You wrote that we can’t ignore evidence that does not support your worldview in point 2, and then you flipped and said we should ignore the evidence of crime data in point 3, because the results did not match your own message.
At least be consistent and say “we don’t have enough data to conclude either way,” instead of claiming that it’s a bold statement that polling data is less reliable than crime statistics.
There is no absurdity, as "recall bias" is a recorded effect where people inaccurately remember past experiences to fit their current worldview (source: https://catalogofbias.org/biases/recall-bias/). You also ignored the points on social-desirability bias and crime reports and just asserted there is no increase in racism, and racism is a result of "imagined grievances" and victim culture.
You're asserting that the crime reports are wrong, and we can conclude that racial incidents did not increase because people in a survey said they weren't racist.
Many Asian Americans aren't asking for your "attention" or "pity." If there is more awareness among the Asian American community of racist incidents (e.g. many Asians getting randomly punched or pushed onto the subway tracks), one can have more aware of their surroundings when going outside to avoid random violence.
If you assume that people answered honestly, it's very possible that remaining proportion of people who viewed Asian Americans negatively were more likely to express anti-Asian American racism and hate over the past year, instead of keeping quiet about their views.
Furthermore, a lot of people are biased to skew their responses or lie due to social-desirability bias [1]. The responses are self-reported. It's highly plausible that many people said their opinion "stayed the same" while actually worsening.
Most importantly, anti-Asian hate crimes have "increased by 339 percent" from 2020 to 2021 [2]. Even if you doubt the data, comparatively, crime reports are more reliable and objective than self-reports when you ask a population about their views of people of a particular ethnicity.
Great film, but right after that, Sean (Robin Williams's character) says:
"It's not about the job. I don't care if you work for the government. But you can do anything you want, you are bound by nothing. What are you passionate about. What do you want? I mean there are guys who work their entire lives laying brick so that their kids have a chance at the opportunities you have here."
So, instead of praising Will, Sean questions why Will seems determined to keep drifting while seeming clever. I always thought the implication was that it's better to define yourself as "for" something than "against" something, even if you sound smart in a wicked way by doing so.
I heard about the flower metaphor before, so I actually hear what you're saying now.
The last time I heard this metaphor was in the context of avoiding too much flattery or dependence on praise of others. So, a well-adjusted person does things because they want to, or a have a responsibility to, without relying too much on praise.
I think this framing is useful for a person too reliant on others' opinions for happiness, but even within this framework, you can still feel happy when others appreciate you (while not reliant on the emotion). So, it's still a positive to give and receive gratitude, so long as both people have a stable sense of self and aren't reliant on gratitude for happiness.
I don't get it. Would you be suggesting that truly selfless people don't like to be thanked? If so, I don't understand why that would be a good thing; there's nothing wrong to expect respect or basic appreciation for your help.
Someone will consistently be there to care very much about you. Friends are more fickle (people change and move away), and your parents won't be there forever. Siblings can also move away, too. It's nice to have at least one person you can trust in the world.
Viewing the phrase in isolation, this response is logically correct, but it's more interesting to view this in the context of the rest of the author's arguments.
If you're consistent with physical exercise by resisting when you feel like skipping a workout, you'll have more strength, endurance, and freedom of movement when you become much older. And if you're consistent with improving at your career skills, you'll have more career opportunities in the future. Therefore, even if you may seem less free by avoiding unhealthy food or watching too much television, you're setting yourself up for more opportunities in the long-term.
I personally do agree that you can be disciplined toward the wrong goals, though I also think it's more interesting to consider Willink's arguments as a whole, instead of focusing on a phrase in isolation.
From your framing, it sounds like the advice is to start with a person who lacks motivation, and then tell them to be disciplined, and it's sufficient for lasting change. In this framing, the advice is absurd.
But it's far more interesting to consider how the one phrase relates to the rest of Willink's perspective. For example, he argues that that you can frame discipline and hard work as a method to be physically healthier; care for your family better; or help you earn more income or career capital.
The phrase is an introduction to the rest of his arguments, and it isn't quite as interesting to debate its merits in isolation.
> "You need to have discipline in the first place to “just do it” consistently. [...] If they were able to “do it” consistently despite lacking consistent motivation, they wouldn’t have a problem in the first place."
From Willink's perspective (interpreted charitably), there are many situations where it's useful to "just do it." For example, say you want to do a task, but you want to get comfortable first because you're anxious. You can watch a funny video or browse the internet to calm down, read a motivational blog post, and do various chores to 'get in the mood.' Then hours pass by, and you still haven't started the task.
A better solution is to start with the action causing anxiety, expecting the shift in mood to follow the action (before trying to change your mood first), which is supported by recommendations in cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT). Actions first, mood follows is a good, actionable insight supported by CBT counselors.
> "For those who lack enough motivation, which is the situation the advice is supposed to address, I don’t see how it helps."
If you're disciplined despite lacking motivation, you can improve your physical health and earn better career opportunities, letting you earn more and have more freedom. Therefore, by focusing on actions more than motivation, you can improve your circumstances. This is a charitable interpretation of Willink's perspective.
However, my personal view is moderate. Motivation does matter, because it reduces the amount of willpower needed for work, and lets you choose the right tasks and goals to work toward. Though in any case, action before changing your mood is perfectly actionable advice.
> "How do you build discipline if you’re undisciplined?"
Willink's answer is "Just do it." Very charitably, he suggests you should do things you ought to, even if they are painful and you don't want to do it. This actually has some backing in cognitive-behavioral therapy by starting with action first before motivation.
Uncharitably, it's not nuanced if there are deeper reasons why you should actually consider to not work on something you've planned to do (though it's hard to say when this should happen).
> "How do you decide what to be disciplined about?"
Willink talked about how his first motivation was to be very good at his assigned tasks while in the navy. Then, if I remember correctly, he said his mission after retiring was to provide for his family and to help others with his content. For others, he said to focus on physical health; emotional stability; spending money wisely; spending time efficiently; taking care of family and friends; and doing great at your (presumable) current job. This is actually a very good starting point.
My major criticism of his past work is that he seems to assume that leaders/managers work in good faith and won't exploit your hard work. In my experience and several reports by others, following his advice can lead to getting severely overworked for little-to-no reward by managers acting in bad faith.
He also hasn't acknowledged (as far as I can tell) the importance of managing office politics in advancement in many workplaces. He said that outworking someone is the best way to counter someone trying to make you look bad in the workplace, which in my view is insufficient - you also need to talk to your manager about it in a tactful way. Lastly, his current content seems to be increasingly monetized, and he's had more podcast guests who are politicians, when he used to be apolitical.
I also think it's unpaid, because the consequences are too significant if it's leaked that there was collusion for Wired to publish a puff piece in exchange for money from Microsoft, and Wired didn't mark it as "sponsored content" or similar.
It's bad for the writer because it shows the writer can be bought, reducing the credibility of previous and future work (though this does happen). It's also bad for Wired as it will be seen as biased for future reports on Microsoft. And it's bad for Microsoft because unpaid positive articles are worth more than positive articles that are suspected to be paid for.
At the most cynical, it's possible the writer wrote this in exchange for building relationships with the sources for future interviews and getting scoops (payment in a different way). More optimistically, the writer was naively passionate as you rote. Still, in any case, the writer could've asked at least some hardball or technically interesting questions for the report.
I'm also curious about vetted professional communities.
I'm not a part of one, but the only community formed online that I've found to last, was one with a weekly video meeting with a few people from the larger community. This actually outlasted the original community.
It's just so easy for any member to become inactive in the community without regular interaction. Free communities on Discord can plausibly be a great option, with the major caveat that the core interactions are over regular scheduled video calls, instead of mostly messages in large group chats.
I get the message, and I strongly disagree with it, as someone who hasn't achieved stability yet.
When you don't have a stable career, or work for long hours for low pay with family to take care of, you wish you had this life. The message can also be taken in a bad way by young people, who then neglect to develop useful skills early on, and ultimately struggle hard to find work. There is so much messaging against good choices in life, that people overlook why they are good choices anyways. I'd rather be at least middle class with the money and freedom to change my circumstances, than struggling with little freedom due to lack of resources.
I don't deny that this is a work of art, and one crafted well, but I just disagree with the sentiment.
Note that the article focuses on online dating, and largely on data from Tinder. The bases are not necessarily the same for people who meet through acquaintances/work/church (small minority in the US today, but it still happens)/etc., for users reading the comments before possibly the submission.
I'm not an insider in recruiting, but just to share thoughts in case they stick (including quotes from other replies you've made in this thread):
>"Honestly, it's because I struggle to get to the stage where I can tell the story because people see my name and back channel it."
Assuming you can afford it, have you considered a reputation firm to bury negative search results for your name? The ability to find well-paying work can outsize the cost. Good research is needed here, as some firms are likely ineffective, while others do work.
Have you also considered going by an alternative version of your name? If you have a spouse, could you adopt their last name? If the problem is really that serious, even a name change may be warranted. At the least, a "doing business as (DBA)" name change could work, similar to what gopher_space wrote about operating as a small shop.
>"Within my chosen specialty I was pretty well known and my issues were very public."
Would your skills and experience in recruitment be relevant to another specialty? A real option is to lower your expectations of seniority, and start at a more junior level in a different field/specialty that uses the same skills, and build up new experience and have new connections. With your background, you should progress much faster than a genuine junior recruiter.
>"Except now it's five years instead of three since I've been in the game, and really now eight years since my troubles started so contacts start to wane and move on and forget you."
How have you created those contacts in the first place? There must have been a time when you succeeded without relying on established contacts, and you created them as you were getting your foot in the door. Age and reputation may work against you, but reputational obstacles can be mitigated from the suggestions above.
>"45 is oooooooold in recruitment where you are up or out in a sink or swim environment and 90% are just glorified telemarketers."
Are there ways to obscure your age? If you have a degree, can you remove the year? Can you remove earlier experiences from your C.V.? Would there be anything you can do to physically look younger, or at least make your age ambiguous for in-person interviews?
>"I'm not the guy who can play golf and entertain anymore."
There is a sales book (less relevant for recruiting) called "The Challenger Sale," which asserts that likability, while important, is far less useful and valued by others than helping people identify problems they may not have considered, and offering solutions. Instead of focusing on golfing and entertainment (likability), would it be possible to focus more on outcomes you had at previous work positions?
In a completely different tack, would you be willing to switch to an adjacent field outside of recruiting? For a moment, assume that recruiting is completely non-viable (this isn't true, but consider this for a moment). What do you like about recruiting? What specific skills do you excel at, within recruiting? Are there any other career directions you would really enjoy, where these skills will give you a strong advantage, even if you had to learn additional skills?
Overall, you really can get back on your feet. There are a lot of stories on HN where people are worse off (felony criminal record or homeless), yet who have still created enjoyable and sustainable careers. It's completely valid to feel emotional about your circumstances, but there is a clear pathway to find work you enjoy (address the obstacle of reputation; consider a different style of pitching your skillset that is challenge-focussed while leveraging your past experience; changing fields outside of your specialty, while accepting a junior position and working up; and changing your career path while leveraging your existing skills).
You wrote that we can’t ignore evidence that does not support your worldview in point 2, and then you flipped and said we should ignore the evidence of crime data in point 3, because the results did not match your own message.
At least be consistent and say “we don’t have enough data to conclude either way,” instead of claiming that it’s a bold statement that polling data is less reliable than crime statistics.