Anecdotal support: I once dated a girl who really wanted to learn to partner dance. She dragged me to ballroom lessons, and then swing, and then lindy hop. I was mildly enthusiastic at best, but I got pretty good at it. At some point -- after we had broken up, ironically -- something clicked, and I got really into it, eventually competing and teaching dance classes for several years.
This is the moral I also take away from "Stumbling on Happiness:" we're really bad at predicting what will make us happy.
When you're single the incentives for being good at partner dancing are considerably higher than when you're securely in a relationship.
I went the opposite direction - from being a fanatical swing dancer while I was single to being completely uninterested in it after I met my wife. It was purely instrumental, in other words. And I saw the same pattern repeated with the majority of swing dancers both male and female. As soon as they were hooked up, it was see-ya.
Perhaps that's true in general, but all I can say is that wasn't true in my case. I had several relationships after becoming fanatical about it, and never stopped dancing.
That's not true in my experience. I've been partner dancing for about 6 years and that's where I met my girlfriend of the past 5 years. We still dance every chance we get (we have a portable dance floor in our apartment). It's absolutely wonderful that we have something that we can learn and excel at together.
I have seen some people meet while learning to partner dance and quit, however. Not because they "bagged a good one" per se, but because some couples think that they're only allowed to dance together (which can get boring no matter how you slice it) and have a difficult time accommodating each other in the learning process.
Like any pattern, its value comes from knowing when to apply it.
Yes, a new thing (experience, hire, book, bauble, etc.) might turn out to be better than you had anticipated, but how valuable is that speculation? What is a good ratio of anticipated enjoyment to anticipated indifference? I think a lot of people are unhappy because they've filled their lives with things that they are mostly indifferent to, but still cling to them on the off chance that they'll be valuable later.
It's like the old pickle jar theory. You want to fill your life up with the best stuff available (big rocks), and leave the speculative stuff to fill in the gaps (sand), not the other way around.
I would disagree with that. This doesn't apply just to vacation itineraries but more so to projects you are either thinking of starting yourself or are being invited to join. This being Hacker News, many of us here get ample opportunities to join software projects that seem interesting. From open-source utilities to apps built on the latest frameworks, we have more than enough ways to keep us busy if we so choose. Many of the founders working on their primary startups have second or third pet ideas that they always want to work on but can never find the time to. That is what this "hell yeah!" is about.
From personal experience, I can say that in 2007 and 2008, I got into the habit of saying "ok yes" to every project that came across my way. A couple of those projects got me ample fame (Wired.com front page, TC, newspaper articles) and some even got me pretty good income. However, having too many things that needed to be done at the same time left me feeling unaccomplished, unhealthy, and frankly miserable, despite the fact that I was building some pretty neat things.
I decided to change things earlier this year and now I've stopped working on any side projects other than my main job. As side projects, I've started training for ultramarathons. It has absolutely nothing to do with computers but I find it a lot more satisfying personally than "yet another website idea." When I asked myself if I want to run one hundred miles in 36 hours non-stop, I immediately said "HELL YEAH!" So I started training.
A few months into the training, I got a bit jealous of all these startups getting funding and fame, so I thought about working on a startup again. I had a few ideas, some old and some new but none of them screamed "HELL YEAH!" Nevertheless, I bought a domain or two, built a logo/theme, and thought if I just crossed over the initial hurdle of disinterest, I'd find the excitement to continue. It never happened. I still think that one of my ideas is solid and it could work quite well. However, it just doesn't scream "HELL YEAH!" to me right now so for the moment, it is on the sidelines.
On the other hand, I'm getting more and more excited by the day because my 100-mile race ( http://chir.ag/20090621 ) is coming up soon - Sept 5-6. It has been exciting throughout the duration, though I felt miserable, overworked, and weak many times. The take-home lesson for me is that the passion doesn't dwindle though the motivation, strength, and energy might waver frequently. Once the passion is gone, so is the project. "HELL YEAH!" is passion and if you don't have that for something, don't dive head-first into it at the risk of rest of your life.
It bores me. It bores me like the 50 near identical articles that hit HN before it.
"Hell yeah" is completely great when it happens. But most projects, even the "Hell yeah"-projects take much longer than that feeling can possibly last. Everybody who has built a startup knows that it inevitably becomes very tedious at a point. A few months into the gruntwork the "Hell yeah" turns more into a "God damn".
In my opinion the "God damn"-part is much more relevant than the "Hell yeah"-part. Many people start "Hell yeah"-projects. Few survive through the "God damn"-phase.
I don't think you read the last paragraph I wrote. I said it clearly that even on projects that I am passionate about, there is a lot of miserable grunt-work, just like any startup. I think we just have different meanings for what "hell yeah" here means.
Missing the point. Every "Hell yeah" project does not turn out to be easy or even fun. In fact I agree that finishing any project is usually tough, some aspect of it sucks. Why are so many things left unfinished? Doesn't matter what the project is pick one. Where I work there is unlimited demand for time and features and projects compared to finite time available to work on them. The most successful folks have learned the skill of figuring out what to say no too. In the face of unlimited demand, one might as well only choose the "Hell yeah" stuff. Life is better that way. It took me a long time to figure that out. If all of the stuff one said "Hell yeah" to was easy life would be boring. Running a 100 miles doesn't sound to easy to me. If one does survive the hard phase on a "Hell yeah" project that is what the best things life are made of. Might as well try out as many "Hell yeah" things as possible. I am pretty sure my wife wasn't saying "Hell yeah" when my 3 children were being born. But I could have missed something...
FWIW I was referring to his assertion that choosing only the candy projects is the recipe to success. It's not. There are plenty "Hell-yeah" projects that you'd better not touch.
Your point being? At least specifying that you're actually excited about an activity narrows the field. And then you can perform further due diligence/deep thought etc at will.
Well, take your last two sentences and then tell me, what does the original article add to that?
Exactly. And that was the reason for my original, snide remark. He said no more than "Work on what you love" in way too many words. Which is both, a beautiful thing to say, and an utterly useless piece of advice in the real world.
Well, fair enough, but it's always good to have a reminder, plus he rephrases the idea into something a little less abstract than "work on what you love", while giving a useful suggestion how to know what it is you love (something that makes you say "hell yeah!").
Personally I quite liked his retelling. I know a few people who would benefit from taking that advice. So I think the article did add something, yes.
When Warren lectures at business schools, he says, "I could improve your ultimate financial welfare by giving you a ticket with only 20 slots in it so that you had 20 punches—representing all the investments that you got to make in a lifetime. And once you'd punched through the card, you couldn't make any more investments at all."
He says, "Under those rules, you'd really think carefully about what you did and you'd be forced to load up on what you'd really thought about. So you'd do so much better."
Again, this is a concept that seems perfectly obvious to me. And to Warren it seems perfectly obvious. But this is one of the very few business classes in the U.S. where anybody will be saying so. It just isn't the conventional wisdom.
To me, it's obvious that the winner has to bet very selectively. It's been obvious to me since very early in life. I don't know why it's not obvious to very many other people.
She makes a good point: When I have too much going on, the last thing I want to think about is adding more things to do (more physical workouts, more time to make better meals, more books on my "to read" pile, etc.). Instead, she recommends starting out by removing things. This then frees up time for the eventual adding of appropriate things (dictated by your personal priorities).
Kind of like the feeling of a sparsely furnished room versus a crowded one: Room to breathe.
Though I think he understands the trade-offs better than the OP. And, conspicuously, the decisions described mostly rest with and affect the decision maker. This is no way to make decisions for a group.
The problem with me is even if start with a 'hell yeah', I usually fade to a 'yeah' by the end of the day and when I wake up the next day it's more like a 'ehh'. My 'hell yeah' reliably always hops to the next thing and follows the same fade-out pattern.
It's actually pretty depressing now that I step back and look at it. Thanks, Derek.
HN should setup a weekly contest for the best "n worst startup mistakes", "n ways to motivation" and "n ways to hire the perfect $whatever" post. And filter out the entrants please, only post the winners...
Totally Depends...
That's the real quality of us startup guys (entrepreneurs as they call us), to make changes to our mindset, to keep judging things constantly, basically no absolutley solid rules...it all depends...I believe no two situations are alike...
In fact, I think at some level, that's the reason we all love doing this so much....that creates the excitement.
I would just say this: Life is not Black and white....there are degrees of gray in there.....now it's each individual's call at any given point.
So, this philosophy might work for some people in some scenarios, but will you back down from a difficult project because it involves much more work than you can see ROI. In most cases, I would rather go with it for a few days and then see, if that HELL YEAH feeling comes...
Sounds like manic depression to me.
The example of refining the search for a good candidate is wise though - but it can be explained less dramatically. No candidate was remarkable, though some were good, and he re-advertised the position.
Seeing everything as 'no' or an enthusiastic yes. It's like always being either really down or hyperactively enthusiastic. As others have commented, there are times when something is just 'ok' and still worth doing - or things you just aquiesce to doing that turn out to be really great. I wouldn't want to miss out on such things by only ever (or even mostly) being 'no' or 'hell yeah!'.
The point is that it is worse to miss out on "hell yeah" because you're doing "ok" than it is to miss out on "ok" by doing "hell yeah", and all else being equal your feelings of anticipation are the best indicator that you have of whether something will turn out to be great or not.
Ok that does make sense. But surely the best path is to have a more nuanced evaluation of the options than a binary 'Yay!' or 'no'.
Anyhoo - if someone finds the OP useful then all is well, and maybe someone will.
The only problem with this is that some say no to everything. Sivers isn't addressing them at all, but we wouldn't want to go evangelize this point of view to everyone. Some people need to say yes a lot more. Also, there are categories of the types of things that should default toward hell yeah or no. The boundaries there would be person specific.
I agree. The "Hell" in "Hell yeah." emits the passion the person has for what they are say yes to. Whether pitching an idea or asking for a girl's phone number we all want to hear some level of passion in the yes. A simple "Yes." is very close to a "Maybe" but "Hell yeah" says "I agree and I'm am just as paaionate as you are about it."
I think this would be a good philosophy to apply on features (i.e. add only a feature if it's a "hell yeah", otherwise don't add it). The problem with this philosophy is that it can be hard to know what features users are interested in, so one might only add features that one thinks are "hell yeah" features :)
This works better in some ways than others. This thinking works great when shopping. If you do not absolutely love something you should not buy it (unless it is a necessity like insurance or food). Also works great with hobbys, movies, books, etc.
Unfortunately, it is not as easily applied with careers.
He should have gone to Florianopolis. The girls alone are worth it. 'sides, they have a great public transportation system (since it is a kinda small island, also, I don't own a car) and the people there are great. One of the best cities to live in Brazil, for sure.
Browsing and other exploratory learning is different from choosing; it's a prerequisite, if you don't browse, you won't have many options to choose from, and are less likely to find a hell yeah.
What is this post about? Somebody who finally is able to prioritize his life? Having standards is great but this is a stupid philosophy for life... Alternatives and compromise are important in many decisions, and your maximum level of interest may not always be the best factor to weigh your options.
I wouldn't be so fast to dismiss it as a 'stupid philosophy for life'.
It's one thing when you have people depending on you, a family to feed, a house to upkeep, etc. But if you're just in college or grad school, or for any other reason aren't being depended on, then this might be a good way to decide what you want in your life.
I certainly found that since I recently started thinking about this, it's improved my life.
For instance, I was recently trying to pick a martial art to start learning, and after seeing a few Wushu schools, I saw my Capoeira school. While the Wushu schools seemed, 'ehhh, pretty good I guess', the Capoeira school was an instant 'Hell yeah!' - so now I'm doing Capoeira and having a beyond great time. I had the same experience with finding a job last summer, and, similarly, greatly enjoyed it when I found one.
In summary: sure, this might not be the best way to live if you have significant responsibilities to others, but if you are trying to enjoy your life and are living freely this may be a great philosophy to adopt.
I guess I just can't get past the fact that you can easily make an unwise decision this way by overlooking practicality. You see a couple options you're not very interested in, and then one you are very interested in, and you pick it without hesitation?
I know i'd like to learn Tae-Kwon Do, but I also know my primary motivation for learning a martial art (beside the art itself) is to get in shape physically. From what I understand Muay Thai is a much better cardio workout. Tae-Kwon Do might be more fun but it wouldn't benefit me as much as the Muay Thai (not to mention kickboxing is probably more useful in a real fight).
So to reiterate my original statement: I think you can end up making the wrong decision if it's based purely upon excitement in an idea and not practical information which may be less exciting. I acknowledge your point that it may make your life more fun, but as i've learned growing up, doing things that aren't fun are often more important.
I definitely agree with a lot of the things you're pointing out, so I'm guessing the real truth (if there can be one) is the usual: everything is good in moderation.
Doing things that aren't fun is often important (well, how else would we deal with things like taxes, or marketing for tech startups, or etc etc); equally, if you live based only on what is important (rather than letting yourself do what sounds fun), you might not have a very pleasant or rewarding lifestyle.
It's really too bad we can't come up with a lifestyle philosophy in under 144 characters, since we have to compromise all the time. (Although I guess that could be one: "Everything in moderation" is only 24 characters.)
