People have told me all manner of things...they seem a bit too ready to give me advice, as if I were completely naive. I've done my fair share of stupid things, and I willingly listen to advice from others, but I do not like it when people critique me being myself. The most common criticism I get is that I am too kind for my own good. What is the world coming to when being kind is a bad thing, as if I should be expected to crawl over everyone just to rise one step higher? It does not seem to occur to anybody that I do kind things willingly, not because others expect me to. We were all going direct to heaven, we were all going direct the other way.
This is so true! I've been told the very same thing. Being kind, in some people's minds, is a flaw in one's self. I feel, very strongly, that if every person in this world looked out for all of our best interests, we would be much happier. I truly don't understand how it's possible for someone to not offer help or assistance if it's in their power to do so. Sometimes, humanity in people complete astounds me.
they seem a bit too ready to give me advice, as if I were completely naive.
I find myself guilty of this often, more so because I'm younger than most people I give advice to. Interestingly enough, the responses I receive always put me in a positive light and people tell me I act much older than I am.
Perhaps it's my tone or the way that I present an idea but people seem receptive.
I too am definitely "guilty" of giving out more advice than I probably should. However, some advice is good-natured (even if critical), whereas other advice is sometimes too much a projection of personal beliefs or unhelpful (i.e "That idea will probably fail"). I have definitely "grown up" a bit in terms of taking advice though - I used to think I was right about everything (even if outwardly humble). It is definitely not easy to put yourself in the mindset of another person.
A similar idea is that "you can't please everyone." (It's not the same idea, because this one presupposes an aim to please others where there wasn't necessarily one in the article.) This trips up many people, including myself at various points in my life. It can lead to juggling too many friendships, compromising one's values, accepting too many work obligations, feeling one's MVP isn't ready... As a result people may give up or burn out.
Accepting that you can't please everyone practically means being comfortable saying "no". Then, like in the article, you have the freedom to "bash on with a smile, being who you want to be" while pleasing some people at the same time.
Not sure what you are trying to say. Entertaining somebody is pretty difficult. Try to make a crowd 5000 people laugh and go back to their home thoroughly entertained.
I would say Bozo the Clown is equally a genius in his own merit.
At the end the person who works reaps the benefits of his work, people who laugh get proved wrong and then search ways to discredit the other persons work.
Laughing at some one is the last ditch attempt to make the person stop doing what they are doing. When you know you are incapable of doing something, and wish to stop others from doing so in the fear they will get ahead.
Laughing at some one is the last ditch attempt to make the person stop doing what they are doing. When you know you are incapable of doing something, and wish to stop others from doing so in the fear they will get ahead.
When I laugh at someone (who isn't a clown or comedian) falling on their own ass, it is not a last ditch attempt to stop them from falling on their ass. It's an expression of amusement at someone else's misery, or of gladness that it's not me being hurt, or of any of a thousand other emotions and reasons.
The point Sagan was making was that just because people are laughing at you doesn't make you a innovative or scientific genius. And just because someone tells you you're wrong doesn't make you right.
Awesome as always, Derek is truly a well of wisdom.
I was analyzing the psychological reasons behind this by introspection, and I think there's something to do with your brain trying to repel every little thing that is different from you somehow. It's there for a reason, so I guess that was probably useful 50,000 years ago.
I've realized that whenever you're trying to convince someone or trying to make them understand you, the way to do it is by showing them that deep deep down, you're not so different after all. I really wish more people would realize this. For instance, when you think about a thief, your mind says "Man, I really hate that guy. I would never do such a thing". But maybe he was just trying to feed his family. And that is something you would do.
The best startup ideas seem at first like bad ideas. I've written about this before: if a good idea were obviously good, someone else would already have done it. So the most successful founders tend to work on ideas that few beside them realize are good. Which is not that far from a description of insanity, till you reach the point where you see results.
The first time Peter Thiel spoke at YC he drew a Venn diagram that illustrates the situation perfectly. He drew two intersecting circles, one labelled "seems like a bad idea" and the other "is a good idea." The intersection is the sweet spot for startups.
This concept is a simple one and yet seeing it as a Venn diagram is illuminating. It reminds you that there is an intersection—that there are good ideas that seem bad. It also reminds you that the vast majority of ideas that seem bad are bad.
So there are a lot of ideas that seem good which ARE good but maybe are just hard to execute or extremely competitive (i.e. Google or the iTunes store), there are a lot of ideas that seem bad which ARE bad (e.g. most startups), and there is an intersecting sweet spot in the middle, of good ideas that seem really bad in the beginning (Airbnb, the iPad, etc.). I think that is what Derek is referring to and this Venn diagram approach should hopefully clear up a lot of the "How do I know I'm actually right/wrong then?" confusion in this discussion.
The context simply does not point to situations in which the author personally experienced times when someone said he was wrong and how he benefitted from his own experience of determining right and wrong.
Since somebody always seems to mention it when an article hits the top of HN with no comments, what is the most upvotes an article has gotten without a comment? Is there a service that tracks things like this?
Note: At the time of writing this article has no comments.
If I was to make a guess, I'd say that the lack of comments has a lot to do with nobody wanting to be the one to tell Derek he's wrong. I find it refreshing.
Both are oversimplifications, what are the real reasons behind their judgement? are you trying to breath water on the beach and the one telling you that you are wrong is part of a rescue team. Or you have invented the radio and the one telling you wrong is a cleric that things that sound is the voice of evil?. Maybe examples are a bit extreme.
It also depends on the moment, place and people: if you are a scientist that has discovered a liquid that let´s you breath water or a tribal leader is using the radio to organize a genocide, probably the situation is not the same.
yes,I guess so :) For example, I wanted to join startup..friends said its 'too risky dont join'.
Instead I joined startup,I learned a lot technically, had a great time. Now I'm working(?) with a big company. friends say 'you are in xyz? that's great place to work..stay there forever' but only i know I'm not learning anything with my current job!
By this logic, someone who likes to exercise a lot will have people who tell them them are too athletic. Some people don't like to exercise at all, and others will tell them they are too lazy.
You better pick which side you are on so you can shrug off the people laughing at you.
This ignores the point that the optimal spot on the spectrum is somewhere in the middle, or left of/right of center depending on the situation. This post ignores the fact that a starving artist should be proud of their ways when someone says they are not focusing on money enough. I prefer critically analyzing the substance of the cretique instead of just sticking to my position, and treating their mockery as always non-constructive.
I'd revise that. It depends on the context. Is it a discussion of known fact or a discussion of various possible not-yet-known outcomes? With known fact, can say before you get there. And a lot of discussions would tend to converge on known fact, rather than not-yet-known outcomes. It's only the truly groundbreaking stuff that we don't know. And if we're restricting the subject to startups, how many startups in the world are truly groundbreaking?
OK, maybe you can still throw out the argument that we don't know. But I can't do that confidently.
