HackerTrans
TopNewTrendsCommentsPastAskShowJobs

helicalmix

no profile record

comments

helicalmix
·hace 8 meses·discuss
I think it's totally fair to be skeptical, but it's also not rare to have interventions that are astoundingly effective.

Antibiotics and vaccines may not be completely free lunches, but they're very good at what they do.
helicalmix
·hace 3 años·discuss
Oh, this is an interesting point that I think I agree with on some level.

Are you saying superachievers can’t teach others to be superachievers, or are you saying that superachievers can’t teach non achievers to be achievers
helicalmix
·hace 3 años·discuss
Why
helicalmix
·hace 3 años·discuss
Can you give me an example of a very ambitious goal that doesn’t fall under the western definition you posted, and yet, can not benefit from the article?
helicalmix
·hace 3 años·discuss
?

The article says “very” ambitious. So there’s no contradiction here
helicalmix
·hace 3 años·discuss
I get what you’re saying, and I agree that there’s a survival bias for all winners. But the pendulum swings too far if you believe you can’t learn anything at all from winners.

Can you say that, for all winners of any field, there’s no correlation between the winners and the losers that is not attributable to luck?
helicalmix
·hace 3 años·discuss
I’m also amazed how people will take a self-improvement article like this, and take it so personally. Like yes, pg was lucky to have a lot of things work out for them, but that doesn’t mean his advice here (which encompasses more than just “work hard”) is invalid for everyone just because it’s invalid for some people.
helicalmix
·hace 3 años·discuss
There’s literally a note that says the text assumes you’re very ambitious. If you have no desire to work towards some definition of “greatness”, I assume that you’re not ambitious, and the text doesn’t apply to you.

Which is ok! You don’t need to be ambitious, but it also means you shouldn’t take this essay so personally.