
Solitude and Leadership: If you want others to follow, learn to be alone - jseliger
http://www.theamericanscholar.org/solitude-and-leadership/
======
gvb
The article has the most perfectly placed advertisement box. I read...

 _I sat on the Yale College admissions committee a couple of years ago. The
first thing the admissions officer would do when presenting a case to the rest
of the committee was read what they call the "brag" in admissions lingo, the
list of the student’s extracurriculars. Well, it turned out that a student who
had six or seven extracurriculars was already in trouble. Because the students
who got in—in addition to perfect grades and top scores—usually had 10 or 12._

...and then there was the advertisement box. My blood was starting to boil
because I have a serious philosophical problem with having to do the "right"
kinds of extracurricular things to impress an admissions board to get into
college. OK, it's sour grapes, but _that_ is a college I'm not interested in
attending (ditto for Google).

Then the kicker:

 _So what I saw around me were great kids who had been trained to be world-
class hoop jumpers. Any goal you set them, they could achieve. Any test you
gave them, they could pass with flying colors. They were, as one of them put
it herself, "excellent sheep."_

Amen! The world needs plenty of excellent sheep, but I'm not interested in
being one of them.

~~~
nostrademons
I always thought it was really stupid and soul-numbing to do have the "right"
activities to impress someone too, so I mostly ignored all the advice and did
what I wanted during high school. Then I applied to one of the elite colleges
mentioned in the article (mostly because my parents threatened to kick me out
of the house if I didn't at least _apply_ to college, and if you're gonna go
through the trouble, might as well go for the top) and got in anyway.

Same thing with Google: I always figured that I wouldn't want to work at any
place that cared where I went to college. But then I applied anyway, as an
experiment, got in, and it turned out I loved it.

If I had to give some unsolicited advice (yeah, modulo luck and all that), I'd
say to live your life the way that makes _you_ happy, but if it happens to
make some elite institution happy too, why not give it a try? There are some
very real benefits to a college like Amherst or an employer like Google. While
they're not worth making yourself miserable over, they can be a pretty nice
perk if your interests lay in that direction anyway.

Also, I've found that what high-caliber institutions really want are people
whose passions make them come alive. For exactly the reasons the article
mentioned. There are lots of sheep that want to get into Google for the six-
figure salaries and 3 meals a day and resume boost. There are comparatively
fewer who want to get in because it's like being a kid in a data-mining candy
shop. Organizations want the latter kind, who're usually the ones with the
clearest ideas of what they want to get out of life.

And if they don't, fuck 'em.

~~~
HSO
So, to summarize your experience or advice: At the center, figure out what
_you_ like and do what engages you naturally. On the fringes, keep a portfolio
of small bets with the outside world and see what engagements come out of
that. I like that advice, seems like a good way to wander through life.

~~~
nostrademons
Exactly.

It occurs to me that this is a good way to run a startup too. Figure out what
your core competency is and do that. But on the fringes, keep exploring other
opportunities and see what may come of them.

------
lmkg
The author's characterization of leadership sounds to me a lot like clinical
depression. This isn't altogether surprising to me, as I keep stumbling upon
pieces of research or philosophy suggesting that depression has an
evolutionary purpose. I think the essential property is that a depressive
isn't able to ignore important problems the way a normal, functional person is
able to, especially long-term problems. The hitch is being able to address
those problems, rather than being overwhelmed by them.

~~~
mikemainguy
I listened to the 2004 intro to Psych lectures by professor Wolfe at MIT. I
thought it interesting that he pointed out that depressives have a more
accurate portrayal of reality and how thing really are than "normal" people.

~~~
loewenskind
But did he say how much of this was because they themselves make it this way?
If you're depressed about e.g. not being able to get a girl then you'll
probably do things that make you appear creepy and you _won't_ be able to get
a girl.

Contrast that with a normal person who believes in themselves. Sometimes
they're wrong but they're not affected by (negative) self fulfilling prophecy.

~~~
dhimes
I don't know what Wolfe said, but something I was reading a while back said
(to a first-order approximation, anyway): optimistic/non-depressive people
take credit when things go well and blame things beyond their control when
they don't go well. Depressives tend to own up to their responsibility for
things that don't go well much more accurately (by "accurate" they meant, as I
recall, what impartial observers would agree would be the case).

For example, an officer at Big Investment House would credit his own
brilliance for making bajillions of dollars, but blame the collapse of his
foolish enterprise on Regulators/Sun spots/Everybody ELSE being too goddamn
greedy.

EDIT: typo office -> officer

~~~
loewenskind
I'm still not convinced. I had a bought with (suicidal) depression for several
years (brain injury) and it's true that I didn't take credit for things I
didn't do, but instead I blamed myself for _everything_ , even things way
beyond my control (e.g. "It happened this way because you deserve to be
miserable"). Many things I evaluated to being beyond me, and sure enough they
were. Because having convinced myself I couldn't do it or wasn't worthy, any
effort I made was half-hearted or actually negative. Which lead to more
depression.

Now maybe I'm too optimistic about what I can do sometimes, but I think you
get further that way because sometimes you talk yourself into things that "on
paper" should have been beyond you.

Maybe I was more accurate before. But it was because I was skewing the
results. Also note that it's easier to think you can't do something and then
fail when you could have succeeded than to think you can do something and
succeed when you otherwise would not (i.e. it's easier for your own belief to
skew results on the negative side than the positive).

------
zb
This is a seriously great article.

One thing bothers me, though. This description of what a leader is, doesn't it
fit Kurtz exactly? I can't help feeling that this is only part of the story;
that we need something more than leadership alone.

~~~
timtadh
It is called ethics. To paraphrase Emmanuel Levinas, the essential ethical
experience is the face to face encounter with the Other. It is how one re-acts
at that moment of connection, with something wholly unknown to them that is
the most basic of ethical moments. One has an essential responsibility to the
Other (and of course the Other has a responsibility to the individual). A
responsibility born at that moment of tension. To deny and reject the Other is
to reject responsibility for one's own actions. Only when a responsibility for
Other is shouldered has one shouldered the responsibility for one's actions.

We need leaders who take responsibility for their actions, and for the actions
of their organizations. How can they do that if they do not take
responsibility for the Other, the other nation, the other company, the
criminal, the competitor, the enemy? Only if a leader takes this
responsibility can he truly independent.

------
known
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists
in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the
unreasonable man." --George Bernard Shaw

------
wazoox
Don't forget to check this other article :
[http://www.theamericanscholar.org/the-disadvantages-of-an-
el...](http://www.theamericanscholar.org/the-disadvantages-of-an-elite-
education/) Great too.

------
julius_geezer
lkmg: What in the characterization of leadership here sounds like clinical
depression? I really didn't pick that up. However, one can point to leaders,
among them military leaders, who showed what now perhaps would be diagnosed as
bouts of depression--Lincoln, Grant, Sherman, Marlborough come to mind.

Wasn't this posted before?

~~~
lmkg
Solitude and isolation. Dwelling on problems for long periods of time. Not
being satisfied with life as usual. Preferring to think before (or instead of)
acting. Taking a long time to complete a seemingly simple task, because you
can see the full ramifications of the task and how difficult it really is.
Concern with the abstract and the illusionary/visionary instead of the
immediate. Some of the attitude towards focus and concentration, although that
varies.

In short, I think that depression can be somewhat characterized as a
sensitivity to, or inability to filter out, certain perceptions, especially
abstract concerns. What the author is advocating seems to be a conscious
effort to seek those perceptions. My opinions are, of course, biased by my own
experiences.

~~~
philwelch
As someone who's experienced depression, I still don't see the connection
between depression and any of the things you listed.

~~~
cema
I do. However, I think it may be superficial. I do not think depressed people
are overall as successful as the true leaders are, common sense says they may
be less successful than the general population.

~~~
philwelch
Maybe I'm more broken and depressed than I thought, since the isolation,
solitude, dissatisfaction, thoughtfulness, and so forth all remain with me
even when I'm not feeling down.

------
Oxryly
Good message, good content, but that was some dry presentation.

I suppose the problem with every graduation speech is that it's some
knowledgeable wise person _up there_ talking essentially down to a bunch of
life newbies _down here_. That is so rarely going to be interesting.

------
mildweed
\--snip--

Why is it so often that the best people are stuck in the middle and the people
who are running things—the leaders—are the mediocrities? Because excellence
isn’t usually what gets you up the greasy pole. What gets you up is a talent
for maneuvering. Kissing up to the people above you, kicking down to the
people below you. Pleasing your teachers, pleasing your superiors, picking a
powerful mentor and riding his coattails until it’s time to stab him in the
back.

