Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The social obligation to be bad at things

notebook.drmaciver.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 248 posts

Re: The social obligation to be bad at things

#11

Post by dpeck »

commandlinefan wrote: post #3

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 s…

It sounds silly, but set aside time for a purpose is a good thing. A friend of mine and his spouse do a twice a year “offsite” where they go camping somewhere and spend half of the Saturday talking about where they are in the year financially, relationship, what they want to accomplish as a couple, etc

Re: The social obligation to be bad at things

#12

Post by 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.

Re: The social obligation to be bad at things

#13

Post by amflare »

commandlinefan wrote: post #3

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 s…

Sure, as long as you acknowledge that trying to date your employees/manager as a regular part of your professional interactions is also not "in any way a good idea". Getting your translation files mixed up when communicating can make anything seem weird and out of place. Find the root - "intentional interaction with the other party within the established context of the existing socio-personal relationship for the purpose of strengthening and improving said relationship" - then retranslate into the environment in question. You date your wife and hold one-on-ones with co-workers. Its not weird, its just the wrong translation.

Re: The social obligation to be bad at things

#14

Post by 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.

Re: The social obligation to be bad at things

#15

Post by karatestomp »

commandlinefan wrote: post #3

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 s…

> 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?

Some folks have a gut-level extremely bad reaction to structuring or treating relationships (romantic or otherwise) "scientifically" or in some structured way. I'm one of them. Grosses me out as surely as seeing maggots burrowing in my steak. It's not rational and goes against everything I rationally believe about the power of systems and environment to engineer success, and I've had to learn to work against that feeling pretty often, but, there you go. Knowing that doesn't get rid of the feeling and tendency toward aversion.

I suspect the people making posts that "pissed off" OP were largely having this reaction and didn't get that not everyone has it.

Re: The social obligation to be bad at things

#16

Post by matt_morgan »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #8

> 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 rel…

You don't know that there was oversharing. Or in any case, consider situations in which they're not oversharing. Everything he says might still be true in those cases. So your argument kind of slides around the point, it doesn't counter it.

The author is using a blunt kind of language that may encourage us to disagree. You're right that it could be said better ("date" is a good example). But there's still truth in it.

Re: The social obligation to be bad at things

#17

Post by xeromal »

commandlinefan wrote: post #3

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 s…

Yeah, you're the person he's talking about. If that's the way he can better communicate with his wife and she's ok with it, that's all that matters.

I used to randomize calendar events on my phone to remind me to call grandma, see dad, game with my brother, etc. It was very robotic looking and if I told anyone about it, I got weird looks but years later, I have great relationships with everyone in my family because I basically trained myself and the people I reached out to communicate well and not let conversation be awkward. If OP kept this up, I bet his relationship at worst would be the same and more likely healthier.

Re: The social obligation to be bad at things

#18

Post by hundchenkatze »

cwojno wrote: post #10
RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #8

> 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 rel…

Example of author's point?

I think it is, yes.

Re: The social obligation to be bad at things

#19

Post by s0rce »

kerkeslager wrote: post #9

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 expe…

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.

Re: The social obligation to be bad at things

#20

Post by 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.
Post reply on HN