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

31–40 of 248 posts

Re: The social obligation to be bad at things

#31

Post by pierrebai »

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…

That's one way of looking at growth.

Another is to learn from the mistakes; this sometimes requires others to point them out. A lot of the issues around it comes down to ego and how one takes criticisms. One needs to learn not to take it too personal. A lot of times, the weak points of one's work is often the bit we're lazy. Of course, many times we already know very well where we're weak, and getting it pointed out repeatedly can sting.

And to make it back to the obligation to be bad, it comes down to recognizing you can always get better. In fact, the more I learn about a subject, the more I see how little I know.

Re: The social obligation to be bad at things

#32

Post by heavenlyblue »

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…

It’s easy to see the world in this black-and-white separation; however there’s a lot of creators who are there to rip you off for some money and they deserve every critique you can get.

Moralising stories like that mask the actual complexity of telling the people who try to be better and are shit (and thus deserve your understanding) from people are fake trying to be better while taking advantage of you (“oh my god I didn’t realise the engine I was selling you is completely covered in rust!”).

The complexity here is not selecting one of the two; but rather consistently selecting one of the two for any given moment in life. And that’s hard.

Re: The social obligation to be bad at things

#34

Post by danans »

kerkeslager wrote: post #9

I'm glad the author is talking about this problem, but I think there's a slight misidentification of the cause. I don't think it's that we're supposed to be bad at things, it's that we're expected to already be good at things . This still applies (irrationally) even when: 1. There is no mechanism provided for becoming good at the things we're expected to be good at. 2. Most people aren't good at the things we're expe…

> I'll also add that this conflation is particularly damaging to people and communities where intelligence is highly valued, and people base much of their self-worth in being knowledgeable

Another issue with intelligence-idolizing environments like the ones you describe is that if you don't find a way to gain the self-esteem needed to admit not knowing something, you might end up coping by pretending that you know that thing, and in doing so, suppressing your propensity to curiosity and growth, and increasing your propensity to use BS and manipulation - both of which admittedly also require a lot of intelligence.

> Building real self-esteem made it possible for me to start seeing that when I don't know something that doesn't decrease my value as a person. This has allowed me to admit I don't know things more often, and actually fill in some of those gaps with real knowledge.

I had the same transformative experience early in my life of developing the self-esteem to admit that I don't know things. It goes hand in hand with the skill of asking more questions of others than telling them what you know.

Re: The social obligation to be bad at things

#35

Post by mikeyouse »

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 had a similar experience after visiting a modern art museum with a creative friend of mine. I jokingly said "Even I could have done that" about one of the pieces and my friend replied, "But you didn't" -- hit me in one of those profound realization kind of ways. I started thinking about all of the effort it takes to envision something, find the resources, build it, work to get it displayed somewhere. Just creating something from nothing is beautiful (even if it's an upside toilet sculpture).

Re: The social obligation to be bad at things

#36

Post by leroy_masochist »

> I was at a liberating structures event recently, and one of the people I was working with related an anecdote in which he tried a party game as an ice breaker. Many of those are cringe, but this one sounded fun and inoffensive (it was a sentence continuation game where each person said a word following on from a previous one, in an attempt to construct something that sounded like an aphorism). Most people were reluctant initially but got into the swing of things, but a few people just dug their heels in and would not engage properly with it because of concern over looking weird.

Perhaps some of them were indeed concerned about looking weird. I guarantee you that at least a few of them didn't want to engage because they're introverts who just generally hate awkward group getting-to-know-you games.

Re: The social obligation to be bad at things

#38

Post by katzgrau »

drivers99 wrote: post #22

"When you say you are good at something, that's arrogant." Learned that the hard way. When I was young (college in the 90s), I had a Software Development class. We formed small teams and created a piece of software in a waterfall methodology.[1] Why I thought I was so great: I had taken independent study in high school to learn algorithms and data structures to take the Computer Science AB(now discontinued) AP test (…

When you're new to CS, you're excited and kind of have that Dunning Kruger effect of not knowing how much of a noob you really are. I think all of us who have gotten to the senior level were there at some point.

And when we see the same noobishness in young people just getting started, especially if they're making the assertion that they know much more than they actually do, you can't help but playfully put that attitude in check.

I've done/said similar things to junior members on my team, always in jest, but only because I know where their head is at and that I've been there too. I hire attitude and well, they're ready to go from day 1. And of course, the more they learn going forward, the more they realize the extent of their former bravado.

Hopefully the guy referring to you as the master was constructive and congenial overall.

Re: The social obligation to be bad at things

#39

Post by drivers99 »

xfan009 wrote: post #29
drivers99 wrote: post #22

"When you say you are good at something, that's arrogant." Learned that the hard way. When I was young (college in the 90s), I had a Software Development class. We formed small teams and created a piece of software in a waterfall methodology.[1] Why I thought I was so great: I had taken independent study in high school to learn algorithms and data structures to take the Computer Science AB(now discontinued) AP test (…

I have to question why someone with that level of seniority would need to be in a software development class. Generally my experience with people who are demonstrably successful is that they are not insecure like you described. Is it possible they were bluffing?

I think he was just going back to get his degree. I should say that it was just a shareware product he had developed that I was talking about. I don't remember what he had done for a living up to that point.

Re: The social obligation to be bad at things

#40

Post by will_pseudonym »

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…

"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat." - Teddy Roosevelt

Such a good message. I stumbled upon that quote from Brene Brown's TED talk on shame [0], which I definitely recommend.

[0] https://www.ted.com/talks/brene_brown_listening_to_shame

Post reply on HN