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

Why Dan Shipper is Wrong about Goals

isaacsukin.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 32 posts

Re: Why Dan Shipper is Wrong about Goals

#21

Post by ryanmolden »

quorn3000 wrote: post #20
ryanmolden wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And do systems not have end goals? Or do you just set up artifice for entertainments sake?

Maintaining the system is the one goal. But that distance, and that trust, that the system is yours alone, is what works.

A system is set up to accomplish something other than its own continued existence, it isn't just a perpetual motion machine or some Kafkaesque bureaucracy. If the system has an aim there is a goal, so to say "losers have goals, winners have systems" is vacuous. It sounds pithy and perhaps even profound, but it isn't.

Re: Why Dan Shipper is Wrong about Goals

#22

Post by adrianhoward »

Just to repeat something I mentioned in the comments on Dan Shipper's, there is actually evidence that self-set public goals can make it less likely you complete the goal.

(the theory being roughly that just stating it publicly feels like making progress, so you're less likely to actually make progress.)

See http://sivers.org/zipit for some background info.

There's been more research but I don't have the references to hand ATM.

Re: Why Dan Shipper is Wrong about Goals

#23

Post by philwelch »

ryanmolden wrote: post #21
quorn3000 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maintaining the system is the one goal. But that distance, and that trust, that the system is yours alone, is what works.

A system is set up to accomplish something other than its own continued existence, it isn't just a perpetual motion machine or some Kafkaesque bureaucracy. If the system has an aim there is a goal, so to say "losers have goals, winners have systems" is vacuous. It sounds pithy and perhaps even profound, but it isn't.

> A system is set up to accomplish something other than its own continued existence

Well, it could be, but it doesn't have to be.

Re: Why Dan Shipper is Wrong about Goals

#24

Post by javajosh »

Does anyone else see the tautology here? Consider this quote:

>specific and challenging goals led to higher performance than easy goals, "do your best" goals, or no goals.

Note the word "performance". If performance is defined as "achieved certain goals", then this statement reduces to a tautology. Or rather, I'd say that the study (subtly) assumes it's conclusion.

I realize that the author intended the sense of these two words to be different. Perhaps a more careful replacement for the word goal would be "training exercise", and then "performance" would be some sort of standardized test. But even so, the statement still devolves into something that while not a tautology is hardly earth-shattering: "if you practice doing something you'll get better at it."

(As I understand it, Dan's original point is simply that it's easy to get frustrated if you bite off more than you can chew - so content yourself with learning simpler things at first. I agree with that and I'll defend it.)

Re: Why Dan Shipper is Wrong about Goals

#25

Post by IceCreamYou »

javajosh wrote: post #24

Does anyone else see the tautology here? Consider this quote: >specific and challenging goals led to higher performance than easy goals, "do your best" goals, or no goals. Note the word "performance". If performance is defined as "achieved certain goals", then this statement reduces to a tautology. Or rather, I'd say that the study (subtly) assumes it's conclusion. I realize that the author intended the sense of thes…

Performance and goals don't have to mean the same thing. An example of a goal is "acquire 30 new customers by the end of the month" and the relevant performance metric there would be "number of new customers acquired." Better performance in that case might mean 50 customers acquired while worse performance might mean 10 customers acquired.

I agree that "it's easy to get frustrated if you bite off more than you can chew - so content yourself with learning simpler things at first." I don't think that's contradictory to what I wrote; one component of good goals is that they're achievable. In retrospect I can see how you would read that lesson into Dan's post, but what he actually wrote is that what you should do if you want to "build skill in the long term" is "setting firm goals and keeping track of what you're doing is a problem for beginners." I think that is not appropriate advice for most people.

Re: Why Dan Shipper is Wrong about Goals

#26

Post by sigkill »

zsherm wrote: post #12

Do anyone else's eyes hurt after reading that post?

Yes. I think it has got a lot to do with the color combination rather than the light text on dark bg. I've personally noticed that the sweet spot for me is having a black to near black background with gray (70/30 or 80/20 white/black mix). Having a full white text feels like someone is etching my eyes with a laser stenciled in the said text.

Re: Why Dan Shipper is Wrong about Goals

#27

Post by dasil003 »

Goals are a red herring. Whether spoken or not, goals always exist for every productive thing that happens in the short-term. The high-level nebulous goals aren't goals that make things happen directly, they're more like a vision that allows you to set more focused goals, which is why they don't do much by themselves.

The real issue at hand is motivation. If you are consistently motivated to do something to better yourself, then chances are it will lead you somewhere. High levels of motivation for non-essential self-development is not the human norm, so if you can find a way to harness and apply it I think you stand a good chance of being above average. As a computer geek I think there's a very obvious answer for me and a lot of people here, but I wouldn't describe it as the route to success because there are probably as many ways to find focused motivation as there are successful people.

Re: Why Dan Shipper is Wrong about Goals

#28

Post by dmd149 »

Borrowing from Stoic principles, you must acknowledge that a) there are some things you can control, b) some things you can't, and c) some things you control somewhat.

A professional golfer can't control whether he wins a match, but he can control how well he practices.

Don't get too emotional or attached to outcomes you can't control.

Do focus on "doing your best" at things you can actually control.

This is the point Dan makes, and I think you can make decent progress with this line of thinking and preserve your mental tranquility at the same time.

Re: Why Dan Shipper is Wrong about Goals

#29

Post by pitkali »

I think the OP misread the article he's referring to. The point is not to avoid setting goals, but that if you want to actually get good at anything, you should first learn to create habits, and then just start doing it. Once you're already doing it, it'll be a lot easier to improve, and then go ahead and follow the usual advice on setting goals.

After all, what's the point of setting specific and challenging goals, if you're unable to stick to them?

Post reply on HN