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

41–50 of 248 posts

Re: The social obligation to be bad at things

#41

Post by shoes_for_thee »

commandlinefan wrote: post #3

Can I agree with his overall premise but disagree with thinking that scheduling weekly one-on-one's with your wife is in any way a good idea? I also wonder if the social obligation to be bad at things - that is, to avoid arrogance at all costs, even at the risk of withholding potentially useful advice - is more an American thing than a worldwide phenomenon. Not being embarrassed when you can't spell words correctly s…

I did weekly one-on-ones with a former gf. We'd just check in, see how the week went.. make sure everyone is feeling good and getting enough attention and whatnot.

I thought it was a good idea, and maybe it was. It felt fine at the time. Our lives took us in different directions and we parted ways after a couple years dating. I thought we left things amicably, but I got an email a few years later (after I had married someone else) that made it clear that my then-gf does indeed seem to hate my fucking guts now.

I don't do one-on-ones with my wife, but it still doesn't strike me as a bad idea.

It's entirely possible I'm an idiot.

Re: The social obligation to be bad at things

#42

Post by kerkeslager »

Osmose wrote: post #30

The point about space and understanding to try new things and not be amazing at them isn't a bad one, but the thing about having 1:1s with your partner that is drawing ridicule isn't the idea of having a scheduled, weekly check-in with your partner; it's that business-talk is intentionally de-personified and using it in a personal context implies a lack of respect for the human you're dealing with. Consider that I ca…

Yes, you're right that business talk is depersonified and implies a lack of respect for the human you're dealing with. And this is an assertion backed up by lots of other business talk--referring to humans as "resources" is probably the worst I hear often. And this assertion is further supported by the frequent, sociopathic behavior of businesses which goes beyond how they communicate.

But surely the fact that they are married to this other person is a bit stronger evidence that they cares for them, than a slightly off wording?

And further, it's completely absurd to hear this objection from Hacker News, where the most common viewpoint seems to be "if it makes money then it must be ethical". If this is really dehumanizing, then isn't the bigger problem that most people are totally okay with dehumanizing language in a business context? Is the objection here that he doesn't stand to turn a profit?

Re: The social obligation to be bad at things

#43

Post by dj_mc_merlin »

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?

Software development classes are mandatory for some courses, and it is not that uncommon to find some already-not-so-green programmers in them. Some are just looking for the certification at the end of their programme.

> Generally my experience with people who are demonstrably successful is that they are not insecure like you described.

Is it really insecurity? Teasing someone about their previous arrogance when they're actually a beginner is one of the better forms of putting-down IMO. Teaches 'pride cometh before fall' and all that. And a group project is a quite informal space to do that in.

Re: The social obligation to be bad at things

#44

Post by ricardobeat »

heavenlyblue wrote: post #32
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…

I think your critique of marketing-oriented folks is valid, but after saying how bad it is to polarize the discussion, you immediately made your own black-and-white view of creators.

Re: The social obligation to be bad at things

#45

Post by whytaka »

nickthemagicman wrote: post #5

I've always thought that most people either judge you for being below them or worship you for being above them. Very few people occupy that middle ground where they are just happy for you and treat you as a person with motivations, flaws, and gifts. I'd gander to say this hierarchical primitive behavior is a major impediment to human progress.

I have noticed the opposite. My impression is that most people's identities are so coloured by their insecurities that people usually come together more on being able to laugh at their common insufficiencies and also on the things they hate in common. But this is perhaps because I'm still relatively young and the people I encounter are still working on realizing themselves.

Re: The social obligation to be bad at things

#46

Post by kerkeslager »

danans wrote: post #34
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 th…

Just to point out: Hacker News is definitely an intelligence-idolizing environment. :)

Re: The social obligation to be bad at things

#47

Post by circlefavshape »

will_pseudonym wrote: post #40
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 d…

/me wipes the dust and sweat and blood off his face, and feels good about his efforts for a little while

Re: The social obligation to be bad at things

#48

Post by wbronitsky »

mikeyouse wrote: post #35
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…

Oh boy do I resonate with this. Thank you for sharing this!

I remember the first time I saw "Fountain" by Duchamps, which, for the uninitiated, is a urinal, on its side, signed and dated by the artist. For years, decades, I cast it aside in my mind as something silly, something artsy, something that wasn't for me. It was ugly, vulgar, and above all, obvious. For years, seeing replica after replica in modern and contemporary art museums, I continued to breeze past the installation, laughing quietly to myself like I knew something these art people didn't.

Then I had a similar situation happen. While continually saying "anyone could have done that" and "this isn't art" someone finally said to me "yes it is art, you didn't think of this, and without this, you lack the basis for many other contemporary forms of art." It then started to occur to me that this art was anything but obvious; if I so easily cast this aside as "not art," the simple fact of calling this art was a profound statement, one worth considering within its context. Maybe this piece of art had so much to teach me about perspective, context and expression that it was just too much to swallow for years.

Re: The social obligation to be bad at things

#49

Post by danans »

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 (…

You were probably more excited that you were arrogant, but your choice of words "I'm the master" implied an attitude that your abilities were unsurpassed, to which anyone would be incredulous. It was probably that perceived attitude of arrogance that the others were reacting to, not your actual skills as they were.

To claim mastery to a group of people who have no prior experience with you seems like a result of misreading the social environment. Whether that misreading is borne of arrogance or naivety is a separate thing.

Software development classes are themselves more about learning how to socially coordinate people to complete a project with ambiguous requirements, which depends far more on social and situational awareness than raw skill in a particular technical area. So if your takeaway years later was learning how to better communicate your abilities with a team of people, perhaps you learned exactly what was intended by that class.

Re: The social obligation to be bad at things

#50

Post by dorkwood »

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…

Years ago I can remember seeing an artist on Twitter hitting back against some critics in the comments, saying something like "I didn't ask for your criticism".

At the time, I didn't understand why they were posting their work online if they didn't want to be criticized. I thought they needed to get a thicker skin.

Now that I've started sharing my own work with others, I completely see where they're coming from. Having someone who makes nothing and shares nothing log on to tell you how you should have done things differently is unwanted and not at all useful. Show me you know what you're talking about first, and I'll reconsider.

Post reply on HN