Telling people what you plan to do can evoke the same emotions as actually doing that thing, lowering the drive to do the work to accomplish the goal because you got your emotional reward already.
Being a serial starter, I retroactively noticed this pattern in myself when I heard this. Now, when I want to do something new, I shut up about it until I either complete it or have enough momentum in the project to have reached critical mass.
But telling your goals to the people who care about you is actually a good thing. They'd give you honest feedback, point out (any) mistakes, and support you along the way.
I think that depends very much on the person. It really does make sense that sharing with people who care about you would be beneficial, but it really doesn't seem to work for me. If I tell my goal even to someone who is close to me too early, I'm just much less likely to do it. It's as if a large chunk of that intrinsic motivation is just gone as soon as I verbalize my goal or plan to any sort of audience. It impacts me on a small as well as large scale.
Small scale example: If I tell my partner that I plan on going to the gym this weekend, I'm less likely to go when the time actually comes. If I make a plan to go to the gym but don't tell anyone, I'll probably do it.
Larger scale example: When I decided to try selling my fiction writing, I purposefully told no one for about two or three months, until I made some sales. Then, when I felt I had enough momentum and something to show for my plans, I told my partner what I've been doing. He was very very supportive. But then I fell into a habit of telling him _too much_ about my writing journey and plans, thinking it's safe now. It wasn't. The more I talked about it, the less I actually did it. It got to the point where I had to go into lockdown mode of not talking about it at all (and asking him not to ask). Now, I am careful to only talk to him about aspects of writing I've already finished. I can talk about how I've released a book, or what challenges I had in the last release. But I can't talk to him about what I'm writing this weekend, or what my plans are for my writing, or when I hope to have my next release.
“Try to never be the person who cares the most” was an offhand remark my dad made to me when I was stressed over a group project in school. It helped me what in hindsight would’ve been very stressful situation many, many times.
I really appreciated this advice. It's vague enough that if it relates to your life, you'll probably see how when you hear it.
I think I can apply it to both my work life, thinking about times where I overworked myself at a company where nobody else cared enough, and to my personal life, thinking about times where I invested myself fully into relationships where it wasn't certain to be requited.
The best advice I received only applies to younger folks, but it was immensely helpful when starting my career. The advice was to look at those older than me in the workplace and to ask myself if that was the type of person I wanted to be when I get older. If the answer is no, then it’s probably a good time to leave.
"Always be the smartest (eg, 'most well informed' or 'best educated') person in the room - ON SOMETHING".
Or to paraphrase slightly "Have a thing that is your speciality, to the point that you are almost always the most knowledgeable person in the room w/r/t that topic."
I think this is a valuable idea to keep in mind, even if it remains forever an aspiration (which it probably will if interpreted in the strictest sense).
If you’re the smartest person in the room, then you’ve likely surrounded yourself with people “worse” than you in some way. How can you grow in such an environment? You want to surround yourself with people smarter than you so that you can learn from them and grow. So if you’re the smartest person in the room, then you should go find a new room with smarter people. Unless you’re the smartest person on earth of course ;)
Do you spend all of your time in one room? Sorry, but I think you might be missing the spirit of the phrase above. Maybe one needs to have heard it "in context" the way I originally heard it to get the intended spirit of it? Dunno.
The idea isn't about surrounding yourself with people who are worse than you, just so you can say you are "the smartest person in the room". The idea is to focus on something and become so good at thing that you are -usually- the "smartest person in the room" on that particular topic. Which means this whole idea is only relevant to contexts that your thing is relevant. And to reiterate, this is more of an aspiration than something that's literally achievable. In reality, with a vanishingly small number of exceptions, there will always be at least one person who knows more than you about thing. And that's OK. The point is about focus and the importance of putting in the work vis-a-vis your thing.
If you’re starting out your career as a surgeon, you really better hope you’re not the best surgeon in the room. People will die. Obviously there comes a point when you can’t grow any more and then it’s ok to be the smartest, but that’s hopefully after a long career filled with growth.
Depends on what you want. If you are designing the next James Webb telescope, you are in the right place if you are the smartest in the room regarding one subject, like aligning mirrors, or testing the folding mechanism. It gives enormous responsibility, which you can and should share with others, but I don't see the downside here.
If you're starting with a new career, learning on the job, it's not good if you're the smartest in the room. Then you need to find a place where other people can teach you.
It can also be read as a ego-booster. If you know the most of all people about basketball at a birthday party, it's a cool thing to talk about.
I think the target audience of this type of advice should be young people beginning their careers. True domain experts likely don’t need advice like this. There does come a time when you reach your limit in terms of what you can learn. But young people hopefully haven’t reached that at the start of their careers.
This advice is about having one specific thing for which you can say you're "the smartest person in the room". It's not about being the "smartest person in the room" in any general sense. So imagine aspiring to have something about which you are better informed / knowledgeable, even if you're in the same room with Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman, Nikola Tesla, Paul Graham, Elon Musk, Yann LeCun, and Grigori Perelman. Are you likely to be smarter than all (or any) of those people in general? Maybe not. Is there some specific niche which is "your niche" where you are more informed than all of them? Very possibly so.
I think the idea is to improve your learning speed by having experienced peers around you. If you only help less experienced people all day, i.e. 'you are the go-to answer man', before you are a true domain expert, that can hinder your career.
In understand you point, but what's your entry ticket to that room? Why would people who are so much more knowledgeable than you want to have you around?
If you read closely, the two statements doesn't even contradict. S(he) said that it's good that you are the best AT SOMETHING. You said, it's not good to be THE BEST.
Another piece of advice I’d give to a young person is that older people want protégés. Your ticket into the room is simply being smart, young, and impressionable.
> Why would people who are so much more knowledgeable than you want to have you around?
Because they have more work than they can handle and want you to fill in their shoes at some point in time. That is the basis of hiring junior developers.
Well either you have an abnormally healthy oral flora or a really bad dentist.
Usually the advice is to floss everyday to get rid of carbohydrates in your interdental space which can be a breeding ground for bacteria which will eventuall chip away your tooth enamel leading to eventual tooth decay (if I recite correctly).
If your making a tough decision, you have already determined that both options are equally attractive and equally good decisions. If this wasn't the case, it would be an easy choice. So if you are choosing between two seemingly equally good decisions, your choice doesn't matter. They are both equally good options, and so are the same level of risk in having a bad outcome.
What we usually think of as "tough decision" is that there is an easy and attractive choice vs. a choice that requires sacrifice without immediate benefits. Or it puts conflicting choices in opposition with each other. Typically in that one, the decider has a conflict of interest. E.g. mask mandates in a covid-stricken region probably save a lot of lives and are probably supported by a majority, but get the politician thrown out of office by an angry minority of anti-maskers. So the politician has to weigh staying in office against public health.
In your example there is one clearly right decision and one clearly wrong decision. It's not a difficult decision, it's a moral one (right vs wrong), which isn't a difficult decision at all. Just because thr outcome may be difficult for the decider doesn't mean the decision itself is difficult.
Probably not a popular tip for many on HN who enjoy tinkering, but its truth has served me well in my entrepreneurial endeavors, where as my nerdiness less so.
One cannot know everything and we all are bound by finite time, but if you learn the skills and build the network to bring many talents together, you can accomplish greater things than doing it all on your own.
I think you need both, really. If your entire game is "I've got connections" then you've got no game. Your entire game can readily fall apart if people decide to stop backing you.
If you have knowledge/skills but no connections, you've still got no game.
I think you need some of both to really get anywhere.
So this kind of ends up being good advice for people who err in a particular direction and could stand to beef up the part they are missing.
One of my old bosses told me, "remove the phrase 'it works for me' from your vocabulary. If it worked for _them_, they wouldn't be bringing their problem to you."
This made me realize that the phrase "it works for me" can be dismissive and condescending, and that I should spend at least a little bit of time under the assumption that I am the one that screwed up (personally, my team, or my company) until I can prove otherwise. Anecdotally, I'd say 90% of the time it is either a bug or poorly documented processes -- and those can be fixed! Only about 10% of the time is it truly users doing something stupid.
I think a lot of stuff in this thread is general proverbs rather than actual advice received from another person.
This isn't advice that I've gotten either, but also just general wisdom: never give anyone advice about anything, unless they specifically ask for it. Web search for "unsolicited advice" finds a ton of info about why the practice is annoying. I take it to mean it is ok to try to lead by example instead, or say "for solving problem X, I usually try approach Y", but maybe that also edges too close to advice.
One specific piece of advice I got that I have found valuable is that to debug a misbehaving program, instead of trying to map the misbehaviour into a hypothesis of what is happening in the code, go immediately to running the code under a debugger and incrementally (e.g. single stepping etc.) run it until you see something go wrong, then backtrack and figure out how that wrong thing happened.
I’ve at least been told a couple of unsolicited observations where I appreciate having been told and only so wish that someone had told me long enough ago that it could have made a real difference.
Learn to be OK being misunderstood. If everything you're working on or doing is easily understood by most people, it's probably not very valuable.
Related: if you can't find anyone to fund you to work on what you think are the most important projects, just take the work that people will pay you to do but that allows you enough free time to work on the stuff you think is the most important.
To add to that: It is always a good idea to finish the work day before you completely solved the problem. That allows you to pick up right where you left off in the next morning.
80 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 151 ms ] threadIn term of personal finances: Save early and save often. Compound interest is your retirement friend.
I heard this in a TED talk years ago[0].
Telling people what you plan to do can evoke the same emotions as actually doing that thing, lowering the drive to do the work to accomplish the goal because you got your emotional reward already.
Being a serial starter, I retroactively noticed this pattern in myself when I heard this. Now, when I want to do something new, I shut up about it until I either complete it or have enough momentum in the project to have reached critical mass.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHopJHSlVo4
That's the key! It's about validating the goal by yourself first. Having support from people is amazing.
Small scale example: If I tell my partner that I plan on going to the gym this weekend, I'm less likely to go when the time actually comes. If I make a plan to go to the gym but don't tell anyone, I'll probably do it.
Larger scale example: When I decided to try selling my fiction writing, I purposefully told no one for about two or three months, until I made some sales. Then, when I felt I had enough momentum and something to show for my plans, I told my partner what I've been doing. He was very very supportive. But then I fell into a habit of telling him _too much_ about my writing journey and plans, thinking it's safe now. It wasn't. The more I talked about it, the less I actually did it. It got to the point where I had to go into lockdown mode of not talking about it at all (and asking him not to ask). Now, I am careful to only talk to him about aspects of writing I've already finished. I can talk about how I've released a book, or what challenges I had in the last release. But I can't talk to him about what I'm writing this weekend, or what my plans are for my writing, or when I hope to have my next release.
I think I can apply it to both my work life, thinking about times where I overworked myself at a company where nobody else cared enough, and to my personal life, thinking about times where I invested myself fully into relationships where it wasn't certain to be requited.
WSJ Oct 2021, "Burned Out? Maybe You Should Care Less About Your Job", https://archive.md/2fsRi
It feels stressful and lonely because you feel like you have to hold all the strings together and if you fail, the whole project will fail.
“Sometimes you have to slow down to speed up”.
Or to paraphrase slightly "Have a thing that is your speciality, to the point that you are almost always the most knowledgeable person in the room w/r/t that topic."
I think this is a valuable idea to keep in mind, even if it remains forever an aspiration (which it probably will if interpreted in the strictest sense).
It's not as black/white as you're making it out to be. Reality is far more nuanced.
The idea isn't about surrounding yourself with people who are worse than you, just so you can say you are "the smartest person in the room". The idea is to focus on something and become so good at thing that you are -usually- the "smartest person in the room" on that particular topic. Which means this whole idea is only relevant to contexts that your thing is relevant. And to reiterate, this is more of an aspiration than something that's literally achievable. In reality, with a vanishingly small number of exceptions, there will always be at least one person who knows more than you about thing. And that's OK. The point is about focus and the importance of putting in the work vis-a-vis your thing.
What happens with classroom professors or surgeons in surgery rooms? Should they leave the room as well?
If you're starting with a new career, learning on the job, it's not good if you're the smartest in the room. Then you need to find a place where other people can teach you.
It can also be read as a ego-booster. If you know the most of all people about basketball at a birthday party, it's a cool thing to talk about.
If you read closely, the two statements doesn't even contradict. S(he) said that it's good that you are the best AT SOMETHING. You said, it's not good to be THE BEST.
Because they have more work than they can handle and want you to fill in their shoes at some point in time. That is the basis of hiring junior developers.
Usually the advice is to floss everyday to get rid of carbohydrates in your interdental space which can be a breeding ground for bacteria which will eventuall chip away your tooth enamel leading to eventual tooth decay (if I recite correctly).
Also less mouth odor.
Never had an issue with mouth odor.
I imagine most people don't floss every day.
If your making a tough decision, you have already determined that both options are equally attractive and equally good decisions. If this wasn't the case, it would be an easy choice. So if you are choosing between two seemingly equally good decisions, your choice doesn't matter. They are both equally good options, and so are the same level of risk in having a bad outcome.
Probably not a popular tip for many on HN who enjoy tinkering, but its truth has served me well in my entrepreneurial endeavors, where as my nerdiness less so.
One cannot know everything and we all are bound by finite time, but if you learn the skills and build the network to bring many talents together, you can accomplish greater things than doing it all on your own.
Similarly: "No man is an island"
- Denzel Washington in Training Day
If you have knowledge/skills but no connections, you've still got no game.
I think you need some of both to really get anywhere.
So this kind of ends up being good advice for people who err in a particular direction and could stand to beef up the part they are missing.
This made me realize that the phrase "it works for me" can be dismissive and condescending, and that I should spend at least a little bit of time under the assumption that I am the one that screwed up (personally, my team, or my company) until I can prove otherwise. Anecdotally, I'd say 90% of the time it is either a bug or poorly documented processes -- and those can be fixed! Only about 10% of the time is it truly users doing something stupid.
This isn't advice that I've gotten either, but also just general wisdom: never give anyone advice about anything, unless they specifically ask for it. Web search for "unsolicited advice" finds a ton of info about why the practice is annoying. I take it to mean it is ok to try to lead by example instead, or say "for solving problem X, I usually try approach Y", but maybe that also edges too close to advice.
One specific piece of advice I got that I have found valuable is that to debug a misbehaving program, instead of trying to map the misbehaviour into a hypothesis of what is happening in the code, go immediately to running the code under a debugger and incrementally (e.g. single stepping etc.) run it until you see something go wrong, then backtrack and figure out how that wrong thing happened.
Related: if you can't find anyone to fund you to work on what you think are the most important projects, just take the work that people will pay you to do but that allows you enough free time to work on the stuff you think is the most important.
I don't need to work until I'm completely exhausted, it's okay to stop with some fuel left in the tank...and resume some other time.