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

How To Be Fucking Awesome

gilesbowkett.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 76 posts

Re: How To Be Fucking Awesome

#41

Post by mdakin »

fallentimes wrote: post #38
mdakin wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anomalies aren't necessarily evidence but in this case, and in many important general cases anomalies can be critically important evidence. He and his career constitute evidence that "height" is not a requirement to be an elite basketball player. It's definitional and not arguable. In science today's "anomaly" is sometimes the evidence that leads to tomorrow's breakthrough.

It's not a requirement but there's a massive correlation between the two. It's just like when people say they shouldn't worry about monetizing because of Google.

We are discussing prediction of success. Noticing one or two characteristics thought to be shared by the successful is really quite useless; most people with those characteristics do not succeed.

Most tall people suck at basketball. Some elite basketball players are short. The fact that most elite basketball players are tall does not really help us write our basketball-success-prediction algorithm. People dedicate their careers to solving this problem. It is very hard.

Since this is hard and likely to yield garbage results anyway, and most likely only leads to worry, time-wasting and excuse-making don't bother with these thoughts. Instead, erase every doubt from your mind, get in the long boat, row west and find Valhalla. (Given Google somehow came up I had no choice but to bring Valhalla into the discussion.)

Re: How To Be Fucking Awesome

#42

Post by asdflkj »

mdakin wrote: post #24
PieSquared wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And be sure to avoid confusion 'natural abilities' with talents. I agree with aneesh that you shouldn't focus on something that you are inferior at genetically - obviously a seven foot tall guy will be better at basketball and a normal sized person if both play professionally - but make sure you don't give up by saying, "I can't seem to do very well at this one thing. Eh, I suppose it's just not a natural ability."

Spud Webb is only 5'6" tall. He played in the NBA for 13 years and won the 1986 slam dunk contest with a "180-degree reverse two-handed strawberry jam." He was better than all the seven-feet-tall guys in that contest in 1986. Assessing potential is hard. For example, one might assume that "height" is a phenotypical requirement for being an elite basketballer. But Webb proved that assumption is incorrect. You'll likel…

I met a guy one time who did what he loved for most of his life--he played the piano. Despite practicing for 8 hours a day for years, he still wasn't good enough to be a professional performer. (His situation is not uncommon, apparently). Now he's close to middle age, broke and bitter.

So yeah, let those chips fall where they may, unless they end up turning your life into shit.

PG's advice comes co mind: "Stay upwind". Playing basketball or the piano is not upwind, so it might be wise to forgo those things even if you love them.

Re: How To Be Fucking Awesome

#43

Post by utsmokingaces »

Gates was brilliant because of his business decisions in which m$ partner up with IBM and dominated the PC operating system market. He was also brilliant in taking the risk in dropping out of Harvard and starting a business with Paul Allen. Gates is not famous for his coding skills. His coding ability is just one part of the foundation that led to his success.

Re: How To Be Fucking Awesome

#44

Post by aneesh »

beaudeal wrote: post #14

I found this really interesting, because we covered this exact topic in a psychology course that I took while in university, and I think that it is often mis-quoted / mis-used. The conclusion that was drawn from scientific research was that the vast majority of experts all shared a common trait - they all had at least 10,000 hours of deliberate practice (not that anyone who practiced for 10,000 hours would definitely…

In short, practice is necessary but not sufficient for awesomeness.

In particular, this implies: "If you have not practiced, then you are not awesome."

So to be awesome at X, you need:

1) some natural talent for X, varies based on the field

2) a love for X that will allow you to practice for 10,000 hours

Re: How To Be Fucking Awesome

#45

Post by aaronblohowiak »

aneesh wrote: post #44
beaudeal wrote: post #14

I found this really interesting, because we covered this exact topic in a psychology course that I took while in university, and I think that it is often mis-quoted / mis-used. The conclusion that was drawn from scientific research was that the vast majority of experts all shared a common trait - they all had at least 10,000 hours of deliberate practice (not that anyone who practiced for 10,000 hours would definitely…

In short, practice is necessary but not sufficient for awesomeness. In particular, this implies: "If you have not practiced, then you are not awesome." So to be awesome at X, you need: 1) some natural talent for X, varies based on the field 2) a love for X that will allow you to practice for 10,000 hours

3) the discipline to make 10,000 hours of your practice deliberate

Re: How To Be Fucking Awesome

#46

Post by fallentimes »

mdakin wrote: post #41
fallentimes wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a requirement but there's a massive correlation between the two. It's just like when people say they shouldn't worry about monetizing because of Google.

We are discussing prediction of success. Noticing one or two characteristics thought to be shared by the successful is really quite useless; most people with those characteristics do not succeed. Most tall people suck at basketball. Some elite basketball players are short. The fact that most elite basketball players are tall does not really help us write our basketball-success-prediction algorithm. People dedicate th…

The average height of an NBA basketball players is over 6' 6''. This helps us with our predictors of success. Sure there are other variables, but knowing this is very helpful especially if you had never watched an NBA game before.

Source: http://www.nba.com/news/survey_height_2006.html

Re: How To Be Fucking Awesome

#47

Post by david927 »

Wait, wait, wait. Bill Gates didn't program ANYTHING (at least not anything of note). He bought DOS, which made his fortune, and it was his connections through his mother which helped him in the deal with IBM.

You /can/ be awesome with practice. But Bill Gates isn't an example. (And, yes, I know he wrote an early Basic interpreter, but he was also considered a mediocre programmer by many who knew him.)

Re: How To Be Fucking Awesome

#48

Post by adldesigner »

jrockway wrote: post #23
adldesigner wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. I felt like doing some math. :) Anyway, one hour a day is what many of us have to pursue other personal goals different from work, family, etc.

> one hour a day is what many of us have to pursue other personal goals different from work, family, etc. Perhaps this lifestyle precludes being "fucking awesome"?

I'm certainly betting my wife finds me "fucking awesome" for bringing food back home, and no worries. :)

What would be your definition of being "fucking awesome"?

Re: How To Be Fucking Awesome

#49

Post by sherl0ck »

ScottHanson wrote: post #39
beaudeal wrote: post #14

I found this really interesting, because we covered this exact topic in a psychology course that I took while in university, and I think that it is often mis-quoted / mis-used. The conclusion that was drawn from scientific research was that the vast majority of experts all shared a common trait - they all had at least 10,000 hours of deliberate practice (not that anyone who practiced for 10,000 hours would definitely…

Practice makes perfect.

practice perfect makes perfect

Re: How To Be Fucking Awesome

#50

Post by 13ren »

bloch wrote: post #28
kirubakaran wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. At 4 hours a day, you'll need 2500 days. [6.8 years] If you did it full time (40 hours a week), you'll supposedly be fucking awesome in 4.8 years. If this were true, I should be an awesome programmer. But I know I am not yet one. Far from it. So I call bullshit. (Some popular 'fucking awesome' programmers for reference: Steve Yegge, RMS, John Resig)

"Finally, deliberate practice is an effortful activity that can be sustained only for a limited time each day during extended periods without leading to exhaustion (effort constraint). To maximize gains from long-term practice, individuals must avoid exhaustion and must limit practice to an amount from which they can completely recover on a daily or weekly basis." (K. Anders Ericsson) "A number of training studies in…

I consider myself to have about 1.5-2 hours of "genius" per day. I don't know if it really is genius, but during it, I'm operating at an intellectual level where I feel that I'm really making progress, and am able to grasp things, formulate clear questions and goals, and notice new connections.

After that time, my own thoughts start to elude capture, as if someone else's dream...

I can work longer, but I need to have a structured task - i.e. that doesn't require original thought, but is just a slog.

It's great to have a study to support my experience, and encourage me to value and nurture this "genius" time, with recovery time and activities.

EDIT at 1 hour per day, 10,000/365 = 27.4 years; say 30 years. If you are blessed with a naturally stronger constitution, enabling you to do 3 hours per day, you could do it in 10.

Post reply on HN