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

241–248 of 248 posts

Re: The social obligation to be bad at things

#241

Post by naveen99 »

Traster wrote: post #118

>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…

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.

Re: The social obligation to be bad at things

#242

Post by renewiltord »

cutemonster wrote: post #212
renewiltord wrote: post #136

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 Wak…

> 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

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.

Re: The social obligation to be bad at things

#243

Post by tayo42 »

dorkwood wrote: post #168
tayo42 wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You should be able to discern what's wrong with your own work. I think thats why people ask for critique or feedback, because they don't know yet. If you had a teacher they would be right there to help you lean the words and how to figure that out. Asking for feedback is really just trying to use the internet as a replacement for a teacher or mentor.

I understand what you're saying, that to beginners there are a lot of "unknown unknowns", but not everything should fall into that category. Even with a real-life teacher or mentor I'd give the same advice: go to them with a problem you're having or something you're trying to work on, rather than asking for general tips on how to get better. We might have different fields of study in mind. In everything I've studied,…

I was thinking about my experiences drawing and painting. If you do something like impressionistic it can be hard to judge, did I do to much detail, not enough detail. With pen drawing it took me awhile to realize how much more depth i needed to add by using darker values. It did take me a while to have that click. I suspect it would have been obvious if I took a drawing I did and one I considered well done to compare and asked someone experienced to point out the differences.

But also personally when writing it helps to get feedback to a vague question like what do you think. The writing I've done is non fiction, technical blog like stuff. I think the vague question of "what do you think", "how can i make it better" works there because it stands alone. Even when presenting a picture I can almost kind of prime you're reaction with a blurb about it.

> go to them with a problem you're having or something you're trying to work on, rather than asking for general tips on how to get better.

I agree with that, you does help to have a goal when asking for help to make it effective

Re: The social obligation to be bad at things

#244

Post by BrandoElFollito »

evmar wrote: post #12

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…

I find a lot of contemporary art awful.

Yes, I did not do it because I find it awful. When something is "though provoking" (a blank painting, or the urinal discussed elsewhere) I am simply reinforced in my opinion that people think differently (and obviously my thinking is the most appropriate). There is nothing to provoque here, just diffrent galaxies of concerns and thoughts.

Re: The social obligation to be bad at things

#246

Post by kerkeslager »

NateEag wrote: post #222
bostonvaulter2 wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 pe…

> 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.

Re: The social obligation to be bad at things

#247

Post by cutemonster »

renewiltord wrote: post #242
cutemonster wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

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…

> 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

Re: The social obligation to be bad at things

#248

Post by 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.)

Post reply on HN