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

71–80 of 248 posts

Re: The social obligation to be bad at things

#71

Post by dgb23 »

dj_mc_merlin wrote: post #43
xfan009 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I agree. As colleagues/collaborators it is almost a responsibility to keep each other in check like this. As long as it is skillfully applied and empathic. Sprinkling a bit of humor on top can help too (for both sides).

Re: The social obligation to be bad at things

#72

Post by Ma8ee »

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?

In the old days there was actually quite a few companies that was created and run by people with very little programming experience but a lot of business sense. In about 1995 I worked for a company that had sold their business system to companies like Eriksson and Dell. But the codebase was about 5 million codes of CBasic, copy and paste programming and GOTOs everywhere. It all started in a guys basement in early eighties. It all started to crumble around the time I was there, because porting that old DOS system to Windows just wasn't possible. And a ew batches of thousand of tons of steel had got lost for big a customer in our inventory management system...

Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that just because someone had developed a successful (in making money) product doesn't mean they are actually good at programming.

Re: The social obligation to be bad at things

#73

Post by rkeene2 »

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…

For what it's worth, that is a meme regarding modern art ("I could have done that" + "But you didn't").

Re: The social obligation to be bad at things

#74

Post by nicky0 »

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…

This quote was printed out and stuck on the wall of the changing room of the gym I used to go to.

Re: The social obligation to be bad at things

#75

Post by draw_down »

I think it's ok to laugh at silly things. Having weekly 1:1s with someone you love is funny, it's a silly thing to do. I'm not saying it's a bad idea- maybe it works for you and your relationship improves or whatever, it's still a silly thing.

I dunno, I really hate the implication that laughing at something a person does means you hate them or whatever. For all we know the original person is laughing along.

Re: The social obligation to be bad at things

#76

Post by munificent »

I think about this all the time. I am simultaneously someone who wants to learn and create a lot of things, likes to share stuff online, and is very self-conscious about failure. So this challenge with facing my own not-goodness-at-things is one of the major emotional themes and challenges of my life.

I believe that broadcast social media is the primary reason why this is such a big thing these days. Everyone is so self-conscious all the time. It's like we've created a giant world-spanning panopticon where we can all see everyone at their worst moments all the time. We spend our days tip-toeing around the Earth hoping we don't get caught having our own personal "Stars Wars kid" moment and being shamed for it for the rest of our lives.

It used to be if you did something dumb or awkward, the five people around you laughed at you, told stories about it for a while, and that was it. Now it's literally captured from five different perspectives in high definition video and stereo audio and uploaded to the Internet for all to see until the end of time. It's no wonder awkward teens flocked to Snapchat and its ephemeral videos.

I used to go out to clubs dancing a lot when I was younger. I love dancing (which is unusual for a skinny nerdy white dude, but I guess you don't get to pick your passions). I believe moving your body to music is one of the fundamental human experiences. You don't have to love it, of course, but it's something we have been doing since the caveman days. It is as primal to being human as feasting.

It kills me that so many people who do have that desire don't get to satisfy it because of cripping self-consciousness about getting on a dancefloor. When I went out, I often heard people on the sidelines making fun of people out there dancing. I recognized that it was really their own insecurity being projected onto others. They were saying what they feared people would say about them if they were out there. My response was always, "Anyone who has the courage to dance at all is better than everyone on the sidelines."

I try to maintain that perspective with all activities, especially online. The world has enough criticism to last until the end of time. Today, anyone who at least tries is a winner in my book. Is it often cringy or mediocre? Yup. Will I tell them that? Hell no. They're at least trying.

As Jake in Adventure Time says "Dude, suckin' at something is the first step to being sorta good at something."

Re: The social obligation to be bad at things

#77

Post by qznc »

dorkwood wrote: post #50
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. Havi…

Could you expand on "I completely see where they're coming from"?

I kind of learned this over time. So when someone shows off something lame, I just keep quiet. Sometimes I try to find something praiseworthy.

Personally, I do post stuff online to get feedback and I am willing to take vicious criticism. My stuff is not art. Well, maybe that small fanfic a while ago [0]. It is certainly lame compared to some but feedback is the only way I can improve. I don't think critics are obligated to phrase their criticism nicely.

[0] http://beza1e1.tuxen.de/sacrifice_of_scar.html

Re: The social obligation to be bad at things

#79

Post by the_af »

wbronitsky wrote: post #48
mikeyouse wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 conte…

> 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

I totally, completely agree with your point and with the parent post ("I could have created this", "but you didn't"), but...

...you can still, after all of this, conclude that the piece of art is snobbish, artless garbage. In fact I reserve the right to do so. I agree with your premise and still think "Fountain" is worthless as art. I could indeed have done this -- and yes, I see the irony, "but you didn't" -- and didn't because I didn't think it's the kind of art I want to make or celebrate. It's Duchamp's right to create it but I'm not a mean or ignorant person if I dislike it or consider it snobbish and not worth my time (or even "not art").

I don't know if Fountain is or isn't art. I "know" it's worthless to me. This is a discussion we must still be able to have, otherwise we can't say anything about artistic endeavors unless it's positive...

Re: The social obligation to be bad at things

#80

Post by the_af »

martythemaniak wrote: post #62
wbronitsky wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 conte…

The trick is to transport yourself mentally to the time and place where that art was created. This is actually a very hard mental exercise, as art is a sort of "fingerprint" or "hash" of the world it was created in - it includes contemporary thought, politics, science, technology, social attitudes etc. Looking at art from the perspective of a century after it was introduced and its effects have become incorporated in…

What if, after transporting yourself mentally to the time and place, you still consider it artless or worthless? Is this an opinion that one is still allowed to hold, or would it be a faux pas?

I mean, I can look at art created thousands of years before "Fountain" and appreciate it, but still consider Fountain snobbery, can't I?

Post reply on HN