Everybody in college pretends to be not working hard as they like to admit, thus the advice that comes from colleagues along the lines of "don't do the homework, it's really a waste of time" when everybody is actually doing it, could screw you over. It didn't mess up my life per se, but definitely had an impact on my grades when I was a naive freshman.
How much of that homework is just busy work? Working hard on busy work is useless when it doesn't help foster any learning. It's unfortunate that many professors assign useless assignments and that it has become an accepted part of the curriculum.
> Everybody in college pretends to be not working hard as they like to admit
Is this true when it's a student telling the outside world? It's a useful strategy to claim one's working really hard in school to explain why he hasn't been calling / doesn't want to visit over spring break / doesn't have a girlfriend / why the parents should keep sending money / etc.
It's funny, all the advice I had from upperclassmen when I started college was "do your homework and go to class", and I did neither, and I don't regret it at all. Yes, it hurt my grades. However, I've found that my grades haven't mattered at all.
Given grades are correlated with having understood the material, I assume the implication is that the material you might have learned but didn't hasn't been at all relevant.
It's more that understanding the material is a necessary but not sufficient condition for getting good grades. It's quite possible to understand all the material and still get bad grades.
I am graduating from CS, currently in my final year. GPA does matters a lot when you are a fresher. Companies which visit universities for hiring (Campus recruitment drive) places a GPA cutoff, henceforth making low GPA fellas ineligible to even appear in their hiring process. All the big guns do so (Google, Y!, Amazon etc etc).
If there's anything you don't want as a role model in college, it's the mythical "slacker genius" (I say mythical because pretty much everyone who falls into this category is either a work of fiction or someone who works both hard and efficiently). Go to class, do the homework, study (and if you don't know how, learn!). If you get good at those things, there's plenty of time left over to have fun.
You should treat college homework and studying as a constrained optimization problem. Decide up front how many hours you're going to put in per weak and then figure out how to maximize your GPA within that limit. In the remaining time you can do whatever you want.
> Everybody in college pretends to be not working hard as they like to admit
My experience was the exact opposite. People liked to compete to see who had the most coursework to do. People would complain about having to pull all nighters, but still spend hours on youtube or facebook beforehand. Some people were genuinely overwhelmed with work, but it was never downplayed as far as I could tell.
I have been told that it might be a cultural thing by someone who has studied in the UK and the US. US = overplay amount of work done, UK = under play it.
"Good news should travel fast, bad news should travel even faster."
Sure, but not in an environment where "shoot the messenger" is the m.o. I learned to keep my head down pretty quickly, and now I'm looking for an exit strategy.
In the early 80's at Rice University my academic advisor steered me from computer science which I enjoyed (APL rocked!) to chemical engineering because "computers will be programming themselves in 20 years and comp sci isn't real engineering anyways". I hated chem eng but after a decade of detours final came back to coding. I didn't mind the detours but it was spectacularly bad advice and I was dumb enough to take it.
It's just something people say to console, not actually anything that's remotely useful or true. Magic never happens on its own. You have to go out there and make it happen.
I'm honestly not sure I'm understanding you properly, but if I am, this is true up to a point. We like to believe in a world where everyone's results are directly correlated with how much work they've done, but that's just as much a fantasy as it is to believe that all you have to do is sit around and wait for the right opportunity to magically appear.
I hate to break it to you, but the most successful people in society usually got there not only from hard work but from being in the right place at the right time.
I hate to break it to you, but the most successful people in society usually got there not only from hard work but from being in the right place at the right time.
According to studies on "luck", one key is to be in a LOT of places. It increases your chance of being in some right place at some right time. Another key is a positive attitude, of seeing opportunities and taking advantage of them.
So it is difficult to tell when someone's behavior (work) causes a success versus when it truly is a lucky break.
I was mostly talking about dating girls. It may seem obvious in hindsight, but at the time, I just took it as word. But it's also applicable to other aspects of my life.
Whenever I've taken initiative and grabbed the situation by the horns to change, it's been for the better.
Odd. For me it's the exact opposite--any and all advice about how to grab the situation by the horns and take the initiative and approach girls, nothing ever worked out, but things did happen when I least expected them.
"You're smart." It took me five years of coasting on that presumption before I realized that being "smart" isn't nearly enough. I'm still working (after a few more years) to develop the habits that would have come from hearing "you're a hard worker."
The internet really helps with that, by expanding your world to include some people who are just dazzlingly brilliant, and remind you how far you have to go. This guy, for example:
The nice thing about this kind of ego-shrinking is that it's combined with inspiration to do something about it, rather than just feeling deflated. There's so much interesting stuff out there.
"Dweck discovered that those who think that innate intelligence is the key to success begin to discount the importance of effort. I am smart, the kids’ reasoning goes; I don’t need to put out effort. Expending effort becomes stigmatized—it’s public proof that you can’t cut it on your natural gifts."
tl;dr: Praise kids for their hard work, not for being smart.
To some extent education tries to do that, but imo it's pretty bad when it really does it consistently. The person who spent a lot of hours on a-not-really-working project gets a better grade than the person who actually produced an impressive result, but managed to pull it off the night before and made the mistake of not hiding the fact that they didn't spend a lot of hours on it. That's not actually that uncommon in college, since there's a huge range of ability and prior experience in a typical class, and professors do try to base some of their grade on how earnestly the student appeared to work on it: to save face, they can't give an A to the student who did the whole semester project in a day, even if the result was objectively better than most of the others.
End result of that approach is that the kids learn that hard work matters, but results don't. Now you have someone who'll optimize for "hours put in", worrying more about whether they're impressing the boss with their work ethic than about the quality of the end results they're delivering. Sort of a common feature of corporate culture, where the guy who stays late and comes in weekends is praised, even if the guy who went home at 5pm every day is the one producing most of the working code.
The other lesson you learn from that is: if you solve a major problem in two hours, withhold the result and pretend you spent two weeks working on it, then present it later and get praised for working hard on the problem for two weeks and solving it.
Even worse is when people are told they are smart when really they might just be about average or a little above and really need to put the hard yards in rather than coasting.
I always cringe a bit when I come home for the holidays and get praise from family on my purported intelligence and achievements. I feel as though this mentality kept me intellectually fat and happy for most of my teenage years, inhibiting the drive to constantly grow that I've fostered since entering college.
I hate to say me too, but definitely me too. I'm convinced that I procrastinate more because of being told how smart I was as a kid, as opposed to being petrified of not working hard enough.
Not from any specific person, but the idea that you have to step outside your comfort zone and do X and Y even though it doesn't come naturally to you.
Every time I did that things got messed up and I ended up worse than I was before.
If you're outside your comfort zone, you will act in non-authentic ways, and when you're not being authentic, you can't be the best possible you.
Examples of stepping outside comfort zone:
* Wear a suite and act professional for a job interview
* Say hi to random strangers so you can make friends (even though you're introverted and doing this makes you look like a fool)
* Go to social events where you don't know anyone there.
EDIT: thanks for the down votes. Now let me explain why this is bad advice:
- Act not like yourself for a job interview:
This is bad because instead of showing them your strong points, you'll be busy trying to hide your weak points and seem like a "good, obedient" employee. Eventually you fail at both: your bad points will still show, while your good points won't get a chance.
- Begging friendship from random strangers:
Makes you look like a fool, insecure person that nobody wants to be friends with.
EDIT2: I'm not talking about little steps. Venturing into new areas is fun. Throwing yourself into the middle of an extremely uncomfortable situation is completely different.
One of the reasons I found "step outside your comfort zone" to be bad advice is that they never tell you how far to go and when you should stop. It seems consequential that you never know when you have gone too far, because you're outside the zone where you can use your intuition sensibly. If you were able to tell that you've gone too far, then by definition you're still inside your comfort zone.
If something only makes you a little bit uncomfortable, it will feel like it's still inside your comfort zone, and if you're trying to follow the "step outside your comfort zone" advice, you'll be tempted to go even further.
As a musician doing non-mainstream music, I hear this a lot too. People will say something like, "just write somethin catchy and mainstream and you will make a million dollars!". What they don't understand is that you cannot force yourself to create something that is not in your head, no matter how "simple" it seems.
It seems like you didn't quite apply the idea of "step outside of your comfort zone" correctly. It's about little steps, and repeated trying of things until you get it right. It means stop being so worried about what other people think and start being the person you want to be, not someone who's fearful of trying and doing new things. How do you think you learned most of your social behavior up to this point?
Just to add to this, it's good to do things outside of your comfort zone in low pressure/stress situations where the consequences of failure are minor.
It's not a good idea to pick up skydiving when you're in a burning plane and it's the only option.
What I learned is that, if you're an educated individual living in a first world country, the consequences of failure are _almost always_ minor. Act accordingly.
As an opposing viewpoint, every major advance in my life has come from stepping outside of my comfort zone and tackling something in which I had no idea what I was doing.
-public speaking
-asking women out
-learning to dance
-socializing/making friends
-lifting weights
-starting a business
-doing sales work
-learning to program
edit: The vast majority of these made me very uncomfortable and awkard, not "a little".
I couldn't agree more with the sentiment that - often - stepping outside your comfort zone can lead to good things. However there has to be some reason you want to do it, despite it making you uncomfortable. Otherwise the fact that you're not being yourself will overshadow whatever it is you're trying to achieve.
I made myself go back to university when my first experience was not successful, I'm now on track for a great degree. I am in the process of chasing a few business opportunities, and I'm putting myself in the position of a marketing man. This has already lead to some promising leads. I also tried to be a bit more open minded and non-judgemental, and socialise in ways I didn't previously, and I made some great friends as a result.
Your life is in many ways, very much in your own hands.
You bifurcate "I" and "me" implying the former can reliably create such a state in the latter; if this is the case, then what's actually at work in forming your "me"?
I used two different terms to aid the reader, but I and me are just pointers to self and like a ruby class running metaprogramming on self, one can rewrite oneself. The new code still comes from the self, though.
not felicitous to say the least. you're ignoring my point that your self is formed by something which also has a form that you're ignoring since you're so in love with its ability to change.
Of course you have to have some reason to go outside your comfort zone. If anyone has ever suggested otherwise, they have misunderstood the concept completely. The point is to grow as a person and achieve proficiency in an area you want, but which doesn't come naturally to you.
You're not supposed to be awkward and uncomfortable just for the hell of it.
To piggyback off your example to make a point,
1) public speaking: preach to the choir or speak your mind?
2) picking up women: be a nice guy or be assertive about your needs?
3) socializing/making friends: manipulate to get ahead or be loyal and get snubbed?
4) lifting weights: long day at work, go to the gym anyways?
5) starting a business: when to quit your job or when to admit that your project is a dead-horse
6) doing sales work: where is the fine-line between lying and marketing?
7) learning to program: programming before hoes or the other way around? (sadly I took up this ill-advised vocation at an age before I realized the importance of women).
Pushing ourselves beyond the comfort zone most likely reveal ugly truth about ourselves that our ego have been trying to protect ourselves from. I found that what I thought were world's injustices directed at me were really my own insecurities and sheer laziness; or my notion that I'm a nice and considerate person is really sour grapes that I didn't have X; and in the position of getting X, I could be as selfish and manipulative as the next guy who has X, whom I previously vilified. Stepping out of comfort zone reveals who we really are and sometimes the truth is ugly.
I see a lot of straw men in your examples. They are almost all cases of how to handle the success you receive from leaving your comfort zone.
In all of these things, you strike a balance and find what is moral or healthy--that is part of the journey. I wouldn't want to use possible straw-men morality as an excuse for continued ineptness. Like white hat security pros, you can know how to do something but choose not to do it.
mind telling more about your experience on this?
how far would you say "getting out of your comfort zone" did you reach?
how did programming affected your life (seems like you meant you spent too much time doing so before getting to that... how was it?)
Personally after college, I had four goals: 1) be able to bench-press 200lb, 2) play guitar in a band/be able to improvise, solo, play at performance tempo etc., 3) be able to play pick-up basketball and win more games for my team than lose, 4) to approach women and other people in bar and other urban scenario's and f-close or the social equivalent.
No, I haven't completely achieved all of my goals although I have gone very far in all of them. But I'm not as anxious about them nor about admitting on my shortcomings on my goals in public; like in programming, at a point you develop a sense of confidence that even on a long programming project, it's only a matter a time that you will finish it. It's just a sequence of iterations of coding & debugging.
How did programming affect my life? It made me a nerd with inferiority-superiority complex who on one hand views average human beings as automatons who let their sense of social insecurity get in their way; and who on the other hand is insecure himself, requires constant social re-assurances, stroking of the ego and (most importantly) sexual gratification. And for that, I'm eternally indebted to programming.
If you're trolling this post with spectacularly bad advice about bad advice, well done. If you truly believe that, you have a very cynical worldview.
I am quite introverted but whenever I force myself to go to a social event where I don't know anyone and make friends, I always have a great time and meet awesome people, and it invariably goes better than I thought it would. If you just assume the people there WANT to be your friend, you don't look needy and your extroverted side comes out, and you can still be yourself.
No, it doesn't. Introverts are perfectly capable of overcoming their personality tendencies. Introversion or extraversion refer to your natural inclination, but it determines nothing.
"Introverts are perfectly capable of overcoming their personality tendencies."
The first thing you're assuming is that introverts either want or need to overcome their introversion. There isn't anything wrong with being an introvert. There is something wrong with being an extreme introvert.
The first thing you're assuming is that introverts either want or need to overcome their introversion
I certainly did not mean to say that. I don't believe it. What I said was that introverts are capable of overcoming their tendencies. They're tendencies, not fate.
The commenter a few levels above said they had a great time at parties; the comment I responded to said that sounded like a shy extrovert. Not so, say I: introverts can have fun at parties too, even ones where they don't know anybody.
No value judgement intended in any direction. I'm a strong introvert who does well at parties because I need to for my work; but it's difficult and I don't have fun.
> What I said was that introverts are capable of overcoming their tendencies
I think the person above was pointing out that by saying that introverts need to "overcome" their tendencies, you are effectively saying that introverts have an issue that needs to be overcome.
Introverts can increase their tolerance to being social in much the same way you can increase your physical stamina. However, as an introvert, I don't think I could ever train myself to recharge from social situations the way extroverts do.
I'm fairly introverted myself so I can relate to the notion of just spending time by myself and feeling quite happy about it. However, you miss out on so many opportunities.
I just moved overseas to a new university and I've been forcing myself to go to many, many talks and chat with the people there. Some huge proportion of time I walk away with some useful bit of information "You have to read the new paper by x! It covers exactly what you're looking for." or "Y just got a grant and is looking for PhD students in your area."
Every connection you make adds potential access to another life times experience and knowledge.
[I'm vaguely expecting you to weasle word "Ah, but not doing that is being an /extreme/ introvert."]
As I've heard it defined, extroverts gain energy from social interactions, introverts are fatigued by them. If, like me, after a few hours of small talk you feel exhausted and want to sit in front of a screen alone, you're probably an introvert. I have some extroverted friends who will not go to the grocery store unless someone goes with them to keep them company. I prefer taking walks alone, and so on.
> I have some extroverted friends who will not go to the grocery store unless someone goes with them
We did a teamwork exercise where they split the E's and I's. To both groups, they said that you have the next day off - tell us what you're going to do. The E's were going nuts with chartering a plane to Vegas, big party while all of the I's were going to do something alone, maybe even just catch up on laundry. The difference was shocking.
In another exercise, they had an E monitor a team of us I's on a logic puzzle. As the E later described, he was just basically watching us I's sit there and not say anything and then a few minutes later - we started talking. We won but the non-talking communication really weirded him out.
I think the grandparent's point is that you shouldn't force yourself to be an extravert no matter what extraverts tell you. Yeah, it's good to engage your extraverted side, but there's a big difference between that and actually becoming an extravert.
> If you just assume the people there WANT to be your friend, you don't look needy and your extroverted side comes out, and you can still be yourself.
Sadly, I believe most introverts are pretty selfish - worrying what other people think of them when, in reality, most everyone is not thinking of them - and may not even notice them.
Another thing about Introverts - with most extroverts, it is fairly easy to figure out who a person is or at least who they primarily represent themselves as. With an introvert, a stranger is going to have to invest a lot more in getting to know who an introvert is - that's exhausting to some people - why expend energy figuring out the quiet ones when you can have fun talking to the loud ones.
>>I believe most introverts are pretty selfish - worrying what other people think of them
WTF? :-)
Did that come out wrong? Are you a non-native English speaker and don't know the word "selfish"?
That kind of worrying is normal insecurity. If you up the ante with e.g. unusual clothes, non-introvert people wills start worrying like that too. Introverts just start doing it at a lower threshold.
> Wear a suite (sic) and act professional for a job interview
Worst advice I've ever received. For my first job interview in the tech field, I wore a jacket and tie. Every guy in the place had his sandals up on his desk. I also said 'no, thanks' when offered a beverage, and I think I came off as someone who was there to audit the place.
Wearing a suit != "[seeming] like a 'good, obedient' employee." I have always really appreciated it when job candidates dress up for their interviews. It makes it seem like they're saying to me 'I know this isn't your dress code, but I want to put my best foot forward and make sure you know I take this interaction seriously.'
Say hi to random strangers so you can make friends (even though you're introverted and doing this makes you look like a fool)
I wouldn't be with my girlfriend of a year and a half if I hadn't stuck my neck out and gotten outside my comfort zone when I was introduced to her. It doesn't make you look like a fool; it provides you with an aura of confidence.
Go to social events where you don't know anyone there.
As a corollary, I imagine you'd also suggest never moving to a new city where you don't know anyone, right?
> As a corollary, I imagine you'd also suggest never moving to a new city where you don't know anyone, right?
I don't see that as a corollary (a city is not a social event). But for me personally, that's right, I wouldn't do that unless I had an extroverted friend or family moving with me, or I had something specific to do (job, study, etc). Although I wouldn't necessarily suggest that to other people; this is just me, and each to his own.
I have heard that certain mid-size to large technology companies in Silicon Valley actually ding people on "culture fit" if they wear a suit to the interview. This was actually one of those pieces of advice my mom gave me that turned out to be bad advice.
Instead, I'd suggest "Know the culture that you're entering, respect it, and do your best to adhere to it."
When I interviewed for my current job, it was at a company where I knew a lot of people and was pretty familiar with th culture. I knew a jacket and tie would be overkill but it seemed respectful overkill. A suit would have been way overboard though I'd be surprised had anyone really dinged me for it. There is a matter of understanding norms but, usually at least, a degree of overdressing for interviews seems a reasonable approach.
Public speaking is way outside my comfort zone. I have absolutely dreaded it ever since I had to do presentations in school. At the same time, it's really important to me to able to do it, so I accept every opportunity for public speaking that I can.
After several experiences delivering talks or sitting on panel discussions, I've gotten a lot more comfortable - and progressively better (I truly feel sorry for the people who had to sit through my first few times).
I'm still not great at it, but the thought of speaking no longer grips me with panic. The last couple of times I even found myself enjoying it - and feeling a positive response from my audience.
> After 15 years of practice, and about 1000 live shows, I was finally a very good singer, at least by my own standards. (You can judge for yourself at sivers.org/music. Old stuff at the bottom. New stuff at the top.)
> Someone who heard me for the first time then said, “Singing is a gift you're either born with or you're not. You're lucky. You were born with it!”
I think you missed the point of this advice. Stepping out of your comfort zone is designed to allow you to grow as a person, not make you be something you are not.
If you are so introverted that you can't possibly go to an event without making a complete fool out of yourself (a real fool, not just what you think is foolish) you've got a serious issue that is going to put you at a disadvantage in many areas of your life.
There's a huge gap between having faults, recognizing them, accepting them and overcoming them when you choose to and being perfect in every way.
I don't see how completely ignoring your weak points and pretending they aren't relevant to you makes you a better person, however.
Say hi to random strangers so you can make friends (even though you're introverted and doing this makes you look like a fool)
Genuinely curious: are you saying this as a matter or philosophy or did you try this and come out of it feeling foolish and insecure? Or may be both?
I won't down vote you because I think I can relate to both sides of this. There are things I was never into that I got into after a lot of struggles and looking foolish. And there are things that I was never into that I could never feel comfortable with no matter how much I tried.
In either case, until I got out of my comfort zone I could never know what I can and cannot eventually be.
The idea behind stepping outside of your comfort zone is that you keep doing it until it becomes your new comfort zone. If you're not ready to invest the effort needed to see it through, you shouldn't do it.
Every time I've tried stepping out of my comfort zone "just for the hell of it", it usually ends up being pointless at best and embarrassing at worst. I'm not changed at all, I don't really accomplish anything besides making myself feel uncomfortable, and nothing much comes of it.
But the really big, life-changing events in my life have all come from stepping outside my comfort zone, and staying outside my comfort zone until I became comfortable. Switching school districts for high school. Going away for college. Posting things on the Internet. Rocking the job interview process. Founding a company, and sticking with it until everyone except me had given up. Moving to Silicon Valley.
I feel like this is often misunderstood, that a lot of people step outside their comfort zone simply because that's what they're told to do, and don't follow through with it enough to reap the rewards.
"The idea behind stepping outside of your comfort zone is that you keep doing it until it becomes your new comfort zone."
No it isn't. The point of stepping outside your comfort zone is to see if it really does belong outside your comfort zone. Stepping outside your comfort zone and demanding that that be the new way, results be damned, is just as foolish as never stepping outside your comfort zone. Not everything outside your comfort zone is good and usually the only way to determine what is and isn't good is to jump in and try it out.
That's fair too. The point is that you do have to stick with it long enough that you can actually judge the results. If you've been outside your comfort zone for a long time and it's still not comfortable, maybe it's time to try stepping in a different direction. But if you just went to a meetup once and you felt terribly socially awkward and you never went back, how do you know whether it's because first meetings are always awkwards vs. you just don't click with those people?
> The idea behind stepping outside of your comfort zone is that you keep doing it until it becomes your new comfort zone.
That's kinda worse. The only good way to venture into new areas, in my opinion, is to make little steps forward, to the extent that you're not standing still "as-is" but also while you're still in control of your emotions.
This will expand your comfort zone gradually until the thing that was originally very uncomfortable, is now only slightly uncomfortable.
But going completely outside your zone over and over again? No thanks. This might work for some people, specifically people with SP temperament (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artisan_temperament) who tend to seek stimulation, but it's not a good advice for the general population.
I'm an INTP, not exactly an SP temperament. I have historically been very change-averse, almost Aspergian, enough that I almost didn't want to go to college because I couldn't imagine living anywhere but my parents' house. I moved across the country for a new job in a challenging field, and knew virtually nobody there. That isn't exactly baby steps.
It worked because I pretty much made it the focus of my life to adjust to my new situation. Yes, it was scary. It was also a huge opportunity, and I wasn't going to pass it up.
If the idea of a big change completely fills you with dread, you shouldn't do it. That's my point - you should either go all-in or not-at-all-in. But if it's only a little scary, and you think you can do it, my experience has been that it's almost always better to do it and keep at it until it's no longer scary.
1. Take "temperament theory" with a grain of salt. It's somewhat in vogue right now with a lot of psychologists, but there are also plenty of reasons to think that it's conflating two separate issues (temperament and typology) and is an oversimplification.
2. The only way to develop your personality is to step outside your comfort zone. Your type only determines where that comfort zone is, not whether you can or should do it often. For SP (really more ESP, but whatever) types, doing crazy things physically is their comfort zone. They need to learn to get in touch with their more subdued side.
I'm not aware of any personality theory that psychologists agree on, each school has its own theories. I find the temperaments derived from MBTI to be very convincing.
I think the key point here is not about never expanding your comfort zone - it's about not doing it just because someone else advises it.
There's a world of difference between choosing to step outside your limits because you've identified something that you aspire to, and doing so because someone else thinks they know what's good for you.
good advice i actually got from a professor (via c.s. peirce): do nothing to stand in the way of enquiry. this forces you to confront the inadequacy of your knowledge (which you'll realize is intensely personal) and how much help you need.
i should also mention that peirce died a penniless drunk, after leading a tumultuous (huge understatement) life, including a lecturing at harvard.
it's interesting and a little sobering to see how fucked up the lives of many dedicated scholars end up being.
I agree with the advice that stepping out of your comfort zone is necessary for personal development. But I also agree that rest (getting back into the comfort zone) is absolutely necessary. Some of my best life experiences were going out of my comfort zone for an hour or so then returning more enlightened. Some of my worst were going out of it for an entire day or week without any time to rest and reflect.
That being said, your points are valid depending on what you are used to. The social event where you know no one is a natural step after you learn to mingle with strangers alongside friends; if you haven't done that at least, the event will probably suck.
Not from any specific person, but the idea that you have to step outside your comfort zone and do X and Y even though it doesn't come naturally to you.
I've been reading some of the arguments and counterarguments. It seems like a lot of assumptions are being made on both sides. I raised two special needs kids and found that you can help someone grow into doing things they could not before without forcing them to step outside their comfort zone. I now have a job and I find that similar principles work with "normal" adults who need to do something new and aren't sure what they are supposed to be doing.
At home with my oldest son, I had him watch me cook while I explained. Later, he began assisting -- getting out ingredients I needed, stirring things, etc. but only doing what he felt comfortable with. He gradually took over more parts of it as he became comfortable. He now does most of the cooking. At work, I have volunteered to walk someone to where they need to go for a special procedure and show them whom they needed to speak with. One young woman was very shy, so I did intros and did the initial talking until she was more comfortable with this new person. Just walking a new person through the procedure the first time really took the pressure off. It's a big building and everything looks alike and it's easy to get lost, plus my job has a lot of time pressure which adds to the psychological stress because getting lost and wandering around costs you time.
If you don't have someone that can help walk you through something (or some other means to ramp up comfortably), it may be best to take some personal risks. But it is absolutely possible to grow as a person without doing stuff that makes you feel all stressed primarily because it is extremely unfamiliar. Some things may require taking a leap of faith but many things that are routinely handled that way do not inherently require that approach. (I could argue that Y-combinator does something similar to what I am suggesting here: They take you under their wing, introduce you to a lot of folks who already have experience founding a company, help you work out the kinks, etc. so you don't have to simply sink or swim/figure it out all on your own/grow from being burned so much.)
"Watch your mouth." and "Wait your turn." Perhaps, it's something girls are harassed about more than guys, but until I stopped following that "advice" (early college), things were quite mediocre for me.
Maybe that's just what you needed to hear! you probably have a greater understanding of what music means in your life than someone who went to a conservatory straight out of highschool or made it big in a band without trying.
Its hard for me to find any piece of advice that 'messed' up my life per say. From the sounds of it, it seems like I'm blaming some advice when I should be accepting majority of the blame myself.
"You're time will come": You will make it your time.
"Only geniuses go to Harvard": No they don't. Hard working people and wealthy people go to Harvard (those not mutually exclusive)... not geniuses. Intelligence doesn't mean crap, only hard work. This isn't a dig against Harvard, just a dig against people who don't go to Harvard but think they know how to get in.
"Be a generalist": Bullshit. Nobody wants to hire a generalist, they a php rockstar or a rails god.... not a guy who can do mediocre programming in 10 languages. Specialization is the key.
"Read widely": That is an excuse from people who like to read widely for its own sake, but the truth is FOCUSED reading is a better strategy. You'd be better off reading two programming book than reading one programming book and a novel.
I've found most "conventional wisdom" to be bad advice. "Wait for marriage", "wait for kids" are both bad advice. "Go to college" is not necessarily bad advice, but the universal expectation that one will do so is bad, and it is bad advice for a lot of people. There's a lot of other bad advice out there.
Not buying it, old people get married all the time and some even adopt kids. But I'm in the camp that thinks one should wait for marriage and kids, not horribly long, but wait, so don't listen to me. :) I know a lot of people in Utah who got married way too soon and suffered for it.
I wouldn't advise to marry and have children age 18. But I just had my first child and I am 38, wish I was younger. If my son had children at the same age I do, I would be 76. Will I still be a fit and healthy grandfather by then? Also, how fit will I be age 50, to play soccer with my boy?
Better late than never, though - I am certainly happy.
As a father, I'd say that being "too old" for kids is probably a good thing, because it means they weren't high enough on your priority list for you to do a good job at anyway.
Because for most people, marriage and children are the high points of their lives. Even the most successful businesspeople, when they reach the end of their life, rarely lament missed business opportunities, but frequently lament lost time with family.
Though I think some of the thinking given to millenial-generation kids in making them think that they can be what ever they want to be for example an astronaut, is still useful. It's just most people forget about it or give up on that thinking.
The naivety in thinking that you could become an astronaut or something special will probably mean you are more likely to reach your goal or at least go further than other people. I guess if you believe you have the ability to change the world, you probably will.
yeah, I agree. I thought about this today and realized some of the worst advice we got was from our middle school principal telling us to be well-rounded and develop real-world skills. It's the opposite of forcing yourself to focus on things that make you be "special".
And it made me more concerned about fitting into little social groups than focusing on what I want to do.
What's with all the jaded young adults on here and reddit blaming their shortcomings on being told that they were special?
My take on it is this: "you're special" is not a declaration of your supposed super-human intellect or abilities, but a reminder of your uniqueness and independence as a person who can choose to distinguish yourself if you choose to. The moment you stop believing in that is the moment you cease to be special, by that definition.
Don't reject the wrong mantra. "You're special" is fine. "Special means you're better" is what causes you problems.
Parents still to this day share this sentiment. Although my Dad has come around a lot in recent years when I've explained how some internet startups have done and the types of jobs available in programming.
Plus it's easier to see now, Dad uses the internet every day now so it's easier to see how much job opportunity is there.
When people ask me about "computers" I often remind them that it's the only skill that will allow you to work in just about any industry. Art, hard science, medicine, whatever...
If I were a blacksmith in a mediaeval village I would make sure my kids knew that they were tool makers, not blacksmiths. People will always need tools weather they are made in a forge or a factory.
Similar scenario -- though I admit, a lot of what I was doing on the computer during those years was probably 'deadend'. A lot of my formative years were spent digging into MUDs, building computers & just random nerdery as a whole.
Despite a lot of it simply consisting of mucking around, a lot of generic information and knowledge stuck consistently. Despite being told frequently I was 'wasting my life away', in the process I was slowly sponging in information that would later assist me in launching a startup that nowadays employs even my father. :)
I do wish that early on my parents were more supportive of my passions and interests, and it's a mistake I hope not to make with my own children. When you see passion in someone, be it with any topic, it shouldn't matter whether or not it's something that can generate financial stability. These days with the sheer size of the internet -- there's a market (rule 34 I think ;)).
Do what you love, find interesting ways to fuel others with your passion and you can make just about anything pay the rent.
"Go with the flow" - it's ok for being friendly, but crap for making the life you want to live
"Run away from a fight" - A knife fight sure, but in grade school and in metaphor it's pretty bad advice.
"Smart is sufficient" - it's not even necessary
It didn't mess up my life, but when I was in high school the conventional wisdom was that being well rounded helped you get into good colleges. I spent a lot of time playing team sports and the saxophone; neither of those are hobbies of mine today. I wish I had spent some of that time doing something that would still be relevant to me today, like programming (there are a LOT of successful founders that started programming in their early teens; I didn't start until college).
Starting early is not a requisite for success. I started programming when I was 19 or 20 (not that I'm necessarily a successful founder but I have found some measure of success during my IT career).
Your knowledge in various domains likely helps you in ways that aren't immediately apparent. (Team sports, for example, are great for health but also for social skills.)
The big advantage is that you can get to your mid-20s with 10 years of experience and lots of practice, and then be mentally ready without having the commitments of a house, wife, kids, mortgage, etc. tying you down. You can get those same advantages by delaying dating & childbirth until later in life, although then you sacrifice in that your kids may never know their grandparents.
When it comes to software, I don't think starting age matters that much, except perhaps on the margins. The field changes too quickly for amateur technical experience from 10+ years ago to have much of an impact on quality. The kind of experience that ages well is the kind that you can't easily get as a teenager with a Linux install.
Also, every time I interview someone, I ask them how they got into programming. So far, there's been no strong correlation between quality and years of experience. The people who started programming in elementary school are just as likely to be crappy as those who didn't start until college.
The strongest predictor I've seen for engineer quality is college GPA. People who work hard and get things done also tend to get good grades.
That's a good one. What colleges are really looking for is:
1. Expertise in something the college values. For Ivy Leagues and the like, that's usually something academic or artistic. For military academies, that's leadership. Athletics for some schools, though you've gotta be world class or clearly heading there.
2. Good grades (unless you're going for a sports scholarship)
3. A few interesting extra-curriculars to show you can 'multitask' and aren't completely 1 dimensional.
But many parents seem to over-emphasize #3 to the detriment of #1 and #2. If you take them seriously you'll find yourself a jack of many trades, master of none. But it's the masters of particular trades/crafts/domains/knowledge these days that are irreplaceable, un-interchangeable, and who make the advances that push the human race forward, not the jacks.
And the ability to truly master something is difficult, a skill in and of itself. Those who develop that skill early in life will have a significant advantage over those who don't.
So if you find yourself trying to do all three and struggling to keep all those balls in the air, don't be afraid to drop #3. It's expendable.
I sort of value well-roundedness even into adult life. Sure, I didn't morph into a programming genius that spits out code in his sleep, but I do think time spent playing sports and hanging around with friends sort of saved me from being less introverted and shy than I could have been.
There are times that I envy young, successful founders running companies worth millions, laser-focused on their goals from childhood to adulthood, but then again I sort of do a double-take and think: They couldn't have been this awesome without missing some important aspects (to me anyway) of life. Aspects like falling in love, winning a girl's heart, getting into trouble, exploring new places, learning a musical instrument and hanging out with people with different interests and intelligence (street smart or artsy types). I mean, you can only be young once (and of course, your hormones would only be THIS active once).
Most of this will be considered a massive waste of time for some people (I certainly considered all my years spent playing games a waste. Damnit.). Still moderation is key.
Oh, I didn't start seriously programming until I went to college, and life didn't turn out so bad. (Still, no million-dollar company under my name though =()
I learned to resist peer pressure and defer gratification early on. Sound advice, except I followed it to an extreme. Now I dress like a slob and have no motivation in life, and I don't even care.
247 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 272 ms ] threadIs this true when it's a student telling the outside world? It's a useful strategy to claim one's working really hard in school to explain why he hasn't been calling / doesn't want to visit over spring break / doesn't have a girlfriend / why the parents should keep sending money / etc.
My experience was the exact opposite. People liked to compete to see who had the most coursework to do. People would complain about having to pull all nighters, but still spend hours on youtube or facebook beforehand. Some people were genuinely overwhelmed with work, but it was never downplayed as far as I could tell.
Sure, but not in an environment where "shoot the messenger" is the m.o. I learned to keep my head down pretty quickly, and now I'm looking for an exit strategy.
It's just something people say to console, not actually anything that's remotely useful or true. Magic never happens on its own. You have to go out there and make it happen.
I hate to break it to you, but the most successful people in society usually got there not only from hard work but from being in the right place at the right time.
According to studies on "luck", one key is to be in a LOT of places. It increases your chance of being in some right place at some right time. Another key is a positive attitude, of seeing opportunities and taking advantage of them.
So it is difficult to tell when someone's behavior (work) causes a success versus when it truly is a lucky break.
Whenever I've taken initiative and grabbed the situation by the horns to change, it's been for the better.
http://blog.sigfpe.com/
The nice thing about this kind of ego-shrinking is that it's combined with inspiration to do something about it, rather than just feeling deflated. There's so much interesting stuff out there.
"Dweck discovered that those who think that innate intelligence is the key to success begin to discount the importance of effort. I am smart, the kids’ reasoning goes; I don’t need to put out effort. Expending effort becomes stigmatized—it’s public proof that you can’t cut it on your natural gifts."
tl;dr: Praise kids for their hard work, not for being smart.
End result of that approach is that the kids learn that hard work matters, but results don't. Now you have someone who'll optimize for "hours put in", worrying more about whether they're impressing the boss with their work ethic than about the quality of the end results they're delivering. Sort of a common feature of corporate culture, where the guy who stays late and comes in weekends is praised, even if the guy who went home at 5pm every day is the one producing most of the working code.
The other lesson you learn from that is: if you solve a major problem in two hours, withhold the result and pretend you spent two weeks working on it, then present it later and get praised for working hard on the problem for two weeks and solving it.
Every time I did that things got messed up and I ended up worse than I was before.
If you're outside your comfort zone, you will act in non-authentic ways, and when you're not being authentic, you can't be the best possible you.
Examples of stepping outside comfort zone:
* Wear a suite and act professional for a job interview
* Say hi to random strangers so you can make friends (even though you're introverted and doing this makes you look like a fool)
* Go to social events where you don't know anyone there.
EDIT: thanks for the down votes. Now let me explain why this is bad advice:
- Act not like yourself for a job interview:
This is bad because instead of showing them your strong points, you'll be busy trying to hide your weak points and seem like a "good, obedient" employee. Eventually you fail at both: your bad points will still show, while your good points won't get a chance.
- Begging friendship from random strangers:
Makes you look like a fool, insecure person that nobody wants to be friends with.
EDIT2: I'm not talking about little steps. Venturing into new areas is fun. Throwing yourself into the middle of an extremely uncomfortable situation is completely different.
One of the reasons I found "step outside your comfort zone" to be bad advice is that they never tell you how far to go and when you should stop. It seems consequential that you never know when you have gone too far, because you're outside the zone where you can use your intuition sensibly. If you were able to tell that you've gone too far, then by definition you're still inside your comfort zone.
If something only makes you a little bit uncomfortable, it will feel like it's still inside your comfort zone, and if you're trying to follow the "step outside your comfort zone" advice, you'll be tempted to go even further.
It's not a good idea to pick up skydiving when you're in a burning plane and it's the only option.
Well, if it's the only option apart from dying in a plane crash, I'd argue it's a very good idea.
-public speaking
-asking women out
-learning to dance
-socializing/making friends
-lifting weights
-starting a business
-doing sales work
-learning to program
edit: The vast majority of these made me very uncomfortable and awkard, not "a little".
I made myself go back to university when my first experience was not successful, I'm now on track for a great degree. I am in the process of chasing a few business opportunities, and I'm putting myself in the position of a marketing man. This has already lead to some promising leads. I also tried to be a bit more open minded and non-judgemental, and socialise in ways I didn't previously, and I made some great friends as a result.
Your life is in many ways, very much in your own hands.
I view my "self" as fluid, and whatever I want me to be.
You're not supposed to be awkward and uncomfortable just for the hell of it.
Pushing ourselves beyond the comfort zone most likely reveal ugly truth about ourselves that our ego have been trying to protect ourselves from. I found that what I thought were world's injustices directed at me were really my own insecurities and sheer laziness; or my notion that I'm a nice and considerate person is really sour grapes that I didn't have X; and in the position of getting X, I could be as selfish and manipulative as the next guy who has X, whom I previously vilified. Stepping out of comfort zone reveals who we really are and sometimes the truth is ugly.
In all of these things, you strike a balance and find what is moral or healthy--that is part of the journey. I wouldn't want to use possible straw-men morality as an excuse for continued ineptness. Like white hat security pros, you can know how to do something but choose not to do it.
No, I haven't completely achieved all of my goals although I have gone very far in all of them. But I'm not as anxious about them nor about admitting on my shortcomings on my goals in public; like in programming, at a point you develop a sense of confidence that even on a long programming project, it's only a matter a time that you will finish it. It's just a sequence of iterations of coding & debugging.
How did programming affect my life? It made me a nerd with inferiority-superiority complex who on one hand views average human beings as automatons who let their sense of social insecurity get in their way; and who on the other hand is insecure himself, requires constant social re-assurances, stroking of the ego and (most importantly) sexual gratification. And for that, I'm eternally indebted to programming.
I am quite introverted but whenever I force myself to go to a social event where I don't know anyone and make friends, I always have a great time and meet awesome people, and it invariably goes better than I thought it would. If you just assume the people there WANT to be your friend, you don't look needy and your extroverted side comes out, and you can still be yourself.
"Introverts are perfectly capable of overcoming their personality tendencies."
The first thing you're assuming is that introverts either want or need to overcome their introversion. There isn't anything wrong with being an introvert. There is something wrong with being an extreme introvert.
I certainly did not mean to say that. I don't believe it. What I said was that introverts are capable of overcoming their tendencies. They're tendencies, not fate.
The commenter a few levels above said they had a great time at parties; the comment I responded to said that sounded like a shy extrovert. Not so, say I: introverts can have fun at parties too, even ones where they don't know anybody.
No value judgement intended in any direction. I'm a strong introvert who does well at parties because I need to for my work; but it's difficult and I don't have fun.
I think the person above was pointing out that by saying that introverts need to "overcome" their tendencies, you are effectively saying that introverts have an issue that needs to be overcome.
I just moved overseas to a new university and I've been forcing myself to go to many, many talks and chat with the people there. Some huge proportion of time I walk away with some useful bit of information "You have to read the new paper by x! It covers exactly what you're looking for." or "Y just got a grant and is looking for PhD students in your area."
Every connection you make adds potential access to another life times experience and knowledge.
[I'm vaguely expecting you to weasle word "Ah, but not doing that is being an /extreme/ introvert."]
We did a teamwork exercise where they split the E's and I's. To both groups, they said that you have the next day off - tell us what you're going to do. The E's were going nuts with chartering a plane to Vegas, big party while all of the I's were going to do something alone, maybe even just catch up on laundry. The difference was shocking.
In another exercise, they had an E monitor a team of us I's on a logic puzzle. As the E later described, he was just basically watching us I's sit there and not say anything and then a few minutes later - we started talking. We won but the non-talking communication really weirded him out.
Sadly, I believe most introverts are pretty selfish - worrying what other people think of them when, in reality, most everyone is not thinking of them - and may not even notice them.
Another thing about Introverts - with most extroverts, it is fairly easy to figure out who a person is or at least who they primarily represent themselves as. With an introvert, a stranger is going to have to invest a lot more in getting to know who an introvert is - that's exhausting to some people - why expend energy figuring out the quiet ones when you can have fun talking to the loud ones.
WTF? :-)
Did that come out wrong? Are you a non-native English speaker and don't know the word "selfish"?
That kind of worrying is normal insecurity. If you up the ante with e.g. unusual clothes, non-introvert people wills start worrying like that too. Introverts just start doing it at a lower threshold.
Worst advice I've ever received. For my first job interview in the tech field, I wore a jacket and tie. Every guy in the place had his sandals up on his desk. I also said 'no, thanks' when offered a beverage, and I think I came off as someone who was there to audit the place.
I don't see that as a corollary (a city is not a social event). But for me personally, that's right, I wouldn't do that unless I had an extroverted friend or family moving with me, or I had something specific to do (job, study, etc). Although I wouldn't necessarily suggest that to other people; this is just me, and each to his own.
Instead, I'd suggest "Know the culture that you're entering, respect it, and do your best to adhere to it."
But, by and large, I agree with your suggestion. If that cultural fit is a bad one, it's best to skip it.
When I interviewed for my current job, it was at a company where I knew a lot of people and was pretty familiar with th culture. I knew a jacket and tie would be overkill but it seemed respectful overkill. A suit would have been way overboard though I'd be surprised had anyone really dinged me for it. There is a matter of understanding norms but, usually at least, a degree of overdressing for interviews seems a reasonable approach.
After several experiences delivering talks or sitting on panel discussions, I've gotten a lot more comfortable - and progressively better (I truly feel sorry for the people who had to sit through my first few times).
I'm still not great at it, but the thought of speaking no longer grips me with panic. The last couple of times I even found myself enjoying it - and feeling a positive response from my audience.
I'm reminded of an essay by Derek Sivers that was posted to HN last year: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1434064
> After 15 years of practice, and about 1000 live shows, I was finally a very good singer, at least by my own standards. (You can judge for yourself at sivers.org/music. Old stuff at the bottom. New stuff at the top.)
> Someone who heard me for the first time then said, “Singing is a gift you're either born with or you're not. You're lucky. You were born with it!”
If you are so introverted that you can't possibly go to an event without making a complete fool out of yourself (a real fool, not just what you think is foolish) you've got a serious issue that is going to put you at a disadvantage in many areas of your life.
There's a huge gap between having faults, recognizing them, accepting them and overcoming them when you choose to and being perfect in every way.
I don't see how completely ignoring your weak points and pretending they aren't relevant to you makes you a better person, however.
Genuinely curious: are you saying this as a matter or philosophy or did you try this and come out of it feeling foolish and insecure? Or may be both?
I won't down vote you because I think I can relate to both sides of this. There are things I was never into that I got into after a lot of struggles and looking foolish. And there are things that I was never into that I could never feel comfortable with no matter how much I tried.
In either case, until I got out of my comfort zone I could never know what I can and cannot eventually be.
Every time I've tried stepping out of my comfort zone "just for the hell of it", it usually ends up being pointless at best and embarrassing at worst. I'm not changed at all, I don't really accomplish anything besides making myself feel uncomfortable, and nothing much comes of it.
But the really big, life-changing events in my life have all come from stepping outside my comfort zone, and staying outside my comfort zone until I became comfortable. Switching school districts for high school. Going away for college. Posting things on the Internet. Rocking the job interview process. Founding a company, and sticking with it until everyone except me had given up. Moving to Silicon Valley.
I feel like this is often misunderstood, that a lot of people step outside their comfort zone simply because that's what they're told to do, and don't follow through with it enough to reap the rewards.
No it isn't. The point of stepping outside your comfort zone is to see if it really does belong outside your comfort zone. Stepping outside your comfort zone and demanding that that be the new way, results be damned, is just as foolish as never stepping outside your comfort zone. Not everything outside your comfort zone is good and usually the only way to determine what is and isn't good is to jump in and try it out.
That's kinda worse. The only good way to venture into new areas, in my opinion, is to make little steps forward, to the extent that you're not standing still "as-is" but also while you're still in control of your emotions.
This will expand your comfort zone gradually until the thing that was originally very uncomfortable, is now only slightly uncomfortable.
But going completely outside your zone over and over again? No thanks. This might work for some people, specifically people with SP temperament (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artisan_temperament) who tend to seek stimulation, but it's not a good advice for the general population.
It worked because I pretty much made it the focus of my life to adjust to my new situation. Yes, it was scary. It was also a huge opportunity, and I wasn't going to pass it up.
If the idea of a big change completely fills you with dread, you shouldn't do it. That's my point - you should either go all-in or not-at-all-in. But if it's only a little scary, and you think you can do it, my experience has been that it's almost always better to do it and keep at it until it's no longer scary.
1. Take "temperament theory" with a grain of salt. It's somewhat in vogue right now with a lot of psychologists, but there are also plenty of reasons to think that it's conflating two separate issues (temperament and typology) and is an oversimplification.
2. The only way to develop your personality is to step outside your comfort zone. Your type only determines where that comfort zone is, not whether you can or should do it often. For SP (really more ESP, but whatever) types, doing crazy things physically is their comfort zone. They need to learn to get in touch with their more subdued side.
There's a world of difference between choosing to step outside your limits because you've identified something that you aspire to, and doing so because someone else thinks they know what's good for you.
i should also mention that peirce died a penniless drunk, after leading a tumultuous (huge understatement) life, including a lecturing at harvard.
it's interesting and a little sobering to see how fucked up the lives of many dedicated scholars end up being.
That being said, your points are valid depending on what you are used to. The social event where you know no one is a natural step after you learn to mingle with strangers alongside friends; if you haven't done that at least, the event will probably suck.
I've been reading some of the arguments and counterarguments. It seems like a lot of assumptions are being made on both sides. I raised two special needs kids and found that you can help someone grow into doing things they could not before without forcing them to step outside their comfort zone. I now have a job and I find that similar principles work with "normal" adults who need to do something new and aren't sure what they are supposed to be doing.
At home with my oldest son, I had him watch me cook while I explained. Later, he began assisting -- getting out ingredients I needed, stirring things, etc. but only doing what he felt comfortable with. He gradually took over more parts of it as he became comfortable. He now does most of the cooking. At work, I have volunteered to walk someone to where they need to go for a special procedure and show them whom they needed to speak with. One young woman was very shy, so I did intros and did the initial talking until she was more comfortable with this new person. Just walking a new person through the procedure the first time really took the pressure off. It's a big building and everything looks alike and it's easy to get lost, plus my job has a lot of time pressure which adds to the psychological stress because getting lost and wandering around costs you time.
If you don't have someone that can help walk you through something (or some other means to ramp up comfortably), it may be best to take some personal risks. But it is absolutely possible to grow as a person without doing stuff that makes you feel all stressed primarily because it is extremely unfamiliar. Some things may require taking a leap of faith but many things that are routinely handled that way do not inherently require that approach. (I could argue that Y-combinator does something similar to what I am suggesting here: They take you under their wing, introduce you to a lot of folks who already have experience founding a company, help you work out the kinks, etc. so you don't have to simply sink or swim/figure it out all on your own/grow from being burned so much.)
Better advice would have been to find a way to make money that I enjoy.
"Music is a hobby."
I'm catching up though.
"Only geniuses go to Harvard": No they don't. Hard working people and wealthy people go to Harvard (those not mutually exclusive)... not geniuses. Intelligence doesn't mean crap, only hard work. This isn't a dig against Harvard, just a dig against people who don't go to Harvard but think they know how to get in.
"Be a generalist": Bullshit. Nobody wants to hire a generalist, they a php rockstar or a rails god.... not a guy who can do mediocre programming in 10 languages. Specialization is the key.
"Read widely": That is an excuse from people who like to read widely for its own sake, but the truth is FOCUSED reading is a better strategy. You'd be better off reading two programming book than reading one programming book and a novel.
Better late than never, though - I am certainly happy.
Please try to use this as a source of motivation for staying fit, rather than as a reason for sorrow.
Many argue it's made use seem overly demanding to others, particularly bosses.
The naivety in thinking that you could become an astronaut or something special will probably mean you are more likely to reach your goal or at least go further than other people. I guess if you believe you have the ability to change the world, you probably will.
And it made me more concerned about fitting into little social groups than focusing on what I want to do.
My take on it is this: "you're special" is not a declaration of your supposed super-human intellect or abilities, but a reminder of your uniqueness and independence as a person who can choose to distinguish yourself if you choose to. The moment you stop believing in that is the moment you cease to be special, by that definition.
Don't reject the wrong mantra. "You're special" is fine. "Special means you're better" is what causes you problems.
I ignored his advice. I've had a fantastic career and shipped a bunch of different products.
30 years later, he apologized to me.
Plus it's easier to see now, Dad uses the internet every day now so it's easier to see how much job opportunity is there.
If I were a blacksmith in a mediaeval village I would make sure my kids knew that they were tool makers, not blacksmiths. People will always need tools weather they are made in a forge or a factory.
Despite a lot of it simply consisting of mucking around, a lot of generic information and knowledge stuck consistently. Despite being told frequently I was 'wasting my life away', in the process I was slowly sponging in information that would later assist me in launching a startup that nowadays employs even my father. :)
I do wish that early on my parents were more supportive of my passions and interests, and it's a mistake I hope not to make with my own children. When you see passion in someone, be it with any topic, it shouldn't matter whether or not it's something that can generate financial stability. These days with the sheer size of the internet -- there's a market (rule 34 I think ;)).
Do what you love, find interesting ways to fuel others with your passion and you can make just about anything pay the rent.
Your knowledge in various domains likely helps you in ways that aren't immediately apparent. (Team sports, for example, are great for health but also for social skills.)
Also, every time I interview someone, I ask them how they got into programming. So far, there's been no strong correlation between quality and years of experience. The people who started programming in elementary school are just as likely to be crappy as those who didn't start until college.
The strongest predictor I've seen for engineer quality is college GPA. People who work hard and get things done also tend to get good grades.
1. Expertise in something the college values. For Ivy Leagues and the like, that's usually something academic or artistic. For military academies, that's leadership. Athletics for some schools, though you've gotta be world class or clearly heading there.
2. Good grades (unless you're going for a sports scholarship)
3. A few interesting extra-curriculars to show you can 'multitask' and aren't completely 1 dimensional.
But many parents seem to over-emphasize #3 to the detriment of #1 and #2. If you take them seriously you'll find yourself a jack of many trades, master of none. But it's the masters of particular trades/crafts/domains/knowledge these days that are irreplaceable, un-interchangeable, and who make the advances that push the human race forward, not the jacks.
And the ability to truly master something is difficult, a skill in and of itself. Those who develop that skill early in life will have a significant advantage over those who don't.
So if you find yourself trying to do all three and struggling to keep all those balls in the air, don't be afraid to drop #3. It's expendable.
There are times that I envy young, successful founders running companies worth millions, laser-focused on their goals from childhood to adulthood, but then again I sort of do a double-take and think: They couldn't have been this awesome without missing some important aspects (to me anyway) of life. Aspects like falling in love, winning a girl's heart, getting into trouble, exploring new places, learning a musical instrument and hanging out with people with different interests and intelligence (street smart or artsy types). I mean, you can only be young once (and of course, your hormones would only be THIS active once).
Most of this will be considered a massive waste of time for some people (I certainly considered all my years spent playing games a waste. Damnit.). Still moderation is key.
Oh, I didn't start seriously programming until I went to college, and life didn't turn out so bad. (Still, no million-dollar company under my name though =()