The guy's insinuation that your achievements were fueled by chemicals is wrong. I know many people who developed their willpower, made a decision and did something, no chemicals involved. I myself don't depend on (or even enjoy) caffeine or even sugar to get stuff done. I get it done better when I enjoy it. Often the trick is to start doing something small where it's safe to fail ... and as you start doing it, you get more ideas and soon you're in the zone.
Russians have a saying: appetite comes when you start eating.
PS: Also, he writes "I don't make spelling / grammar mistakes" soon after writing:
There’s no doubt that I’d rather surround myself with go-getters who say what they do and never take yes for a reason why not.
I think I might be missing the point of the article. It just seemed to be a bit of a rant (not very pleasant one at that). Is the author saying that people that perform well are born that way, so shouldn't be rewarded?
Is it just me or he sucks at presenting an argument. I read the whole thing and am still not clear exactly what he is trying to say.
He keeps equating hard work or success with height. What's the point? You are either born to be successful or not? Your hardwork isn't something you did, it was something you were born with?
> Let me guess: most of your hard work came from doing something physical like ingesting drugs like caffeine, adderall, or LSD
I agree that our biology probably plays a much bigger part in determining how productive we are than any simple behavioral change, especially of the type you typically find in self-help books and articles on 'productivity tips'.
But this doesn't necessarily mean that these biological factors are mostly fixed at birth and can only be affected through the use of stimulants. For example, regular exercise, a healthy non-inflammatory diet, and adequate sleep all have the potential to significantly improve productivity.
And even if ultimately all of this is mostly fixed and genetic, and there's nothing we can do to become more productive, I feel that it's a far healthier attitude to at least keep trying than to resign completely. Simply believing that we have zero control over our ability to work hard can become a type of self fulfilling prophecy - believing it just drives productivity even lower.
I like these "You're not especial" kind of article. Don't looks like satire to me. Or you do what you are good for or you are a pretender (you can also work hard toward it :))
12 comments
[ 18.0 ms ] story [ 356 ms ] threadRussians have a saying: appetite comes when you start eating.
PS: Also, he writes "I don't make spelling / grammar mistakes" soon after writing:
There’s no doubt that I’d rather surround myself with go-getters who say what they do and never take yes for a reason why not.
Ugh.
He keeps equating hard work or success with height. What's the point? You are either born to be successful or not? Your hardwork isn't something you did, it was something you were born with?
I agree that our biology probably plays a much bigger part in determining how productive we are than any simple behavioral change, especially of the type you typically find in self-help books and articles on 'productivity tips'.
But this doesn't necessarily mean that these biological factors are mostly fixed at birth and can only be affected through the use of stimulants. For example, regular exercise, a healthy non-inflammatory diet, and adequate sleep all have the potential to significantly improve productivity.
And even if ultimately all of this is mostly fixed and genetic, and there's nothing we can do to become more productive, I feel that it's a far healthier attitude to at least keep trying than to resign completely. Simply believing that we have zero control over our ability to work hard can become a type of self fulfilling prophecy - believing it just drives productivity even lower.