>>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.
The social obligation to be bad at things
101–110 of 248 posts
Re: The social obligation to be bad at things
#102I 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…
To me this also works the other way around. If am overly critical to others' work, my own work suffers. Only realized this now, thanks.
Re: The social obligation to be bad at things
#103Can 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…
I think the main reason people don't like it is aesthetic. If you told people that whatever else was happening, you always made time to have a conversation with your wife at least once a week that wasn't purely transactional (discussing the week's meal planning, children's school schedules etc.). I think people would think that was a good idea. Using a "corporate" term for it, rubs many people the wrong way. Secondar…
> It is considered a bit lame to try.
I believe this is the real thesis of the article. Why it is okay to be successful is that you no longer need to try - or if you believe talent is innate that some people never had to try. Struggling to get better, being bad, and improving all reek of “trying.”
Re: The social obligation to be bad at things
#104I'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.
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.
Well you work in a remarkably status free place or, possibly, you're one of the privileged ones and might not even know it!
Re: The social obligation to be bad at things
#105The 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 ca…
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 a…
> 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?
No one's saying they don't really care about their partner. It's possible to be put off and derisive of that language without judging whether they truly care.
> 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?
I mean, yeah. That part of Hacker News is pretty appalling. We _should_ be angry about dehumanizing language in a business context.
Re: The social obligation to be bad at things
#106See: The myth we love new ideas - people resist change, including progress from 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.
Re: The social obligation to be bad at things
#107I 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…
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…
If your works are displayed in a museum, you're not a struggling amateur. You're supposed to have some kind of ability and that ability shouldn't have to be defended by pointless platitudes.
"Modern" "Art" is very far from someone actually creating something out of passion or curiosity. Last time I visited the Guggenheim, there were three different "works" from three different "artists" on display - all of them were plain, white canvases.
I could have done that, but I didn't - because I'm not sufficiently full of shit. I'd much rather enjoy someone's first attempt at C64 graphics or short story writing or programming, or try to improve my own skills in any of those areas (and many other).
Re: The social obligation to be bad at things
#108I 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…
On a similar vein of thought, I asked someone yesterday if certain best practices were relevant to their use case, instead of talking about how many shortcomings their app has.
Re: The social obligation to be bad at things
#109I 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."
This is often called "strategic incompetence" (or feigned incompetence).
Re: The social obligation to be bad at things
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree, and did not mean to imply judgement against anyone who dislikes "Fountain" and other, similar pieces of art. I don't even know how I truly feel about "Fountain" either; all I know is that it is quite thought provoking for me and has taught me a lot about how I think about and digest the world. To me, even if the art is ugly and snobbish, it still has merit if it helps us better explore our world. The art pie…
Thanks for taking this the right way :) It's definitely a conversation worth having. There are plenty of things I consider art that other people despise.
[deleted]