Being OK with not being extraordinary • Hacker News Board

Re: Being OK with not being extraordinary

#111

Post by SCAQTony » Mon, Aug 24, 2020, 6:45 PM UTC

Extraordinary is boring. If one wants to draw as good as Michelangelo Buonarroti, or play the alto sax technically as well as Charlie Parker, one has to put in the hours. Imagine only having one interest? Example: Michelangelo and Charlie practiced or executed their craft incessantly.

"In an interview with Paul Desmond, Parker said that he spent three to four years practicing up to 15 hours a day."

"If people knew how hard I worked to get my mastery, it wouldn’t seem so wonderful at all." ~ Michelangelo

I argue that one is more employable, more accomplished and has more opportunities if one is average, or above average, in five separate disciplines. Has more diverse friendships too.

Re: Being OK with not being extraordinary

#112

Post by devtul » Mon, Aug 24, 2020, 6:48 PM UTC

borroka wrote: post #48

umvi wrote: post #2

> Climbing to a higher vantage point can also unlock new forms of extraordinary that you might have never noticed before. I read an article once about how the amount of work to get into the top tier in a single area is astronomical, but the amount of work to become top tier in a combination of 2-3 fields is attainable by almost anyone. For example, becoming a top tier statistician is hard. But becoming a top tier sta…

I disagree. It is one those things that are said once, repeated enough and make enough sense to be believed, although I suspect they are not true. If you combine an average programmer with an average statistician, you get a profile that is not particularly attractive. If the comment that follows is: but is it not what data scientist are? the answer is that good data scientist have good (or great) programming for what…

Curiously enough Scott Adams(Dilbert creator) talks a lot about what he call the "talent stack", which is what we are discussing here.

If you have a combination of skills that have synergy then you can have great results.

Re: Being OK with not being extraordinary

#113

Post by KallDrexx » Mon, Aug 24, 2020, 6:48 PM UTC

ZainRiz wrote: post #32

> creators can get just as much value out of creating their original content and connecting with like-minded people. Strong resonance here. I recently became more prolific about blogging, and this was the mindset that helps me stay consistent. I find that the mere act of writing an essay helps me clarify my own thoughts, and the essay often changes in the process. As a recent example, I started writing out about how…

This is the reason I started working towards getting better a note taking. Describing what I'm learning in my own words may help me retain the information better.

I don't publish it because I don't know anyone cares but I feel like it helps myself regardless, and keeping them searchable seems like it should pay off at some point.

Re: Being OK with not being extraordinary

#114

Post by eslaught » Mon, Aug 24, 2020, 6:49 PM UTC

sixstringtheory wrote: post #107

thelean12 wrote: post #65

There are lots of people reacting to the extraordinary with "inspiration", "disappointment", and "jealousy". I'd say none of these are as useful as reacting with curiosity . There's an endless amount to learn from the extraordinary in any field or sport or hobby. It's easy to write off the extraordinary as naturally talented or lucky or something else surface level. Most of the time it's anything but. I play golf. It…

Totally agree. When I think about the maxim "it's about the journey, not the destination," I think that curiosity is what keeps you taking that next step, and lets you stay immersed in the journey. Every place you get to along the way, if you find something in sight to explore, sooner or later you'll find yourself far beyond where you started. I don't play golf, but I imagine there are so many minutiae, from driving,…

I agree, and I've thought for a long time that "natural talent" is usually just "natural curiosity" that has been given enough time to grow into something bigger. After all, if you regularly spend your attention focused on something, you'll inevitably become better over time. I think a lot of topics that people consider to be "impenetrable", like programming, science or math, can be tackled with this attitude.

Re: Being OK with not being extraordinary

#115

Post by pmohun » Mon, Aug 24, 2020, 6:56 PM UTC

I wrote this for myself when considering a big career move a few years ago:

It’s easy to focus on the next promotion or the completion of a big project that will elevate your career.

By succumbing to the natural instinct of mimicry, we rarely ask ourselves the question: are we climbing the right hill?

In this analogy, the hills represent any long-term goal: career, fulfillment, financial security. Our natural instinct is to walk upward, chasing the next promotion or job opportunity. However, we lose the virtue of randomness by doing this. If your only benchmark is the hill you’ve always known, you have no way to gauge its relative steepness. It’s a good way to reach a local maxima, but not necessarily the best long-term option.

Instead, I allow myself to explore other options, even if it seems “downhill”. For naturally ambitious people, it can seem downright impossible to avoid this instinct. It’s hard, and often feels unnatural. However, the perspective gained from these excursions improves my mental map and I’m able to learn what lies on other hills. Taking this mindset means letting go of the mimetic behavior that leads to jealousy or comparison.

After all, why should it matter if someone else is higher? Your peak is somewhere else entirely.

https://sundayscaries.substack.com/p/climbing-the-right-hill...

Re: Being OK with not being extraordinary

#116

Post by ska » Mon, Aug 24, 2020, 6:56 PM UTC

borroka wrote: post #48

umvi wrote: post #2

> Climbing to a higher vantage point can also unlock new forms of extraordinary that you might have never noticed before. I read an article once about how the amount of work to get into the top tier in a single area is astronomical, but the amount of work to become top tier in a combination of 2-3 fields is attainable by almost anyone. For example, becoming a top tier statistician is hard. But becoming a top tier sta…

I disagree. It is one those things that are said once, repeated enough and make enough sense to be believed, although I suspect they are not true. If you combine an average programmer with an average statistician, you get a profile that is not particularly attractive. If the comment that follows is: but is it not what data scientist are? the answer is that good data scientist have good (or great) programming for what…

I suspect you are looking at this the wrong way. Someone who is average at a number of things is probably a decent generalist; valuable but not particularly are.

But the argument is being above average in two or more areas can make you as impactful as being top of your field in one area, even though you are nowhere near that talented in any different field.

Even with your example, I would counter that a huge number of people successful in data scientist roles would not be successful (or at least, much less so) either as programmers or statisticians. It seems many of the earliest wave of data scientists (e.g. pre bootcamps etc.) have failed to thrive at at least one of the two before ending up in "data science" (caveat, agree this is poorly defined).

Re: Being OK with not being extraordinary

#117

Post by jakeva » Mon, Aug 24, 2020, 6:57 PM UTC

samatman wrote: post #102

umvi wrote: post #2

> Climbing to a higher vantage point can also unlock new forms of extraordinary that you might have never noticed before. I read an article once about how the amount of work to get into the top tier in a single area is astronomical, but the amount of work to become top tier in a combination of 2-3 fields is attainable by almost anyone. For example, becoming a top tier statistician is hard. But becoming a top tier sta…

I learned this lesson from Clifford Stoll. He said that astronomers figure he must be an exceptional programmer, since he's clearly a mediocre astronomer. While programmers figure he must be an exceptional astronomer, since his programming is strictly middle-of-the-road! Of course, these days, he's the best dang Klein bottle glass blower in the game. No substitute for finding your niche.

Not to mention a pretty good writer. I recently finished "The Cuckoo's Egg" and found it both highly informative and entertaining.

Re: Being OK with not being extraordinary

#118

Post by JohnBooty » Mon, Aug 24, 2020, 6:58 PM UTC

unnouinceput wrote: post #99

We all are extraordinary actually. Human race is in a continuous evolution, so absolutely any of us is an extraordinary person compared with 2000 years ago great minds. A high-school student is better educated then Pythagoras for example. Conversely, even the greatest minds of today (Hawking, Einstein, etc) will be below high-school kids of the future.

That's a great thought, but is it true?

We're standing on the shoulders of giants, that's for sure. We begin our adult lives with knowledge they could have only dreamed about.

But I really don't see anything to suggest our brightest minds are brighter than the brightest minds of those times.

On average, at least, I think we outshine the average human from 2000 years ago, just thanks to more common childhood education and better nutrition...

Re: Being OK with not being extraordinary

#119

Post by tabtab » Mon, Aug 24, 2020, 7:02 PM UTC

sumtechguy wrote: post #29

tcskeptic wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are conflating being extraordinary with excellence -- the opposite of extraordinary is not mediocrity. We can all achieve excellence -- by definition being extraordinary is rare.

I like to use the movie Amadeus as an example of this. The movie portrayed Salieri as a man who could barely play. When that was just not true at all. The problem is they were comparing someone who is top of their field to someone who was extraordinary. In fact if you look at the movie semi closely you would see Mozart could not even keep the rest of his life together.

I thought of that movie also. Although half fiction, it's a wonderful flick; I highly recommend it for anybody frustrated with their position in life.

Re: "The movie portrayed Salieri as a man who could barely play. When that was just not true at all."

That was the King, not Salieri, as I remember it. But Salieri's playing did lack the flair that Mozart's had, as shown. However, the King himself seemed to prefer Salieri's simpler style, based on various conversations.

In actuality, Salieri was probably financially more successful than Mozart, but less remembered, so there is an element of truth to it.

In general Mozart's music did tend to please musicians more than regular audiences. He was perhaps a bit ahead of his time. This is similar to Beethoven, who was probably considered to be in the top 10 at the time, but not the greatest of his era. Beethoven practically invented the so-called Romantic era, so to some he was doing "weird stuff". It took a while for mainstream to "get" Jimi Hendrix also. I know it's a politically-incorrect cliche, but pioneers often do take arrows in the back.

Re: Being OK with not being extraordinary

#120

Post by dkarl » Mon, Aug 24, 2020, 7:03 PM UTC

bradlys wrote: post #67

I think it's important to also reframe what extraordinary even means. Many people are comparing themselves to the most privileged of backgrounds - where they were at the top from birth and only had to get a bit higher. I'm considered extraordinary in comparison to the place I grew up - just because of my background and where I am now. On top of this - I am wary of being singly great at something. Living in Silicon Va…

Practically speaking, being adequate at everything is as overwhelming as being great at everything. Different people have different things they consider essential. Some people consider self-defense essential; I would put sewing higher on the list. Overseeing a group of children seems like a fundamental skill, but I will never have the opportunity to learn it until the first time I need it. I don't have the genetics to sing, and I don't enjoy playing a musical instrument enough to make the hundreds of hours of practice worthwhile. Cutting my hair also has a learning process with unacceptable costs.

Basic social dancing: I took the classes, but they didn't stick.

Bushcrafting. Haskell. Fixing wiring in a house. Leveling ground. Driving a standard transmission. (I did it once twenty years ago, but presumably I could not do it again without instruction.)

Sharpening knives? I use my kitchen knives every day, but the guy at the farmer's market does a perfect job for practically no money.

Playing bridge: I don't even know why my brain thinks this is a fundamental skill. I don't know anybody who plays bridge. But, irrationally, it feels like one of the more important things separating me from being James Bond.

Ultimately you have to pick a small subset even of the basics, and I have a hard time seeing that big a difference between the realistic approach of learning a few things that are particularly important to you and not learning anything at all outside your profession. Sure, it makes sense to put effort into the things that are important to you. I know plenty about cooking, for example. But I still lack the skills to produce or maintain 97% of the things that are essential for my complicated daily life. Is there a big difference between 99% and 97%? Or even between 97% and 90%?

But now I'm thinking about sewing again. Someday....