[HN Gopher] The Moat of Low Status
___________________________________________________________________
The Moat of Low Status
Author : jger15
Score : 333 points
Date : 2025-07-02 15:08 UTC (3 days ago)
(HTM) web link (usefulfictions.substack.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (usefulfictions.substack.com)
| MongooseStudios wrote:
| A more feelings-ey take on the common "get comfortable being
| uncomfortable" type advice. I enjoyed the perspective shift.
| roenxi wrote:
| It is a pretty good article, but it slightly misunderstands
| status. Being the first person on the dance floor is closer to a
| _high_ status move, because it is taking a leardership position
| and suggesting what the group should do next. People avoid doing
| that because they want to copy someone of a higher status than
| themselves, not because they fear low status. The mechanism
| nature uses to implement that low status behaviour is nervousness
| which is often described as a fear of "standing out", "looking
| silly" or similar terms, but those are low status concerns. High
| status people don't really suffer from looking silly, they define
| what looking silly is by being what they don't do.
| ants_everywhere wrote:
| I don't know. There's nothing high status about being the
| _only_ person on the dance floor for 3 songs in a row.
|
| > High status people don't really suffer from looking silly,
| they define what looking silly is by being what they don't do.
|
| I also don't know about this. Certain high status people are
| obsessively concerned with whether they look silly. They used
| to routinely fight to the death over it.
|
| I've been reading the Book of the Courtier this week, and it's
| clear that even back in the 16th century high status people
| were very concerned about whether they looked silly, or even
| whether their dances looked silly.
| roenxi wrote:
| > I've been reading the Book of the Courtier this week, and
| it's clear that even back in the 16th century high status
| people were very concerned about whether they looked silly,
| or even whether their dances looked silly.
|
| In the context of the situation the people worrying probably
| weren't the highest status person in the room though. In a
| room full of princes one of them is going to be feeling
| pressure because they are low status relative to their peers.
| That is what instincts key off, not absolute numbers of
| people that a body can't immediately detect.
| josephg wrote:
| > There's nothing high status about being the only person on
| the dance floor for 3 songs in a row.
|
| Simon Sinek says we admire leaders because they take risks on
| behalf of the tribe. They'll start dancing first knowing
| they're risking looking silly if nobody joins them. Its
| impressive because the risk might not pay off.
|
| Being the only person on the dance floor for 3 songs in a row
| is an interesting move. I think there is something high
| status about it - in that you're clearly showing that you
| aren't insecure about how you're seen. I think its
| polarising. Either it'll make people think a lot less of you,
| or more of you. Someone who's generally high status will
| often gain status by doing things like that. And someone
| who's low status will lose status over it.
|
| People will either say "What an idiot, didn't he realise how
| goofy he looked?" or they'll say "Oh did you see what Jeff
| did to get the dance party started? We would never have
| gotten out there without him. I could never do that!".
|
| It really depends on context.
| twelve40 wrote:
| > People will either say "What an idiot, didn't he realise
| how goofy he looked?" or they'll say "Oh did you see what
| Jeff did to get the dance party started? We would never
| have gotten out there without him. I could never do that!".
|
| the obvious difference even right in that sentence is that
| whether that person actually successfully led or miserably
| failed
| dustingetz wrote:
| the leader isn't dancing because they want to dance, they
| are dancing because the people want to dance
| willcipriano wrote:
| I'd say dancing alone while everyone else watches can be a
| high status thing. Think Tom Cruise in tropic thunder, he was
| the only one dancing was he low status?
| danaris wrote:
| That only works if the person is already _seen_ as high status
| --ie, if the other people at the dance are already primed to
| look at them going out on the dance floor and say "oh, they're
| dancing; that means it's time to dance."
|
| If the person going out on the dance floor is an unknown, then
| going out there is a _status risk_. If it pays off, they _can_
| become seen as high status: a trailblazer, a trendsetter. If it
| doesn 't, they become (at least for the time being) low status:
| pathetic, cringe.
|
| Having visible confidence and charisma can _help_ make the
| gamble more likely to pay off, but it 's not a guarantee.
| roenxi wrote:
| I mean sure. There is a pretty substantial risk that low-
| status people will be perceived as low status if they do
| something where success relies on their status being high. I
| like to offer advice - low status people probably shouldn't
| be engaging in status-proving activities if that worries
| them. They're making a play for higher status; that might not
| work.
| danaris wrote:
| ...I think you've missed my point.
|
| In a situation where someone's status is _not already
| known_ by a majority of people present, engaging in
| activities that rely on high status are a risk.
|
| No one's status is inherent. It's a purely social construct
| --and it can vary depending on what group you're with!
|
| If you look at, say, a black person in the mid-20th
| century, they might be very high status among other black
| people, but if they go among white people they will be seen
| as low status.
|
| Leave your own community, go among people who don't know
| you (assuming there's nothing immediately visible about you
| that communicates status to them, as above), and whatever
| status you had before is only as relevant as _you_ make it.
| DavidPiper wrote:
| When I think of status the way Keith Johnstone describes it in
| "Impro", being the first one out on the dancefloor is a
| completely neutral action.
|
| _How_ you do it, and your own physical reaction to those around
| you while doing it, will reveal whether you're acting from a
| place of high or low status.
| twelve40 wrote:
| No, it gets it just right. The implicit assumption in this
| example is that the first person on the dance floor is _not_
| quickly joined by hundreds of other people but continues to be
| awkwardly by themselves for a while, possibly then embarrassing
| themself by completely failing to attract anyone.
| brabel wrote:
| What a miserable world people commenting here seem to live in
| where going out to dance is a sort of status challenging
| activity?! When I was younger and frequented dance floors,
| everyone immediately started dancing as soon as the music
| started playing, wasn't that the point of being there?? Never
| even occurred to me to fear being the only one dancing. And if
| did happen I would be wondering what kind of people come here
| and just stands there.
| sokoloff wrote:
| There are many events where dancing is not the main point of
| being there. Wedding receptions being an obvious one, but
| there are others as well.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| One thing that helps with this: getting old. You just stop
| worrying about what other people think of you. All the drama and
| gossip and cliquish behavior just gets so _boring_.
|
| Why do you think old fat guys walk around naked in the locker
| room at the gym? They've certainly got nothing to show off, but
| they don't give a shit.
| aspenmayer wrote:
| They "let it all hang out" quite literally.
| aspenmayer wrote:
| https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/let_it_all_hang_out
|
| > (idiomatic) to relax and be carefree
|
| > Synonym: let one's hair down
| vishnugupta wrote:
| For me this is it.
|
| Whenever someone does "statusy" things I just know how it feels
| like having done it before so I just move on and don't
| participate in that theater anymore.
| FlyingSnake wrote:
| Sometime around mid-30s I stopped caring about what people
| think about me and it had a great effect on my mental well
| being. I reconnected with age old Lindy wisdom and started
| reading classics that helped me with my midlife crisis. Not
| giving a fuck surprisingly opens up lots of doors.
|
| Status games and tech-bro style hustle culture only leads to
| burnout.
| matwood wrote:
| "Sexy indifference" is how I've heard it. Don't be a jerk about
| it, but also give off the DGAF vibe. It works.
| bisRepetita wrote:
| Yes. And this is very helpful. If you are young and you suck at
| something, more people will give you the benefit of the youth
| and envision you may improve. If you're old and you suck at
| something, many will think you're just old, and you just suck.
| "Don't hurt yourself!" So yes, not giving a shit is a very good
| way to make progress.
| Llamamoe wrote:
| Or maybe you just done need to.
|
| We live in a society in which older people(or men, at least)
| get some degree of implicit status and respect - which is
| probably why our governments are all getontocracies.
| dgfitz wrote:
| It's never been about gender, it's only ever about money.
| You'll blow your mind when you pull back a layer and realize
| this.
|
| Or keep holding time against old men, up to you. ;)
| photon_garden wrote:
| In a similar vein, I've found helpful:
|
| There's a difference between pain and suffering.
|
| This is true for emotions: feelings people often find
| uncomfortable (sadness, loneliness, fear) don't have to make you
| miserable. You can just feel those feelings in your body, pay
| attention to what they're asking you to pay attention to, and
| feel deeply okay about it all.
|
| The same is true for physical sensations. Pain is loud so it's
| really good at drawing our attention, but there's a difference
| between noticing you're hurt and getting upset about being hurt.
|
| I flipped my bike a couple months ago and scraped myself up
| incredibly badly, but there wasn't a ton of suffering involved.
|
| The massive adrenaline shot left me shaking, I felt overwhelmed
| and like I wanted to cry, and the pain was _very_ loud. But I
| laid on the ground for fifteen or twenty minutes and then walked
| the fifteen minutes back home. I wouldn't call it fun, but it was
| totally okay.
|
| (Nick Cammarata has a good Buddhist take on this: suffering is a
| specific fast, grabby movement you do in your mind called "tanha"
| and if you pay attention you can learn to do it less.)
| anymouse123456 wrote:
| I love the repeated phrase, '...and the world wouldn't turn to
| ash.'
| alshival wrote:
| I agree. I used to live high class. Then the Mafia came at me. I
| learned to lay low and appreciate poverty. Also, my ex and I
| bought a house, but then a richer man came and she kicked me out
| on Valentine's day. Now I despise wealth and luxury and now date
| only women at the flea market, cashiers and walmart stockers.
| Highly recommend. The devil wears Prada.
| vjvjvjvjghv wrote:
| It's the typical advice coming from high status people. Reminds
| me of rich people glorifying minimalism because they can buy
| stuff whenever they need it and throw it away after.
|
| Being truly low status isn't much fun.
| weatherlite wrote:
| > Being truly low status isn't much fun.
|
| What is truly low status though ? I'd say it is quite rare.
| Most people are average. Truly low status I guess would be to
| be homeless or be so disfigured you cannot find a mate -
| something of that sort. I think many average or even above
| average people who are not low status want to have more status
| and that's their real issue - the unmet desire for more power,
| not being actually low status.
| vasilzhigilei wrote:
| Related: During solo travelling whenever a thought crosses my
| mind to do something and my instinctual internal response is
| discomfort, I try to make myself do it - even if I feel awkward
| inserting myself or going back.
|
| I've had so many awesome conversations with random interesting
| people every day during my trips thanks to this. I've gone places
| I'd otherwise not experience, all for the sake of exciting
| adventure and pushing my own bounds. The confidence that comes
| from this is significant.
|
| Also, as a former remote software engineer of 3 years, it has
| been so energizing to socialize with people again. Best upper
| that there is.
| djoldman wrote:
| There's a LOT here. I feel this applies to a lot of decisions.
|
| For instance, if you want to make a product that requires a
| database and you like building database stuff, do the database
| stuff last. Do what is difficult first - fail fast.
|
| The easy or default route will always be well known to someone.
| bitwize wrote:
| Solo travelling was how I formed one of my most salient
| memories of the "moat of low status", to wit: going to Japan in
| 2011. Japan is an advanced G7 country, but unlike most of the
| rest, very few people there speak or understand English. So I
| was put in the position of having to get by with my shitty
| Japanese, or attempt to communicate even more futilely with the
| locals in English and seem like an even bigger, more clueless
| asshole. I think I gained more levels of Japanese in those two
| weeks than I did in two _years_ of university education.
| Tade0 wrote:
| My lifetime best command of Italian was when I lost the keys
| to my apartment and had to ask around if anyone has seen
| them.
|
| At that point I was already living part time in Italy for
| over two years, but since I was working remotely for a
| company in my country, I hardly had an opportunity to learn
| the language.
|
| Fortunately Italians appreciate people attempting to speak
| their language.
| ants_everywhere wrote:
| Overall I like this framing. But I wanted to comment on this
|
| > In poker, it's possible to improve via theoretical learning....
| But you really can't become a successful player without playing a
| lot of hands with and in front of other players, many of whom
| will be better than you.
|
| This is an interesting example because poker is a game that has
| existed for many years, and for most of those years everyone
| learned by doing and was terrible at it.
|
| People who excel at things have typically done more theoretical
| learning than the average person. Doing is necessary, but it's
| rarely the main way you learn something.
|
| Either you have a mentor who has already absorbed theory and
| transmits it to you in digested form, or you have to learn the
| theory yourself.
|
| But most people get the balance between theory and doing wrong,
| and most people err on the side of doing because theory is harder
| and less instantly rewarding.
| jmj wrote:
| well said
| BrenBarn wrote:
| I think one aspect of this is that learning from doing often
| involves more than just doing. It involves paying attention to
| what you're doing, and what other people are doing, and then
| reviewing that. This doesn't necessarily have to be
| "theoretical" learning, but it's deliberate or explicit study
| as opposed to just hoping to get better by osmosis. It's easy
| to do something a lot and not learn from it.
| AceJohnny2 wrote:
| Tangentially, I've been applying something similar, but actually
| thinking of it as the privilege of _high status_.
|
| As a very senior member of my team, which has a lot of new
| college grads, I've been asking the "dumb" questions, the
| "irritating" questions, intentionally speaking up what I believe
| others may be thingking, specifically because I figure I can
| afford the social (career) hit.
| no_wizard wrote:
| In my experience this usually doesn't turn into a career hit,
| but a career boon. I've been doing this since I was a junior,
| now I'm a staff engineer, and admittedly I am biased toward
| myself, but my career growth has been robust and among both my
| current t team and my professional network I feel I command a
| fair amount of respect and approachability because of this
| practice, which always pays off in the long run
| bravesoul2 wrote:
| There must be much more to it. Staff is a leadership role
| effectively, right?
| no_wizard wrote:
| Yes, though that is what I am getting at. It displays good
| leadership characteristics and reflects positively upon a
| person who acts this way, having the confidence to ask
| questions that others don't or won't. It's a positive thing
| matthewdgreen wrote:
| Never be afraid to ask stupid questions. As someone who spent
| years doing penetration testing, I can assure you that when
| stupid questions don't have an obvious answer, someone isn't
| thinking properly.
|
| Also never be afraid to question people who answer quickly. We
| spend way too much effort training smart people to answer
| quickly rather than deeply, and there's almost always a
| tradeoff between the two.
| akoboldfrying wrote:
| > Never be afraid to ask stupid questions.
|
| Unfortunately that's the kind of black-and-white advice that
| seldom applies in the real world. Would you want to see your
| surgeon asking stupid questions? The pilot of the flight
| you're on?
|
| You wouldn't, because part of your psychological comfort
| depends on your perception that people like this -- people
| whose decisions _really matter_ -- actually know what they
| 're doing.
|
| ETA: By "stupid questions", I don't mean "basic but obviously
| important questions". I mean questions that reveal that you
| don't know something that other people expect you to know,
| that signal to them (rightly or wrongly) that they may have
| overestimated you.
| pharrington wrote:
| I absolutely would want someone who's becoming a surgeon or
| pilot to ask the "stupid questions." This discussion is
| about growth and change over time as a person.
| akoboldfrying wrote:
| > This discussion is about growth and change over time as
| a person.
|
| Is it? Because the original statement used the word
| "never" and didn't mention growth and change over time as
| qualifiers.
|
| The more one attempts to qualify -- that is, restrict the
| scope of -- the advice, the more one tacitly admits the
| point I'm trying to make, which FTR is: This advice is
| not _always_ good advice.
| cthor wrote:
| Surgeons mark where on the body they're operating. This
| didn't used to be a standard practice.
|
| Asking "Did I mess up my left and right?" or "Is this the
| right patient?" feels like a stupid question to ask. I'd
| certainly rather they ask those questions before operating
| on me! But turns out it's very hard to get them to do that,
| so we do surgical site marking instead.
| stevage wrote:
| That's an excellent example.
| niuzeta wrote:
| I've been struggling to explain the principle behind the
| "stupid questions" and your example illustrates the point
| perfectly. Thank you. I'll be shamelessly stealing this
| point from now on :)
| nothrabannosir wrote:
| _> By "stupid questions", I don't mean "basic but
| obviously important questions". I mean questions that
| reveal that you don't know something that other people
| expect you to know, that signal to them (rightly or
| wrongly) that they may have overestimated you._
|
| Ok but you didn't bring up the phrase "stupid questions" so
| it's less about how you define it, and more about a best
| effort interpretation of how it was originally meant.
| akoboldfrying wrote:
| I think the person who initially did bring up the phrase
| must have meant it the way I did, because if they didn't
| -- if in fact all they meant by it was "basic but
| obviously important questions" -- then there would be no
| reason for them to bring it up at all, since 100% of
| people already agree that you should never be afraid to
| ask basic but obviously important questions.
| tharkun__ wrote:
| I don't think that's true. A lot of people are afraid to
| ask basic questions that everyone would think are
| important because they'd feel stupid asking them.
|
| The thing is that in many a case those basic questions
| have not all actually been asked and answered because
| everyone involved thought the same: it's stupidly simple,
| I better not ask for fear of being marked dumb.
|
| I get the feeling that it's because of fear of being
| marked dumb by people like you actually.
|
| But then it often turns out that one of those stupid
| questions has not been answered sufficiently or people
| were thinking of completely different answers to the
| question. So it was a good thing that someone brought it
| up.
|
| And if the question did already get taken into account
| and people did have the same answer(s) in mind then if a
| senior person asked, it will probably just be taken as
| "this guy knows his stuff and is just dotting Is and
| crossing Ts" VS a junior "asking dumb questions that
| everyone should know the answer to, duh!"
| Lewton wrote:
| > since 100% of people already agree that you should
| never be afraid to ask basic but obviously important
| questions.
|
| You don't have a great mental model of how most people
| think
| SpicyLemonZest wrote:
| I've had multiple times in my career when people got mad
| at me for asking basic but obviously important questions.
| Things like:
|
| * What invariants does this complex transformation
| preserve? What guarantees does it make about the output?
| (Come on, we all have a general idea, SpicyLemonZest
| should read the code if he wants all the details.)
|
| * What's the latency impact of adding this step? (It
| can't be big enough to matter, stop trying to block my
| project!)
|
| * Why did the last release advance to production when it
| wasn't passing tests? (How dare you, our team works so
| hard, it says right here in our release manual that those
| test failures count as passing.)
| mrmincent wrote:
| Stupid questions are far better than stupid mistakes due to
| not asking those questions.
| matthewdgreen wrote:
| And this is why it's very important, in the case of a
| junior engineer, to use your "I'm just starting here"
| privilege to ask those stupid questions. Or you can be a
| very senior engineer who has an established reputation, and
| can get away with asking what sound like "stupid" questions
| just because people assume you know what you're doing.
|
| We have an expectation that "smart people" should be able
| to quickly fill in gaps in lightly-explained systems.
| Sometimes this is good: when you're teaching people a new
| concept it's _great_ if they can grasp it quickly and
| approximately. When you 're describing the design of a
| complex system, you absolutely do not want people to make
| incorrect assumptions about the parts you're skipping over.
|
| The worst example I've seen was learning that the security
| of an industrial control platform came down to the fact
| that the management software wasn't installed by default.
| The designers had assumed that "knowledge of a software
| library" was a valid access control mechanism. As the
| cherry on top, another engineer chimed in that the software
| was actually installed on the system anyway, just in a
| different location. It took a pile of incredibly "stupid"
| questions to surface this knowledge.
| worldsayshi wrote:
| > I can assure you that when stupid questions don't have an
| obvious answer, someone isn't thinking properly.
|
| Once you start asking stupid questions on the regular it's
| quite an interesting experience how often you can ask
| "stupid" questions to rooms full of senior engineers and sort
| of get back confused silence. In my experience there's a lot
| of really important but "stupid" questions that often just
| gets half-ignored because imagination and prioritization is
| hard.
| paulpauper wrote:
| I disagree. Asking stupid questions, even if in good faith,
| can be mean being banned from communities or losing
| participation privileges. Such as mathoverflow or
| stackexhcange.
| dlivingston wrote:
| Category error.
|
| StackExchange is a massive, global forum which has to react
| defensively in order to maintain its high-quality
| knowledgebase against spammers, scammers, and the same
| questions being posed 10^N times.
|
| The context here is about knowledge dissemination in local
| teams, groups, or organizations. Completely separate
| category, levels of trust, motivations, incentives, etc.
| atq2119 wrote:
| I would go even further and call it the _responsibility_ of
| high status to ask such questions.
|
| As a high status person, you have an outsized influence on
| culture whether you like it or not, and an environment in which
| this kind of question can be asked ultimately leads to better
| outcomes.
| iamthemonster wrote:
| Yes - I'm a senior member of my team too (to the extent that
| I've previously been the team lead of similar teams) and it's
| so freeing to be able to:
|
| 1. Give plenty of credit to the juniors when they do good work,
| even if they were reliant on support, with no need to take
| credit myself
|
| 2. Give up some time working on my own objectives to coach the
| juniors, even though there's no cost code to book the time to
| and nobody asks me to do it
|
| 3. Easily say, with zero guilt: "no sorry that can't be done in
| 2 weeks, that's a 6 week job" or "sure I can do my part of this
| job but I'm going to need you to commit XYZ other resources if
| you want it to be a success"
|
| 4. Interpret the rules in the way I think is best for the
| organisation, not trying to please the person with the most
| pedantic interpretation
|
| 5. I can produce convincing explanations of how my work
| performance is delivering value to the organisation (whereas
| juniors can sometimes work their arse off and get no
| recognition for it)
|
| I'm also a middle aged white man which seems to confer a lot of
| unearned trust, but combined with my professional experience I
| seriously think I have it easier than the juniors in so many
| ways, and it's my responsibility to give back a bit.
| NetOpWibby wrote:
| You might need to a new username, you are the good guy.
| matwood wrote:
| > Give plenty of credit to the juniors when they do good
| work, even if they were reliant on support, with no need to
| take credit myself
|
| This is one of the most effective ways to lead because it
| builds goodwill and trust on the team. It also takes almost
| nothing away from you because as the senior/leader you will
| get default credit for most everything. It's always odd to me
| more people don't realize this.
| eru wrote:
| Even more so: as a senior, if you don't give extensive
| credit to the juniors, people will assume that you have
| some reasons to be insecure. So it's worse for your status.
| brookst wrote:
| I want to agree but I've observed a contrary pattern a few
| times: when higher levels of management don't get this
| principle, and are themselves poor leaders and role models,
| they can take this at face value and believe that the
| juniors get _all_ the credit and local leadership is
| contributing nothing.
|
| Soft skills need to be valued from above in order to be
| workable strategies in the trenches. And often / usually
| that's how it works.. but not always.
| threetonesun wrote:
| Having been there, it's a lose lose situation, where you
| will constantly be berated for either not mentoring
| enough or not contributing enough, and it's better to
| move on than play the shifting winds.
| blueflow wrote:
| I thought this was social competence.
| 3dsnano wrote:
| yes, and we all need a good reminder every once in a while
| of how we can act with humility and integrity!
| anal_reactor wrote:
| I have understood that the vast majority of people are simply
| not interested in having conversations, their goal is to
| perform social dance that scores them social points.
| Ampersander wrote:
| Sufficient status entirely changes how the act of asking dumb
| questions is perceived by others. A person with a small title
| is seen as asking dumb questions because they are dumb. A
| person with a big title asks dumb questions because they are
| smart. Of course it's not just title but also age, gender,
| race, appearance, etc.
| worldsayshi wrote:
| Yes this is probably the best thing about feeling senior enough
| and maybe the best measure of seniority. If you dare ask stupid
| questions you aren't stupid.
|
| But then there are likely also situations when you feel that
| you ask a bunch of stupid questions but are faced with blank
| stares because people doesn't understand the context enough for
| those questions either or they are struggling enough with other
| problems to even entertain that kind of question.
|
| It can kind of lead to a similar situation to when the math
| professor at uni jokingly asks a "trivial" math question in
| front of his students. It's trivial only once you have worked
| that kind of problem a 1000 times.
| mettamage wrote:
| > If you dare ask stupid questions you aren't stupid.
|
| I'm the exception to the rule, I always do this and I'm not
| senior. I make it clear too that I do this.
|
| Ah, I just read the article. Yea, I'm not afraid of the moat
| of low status. I know what reward it brings, it's easy +EV.
| recursivedoubts wrote:
| Good!
|
| https://grugbrain.dev/#grug-on-fold
| yieldcrv wrote:
| I have an account on reddit that leans into extremes,
| specifically to collect the ad hominem attacks, while wading
| into benign topics people won't talk about but would like
| consensus on
|
| because they are afraid the benign topic will cause them to get
| ad hominem attacked or generally vilified
|
| most people's reddit profiles are their whole identity and they
| try to stay in moderate "polite company" at the expense of
| remaining ignorant
| niuzeta wrote:
| Absolutely. As I get more and more senior, I found myself
| prefacing a lot of questions with "let me ask some stupid
| questions" to ask some broad questions or context of the
| meeting. It can be something seemingly obvious, what's
| important is it somehow breaks the barrier for others to ask
| questions. I used to say "I'm going to play my 'new guy' card
| one more time" when I'm new at a company, but this seems to
| work more generically, and tends to work in the team's benefit.
| citizenpaul wrote:
| I wish more people were like you. I can't speak to the past but
| it seems all anyone in high status positions wants to do is be
| "guilded" and left alone.
| nuancebydefault wrote:
| I used to be the one that in big meetings would ask the 'dumb'
| questions a lot of people undoubtedly had in their mind, but
| wouldn't dare to pose. I didn't care that some people would
| find the question stupid, since it would make other people
| happy for not having to speak up themselves while still getting
| the info they needed. It would as well make some people happy
| for establishing a slightly higher place in the pecking order.
| At least i would gain some karma and maybe even some
| admiration.
|
| Over the years I did this less and nowadays I mostly only speak
| when asked so in rather big meetings.
|
| How did this come to be? I found that people who feel that they
| belong in the higher ranks of the social pecking order
| sometimes don't like this behavior and actively try to make you
| look bad. As I'm quite sensitive and am generally a people
| pleaser who thrives on getting external validation (I'm working
| on it...), it did not feel good and I feel it wasn't worth the
| trouble...
| djmips wrote:
| Indeed. As a senior, I found out that at the last
| 'retrospective' I was one the only ones who had anything on
| 'needs improvement' 'saying what I believe others might be
| thinking' - and during anonymous voting my items did get most
| of the votes.
| pyrolistical wrote:
| The way I describe this idea is shamelessness is a super power
| neom wrote:
| I grew up in Scotland in the 90s, the high school I went to was
| ill equipped to deal with someone as wide as I am on the
| spectrums. I was put into the "retarded children" programs. I
| think this resulted in me always "knowing" I was the dumbest
| person in the room, and eventually as a survival mechanism I
| learned to, well... not care. All through college, my 20s and
| 30s, I always felt like the dumbest person in the room, but I
| didn't really care I just felt super happy to be in the rooms,
| and so I said whatever I wanted and asked whatever I wanted. Now
| that I'm older, I realize what a blessing this ended up being
| because I've always ended up in rooms full of incredibly
| brilliant people having decent amounts of money thrown my way to
| be in them.
|
| Low status isn't so bad.
| FlyingSnake wrote:
| Everything is a remix.
|
| Previous art: " Willingness to look stupid" by Dan Luu.
|
| https://danluu.com/look-stupid/
|
| Precious discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28942189
| nico wrote:
| Very similar to the concept of the dip, explained in the book The
| Dip by Seth Godin
|
| I asked Google to briefly summarize the concept:
|
| > The Dip: It's a term Godin uses to describe the unavoidable and
| challenging period that occurs after the initial excitement of
| starting a new project, skill, or career, and before achieving
| success or mastery. This is the time when things get difficult,
| frustrating, and many people are tempted to quit
|
| > Embracing the Dip: Instead of being discouraged by The Dip,
| Godin suggests that dips can be opportunities. They serve as a
| natural filter, separating those with the determination to
| persevere from those who are not truly committed. By pushing
| through the Dip, you can emerge stronger and potentially achieve
| greater rewards
| OjotCewIo wrote:
| > unavoidable
|
| Well, no. Depends on the person. For some people and for some
| new undertakings, especially if those people know themselves
| _well_ already, they _can_ hit the ground running. I 've seen
| it.
| charles_f wrote:
| I started the piano when I was 32. I'm not particularly good at
| it, I'll never play anything complex, but I love playing and I do
| my best. My teacher forced me to play in public at some point,
| and that was probably one of the best things he did, to get me
| past the point of caring.
|
| That made me realize: no-one cares. You're the center of your
| life, and it's very important that you succeed, but the very few
| people who care about you (and whom you should care about) will
| have the patience, empathy, and admiration for you to be in that
| "moat", everyone else won't give a shit. If you fuck up, they'll
| forget about you in a minute. Try to remember about someone
| trying to do something you like but badly? You can't.
|
| Whenever I see a public piano I seat at it. Sometimes it's just
| shit and I'm the only one happy I can press keys. Sometimes I
| manage to play a piece, and a random couple of people are happy
| about it.
|
| This is a great article, follow its advice. The definition of low
| status is only the one you set for yourself. Push the shame and
| embrace it. No one cares anyways
| ramblerman wrote:
| Love the concept but "the moat of low status" is a poor name.
|
| It implies a defensive structure. I.e the advantage I get out of
| low status.
|
| Op even refers to the concept of moats as used in business, but
| clumsily hand waves the concept to fit her own.
|
| The cage of low status would be more apt
| derektank wrote:
| Being low status can be psychologically protective in some
| ways. One can opt into being low status as a defense mechanism,
| "I'm afraid of genuine failure, but by choosing artificial
| failure from the start, I can avoid the emotional pain of
| genuine failure."
| ozim wrote:
| It is super important to have "no asshole zones". We can joke
| about "safe space" like "South Park" did but at least not having
| your work shredded to parts with snarky comments goes far.
|
| I started posting on LinkedIn this year. I was afraid all the
| time there will be assholes coming out of woods to just say
| "you're an idiot take this post down" - it happened once in 6
| months so not bad. Other asshole was reposting my stuff picking
| on the details basically making content out of me.
|
| Blocking was effective and shadow banning is great as those most
| likely moved on not even knowing I blocked them.
| layer8 wrote:
| I would reconsider why you would want to post on LinkedIn in
| the first place.
| meesles wrote:
| There it is!
| zeroCalories wrote:
| I know a lot of people as described in this post, but it's never
| been an issue for me. I'm much more concerned about earning
| status, then embarrassing myself. I remember when I first started
| BJJ I was getting crushed, but it was still fun. But once I had
| been doing it for a year getting submitted stung bad because I
| should have known better. In the end I think the advice about
| accepting embarrassment is still good, because if you're pushing
| yourself and trying to perform at a high level you will never
| stop failing and embarrassing yourself.
| hiAndrewQuinn wrote:
| "Cate Hall is Astera's CEO. She's a former Supreme Court attorney
| and the ex-No. 1 female poker player in the world."
|
| This article is countersignaling. It also happens to be
| directionally correct.
|
| There is absolutely nothing low status about being present-day
| Cate Hall. But present-day Cate Hall probably tried and pushed
| through a lot of really tough stuff in part because yesteryear
| Cate Hall had this mindset. It so happened that she also had the
| talent to actually end up in impressive places.
|
| The real lesson one should probably take from a person like this
| is that learning to eyeball your own strengths and weaknesses
| _before_ you start down the long path of honing them is really
| important. If you are low status now but you have reason to
| believe you will become much higher status in the future by
| persevering, then persevere. If not...
| baxtr wrote:
| Encouraging people to be low status in order to have high
| status is a genius way to create a new status game.
| FlyingSnake wrote:
| Be wary of imitating high status people who can afford to
| counter signal.
|
| https://www.robkhenderson.com/p/the-perils-of-imitating-high...
| ImaCake wrote:
| Thanks for pointing out that it is counter signalling, but I
| would also say that it is good advice regardless. It's like an
| efficient highway - the road is straight and unadorned because
| looking "scientific" and sensible is how you convince
| government and the public it is a good idea. The fact that
| being efficient is also a net good is almost a side effect but
| still not to be ignored!
| e1g wrote:
| She's a VC-backed founder who went to Yale, and her very first
| job was at Goldman. What she's describing in the article is not
| "low status" because she hadn't experienced that. But the
| feeling she describes reveals what she _thinks_ "low status" is
| - embarrassment.
| samdoesnothing wrote:
| It's relative, you can be low status in one group and high
| status in another and be the exact same person.
|
| Sounds like from the online bullying she suffered from at
| Yale, she was low status there.
| jagged-chisel wrote:
| I'd like to understand the thinking of those who downvoted
| and flagged this comment.
| Rexxar wrote:
| It was "[dead]" or "[flagged]" ? If it was the first it
| was automatic and probably caused by previous comments,
| not by this one. New accounts (green name) can be auto-
| flagged quite fast if they have downvotes or reports on
| multiple comments.
| hiAndrewQuinn wrote:
| Getting into Yale is indeed pretty good prima facie evidence
| that you have what it takes to be high status in the future,
| in quite a few domains. Persevering is great advice for most
| people along most trajectories who get into Yale.
| kragen wrote:
| It's not just a question of potential.
|
| Getting into Yale directly confers high status, and it is
| fairly well gated by other status-related tests: honors
| classes and private schools nudge you to learn the kind of
| thinking that does well on the SAT, not the kind of
| thinking that keeps you out of danger, as well as pushing
| you to AP exam prep classes; and access to extracurricular
| activities is gated both implicitly (by school choice) and
| explicitly by disciplinary measures for low-status
| behaviors. Rednecks like JD Vance are a tiny minority of
| the Yale entering class, and lower-status groups like
| illegal immigrants are as far as I know completely absent.
|
| Also, I think the idea that there is something that it
| takes to be high status is incorrect. Social status is its
| own phenomenon with its own rules, and sometimes it's
| pretty random: you get a good job against the odds, or a
| good spouse, or you narrowly escape a disabling accident.
| You could argue that "what it takes" in such cases is luck,
| but graduating from Yale doesn't indicate that you will be
| lucky in the future, only of things that have happened
| before that.
| hiAndrewQuinn wrote:
| >the idea that there is something that it takes to be
| high status is incorrect
|
| >Getting into Yale directly confers high status
|
| Don't these two ideas contradict one another? It sure
| sounds like we have at least one known pathway to
| becoming high status, and that is getting into Yale.
| kragen wrote:
| No, "something that it takes to be high status" would be
| some characteristic (in this context, one that is stable
| over time) that was _necessary_ for high status, while
| something that "directly confers high status" is
| something that is _sufficient_ for high status. It 's
| entirely possible for something to be sufficient and
| nothing to be necessary. You're making the basic logical
| error of confusing [?] with [?].
| joe_the_user wrote:
| These thing aren't talked about much. But think the proper
| way to discuss is that "social status" exists among groups of
| rough peers and "social position" better describes someone's
| privileges of wealth, education and employment relative to
| society as a whole.
|
| Just as an example, a whole lot of dysfunctional dynamics
| happening lately seem to involve billionaires jockeying for
| status with other billionaires.
|
| Edit: I'd recommend Paul Fussel's book Class since it
| involves discussion of these two dynamics.
| __turbobrew__ wrote:
| From my research the whole Alvea thing was an Effective
| Alturism cooked up project that only lasted 3 years and made
| no money, and then now they are at Astera which seems to be
| some rich persons plaground where they throw money at
| researchers to do "stuff". What that stuff is, I don't know.
|
| The real moral of this story is you should get rich eccentric
| friends from the Ivy League elite who throw money at you to
| do AGI. Like you really think this company of like 40 people
| is going to crack AGI?
|
| Man I should cross the moat and get some rich friends.
| posix86 wrote:
| Talented people don't have to go through as much embarrassment
| as others because they learn faster than normal & will impress
| through that, even if they're worse at what they're doing.
| Also, once you are truly good at something, it's easier to be
| bad at something else. But not disagreeing with her.
| nine_k wrote:
| _A: Actually, money isn 't really important._
|
| _B: It must feel good to say so when you have the money._
|
| _A: It does._
|
| (Quoting from memory, can't remember the movie.)
| joe_the_user wrote:
| _This article is countersignaling. It also happens to be
| directionally correct._
|
| As far as I can tell, you jargony phrase means that this is
| something like the humble part of "humble bragging". I'd
| disagree, I think the article gives honest good advice, an
| honest "meta-analysis" of social status and jumping into new
| things. It's "actionable", something you can do.
|
| I would add that its advice for the sort of person who is
| normally always thinking about and fairly competent with social
| status and is held back from new skills by this. I personally
| was never too worried about social status and have learned
| massive new things by just being willing to try them but wound-
| up bitten by my ignoring of status. My advice for my younger me
| is to be strategic about publicly ignoring status but keep
| going into private.
|
| Also statements like "she succeeded 'cause she was tough" are
| meaningless as advice or actionable/verifiable statements.
| Maybe she succeeded 'cause she had a bunch of strategies like
| the one she outlines, maybe she succeeded 'cause of good luck,
| maybe she succeed by family positions, maybe "luck",
| "toughness" or "mojo" did it.
| reactordev wrote:
| I love this.
|
| People have always asked me: Why don't you have a big house or
| <status-symbol-x> or <status-symbol-y>?
|
| My response is always: Because I could use that capital to try
| something new. Granted, there were a few times I wish I had the
| house because of the market bumps but stocks have made up for it.
|
| People are scared of failing, scared of losing the precarious
| position they have built up over the years. The housing market
| has made that 10x worse with the prices but humans _need_ to try
| different things, learn different things. You can't just do one
| thing for 70 years. My father had 4 careers, 3 wives, 5 children
| throughout his lifetime. 2 degrees. I've had 1 wife, 1 child, 1
| career, 1 degree, because the world is 100x more expensive now.
| This is what prohibits us from finding our ikigai.
| jhassell wrote:
| Great article. I've come to see that feeling embarrassed can
| actually be a kind of luxury. When I'm around people with
| disabilities--many of whom might simply hope to reach a point
| where embarrassment is even possible--it reminds me how much we
| take that experience for granted. In that light, embarrassment
| itself can feel like a privilege. It calls to mind 2 Corinthians
| 12:9: "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made
| perfect in weakness."
| bmicraft wrote:
| I'm sorry but I don't quite get what you mean here. Could you
| maybe put it in simpler terms?
| jhassell wrote:
| Sure. Maybe feeling embarrassed is a sign that our pride
| sometimes carries more weight than it should. It's easy to
| forget that many people--especially those who are
| disadvantaged or disabled--might not even have the
| opportunity to feel embarrassed in the same way. Perhaps it's
| a gentle reminder to let go a little of our need to protect
| our self-image.
| stego-tech wrote:
| I genuinely needed this piece today, specifically. Thanks for
| sharing it.
|
| I've been trying to live more authentically in general these past
| few years, making tiny little inroads one step at a time towards
| being someone I've consciously chosen, rather than merely exist
| in a safe form that doesn't risk alienating others (or rather, in
| a form I don't _perceive_ to alienate others - obviously I am not
| a mindreader). Think classic tech neutral outfits (jeans and
| neutral shirts, neutral shoes, neutral socks, the sole piece of
| color being the Pride band of my Apple Watch). OCD hurts the
| process of trying to live authentically, because it 's doing its
| damndest to ensure I _never_ encounter harm.
|
| So last night, after coming down from some flower and watching
| the evening roll in, I decided to put on an outfit I'd put
| together. All sorts of bright colors: neon green and black
| sneakers, bright pink shirt, sapphire blue denim jean shorts,
| bleached white socks - and went for a walk. OCD was INCREDIBLY
| self-conscious that I would stand out ( _duh_ ), court the wrong
| sort of attention, or somehow find myself in trouble...for
| wearing things I see everyone else wear without any issue
| whatsoever.
|
| The moat is real, and the mind wants to build barriers to
| minimize perceived harms; for neurodivergent folks, it can be
| downright crippling. Wallflowering at parties, never gambling on
| colors or bold styles, never taking on new challenges for risk of
| failure. It results in a life so boring, sterile, and
| uninteresting - to yourself, and to others.
|
| So...yeah. I got nothing to add other than my personal nuggets of
| experience. Really glad this piece came past on HN today, I think
| a lot of folks are going to enjoy its message.
| drst wrote:
| I'm glad you're happy.
|
| I do wish we could stop saying "moat".
|
| Most of us aren't living in ancient forts we need to protect.
| jmathai wrote:
| As it pertains to this article, what we are desperately
| trying to protect is our fragile ego and avoiding
| embarrassment is the moat to do so.
| bitbasher wrote:
| > Most of us aren't living in ancient forts we need to
| protect.
|
| Speak for yourself!
|
| _raises draw bridge_
| k__ wrote:
| Tangential related:
|
| I learned in a class on design that you should work with what you
| already know.
|
| If you don't know about colors, then do it in grey scale, if you
| don't know about that, do it in black and white.
|
| The best ideas come from working with constraints.
|
| While highly skilled designers/musicians/developers/writers/etc.
| do this despite being able to work outside of the constraints, a
| beginner can do it too. Sure, they can't choose the constraints
| as freely as a pro, but they can make work with what they got and
| it can lead to interesting results.
|
| This is also a good way to approach new things without
| embarrassing yourself, as you don't try to impress with skills
| you don't mastered 100% yet.
| fat_cantor wrote:
| the math version of this idea:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41566446
| lo_zamoyski wrote:
| It comes down to pride and an insecure or poorly formed
| conscience.
|
| Obviously, you are going to be bad at something when you begin.
| What did you expect? Know it, accept it, and don't pretend
| otherwise. Who expects a beginner to be good? And why are you
| afraid of someone, I don't know, laughing at you or being
| condescending? What kind of prick would do that unless they were
| envious of your courage or insecure in their own abilities?
|
| The fact is that many people spend their entire lives putting up
| appearances, and with time, it becomes harder and harder for them
| to do anything about it, because the whole facade of false
| identity would have to crumble. They live is a state of fear of
| being outed and shamed. This is a recipe for mental illness.
|
| This matter situation reminds me of the parable about the
| Emperor's new clothes. The boy's potency comes from stating the
| obvious. You find something similar in professional life: the
| person who is like that boy in a room full of posers and
| blowhards is a threat to pretense, because he states the obvious.
| In that way, he is more in touch with reality, even if it is at
| such a basic level. This is a great catalyst for change in an
| organization, if the insecure and prideful don't dig in their
| heels.
|
| The truth will set you free, and where there is good will, there
| is no fear. And learn to endure suffering.
| caseysoftware wrote:
| Good lessons.
|
| Over the past few years, I've managed to convince (and
| occasionally demonstrate) to my kids that "you'll be bad at
| anything new" and that they only way to get better is practice.
|
| As a result, when other kids have made fun of them for failing,
| they rebut with "I've never done this before! I'll get better!"
| which is awesome.. being able to handle failure, acknowledge it
| as failure, and then figure out how to get better.
|
| If you can get and hold onto that mindset, it's kinda awesome.
| kaycebasques wrote:
| "Sucking at something is the first step towards being kinda
| good at something." --- Jake the Dog
| OjotCewIo wrote:
| Counterpoint: you'll stop enjoying a new hobby, like learning
| to play the guitar, when you decide to get serious about it.
| unclad5968 wrote:
| This hasnt my been my experience. I continue to love
| basketball despite being bad at it for years regardless of
| how much "serious" training I do.
| dceddia wrote:
| If it turns into treating it as a "should" then my
| experience is yes, definitely, that's a death knell for
| basically anything. Without the "should" it continues to be
| fun. The trick is threading that needle.
| SlowTao wrote:
| It is said that God wrote the entire language for to use
| in a book and that we shall model ourselves off of it.
| Once it was done, God turns his back on the book and
| Satan sneaked in and added two words - "Should" and
| "Aught".
| johnfn wrote:
| Been writing code for 25 years, 15 professional. Still
| enjoy it just as much.
| esteth wrote:
| In my experience this is more related to treating the hobby
| like a chore or job instead of doing it for the fun of it,
| even though you're bad at it.
|
| I think the relationship is kinda the other way around -
| you'll feel like your hobby is "serious" when you stop
| having fun with it.
| RaftPeople wrote:
| I don't remember who said this but I really like this quote:
| "What would you do if you knew you would not fail?"
| moomoo11 wrote:
| win
| SlowTao wrote:
| I would argue there is no way to make it that you do not fail
| in some way. ;)
| HellDunkel wrote:
| Chapeau- i'll copy what you did here.
| OjotCewIo wrote:
| > you'll be bad at anything new
|
| I disagree. Innate talent / affinity and transferable
| experience exist. I agree with "10% inspiration and 90%
| perspiration"; however, given equal effort, people with innate
| talent are going to win over people with no or less talent by a
| wide margin. This applies to everything. Gym / sports
| performance, muscle growth, work that needs IQ, work that needs
| EQ, life events that need resilience, general happiness,
| everything. Genetics is hugely definitive.
|
| And I'm convinced some people bounce back more easily after a
| failure because failure is genuinely less hurtful for them.
| They don't need to "hold onto that mindset"; they just have it.
| majormajor wrote:
| > I disagree. Innate talent / affinity and transferable
| experience exist. I agree with "10% inspiration and 90%
| perspiration"; however, given equal effort, people with
| innate talent are going to win over people with no or less
| talent by a wide margin.
|
| I think you are misreading the person you're replying to.
|
| They aren't saying "everybody can be equally good at
| everything with practice."
|
| They're saying "don't quit just because you aren't great on
| day 1."
|
| First time playing basketball even if you've played soccer a
| ton and have good general athletic ability? Don't expect to
| hold your own if joining a game being played by people who
| play every week.
|
| First time doing woodworking even if you have an electrical
| engineering background and the methodicalness is not foreign
| to you? Don't expect your first table to be stunning. Still
| gonna be bad at it compared to people with more practice!
|
| Honestly, if you think you're great at something the first
| time you try it, you probably just don't know what being
| great at it actually looks like. (It could even be "similar
| result, but better in some hidden ways, and done in 1/10th
| the time.")
|
| But if you believe that you'll get better at it with
| practice, you'll keep doing it.
|
| If you believe "guess I just don't have innate ability here"
| you'll give up and never get good.
| OjotCewIo wrote:
| > I think you are misreading the person you're replying to.
| [...] They're saying "don't quit just because you aren't
| great on day 1."
|
| That's not what they're saying. They literally wrote,
| "you'll be bad at anything new". That's what I disagreed
| with. There are people who are _great_ at something new
| (for them), and catch up with (and surpass) old-timers
| incredibly quickly. And their learning experience -- not
| that it doesn 't take effort -- is generally enjoyable,
| exactly because they succeed from very early on. I've
| witnessed this with at least two colleagues. Entered
| completely new fields (one of them repeatedly), and in a
| few weeks, surpassed old-timers in those fields. These are
| the guys who tend to be promoted to senior principal or
| distinguished software engineers.
|
| > First time playing basketball even if you've played
| soccer a ton and have good general athletic ability? Don't
| expect to hold your own if joining a game being played by
| people who play every week.
|
| Do expect to mostly catch up with them in 1-2 months! (In
| my high school class, the soccer team was effectively
| identical to the basketball team.)
|
| > and done in 1/10th the time
|
| I agree with this; yes. But my point is that, for some
| people, _approaching_ such a short completion time, with
| comparable results, is a relatively fast, and enjoyable,
| process. They don 't plateau as early, and don't struggle
| from the beginning.
|
| > If you believe "guess I just don't have innate ability
| here" you'll give up and never get good.
|
| Correct, but it doesn't imply that "giving your all" _does_
| make you good (at an absolute scale). You will no doubt
| improve relative to your earlier self, but those advances
| may not qualify as "competitive", more globally speaking.
| Giving up (after serious work) may be objectively valid.
| For some people, persevering is the challenge (= lack of
| willpower, persistence); for others, accepting failure /
| mediocrity, and -- possibly -- finding something better, is
| the challenge.
| rzzzt wrote:
| Hah, I wrote almost the same thing in a sibling reply
| with one difference, plateauing for the hit-the-ground-
| runners may come earlier than the first-learn-how-to-
| walkers.
| rzzzt wrote:
| People exist that pick up that chisel / basketball /
| soldering iron and do something really impressive with it
| after being shown 0..2 times. They might have horrible
| technique, not know the little tricks and shortcuts,
| plateau quickly etc., but their experience of doing the
| thing is not a series of failures until they get reasonably
| OK at it, rather increasing levels of wins.
| immibis wrote:
| Those people are still growing the limit of their ability
| just like you. They're just trying things slightly under
| their current limit* instead of slightly over.
|
| * Not an electronics pun
| dixong wrote:
| Based on her profile picture I find it extremely hard to believe
| anyone made fun of her appearance unless one is being compared to
| a super model.
| timewizard wrote:
| You have "social anxiety." You are not in a "moat of low status."
| The status is purely in your own mind and not something
| calculated and assigned to you by the world.
|
| Another CEO flying at 30,000' missing the forest for the trees.
| djmips wrote:
| The moat is filled with people pointing at you and yelling 'Don't
| quit your day job'
| lazyeye wrote:
| Scott Galloway talks about this same concept here
|
| https://youtu.be/rKOx5qlLyaA
| 77pt77 wrote:
| The real moat of low status is something completely different.
|
| It consists on punishing people with low status when they
| objectively succeed and doing so brutally if they excel.
|
| This entire post sounds like the complaints of someone with
| extreme privilege that lived a completely sheltered life.
|
| In fact, the title of this blog, "Useful fictions", plays exactly
| into that.
| intellectronica wrote:
| A few extra tricks that worked for me (you can alternate
| depending on what fits best in the moment):
|
| - Embrace the role of imposter. Instead of whining about imposter
| syndrome, accept a-priori that you are an imposter. The game is
| to survive as long as possible as an imposter in a world full of
| naturals. You lose not when you are made out, but when you give
| up.
|
| - Embrace being a useless git. You're an idiot, you have no
| talent whatsoever, you don't have the skill yet, and there's no
| hope you'll ever acquire it. So, no pressure, you're only
| playing. Anything beyond failing completely is a bonus.
|
| - Commit to "open to goal". You are starting today and you'll go
| on for as long as it takes. Possibly until you die. There's no
| deadline and no expected speed. You're just being stubborn and
| refuse to stop trying even in the face of evidence that you have
| no chance.
|
| - Be delusional about "the hack". You are special and you've
| discovered a hack that makes it easier and faster for you to
| acquire the new skill and apply it successfully than it is for
| most people. All you have to do is go through the motions, "the
| hack" will take care of things.
|
| - Fight injustice. You are _entitled_ to have this skill and the
| success it affords people, it is your god-given, inalienable
| right. But the world / family / society / boss / ex / whatever
| screwed you and you've been deprived of what's rightfully yours.
| Fuck them, you are now on a quest to acquire by brute force what
| you deserve.
| andy99 wrote:
| There's some survivorship bias here. You often just end up
| looking like an idiot or being really bad at something. I agree
| that embarrassment shouldn't be a barrier but one should be aware
| of the flip side. "Putting yourself out there" mostly results in
| humiliation and rejection. Focusing on being thick skinned and
| resilient is maybe more important than imagining you just need to
| get over embarrassment.
|
| If you try new things, you may go bankrupt, get laughed at or be
| humiliated in a much worse way, be regularly rejected or talked
| down to, etc. It's not just about being brave for a minute. And
| in the end you might never make it.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-07-05 23:01 UTC)