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

Being OK with not being extraordinary

tiffanymatthe.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 396 posts

Re: Being OK with not being extraordinary

#21

Post by rjsw »

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…

There are not very many people with defined Erdős–Bacon numbers [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erd%C5%91s%E2%80%93Bacon_numbe...

Re: Being OK with not being extraordinary

#22

Post by heleninboodler »

ARandomerDude wrote: post #6

> Extraordinary also comes in many forms, and its value does not have to be measured in terms of money. Great point though underdeveloped in the article. Clocking out at 5 so you can spend time with a healthy, happy, well-adjusted, loving family is pretty extraordinary these days.

For what it's worth, you may have a heavily skewed view of what's extraordinary "these days." There are lots of tech companies that are mature enough to not flog their people to death. Companies with strong engineering cultures that also highly value seasoned developers tend to be this way. Where I work, the office is (well, was pre-covid) pretty empty by 5:30.

Re: Being OK with not being extraordinary

#24

Post by lloyddobbler »

See also: The Infinite Game by Simon Sinek. Great read (based on a previous work, Finite and Infinite Games by James Carse) on the need to play on a different playing field than the one that supposedly has a 'winner' and a 'loser.' Applies to companies, individuals, organizations, relationships...you get the idea.

To beat a dead analogy, if you're climbing to reach the top 'ledge' you started out looking for, you might not start...or you might climb with such a singular focus that you miss another path that would take you off to the side and up another, higher route.

Edited for formatting.

Re: Being OK with not being extraordinary

#25

Post by langitbiru »

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…

In other words, generalists triumphs over specialists.

But the best of them is the multi-specialists. https://techcrunch.com/2020/07/19/the-dual-phd-problem-of-to...

Re: Being OK with not being extraordinary

#26

Post by andygcook »

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…

Sam Altman posted a tweet storm about this topic a couple of hours ago. You'd probably find it interesting: https://twitter.com/sama/status/1297912739206242306

Re: Being OK with not being extraordinary

#27

Post by JohnBooty »

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 like your examples: those two games were amazing to play and very inspirational to me personally, for the reasons you articulated so well.

I once heard another example of a man who'd washed out of both medical school and art school, lacking the apitude and/or drive to really make it in either field. He wound up finding a very successful career as an illustrator of medical textbooks, as the number of people versed in both medicine and art is extremely small. He's booked up years in advance.

(That man's story was, I believe, part of an NPR news story roughly 15 years ago. I've not been able to find any mention of it since then!)

I've been able to combine good-but-not-elite skills in my own career in order to find success.

Re: Being OK with not being extraordinary

#28

Post by framecowbird »

rjsw wrote: post #21
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…

There are not very many people with defined Erdős–Bacon numbers [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erd%C5%91s%E2%80%93Bacon_numbe...

> To have a defined Erdős–Bacon number, it is necessary to have both appeared in a film and co-authored an academic paper, although this in and of itself is not sufficient.

This surprised me. I guess you could star in a tiny indie film completely closed off from the Bacon graph...

Re: Being OK with not being extraordinary

#29

Post by sumtechguy »

tcskeptic wrote: post #7
Subsentient wrote: post #3

Yes.... Yes..... Consume, work, run in your hamster wheel. Mediocrity is okay, it's what your overlords desire. Enough to be useful, not enough to affect change.

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.

Re: Being OK with not being extraordinary

#30

Post by NewEntryHN »

tcskeptic wrote: post #7
Subsentient wrote: post #3

Yes.... Yes..... Consume, work, run in your hamster wheel. Mediocrity is okay, it's what your overlords desire. Enough to be useful, not enough to affect change.

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.

Except extraordinary is correlated with excellent because this premise:

> We can all achieve excellence

is false in practice.

Post reply on HN