
The social obligation to be bad at things - luu
https://notebook.drmaciver.com/posts/2020-02-29-10:30.html
======
evmar
I found that, as a person who (sometimes) creates things, my attitude towards
other people who create things has significantly shifted.

When I was younger I would just see the fault -- the typos, the narcissism,
the pointlessness, the already-been-done-better-by-others -- of people's work.
But after trying a bit, it sometimes (for the same reasons the OP talks about)
creating anything new ends up being really hard in part because while you
struggle everyone is shouting "lame!" from the sidelines (and doing nothing).
You see this a lot on this site in particular -- the "middlebrow dismissal" HN
is famous for.

So now, even when I see something that I genuinely think is lame, I think of
this problem and keep my negativity to myself. I might give useful criticism
but I try to keep the balance in mind. Even if you publish something you've
made that is kinda lame, I still think it is awesome that you are taking the
effort to finish something. The best way to get better is by making multiple
attempts.

~~~
mikeyouse
I had a similar experience after visiting a modern art museum with a creative
friend of mine. I jokingly said "Even I could have done that" about one of the
pieces and my friend replied, "But you didn't" \-- hit me in one of those
profound realization kind of ways. I started thinking about all of the effort
it takes to envision something, find the resources, build it, work to get it
displayed somewhere. Just creating something from nothing is beautiful (even
if it's an upside toilet sculpture).

~~~
wbronitsky
Oh boy do I resonate with this. Thank you for sharing this!

I remember the first time I saw "Fountain" by Duchamps, which, for the
uninitiated, is a urinal, on its side, signed and dated by the artist. For
years, decades, I cast it aside in my mind as something silly, something
artsy, something that wasn't for me. It was ugly, vulgar, and above all,
obvious. For years, seeing replica after replica in modern and contemporary
art museums, I continued to breeze past the installation, laughing quietly to
myself like I knew something these art people didn't.

Then I had a similar situation happen. While continually saying "anyone could
have done that" and "this isn't art" someone finally said to me "yes it is
art, you didn't think of this, and without this, you lack the basis for many
other contemporary forms of art." It then started to occur to me that this art
was anything but obvious; if I so easily cast this aside as "not art," the
simple fact of calling this art was a profound statement, one worth
considering within its context. Maybe this piece of art had so much to teach
me about perspective, context and expression that it was just too much to
swallow for years.

~~~
the_af
> _I remember the first time I saw "Fountain" by Duchamps, which, for the
> uninitiated, is a urinal, on its side, signed and dated by the artist_

I totally, completely agree with your point and with the parent post ("I could
have created this", "but you didn't"), but...

...you can still, after all of this, conclude that the piece of art is
snobbish, artless garbage. In fact I reserve the right to do so. I agree with
your premise and still think "Fountain" is worthless as art. I could indeed
have done this -- and yes, I see the irony, "but you didn't" \-- and didn't
because I didn't think it's the kind of art I want to make or celebrate. It's
Duchamp's right to create it but I'm not a mean or ignorant person if I
dislike it or consider it snobbish and not worth my time (or even "not art").

I don't know if Fountain is or isn't art. I "know" it's worthless to me. This
is a discussion we must still be able to have, otherwise we can't say anything
about artistic endeavors unless it's positive...

~~~
robotresearcher
> I don't know if Fountain is or isn't art. I "know" it's worthless to me.

It's 103 years old and today you are taking the time to discuss it in public.
There, at least, is a demonstration that this piece made a dent in the
universe.

~~~
the_af
I'm unconvinced by this line of argumentation, which others have tried before.
Age and my attention cannot define art -- are you saying that something that
is new or hasn't caught my (very brief) attention is not art? Or let's say
it's not about me specifically, but rather about public impact: if something
is new and known only by very few people, so that it hasn't really made a big
public impact, does this prevent it from being art?

My very standard toilet has caught my attention -- and discourse, dare I say
-- way more than Duchamp's urinal. Would most people consider my toilet art?
Or would it need to be put on display in a museum?

Can you think of any man-made things older than a century that you wouldn't
consider art? I sure can!

~~~
robotresearcher
I didn't even use the word 'art' let alone propose any of these definitions. I
just pointed out that 'Fountain' made an impact on your choices today.

~~~
the_af
Fair enough. Would you say anything that I single out as worthless is, by the
act of giving it my attention, worthy?

I assure you my toilet made an impact in my choices today of far greater
import than Duchamp's found object.

------
munificent
I think about this _all the time_. I am simultaneously someone who wants to
learn and create a lot of things, likes to share stuff online, and is very
self-conscious about failure. So this challenge with facing my own not-
goodness-at-things is one of the major emotional themes and challenges of my
life.

I believe that broadcast social media is the primary reason why this is such a
big thing these days. _Everyone_ is so self-conscious all the time. It's like
we've created a giant world-spanning panopticon where we can all see everyone
at their worst moments all the time. We spend our days tip-toeing around the
Earth hoping we don't get caught having our own personal "Stars Wars kid"
moment and being shamed for it for the rest of our lives.

It used to be if you did something dumb or awkward, the five people around you
laughed at you, told stories about it for a while, and that was it. Now it's
literally captured from five different perspectives in high definition video
and stereo audio and uploaded to the Internet for all to see until the end of
time. It's no wonder awkward teens flocked to Snapchat and its ephemeral
videos.

I used to go out to clubs dancing a lot when I was younger. I _love_ dancing
(which is unusual for a skinny nerdy white dude, but I guess you don't get to
pick your passions). I believe moving your body to music is one of the
fundamental human experiences. You don't have to love it, of course, but it's
something we have been doing since the caveman days. It is as primal to being
human as feasting.

It kills me that so many people who do have that desire don't get to satisfy
it because of cripping self-consciousness about getting on a dancefloor. When
I went out, I often heard people on the sidelines making fun of people out
there dancing. I recognized that it was really their own insecurity being
projected onto others. They were saying what they feared people would say
about _them_ if they were out there. My response was always, "Anyone who has
the courage to dance at all is better than everyone on the sidelines."

I try to maintain that perspective with all activities, especially online. The
world has enough criticism to last until the end of time. Today, anyone who at
least _tries_ is a winner in my book. Is it often cringy or mediocre? Yup.
Will I tell them that? Hell no. They're at least _trying_.

As Jake in Adventure Time says "Dude, suckin' at something is the first step
to being sorta good at something."

~~~
nicbou
I see things a bit differently.

Being on the dance floor brings me happiness. Wooing the people on the
sidelines brings me nothing at all.

I tried to appeal to everyone. It made me miserable and boring. I'd rather
market myself to my target demographic.

~~~
kanakka
Wooing/mocking other people do feel good. At least for short term. It makes us
‘feel superior/luckier’ over others. It contributes nothing good to society
tho.

~~~
nicbou
"wooing", not "booing"

[https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wooing](https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wooing)

------
kerkeslager
I'm glad the author is talking about this problem, but I think there's a
slight misidentification of the cause.

I don't think it's that we're supposed to be bad at things, it's that we're
expected to _already be good at things_. This still applies (irrationally)
even when:

1\. There is no mechanism provided for becoming good at the things we're
expected to be good at.

2\. Most people aren't good at the things we're expected to be good at.

The underlying thing here, is that ignorance, a temporary condition, is
conflated with stupidity, a permanent condition.

Carol Dweck puts this another way: she describes a "fixed" mindset, where
people believe that mistakes are examples of their inherent value, and
therefore fear taking risks, and try to hide their mistakes. This is
contrasted with a "growth" mindset, in which mistakes are seen as a necessary
part of growth and risks are seen as learning opportunities.

Also related is Brene Brown's theory of vulnerability as being a necessary
part of forming relationships.

I will say, I'm not entirely convinced by all the details of either Carol
Dweck's mindset theory or Brene Brown's vulnerability theory, but the
generalities seem to be evident in my own life.

EDIT: I'll also add that this conflation is particularly damaging to people
and communities where intelligence is highly valued, and people base much of
their self-worth in being knowledgeable. My personal experience is that
growing up I based a lot of my self-worth in "being smart" so anyone
disagreeing with me or pointing out something I didn't know felt like an
attack on the very thing that made me feel worthwhile. Building real self-
esteem made it possible for me to start seeing that when I don't know
something that doesn't decrease my value as a person. This has allowed me to
admit I don't know things more often, and actually fill in some of those gaps
with real knowledge. I'm still a growing person, and I'm still not good at
this, but the progress I _have_ made has improved my life immensely.

~~~
s0rce
This was my experience in most of my primary and secondary education (K-12) in
Canada. If you were good at something right away, math, science, 2nd language,
art, even gym class, you basically got some instruction and were able to learn
a bit more and maybe even excel. This was my experience in Math and Science
(I'm a Scientist/Engineer now). However, learning French, I struggled and
rapidly fell behind. If you didn't excel you didn't really get enough teaching
or attention to learn. Basically, as you say, you were expected to already
just be good at stuff even from a young age and the system appeared to be
designed around this idea. Learning (and critically practice) takes a lot of
time for most things and everyone isn't good at it right away.

I had a similiar experience with driving lessons, I didn't take naturally to
it and the limited number of lessons and the relative ease by which you can
pass the test means I never really learned adequately during the "learning
period" before you are granted a full license. In this case my mom forced me
to continue and I continued to practice and eventually became competent and
mostly comfortable. Many other activities I just gave up, no one wanted me on
their T-ball team.

~~~
jerf
"the system appeared to be designed around this idea"

It is. If you have a bunch of people tied together by chronological age, who
only in extreme circumstances can be held back or advanced early, in a 20th
century classroom environment all sitting together listening to one person
"teach", then structurally, an environment is created that can handle only one
speed of learning. There is no good choice for that one speed, because the
standard deviation is too large. In the worst cases, since neither the
teaching pace nor the learning pace is itself a constant, you end up with a
situation that serves no one at all a good chunk of the time.

I'm not saying this was or is the deliberate intent; it's just what the
structure inevitably produces. It's not clear how to structure it any other
way with 20th century technology in a cost-effective manner (e.g., "classrooms
of 3 people" was never on the table). I'm hoping we'll start cracking this nut
in the next few years, though. The tech is increasingly there and it's the
social inertia about what school has "always been" holding us back now.

~~~
NateEag
Homeschooling is a simple, effective way to achieve "classrooms of three
people".

It is brutally difficult, as you have to sacrifice many of the things you want
to do in favor of things your kids want to learn and do, but it is worth every
ounce of that sacrifice.

~~~
bostonvaulter2
It's also a very costly method that many people cannot afford. Doubly so if
it'll impact the long-term career prospects of the parent that spends their
time teaching.

~~~
NateEag
Is it?

If one of you stays at home with kids, all the costs of childcare and that
partner's potential commute are removed.

Anecdotally, I've met people who homeschooled because they thought it was
cheaper than their other options.

If you're in an expensive school district, then you receive little benefit
from your relatively high school taxes, but so it goes.

Again anecdotally, one of the poorest persons I've ever personally known
pulled her kids out of public school to homeschool them.

I thought she was unqualified (despite my pro-homeschooling bias), but she got
them from remedial classes to gifted status in two years, IIRC (when she put
them back in school).

Some of my assumptions changed after that.

~~~
kerkeslager
> Anecdotally, I've met people who homeschooled because they thought it was
> cheaper than their other options.

This _almost_ , but _not quite_ , matches my anecdotal experience. Basically,
from what I've seen, it's not that it's _cheaper_ [1] to homeschool, it's two
things:

1\. They don't trust the childcare they can afford. You can hire a 16 year old
to care for your kid for minimum wage, but a trustworthy adult costs more.

2\. The work they could be doing does gain them some net income, but the net
income isn't worth the effort. I.e. if you can work for $30/hour for 8 hours
with a 2 hour commute, and childcare is $20/hour, that's $30 * 8 = $240, $20 *
10 = $200, $240 - $200 = $40, $40 / 10 = a whopping $4/hour. It's not
_cheaper_ to homeschool, but it's not _worth it_ to work for $4/hour.

[1] I'm interpreting "cheaper" to mean "cheaper in terms of money"\--if that's
not what you meant, my apologies.

------
drivers99
"When you say you are good at something, that's arrogant."

Learned that the hard way.

When I was young (college in the 90s), I had a Software Development class. We
formed small teams and created a piece of software in a waterfall
methodology.[1]

Why I thought I was so great: I had taken independent study in high school to
learn algorithms and data structures to take the Computer Science AB(now
discontinued) AP test (covers recursive algorithms and dynamically allocated
data structures, in Pascal at the time) and got a 5 out of 5.

So when we got together to discuss who would work on what, and we needed to
code our own data structures in C/C++ for the project, I was excited and said
"I'm the master!" of that. There was an older member of the team (who even
developed and sold his own software product, a program to print booklets, for
DOS already) who later in the meeting made a very sarcastic reference to me
being the "master" of that and it really stung.

[1] Looks like they still have it. They added github, UML, and user stories. C
S 371 [https://pixl.nmsu.edu/files/2017/05/syllabus-
SDev-2017-1-V10...](https://pixl.nmsu.edu/files/2017/05/syllabus-
SDev-2017-1-V10.pdf)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP_Computer_Science#AP_Compute...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP_Computer_Science#AP_Computer_Science_AB_\(discontinued\))

~~~
xfan009
I have to question why someone with that level of seniority would need to be
in a software development class. Generally my experience with people who are
demonstrably successful is that they are not insecure like you described. Is
it possible they were bluffing?

~~~
dj_mc_merlin
Software development classes are mandatory for some courses, and it is not
that uncommon to find some already-not-so-green programmers in them. Some are
just looking for the certification at the end of their programme.

> Generally my experience with people who are demonstrably successful is that
> they are not insecure like you described.

Is it really insecurity? Teasing someone about their previous arrogance when
they're actually a beginner is one of the better forms of putting-down IMO.
Teaches 'pride cometh before fall' and all that. And a group project is a
quite informal space to do that in.

~~~
dgb23
I agree. As colleagues/collaborators it is almost a responsibility to keep
each other in check like this. As long as it is skillfully applied and
empathic. Sprinkling a bit of humor on top can help too (for both sides).

------
stared
See: The myth we love new ideas - people resist change, including progress
from [https://scottberkun.com/2013/ten-myths-of-
innnovation/](https://scottberkun.com/2013/ten-myths-of-innnovation/)

> We are a conservative species: try something as simple as standing, rather
> than sitting, in your next group meeting. How accepting were your peers?
> Conformity is deep in our biology. While talking about creativity is very
> popular, actually being creative puts your social status at risk. All great
> ideas were rejected, often for years or decades, yet we bury this in our
> history (see Myth #1 & #2). The history of breakthroughs is a tale of
> persistence against rejection. Much of what makes a successful innovator is
> their ability to persuade and convince conservative people of the merits of
> their ideas, a very different skill from creativity itself. Your problem is
> likely not your ideas, but your skills for pitching ideas to others. Ideas
> are rarely rejected on their merits; they’re rejected because of how they
> make people feel. The bigger the idea, the harder the persuasion challenge.

------
leroy_masochist
> I was at a liberating structures event recently, and one of the people I was
> working with related an anecdote in which he tried a party game as an ice
> breaker. Many of those are cringe, but this one sounded fun and inoffensive
> (it was a sentence continuation game where each person said a word following
> on from a previous one, in an attempt to construct something that sounded
> like an aphorism). Most people were reluctant initially but got into the
> swing of things, but a few people just dug their heels in and would not
> engage properly with it because of concern over looking weird.

Perhaps some of them were indeed concerned about looking weird. I guarantee
you that at least a few of them didn't want to engage because they're
introverts who just generally hate awkward group getting-to-know-you games.

~~~
ngerrity
I don't think there's anything wrong with not wanting to participate in silly
games like that all the time, but if you _never_ try to step out of your
comfort zone in a public setting, I think you're missing out on an opportunity
to grow as a person. You might just have fun doing something you thought was
stupid or you thought you would hate.

~~~
kubanczyk
Ahh hello there, good'ol FOMO. Let me show you a little trick:

I don't think there's anything wrong with not wanting to participate in silly
games like that all the time, and if you never try to step out of your comfort
zone in a public setting, I don't think you're missing out on an opportunity
to grow as a person.

~~~
cutemonster
Not fomo IMO. Rather, experimenting and discovering new things, incl about
oneself.

~~~
leroy_masochist
That can happen outside of attention-seeking exercises organized by
extroverts, FYI.

------
commandlinefan
Can I agree with his overall premise but disagree with thinking that
scheduling weekly one-on-one's with your wife is in any way a good idea?

I also wonder if the social obligation to be bad at things - that is, to avoid
arrogance at all costs, even at the risk of withholding potentially useful
advice - is more an American thing than a worldwide phenomenon. Not being
embarrassed when you can't _spell words correctly_ seems to be unique to
American culture.

~~~
Godel_unicode
> Can I agree with his overall premise but disagree with thinking that
> scheduling weekly one-on-one's with your wife is in any way a good idea?

No. That's the whole point. If it works for them why would it be bad? Let's
try and not shame people for having different approaches to things.

~~~
jmaa
Well, depends what he means with "your"; OP specifically, or an arbitrary
person? Because I think we are getting dangerously close to shooting down
useful criticism and discussion for fear of hurting someones feelings. It's
obviously insensitive to say that OP is a bad person because he is doing one-
on-ones, but it should be totally acceptable to say "this is weird (from my
perspective), I can see several issues with this, I wouldn't personally do
this, but you-do-you", and often "(from my perspective)" and "but you-do-you"
parts are implied; their absence shouldn't necessarily be taken as proof of
mocking.

(Disclaimer: I have no opinion on partner one-on-ones.)

~~~
Godel_unicode
Weird is one of those truly terrible words that's used to control people who
are different than us. It's nice for the person using it, since it doesn't
actually mean anything and is thus impervious to arguments stronger than "nuh
uh". It's almost never actually the right word, and should be avoided in favor
of more descriptive language. In order for criticism to be constructive, it
must be easily understandable by the person receiving it.

"Don't call people weird" seems like a good general principle (unless they
self-identify as weird, in which case knock yourself out). I don't understand
this compulsion to try and get people to fall in line and stop being weird.

The from-my-perspective and you-do-you parts are the most important parts, why
would you leave them out? You're not in charge.

------
WalterBright
> Why don't we want people to be good at things?

Because if A and B start out at the same place, and A succeeds, then B lacks
an excuse to justify his non-success. So B needs to tear down A in order to
feel better about himself.

~~~
cutemonster
Yes, precisely. Well, minor thing:

"in order to continue seeming to be a useful member of the group", I'd say.

And there're other strategies too, of course, one includes trying to help A
become even better

------
Traster
>When you say you're bad at something, people tell you that you're not, or
treat it as weakness.

As a Brit who has worked with Americans I think this is very cultural. From my
judgement of my interactions if I say "I know nothing about this but..."
there's probably a 50% chance I know more about the thing than you. If I say
"Have you considered..." that means you're talking about my area of expertise.
That's not been my experience of how Americans approach things -often from a
perspective of trying to prove themselves. From a social point of view I've
always found it more useful to under-estimate my own abilities than to ever-
estimate. There's good reason too, if you claim authority and are wrong then
you burn a lot of credibility.

Having said this, I also subscribe to the idea that criticising other people
primarily makes you look bad no matter the truth of the matter and that sounds
a lot like what the people the author describes is doing.

~~~
naveen99
Arrogance can sometimes get you in the door quicker. You can be modest once
you are in. Or take the slow road with modesty from the beginning.

------
thenoblesunfish
To perhaps state the obvious, the reason we don't encourage people to say that
they're good at things is that it's hard to judge for yourself. It has as much
to do with your general view on yourself, and what your standard of "good" is,
than what the average other person would think. So, you try to prove you are
good by doing things, not saying things.

~~~
Godel_unicode
I have worked with people who could say they were good at things without
sounding arrogant, and after a great deal of thought I have concluded that
it's because of two things.

1\. those same people are quick to say when they're bad at things as well.

2\. their competency is never the point of the sentence, it's always a
supporting argument on the way to the point. E.g. I'm an expert in this
library and I struggle with using that part correctly, we should consider
reworking it so it's possible for novices to use it.

~~~
themacguffinman
3\. Express it in terms of experience, which is a quality that I think people
are more comfortable with because it doesn't imply innate or "fixed" talent.
Experience is widely understood as a function of time & effort so people feel
less insecure about it because everyone can gain experience.

Eg. I would say "I'm pretty familiar with this library, so here's my
perspective"

------
LouisSayers
Reminds me back when I went skiing for the first time with my gf at the time.

She had lots of experience skiing and I guess wanted to “show me the slopes”.
In showing me how to do the pizza stop, I said “but all the pros do the side
to side thing...” so I did that instead.

By the end of the day I was going down all the slopes with her (I still lost
my skis a couple times), but she seemed a bit pissed off and I remember her
saying “how can you do in one day what took me three months?!”.

She did not seem happy...

~~~
themacguffinman
The correct answer is "because I had a great teacher". She probably learnt
skiing with less guidance and had to figure out a bunch of stuff on her own.

I still empathize with the phenomenon though. No matter what mindset you have
or humility or conscious understanding of the differences between human
ability, it's often viscerally frustrating to see others pick stuff up way
quicker than you could ever hope to.

~~~
LouisSayers
> I still empathize with the phenomenon though. No matter what mindset you
> have or humility or conscious understanding of the differences between human
> ability, it's often viscerally frustrating to see others pick stuff up way
> quicker than you could ever hope to.

The irony of this is that she had a high IQ so was used to learning things
much quicker than others.

> The correct answer is "because I had a great teacher". She probably learnt
> skiing with less guidance and had to figure out a bunch of stuff on her own.

The reason I was good at skiing was because a) I had done aggressive inline
skating for many years, and b) I had been snowboarding a few times

The confidence and similarity from rollerblading along with familiarity of how
the snow moves from snowboarding allowed me to pick it up quickly.

------
renewiltord
This is the same misunderstanding as the one that leads to angst at interview
selection. You don't have a social obligation to do anything. It's just that
you share some characteristics with a lot of kooks.

For instance, I have a few views that would flip the bozo bit on most people
(I am anti-organ-donation, pro-lower-quality-healthcare, anti-Office-of-the-
First-Lady, and I think people tried to scapegoat Andrew Wakefield for a lot
of shit) so I don't usually state those views and attempt to explain until
people know I'm not a bozo.

I know that P(bozo | having these views) is pretty high, so I first have to
demonstrate that P(bozo) is low in the first place.

P(can't write code | can't write code in an interview) is pretty high. P(isn't
that good | claims to be good) is pretty high.

You know you so you know you are not a bozo, that you can write code, that you
are good. But the other party is operating in the space of not-just-you. It's
just an information asymmetry that works against you. So, if the social
validation matters to you, you have to symmetrify that in a trusted fashion.
And honestly, life is short, no human has infinite time to evaluate another
human, so your symmetrification had better be speedy if you want the effects
you desire.

~~~
cutemonster
> pro-lower-quality-healthcare

What does that mean? What bigger goal lies behind that?

> you have to symmetrify that in a trusted fashion.

Yes I think so too. And I suppose sometimes someone who, say, wears formal
clothes and a suite, does that not because s/he wants to dress like that, but
because s/he knows about this too

~~~
renewiltord
Haha we both know it's probably best for me not to elucidate here but the gist
of it is that I'm convinced that cutting healthcare requirements can vastly
increase healthcare access and that access to bad care is far superior to
inaccessible good care and that we are in a situation where we are forcing the
trade-off. I don't really care to speak more of it on this forum because it's
hard to get the nuance out in text.

> _And I suppose sometimes someone who, say, wears formal clothes and a suite,
> does that not because s /he wants to dress like that, but because s/he knows
> about this too_

Almost suspected you knew me. Except that I've since developed an
appreciation.

~~~
cutemonster
> cutting healthcare requirements can vastly increase healthcare access

Sounds good to me, thanks for explaining

> Almost suspected you knew me

I'm thinking you're in the US? I've never been there; I'm in Europe

------
felipemnoa
>>Why don't we want people to be good at things?

In general it may be that it reminds people of their own failings and nobody
likes to feel like a loser.

~~~
seph-reed
Most people are just "professionals." As in they talk a lot of shit at work,
but don't really care about the field. It's role playing, and they usually
have imposter syndrome.

When someone comes in who isn't an imposter, the "professionals" best strategy
to keep their ill-earned position is to attack what makes a true scholar:
their "unprofessionally uncertain" curiosity, and their "unprofessionally
risky" willingness to try something new. True creatives aren't very
"professional" because they don't act like they know everything, and they
don't just do the same thing over and over again.

------
wallflower
I remember the Car Talk guys Click and Clack talking about their tongue-in-
cheek (or maybe not) advice for being married. It was something like:

"The very first time that they ask you to do the laundry, say 'Yes, honey! I'd
love to!'. Then, do it so horribly bad. Turn everything pink or whatever.
Shrink, ruin some clothes. Then, they'll never ask you to do the laundry
again."

~~~
nullc
I really miss Car Talk.

I wish there were a good comprehensive catalog of all their old episodes
online...

------
crazygringo
> _1\. You will be punished for trying new things._

> _2\. You will be punished for trying things that don 't work._

> _3\. You will be punished for trying to understand how good you are at
> something._

> _4\. You will be punished for succeeding._

This is a fascinating conclusion, and first of all, I think it's entirely
valid to feel that way. And it must feel incredibly frustrating.

But I think if we zoom out a bit, we can gain a broader perspective.

Which is that, no matter _what_ you do, you'll _always_ be "punished" by
_some_ people. There's no right answer here. But other people will also reward
you. (Also, funnily, sometimes when you don't even deserve it.)

And part of being an adult is in finding the right groups of people who are
constructive and supportive, rather than tearing you down due to their own
insecurities and egos.

This applies in finding a supportive spouse, supportive friends, and a
supportive workplace. And it takes work to identify and find the right
supportive people.

Supportive people will celebrate you for trying new things, celebrate you for
trying things even when they don't work, celebrate you for trying to
understand how good you are, and celebrate you for succeeding.

It's also very easy to have been surrounded by negative people for so long
that you feel helpless, that you don't even know how to find supportive people
or trust that they're there.

And that's a hard rut to be in, and there are a bunch of techniques to help
you get out of it, which you might need a therapist to identify for you if it
gets really bad.

But one that really speaks to this specifically is enrolling in local improv
comedy classes. You spend three hours in a group of equally embarrassed
"newbies" learning to follow the cardinal rule of "yes, and". Everyone is
_forced_ to be supportive. Improv is about literally coming up with new things
for three hours straight, and everyone celebrating it no matter what happens
(the only limit is not being offensive). I know people that credit it for
turning their lives around, and where they made their best friends.

Obviously improv isn't the answer for everyone. But I hope the author can find
the support they're looking for.

------
Osmose
The point about space and understanding to try new things and not be amazing
at them isn't a bad one, but the thing about having 1:1s with your partner
that is drawing ridicule isn't the idea of having a scheduled, weekly check-in
with your partner; it's that business-talk is intentionally de-personified and
using it in a personal context implies a lack of respect for the human you're
dealing with.

Consider that I called it a "weekly check-in with your partner" above. That
phrasing focuses on the existing relationship and the consideration of
checking on how they're doing. A "1:1" is called that to distinguish it from
other meetings that involve more than two people, and drops all the
connotations of concern or supporting an existing relationship. That's what
people are reacting negatively to.

~~~
kerkeslager
Yes, you're right that business talk is depersonified and implies a lack of
respect for the human you're dealing with. And this is an assertion backed up
by lots of other business talk--referring to humans as "resources" is probably
the worst I hear often. And this assertion is further supported by the
frequent, sociopathic behavior of businesses which goes beyond how they
communicate.

But surely the fact that they are married to this other person is a bit
stronger evidence that they cares for them, than a slightly off wording?

And further, it's completely absurd to hear this objection _from Hacker News_
, where the most common viewpoint seems to be "if it makes money then it must
be ethical". If this is really dehumanizing, then isn't the bigger problem
that most people are _totally okay_ with dehumanizing language in a business
context? Is the objection here that he doesn't stand to turn a profit?

~~~
gnramires
There is such a thing as a hacker ethic. To me the core is something like "Try
to save the world through math, science, understanding, and making cool
things."

The term has much more history than startup culture, although the goals of
startups (many YC funded) can be in line with those ideals (if imperfectly).

~~~
kerkeslager
This seems a bit off-topic, but is more interesting to me than the topic, so
I'll roll with it. :)

I don't think the hacker ethic is necessarily about saving the world, and I
while I can hypothesize a startup that aligns with a hacker ethic, I have not
in practice seen any examples.

The hacker ethic is about gaining a deep functional understanding of a system,
and then using that deep functional understanding to make that system do
something unexpected or cool.

As soon as you bring money into the equation, it causes people to do all sorts
of predictable and boring things. There are certainly people with hacker cred
who have gotten rich, but the money was incidental to the hacking. For
example, Woz has it because he designed computers he wanted to use and that
_happened_ to turn out to be very profitable.

~~~
gnramires
> I don't think the hacker ethic is necessarily about saving the world, and I
> while I can hypothesize a startup that aligns with a hacker ethic, I have
> not in practice seen any examples.

I guess it's more of a particular interpretation, of me growing up with a 90s
idealism of saving the world. It's a bit naive of course, but a naivety of the
hopeful kind, not of ignorant kind.

Orgs that come to mind are Wikipedia, Khan Academy, various Open Source
projects and foundations, etc. I do think maintaining a good, coherent mission
is still an open problem with successful companies, but many do help one way
or another. For example, Dropbox was quite revolutionary in the way everyone
uses and shares files I think. Reddit changed internet discourse (in some
valuable, and in some complicated ways), though its trajectory is uncertain.

Maybe there could be a stronger version of a Mission statement? Something like
companies committing to a mission statement, and being liable somehow to
acting inconsistency with it (who would monitor this though? should be some
kind of external entity), and shareholders/board members should not be allowed
to modify it in a manner gravely inconsistent with the original vision.

~~~
kerkeslager
> I guess it's more of a particular interpretation, of me growing up with a
> 90s idealism of saving the world. It's a bit naive of course, but a naivety
> of the hopeful kind, not of ignorant kind.

I think you're missing the critical disconnect between startups and hacker
ethic.

There's no conflict between hacker ethic and saving the world. Wikipedia in
the early days is a _great_ example of that, but I'd really hesitate to call
Wikipedia a "startup" at that time. Hacker ethic isn't about saving the world,
it's about doing something cool. But saving the world can be cool.

The conflict between hacker ethic and startups is money, and Wikipedia as it
has grown is a great example of that too: as Wikipedia started taking on more
projects, they started needing funding. In order to get that funding, they
needed respectability, because donors wouldn't donate to some weird offbeat
hacker project. This caused the rise of deletionism: a respectable
encyclopedia doesn't have a separate article for every Pokémon. Wikipedia did
originate with the hacker ethic, but that hacker ethic became irrelevant as
soon as money became a motivating factor.

And that's also the thing about open source: yeah, open source software (and
moreso free software) are part of hacker culture. People who hand-wring about
how open source isn't profitable don't get it: that's not why a lot of open
source developers write open source software.

If you want to make money off writing code, you don't create an open source
project, you create a startup: create a platform, track your users, find the
thing they value the most about the platform, and monetize that. Oh, and while
you're doing that, you've made enough ethical compromises that you can't
really be said to be saving the world any more, but that wasn't really ever
the goal, now was it?

The people in the world who need saving the most are the ones who can't pay to
be saved--if they could pay to be saved they would have done it already. There
isn't money in saving the world.

------
ImaCake
Maybe part of the problem is the author is engaging with people on Twitter.
Twitter appears to me, an outsider, as a messy hateful place where people
throw one-liners of hate at each for reasons that are very difficult for
outsiders to understand.

Somewhat unrelated, but last night I was trying to make sense of the trans-
activist hatred towards J. K. Rowling and I could not understand what was
going on. Like, it wasn't that I couldn't understand the argument that was
generating such strong emotions, it is that I couldn't even find the argument
in the first place. There was just a heap of hatred and anger being spewed
across twitter and I had no idea who they were really angry at and what their
argument was. Frankly, I think we would all be better off if Twitter didn't
exist. It seems to be a very stupid place.

------
standardUser
"When you say you are good at something, that's arrogant. When you say you're
bad at something, people tell you that you're not, or treat it as weakness."

There are a thousand ways to say you're good at something. Some of them will
make you appear arrogant, some will make you appear humble, with endless
options in between. I don't know who this author is or what specific axes they
have to grind, but instead of taking broad swipes at all of society, maybe
consider your own communication skills and how they are not leading to the
results you desire. If you're starting from a position of "there is one way to
express a thought and it will always be met with this specific response", you
are a pretty far way from actually improving your situation.

------
mlthoughts2018
This is basically a restatement of the core of Robin Hanson’s years-long set
of Overcoming Bias posts about “homo hypocritus”.

The short answer is status. The game you are playing with others (whether you
want to or not) is all about political status. It’s not at all about objective
successful outcomes. It’s about who can utilize politics as a resource to take
what they want and entrench their hold of it.

For example in medieval times, decrying scientific progress as heretical
served the purpose of allowing monarchs and religious figureheads to retain
power. Who gives a shit how planetary orbits work if you can decapitate your
enemies becuz god.

This is a very deeply ingrained evolutionary aspect of humans and we are not
modern or sophisticated in terms of defeating it.

To expect otherwise is naive & frankly frustrating.

------
bartread
This is why it's important to choose very carefully who your friends are and
who you associate with: you want people around who are going to be positive
and encouraging, not tear you down no matter what you do. You also need to
develop a very thick skin.

One also needs to be careful not to fall into the same trap of criticism and
negativity oneself - it's just way too easy to be a hypocrite.

(An aside: constructive criticism can be helpful, although I think almost any
kind of criticism too early in any learning/exploratory/discovery process can
be counter-productive. Some people couch tearing you down as "constructive
criticism". Again, it's a good strategy to simply avoid such people, or manage
them out of your life, where you can.)

------
cranium
I think it's a social status quo deadlock. People want to appear flawless
because any flaw in one domain will affect how they are seen in other domains.
It's a signal that says "Look at this person making mistakes, he/she is worst
than all these other people that didn't make one!" [1].

Best way to avoid making mistakes ? Not trying.

------
mrfusion
I was at an interview once and the job description said they wanted an expert
in sql. So when they asked me to rate my sql skills I felt I should say expert
since that’s why I’m there.

Well the “expert” word triggered them and they said “well, if you’re an expert
you can answer these obscure questions ...” and obviously I failed it.

This article made me think of that.

------
dec0dedab0de
I have observed this behavior, but never really understood it. Sometimes I
have to think of people as having left over bits of event based code that
overrides everything else in certain circumstances. Trying to remember what
effects which people in which ways is my biggest challenge in work and
probably life in general.

------
nickthemagicman
I've always thought that most people either judge you for being below them or
worship you for being above them.

Very few people occupy that middle ground where they are just happy for you
and treat you as a person with motivations, flaws, and gifts.

I'd gander to say this hierarchical primitive behavior is a major impediment
to human progress.

~~~
whytaka
I have noticed the opposite. My impression is that most people's identities
are so coloured by their insecurities that people usually come together more
on being able to laugh at their common insufficiencies and also on the things
they hate in common. But this is perhaps because I'm still relatively young
and the people I encounter are still working on realizing themselves.

~~~
nickthemagicman
Well you work in a remarkably status free place or, possibly, you're one of
the privileged ones and might not even know it!

------
carapace
> If I sat down and tried to design a set of social norms for discouraging
> people from being their best selves, I honestly don't think I could have
> done a better job than this.

> Why don't we want people to be good at things?

Historically most people were peasants or serfs. The only thing they were
expected to be good at was that, and were actively discouraged from doing
anything else.

We have gone from "Civilization and Its Discontents" to the Human Potential
Movement in the blink of an eye.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization_and_Its_Disconten...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization_and_Its_Discontents)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Potential_Movement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Potential_Movement)

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
> A thing I got pissed off at a while ago was reactions to someone talking
> about having weekly one-on-ones with his wife

My guess is that it would have gone over a lot better if the person had stated
that he had weekly scheduled dates with his wife.

> When someone tries to do something good and we don't think it's the right
> thing, we punish them.

Why are you announcing your good deeds to the whole world? A lot of religions
and cultures condemn things like that. Do good for its own sake, not to be
rewarded and praised by your peers. I think a lot of the issues the author
describes are a backlash from oversharing.

~~~
quadrifoliate
> Why are you announcing your good deeds to the whole world? A lot of
> religions and cultures condemn things like that.

Most religions are built upon stories of other people's good deeds. It seems
hardly fair to disallow people from airing their own :)

~~~
dragonwriter
Most religions are built on third-party narratives of other people's good
deeds; it's absolutely self-consistent for them to have negative view of
first-party narrative of the same topic.

------
082349872349872
A "Culture Club" seems to have been a place people went in soviet times when
they were bad (or even already halfway decent) at things, in order to improve
in a supportive environment.

So far, the only clue I have as to how close practice came to theory is the
1956 film "Carnival Night", in which old-school russian hackers mess with the
power and information nets of their club in order to save their New Year's
party from a Party functionary who takes his leadership role entirely too
seriously.

(would a community college be a rough US equivalent?)

------
khazhoux
Author is overlooking an important point: we tend to only judge people who
compete with us directly. To paraphrase Nietzsche:

"The vanity of others offends our taste only when it offends our own vanity."

~~~
yesenadam
La Rochefoucauld (1670s) :

"What makes the vanity of others insufferable to us is that it wounds our
own."

------
cfitz
I beleive this thread would be even more popular with the last line in the
article as its title on HN: "Why don't we want people to be good at things?"

This is what we need to be asking ourselves in our current society, especially
given the often very real torturous cycle regarding success and others which
the author outlined in their post.

------
ericmcer
Is there really droves of people waiting to shame others who aren’t good at
things? Generally every community I have joined (rock climbing, lifting,
programming) has been really supportive to new people. Maybe most of this
shame OP is feeling is internal? I can relate to that, it’s hard to be
weak/bad at something.

------
fullshark
Just ignore the idiots if it works for you. If you are a public figure online
and your ideas/thoughts are viewable by the entire planet, don't expect
everyone to think they are good ones. The entire planet is not your friends,
just a bunch of idiots looking for temporary amusement/distraction.

------
kgin
There isn’t an obligation to be bad.

But there are things in life that people generally feel lose their meaning
when subjected to the dispassionate tools of efficiency and productivity.

For many “engineering types”, we may not feel the distinction as acutely
(isn’t all the world just problems to solve?)

------
stevens32
I think anything anyone does will get varying types of attention if enough
people see it, some of it will be negative and some of it positive. Each of
the "You will be punished for X" could just be "Someone will try to punish you
for X".

------
fmajid
This is known as the Law of Jante:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante)

------
_aleph2c_
"You can either do something, or be someone" \-- John Boyd

------
jack_pp
This is because people have egos. Most people have fragile ones. All this
pussyfooting is to protect their egos.

Watching Revoler (2005) is very eye opening in this regard.

~~~
clairity
don't dismiss so quickly the importance of _some_ "pussyfooting".

we're all thrown together randomly, at different points in our various growth
cycles, so we stub toes and step on foots constantly, in that relentless
sorting of status in the midst of developing ability.

it's good to remember that we need to constantly build our own fragile egos,
protecting them when necessary, and do the same for others. chicks are
encouraged out of the nest when their wings are likely strong enough to fly,
not before.

------
jonnypotty
We do want to be good at things but humans are very good at putting structures
in place with easy to see benifits and difficult to see costs.

------
hateful
It isn't always the case, but a lot of times people do this to other people
because they themselves are insecure.

------
antisthenes
I haven't found this to be a problem.

Sounds like the author needs better friends and/or a more supportive social
circle.

------
zelly
Stop caring what other people think of you. The ego is the problem.

~~~
zadkey
I agree this works on an individual level. But if other people few insecure by
your confidence, security or success, they may try to sabotage you. You still
need to be aware of this dynamic so that you aren't blindsided people jealous
or angry over your success and their own relative failure by which they are
comparing you to even you are not comparing them or judging them yourself.

------
fewaw2322
I can't see the original tweet, so I don't know the full details. But my first
reaction to hearing "weekly one-on-ones with the wife" is that it sounds
impersonal and disrespectful. You don't describe personal relationships with
business jargon.

It's an unspoken social rule, so maybe the person who said that wasn't aware.
If that's the case, they deserve leniency for an honest mistake.

Or, maybe the person really thinks of their relationship in terms of a
business arrangement. Maybe the husband and wife have a mutual understanding
of that. Or maybe the husband sees nothing wrong with treating love like a
business transaction, and the wife does. Of course people would call that out,
to re-enforce the norm that this is not okay.

So what's the reality? You don't know. You don't know this person, and they
don't know you. So why are they posting this, to an audience of strangers, who
have no context for their remarks? And why are you replying to it, acting like
you understand the context?

Twitter is designed to nurture this sort of discourse. It's the perfect medium
for drive-by commentary, arm chair experts, and context-free conversations.
Not to mention, the perfect vacuum for bad faith actors to spread bullshit.

