over and make them pasta from scratch I
_guarantee_ it will work. Seriously.

------
melenaboija
I guess something that explains this is seeing this post at HN and close to it
this one "How to be successful (at your career, Twitter edition)"

------
ratsimihah
Oof that hits the spot. Can't seem to be satisfied until I get to bootstrap a
product I love, even though my day job is already perfect.

------
csomar
> Looking back, I also feel like I was frequently compared agaisnst other
> children. As a reminder that life is a competition, and you don’t want to be
> behind.

I don't know how old you are but life _is_ a competition. At the very
fundamental level, all species are competing with each other for survival.
Your mother was not mislead, she knows that in order to survive in this
jungle, you need to be competitive. And given how shallow the world is, these
titles and awards matters, so you should get them.

~~~
digitaltrees
Except individual will lose to groups that cooperate, so even if the world is
competitive, there is an incentive for collaboration and equality.

------
at_a_remove
This is one of those supposed character flaws I could have used a bit more of
in my personal makeup.

------
sandoooo
I may not be successful or prestigious but at least I'm not Obsessed With
Success and Prestige.

Yay for me.

------
vmh1928
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the
shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser
Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.

------
foldr
Random chain of associations, but I'm reminded of this:
[https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%B0...](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BA%D0%B0_\(%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BC,_1986\))

The thesis of the movie is apparently that that Donald Crowhurst
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Crowhurst](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Crowhurst))
was driven insane by the anxieties of late-stage capitalism. I'd rather have
those than the anxieties of late-stage Communism, but I can see where they
were coming from.

------
raincom
People derive pleasure from success and prestige. There is also another way to
derive pleasure: by criticizing others non-constructively, by thrashing
others' egos.

------
Amygaz
Who is a narcissist? (Jeopardy for 10 points)

------
cambalache
And yet here you are, self-posting to HN hoping to get to the frontpage.

------
quattrofan
Influencers...

------
electriclove
Ling Ling practices 40 hours a day

------
endorphone
I'm a little jaded from years of seeing posts like this, to the point that now
they don't seem quite as much like "see, you don't need all that", but instead
read more like "See, I've redefined the rules and evaluations -- I'm the
winner now!"

~~~
nlh
I see your point but at the same time - why is redefining the rules a bad
thing? Why should people be obligated to evaluate themselves against criteria
that’s popular or set by other people? Why does that actually matter?

~~~
endorphone
It isn't a bad thing, and there is nothing wrong with that. Yet it isn't
always conveyed at face value.

