Letting go of the idea of keeping up(reactormag.com)
reactormag.com
Letting go of the idea of keeping up
https://reactormag.com/on-letting-go-of-the-idea-of-keeping-up/
163 comments
Thanks for starting the discussion.
> Stress of keeping up with tech/research comes from a sense of professional obligations (you'll fall behind to your professional peers)
Okay, I'm literally terrified about not being in the top 1% or top 10% of everything I do. Scared.
I have built my life around me with people that perform at those levels, so everyone from my wife to my best friends may disappear if I'm not performing at those levels. Not to mention, look at nature: The best do what they can and the weak suffer. It is sad, but its reality.
So I work always, every success opens up 2 new problems to deal with.
I was happier drinking Stoic koolaid.
> Stress of keeping up with tech/research comes from a sense of professional obligations (you'll fall behind to your professional peers)
Okay, I'm literally terrified about not being in the top 1% or top 10% of everything I do. Scared.
I have built my life around me with people that perform at those levels, so everyone from my wife to my best friends may disappear if I'm not performing at those levels. Not to mention, look at nature: The best do what they can and the weak suffer. It is sad, but its reality.
So I work always, every success opens up 2 new problems to deal with.
I was happier drinking Stoic koolaid.
Back when Bell Labs was a top research institute, some researcher gave an interview. He noted that he was top of his class in high school. Way up there in college. Pretty good in grad school. Then he was hired at Bell Labs, where he was at best average. Man, he just got dumber and dumber as time went on.
He said it with a smile, but still, there's a hard kernel of truth there for many of us: if we work hard to advance, and put ourselves in the company of top people, we no longer stand out. But you know what? Life needn't be a continual competition. Be good at what you do, do it well, and take satisfaction in that. You don't need to continuously compare yourself to everyone else, and ask if you are in the top 10%. Eventually you won't be, if only because your entire group is up there.
...look at nature: The best do what they can and the weak suffer.
Yes, but we aren't surrounded by hyenas in the wilds of Africa. Civilization does bring some benefits. Take some time to smell the roses. Heck, a bit of time for relaxation may even improve your performance.
He said it with a smile, but still, there's a hard kernel of truth there for many of us: if we work hard to advance, and put ourselves in the company of top people, we no longer stand out. But you know what? Life needn't be a continual competition. Be good at what you do, do it well, and take satisfaction in that. You don't need to continuously compare yourself to everyone else, and ask if you are in the top 10%. Eventually you won't be, if only because your entire group is up there.
...look at nature: The best do what they can and the weak suffer.
Yes, but we aren't surrounded by hyenas in the wilds of Africa. Civilization does bring some benefits. Take some time to smell the roses. Heck, a bit of time for relaxation may even improve your performance.
Personally I view hyenas as less dangerous than humans, although more truthful about their intentions.
It seems like you're suggesting that people should return to their hometowns and spend the rest of their lives fishing leisurely. While that might be a good option for some, it may not be the option for many regardless of their financial status.
>Not to mention, look at nature: The best do what they can and the weak suffer. It is sad, but its reality.
There's a lot of helping weak members of the pack done by social animals, don't get fooled by the reductionist understanding of "survival of the fittest" that the American education system seems to teach. I believe part of the success of social animals like humans is the support they can give each other, which doesn't mean there is no survival of the fittest anymore, but that the fitness now refers the whole group rather than individuals.
And there are examples of very early humans with disabilities that would have made their care very resource-intensive for their tribe, and still they often lived long lives. This implies that these early humans helped even the weakest members, when they could just as easily have let these individuals perish to make their own lives easier.
I'm trying to say this in the kindest way, but please seek professional help, your view of reality and your relationships seems neither healthy nor sustainable to me.
It is important that you can sometimes let your guard down and not perform at the highest level imho. After all, you are not a machine, but a real human being with feelings. If you want to perform at that level, this is of course perfectly fine, but it should be because you enjoy it, or the fruits of your labor, not because you feel like you have to.
There's a lot of helping weak members of the pack done by social animals, don't get fooled by the reductionist understanding of "survival of the fittest" that the American education system seems to teach. I believe part of the success of social animals like humans is the support they can give each other, which doesn't mean there is no survival of the fittest anymore, but that the fitness now refers the whole group rather than individuals.
And there are examples of very early humans with disabilities that would have made their care very resource-intensive for their tribe, and still they often lived long lives. This implies that these early humans helped even the weakest members, when they could just as easily have let these individuals perish to make their own lives easier.
I'm trying to say this in the kindest way, but please seek professional help, your view of reality and your relationships seems neither healthy nor sustainable to me.
It is important that you can sometimes let your guard down and not perform at the highest level imho. After all, you are not a machine, but a real human being with feelings. If you want to perform at that level, this is of course perfectly fine, but it should be because you enjoy it, or the fruits of your labor, not because you feel like you have to.
Absolutely. The notion that fierce competition for survival is the state of all things in nature is reductionist at best, and incredibly harmful when applied to the human social world.
Take some of the more successful species out there: there are countless species of fungi which thrive on a mutually-beneficial relationships with the root systems of plants (check out the Wood Wide Web); or lichen, which are composite organisms arising from algae or bacteria living in fungi.
Competition is undeniably a big part of the natural world, but it's not something that captures a fraction of the complex relationships between and within species.
Appeals to this survival of the fittest nonsense justify all sorts of terrible behaviour -- and I guess in this context, self-flagellation -- but have little a very weak relationship with modern understandings of biology, history and sociology.
Take some of the more successful species out there: there are countless species of fungi which thrive on a mutually-beneficial relationships with the root systems of plants (check out the Wood Wide Web); or lichen, which are composite organisms arising from algae or bacteria living in fungi.
Competition is undeniably a big part of the natural world, but it's not something that captures a fraction of the complex relationships between and within species.
Appeals to this survival of the fittest nonsense justify all sorts of terrible behaviour -- and I guess in this context, self-flagellation -- but have little a very weak relationship with modern understandings of biology, history and sociology.
> Okay, I'm literally terrified about not being in the top 1% or top 10% of everything I do. Scared.
You're not in the top 1% of posters on this site. How do you deal with that utter failure? Sure, you can make excuses, but face it, you're not in the top 1%, 10%, or even top 90% of this site in points.
These points are, of course, worthless, but holding yourself to an unachievable standard is ridiculous. One might even say it's the top 1% of ridiculousness. And how about things that are contradictory? If you're in the top 1% of people who get 8 hours of sleep every night, you're automatically disqualified from being in the top 1% of people who get 4 hours of less a night. If you're in a top 10% country for Gini inequality, are you also in a top 10% country for happiness?
You're not in the top 10% of wealth already, so you've already failed at that. Just do the best you can and have some self-compassion. By all means, push yourself to do your best, but don't kill yourself over the fact that there's always going to be someone better than you at something.
You're not in the top 1% of posters on this site. How do you deal with that utter failure? Sure, you can make excuses, but face it, you're not in the top 1%, 10%, or even top 90% of this site in points.
These points are, of course, worthless, but holding yourself to an unachievable standard is ridiculous. One might even say it's the top 1% of ridiculousness. And how about things that are contradictory? If you're in the top 1% of people who get 8 hours of sleep every night, you're automatically disqualified from being in the top 1% of people who get 4 hours of less a night. If you're in a top 10% country for Gini inequality, are you also in a top 10% country for happiness?
You're not in the top 10% of wealth already, so you've already failed at that. Just do the best you can and have some self-compassion. By all means, push yourself to do your best, but don't kill yourself over the fact that there's always going to be someone better than you at something.
Unless you have extremely expensive lifestyle, usually being in top 10-20% is enough. And getting to top 10-20% is extremely easy on the timescale of decade or so, basically it boils down to any directed effort. Giant majority of employed people literally don't grow.
On the contrary being in 0.1-1% is not worth it, things like monetary success are usually more down to networking and being in the right place at the right time, top 10% software engineer can earn way more money joining right early stage startup or even tech company at the right time - like NVIDIA lately. While the 0.1% developer might spend his time at failed startup - for example, because his extreme passion might mislead them to believe field like _developer tools_ is the future.
Of course, this is written from a perspective of a person that likes what they do, but not to the point where it's what I want to do for the rest of my life. Pretty much every hour spend lead climbing outside was more fun and fulfilling than any hour spend at work.
On the contrary being in 0.1-1% is not worth it, things like monetary success are usually more down to networking and being in the right place at the right time, top 10% software engineer can earn way more money joining right early stage startup or even tech company at the right time - like NVIDIA lately. While the 0.1% developer might spend his time at failed startup - for example, because his extreme passion might mislead them to believe field like _developer tools_ is the future.
Of course, this is written from a perspective of a person that likes what they do, but not to the point where it's what I want to do for the rest of my life. Pretty much every hour spend lead climbing outside was more fun and fulfilling than any hour spend at work.
> Okay, I'm literally terrified about not being in the top 1% or top 10% of everything I do. Scared.
I don't believe you. No one is in the "top 1%" of everything you do.
I don't say this to shame you, but to make you realize that you're already okay as you are, while not being the best.
There's no way you're in the top 1% of management ability, technical knowledge, coworker relationships, parenting, exercise, finances, et cetera.
On the few axes of life where I know for sure I am better than the next 99 people I meet, I have had to practice that thing so much that I have made more than one logical jump and ability jump that counts as a filter for the next 99. It won't be overnight that I fall out of the 1%.
I suspect the same is true for anyone in any 1% of anything.
Let go of your fears.
I don't believe you. No one is in the "top 1%" of everything you do.
I don't say this to shame you, but to make you realize that you're already okay as you are, while not being the best.
There's no way you're in the top 1% of management ability, technical knowledge, coworker relationships, parenting, exercise, finances, et cetera.
On the few axes of life where I know for sure I am better than the next 99 people I meet, I have had to practice that thing so much that I have made more than one logical jump and ability jump that counts as a filter for the next 99. It won't be overnight that I fall out of the 1%.
I suspect the same is true for anyone in any 1% of anything.
Let go of your fears.
He certainly isn't in the top 1% of work-life balance.
>If i'm not in the top 10% my wife and friends are going to leave me.
I hope this is sarcastic because it's comically neurotic. Like you're headed for a huge breakdown.
>look at nature: The best do what they can and the weak suffer. It is sad, but its reality.
Wanna know how I know you spend 0 time in nature?
I think you should start a garden. Get in touch with actual nature. You're going to have a breakdown when you realize you're not in the top 1% of all gardens, but once you start to see perennials refuse to accept they were put in the wrong spot year after year, maybe you'll chill out.
I hope this is sarcastic because it's comically neurotic. Like you're headed for a huge breakdown.
>look at nature: The best do what they can and the weak suffer. It is sad, but its reality.
Wanna know how I know you spend 0 time in nature?
I think you should start a garden. Get in touch with actual nature. You're going to have a breakdown when you realize you're not in the top 1% of all gardens, but once you start to see perennials refuse to accept they were put in the wrong spot year after year, maybe you'll chill out.
> so everyone from my wife to my best friends may disappear if I'm not performing at those levels
Excuse me, what the flask. You don't have a wife and friends then at all. You've built a non-profit organization, not a family.
> look at nature: The best do what they can and the weak suffer
What kind of nature are you even watching? It's the sickly bottom 1% that's suffering which is an unfortunate reality, not the 90%. You completely inverted that.
Not only that, members of the same intelligent species usually help weaker members of their "packs". And people are supposed to be even better than that.
Excuse me, what the flask. You don't have a wife and friends then at all. You've built a non-profit organization, not a family.
> look at nature: The best do what they can and the weak suffer
What kind of nature are you even watching? It's the sickly bottom 1% that's suffering which is an unfortunate reality, not the 90%. You completely inverted that.
Not only that, members of the same intelligent species usually help weaker members of their "packs". And people are supposed to be even better than that.
> Excuse me, what the flask. You don't have a wife and friends then at all. You've built a non-profit organization, not a family.
I think it's fairly common among top performers.
I think it's fairly common among top performers.
Agreed — people choose you because you’re shiny, and to the rest of the world it looks like a family, but watch what happens if you try to give up being shiny.
It's so so different where I live (Poland). It's still super common here to pair up in high school or university where you are basically still a bunch of nobodies and stay together through the fire and flames™ unless literal abuse is involved or the very basics of personality don't match.
Material status or ambition is almost never a factor even among couples of top performers I know. We were kind of raised to expect various big changes in life. Career interest changes, economical downturns, wars. You just... cannot rely on such things at all so it doesn't make sense to care much about that.
>You don't have a wife and friends then at all. You've built a non-profit organization, not a family.
:( Yeah I know
>What kind of nature are you even watching
From the highest levels to the lowest levels, power dynamics decide how things are. I will admit that you can intellectual insanity your way to enjoying/handling suffering, I was a Stoic for 3 years. Whatever the case, maybe I've personally experienced more of this power dynamic problem. Its literally traumatic.
:( Yeah I know
>What kind of nature are you even watching
From the highest levels to the lowest levels, power dynamics decide how things are. I will admit that you can intellectual insanity your way to enjoying/handling suffering, I was a Stoic for 3 years. Whatever the case, maybe I've personally experienced more of this power dynamic problem. Its literally traumatic.
If you know for a fact that your wife and friends only like your professional success and not YOU, you need to either work on that or get out of those relationships -- or at least build new, additional ones.
I suspect you are exaggerating things in your head though. How will your wife or friends even know that you are only a 75th percentile coder (or whatever your profession is) and not a 99th percentile one? They don't, and can't, and you need to do whatever work is necessary to understand that their love for you is not actually conditional on working 90 hours a week or staying up to date on "the literature".
> Okay, I'm literally terrified about not being in the top 1% or top 10% of everything I do. Scared.
I'm not a doctor of any kind, so this isn't medical advice but: I've dealt with similar fear (usually I get scared of being in the bottom percentiles of whatever I'm doing rather than not being in the top, but the idea is the same), and IMO this feeling is enough to talk to a psychiatrist or therapist, because it is classic anxiety disorder thinking. If you really feel this way all the time (rather than just occasionally, which is pretty normal IMO -- our society tends to over-pathologize stuff like this) then talk therapy or an SSRI might help. Even if you don't think you are "crazy" or have any kind of disorder at all, talk therapy alone can improve your life dramatically. It has mine.
I suspect you are exaggerating things in your head though. How will your wife or friends even know that you are only a 75th percentile coder (or whatever your profession is) and not a 99th percentile one? They don't, and can't, and you need to do whatever work is necessary to understand that their love for you is not actually conditional on working 90 hours a week or staying up to date on "the literature".
> Okay, I'm literally terrified about not being in the top 1% or top 10% of everything I do. Scared.
I'm not a doctor of any kind, so this isn't medical advice but: I've dealt with similar fear (usually I get scared of being in the bottom percentiles of whatever I'm doing rather than not being in the top, but the idea is the same), and IMO this feeling is enough to talk to a psychiatrist or therapist, because it is classic anxiety disorder thinking. If you really feel this way all the time (rather than just occasionally, which is pretty normal IMO -- our society tends to over-pathologize stuff like this) then talk therapy or an SSRI might help. Even if you don't think you are "crazy" or have any kind of disorder at all, talk therapy alone can improve your life dramatically. It has mine.
> From the highest levels to the lowest levels, power dynamics decide how things are.
Even granting this premise, which I don't, the interpretation you are operating under -- all but the 1% or 10% or whatever get get crushed -- is not realistic. Folks live happy, contented lives today in community with others. Many species other than human care for the elderly or their sick and long-term disabled. Keeping with the evolutionary model why would altruism continually evolve into species without utility?
I guess, on a personal note, I hope things improve for you.
Even granting this premise, which I don't, the interpretation you are operating under -- all but the 1% or 10% or whatever get get crushed -- is not realistic. Folks live happy, contented lives today in community with others. Many species other than human care for the elderly or their sick and long-term disabled. Keeping with the evolutionary model why would altruism continually evolve into species without utility?
I guess, on a personal note, I hope things improve for you.
> so everyone from my wife to my best friends may disappear if I'm not performing at those levels
fwiw - a lot of go-getters find themselves surprised with the support and love they continue to receive from their spouse and friends when they are going through a rough patch.
fwiw - a lot of go-getters find themselves surprised with the support and love they continue to receive from their spouse and friends when they are going through a rough patch.
[deleted]
It's fairly easy to get into the top 30% of something. Just showing up, paying attention, and putting in a little effort will often put you in the top third.
Getting into the top 10% requires a lot more effort and will likely require you to sacrifice other things so that you can focus on that one thing.
Unless the subject is something obscure where few people have interest; getting into the top 1% often requires complete dedication. Your life revolves around that one thing and you need superior talent.
Competition drives us to be better, but often those who find themselves in that 1% are questioning if it was really worth it. You can be completely happy further down the ladder.
Getting into the top 10% requires a lot more effort and will likely require you to sacrifice other things so that you can focus on that one thing.
Unless the subject is something obscure where few people have interest; getting into the top 1% often requires complete dedication. Your life revolves around that one thing and you need superior talent.
Competition drives us to be better, but often those who find themselves in that 1% are questioning if it was really worth it. You can be completely happy further down the ladder.
> I have built my life around me with people that perform at those levels, so everyone from my wife to my best friends may disappear if I'm not performing at those levels.
Are you positive that this is what is going to happen?
Are you positive that this is what is going to happen?
You think your wife is going to leave you if you're not learning about the latest tech?
How is Stoicism Kool-Aid?
You have to mental gymnastics your way to happiness, rather than using your intrinsic desires.
You also probably need to take a philosophical "Leap of Faith" at some point to justify your work. The obvious one is Solipsism, you basically must assume that other people have consciousness. Hope you aren't just a brain in the vat, and this worldly experience was all for you.
You also probably need to take a philosophical "Leap of Faith" at some point to justify your work. The obvious one is Solipsism, you basically must assume that other people have consciousness. Hope you aren't just a brain in the vat, and this worldly experience was all for you.
I reckon you're misunderstanding stoicism if you think of it as mental gymnastics. You're implying it is a practice of self-deceit or indulging in irrationality.
Stoicism is largely about accepting things as they are and letting go of the illusion of control. This, if truly integrated in your outlook, is the opposite of mental gymnastics. Said otherwise, you'd have self-awareness to understand your predicament and cut through it. Believe or not, you and Marcus Aurelius share the fundamental human condition, despite him being what you'd consider a "top performer".
Would you consider Cognitive Behavioral Therapy a practice of mental gymnastics? After all, Aaron Beck was inspired in part by the stoics.
I wish you find peace, don't be too hard on yourself.
Stoicism is largely about accepting things as they are and letting go of the illusion of control. This, if truly integrated in your outlook, is the opposite of mental gymnastics. Said otherwise, you'd have self-awareness to understand your predicament and cut through it. Believe or not, you and Marcus Aurelius share the fundamental human condition, despite him being what you'd consider a "top performer".
Would you consider Cognitive Behavioral Therapy a practice of mental gymnastics? After all, Aaron Beck was inspired in part by the stoics.
I wish you find peace, don't be too hard on yourself.
> Would you consider Cognitive Behavioral Therapy a practice of mental gymnastics?
I think it absolutely can be. A lot of negative circumstances can generate from outside ourselves and they can have massive negative effects on our mental health. Trying to use CBT to work on anxiety or depression that is caused from compounding external factors is a bit like self gaslighting
Situations like "I got into a car accident so my car is wrecked. I'm in hospital debt. I can't work because I'm still recovering from my injuries. I need a car for work and I cannot afford a new one. I'm struggling to survive and I'm depressed"
There would be limited avenues I think for CBT to effectively help here, because a lot of these problems are external and out of a person's control
I think it absolutely can be. A lot of negative circumstances can generate from outside ourselves and they can have massive negative effects on our mental health. Trying to use CBT to work on anxiety or depression that is caused from compounding external factors is a bit like self gaslighting
Situations like "I got into a car accident so my car is wrecked. I'm in hospital debt. I can't work because I'm still recovering from my injuries. I need a car for work and I cannot afford a new one. I'm struggling to survive and I'm depressed"
There would be limited avenues I think for CBT to effectively help here, because a lot of these problems are external and out of a person's control
I think you should read The Meditations, skip chapter 1.
I have read it, hence my confusion regarding how you've described stoicism.
[deleted]
If you are constantly afraid of being abandoned if you show the slightest sign of weakness, you may not be as strong as you imagine tbh. Such fears are easily exploited, too. You should really discuss this with your wife and/or friends, chances are that they have similar fears. You might support each other to achieve true strength and the confidence that comes with it.
But if you feel the stress of keeping up with new tech or keeping up with book reading, don't you think it's the same? Just don't worry, everyone has their own pace
I don’t think it’s the same. The author frames it as a social pressure. It actually reads as a personal anxiety that they project on the world in my opinion. They started feeling competitive about books as an 8 year old? I’m not shocked they assume anyone asking them what they’re reading is some test. I can’t imagine walking through the world like this.
Of course there is some of this in software related fields, but for a lot of us the bigger risk is a demonstrable professional one. If you haven’t learned anything new in tech in the last 10 years you could be out of a job. There is a whole ocean of jobs for which you would not qualify.
Of course there is some of this in software related fields, but for a lot of us the bigger risk is a demonstrable professional one. If you haven’t learned anything new in tech in the last 10 years you could be out of a job. There is a whole ocean of jobs for which you would not qualify.
"I will be completely unable to make a meaningful contribution to a five minute discussion at a cocktail party a couple months away"
vs
"I will be completely unable to collaborate on a project because I literally don't understand the concepts on which it's based"
The only non-fluid timeliness considerations of literature are typically social in nature and casual in import. Not so, tech.
vs
"I will be completely unable to collaborate on a project because I literally don't understand the concepts on which it's based"
The only non-fluid timeliness considerations of literature are typically social in nature and casual in import. Not so, tech.
I've made a point of not bothering to learn new tech environments unless I was interested, and it hasn't made me unable to collaborate. Usually I just learn it on the fly, when I'm asked to do something outside my usual scope at work.
Although I did have a moment of panic when I signed up for a contract work with some OpenGL/C# work. I was hoping to talk them into C++, but I'd used C# before. Turned out to be a TypeScript project using WebGL, neither of which I'd done anything with, so I had a couple of days of panic until I realized that TypeScript was similar enough to C++ that I could get work done while learning.
(Also, if you want to learn new things, doing lots of smallish contracts is a great way to do it. You select the contracts that are doing something new but leverage some of your existing knowledge. These are not hard to find; you'll have a harder time finding something that doesn't require some learning!)
Although I did have a moment of panic when I signed up for a contract work with some OpenGL/C# work. I was hoping to talk them into C++, but I'd used C# before. Turned out to be a TypeScript project using WebGL, neither of which I'd done anything with, so I had a couple of days of panic until I realized that TypeScript was similar enough to C++ that I could get work done while learning.
(Also, if you want to learn new things, doing lots of smallish contracts is a great way to do it. You select the contracts that are doing something new but leverage some of your existing knowledge. These are not hard to find; you'll have a harder time finding something that doesn't require some learning!)
> So the conclusion is not that helpful.
Isn't the conclusion from the article inherently transferable to what you described? (I was assuming a different topic as well.)
Isn't the conclusion from the article inherently transferable to what you described? (I was assuming a different topic as well.)
I'd say it is transferable only partially? But still not that helpful.
It is helpful to people that are not aware of the source of the stress (often in the form of feeling overwhelmed) to be able to identify it. The article spend most of the words actually just describing this phenomenon. I think newly-graduated-in-tech-startup me in the past would've felt validated reading it.
But the article falls short on any good remedies for the situation. Like yeah I'd love to be able to just "not worry about it", but the problem is that I (as a researcher needing to keep up) can't just stop worrying about it, but I'd love to find a balance where I can keep the enthusiasm and up to date while not feeling overwhelmed and dreadful while doing it.
It works for the author because ultimately, the author is in a position when they can walk away or explain WHY they don't keep up and get accepted for it. Worst case the author will lose respect or some snobbish friends.
That's not the case for most tech or research people. Not worrying about it might be close to just quitting (or silent quitting) and require a bit more mental change than "to not just worry about it". Even if that's the ultimate goal, the advice is as helpful as telling a homeless man how dreadful it is to not have a home, and then tell him to just buy a house.
It is helpful to people that are not aware of the source of the stress (often in the form of feeling overwhelmed) to be able to identify it. The article spend most of the words actually just describing this phenomenon. I think newly-graduated-in-tech-startup me in the past would've felt validated reading it.
But the article falls short on any good remedies for the situation. Like yeah I'd love to be able to just "not worry about it", but the problem is that I (as a researcher needing to keep up) can't just stop worrying about it, but I'd love to find a balance where I can keep the enthusiasm and up to date while not feeling overwhelmed and dreadful while doing it.
It works for the author because ultimately, the author is in a position when they can walk away or explain WHY they don't keep up and get accepted for it. Worst case the author will lose respect or some snobbish friends.
That's not the case for most tech or research people. Not worrying about it might be close to just quitting (or silent quitting) and require a bit more mental change than "to not just worry about it". Even if that's the ultimate goal, the advice is as helpful as telling a homeless man how dreadful it is to not have a home, and then tell him to just buy a house.
> Not worrying about it might be close to just quitting (or silent quitting) and require a bit more mental change than "to not just worry about it". Even if that's the ultimate goal, the advice is as helpful as telling a homeless man how dreadful it is to not have a home, and then tell him to just buy a house.
I understand the sentiment and I know where you're coming from with this.
Still, if you want to be less stressed, the only solution that I have found is to just not stress over things. The moment you deeply believe that only stress will improve your life situation, you have made a decision for it to be so. This is the mechanism by which the stress then proliferates not only in you, but also to others. And you don't even get a guarantee that it's worth it. You may end up with only stress and all the goals you tried to achieve with it falling apart anyway. I don't think it's worth it. One needs to find a balance.
I understand the sentiment and I know where you're coming from with this.
Still, if you want to be less stressed, the only solution that I have found is to just not stress over things. The moment you deeply believe that only stress will improve your life situation, you have made a decision for it to be so. This is the mechanism by which the stress then proliferates not only in you, but also to others. And you don't even get a guarantee that it's worth it. You may end up with only stress and all the goals you tried to achieve with it falling apart anyway. I don't think it's worth it. One needs to find a balance.
Thank you for your sincere reply.(and understanding)
I'm right now not in that mental state, and in matter of fact in the process of quitting my job (well one reason of it) for the stress of keeping up. So the description in your last paragraph does ring true to my previous mentality, and something I had to work on for the past 4 years to correct.
Still, when I see my newer coworkers in similar situation as I were, I know neither my experience nor your comment will reach them. But I believe your comment & my experience is probably more useful than the original articles (non-existent) advice.
I'm right now not in that mental state, and in matter of fact in the process of quitting my job (well one reason of it) for the stress of keeping up. So the description in your last paragraph does ring true to my previous mentality, and something I had to work on for the past 4 years to correct.
Still, when I see my newer coworkers in similar situation as I were, I know neither my experience nor your comment will reach them. But I believe your comment & my experience is probably more useful than the original articles (non-existent) advice.
> Still, when I see my newer coworkers in similar situation as I were, I know neither my experience nor your comment will reach them. But I believe your comment & my experience is probably more useful than the original articles (non-existent) advice.
Yes and that's ok. Everyone needs a different amount of suffering to get to a point where change becomes possible.
Yes and that's ok. Everyone needs a different amount of suffering to get to a point where change becomes possible.
> I'm not sure how much it can be applied to just hobby reading
When I widen my aperture, what I see is this is a form of "keeping up with the joneses", or teenagers comparing themselves to others on Instagram, or chasing the latest buzzword in technology, etc.
FOMO (fear of missing out) vs JOMO (joy of missing out) is another riff on this age-old idea.
When I widen my aperture, what I see is this is a form of "keeping up with the joneses", or teenagers comparing themselves to others on Instagram, or chasing the latest buzzword in technology, etc.
FOMO (fear of missing out) vs JOMO (joy of missing out) is another riff on this age-old idea.
> I'm not sure how much it can be applied to just hobby reading.
It feels very real to me, in the circles I run in.
It feels very real to me, in the circles I run in.
Before I started my first tech job many years ago I was quite stressed. I felt behind constantly and I was worried everyone would be so much better than me so I over compensated by reading every tech book I could get my hands on. I threw myself into them and flat out memorized and experimented with the content until I knew it through and through.
Turns out I had nothing to worry about. In my entire career I've met one guy that was ever "on my level".
I'd say yes-- book reading can help, but the dread of not being enough shouldn't be a part of it. Most tech people don't read. Most tech people don't code before 9AM or after 5PM. Most have never heard of hacker news. You're going to be o.k.
Turns out I had nothing to worry about. In my entire career I've met one guy that was ever "on my level".
I'd say yes-- book reading can help, but the dread of not being enough shouldn't be a part of it. Most tech people don't read. Most tech people don't code before 9AM or after 5PM. Most have never heard of hacker news. You're going to be o.k.
At one of my jobs the entire team read at least a book a week, often more and seemingly non-stop. Every standup started with every person talking about what we'd read that week.
I'd never been a huge longform reader (more like a book a month, at best) and rarely had anything to contribute. Sometimes I'd say "our documentation" because that's what I'd been working on, and when I wasn't working _I wasn't reading_ because it was too much like work to enjoy.
It eventually got profoundly uncomfortable. My manager raised my non-participation as an example of how my attitude was turning too negative for the team. I'd find out from recorded team meetings when I was out sick or on vacation that they'd crack jokes about it when I wasn't around.
It particularly odd because I arguably read as much as anyone else on that team, but I preferred either technical content related to what I was working on, or shorter works like short-story collections and articles for fun. If I wasn't reading biographies and novels, it seemingly didn't count to them.
I'd never been a huge longform reader (more like a book a month, at best) and rarely had anything to contribute. Sometimes I'd say "our documentation" because that's what I'd been working on, and when I wasn't working _I wasn't reading_ because it was too much like work to enjoy.
It eventually got profoundly uncomfortable. My manager raised my non-participation as an example of how my attitude was turning too negative for the team. I'd find out from recorded team meetings when I was out sick or on vacation that they'd crack jokes about it when I wasn't around.
It particularly odd because I arguably read as much as anyone else on that team, but I preferred either technical content related to what I was working on, or shorter works like short-story collections and articles for fun. If I wasn't reading biographies and novels, it seemingly didn't count to them.
I'll be honest, they sound rude for laughing behind your back, but I really disagree with the notion that you're reading "as much" by reading some reddit articles or docs pages.
People who keep up a book per week or month ALSO read those things. I've found many people that don't read have this notion that just going on reddit for an hour a day "is the same thing", but it's nothing like sitting down and properly diving into long form.
That being said nobody should feel bad for not doing it. It's like running a marathon, don't say it's the same because you go for a walk with the dog, but nobody should be expected to run one.
People who keep up a book per week or month ALSO read those things. I've found many people that don't read have this notion that just going on reddit for an hour a day "is the same thing", but it's nothing like sitting down and properly diving into long form.
That being said nobody should feel bad for not doing it. It's like running a marathon, don't say it's the same because you go for a walk with the dog, but nobody should be expected to run one.
People who “read a book a week” aren’t absorbing anything useful for technical work anyway.
When I think about the best (as identified by both myself and widely within the org) engineers I spent the last couple of decades working with, exactly 0 of them went through a book a week.
Reading that much means you’re just skipping across some other author’s ideas. The person that reads a single article about some new algorithm or research and spends multiple hours internalizing it, trying it, analyzing it, debating it, etc is gaining far more than the book guzzlers.
When I think about the best (as identified by both myself and widely within the org) engineers I spent the last couple of decades working with, exactly 0 of them went through a book a week.
Reading that much means you’re just skipping across some other author’s ideas. The person that reads a single article about some new algorithm or research and spends multiple hours internalizing it, trying it, analyzing it, debating it, etc is gaining far more than the book guzzlers.
Reading a book a week isn't difficult. If you read at a hobbyist reader's comfortable pace then you can finish a medium novel in five to seven hours. Hobbyist readers with full-time jobs who read on the side can read from one to six hours a day. Think of the average person's daily phone screentime.
Reading a book a week in a vacuum is easy.
Reading a book a week that competes with your responsibilities and other hobbies is a challenge.
Reading a book a week that competes with your responsibilities and other hobbies is a challenge.
Rather than making absolute statements, let's say that's true if you have a lot of responsibilities and other hobbies.
Some friends of mine say they had huge amounts of time to read and do stuff before they had kids, but took it for granted and managed to complain about having no time.
Lots of people spend huge amounts of their time on their phones or computers passively browsing, or watching Netflix or whatever. Reducing that time and reading instead is very achievable.
This is not true for everyone, others really do still have responsibilities and hobbies that take up too much time to be able to read a book a week. Others read slowly and cannot improve. No advice about free time is one size fits all.
Some friends of mine say they had huge amounts of time to read and do stuff before they had kids, but took it for granted and managed to complain about having no time.
Lots of people spend huge amounts of their time on their phones or computers passively browsing, or watching Netflix or whatever. Reducing that time and reading instead is very achievable.
This is not true for everyone, others really do still have responsibilities and hobbies that take up too much time to be able to read a book a week. Others read slowly and cannot improve. No advice about free time is one size fits all.
What a surprise that you are also a reader of books rather than other content: https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/7288759-vasco
Reading a book is arguably easier than reading technical content or other articles, because they don't tend to be as information dense.
I prefer reading things like this: https://commoncog.com/becoming-data-driven-in-business/
But someone might like reading documentation for e.g. databases, which is also extremely information dense. I have briefly done this (https://turbopuffer.com/docs) and read other database content (https://artem.krylysov.com/blog/2023/04/19/how-rocksdb-works...), but it's not my favourite content.
Really weird to say "you read X, I read Y. We are not the same" and then follow-up with "oh but it's fine, you don't have to. But I'm X and you're Y".
I could replace a few words in your comment and make it about thinking reading books is the same as reading extremely dense technical content. It's a silly argument.
Reading a book is arguably easier than reading technical content or other articles, because they don't tend to be as information dense.
I prefer reading things like this: https://commoncog.com/becoming-data-driven-in-business/
But someone might like reading documentation for e.g. databases, which is also extremely information dense. I have briefly done this (https://turbopuffer.com/docs) and read other database content (https://artem.krylysov.com/blog/2023/04/19/how-rocksdb-works...), but it's not my favourite content.
Really weird to say "you read X, I read Y. We are not the same" and then follow-up with "oh but it's fine, you don't have to. But I'm X and you're Y".
I could replace a few words in your comment and make it about thinking reading books is the same as reading extremely dense technical content. It's a silly argument.
Well I wouldn't be defending books if I didn't like them :)
I need to keep Goodreads updated though, I've been losing the habit over the last years, because lately none of my choices come from Goodreads recommendations, but I love being able to see all I read. Thanks for the reminder!
I don't think it's weird to acknowledge people have different preferences though, I don't like running marathons but I can see how people who run them would appreciate the benefits it brings them in health and discipline! I think there's maturity in acknowledging the things you think are right for you might not be right for everyone, but still be comfortable sharing your preferences in case others see value in them. I don't see it as looking down on others which you seem to imply I'm doing.
I need to keep Goodreads updated though, I've been losing the habit over the last years, because lately none of my choices come from Goodreads recommendations, but I love being able to see all I read. Thanks for the reminder!
I don't think it's weird to acknowledge people have different preferences though, I don't like running marathons but I can see how people who run them would appreciate the benefits it brings them in health and discipline! I think there's maturity in acknowledging the things you think are right for you might not be right for everyone, but still be comfortable sharing your preferences in case others see value in them. I don't see it as looking down on others which you seem to imply I'm doing.
Comparing a marathon with walking your dog is clearly implying a negative or lesser perception of the "walking your dog" activity. That is not a neutral statement of preference.
If you intended for it to be a neutral comparison about preference I would have gone with something like triathlons, sprinting, athletics, etc.
If you intended for it to be a neutral comparison about preference I would have gone with something like triathlons, sprinting, athletics, etc.
Woah man, I definitely like walking my dog way more than running marathons! That was exactly my point they are different things, that different people enjoy and they are not so comparable. You don't get the same things from walking a dog that you get from running a marathon. The same way you don't get the same thing from reading books to reading reddit URLs to reading research papers. It is you that is injecting "one is lesser than the other" not me.
A book a week is absurd, that’s like binge watching a multi season series each week. You’re wasting your life away.
> My manager raised my non-participation as an example of how my attitude was turning too negative for the team. I'd find out from recorded team meetings when I was out sick or on vacation that they'd crack jokes about it when I wasn't around.
That's workplace bullying.
That's workplace bullying.
I can really understand how it feels from their perspective. Work feels much better when we do stuff that makes us connect as humans, and quarterly corporate events don't cut it. They created a culture where they did something fun together and had a conversation topic other than work, and there's this one guy who just refuses to participate and doesn't even try to find a way to include himself in the group.
Sure, reading a book a week takes time from your other activities and is way too much to expect, but if you had spent 15 minutes on Monday morning browsing Wikipedia on the topic of literature and brought some trivia, that would have been much appreciated.
People often complain about the soullessness of corporate jobs, but when someone tries to do something about it, there's usually huge pushback because everyone wants that something to fit their personal preferences, and since we can't find a thing that everyone likes, we go back to treating job as a pure business relationship.
Sure, reading a book a week takes time from your other activities and is way too much to expect, but if you had spent 15 minutes on Monday morning browsing Wikipedia on the topic of literature and brought some trivia, that would have been much appreciated.
People often complain about the soullessness of corporate jobs, but when someone tries to do something about it, there's usually huge pushback because everyone wants that something to fit their personal preferences, and since we can't find a thing that everyone likes, we go back to treating job as a pure business relationship.
The complains come from how fake it is. Companies force "corporate fun" where there is none. They try to influence your personal life. They want you to dedicate your entire life to the company and they want you to treat coworkers as family while laying off underperformers of ever increasing KPIs.
Sometimes not even underperformers.
THAT'S soullessness and that "mandatory" team-building exercise of book reading is actually an example of that because when layoffs come the company won't care about any of that.
It's much better to work for a company that allows you to do the job (preferably remote) and f off asap, enabling you to forge real relationships out of work in an area you actually plan to live.
God I love remote contracts...
THAT'S soullessness and that "mandatory" team-building exercise of book reading is actually an example of that because when layoffs come the company won't care about any of that.
It's much better to work for a company that allows you to do the job (preferably remote) and f off asap, enabling you to forge real relationships out of work in an area you actually plan to live.
God I love remote contracts...
> I can really understand how it feels from their perspective. Work feels much better when we do stuff that makes us connect as humans, and quarterly corporate events don't cut it. They created a culture where they did something fun together and had a conversation topic other than work, and there's this one guy who just refuses to participate and doesn't even try to find a way to include himself in the group.
Could also say the group failed to integrate a person who had different preferences for their free time and then bullied them when they weren't present at work?
I think both perspectives are quite extreme and miss the mark.
If reading a book a week in my free time was a work requirement, I would be out and quick. That sounds ridiculous!
Could also say the group failed to integrate a person who had different preferences for their free time and then bullied them when they weren't present at work?
I think both perspectives are quite extreme and miss the mark.
If reading a book a week in my free time was a work requirement, I would be out and quick. That sounds ridiculous!
> Could also say the group failed to integrate a person who had different preferences for their free time and then bullied them when they weren't present at work?
That's also possible, depends on details of the dynamic between OP and the rest of the group
That's also possible, depends on details of the dynamic between OP and the rest of the group
> That's also possible, depends on details of the dynamic between OP and the rest of the group
Sorry, no. That's not also possible. That's in fact exactly what happened if we believe OP's story.
Sorry, no. That's not also possible. That's in fact exactly what happened if we believe OP's story.
I do agree that work is much better if you are friends with your colleagues. That being said, one always need to be wary of bad actors that take advantage of people's openness.
There is a reason why the advice to not date or get too close to colleagues resonate with many people. There are just some workplaces that are toxic.
Sometimes, it is just better to delineate work from your personal life and interests.
There is a reason why the advice to not date or get too close to colleagues resonate with many people. There are just some workplaces that are toxic.
Sometimes, it is just better to delineate work from your personal life and interests.
That sounds super toxic and weird.
I would change job unless the pay is extremely good. This is almost about privacy invasion. Why do they care so much people do at their own time?
This sounds super toxic - unless you got paid for reading novels.
This place was toxic, and those folks a bunch of pseudo-intelectual idiots.
Like... an involuntary book club? As in one person opened up that they read something like The Scarlet Letter? I'm sorry that you experienced that.
At an old job I read a fiction series based on a suggestion from my manager but that's because we liked the same type of books, absolutely was not expected to be read to join the "in" crowd. If anything, we were the "out" crowd!
At an old job I read a fiction series based on a suggestion from my manager but that's because we liked the same type of books, absolutely was not expected to be read to join the "in" crowd. If anything, we were the "out" crowd!
^^^ I get night terrors thinking about gig in Boston fire city good sea food but wth is up with work environments that lure you in with free books and perks and it's like hell
I read around 150 books a year. Most of it is what I like to call "shitlit", or alternatively inconsequential literature.
This does not mean I am better or worse than anyone, just that my default state is reading. Friends eventually read books when recommended them and we talk about then.
Reading shouldnt be a target, it should be for enjoyment. I enjoy shitlit, but others may not.
This does not mean I am better or worse than anyone, just that my default state is reading. Friends eventually read books when recommended them and we talk about then.
Reading shouldnt be a target, it should be for enjoyment. I enjoy shitlit, but others may not.
Respect.
I'm gonna start using "shitlit" from hereon out.
And also, there are people I respect who said they read 100+ books a year, and that you should, too. But while others in my circles were eager to jump on the train, for me, I thought it would be performative, and be about having read said 100+ books than digesting any of it. And what more, I recall that I best retain info via reading if I have skin in the game, rather than feeling like reading makes me appear more approvable to others.
All that is to say, it's good to hear from someone who reads a ton that a lot of your reading is kinda junk stuff (even if 150+ books a year is still a crazy metric – and as a tangent, people who ride bikes a ton say that a lot of their miles they rack up are junk miles, so I'm sure there's an equivalent of shitlit in any pursuit/ hobby/ interest/ endeavor).
I'm gonna start using "shitlit" from hereon out.
And also, there are people I respect who said they read 100+ books a year, and that you should, too. But while others in my circles were eager to jump on the train, for me, I thought it would be performative, and be about having read said 100+ books than digesting any of it. And what more, I recall that I best retain info via reading if I have skin in the game, rather than feeling like reading makes me appear more approvable to others.
All that is to say, it's good to hear from someone who reads a ton that a lot of your reading is kinda junk stuff (even if 150+ books a year is still a crazy metric – and as a tangent, people who ride bikes a ton say that a lot of their miles they rack up are junk miles, so I'm sure there's an equivalent of shitlit in any pursuit/ hobby/ interest/ endeavor).
For "shitlit", I highly recommend novels written by Charles Bukowski. They are very funny.
Bukowski's books are funny and sad at the same time, but I would not consider it shitlit! Well maybe some if it like Hollywood I could see it, but definitely not Post Office.
What do you consider shitlit?
Do you blog or keep a list? I would be nice to see what you read. I tend to only read fiction written by women. (I read enough non-fiction via the Financial Times newspaper.) As a man, it is really eye-opening to "see the other (emotional) side". Usually, the stories are much more about character development, than trying to save the world ("do something big") that I often see in fiction written by men.
I have most of it on my kindle so there is a purchase history there.
Recently its been a lot of LitRPG stuff. Dungeon Crawler Carl, The Primal Hunter and so on. I also read most of the Hugo and Nebula lists too. Lots of SciFi in the past couple of years.
Recently its been a lot of LitRPG stuff. Dungeon Crawler Carl, The Primal Hunter and so on. I also read most of the Hugo and Nebula lists too. Lots of SciFi in the past couple of years.
How does this work? Is it a book every two days? Or three books on the weekend? How long is your commute and how do you keep off YouTube/Netflix in the evening?
When you get in the habit of reading, it's remarkable how quickly you can do it. It's quite easy to read a book in a day when you read every day.
Unfortunately, I got in the habit of reading before bed. I inadvertently trained myself that reading leads to sleep. Now when I read, I very quickly start to feel sleepy.
So my advice would be to get in the habit of reading, but be mindful of the details of the habit you are establishing.
So my advice would be to get in the habit of reading, but be mindful of the details of the habit you are establishing.
If you read short books of low complexity, aye. We need to start talking page count. Aint nobody reading 3 Robin Hobb books a week all year long.
I disagree. Reading lecture (! not literature or study books) I read 15 books each weekend in my teens, reading all science fiction and fantasy books in the town's library. And no, not all where 1000 pages long. But they weren't all shorter then 300.
And yes, I regurarly went back during the week to catch an extra book or two.
I realize I might be a relatively fast reader, and this fast reading I only did in English (while my mother tongue is Dutch), but do not underestimate how quick some people can read?
I suppose I can concur in your 'low complexity' argument: I did not read Tolkien in my teens, and probably would have skipped all the poetry while reading.
Edit: Clarification: 15 books each weekend should be read as ==>> I traded my 15 books for 15 new books each weekend, reading them during the weekend and when not in school
I realize I might be a relatively fast reader, and this fast reading I only did in English (while my mother tongue is Dutch), but do not underestimate how quick some people can read?
I suppose I can concur in your 'low complexity' argument: I did not read Tolkien in my teens, and probably would have skipped all the poetry while reading.
Edit: Clarification: 15 books each weekend should be read as ==>> I traded my 15 books for 15 new books each weekend, reading them during the weekend and when not in school
> 15 books each weekend should be read as ==>> I traded my 15 books for 15 new books each weekend, reading them during the weekend and when not in school
So you mean 15 books each week, not each weekend! I was surprised when I read that, but this makes more sense.
So you mean 15 books each week, not each weekend! I was surprised when I read that, but this makes more sense.
So you read about 780 books/year as a teen? I have doubts. Unless the average page count is under 100 maybe.
Again, this isn't a measuring contest but I will point out that you could read that much given you wanted to. Life is tradeoffs after all.
I commute for 20 hours a week on public transport, so a lot gets done there. I also read every night as a way to wind down before bed. Sometimes I will read continuously on a weekend if the book/series is engaging enough and can finish a couple of thousand pages that way.
Honestly, its not a target it is just what happens when you read a lot - you get through books.
As for YouTube or Netflix, I dont really watch that much and can't really understand how people spend that much time on them. Given that though, I read instead and lots of people dont understand that. Each to their own, happiness is different for everyone etc
Honestly, its not a target it is just what happens when you read a lot - you get through books.
As for YouTube or Netflix, I dont really watch that much and can't really understand how people spend that much time on them. Given that though, I read instead and lots of people dont understand that. Each to their own, happiness is different for everyone etc
> how do you keep off YouTube/Netflix in the evening?
not Having Netflix is a start. Realizing that most Netflix shows gets dumped mid-story after 1 or 2 seasons and will leave me without closure is another
not Having Netflix is a start. Realizing that most Netflix shows gets dumped mid-story after 1 or 2 seasons and will leave me without closure is another
Reading indeed should be a source of enjoyment. But sometimes you read coz you have to.
if you read 150 books a year you are well ahead of the crowd. However it would be tough to apply all 150 books contents to real life. If you enjoy reading keep doing it. I would love to be able to read 150 books or let alone make the time for it.
They're only well ahead of the crowd if someone's measuring for some reason, otherwise they just have a number and other people might have their own numbers, but regardless it's just as arbitrary as having a number for how many video games you played or tv shows watched.
I read probably 6 books last year, all of them left me with some little useful takeaway. I didn't watch any shows, and none of the movies seemed remotely compelling. These numbers and whether I come away feeling good or not are basically a series of dice rolls from year to year, and I'm never desiring to do arbitrarily more of any of them; the time comes when the time comes.
I only ever want to do more when something else is diverting my attention in a way I dislike. For example, I love hiking and I love video games, but one has an endless viable season and the other doesn't.
I used to feel differently though. I used to want to persistently clear my Pocket list, but now I just let the things that really seem compelling draw me in, and the rest can sit there waiting.
I read probably 6 books last year, all of them left me with some little useful takeaway. I didn't watch any shows, and none of the movies seemed remotely compelling. These numbers and whether I come away feeling good or not are basically a series of dice rolls from year to year, and I'm never desiring to do arbitrarily more of any of them; the time comes when the time comes.
I only ever want to do more when something else is diverting my attention in a way I dislike. For example, I love hiking and I love video games, but one has an endless viable season and the other doesn't.
I used to feel differently though. I used to want to persistently clear my Pocket list, but now I just let the things that really seem compelling draw me in, and the rest can sit there waiting.
"it would be tough to apply all 150 books contents to real life."
Why the hell would anybody want to do that?
Do you feel some need to "apply every meal you eat to real life"? or to "apply every movie you watch"? Or every concert you hear, or every ballet you see?
(I usually read books as a way to avoid "real life" for a while...)
Why the hell would anybody want to do that?
Do you feel some need to "apply every meal you eat to real life"? or to "apply every movie you watch"? Or every concert you hear, or every ballet you see?
(I usually read books as a way to avoid "real life" for a while...)
Especially considering this "shitlit" label (which I love and immediately understand, because I read somewhere between 70 and 80 shitlit books last year). The shitlit that I read is totally inconsequential fiction that has no material bearing on life whatsoever. It's a form of entertainment that's analog, that's why I do it.
> The shitlit that I read is totally inconsequential fiction
Same. Kindle Unlimited has an almost, uh, unlimited selection of light fluff detective fiction that's good for killing a few hours.
(Although I was pleasantly surprised by the DCI Logan series by JD Kirk which are actually amusing and fun to read.)
Same. Kindle Unlimited has an almost, uh, unlimited selection of light fluff detective fiction that's good for killing a few hours.
(Although I was pleasantly surprised by the DCI Logan series by JD Kirk which are actually amusing and fun to read.)
I think this comment encapsulates quite exactly the point of the article: reading as a gamified chore that puts you "well ahead of the crowd" and somehow measures (or influences, even?) how successful, smart, rich, interesting, etc. you are.
This is such a weird comment.
Ahead in what way? Reading more shitlit than anyone? I guess. It's clearly a time tradeoff, and you are probably "ahead" on something else besides book reading that you don't even think about.
I think even if you did find the time to read 150 books a year, you'd quickly be disappointed.
Ahead in what way? Reading more shitlit than anyone? I guess. It's clearly a time tradeoff, and you are probably "ahead" on something else besides book reading that you don't even think about.
I think even if you did find the time to read 150 books a year, you'd quickly be disappointed.
You know, this whole idea of applying what you read to your own life, even if it's good literature is really funny. I've been rereading a lot of southern gothic lit, and thinking about applying Wise Blood or Confederacy of Dunces to guide my life actually seems kind of hilarious (even though O'Connor especially has some interesting commentary packed in her works).
Reading is part of my daily job, my education path, and in my free time. Even here on HN (ignoring the fact that the internet is no book).
I have so many open tabs in my browser with articles I want to read because I see value in reading them eventually, but I can't keep up with all the new content that gets produced.
Then I read the article with different eyes, the eyes of a youtube consumer.
I have a huuuuge list of yt videos I still want to watch because of education, interest, or curiosity. Same here, I just have not the time to keep up with all the information that gets produced.
So what's the solution to that? Step back from the Internet, unsubscribe from non essential creators, close tabs without verifying if still needed, organize more and more? So trade fomo with organization? Start over with an empty browser, empty new email account?
What's your take on that?
So what's the solution to that? Step back from the Internet, unsubscribe from non essential creators, close tabs without verifying if still needed, organize more and more? So trade fomo with organization? Start over with an empty browser, empty new email account?
What's your take on that?
I liked Oliver Burkeman on this with his “too many needles” idea [0].
Personally, I hoard a bunch of stuff using Omnivore and then on a semi regular basis I go through that and just throw away 90% of it. I find this two stage process useful: stage 1 is gathering All The Things, stage 2 is after a while sifting and keeping only the stuff I’m really interested in. Ultimately though, I try nowadays to apply a Buddhist angle on it: I hold all this stuff very lightly, knowing that it’s as close to infinite as makes no difference, and letting it go!
[0] https://www.oliverburkeman.com/river
Personally, I hoard a bunch of stuff using Omnivore and then on a semi regular basis I go through that and just throw away 90% of it. I find this two stage process useful: stage 1 is gathering All The Things, stage 2 is after a while sifting and keeping only the stuff I’m really interested in. Ultimately though, I try nowadays to apply a Buddhist angle on it: I hold all this stuff very lightly, knowing that it’s as close to infinite as makes no difference, and letting it go!
[0] https://www.oliverburkeman.com/river
Stop looking for content that might be interesting. There's simply way too much content that might interest you.
Start pulling content instead of pushing. Why are you looking for something to read? Boredom, research? Then go for the kill: what is the best option here? What is the most fun to you or the most important data you need? Prioritize mercilessly.
And filter aggressively. There is very little original and high quality content out there. Most of what is available is derivative and there's a long tail of very low quality content. Even if the topic or title seems interesting, for each 100 articles or books that sound interesting, there's likely 1 or 2 that are miles ahead of the crowd in terms of quality. Time is a great filter. Books on a given topic that are decades or centuries older than average are likely to be the source of much rehashing in a given field.
Start pulling content instead of pushing. Why are you looking for something to read? Boredom, research? Then go for the kill: what is the best option here? What is the most fun to you or the most important data you need? Prioritize mercilessly.
And filter aggressively. There is very little original and high quality content out there. Most of what is available is derivative and there's a long tail of very low quality content. Even if the topic or title seems interesting, for each 100 articles or books that sound interesting, there's likely 1 or 2 that are miles ahead of the crowd in terms of quality. Time is a great filter. Books on a given topic that are decades or centuries older than average are likely to be the source of much rehashing in a given field.
> Step back from the Internet, unsubscribe from non essential creators, close tabs without verifying if still needed
Pretty much, yes, that's the answer, at least for me. I've stopped keeping tabs on much of what's considered as being "new" and I've surrounded myself (literally, I think I might have a hoarding problem) with books that I consider to be close to my (hobby-ish) interests.
Even when it comes to those books I 100% realize that I won't have enough time to read them all, but whenever I see a mention/reference being made from a book that I'm currently reading to a second book it's good to know that I have that second book in my piles of books located around the house. Hard to logically explain, but it is what it is.
Pretty much, yes, that's the answer, at least for me. I've stopped keeping tabs on much of what's considered as being "new" and I've surrounded myself (literally, I think I might have a hoarding problem) with books that I consider to be close to my (hobby-ish) interests.
Even when it comes to those books I 100% realize that I won't have enough time to read them all, but whenever I see a mention/reference being made from a book that I'm currently reading to a second book it's good to know that I have that second book in my piles of books located around the house. Hard to logically explain, but it is what it is.
This sort of gamification is so widespread. It makes perfect sense to me in some areas, but in others (reading being one), it doesn’t at all. Reading is so personal and so important to savour, that the idea of “getting through the book” just seems to run counter to the whole spirit.
I’ve got a massive stack of books that I want to read and I feel some frustration sometimes that I can’t get through them quicker, because I want to read more! But this is an internal metric and not one I’ve ever compared to anything or anyone else.
I’m a fiction reader mainly; maybe this sense isn’t the case if I had a stack of business books? I don’t know.
I’ve got a massive stack of books that I want to read and I feel some frustration sometimes that I can’t get through them quicker, because I want to read more! But this is an internal metric and not one I’ve ever compared to anything or anyone else.
I’m a fiction reader mainly; maybe this sense isn’t the case if I had a stack of business books? I don’t know.
Goodreads statistics don't add pressure. They take it off. This article assumes that reading is a chore.
If I notice that I'm falling behind it's because I'm not taking enough me time. It's so easy to get wrapped up in work, research, deadlines, grants, students, etc. Then you burn out.
Reading stats are a way to keep that at bay. And even better it's cumulative and I can't cheat. If I've been really busy this month, I have to make even more room next month to catch up. That space gets filled with afternoons where I relax, sip tea, enjoy the view, read, learn something new, get a new perspective, or just live in another world for a while.
What an awful take on life and reading.
If I notice that I'm falling behind it's because I'm not taking enough me time. It's so easy to get wrapped up in work, research, deadlines, grants, students, etc. Then you burn out.
Reading stats are a way to keep that at bay. And even better it's cumulative and I can't cheat. If I've been really busy this month, I have to make even more room next month to catch up. That space gets filled with afternoons where I relax, sip tea, enjoy the view, read, learn something new, get a new perspective, or just live in another world for a while.
What an awful take on life and reading.
Beautifully put. Many metrics suffer from the glass half full vs half empty, perspective! They're just numbers at the end of the day. The important part is how you let them inform you. It is so easy to have the number goes up === good mentality, but many metrics hide the subjective and or collective truth. People need to take metrics in aggregate. Not everything is a race, not every number is important and many metrics are poor indicators for what you really want to measure.
not just books but almost everything. there is a lot of anxiety seeing others put out stuff when you are barely stringing along. dont beat yourself up, focus on beating yourself.
> dont beat yourself up, focus on beating yourself.
Maybe "use your time well" is a better thought?
Focusing on beating X just makes it a metric, and can be destructive when you'd be better off switching to some completely different activity instead.
When it's a metric, you can be tied to keep meeting it (or even just attempted to) well past it's usefulness.
Maybe "use your time well" is a better thought?
Focusing on beating X just makes it a metric, and can be destructive when you'd be better off switching to some completely different activity instead.
When it's a metric, you can be tied to keep meeting it (or even just attempted to) well past it's usefulness.
I'd always thought of it as being a perk of being a nerd that I didn't feel the need to "keep up" with fashions.
TV series, books, movies, bands, whatever. I'll partake if I fancy it, if I don't, who cares? I won't be cool? I never was cool, and hell, they changed what it was anyway.
TV series, books, movies, bands, whatever. I'll partake if I fancy it, if I don't, who cares? I won't be cool? I never was cool, and hell, they changed what it was anyway.
I think the Goodreads challenge is silly. Every year I set it to one book. I'm already beating it by 600%!
Why create fake tasks to stress yourself out? Reading should be enjoyable, not a chore. And not all books are created equal. If you spend all year reading Remembrance of Things Past is that bad because you only read one book instead of reading 50 forgettable pop psychology business book of the month books? I don't think so.
Why create fake tasks to stress yourself out? Reading should be enjoyable, not a chore. And not all books are created equal. If you spend all year reading Remembrance of Things Past is that bad because you only read one book instead of reading 50 forgettable pop psychology business book of the month books? I don't think so.
I create fake tasks to stress myself out and compel myself to do things that make me feel better in the long run. I don't use Goodreads but I've been trying to read 20-24 books this year (I'm on track for 20). Obviously word count can drastically change the difficulty of this, but I'm not worrying about it since I know what I'm reading—if I only end up with 15 in December, but one of them is War and Peace, I'll still feel like I accomplished my goal.
Knowing that I'm a week behind or whatever tells me that I've been focusing on things that don't make me as happy as reading books does, and I should make an effort to spend less of my day watching YouTube and more of it reading books (that's what I spent that time on, not reading Proust).
I don't think I'd call it stress, I think anxiety is a more accurate term, but it's a helpful form of anxiety. I've also been reading with friends on a schedule, and the anxiety of having to be ready for our next meeting makes me read more too. Again, I find it really useful and it's made me generally happier day-to-day.
Knowing that I'm a week behind or whatever tells me that I've been focusing on things that don't make me as happy as reading books does, and I should make an effort to spend less of my day watching YouTube and more of it reading books (that's what I spent that time on, not reading Proust).
I don't think I'd call it stress, I think anxiety is a more accurate term, but it's a helpful form of anxiety. I've also been reading with friends on a schedule, and the anxiety of having to be ready for our next meeting makes me read more too. Again, I find it really useful and it's made me generally happier day-to-day.
> Knowing that I'm a week behind or whatever tells me that I've been focusing on things that don't make me as happy as reading books does, and I should make an effort to spend less of my day watching YouTube and more of it reading books (that's what I spent that time on, not reading Proust).
It's the same thing for me. I don't have any goal for books, but I look back and think "hey, last month I wasn't reading too much, why is that?"
This year I'm also interested in movies, so I set a goal to watch at least 4 per month. It's more to make sure I don't waste time on Youtube/TikTok/Social Media, and take the time to do things I enjoy more in the long run
It's the same thing for me. I don't have any goal for books, but I look back and think "hey, last month I wasn't reading too much, why is that?"
This year I'm also interested in movies, so I set a goal to watch at least 4 per month. It's more to make sure I don't waste time on Youtube/TikTok/Social Media, and take the time to do things I enjoy more in the long run
It has it actually benefited you?
I’ve found hat most books are roundly useless in application — which is fine if you are having fun. But if you’re not your just wasting time.
I’ve found hat most books are roundly useless in application — which is fine if you are having fun. But if you’re not your just wasting time.
Application?
I think adding something to my mental model of the world is a benefit, yes, but I'm not sure that's what you mean. I find that reading books enriches my life in a way that YouTube doesn't (with many, many exceptions).
Maybe let's try a concrete example: The Republic. It taught me about ancient Greek society, made me feel a connection to people that lived 2400 years before me, made me interested in the ancient Greek language, gave me lots of ethical questions to discuss with my friends, caused me to slow down and deliberately think through many important problems, and allowed me to take part in the intellectual tradition that people have been participating in for over two millennia.
It did not make me overthrow the government, so it goes under "roundly useless in application", but at least I "had fun", so I wasn't just "wasting time"?
What do you do with all your time?
I think adding something to my mental model of the world is a benefit, yes, but I'm not sure that's what you mean. I find that reading books enriches my life in a way that YouTube doesn't (with many, many exceptions).
Maybe let's try a concrete example: The Republic. It taught me about ancient Greek society, made me feel a connection to people that lived 2400 years before me, made me interested in the ancient Greek language, gave me lots of ethical questions to discuss with my friends, caused me to slow down and deliberately think through many important problems, and allowed me to take part in the intellectual tradition that people have been participating in for over two millennia.
It did not make me overthrow the government, so it goes under "roundly useless in application", but at least I "had fun", so I wasn't just "wasting time"?
What do you do with all your time?
I wonder if I should read this article to keep up with the idea of letting go.
I'm in a weird position. Can anyone provide a summary of this article?
I have all the time in the world to read things that are interesting (to me) and really absorb the content. But I've increasingly been noticing a "recipe article" trend with blog posts. People throw 100 words in when 10 will do. This article is an example.
I've even gotten to the point with certain important blog posts where I copy paste the content to chatgpt with a simple prompt to summarize the main points.
I'm not happy that I have to do this, but people have seemingly forgotten the art of getting to the f'ing point.
Your audience has an attention slightly shorter than this comment. Unless you catch their attention, none of your nuance is going to matter.
Generally I've found just skimming the first line of each paragraph works well, but even that is getting harder to find.
I have all the time in the world to read things that are interesting (to me) and really absorb the content. But I've increasingly been noticing a "recipe article" trend with blog posts. People throw 100 words in when 10 will do. This article is an example.
I've even gotten to the point with certain important blog posts where I copy paste the content to chatgpt with a simple prompt to summarize the main points.
I'm not happy that I have to do this, but people have seemingly forgotten the art of getting to the f'ing point.
Your audience has an attention slightly shorter than this comment. Unless you catch their attention, none of your nuance is going to matter.
Generally I've found just skimming the first line of each paragraph works well, but even that is getting harder to find.
Ironically it’s because increasingly it’s 100 words generated by an LLM from a 10 word prompt. We’ve effectively found a way to keep entire datacenters humming to do nothing more than obfuscate signal in very expensive noise and the lossily try and extract it again.
To be fair, advertisement-economics already created that problem, but the degradation of communication in pursuit of lucre was done by human employees.
The technology changes just allow those companies to be more ruthlessly inane about it.
Some companies measure and human attention as an exploitable asset, yet individuals have a hard time controlling who takes it from them and how much... Is that a market failure? Or just a physiological one?
The technology changes just allow those companies to be more ruthlessly inane about it.
Some companies measure and human attention as an exploitable asset, yet individuals have a hard time controlling who takes it from them and how much... Is that a market failure? Or just a physiological one?
My colleagues use chatgpt to generate very long and eloquent walls of text in slack, then I use slack's new AI summarisation feature to extract their actual point. Insanity
I often use the old trick of skipping to the end to see if there is a coherent conclusion, and if I think the conclusion is interesting, I’ll go back and pick my way through the body of the article.
I agree with your points though in general. I think this is even worse with many non-fiction books. So much fluff when the main points could be summarized in 10 pages.
I agree with your points though in general. I think this is even worse with many non-fiction books. So much fluff when the main points could be summarized in 10 pages.
The worst fluff I think is from analogies/anecdotes that get spaced out because the author wants you to feel what it's like or something like that. I'm sure some readers really appreciate it, but when the author doesn't tell me what I should be looking for beforehand, I just don't have the patience.
I had same feeling. I have been using AI summarizers more and more for these type of articles/posts. Though I haven't checked the summary quality, here is what I got from Kagi Summarizer:
The passage discusses the author's experience with the growing sense of competition and obligation around reading and book consumption. It criticizes the way platforms like Goodreads have turned reading into a quantifiable task, with people feeling pressure to read a certain number of books per year. The author argues that reading should be about the experience and personal enjoyment, not about keeping up with others or hitting reading goals. The passage encourages readers to step away from the social media side of reading and not worry about the "right" way to read. It emphasizes that the value of reading is not quantifiable and that people should read at their own pace without external pressure.
The passage discusses the author's experience with the growing sense of competition and obligation around reading and book consumption. It criticizes the way platforms like Goodreads have turned reading into a quantifiable task, with people feeling pressure to read a certain number of books per year. The author argues that reading should be about the experience and personal enjoyment, not about keeping up with others or hitting reading goals. The passage encourages readers to step away from the social media side of reading and not worry about the "right" way to read. It emphasizes that the value of reading is not quantifiable and that people should read at their own pace without external pressure.
Strikes me (in my 40s, regularly read books and sometimes full articles in magazines) as lazy. When I understood I will not be reading all the things, and that a lot of what is written is trash (to me, anyway, given my values and sense of purpose), and that books are technology that replaced oral tradition, it became a whole lot easier to be very selective about what I read. I've started many books now that, before, I'd feel compelled to finish.
You're not happy you have to do this- why do you have to do this, again?
You're not happy you have to do this- why do you have to do this, again?
> Can anyone provide a summary of this article?
Well that’s too much work. But here is an LLM produced summary of the text:
Molly Templeton's article, "On Letting Go of the Idea of 'Keeping Up'," explores the pressures of contemporary reading culture, contrasting it with the joy of reading she experienced in childhood, symbolized by earning gold stars for each book read. She describes how, as an adult, reading has become entangled with competition, social performance, and the need to keep up with trends, turning the solitary pleasure of reading into a public performance marked by obligations and quantifiable achievements.
Templeton criticizes the way platforms like Goodreads have transformed reading into a task-oriented activity, where success is measured by the number of books read, detracting from the intrinsic value of reading itself. She shares personal anecdotes from her time in New York's bookish circles, where she felt the pressure to be well-read and current, highlighting the anxiety that can come with trying to meet external expectations.
Templeton recalls a turning point when being asked about her recent reads felt more like a competition than a shared interest, prompting her to reevaluate her relationship with reading. She argues for a reading culture that values personal experience over productivity, emphasizing that the number of books one reads should not dictate one's worth as a reader.
Templeton advocates stepping away from the competitive and overwhelming aspects of online book communities to reclaim reading as a personal, unquantifiable joy. Her reflections serve as a reminder that the true value of reading lies in the individual growth, enjoyment, and insights it provides, far beyond any statistic or social media status.
Well that’s too much work. But here is an LLM produced summary of the text:
Molly Templeton's article, "On Letting Go of the Idea of 'Keeping Up'," explores the pressures of contemporary reading culture, contrasting it with the joy of reading she experienced in childhood, symbolized by earning gold stars for each book read. She describes how, as an adult, reading has become entangled with competition, social performance, and the need to keep up with trends, turning the solitary pleasure of reading into a public performance marked by obligations and quantifiable achievements.
Templeton criticizes the way platforms like Goodreads have transformed reading into a task-oriented activity, where success is measured by the number of books read, detracting from the intrinsic value of reading itself. She shares personal anecdotes from her time in New York's bookish circles, where she felt the pressure to be well-read and current, highlighting the anxiety that can come with trying to meet external expectations.
Templeton recalls a turning point when being asked about her recent reads felt more like a competition than a shared interest, prompting her to reevaluate her relationship with reading. She argues for a reading culture that values personal experience over productivity, emphasizing that the number of books one reads should not dictate one's worth as a reader.
Templeton advocates stepping away from the competitive and overwhelming aspects of online book communities to reclaim reading as a personal, unquantifiable joy. Her reflections serve as a reminder that the true value of reading lies in the individual growth, enjoyment, and insights it provides, far beyond any statistic or social media status.
So many of the same things apply to running/Strava and living/Instagram.
> Templeton recalls a turning point when being asked about her recent reads felt more like a competition than a shared interest, prompting her to reevaluate her relationship with reading. She argues for a reading culture that values personal experience over productivity, emphasizing that the number of books one reads should not dictate one's worth as a reader.
It feels to me that Templeton needs to re-evaluate her relationships with friends asking this instead of with reading. Sometimes I read a lot, sometimes barely at all but I don't get questions from friends like "Only two books in half a year? Bro, do you even read?!".
It feels to me that Templeton needs to re-evaluate her relationships with friends asking this instead of with reading. Sometimes I read a lot, sometimes barely at all but I don't get questions from friends like "Only two books in half a year? Bro, do you even read?!".
Not perfect, but helps to determine if something is worth the time: https://kagi.com/summarizer/index.html
For kicks, I gave it the URL to these comments (shortly before this post, ~30 comments). Here are the results:
Summary:
geuis: I've noticed a trend of "recipe articles" that are overly wordy when they could be more concise. I've resorted to using ChatGPT to summarize key points of important blog posts, as the authors don't seem to value their audience's attention span.
meristohm: I've become more selective about what I read as I've realized I can't consume everything. I don't feel compelled to finish books that don't interest me anymore.
msy: The problem is that much of the content is generated by language models, creating "expensive noise" rather than meaningful signal.
Terr_: The degradation of communication for the sake of advertising revenue is a market failure, as individuals struggle to control how much of their attention is taken.
bicx: I often skip to the end of articles to see if there's a coherent conclusion, and if so, I'll go back and read the body. I agree that non-fiction books in particular tend to be overly padded.
HKH2: The worst fluff is when authors use excessive analogies or anecdotes without clearly explaining what the reader should take away.
throwaway2037: Why read the full novel when you can just read the back cover or watch a short summary? People seem to value efficiency over depth these days.
steviem: I read a lot of "shitlit" or inconsequential literature, but I don't see that as better or worse than anyone else. Reading should be for enjoyment, not a target to hit.
deebosong: I respect people who read a lot, but I worry that reading 100+ books per year could become more about appearances than true engagement.
theK: How does someone manage to read 150 books per year? What's their routine and how do they avoid distractions?
harrisi: When you get in the habit of reading regularly, you can read books surprisingly quickly.
spxneo: Reading 150 books per year is impressive, but it would be tough to apply all that content to real life.
Summary:
geuis: I've noticed a trend of "recipe articles" that are overly wordy when they could be more concise. I've resorted to using ChatGPT to summarize key points of important blog posts, as the authors don't seem to value their audience's attention span.
meristohm: I've become more selective about what I read as I've realized I can't consume everything. I don't feel compelled to finish books that don't interest me anymore.
msy: The problem is that much of the content is generated by language models, creating "expensive noise" rather than meaningful signal.
Terr_: The degradation of communication for the sake of advertising revenue is a market failure, as individuals struggle to control how much of their attention is taken.
bicx: I often skip to the end of articles to see if there's a coherent conclusion, and if so, I'll go back and read the body. I agree that non-fiction books in particular tend to be overly padded.
HKH2: The worst fluff is when authors use excessive analogies or anecdotes without clearly explaining what the reader should take away.
throwaway2037: Why read the full novel when you can just read the back cover or watch a short summary? People seem to value efficiency over depth these days.
steviem: I read a lot of "shitlit" or inconsequential literature, but I don't see that as better or worse than anyone else. Reading should be for enjoyment, not a target to hit.
deebosong: I respect people who read a lot, but I worry that reading 100+ books per year could become more about appearances than true engagement.
theK: How does someone manage to read 150 books per year? What's their routine and how do they avoid distractions?
harrisi: When you get in the habit of reading regularly, you can read books surprisingly quickly.
spxneo: Reading 150 books per year is impressive, but it would be tough to apply all that content to real life.
Kagi is one of the greatest quality of life improvements I've had in a while. Here hopes I'm putting my trust in the right place though, search history is one of the most personal and identifiable datasets possible
This is a woman who is sharing an anecdote akin to what every episode of Sex in the city (the greatest tv show ever created according to many women) is about.
If you don't get it, you are not understanding what more than half the population is about. Not to worry, almost all people don't understand themselves, others or the world at large and LLMs will not help, since they are trained on data produced by people who don't understand much of anything :)
If you don't get it, you are not understanding what more than half the population is about. Not to worry, almost all people don't understand themselves, others or the world at large and LLMs will not help, since they are trained on data produced by people who don't understand much of anything :)
I need to troll a little bit here: Do you watch the whole 90 min film, or the YouTube summary in 10 mins? Or even shorter: Just the 2 mins trailer? Why do you read a whole novel instead just reading the back cover? Why read Der Speigel or The New Yorker long form journalism when you can get the summary in 90 seconds on the toilet with CNN?
It's not a difficult question: people will watch the trailer or read the summary to decide if they want to invest their time in the complete work. That's why trailers exist!
Not the same. The key is weather it captivates the reader/viewer/audience.
If the 90 min film gets hopelessly boring, I wouldn't hesitate to stop watching. Heck I've abandoned 10 minute YouTube videos because it got boring.
I have abandoned novels halfway because it was boring. Perhaps it may have been the greatest novel ever and I'm missing out by not completing it, but it's okay for me. Now I'm not saying it should be interesting right from page 1. But if it's not reached any major plot point by page 200, I'm skipping.
Relevant discussion about this from a year ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35340083
If the 90 min film gets hopelessly boring, I wouldn't hesitate to stop watching. Heck I've abandoned 10 minute YouTube videos because it got boring.
I have abandoned novels halfway because it was boring. Perhaps it may have been the greatest novel ever and I'm missing out by not completing it, but it's okay for me. Now I'm not saying it should be interesting right from page 1. But if it's not reached any major plot point by page 200, I'm skipping.
Relevant discussion about this from a year ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35340083
[deleted]
"If I Had More Time, I Would Have Written a Shorter Letter" from Pascal comes to mind.
This is a magazine (note the "mag" in the hostname). The reason people read magazines is not to "get to the f'ing point": if you want that, find a newspaper or something. The intended audience of a magazine is people who actually want to have the leisurely fun of reading an article that isn't just long but might actively bury the lede or use rhetorical devices such as a false start... honestly, your comment -- which is itself three times longer than it "needs to be" to make your point, btw -- feels as insulting and asinine as someone complaining that Romeo and Juliet could have been summarized in five minutes or so, demonstrating that Shakespeare clearly didn't know how to write.
(And sure, maybe some articles are just bad, and don't have writing which captivates anyone, but an article is not a bad article just because it is long or just because can be summarized with fewer words by someone who merely wanted to "get to the f'ing point", and if you come into articles with that mindset you are also going to find slow movies extremely boring and whine about "nothing happened"; but... did you feel anything?)
(And sure, maybe some articles are just bad, and don't have writing which captivates anyone, but an article is not a bad article just because it is long or just because can be summarized with fewer words by someone who merely wanted to "get to the f'ing point", and if you come into articles with that mindset you are also going to find slow movies extremely boring and whine about "nothing happened"; but... did you feel anything?)
Yup, you just need to check out the author’s bio.
[deleted]
“ In a reflective and deeply personal essay, the author navigates the evolving landscape of reading, from a childhood adorned with gold stars for fairy tale conquests to an adulthood grappling with the digital age's quantification of literary consumption. Amidst New York's vibrant book scene, a place of lit gossip and subway commutes, the author encounters the double-edged sword of being part of a community that both enriches and, at times, imposes unwelcome pressures. With a critique as much of Goodreads' role in transforming reading into a competitive sport as of the social media-induced urge to keep up, the piece eloquently argues for a return to reading as an unquantifiable, personal journey, a haven from the public eye and a refuge in the joy of books for their own sake.”
[deleted]
TL;DR: “TL;DR”
One pattern that I have noticed amoungst people who work in the "letters" (writing, editing, publishing, journalism, etc.): Since their income is relatively very low for their highly skilled work (it usually requires a university degree), they cannot compete on social status (read: money/wealth). (Leave aside the many people in letters who come from a wealthy family; you will meet many of these people in Global Alpha cities, like London, NYC, Tokyo, etc.) Instead, they create a navel gazing world of intellectual status where they try to "read more than everyone else" and "have a strong opinion about everything". Thus, their peers "feel behind". I think this also well explains why the people in the letters, especially journalists, think Twitter is "so important". It is not. It is tiny echo-chamber in a massive online world.
I want to be very clear about what I wrote above: I am not criticizing the quality of their work. There are plenty of people in the letters who annoy me to no end with their navel gazing, but produce fantastic work. Please keep these two separate!
The best part of this article: She realises it is all bullshit. In short: Read what you like. And, don't worry too much about other people. Another good title for this article: "A Letter to My Younger Self".
I want to be very clear about what I wrote above: I am not criticizing the quality of their work. There are plenty of people in the letters who annoy me to no end with their navel gazing, but produce fantastic work. Please keep these two separate!
The best part of this article: She realises it is all bullshit. In short: Read what you like. And, don't worry too much about other people. Another good title for this article: "A Letter to My Younger Self".
Channel 5 is pure journalism. The gold standard, really
https://www.youtube.com/@Channel5YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/@Channel5YouTube
> This vibe has crept into so much online book discourse
I've always thought of and used reading as a solitary past-time.
I've always thought of and used reading as a solitary past-time.
Fairly first-world-problems kind of article but I get how the author's occupation might have easily led to that kind of stress, and I sympathize with them.
It spent too long just describing the FOMO and how it can creep up on your mental health though, for my taste at least.
It's true that the first step of fixing a problem is to identify it but I believe they could have just said "Even if it's your job to keep up, put limits in place because it will stress you to the point of ruining other aspects of your life".
So that article is kind of at the "beginner level in the area of how modern-day tech can stress you out", I suppose. Valuable for people who are stressed but haven't understood why just yet.
It spent too long just describing the FOMO and how it can creep up on your mental health though, for my taste at least.
It's true that the first step of fixing a problem is to identify it but I believe they could have just said "Even if it's your job to keep up, put limits in place because it will stress you to the point of ruining other aspects of your life".
So that article is kind of at the "beginner level in the area of how modern-day tech can stress you out", I suppose. Valuable for people who are stressed but haven't understood why just yet.
[deleted]
I had the feeling of failure connected with reading during my college experience. There was a book club. It was like an elite club that everyone wanted to be a part of. But in order to join, you had to be able to read a lot of books. I wasn't able to do it, and I never became a part of that club, yet two of my friends were there. I was jealous
"The race is long and, in the end, it's only with yourself"[1]:
1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTJ7AzBIJoI
1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTJ7AzBIJoI
It's so strange because my experience is the opposite. I see a lot of content about reading and books (how there are no great books anymore, what was the best book, etc), fun facts and other trivia about authors, a few books getting made into movies (hello Dune, but I was thinking of the Martian and Ready Player One) ...
but I don't see any of this cultural expectation, this peer pressure. (One of my friends keep recommending me books and movies, but that's an exception. Okay, I saw Pikkety's Capital on a different friend's bookshelf. And that's it.)
...
and it's also interesting because I remember when half of the world was waiting for GRRM to stop trampolining!
I purposefully put down the last book somewhere around halfway because I thought the next one will be upon us soon, so it'll be great to pick it up and read the remaining story in one go. Hah.
And somehow after Banks died I stopped reading books. (Sure, no connection, but well, it would have been nice to get more of his funky space stories!)
but I don't see any of this cultural expectation, this peer pressure. (One of my friends keep recommending me books and movies, but that's an exception. Okay, I saw Pikkety's Capital on a different friend's bookshelf. And that's it.)
...
and it's also interesting because I remember when half of the world was waiting for GRRM to stop trampolining!
I purposefully put down the last book somewhere around halfway because I thought the next one will be upon us soon, so it'll be great to pick it up and read the remaining story in one go. Hah.
And somehow after Banks died I stopped reading books. (Sure, no connection, but well, it would have been nice to get more of his funky space stories!)
> Okay, I saw Pikkety's Capital on a different friend's bookshelf.
He has some good things to say, but he wrote more than he had to to say them. That book is too big.
He has some good things to say, but he wrote more than he had to to say them. That book is too big.
And likely it's simply wrong.
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2023/12/th... ( https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/inequality-might-be-going-down... )
> That book is too big.
Most non-fiction books are best "consumed" by watching a few talks or podcast episodes by the author(s) and a few others by critics.
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2023/12/th... ( https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/inequality-might-be-going-down... )
> That book is too big.
Most non-fiction books are best "consumed" by watching a few talks or podcast episodes by the author(s) and a few others by critics.
I live in Pacific Heights, likely one of the top 5 richest neighborhoods in the world. Let me tell you this really directly… inequality is not going down, these people just have no fucking clue how extreme it’s become because they aren’t amoung it and keep comparing terrible datasets that completely lack the outlier data that makes up most of the extreme inequality.
And pacific heights won’t come up at the top 5 richest neighborhoods in the world because the data publicaly available is crap… you need to see know and run in the circles to see how much shadow wealth is going around
And pacific heights won’t come up at the top 5 richest neighborhoods in the world because the data publicaly available is crap… you need to see know and run in the circles to see how much shadow wealth is going around
Data is always crap, but there are error bars. GDP is pretty well accounted for.
There was shadow wealth at every point of the last decade, so it's already factored in, the numbers (and studies) are already taking that into account, ... unless! Unless folks suddenly started to commit more tax fraud. (Which is hard to do if your money comes from capital.)
https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2021/4/30/map-i...
There was shadow wealth at every point of the last decade, so it's already factored in, the numbers (and studies) are already taking that into account, ... unless! Unless folks suddenly started to commit more tax fraud. (Which is hard to do if your money comes from capital.)
https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2021/4/30/map-i...
Yea well there is you answer. Most wealth is not money.
Sure it's not money on some C&D account, but it's just as visible (capital is stocks and other forms of equity, land, and other rights, like patents, royalties, options).
The US is still the wild west in many regards (from good old identity fraud to sheriffs/judges/prosecutors with license to bully anyone without the right connections) and of course the basically institutionalized various other scams come to mind (thriving MLMs, tax exempt religious orgs and megachurches, doctors turned sales-reps for opiates, payday loans, untouchable plants and mining operations polluting and leaving deadly open pits, you know ...), but if there's one thing you can't really fault the US for is getting lazy on private property regulations. And neither the IRS nor the CA FTB is known for being completely clueless.
The US is still the wild west in many regards (from good old identity fraud to sheriffs/judges/prosecutors with license to bully anyone without the right connections) and of course the basically institutionalized various other scams come to mind (thriving MLMs, tax exempt religious orgs and megachurches, doctors turned sales-reps for opiates, payday loans, untouchable plants and mining operations polluting and leaving deadly open pits, you know ...), but if there's one thing you can't really fault the US for is getting lazy on private property regulations. And neither the IRS nor the CA FTB is known for being completely clueless.
Laughably incorrect.
People can replace doom strolling or social media usage with some reading but after a certain point you will also need to give up certain hobbies or other activities to be as prolific as some other readers.
Yeah you could spend one hour reading over playing that new online game with your friend or watching that new drama with your spouse but then you aren’t socializing.
Or maybe you really care about flexibility so you spend the extra hour you have in the evening doing mobility drills and yoga.
Or maybe you are trying to not fall behind the AI craze in tech so you spend an hour reading about the latest models and experimenting with them.
Point is the person reading for one hour also isn’t doing what you doing. There’s also this underlying assumption that reading is always productive when there’s a lot of low quality content that’s easily consumed. Not every book is East of Eden.
Social media has scrambled people's minds so badly. In the past, only narcissists and sociopaths needed to spend their time building a public image of themselves and checking in to see what people thought about it.
Scoring yourself with stars or notches for the books you read - or like my dad, a box of donuts every time he slept with a new woman - that's some fucked up abnormal unhealthy shit.
What this shows is that even the most innocent of online coms based on gamified popularity metrics will always trend toward feelings of loss of self-worth for the players.
Why? Because gamifying social interaction is a pretty good definition of sociopathy. Forcing the genpop to engage in that game 24/7, and to treat social interaction as a system of rewards, has spread the sociopathy from the founders like a disease to the rest of the world.
Scoring yourself with stars or notches for the books you read - or like my dad, a box of donuts every time he slept with a new woman - that's some fucked up abnormal unhealthy shit.
What this shows is that even the most innocent of online coms based on gamified popularity metrics will always trend toward feelings of loss of self-worth for the players.
Why? Because gamifying social interaction is a pretty good definition of sociopathy. Forcing the genpop to engage in that game 24/7, and to treat social interaction as a system of rewards, has spread the sociopathy from the founders like a disease to the rest of the world.
I think you might find this helpful:
https://www.eugenewei.com/blog/2019/2/19/status-as-a-service
Every time Goodreads comes up on HN it sounds like a cross between Facebook and drug addiction. I am very glad that I care about as much about other peoples' opinions on the books I read as I do their opinions on my wanking technique.
One thing it's good for is when you read a book, hate it, and can find someone on Goodreads with a review that gripes about the exact same stuff you hated about it. Especially if the book in question is highly praised or award-winning. Do I need someone else to validate my hate-read of a book? No, but it scratches an itch.
I do this same thing for IMDb and Letterboxd, and it’s fun, I get to find others with similar tastes in movies and TV shows, and I appreciate reviews of content I like and dislike vicariously without having to feel badly about not having seen the content myself.
Strange. Letting a bad book give me negative feelings a second time feels masochistic.
I totally agree. I don't understand this at all. It's a form of status seeking that only happens in these particular circles and appears totally insane to everyone on the outside.
From reading the article the whole thing appears to be caused by their job and their friends.
If I had that job maybe I'd get infected by this mindset too, I'm glad I'm not.
From reading the article the whole thing appears to be caused by their job and their friends.
If I had that job maybe I'd get infected by this mindset too, I'm glad I'm not.
Granted the problem seems similar, but only because the author is in the field of reading (working in books related profession).
I'm not sure how much it can be applied to just hobby reading. Stress of keeping up with tech/research comes from a sense of professional obligations (you'll fall behind to your professional peers) but there's not much of stress if you're in it as a leisure /hobby; it's not inherently competitive activity.
So the conclusion is not that helpful. It's targeted to a very small audience (people that work in a field where reading books and keeping up with the latest books, are important) and is essentially "don't worry about it!"