
The Trap You Set For Yourself - _frog
http://blog.codinghorror.com/the-trap-you-set-for-yourself/
======
not_paul_graham
_> The way Lancelot motivates himself to get past self-doubt in combat is not
to care whether he lives or dies.

As Ariely says: Lancelot fights better than anyone else because he found a way
to bring the stress of the situation to zero. If he doesn’t care whether he
lives or dies, nothing rides on his performance. He doesn’t worry about living
past the end of the fight, so nothing clouds his mind and affects his
abilities — he is pure concentration and skill._

This is "somewhat" similar to what Steve Jobs said in his commencement speech
at Stanford:

 _> Remembering that I'll be dead soon is the most important tool I've ever
encountered to help me make the big choices in life. Because almost everything
— all external expectations, all pride, all fear of embarrassment or failure -
these things just fall away in the face of death, leaving only what is truly
important. Remembering that you are going to die is the best way I know to
avoid the trap of thinking you have something to lose. You are already naked.
There is no reason not to follow your heart._

Atwood closes with: "concentrate on the daily routine of doing what you enjoy,
what you believe in, what you find intrinsically satisfying." What this fails
to take into take into consideration is that unless you are focusing on the
"right" things, this pattern can be more harmful. On most days I just want to
meditate, catch up with family, exercise and perhaps hang out on the beach or
travel to exotic places. I don't currently find work intrinsically satisfying
(a majority of the working population don't find their work intrinsically
motivating).

This is also bad advice if you are depressed. It just doesn't work then. Most
days you want to sleep in, stay within your space, and think about darker
stuff. Completely unrelated but the reason many people fail to quit smoking or
quit eating unhealthy things is not because they don't know that these habits
are bad for them but because in that moment, they are unable separate their
desire from what they should be doing for the long term betterment of
themselves.

I'm assuming that the author is primarily writing this post for
programmers/computer scientists and how they can focus on increasing their
skills in their chose field, but this post is generic enough that I though my
comment may be relevant enough to add to the discussion.

~~~
kaybe
It's also similar to what one of the older budo teachers said (the text is at
home, I'm paraphrasing what I understood):

Mindsets for going into battle/duels can be:

1) Believe you are stronger and will win. It's weak because if it turns out
you are not you will lose heart easily.

2) Convince yourself you are stronger without taking data into account. (As
in, be positive.) Weak for the same reason.

3) Believe you are doing the right thing, and you want to do it regardless of
outcome. According to this teacher, here lies true strength because you will
not lose heart even against a stronger opponent.

~~~
agumonkey
Outside competing contexts, I tend to think you should give 100% regardless of
outcome, but not dismissing it since it's also the greatest data to learn
from.

------
facepalm
How about we start paying attention to how we describe men? That quote was
really unnecessary:

"They (women) aren’t just bad at behaving like arrogant self-aggrandizing
jerks. They are bad at behaving like self-promoting narcissists, anti-social
obsessives, or pompous blowhards"

which suggests men are mainly successful because they are those things.

I recently heard (in a finance lecture, but still) that 3% of men are
psychopaths, and 1% of women. So yes, more men are psychopaths, but neither
gender is off the hook, and the majority of people actually aren't
psychopaths.

~~~
dtf
Throwing your gender under a bus is a primitive way of signalling that you're
an enlightened bro. I find it rather sleazy.

------
amirmc
I've realised that I have a tendency to fall into this trap when I find I'm
working _for_ someone, rather than _with_ someone. It seems that distinction
is important to me (subconsciously). It seems to come about when I start
thinking 'just keep them happy and off my back' vs 'just do the right thing'.
Thankfully, I've only been pulled into this thinking twice in my career.

~~~
Fuxy
My usual solution is 'just do the right thing even if it gets you fired' to
that problem.

I don't mind working for someone but i can't do it without doing it properly
if he wanted an obedient servant he probably shouldn't have hired me to begin
with.

------
cafard
With all due respect to women, the notion that

"They aren’t just bad at behaving like arrogant self-aggrandizing jerks. They
are bad at behaving like self-promoting narcissists, anti-social obsessives,
or pompous blowhards, even a little bit, even temporarily, even when it would
be in their best interests to do so."

suggests either a very limited acquaintance with women, or an unduly extensive
experience with bad male behavior.

~~~
wisty
No, it's a "let's say this in a way that won't look too sexist" thing.

I don't know if it's sexist to make generalisations about women if it's
clearly just a generalisation. And it might even be true, on average - though
it's probably a result of nurture not nature.

But I think he didn't want to pour any more fuel on the fire than necessary.

------
facepalm
Side note: Ariely's Coursera course has just started for the second time -
[https://www.coursera.org/course/behavioralecon](https://www.coursera.org/course/behavioralecon)

There is still time to jump in.

I highly recommend it.

~~~
Evgeny
Thanks, just letting you know that you've inspired at least one person to
join!

------
allochthon
> They [women] aren’t just bad at behaving like arrogant self-aggrandizing
> jerks. They are bad at behaving like self-promoting narcissists, anti-social
> obsessives, or pompous blowhards, even a little bit, even temporarily, even
> when it would be in their best interests to do so. Whatever bad things you
> can say about those behaviors, you can’t say they are underrepresented among
> people who have changed the world.

Why not, instead of selectively adopting this behavior when convenient,
instead work to create systemic disincentives for it, if not across the
business world, then at least in one's own little corner of it?

~~~
facepalm
Is there proof that that kind of behavior actually brings about good results?
I think it might just be a myth. The quote is from a rant about some written
application where the applicant sounded too full of himself. But I think such
things can also backfire. It isn't at all obvious to me that who boasts the
most is the most likely to get the job.

Although I admit there are studies that show in groups people tend to trust
the people who claim they know the most.

------
hownottowrite
Anyone interested in learning about human perseverance would do well to spend
a couple hours reading Viktor Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning.

It's short. It's accessible. There is also a noticeable absence of Richard
Gere.

“In psychiatry there is a certain condition known as delusion of reprieve. The
condemned man, immediately before his execution, gets the illusion that he
might be reprieved at the very last minute. No one could yet grasp the fact
that everything would be taken away. all we possessed, literally, was our
naked existence.”

The trick is that our naked existence is all we ever have. Learning to deal
with this fact, to accept and and even rely on this fundamental truth, is the
first step towards developing a real purpose in life. This is the kind of
thing that will get you out of bed each day.

[http://www.amazon.com/Mans-Search-Meaning-Viktor-
Frankl/dp/0...](http://www.amazon.com/Mans-Search-Meaning-Viktor-
Frankl/dp/080701429X)

~~~
DaCapoo
The book itself is amazing, yet I found it had the same effect as other books
that hold similar messages - it just doesn't translate well into my day to day
thoughts. After reading it I felt the sort of profound enlightenment one might
expect when discovering what was written in the book, but woke up the next
morning feeling the same as before I had read the book.

"Learning to deal with this fact, to accept and and even rely on this
fundamental truth, is the first step towards developing a real purpose in
life."

Perhaps I'll get there at some point, but I just haven't figured this out yet.
I see the fact there, I understand it, but incorporating it into my daily
thinking is just something I can't seem to grasp.

~~~
delluminatus
Integrating changes into your being is a slow process. Reading these kinds of
books help plant the seed of change, but the seed grows at its own pace.
Patience and self-forgiveness

"Step by step walk the thousand-mile road" \- Musashi Miyamoto

~~~
hownottowrite
I agree. It takes time and the reading of other books. Eventually, when you're
ready, it just sort of clicks and you're there.

------
droob
[http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2014/01/...](http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2014/01/do_what_you_love_love_what_you_do_an_omnipresent_mantra_that_s_bad_for_work.html)

------
akerl_
I honestly want to hope this article is an intentional bait, because otherwise
choosing this moment to drop a blatantly sexist article seems strange, and
based on my past experience out of character for Atwood.

~~~
lliamander
I am genuinely curious how this qualifies as sexist. My understanding, based
upon my own experience as well as some of the research I have read, is that
there is something to the distinction Atwood brings up in this article.
Whether or not such a distinction is fact though, I would like to think there
is a way to discuss such possibilities without offending reasonable people.

Is the issue that he claims a distinction? The way he values the qualities he
ascribes to either sex? Something else?

More importantly, is he wrong? Without a doubt utterly wrong, or is there room
for debate? At the end of the day that is what strikes me as most important.

~~~
akerl_
The sexist part would be where he states that men as a whole behave one way,
and women as a whole behave another way.

~~~
lliamander
Thank you for the clarification. Would it be legitimate for me to rephrase
your position as "stating generalizations about peoples' behavior, based upon
sex, is sexist"? For example, if I were to say "men, in general (though not in
all cases) are more risk-seeking than women", would that be sexist?

I am not sure that I can accept your definition of sexism. What if that
generalization is true? I can concede that the specific generalization I made
above is debatable, but I don't think it can be argued that it is without a
doubt false. The connotation of the term "sexist" is that the thing being
labeled so is morally wrong. I cannot accept a stance that labels certain
beliefs as blatantly immoral which are (at least debatably) true.

To propose a different definition of sexism, I would like suggest that making
such statements is only sexist if one refuses to acknowledge that there are
exceptions, or if one refuses to acknowledge such exceptions as morally
acceptable. For instance, refusing to fund a startup founded by a woman
because one assumes no woman is capable or because one thinks it is wrong for
any woman to do so.

There are a few things I would like to note about my definition. First of all,
it does not state what sort of legislation should be passed to prevent sexism.
Indeed, I consider it quite probable that there could be instances of sexist
behavior that, while immoral, would also be immoral or at impractical to
legally prevent. Second, it does not require a person to be 100% accurate when
applying generalizations. Third, you do not need to be all things to all
people; you can choose to market to only those people who fit the
generalization. Just be aware that, especially with the advent of the
internet, it is quite easy to market to only those people who are the
exception.

I could go on, but I hope that is a sufficient explanation of my position. If
you are still following this thread I would like to hear your critique.

------
ballard
There are at least a quintillion ways to fail at different levels of strategic
mistakes, with a few paths out by getting the big things right and making the
best of change and uncertainty.

------
mathattack
I've heard this alternately described as "Fake it until you have it"

------
0800899g
Zen :

Jeff and Jobs .

------
jeffmax
First Knight is not a terrible movie.

~~~
junto
You're right of course. It is a _really really_ terrible movie!

