One of your problems is that you are judging yourself by your natural abilities. I think this a trap that a lot of smart people fall into, perhaps being used to being the kid who always gets the gold star. There are studies that show that children who are praised for being "smart" stop working hard, because that threatens their self-image. Children who are praised for working hard go on to greater successes.
But back to HN. Recall that people post here, in part, to feel good about themselves and appear smart to others. It may be that the real heroes are not here. They are off doing stuff, not yammering about it.
I've been lucky enough to meet a lot of successful web startup people (a different group from say, pg or other YC alumni). I can tell you that the only thing they have in common is that they Keep Doing Stuff. No matter what, Keep Doing Stuff. They often have very low tolerance for naysayers and armchair critics. This isn't so much iron determination (well it is, in part) but mostly because they are motivated by the intrinsic rewards of building and exploring. In other words: they are just trying to have fun.
Their initial prototypes are ugly and naive. They don't care because it does something they wanted. They use a language that others deride as a toy. They don't care because it gets the job done fast. At launch, the whole thing is held together with tinkertoys and chewing gum. They still don't care as long as it's making people happy. Then scaling problems happen. Then they hunker down and make even more spectacular mistakes.
And you know what? Then one day they look back on at all they've done, and the system is humming beautifully and they're experts in multiple fields. And O'Reilly starts bugging them to write a book about how they did it all so effortlessly.
Meanwhile those guys on HN are still whining about how it would have been so much better with a functional language and a NoSQL data store.
--
P.S. This is not an argument for doing anything sloppily. It's just that you have to be laser-focused on results. It's a paradox; you have to be capable of rolling out something of heart-breaking beauty but also have no concern for things that ultimately don't affect success. It's been my experience that the version 1.0 of anything really creative looks like a piece of junk. And it takes a very sharp eye to see that it's doing something new and important. I guess this is why not everybody is a successful investor.
That's one problem with reading too much into people's commentary and ideas here. It's been through so many filters.
Who knows how long they spent refining that comment?
Seeing the end product is always more impressive than the beginning.
At least personally, if something I did is "good", it's because its been through a couple of iterations, you can bet it was ugly as sin first time round.
The problem is that you often don't get to see the intermediate steps.
Prototype -> MAGIC HAPPENS -> Polished Product
The MAGIC HAPPENS portion is what I find really interesting, you can learn a lot about how people think if you get to see how they refine their ideas over time.
And it's all sweat equity. Always. Don't let people try to bullshit you that it's not. If I've learned one thing from many people smarter and more successful than I am, its that they're always doing something moving them to their goals, and they never give up no matter how many times they fail.
There's also that horrible effect that your own ideas, however creative, original and interesting, can start to feel trite, shallow and old after a little while. Because, guess what, they've been floating around your head longer than anyone's, and you keep seeing them, picking over them, looking for weak points.
Whereas someone else's idea that they've been knocking around for a few months will seem breathtakingly new and fresh, and as if it had popped forth fully formed from their head yesterday.
The difference here is simply whose head you're in.
This can be a very serious problem for writers -- if you spend years writing a novel, by the time it's finally coming together, you want to rewrite all of the early stuff just because it seems so overused by now....
"The concern is that by focusing on self-esteem and confidence building, parents and teachers may be giving real goals and achievement short shrift. The article cites a recent study in which eighth graders in Korea and the United States were asked whether they were good at math. Among the American students, 39 percent said they were excellent at math, compared to just 6 percent of the Korean eighth graders. But the reality was somewhat different. The Korean kids scored far better in math than the over-confident American students."
I wonder if they are all linked? If I'm told my entire life I'm bright and talented, won't I assume that to be true? Learning something, the hard work required, means lots and lots and lots of failure. Failure is an excellent teacher if you are listening. Staying in your comfort zone, where you receive constant praise may create an environment of false input. You may be the best at something in your immediate family, or in your peer group, but there's always somebody who's better at that same thing. And they usually got there through blood sweat and tears.
Wonderful post. I'm not quite sure I understand the part where working hard might threaten my self-image. Is it because if I try my hardest and fail it would destroy my self-image? I can see how that might be the case. Does the study mention ways to fix this?
As for the rest of your post, it was great. Inspirational in the right ways. Thanks.
> [...] The test was difficult, designed for kids two years ahead of their grade level. Predictably, everyone failed. But again, the two groups of children, divided at random at the study’s start, responded differently. Those praised for their effort on the first test assumed they simply hadn’t focused hard enough on this test. “They got very involved, willing to try every solution to the puzzles,” Dweck recalled. “Many of them remarked, unprovoked, ‘This is my favorite test.’ ” Not so for those praised for their smarts. They assumed their failure was evidence that they weren’t really smart at all. “Just watching them, you could see the strain. They were sweating and miserable.”
Sound familiar?
Anyway... I'm glad if my experience or insights help, but the truth is, I'm not one of those devil-may-care trailblazers. At least, not as often as I would like. I'm more usually the naysayer who wants to rewrite it in a functional language. ;) I haven't even gotten as far as you have when it comes to creating my own way in the world.
Yes, it sounds familiar. I think I am too frequently self appraising and not as frequently doing, well, whatever the happy kids were doing. Just going with the flow, I suppose?
I find that when ever I am working on something new or difficult, I feel stupid. The act of working on it reveals my ignorance and makes me confront the fact that I am not as smart as I think I am.
Great post. I've found that HN has an interesting contrast between the techy, computer science, programmer types, and the just build shit that works, take shortcuts, ship a product that solves people's problems types.
And I actually really value discussions from both types.
It's the old interplay between science and engineering. One of the things HN is great for is creating a productive space for this type of cognitive transfer to happen in a useful and non-destructive way. It's actually pretty rare, I've seen many places that attempt to transition science into engineering and fail miserably.
I believe I've read these points multiple times from multiple sources, but this one post puts them together rather effectively. I'll be printing this out and sticking this on my wall (as well as keeping this in my Notes app) so I can review it regularly. Thanks.
But back to HN. Recall that people post here, in part, to feel good about themselves and appear smart to others. It may be that the real heroes are not here. They are off doing stuff, not yammering about it.
I've been lucky enough to meet a lot of successful web startup people (a different group from say, pg or other YC alumni). I can tell you that the only thing they have in common is that they Keep Doing Stuff. No matter what, Keep Doing Stuff. They often have very low tolerance for naysayers and armchair critics. This isn't so much iron determination (well it is, in part) but mostly because they are motivated by the intrinsic rewards of building and exploring. In other words: they are just trying to have fun.
Their initial prototypes are ugly and naive. They don't care because it does something they wanted. They use a language that others deride as a toy. They don't care because it gets the job done fast. At launch, the whole thing is held together with tinkertoys and chewing gum. They still don't care as long as it's making people happy. Then scaling problems happen. Then they hunker down and make even more spectacular mistakes.
And you know what? Then one day they look back on at all they've done, and the system is humming beautifully and they're experts in multiple fields. And O'Reilly starts bugging them to write a book about how they did it all so effortlessly.
Meanwhile those guys on HN are still whining about how it would have been so much better with a functional language and a NoSQL data store.
--
P.S. This is not an argument for doing anything sloppily. It's just that you have to be laser-focused on results. It's a paradox; you have to be capable of rolling out something of heart-breaking beauty but also have no concern for things that ultimately don't affect success. It's been my experience that the version 1.0 of anything really creative looks like a piece of junk. And it takes a very sharp eye to see that it's doing something new and important. I guess this is why not everybody is a successful investor.