‘You are the average of the five people you spend the most time with.’ Jim Rohn
I see it backwardsly - the 5 people you spend time with are the ones most like my average. I'm not who I am because of my friends; they're my friends because of who I am. If I were willing to replace one of these 5 with another, I would still be me, but I would have a less-close friendship with that person.
This article seems to suggest we should all dump our current "go nowhere" friends and try to become PG's best friend (or friends with similarly accomplished humans). I counter with the Nash Equilibrium, that PG would exclude most of us, and we'd be stuck back at square one, having to be friends with plain-old each other.
The author himself whittled down his life to 2 other people. What a selfish and lonely life!
no, he doesn't say you need to become PG's best friend:
"They are most likely the smartest people I have ever worked with before. Both have a focus and determination I’m constantly blown away by. I cling onto their enthusiasm, try to learn from their skillset as much as I can and get myself lifted onto the next level: purely by being in the same room with them whilst working away on Buffer."
He says you should be friend with the next PGs. There is a huge difference. Everybody wants to befriend someone after they are successful; what you want is friends that want to be successful (and are working to get successful). Because, for example, these new friends will never ask you times and times again: "so why don't you get a job?".
I think the important thing to realize here is that it's just someone's opinion. It's not a scientific fact that you are the average of the 5 people you spend the most time with.
The theory breaks down when you don't spend time with anyone, because you can't divide by zero!
A live human being is no more influential to me than a good book. If you really want to get a good "5" and you can't find enough talented people, consider replacing your unwanted friends with dead trees.
You need to take into account that your interaction with a book is usually short while the effects of your interactions with people accumulate over time.
It might be different for people with very strong personality but I think it is generally true that we are strongly affected by the people we surround ourselves with.
While I don't agree with the idea of "losing friends", I do agree with the quote. I recently experienced a huge change of environment (different country, different people I'm spending time with) and I can clearly see the impact it had on me.
Interesting thing, the effect is somewhat "laggy". I spent few months with a very hardworking person but I didn't really start following in his footsteps until after 3 months. When I stopped interacting with him, I kept my new-found diligence for 6 months before starting taking things easier again (though I can say I do work harder now than a year ago).
During my first few months here I also started paying more attention to punctuality. But when I started spending more time with my constantly-late friend I lost it somewhere along the way.
So yeah, people around you do affect you in many little ways. It's possible you don't see it, because the change is usually small and happens over time. Would I select my friends basing on their success? Hell no.
The notion of "life hacking" something as sacred as friendships will no doubt offend a lot of people, as evident by all the negative responses. But I do believe that your closest friends influence your goals, priorities, and outlooks on life. My social circle took a drastic change when I moved from Seattle to Palo Alto 5 years ago. The new friends I made were on average a lot more ambitious and driven. Collectively they've had a profound impact on who I am over the years.
This article unfortunately came out in a Tim-Ferris-four-hour-work-week-over-the-top-douhbagery sort of way, but I think the author means well. We shouldn't be sucking up to successful people in hopes of befriending them for profit, nor should we ditch our "go nowhere" friends for fear of drag. But we can always strive to put ourselves in environments that positively influence us.
I read an article a while ago which did some research on weight and social group, and found that overweight people tend to have other overweight people in their social group, and through social pressure, tend to stay overweight. This seems like a direct support of the author's point.
Are you overweight because your friends are overweight, are your friends overweight because you are overweight, or are all of you overweight because you live in the same unhealthy culture?
Could be that there is no causation at all - just meagre correlation: your friends have nothing to do with your weight, maybe it's just because all of you live close to McDonald's, your close proximity allowed for stronger friendships and bigger bellies.
My (German) hometown friends are all thin, maybe because there is no fast-food around, maybe because we have to walk more to get to places, maybe because of a different food-culture we all come from - in this case, it has nothing to do with what I do with them, but what the environment does with us as a group.
I feel sad for the author if he actually believes this. Sure your environment does influence you a bit, there is something to be said for self determination and individual character. I have throughout my life enjoyed friendships with amazing people who have driven me to succeed. On the other hand, I wouldn't have the depth/perspective in life where it not for my incredibly enjoyable friendships whom I have had with people who didn't exactly "succeed" in the conventional sense of the word. Friendship with those "less successful" people didn't exactly pull me down or make me "any less" than who I am right now. Sometimes one makes friends because one enjoys a dimension of a person's character and not just because they make a ton of money or start a bunch of companies.
I think OP has a point but his theory neglects that dead people are still in our 5 through their works that live longer than they do.
It's possible to be a complete loner and still have a "5". Also count people you don't personally know who influence you through their current works...
I appreciate the sentiment of OP's article, but I (slightly) disagree.
Many of my closest friends are not successful, in the conventional sense of the world. They coast through college and float through life. Smoking weed and drinking are their past times.
But you know what, they're my closest friends. They don't hang out with me because I can help them with business or earn them money. They ask me for life advice, not business advice. They don't give a shit about traffic to websites, they care about how many people they can get to laugh at a joke.
They're rooted in the real world, not the tech world. They understand people way more than they understand technology, and I think many of us here on HN could use a dose of that.
So while it is admirable and refreshing to surround yourself with smart and ambitious people, let's not lose sight of our roots and the beauty of loving people for no other reason than that they bring us happiness.
'Spend time with people who want to have the kind of life you want to have.'
This is a great motto if you actually know what you want. If not, you might choose the wrong people and end up with something that doesn't make you happy.
Also be careful that you don't cut the people out of your life who would have given you an important perspective (or would have had your back).
Being with smart people is good. Being in an echo chamber full of self-important opportunists is not.
I see a lot of individualistic comments already. I want to ask those people: how come bright people, on average, are not as successful if they live in a troubled country vs. a developed country? Isn't it that the country itself will provide the average and then the people diverge from it up or down?
Or in other words: if somebody says that you are the average of your friends everybody disagrees; if Einstein says "If I have seen farther than others, it is because I was standing on the shoulders of giants." everybody agrees. Aren't the giants, Einstein's friends?
As I see it, this article boils down to "maintain relationships with people for profit, not fun". Which does not look like a good approach to relationships to me. Look at it this way: what would you do if you found out one of your friends did this and somehow you ended up on his "list"? Personally, I'd try to avoid contact with that person as much as possible.
I don't think he said or meant that you should try to have friends who are "better" than you but rather those that will help you get to the next level you want to get to.
In other words, people who are supportive and have abilities and interests that complement your own.
I certainly know people who are toxically negative, gripe about everything and complain about perceived injustices, and when I spend time with them I become less motivated. And the converse is true, thinking of one person in particular who I would not consider a friend (in that we don't hang out socially) but who is so positive and energetic about everything that it's hard not to ride that wave when you spend time with him.
This can apply to an individual, but isn't generally true. Close 5 awesome doors, but open two that match you at that point. Alienating people is never, ever an option to consider - there can be exceptions, of course - if there isn't honesty, or the person drools on your floor and throws fecal matter on your wall.
"I am you and what I see is me."
Your personality is reflected through other people. You are a true friend, a helpful person with cool ideas, the other person will follow along, usually. I'll scratch your back and you'll scratch mine.
What can be wrong with having everyone as a friend and helping and get helped by the ones that stick over the years?
Seriously? I would refute this article some more, but alas others have beat me to it. I really like the quoting Dr. Dre for philosophy part. I don't think Dr. Dre was necessarily talking about "losing" friends in the same way as the author...
When you have that mindset, you find yourself with likely minded "friends".
The problem is not on the way up, the problem is your "friends" will also brutally let you down if you are ever in a bad spot, or not performing to their expectations.
Of course in the beginning there is almost no downside: you find yourself with other young motivated entrepreneurs, you share success and failure, the entry to the club is only motivation. If you make it, you will want to surround yourself with other winners, but now the entry to the club is success. That is when statistics and human nature start to play against you.
It doesn’t matter how smart you are. It doesn’t matter how talented you are, which skills you have, where you are born or which family you came from. All that counts if you want to be successful in life is the people you surround yourself with.
What about kids? "I won't spend time with my 2y.o. because he wants to drive trucks around in the mud and aspires to stop peeing his pants, and that just doesn't align with my life goals".
The advice in this article seems to be much the opposite of "work-life balance". It's suggesting that you stop spending so much time with your kids, your elderly parents, your sister with a mental illness, and so on -- or, rather, that if you spend time with such people, you'll be less "successful" or "accomplished".
I don't buy it. IMO one of the major factors that encourages success is having a reason for your goals -- often, wanting to provide a good life for your family. In my current household, the five of us (who spend most of our time with each other) have primary ambitions of "make a solid career", "keep the household running smoothly", "recover from severe illness", "learn to poop in the toilet", and "learn to talk". Part of what makes us successful at the first two is the motivation to support the other three.
This idea of friendship is heavily influenced by a western consumeristic culture. Friendship is a transaction, only worth it if we are getting an equal or greater amount out of it. The irony is that when friendship is thought of in this way it ceases to be friendship. It's simply another commodity.
True friendship is based on a covenant relationship. I will be with you no matter what and therefore I am your best friend.
"... One conclusion I kept coming back to in this talk is that a large amount of how successful you will be in life comes down to the people you spend time with. ..."
Being an introvert doesn't mean not being influenced by the company you keep. Most introverts aren't asocial, they just enjoy being alone more than extroverts do.
How does Woz discredit the idea? He said that he works best alone, not that no one else was involved in making him successful. Do you really think Woz would have been as successful if he had never met Steve Jobs?
One of my best friends is an elderly woman who lives alone and cannot walk. She slurs her speech because of a bad head injury a few years back. She has a terrible short term memory.
She is pretty cool.
I visit her about three times a week and we will talk for hours. I wonder why we get along so darn well - I'm a 40 year old single guy with practically zero in common with her - but I always leave her house feeling happy. She will wave goodbye to me from the screen door until I am out of view.
I like watching out for her wellbeing and brightening her day, yet I still feel I'm the one who is benefiting.
37 comments
[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 81.3 ms ] threadI see it backwardsly - the 5 people you spend time with are the ones most like my average. I'm not who I am because of my friends; they're my friends because of who I am. If I were willing to replace one of these 5 with another, I would still be me, but I would have a less-close friendship with that person.
This article seems to suggest we should all dump our current "go nowhere" friends and try to become PG's best friend (or friends with similarly accomplished humans). I counter with the Nash Equilibrium, that PG would exclude most of us, and we'd be stuck back at square one, having to be friends with plain-old each other.
The author himself whittled down his life to 2 other people. What a selfish and lonely life!
"They are most likely the smartest people I have ever worked with before. Both have a focus and determination I’m constantly blown away by. I cling onto their enthusiasm, try to learn from their skillset as much as I can and get myself lifted onto the next level: purely by being in the same room with them whilst working away on Buffer."
He says you should be friend with the next PGs. There is a huge difference. Everybody wants to befriend someone after they are successful; what you want is friends that want to be successful (and are working to get successful). Because, for example, these new friends will never ask you times and times again: "so why don't you get a job?".
The theory breaks down when you don't spend time with anyone, because you can't divide by zero!
A live human being is no more influential to me than a good book. If you really want to get a good "5" and you can't find enough talented people, consider replacing your unwanted friends with dead trees.
It might be different for people with very strong personality but I think it is generally true that we are strongly affected by the people we surround ourselves with.
Interesting thing, the effect is somewhat "laggy". I spent few months with a very hardworking person but I didn't really start following in his footsteps until after 3 months. When I stopped interacting with him, I kept my new-found diligence for 6 months before starting taking things easier again (though I can say I do work harder now than a year ago).
During my first few months here I also started paying more attention to punctuality. But when I started spending more time with my constantly-late friend I lost it somewhere along the way.
So yeah, people around you do affect you in many little ways. It's possible you don't see it, because the change is usually small and happens over time. Would I select my friends basing on their success? Hell no.
This article unfortunately came out in a Tim-Ferris-four-hour-work-week-over-the-top-douhbagery sort of way, but I think the author means well. We shouldn't be sucking up to successful people in hopes of befriending them for profit, nor should we ditch our "go nowhere" friends for fear of drag. But we can always strive to put ourselves in environments that positively influence us.
Are you overweight because your friends are overweight, are your friends overweight because you are overweight, or are all of you overweight because you live in the same unhealthy culture?
Could be that there is no causation at all - just meagre correlation: your friends have nothing to do with your weight, maybe it's just because all of you live close to McDonald's, your close proximity allowed for stronger friendships and bigger bellies.
My (German) hometown friends are all thin, maybe because there is no fast-food around, maybe because we have to walk more to get to places, maybe because of a different food-culture we all come from - in this case, it has nothing to do with what I do with them, but what the environment does with us as a group.
It's possible to be a complete loner and still have a "5". Also count people you don't personally know who influence you through their current works...
Many of my closest friends are not successful, in the conventional sense of the world. They coast through college and float through life. Smoking weed and drinking are their past times.
But you know what, they're my closest friends. They don't hang out with me because I can help them with business or earn them money. They ask me for life advice, not business advice. They don't give a shit about traffic to websites, they care about how many people they can get to laugh at a joke.
They're rooted in the real world, not the tech world. They understand people way more than they understand technology, and I think many of us here on HN could use a dose of that.
So while it is admirable and refreshing to surround yourself with smart and ambitious people, let's not lose sight of our roots and the beauty of loving people for no other reason than that they bring us happiness.
This is a great motto if you actually know what you want. If not, you might choose the wrong people and end up with something that doesn't make you happy.
Also be careful that you don't cut the people out of your life who would have given you an important perspective (or would have had your back).
Being with smart people is good. Being in an echo chamber full of self-important opportunists is not.
Or in other words: if somebody says that you are the average of your friends everybody disagrees; if Einstein says "If I have seen farther than others, it is because I was standing on the shoulders of giants." everybody agrees. Aren't the giants, Einstein's friends?
There's also a paradox to it; why would anyone who's supposedly "better" than you, have you as a friend?
In other words, people who are supportive and have abilities and interests that complement your own.
I certainly know people who are toxically negative, gripe about everything and complain about perceived injustices, and when I spend time with them I become less motivated. And the converse is true, thinking of one person in particular who I would not consider a friend (in that we don't hang out socially) but who is so positive and energetic about everything that it's hard not to ride that wave when you spend time with him.
This can apply to an individual, but isn't generally true. Close 5 awesome doors, but open two that match you at that point. Alienating people is never, ever an option to consider - there can be exceptions, of course - if there isn't honesty, or the person drools on your floor and throws fecal matter on your wall.
"I am you and what I see is me."
Your personality is reflected through other people. You are a true friend, a helpful person with cool ideas, the other person will follow along, usually. I'll scratch your back and you'll scratch mine.
What can be wrong with having everyone as a friend and helping and get helped by the ones that stick over the years?
Of course in the beginning there is almost no downside: you find yourself with other young motivated entrepreneurs, you share success and failure, the entry to the club is only motivation. If you make it, you will want to surround yourself with other winners, but now the entry to the club is success. That is when statistics and human nature start to play against you.
That's just sad, centering one's life around others. I present you a different perspective: http://artofmanliness.com/2012/06/11/becoming-an-autonomous-...
I don't buy it. IMO one of the major factors that encourages success is having a reason for your goals -- often, wanting to provide a good life for your family. In my current household, the five of us (who spend most of our time with each other) have primary ambitions of "make a solid career", "keep the household running smoothly", "recover from severe illness", "learn to poop in the toilet", and "learn to talk". Part of what makes us successful at the first two is the motivation to support the other three.
That is really, really sad.
True friendship is based on a covenant relationship. I will be with you no matter what and therefore I am your best friend.
Wrong. Extrovert. What about creative introverts?
"... Most inventors and engineers I’ve met are like me. They’re shy and they live in their heads. The very best of them are artists. And artists work best alone ..." Steve Wozniak, iWoz ~ https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/opinion/sunday/26shyness....
I read this as equating success by association. Not in the presence of the right company the authour flounders. Woz discredits this idea.
She is pretty cool.
I visit her about three times a week and we will talk for hours. I wonder why we get along so darn well - I'm a 40 year old single guy with practically zero in common with her - but I always leave her house feeling happy. She will wave goodbye to me from the screen door until I am out of view.
I like watching out for her wellbeing and brightening her day, yet I still feel I'm the one who is benefiting.