Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login
Is it too late to be awesome? (medium.com)
143 points by dennybritz 1401 days ago | hide | past | web | 75 comments | favorite



What's so terrible about not being "awesome?"

How about just living a decent life? Being kind and helpful?

There's a kind of virtue ethics at work around these parts, and the primary virtue is "awesomeness." A sociologist or ethicist could write a whole thesis about this community.

It's not a universal idea. Some people have a primary virtue of "decency." Or even "humility." Taste those words for a moment...

"Comparing is as much of a disease as perfection. When we learn to be ourselves, be patient, and how to be comfortable in our own skin, then – and only then – will we achieve true happiness."

An ancient Zen poem says "For and against opposing each other -- this is the mind's disease." Of course, this site revolves around a highly competitive market. Ambition is its lifeblood...

I think that if you want to be happy, that's not going to come from success or ambition or striving. They seem more or less orthogonal.

An interesting question might be: What would you do if you were already happy and content? Think of it as like the question of what you would do if you already were financially independent. Call it emotional independence, maybe. Equanimity?


I agree. I saw that Steve Jobs video that was making the rounds last week on how he saw his legacy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zut2NLMVL_k

I think that idea can apply in all industries and creative endeavors. It's okay to be forgotten, just appreciate that future generations will stand taller on the sediment that you have created merely by existing.

To your last sentence, there was also a recent episode of the podcast Back to Work (http://5by5.tv/b2w/120) where they talk about safety nets, in response to their friend Marco Arment and the acquisition of Tumblr by Yahoo. I transcribed a few portions of it for my own reflection:

120: @43:30 - [posed as a question to the listener] What if you had enough of whatever you need to do something? What do you not have right now that the safety net would eventually provide?

120: @48:50 - You probably haven't spent your life rehearsing on how to be happy with what you have, you spend your life rehearsing what will happen when you "finally never have to worry about anything again".

120: @55:30 - Having more money will let you have a more expensive weekend, but unless you've practiced enjoying weekends during your life, it's going to be a very hard change.


very well said. I consider what you have said "awesome". I am agreement with this post. I think being comfortable with who you are is important. Recognising what you have already got and appreciating it is important. Ambition is something that people do when they are trying to find happiness and to be comfortable with who they are. I think it all comes down to one's approach to everything. Its good to have ambition, especially if its directed in the correct way. I would say on here, that an ambition to learn, create, inspire and make a difference is what most folks apsire to do...


And since when has awesomeness been mutually exclusive with decency, kindness, or even helpfulness?

I think that if you want to be happy, that's not going to come from success or ambition or striving. They seem more or less orthogonal.

Some of us require a certain level of striving to be happy. If we're not being awesome enough, we get depressed.

An interesting question might be: What would you do if you were already happy and content?

But short of a few things I cope with, I am happy and content.


I'm not positing any mutual exclusion. Just hinting at a possible overvaluing or a distortion. Maybe that's not relevant for you.

Of course all these words are flexible and can encompass a wide span. If awesomeness motivates you towards real goodness, that's, well, awesome.

But I think that for some, it can have aspects of self-obsession, an excessive concern with entrepreneurial success, an overemphasis on individual achievement causing neglect of softer, less "specular" values -- like kindness.

Not to imply any lack of kindness. What I'm trying to say has more to do with how we value our kindness. The tragedy would be someone with a kind heart who thinks themselves worthless because they haven't completed any "awesome" projects on their own.


As a university student I'm surrounded by brilliant people, a lot of whom excel in academics. This has always been really frustrating for me.

I think the takeaway message I've learned from school, and in life, is that there will always be someone who is better than you at something. I'm always envious of my peers who are better at (X), and I forget that if I reflect on my own skills, I'll find (Y) that I can do better.

You'll likely never find someone who is better than you at EVERYTHING.

Everyone has strengths and weaknesses. I think there's a certain beauty in that, because by working together, we get the benefit of being good at X and Y. This is why cofounders who have complementing skill sets are so successful.

Find something you like, and just do it. Connect with people that do things you don't like to do or are not as good at. The rest will fall in place.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.” - Albert Einstein


Well said. All I'll add is, thanks to the internet, there is much more comparing going on. An unhealthy amount imho.

This is a great motivator for some people. For others not so much. One needs to figure out where one falls in the spectrum and moderate time spent looking at what the rest of the world is up to accordingly.


I try not to think of it as a motivator or something to make me feel minuscule. I think it's real strength is to remind you that things are possible. You may not have to live up to the other people's heights, but it reminds you that other people have climbed mountains the world didn't even know exists. Reminds you not to keep your own mountains sitting in the back of your mind, even if they're just molehills.


You don't have to think of it as a motivator or something that makes you feel minuscule.

Given the time people are spending on the internet these days, exposed to things no other generation was, much of this happens subconsciously.


I agree on both points.


> Well said. All I'll add is, thanks to the internet, there is much more comparing going on. An unhealthy amount imho.

Amen to that. I usually feel more fulfilled when I restrict my online "achiever" voyeurism -- just enough to be inspired, but not so much that I feel a hopeless mortal among titans.


I found a niche at the intersection of art, music, engineering, and manufacturing. I basically said to myself in 2005, "What am I better at than anyone else?" and proceeded to build my niche into a viable business. At this one thing, I'm confident (not because of my own evaluation, but the judgment of my target market) that I've found something I'm very good at that's worth pursuing. Yes this is very general advice, but it worked for me.... hope it sheds some light.


Just trying to get the nasty nitpick comment right:

Quoting Lao Tzu from quote sites is to be avoided, except in ironic context. Lao Tzu (Lao Zi) is the supposed authors of a very small Chinese classic called Daodejing. It has 81 poems, and I wasn't able to find anyone that would be close enought to this "be yourself" quote. "Be yourself" is not even a concept that can be found in this book, because in fact "be", and "self" are not Taoist concepts.

What related teaching could be found in this book, you'll say? In fact, it could be more something like "kill your desires", "hide your intelligence", "return to the origin", and many paradox like "the dumbest is the most clever", "the weakest is the strongest", "be not having any will everything happens according to your wishes".

So maybe I can invent a Laotzu quote more relevant to the article: "try to be awesome and everyone is bored, try not to be awesome and everyone will wow in awe"


I've been wondering about this line of thinking lately, and I'm confused if its actually productive.

For example: I need to lose about 15 pounds. If I just accepted myself as me, I'd never really work towards the better picture of myself, 15 pounds lighter. Doesn't this apply when trying to better yourself in other ways?

If I'm not imagining a future where I'm better than I am right now, how will I ever get to it? What easier way to imagine how one could be better than to look at what other people have, and hope to have it myself.

I feel like, eventually, people just end up settling and stop fighting to better themselves. I think the older someone is, the more likely the are to have settled. I hope for myself, that I keep fighting.


As I've gotten older I've come to discover that there's a really fine line to walk here. You want to be motivated. You want to develop the best version of you that you possibly can.

However, being CRITICAL of yourself is about the most counter-productive thing a person can do. When you are critical of yourself, you do things for the wrong reason. Lamenting about how fat you are leads you to diet, but you never make real lifestyle changes to support it. A personal trainer friend of mine has made the observation that the best way to lose weight and get fit is to first develop the ability to be happy.

There is science to support this mindset. Constant self-teardown comes with real physiological changes in your body. You'll be more anxious, which means you'll spend more time in a sympathetic nervous state. The increase in adrenaline and cortisol leave you feeling sluggish and worn out. Guess what happens when you feel like that? You eat to much, you sleep to much, and you generally do everything you wanted to stop doing in the first place!

There are a whole host of things that go on when you push yourself instead of learning to be yourself. None of those things are very good.

I've been a driven guy. I've been successful in a startup. I've failed terribly. As I reach my mid-30's I've found myself focused on becoming content. Surprisingly, I've found that my productivity and desire haven't really changed much. I still want to do really well, but now I keep everything in perspective and I'm much happier for it.


Thank you so much for that. If I just started doing something I compared myself to professionals, if my work started to look good compared to them I started comparing myself with best people in profession I knew about, and if I could not find anyone better then I would start comparing myself against imaginary ideal. I knew it was bad for my self esteem but I thought that it will make me achieve more. Thanks for showing me a reason why being so critical about myself is not needed.


> If I just accepted myself as me

Mistake #1. You have to visualize yourself as temporarily overweight, then go about exercising/changing your diet (you know, more fiber, less carb's) to reach that new set-point.

Measure your caloric intake, and your weight every day. If your intake is less than your standard metabolic activity, you'll lose weight. It's that simple.

> I feel like, eventually, people just end up settling and stop fighting to better themselves.

Don't do that! Yes the majority of people do that, but that doesn't mean you have to as well. I have too many old healthy people in my family to fall into that trap.


Weighing every day is terrible advice for those trying to lose weight. Weigh yourself at most once a week else the short term fluctuations (hint, drinking a pint of water is half a kilo) will distract you over the long term goal of getting to a healthier base weight.


I find that weighing daily helps me notice changes in the weight trend fairly quickly. I've also calibrated my sense of what the normal fluctuations are by graphing my weight and taking moving averages for a while, though. So I can look at the scale reading four pounds above yesterday morning and say "hmm, maybe I shouldn't have eaten that whole pizza by myself".

Faster feedback loops are better for training. You just have to spend a little time installing a filter sometimes.


The article doesn't say you need to accept yourself as you are. The advice is to be yourself and not compare to others. This is great advice and it's the reason I'm a happy person.

The self is a state that can only be observed instantaneously, so change is an expected phenomenon. The key to losing that weight is to forget about the fact that you want to lose the 15 lbs. Don't focus on the result, but instead on the journey that will get you there. Learn to enjoy a daily workout and healthy diet. Success is a mindset, not a destination.


The people who accomplish the most are never satisfied with how much they have accomplished. Series of accomplishments require continuous accomplishing, which requires motivation. These high-achievers continue to accomplish so much because they constantly motivate themselves with thoughts of inadequacy. I assume most people only follow others who they see as more accomplished than themselves in some way. By definition you must follow someone in order to compare yourself to them. Thus, you must only compare yourself to people more accomplished than you. By doing do, you promote in yourself the same feelings of inadequacy that drive thr most acccomplished people.

tl;dr Compare your accomplishments to greater accomplishments by other people. Feelings of inadequacy will motivate you to accomplish more.


If you look at some of the most successful people, most of them are driven by other motivators besides success. Many are driven to make a difference in the world (Steve Jobs, Elon Musk, etc), others were super super curious (Richard Feynmann, Neil Degrasse Tyson, Warren Buffett) and pursued / stuck with their passions, and others were at the right place at the right time (and of course people are often some combo of all 3). The thing is, very few people just are addicted to success for the SAKE of success, and some of those people have an unhealthy addiction for money. Success is what you make of it. There are many people in the energy sector driven to eradicate global warming and get off our fossil fuel addiction. Many of them will be never known to the world / famous in any way, but they are always looking to make more and more of an impact daily and be successful over time (even if many of them won't ever be rich or famous).


I think many people are seeking success for success' sake - at least it's a significant part of why they do what they do. The fact that they want to make a difference in the world may be true, but I think it's often a mix, and that people fool themselves to believe that their need to feed their ego is smaller than it actually is. The risk from this, is that although people are fighting for a good cause, their ego may interfere in bad ways in certain situations, leading to decisions and actions which hurts the good cause in short or long term (for example by pushing away other people who may do a better job than themselves).

(This, of course, doesn't go for everybody.)

Edit: Note that becoming rich and famous isn't the only way to feed your ego.


I attended a talk given by a Buddhist monk named Ajahn Brahm about a year ago. He said that 70% is always good enough. The reasoning goes that if you strive for 100% (or 110%, like some brag about doing) you will very often disappoint yourself (as well as those around you). If you go for 50%, you won't be motivated enough. So 70% seems about right. (There is a Youtube video of him talking about this subject [1].)

There is tendency today that everybody wants to accomplish so much. I know this from myself: Compared with many of my friends, I have accomplished quite a lot - but it doesn't satisfy me, I need more to be happy. I agree with the author that we should focus more on just being. Because, if you think of it, what happens when you have accomplished whatever you had aimed for? It feels great... for a little while. Then, life is back to normal. We often believe the fallacy that happiness is available somewhere in the future, not here and now, and once we get this or that - THEN we will be happy[2]. And so you risk rigging your life in order to always reach for the next mountain top you have in sight, thinking that it's the final one.

An Australian nurse interviewed people on their death bed about their regrets in life[3]. The second biggest regret was that people had worked too hard.

Think about the real motives for what you do: If you do something to prove yourself for others (e.g. fame and glory), you're fooling yourself. First of all because it will most likely not make you happy, second because you will be forgotten anyway (especially today when everybody claims their 15 minutes of fame). If you strive for something because you think it will make you more happy, you are fooling yourself to believe that happiness is somewhere in the future and not available now.

On the other hand, if the road is the goal, you are more likely rigging your life for lasting happiness. In the end, what is the use of accomplishing things if you are, and continue to be, unhappy?

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6k6DMp1TxQ

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixRISCK7pmE

[3] http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2012/feb/01/top-five-...


I am curious. What was the biggest regret of the dying patients?


"I wish I'd had the courage to live a life true to myself, not the life others expected of me."

The rest are here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2012/feb/01/top-five-...


Meet Jon Von Neumann :

Von Neumann's ability to instantaneously perform complex operations in his head stunned other mathematicians. Eugene Wigner wrote that, seeing von Neumann's mind at work, "one had the impression of a perfect instrument whose gears were machined to mesh accurately to a thousandth of an inch."

Paul Halmos states that "von Neumann's speed was awe-inspiring."

Israel Halperin said: "Keeping up with him was... impossible. The feeling was you were on a tricycle chasing a racing car." Edward Teller wrote that von Neumann effortlessly outdid anybody he ever met, and said "I never could keep up with him".

Lothar Wolfgang Nordheim described von Neumann as the "fastest mind I ever met", and Jacob Bronowski wrote "He was the cleverest man I ever knew, without exception.He was a genius."

George Pólya, whose lectures at ETH Zurich von Neumann attended as a student, said "Johnny was the only student I was ever afraid of. If in the course of a lecture I stated an unsolved problem, the chances were he'd come to me at the end of the lecture with the complete solution scribbled on a slip of paper."

Halmos recounts a story told by Nicholas Metropolis, concerning the speed of von Neumann's calculations, when somebody asked von Neumann to solve the famous fly puzzle: Two bicyclists start twenty miles apart and head toward each other, each going at a steady rate of 10 mph. At the same time a fly that travels at a steady 15 mph starts from the front wheel of the southbound bicycle and flies to the front wheel of the northbound one, then turns around and flies to the front wheel of the southbound one again, and continues in this manner till he is crushed between the two front wheels. Question: what total distance did the fly cover? The slow way to find the answer is to calculate what distance the fly covers on the first, northbound, leg of the trip, then on the second, southbound, leg, then on the third, etc., etc., and, finally, to sum the infinite series so obtained. The quick way is to observe that the bicycles meet exactly one hour after their start, so that the fly had just an hour for his travels; the answer must therefore be 15 miles.

When the question was put to von Neumann, he solved it in an instant, and thereby disappointed the questioner: "Oh, you must have heard the trick before!" "What trick?" asked von Neumann, "All I did was sum the infinite series."

Von Neumann had a very strong eidetic memory, commonly called 'photographic' memory.Herman Goldstine writes: "One of his remarkable abilities was his power of absolute recall. As far as I could tell, von Neumann was able on once reading a book or article to quote it back verbatim; moreover, he could do it years later without hesitation. He could also translate it at no diminution in speed from its original language into English. On one occasion I tested his ability by asking him to tell me how The Tale of Two Cities started. Whereupon, without any pause, he immediately began to recite the first chapter and continued until asked to stop after about ten or fifteen minutes."

It has been said that von Neumann's intellect was absolutely unmatched. “I always thought Von Neumann’s brain indicated that he was from another species, an evolution beyond man,” said Nobel Laureate Hans A. Bethe of Cornell University. "It seems fair to say that if the influence of a scientist is interpreted broadly enough to include impact on fields beyond science proper, then John von Neumann was probably the most influential mathematician who ever lived," wrote Miklos Redai in "Selected Letters."

Glimm writes "he is regarded as one of the giants of modern mathematics".The mathematician Jean Dieudonné called von Neumann "the last of the great mathematicians", while Peter Lax described him as possessing the "most scintillating intellect of this century", and Hans Bethe stated "I have sometimes wondered whether a brain like von Neumann's does not indicate a species superior to that of man".


Snow Crash sums this up nicely:

Until a man is twenty-five, he still thinks, every so often, that under the right circumstances he could be the baddest motherfucker in the world. If I moved to a martial-arts monastery in China and studied real hard for ten years. If my family was wiped out by Colombian drug dealers and I swore myself to revenge. If I got a fatal disease, had one year to live, and devoted it to wiping out street crime. If I just dropped out and devoted my life to being bad. Hiro used to feel this way, too, but then he ran into Raven. In a way, this was liberating. He no longer has to worry about being the baddest motherfucker in the world. The position is taken.


I don't know whether the following is true or false, and whether it is good to spread it, but it is a telling lesson about not building your worth upon your "achievements": here is a description of Von Neumann learning about his own upcoming death:

"... his mind, the amulet on which he had always been able to rely, was becoming less dependable. Then came complete psychological breakdown; panic, screams of uncontrollable terror every night. His friend Edward Teller said, "I think that von Neumann suffered more when his mind would no longer function, than I have ever seen any human being suffer."

Von Neumann's sense of invulnerability, or simply the desire to live, was struggling with unalterable facts. He seemed to have a great fear of death until the last... No achievements and no amount of influence could save him now, as they always had in the past. Johnny von Neumann, who knew how to live so fully, did not know how to die.

http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Von_Neum...

To be absolutely clear: I am certain I wouldn't behave any better faced with my own upcoming death. I just think it's not too good to heroise famoous people and stories about them to the point they are no longer recognizable as humans at all...

And to be fair to the great man, here is a nice biographical article by noone else but Paul Halmos himself:

http://poncelet.math.nthu.edu.tw/disk5/js/biography/v-n.pdf


You can read that anecdote as telling you something extra about von Neumann, or you can read it as a reminder of how awful and terrible a thing death is -- an indictment of the way most people accept wrongness instead of fighting it.


I've always been fascinated with Von Neumann. Inventing game theory, developing the quintessential computer architecture, putting quantum mechanics on an axiomatic basis, having almost as many theorems named after him as Gauss... Few of us can even hope to develop his depth of mastery in one field, much less in the breadth and variety of fields in which he achieved.


Neumann didn't develop the Von Neumann architecture. He was one of many who worked on the ENIAC/EDVAC machine where it was developed. He summarized much of the work that was done, in the abstract (meaning that it was not classified), and his First Draft was distributed.

Years later, when John Mauchly was defending his patents on digital computers (after it had become declassified), the First Report was brought up as a public disclosure.


Does anyone know of a biography of Von Neumann? I've looked for one many times and never found any. It's like he was five different men – he revolutionized so many fields, any of which would have been an epic accomplishment. He was also the only one who immediately understood the significance and consequences of Gödel's incompleteness result, according to Goldstein's biography of that other genius.


Turing's Cathedral[1] is not a proper biography, but it's mostly all about Von Nuemann during the period where he worked on the early computer. I have read most of it while in the bookstore, and it's really good.

[1]http://books.google.com/books?id=6sElRNGXWFIC&printsec=front...


His daughter wrote a memoir: Martian's Daughter: A Memoir http://www.amazon.com/dp/B009HBYAR2/


What about "The world as a mathematical game: John von Neumann and twentieth century science"?


Prisoner's Dilemma by William Poundstone traces his development of game theory.



> George Pólya, whose lectures at ETH Zurich von Neumann attended as a student, said "Johnny was the only student I was ever afraid of. If in the course of a lecture I stated an unsolved problem, the chances were he'd come to me at the end of the lecture with the complete solution scribbled on a slip of paper."

Today, a lecturer is grateful if the majority of students stops playing WoW for 5 minutes during the lecture.


I'm confused. How is this relevant to the article?


When you look at someone like Neumann you learn to be humble. The gap between him and an average guy like me is so large that it seems silly to worry about wether I'm good enough.


I ask whether I'm good enough only when the person wins despite all odds stacked up against him. Including natural talent.

Von neumann, definitely is the greatest mathematician in the past few centuries.

I tend to compare myself with people who win despite having no natural talent for it.


But here's the thing: I often don't know who I'm comparing myself with.

Took some pictures, posted them and looked at other profiles, went back to the camera, worked harder, rinse and repeat. Turned out, the others were working for National Geographics and the like.

People don't start out as the greatest mathematician in the last few centuries. And how do you even differentiate between talent and hard work?


I'm not quite sure what point this is making. No one should feel any inadequacy compared to von Neumann - his intellectual gifts were handed down at birth, they were a fluke of genetics, a statistical outlier. Comparing your intellectual achievements to his is like comparing your wealth to that of David Tisch or Larry Ellison's kids.

The author of the piece, however, is pretty clearly comparing herself to peers - "kids that have had a computer since 1987". This is a valid mode of self-criticism; you can legitimately glean some insights from comparing yourself and your actions to those of people in similar circumstances. If this results in feelings of inadequacy, well, just waving it away is a disservice to yourself.


Another variant of the story has the series vs average reasoning as a trick to see whether JvN was a mathematician or a physicist. When he answers immediately, the questioner exclaims, "Aha, you must be a physicist". He replied, "but the series was so simple". (it's geometric IIRC)


In the case of the fly, von Neumann probably just calculated the length of the first and second trip and calculated the sum using the self-similarity of the series.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_series#Sum


"If you compare yourself with others, you may become vain and bitter; for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desiderata


My father in law is 80, he lifts weights every day, and can quote Shakespeare to you all day long. I hope to be half that awesome at that age.


If you really want to feel inadequate, check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann



My dad once said to me: "There will always be someone better than you".

It really pissed me off for ages, because I was like, what's the point then? What's the point if I can't be the best at something? But then I realised that if someone's always going to be the best and beat you, you don't have to strive in life to be the best at something. It kills the ego for me, which is a big battle for a lot of us. Being good at it and enjoying the journey is enough. I try to be excellent at what I do, but It doesn't matter if I'm not the best. Even if I am, It's unlikely I always will be and that's fine. For most of us that are average, it's unlikely we're going to be the next "Big thing". But who cares.

On a side note, this article seemed kind of nothingy, I don't think I learnt anything new from it so i'm wondering why it's so high on HN?


I feel like we see these kinds of posts fairly frequently.

And I'm glad. I knew everything that the author said yesterday. I probably knew it 10 or even 15 years ago. But it's really difficult to keep these ideas at the forefront of your mind. Being reminded of it often is the only way I've found so far.


As someone who's been struggling to find my way in life the last couple years (i'm 22, not in college, and working a low-skill job to make ends meet), I constantly run into this problem.

Indeed, reading HN makes me feel pretty horrible a lot of the time, reminding me of all the cool things people are doing, and that I might be able to do such things if I could only get off my ass. That I've been unable to focus adequately to get any practically useful coding, let alone reading, done in the last couple years has brought me significant distress, and seeing so many brilliant people on HN only makes me feel like i'm falling behind.

It's so easy to feel trapped by this, only entrenching yourself in inaction as you compare yourself to every person you feel is smarter or more successful than yourself.


My biggest problem was always comparing myself not to one man, but a great number of people. Unhappy, because I wasn't as cool as one guy, smart as this other guy, didn't have expensive stuff like this third guy. Then I realised that none of them have it all, and if I compare myself to only one of them, I would never trade my life for theirs.


No, it's not too late.

Fox example take Paul Stone, who started to workout after age of 60 [1]

Or Leslie Nielsen who's known for being a comedian started to act in comedies at the age of ~54.

[1] https://pp.vk.me/c418616/v418616330/5e45/LAj3RgtCnIU.jpg


There's a simple solution to this: stop comparing yourself to others and always strive to be better than yesterday you.

This way, you can improve every day (week/month/year) and become all that you can be without the stress of knowing that you'll never be the next Bill Gates or Zuckerberg or Musk.


I think one problem is that we tend to think about this in terms of willpower. To be awesome, all we have to do is really want it and work really hard, right? I suspect in reality it is much more about habits. Example: write a book by writing 2 hours every day, no matter what. Finish what you start? (Not sure if that is actually a good idea) If you have started one company, starting other companies will probably come much more natural to you. Or Aaron Swartz's "always say yes to everything". Little things like that. Of course you still need to find the right habits. I'm currently reading "The Luck Factor" and it also comes down to making a habit out of meeting more people and making new experiences - it's all a numbers game.


What is (or should be) the real driver here is the difference between striving for success and striving for creating value. If you strive for success it always feels as if there's a long way there, no matter how far you get. You can rarely see the best way forward because it's mostly depending on chance.

But if you strive for creating value you can start in an instant, by just being helpful to someone or (in the case of being a tech entrepreneur) building a small web service that you know that a handful of people find valuable.

With time, striving for creating value will take you on a straighter path to success than if you were aiming for success all along the way.


Here's the thing about many 'successful' people:

You see Kevin Rose's list of accomplishments and it seems overwhelming and insurmountable by a regular pleb such as yourself.

But Kevin Rose is just a regular pleb – and he certainly wasn't any different than you or I before he got "famous". You know what happened? He had one break-out success, and was then able to leverage that into a wide variety of other opportunities.

So focus on creating that one break-out success for yourself, the rest will come in due course.


It's never too late to be awesome. You just have to stop caring if YOU'RE awesome, and do more things you think would be pretty awesome.

When I turned 41, I started taking burlesque dance classes. I got a lot fitter and learnt a ton about how to carry myself confidently. I didn't have either of those things in mind when I started, or when I kept going to class. I was just getting out of the house and enjoying myself.


This reminds me of the saying: "Never compare your beginning to someone else's middle." It's never too late to start, so it's never too late to be awesome.


Some technology blog posts are starting to become largely indistinguishable in content from Cosmo magazine.

Oh, you feel inferior to you peers, etc.

So what? Do something about it, or shut up. Because you read Hacker News and a variety of other tech blogs you're predestined to be great? What is the difference between you and the teenager that reads Cosmo and wants to be beautiful and famous? Why are you even pursuing fame, or if that's not it, what are you pursuing? Why are you taking time out of your day to write blogs, don't you have something more important to do?


It depends on if you define awesome as how others see you or how you see yourself.


I think he already answered his own question in another post. Declares he's already awesome because he lives in NY & has an Amex.

https://medium.com/better-humans/fb2e4d6aea5f


That sentence is more an acknowledgment of a privileged life.


I'm a middle class kid that managed to go to under grad & grad school on scholarships. I've lived an extremely privileged life.

My opinions are formed by the life I have lived as it is the only life I will ever experience. I guess my interpretation of awesome is more in line with inspiring awe.

Depending on her background, her situation could very well inspire awe and be something she never thought possible. From my experiences, her examples of "awesome" in other posts are what I would consider "Sweet" even though she has several things I wish I had. If you measured everything in the world on a scale of awesomeness, rather than believing something has to hit a threshold of actually inspiring awe, then her life would be well above mine.

For more common forms of awesome, things like watching my younger brother with autism be able to take my dog for a walk is pretty awesome given everything else I have gone through with him. Living in the suburbs though, getting a piece of plastic that extends credit to me is not awe inspiring.


So you're saying that you use the word "sweet" the way she uses "awesome." And let's not go down the road of saying that "awesome" has to be used as if it was "awe some," as people clearly don't use it that way.


she


Welp, I'm a doofus.


So Von Nuemann and Kevin Rose are on the same level?


Do awesome, don't be awesome.


"Don't dream it, be it."


Subversively inspirational.


Wow, voted down for this. Fucking losers.


I came to a blistering realization about this: excellence wants to do, mediocrity wants to be. It's pretty evident. People who are doing excellent things are too busy in the action (flow) to obsess over others' perceptions, while mediocre people (most) have to manage their own social acceptability and success within an established permission system. You can really only have one or the other. You can deep-dive and go for excellence, or you can stay at the surface and be constantly attuned to others' perceptions of you, your work, and your position in society... but you can't be in two places at once.

http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2012/12/26/careerism-bre...

From that essay: Mediocrity wants to “be smart” and for everyone to know it. Excellence wants to do smart things. Mediocrity wants to be well-liked. Excellence wants to create things worth liking. Mediocrity wants to be one of the great writers. Excellence wants to write great works.

Right. But as Kefka said, "You sound like chapters from a self-help booklet!" Everyone can get behind these ideas-- it's a nice pep talk-- but you're actually going to end up in opposition to society if you try to live that way. It's hard. People in power will try to beat the crap out of you. If you really insist on doing great things, you should expect to pay for it. Trying to do great things at work injects a lot of job-loss risk that most people can't stand; trying to do great things outside of work requires discipline that most people don't have.

It's never "too late". We don't understand the brain, with regard to aging, very well and have no idea when a healthy person's creativity or cognitive power peaks-- it's somewhere between 15 and 70, but highly individualized-- which is another way of saying that there isn't a meaningful enough difference for us to know. (It's like a world in which unfair coins turn up heads 50.000001% of the time; it will take an ungodly amount of time to determine whether a coin is fair or unfair, but it just doesn't matter.) "Too late" is not what one should be worried about. Peoples' perceptions of us change dramatically as we get older. When you're 40, you can no longer exploit the chickenhawking of a corporate middle-manager who did his 20s wrong and wants to live vicariously through someone more sociable and attractive than him, which makes becoming his protege impossible... but, by the time you're 40, you really shouldn't want that. How we're perceived changes dramatically from 20 to 25 to 30 to 40. What we can do (in terms of creativity, courage, integrated understanding) seems to be increasing monotonically until very close to the end of life.

Really, though, "being awesome" is the wrong goal. The discussion should be around "doing awesome".




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: