To be great, be good repeatably

I spent the last few days writing this piece as I was reflecting and frustrated with my short-term progress (or lack there of). This led me to consider what I think greatness even is, which was almost therapeutic to think through.

Curious to know what people think about this. Can "greatness" really be achieved quickly?

I did not read your blog post (I'm in HN comment reading mode) but I will give a couple of pieces that I found to the puzzle.

In The Tim Ferriss experiment the (in)famous (?) Tim Ferriss "learns a new language within 3 days" [1]. I put that in quotes because it is really up for debate. However, he had a very very clear goal: come off across as passable during an interview.

While this is only 3 days, Warren Buffet says something similar with focusing on your 5 biggest goals and leaving anything else aside [2].

The point is:

- Be consistent (I saw that word as well while skimming your blog post)

- Only try to attack the goal direclty, since it is very likely that attacking your goal directly is possible. Tim Ferriss could've gone to classes to learn Tagalog or watch movies to learn it. However, there are better methods than that in service to his goal.

- Focus relentlessly on your most important goals (a tip from Warren Buffet).

By doing these 3 things, I believe that greatness can be achieved quickly, provided that you set a sharp definition of it. Achieving greatness in the eyes of others, however, is a very different feat and a bit of a fickle / unhealthy one, in my opinion (e.g. just see the reactions to what Elon Musk is doing, I think he's great, but I'm pretty sure he has naysayers).

[1] https://www.fluentin3months.com/tim-ferriss/ (an interview about his experience)

[2] https://constantrenewal.com/buffett-5-25-rule/

> Alexander wept when he heard Anaxarchus discourse about an infinite number of worlds, and when his friends inquired what ailed him, "Is it not worthy of tears," he said, "that, when the number of worlds is infinite, we have not yet become lords of a single one?"

(Plutarch)

(But as far as we know he did think he was great. "Only sex and sleep make me remember I am mortal", "If I were not Alexander I would wish to be Diogenes", and so many other lines suggest he thought he was awesome, note those quotes are my paraphrasing.)

IMHO I've found greatness is also very much a result of environment as well. Not just in the "you are the five people you interact with most" kind of thing, but also in the kind of bounds you face when shipping greatness. It definitely impacts your scalability curve. Shipping a great product and having business impact is kind of an O(1) deal; people see the great product, git blame the source or look at release notes, and find out you're behind it, and then think you're good at programming. Shipping a bad product because of business or technical org constraints and then having to explain to people the design decisions and compromises you had to make is very much not an O(1) deal. I think the former definitely lets people stand on their own two feet and merits, while the latter concentrates power in those who control perception.

While I agree with much of your article, it's interesting to me that you cite this tweet:

Building products, writing, and painting are not mental excercises, they are physical ones.

Reading to improve is like watching someone else workout – it does almost nothing for you.

To run better, run. To paint better, paint. To write better, write. To build better, build.

I certainly agree that practice is the core of all increase in skill. However, I've found that the differentiation factor of my skills comes from being someone who reads, who looks for better ways to run. From being someone who constantly reflects on the practice that occurs. This is something that's well supported by research (the notion of deliberate practice).

Deliberate Practice: http://projects.ict.usc.edu/itw/gel/EricssonDeliberatePracti...