I really think that action changes attitude faster than attitude changes action. Learning this the hard way in my 40s, it's been really life changing for me. Particularly when you're depressed, demotivated, find yourself procrastinating, etc.
You can try this yourself -- the next time you're feeling demotivated, start with the smallest amount of tiny measurable action. If you can't get out of bed, move your fingers, shake your head, work your way up to standing up, walking, leaving your house, and very slowly building momentum.
If you're procrastinating about work, start with opening up a terminal, launch your editor, write one tiny snippet of code that just compiles, add another snippet, build momentum.
You'll find yourself making excuses, telling yourself that none of this matters, or that you're too tired, or that you're not in the mood. Accept the thoughts and push through the actions.
Very quickly, as the dopamine hits from these tiny successes arrive, you'll find your attitude changing, and this turns into a feedback loop where you end up performing more actions, further improving your mood and attitude.
I like your mantra very much. Hard disagree on emotions being wrong though. I am glad i learned to view emotions as messages from the more archaic parts of my brain.
The ones we label as positive come up if we do something that aids the survival of our species. Examples would be pleasure derived from food or sex.
The ones we label as negative are very important IMHO.
To prevent harm to ourselves we need Fear, it is a good friend. My theory is that anxiety disorders are like an allergy of the mind. In our super safe world our Amygdala has not much to do, very few (if any) predators around. But it stays on the lookout and reactions to small (or imagined) threats are totally out of proportion.
The rise in depression for me is a symptom of feeling lost/uprooted. If we take the theory that we evolved to live in groups of 100-150 individuals, that we all knew and worked with to ensure survival of the group, as basis and compare our modern lifestyle to it, we come out as extremely alienated from our nature. Even animals commit suicide if they see no way out. Put a scorpion in a ring of glowing embers and it will kill itself.
<addition>
The root of anger is fear IMHO. Anger is there to ready us to fight in case of a real threat to our life. Nowadays anger rises in situations challenging our worldview, questioning our distorted view of ourselves or our status within the group. My favourite one is getting angry when observing behaviours in others, which we dislike in ourselves. It happens even if we are unconscious it. When i get angry about behaviour of others, i sometimes remember to ask myself if i act the same way.
The fight or flight situation leaves a third and fourth option. Freezing like a deer in the headlights, experienced it once myself. Read somewhere, that some predators only detect motion.
Anger might be expressed as (physical/verbal) violence against others. If it does not, it can turn against yourself and lead to depression.
The most healthy option i think is to accept your emotions and use your anger as motivation to change something for the better.
</addition>
Following Proverb helped me to accept my emotions:
"Treat your feelings like a guest.
Open up, attend to their needs and say goodbye when they leave."
Another useful one:
"What you fight gets stronger." - Siddhartha Gautama
It's always tricky when people talk about emotions "being wrong", especially because there are at least three different things that one can mean: (a) they're not feeling that emotion, (b) they shouldn't feel that emotion, or (c) they shouldn't take the instinctual action suggested by that emotion. A doesn't make any sense, B is occasionally true, and C is usually true. That is, sometimes your emotions are misplaced (e.g. strong animosity toward a good friend for an innocuous action - maybe you're tired or hungry?), but it's much more often the case that your emotions do signal that someone is wrong, even though the gut reaction to that emotion is inappropriate.
Like you said, emotions are messages - but they're not very contentful messages. The value of most emotional messages is little more than a "mindfulness check" that should cue you engage your thinking skills to determine what to do. Very rarely is "acting on the emotion" the right thing to do - if you're angry, the correct course of action is almost never to cuss out or punch someone.
In many cases, the emotional signals shouldn't have been sent in the first place (e.g. there's no reason for you to get angry because your best friend likes vanilla ice cream (modulo contrived edge cases, of course)), and the correct course of action is to do nothing, other than figure out why the incorrect signal got sent at all.
> Anger might be expressed as (physical/verbal) violence against others. If it does not, it can turn against yourself and lead to depression.
Agree emotions are critical to understand as they're often signals for deeper unmet needs. RAIN is a great method for understanding emotions.[1]
But sometimes, emotions are also just learned reactions, with little of value underneath. Feelings like 'I want to stay in bed' or 'I don't want to start this report' can be useful to short-circuit through habit and counter-programming with things like this mantra. Practicing these these short-circuiting habits over time can lessen future emotional reactions.
In other words, mastery over emotions and building better habits can happen in multiple ways. The body & mind are a big homeostatic machine and if you update your physical state (e.g. having written a few paragraphs, or gotten up and started a walk), the mind will realize it's somewhere else and change its reaction.
At the same time, When it takes 5 minutes minimum to deploy my code changes to my vms to test, I lose all motivation. Momentum is really the right word and a workflow is just soul sucking.
Spend that time figuring out how to change it to unit tests in your IDE, or making the deployment lighter weight.
Work on the meta-problem that makes your problem easier. After all, you've got time if the baseline is low-productivity. And the lessons learned are portable.
Not everything can be unit tested. Figuring out what ide is doing and writing a plugin for what you actually want to do.. How to maintain plugin across ide updates...it's the start of rabbit hole and may not be worth it sometimes..
Break out of the IDE then -- run your unit tests from the command line. As an added bonus, it will be much easier to troubleshoot the headless CI builds too.
You're overestimating how much control I've got over the company-wide infrastructure.
Unit tests don't really fix the problem either. I'll have integration tests that run automatically during builds either way because I want to make sure other people are not breaking my stuff and there's no real difference in time between setting it up for 1 test or 1000.
The only solution I've found so far is try to bypass as much of the company-specific infrastructure as I can during development, but that requires learning a lot of docker/k8s/helm on top of knowing the company-specific stuff well enough to know what I can ignore on top of rake libraries that ~~abstracts~~ obfuscates the infrastructure.
Learning the k8s stuff I don't mind that much because as you say it's portable, but the company specific stuff... I doubt it's even portable across the company.
5 minutes is actually on the low end. I put it more as a minimum that really disrupts my flow. Below 5 minutes is kinda tolerable... 5 minutes to 5 hours... not so much.
My favorite way when I'm not up to doing something is to merely prepare an environment for the thing I'm not going to do right now in the simplest ways. Create a new empty directory not even thinking about its name. CD into it, leave a terminal tab in that directory. Maybe I'll copy/paste a config/makefile or something and search/replace the copied name with the arbitrary directory name. And so on.
Some point along the way, I'll care. Whether it's the dumb name I picked, or some specific thing in the config/makefile I want a certain way--I've been tricked.
Also learned the same thing in my late 40s. It is surprising how many days that I would previously deem as useless (hangover, tiredness, "not in the mood", other "reasons") turn out to be really productive. All I needed is to disregard the internal excuses and start doing.
I have trouble getting consistency. I tried several methods, like you mentioned starting small, completibg small actions etc.. But I'm not able to consistently do it. It breaks when you are stuck at some problem. And in my job(legacy code base (~13yearrs), me with < 2 years experience, i find it harder to get that momentum.
My experience as well. I am often surprised how effective it is to just get started by doing anything trivial. Fix a spelling error, re-arrange a few lines to make it easier to read, and before you know it you look up and hours have passed and the problem is solved.
Alternative take: in the hiring process education is often used as a proxy for motivation, when actually it only proves that once upon a time someone was motivated long enough to get educated, but it doesn't actually say anything about their present state in terms of motivation.
A 'Do-er' is at least at present motivated, and educating them will get them to the desired combination of education+motivation in the present, even if that education is going to be by necessity a very narrow one (typically: job specific).
Being hungry for money and creature comforts also tends to be conflated with being motivated ('ambitious'), but it doesn't really align well because once financial success (for some very modest success) is attained the motivation will vanish. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it tends to confuse people who were not aware of the driving power being the outwardly visible motivation.
The movie 'Rush' has a nice bit about that, James Hunt just wants to be WDC, once. He doesn't care about anything past that point because it will give him what he wants. But until he's got it he will be super motivated.
I hired someone well educated from a Top Ivy League university but they had no motivation whatsoever. I tried my best, gave them everything they wanted (money, work style, tools, training) but they just wouldn't want to be motivated and we failed collectively. They were very smart otherwise and definitely could learn the skills.
When I am hiring, for me the biggest things are motivation, curiosity and caring for your own career. If you don't show me those traits, I am very hesitant to hire you. I meet a lot of candidates who have no idea why they applied, what they want in life for themselves but are just randomly sending their Resume hoping it sticks.
> I meet a lot of candidates who have no idea why they applied, what they want in life for themselves but are just randoming sending their Resume hoping it sticks.
Yeah, well, while I'm working on that I still need to put food on the table, so I'll apologize ahead of time for faking like I give a rats ass about a career long enough to get through the interview process.
Exactly this! I cannot believe someone is naïve enough to think total strangers will start caring about some company's progress, profits and reputation just because they are being paid minimum wage.
Sorry, literally 99% of people who are seen as "do-ers" or motivated are only putting up a show to be hired and to keep their jobs. Being hungry and homeless is a great motivator. None is genuinely excited about your business as much as you are, and if you require them to be, then pay them a CEO salary.
This doesn't make sense. There are loads of people (myself included) who are intrinsically motivated to do good work.
And not just in the tech industry. Look at all the volunteer opportunities, unpajd city boards, etc that people get themselves involved in. People can be motivated by wanting to make a difference. And yes, some software companies do in fact make products and services that make a difference in people's lives.
> Look at all the volunteer opportunities, unpajd city boards, etc that people get themselves involved in.
Positions such as these often pay in increased social status. Just because the compensation is intangible doesn’t mean it’s not real. Working at an animal shelter may well raise your status with potential partners. Working on a city advisory board will definitely get you noticed and can be a stepping board toward political office. And even an unpaid senior position at a well-funded and prestigious foundation results in a great deal of clout.
> Working at an animal shelter may well raise your status with potential partners.
This sounds like an unhealthily cynical view to hold. I certainly hope it does not come as a surprise to hear that some people just genuinely do love animals. Not everything in life boils down to running laps on a hedonic treadmill.
It's not always social status, especially for people who volunteer but don't tell anyone. It can often be ideology and principles, from people who want to pay a favour forward (e.g. if they received help from the past).
I do agree there are other intangibles, though (sense of community with fellow volunteers, sense of freedom by doing something exceptional, work experience). These intangibles are good things (mutual benefit).
Some people also benefit without expectation of reward. There could be an argument of self-interest (e.g. to feel good or alleviate some past wrong), but in practice, it makes sense to just thank these people for their actions without worrying about their motivations (which they might not even definitively know).
The same often applies at work though. Someone who is known as the top 'x' in their company/field gains social status among that peer group, if they're interested in that sort of thing. After all you spend a lot of time with work colleagues when you're at work.
To add to the other comments. That is not how everyone is wired. Some good friends of mine give everything at work and often have trouble to stop thinking about work afterwards. These people worked in shitty private sector jobs, governmental positions and other career paths that will never reward their work with richness.
I personally don't get it. It actually frustrates me a little, they are talented and could achieve real wealth if they'd cared for that. But I accept that people who just work 100% no matter what exist.
It isn't that people from Ivy League universities are unmotivated, it is that those people has so many options that unless you are a top company you almost surely wont see them unless there is something wrong with them.
> When I am hiring, for me the biggest things are motivation, curiosity and caring for your own career. If you don't show me those traits, I am very hesitant to hire you.
Yet you just explained that you hired this person just because they had a Top Ivy on their resume. You might not repeat that mistake but you did do it once.
> I meet a lot of candidates who have no idea why they applied, what they want in life for themselves but are just randomly sending their Resume hoping it sticks.
The problem is that finding something isn't optional, so when your dream doesn't work out, it is just a matter of finding what else might accept you.
So many people, when asked about what they want from life, are essentially asking back, "what are my options?"
I have to shake my head when reading some of the replies the parent poster is getting. It is sobering to see so many who have no love for their profession and are trapped into staying solely for money; that's a recipe for an unhappy existence, as can be seen from the bitterness evident in their words.
I personally don't care about tech and take no enjoyment out of programming. I've tried to force myself for years to do side projects and find something in here that is enjoyable. Nothing is. How much I wish I could simply alter my motivation, but no one is the master of his muse.
I don't hate programming. They money is good. Everything else I could do, would come with a serious slash to my salary. And that's just something else. Jobs that might be interesting require additional years of degrees. It's too late for that.
What remains? It is hard to keep the motivation going. I wish it wouldn't be like this. I want to give 100%, each day. But I can't force myself to care. I tried. Let's see how long I can go on like this.
This is probably running into a different issue, which is most people have a finite amount of programming (or intense concentration work) in them per day. For me that's 3-4 hours, for most creative people that number is pretty similar. Beyond that you get vastly diminishing returns and worse trying to do a "side project" involves a massive context shift that is mentally exhausting in of itself.
Once I accepted that after 3-4 hours (well realistically about 6 when you factor in breaks) I'm effectively done for the day my stress levels went way down.
Meh, there are in-betweens. I neither love my profession nor feel trapped by it. It's a decent and low-stress way to make good enough money such that I can do things I actually love, such as spending time with my wife and son, or playing sports. If I were rich I wouldn't do any coding, and I doubt there are many in the profession who would. Not because I hate coding, it's fine, I just like other things more.
You can have love for the profession and no especially additional love for the job you apply for and perhaps get hired to. I’ve settled before like that, and as long as the people you work with and for are open enough, you can make it more into the job you want.
Many people wouldn't be at their jobs if they weren't paid to do them. Many people don't do what they do out of love for the work.
"On the whole, American workers are generally satisfied with their jobs. Even so, a significant share (30%) view the work they do as “just a job to get them by,” rather than a career or a steppingstone to a career. Views about work are sharply divided along socio-economic lines, and the sense of vulnerability is most acute among workers with no college education and lower-than-average household incomes."
"In addition to job satisfaction, the survey explored what American workers’ jobs mean to them – are their jobs central to who they are, or are they mainly just a source of income? About half (51%) of employed Americans say they get a sense of identity from their job, while the other half (47%) say their job is just what they do for a living. And about half (51%) of all U.S. workers say they view their job as a career, while 18% see it as a steppingstone to a career and 30% say it’s just a job to get them by."
Sure, that's true for the general population but I don't think that applies here. While software isn't quite as demanding as say law or medicine, it still takes quite a bit of effort and skill to become truly proficient in our profession. Anyone talented enough to succeed at building software is also talented enough to succeed at other well paying professions; it cannot be said that we didn't choose the profession we're currently employed in.
Why doesn't apply here? Just because you have the intelligence and access to education to become a well paid professional doesn't mean there's a career out there that you're going to love. And as another poster also pointed out that it's not all or nothing, there's a lot of middle ground. You can have actively chose this career without 'loving' it.
Personally I find understanding how software and technology works really interesting (I enjoy understanding how 'things' work in general). I also find programming tasks reasonable engaging, if very frustrating at times. They're not my favourite type of problem solving but it's fun. So Software is a reasonably interesting profession and it comes with good money, plenty of opportunity and lot of flexibility.
That said if I had enough money to retire I'd happily leave it and stop programming. My curiosity is largely satisfied and there are other things I'd rather spend my time doing, such as acting, running or studying one of the countless other subjects that interests me. But it's hard to impossible to make a good living doing those things so I keep working as a software engineer and do those things in my spare time. And that's fine. As I say it's moderately interesting and definitely better than most of the alternatives. And I do take pride and interest in my work. But I don't love it and while my career is up there on my priority list it's never going to be top.
The career one can be hard. I typically care more than most. I thrive in environments where what I’m doing adds value and fits my own values. I love the challenge, I love building, I love working with amazing people. I’m nearer the end of my career than beginning and I’m still not too sure what I want.
"meet a lot of candidates who have no idea why they applied, what they want in life for themselves"
I feel that in this discussion we are conflating being lost and being unmotivated - they could be highly motivated and trying every opportunity, but have no clue what they are doing.
Everyone knows why they applied, but for the benefit of employers, we have created a society in which it is not acceptable to say "I'm only here for the money, I literally do not care about your company."
Imagine there are two applicants who are equal in every way, just that one genuinely likes the job and has the same goals as the company, and the other is just there for the money. It's not hard to see why anyone would prefer the first candidate. That's the one who is motivated and will go above and beyond if required.
As a secondary effect, applicants of course notice that they are more likely to be hired if they just pretend like they care. And if everyone pretends, the one person who says they are just there for the money is at a disadvantage to everyone else.
Okay, but even without the second-order effects of signaling games, selecting for enthusiasm is a risky strategy because earnest motivation is not the only or even the most important factor in their contribution. In many cases, a competent professional who gets you the best result might be someone who gives no fucks about the business inherently but does a good job because this strategy betters their reputation (or just their value full stop to their present employer) over time and thus their expected payscale, or just happens to be good at the thing and just wants a stable paycheck.
There two major reasons this matters:
1. In many cases no amount of enthusiasm for your business is more valuable than the hard skills you need. If it were, why can't you, the founder, with enough enthusiasm to start the business in the first place, simply do everything?
2. Genuine enthusiasm is *volatile*. If someone who isn't making business decisions cares deeply about the business' stated goals, they may well take a minor pivot or a strategic choice they disagree with as a slight or even a betrayal, and that enthusiasm quickly disappears or goes negative. In contrast, your indifferent professional has transparent and predictable motivations and you can stay aligned merely by continuing to pay them enough.
Personally, I think people select for enthusiasm about the business for the same reason they might select friends who tell them how cool or attractive or smart they are, and it's a not an amazing strategy for similar reasons.
> As a secondary effect, applicants of course notice that they are more likely to be hired if they just pretend like they care. And if everyone pretends, the one person who says they are just there for the money is at a disadvantage to everyone else.
I've seen people motivate this by saying that not faking it shows you lack social skills. In the end the customer is never wrong, and when you are selling your time the customer is your manager so keep that smile up! (I hate this culture, but I adapted just like everyone else)
> genuinely likes the job and has the same goals as the company
It's impossible, unless he holds a large portion of the shares of the company. One of the goals of the company is to replace the guy with someone cheaper or find a way to no need him at all.
I could agree if you're referring to low skill or some entry level jobs. For later professional jobs, this may be true for some, but a lot of people really do have professional career interests, and all things being equal, it's normal for an employer to prefer people who want to be there for more than a paycheck.
I've had a few glimpses of what it's like to hate your job and just be there because you need or want the money, and personally, I'm motivated by never wanting to be in that position.
I'd like to propose another dimension (or perhaps something that counts as a modifier to intelligence): confidence and cowardice. I would describe myself and my high school friends as, nearly universally, clever, lazy, and terrified. The difference between those who today find themselves in successful careers and those who don't is whether or not they acquired some measure of self-confidence in the interim. (If you noticed that this implies that such a personal quality is malleable - and further considered that uncontrollable circumstances might contribute to its shaping - well, yes.)
I do think Joel has some awfully insightful things to say but:
>You should always try to have at least six people interview each candidate that gets hired
Eh. I think this mindset gets taken too literally. That is not something that most companies should be putting candidates through unless they are actually willing to pay for top end talent, and are a tech company who absolutely requires it. Especially paired with:
>Each interview should consist of one interviewer and one interviewee, in a room with a door that closes and a whiteboard. I can tell you from extensive experience that if you spend less than one hour on an interview you’re not going to be able to make a decision.
Yea, no. I am not going to spend 6 hours of my time just because your company is so indecisive, especially with this current job search environment where companies will drop you like a fucking brick and ghost you even after having used hours of your time. I can't help but think a lot of the general shittiness around the hiring process is people taking parts of this article and internalizing them religiously.
Thanks for that quote about officers, it's excellent! Indeed hardworking and stupid are dangerous. I'm not sure if clever and lazy should be put at the top, but they will often find the best solutions.
I think it's probably meaning the same type of laziness that Larry Wall talked about in his three cardinal virtues of a programmer : laziness, impatience, and hubris. The type of laziness and cleverness that will get others to do useful and important work is invaluable.
And since (according to you) the educated person was motivated too at one point, there's no guarantee that a 'do-er' will remain motivated. We also know that at one point (s)he wasn't motivated.
Furthermore, how do you even tell who is a "do-er"? How do you know that that person has the capabilities of learning the task? How much are you willing to invest in education vs. "losing" on hiring the educated person?
>but it doesn't actually say anything about their present state in terms of motivation
If you take the set of all applicants with education and the set of all applicants without, would you claim there is no difference in the distributions of 'do-er'-ness?
Yes, there definitely is - in my experience - but it actually isn't in the direction that you would probably expect it to be in. I don't know how relevant my sample is and of course the sample size is going to be somewhat reduced but in my experience the people without fall into two groups: those that are not motivated at all and those that are highly motivated but in a direction orthogonal to what the education system would expect. Everybody else gets educated normally and ends up somewhere in the middle.
So the really smart people are the high end of the educated ones and the high end of the non-educated people (and with educated I mean university degree and onwards), and between those the gap isn't all that large, it's just that there are many more of those than that there are university educated ones (at least, around me).
Now, obviously if your circle is exclusively composed of well educated people then you will come to a different conclusion, and once you go outside of tech/IT the distribution will likely be a completely different one again.
So that 'set' has many subsets with very different distributions between the subsets.
I've probably done 50 interviews and hired around 10 people. The people doing them with me and I used a decently uniform process to give all applicants the same set of quite varied questions. We also gave the interview process to a decent number of existing employees to see how an existing employee fares.
I started the process thinking education would be quite independent of performance. Our data from the process showed exactly the opposite.
Quality of education, especially at entry level, made a large difference in the process and also in the long term performance of the hires.
This question is somewhat irrelevant, considering you have more information to work from. Given the other constraints you can apply, is level of education still a useful proxy?
This only applies to entry level jobs for new grads. What else do they have to go off of? After 5-10 years they don't care about your formal education.
I think he's likely to trigger a lot of ire with this tweet. However, given what I know about his history, I think I know where this is coming from. Carmack himself did not finish school and was motivated early on to get involved in the profession of writing software despite lacking official credentials which entitled him to do so. I have a similar story and can relate. Therefore, I think what he's getting at is that it's important to just get started on something without waiting until you think you're "allowed" to. This quality of being a "doer" can stand out in colleagues. But of course there are many sides to the story. I don't think he meant to discount the others.
Update: I want to add that I think I recall being aware of figures like Carmack in my teenage years. Knowing of people like him, who were making lives for themselves by actively pursuing their interests, is I think a huge part of why I got involved in software early on in high school. It was a way for weird kids like me to have a sense of self-worth and accomplishment even if we were getting bad grades in more traditional subjects like "World History" or "Social Studies" on account of just not fitting in. And it was also at a time (in the 90s) when the economy highly valued such people going into the dot com bubble. So this tweet doesn't surprise me at all. I think the historical context I've given here probably describes Carmack's life as well and is really relevant in understanding his statement.
I'm tired of people signaling themselves as "weird" kids, it wasn't that weird to like computers, there's this fetishization of being "weird", "aspergy", "autistic", that's so tired and sad. no it doesn't make you better or smarter, it's just normal, no no one is a superstar because they were that "hacker" kid, times change, money changes focus and boom, success, it's not smarts, it's timing. and for all the kids out there, that's what I want to impart, it's not smart it's timing, ML today, bioeng the next, maybe something else in the future, maybe "social studies" will become thing once you children learn that twitch is a neural net with concurrent nodes...oops ;).
Lol...well then. Consider that it's possible that the time in history I'm talking about really was much more different than you realize. I could be wrong, but I'm assuming you didn't come of age during that time (the early to late 90s). I'm talking about when only a handful of funny people had modems or even computers. There were still many households that lacked a computer of any kind. And yes, if you were into computers, you were truly seen as different and even rather unfortunate. There wasn't even really a term for it. The term "autistic" still mostly applied to people who were almost catatonic and not interactive. It may be more or less impossible for people from the current generation of technologists to understand it. Nowadays, as you point out, the idea of being "weird" in that way has become so common place as to be a meme. That's because there's no aspect of our lives that computing has not infiltrated. I'm telling you there was a time when it was different.
That's right. It was a time when being called a nerd / geek was more of an insult.
I had to argue with my parents when purchasing a modem. They didn't understand it. Using their phone line to call other computers felt like a step not far from trouble.
Computers themselves were not discouraged. In my experience, the average adult in the early 90s saw computers as a glorified typewriter. A job would be advertised looking for 'typing skills'.
Not wanting to go outside and socialise was frowned upon.
Not true where and when I grew up (germany, in the 90s). Playing around with computers wouldn't get you any points with the ladys but it wasn't considered "weird", either.
Around 1992, it was totally normal to ask for a C64 or Amiga 500 for Christmas, if one was interested in such a thing and by 1995/96, there were only a handful of people left at school who had no access at all to a personal computer at home. By 2000, basically everyone between the age of 16 and 30 had internet at home.
Being interested in computers and wanting to learn how to program was completely and totally alien to everybody I grew up with except for a few close friends. However that was 40+ years ago so things have changed.
It's easy to feel weird as a kid with less perspective over the world. I have empathy for anyone who felt they weren't like the other kids around them for good, productive reasons. Sure, thinking interest in computers = Asperger's is an immature way to convey this. But otherwise I think it's worth celebrating whenever anyone has two-sigmas-above-average nerdy interests, why not?
that's silly, I didn't equate interest in computers with Asperger's, that would be ridiculous, it's just that people like to flaunt some amount of being on a spectrum as a badge of pride, true or not. I'm not saying it's not fun to flaunt it, but, remember, if your two sigma's below average on the physical list your out of luck, times change, power/money changes
EDIT: most human beings feel weird as a kid. That's natural, whether you hit someone with a lacrosse stick or finally learn how to use a terminal, doesn't make you any cooler. money just moves my dude.
> tired of people signaling themselves as … this fetishization of being "weird", "aspergy", "autistic", that's so tired and sad … people like to flaunt some amount of being on a spectrum as a badge of pride … doesn't make you any cooler — Avicebron (4 hours ago)
> Not all people want a deeply personal relationship with their co-workers, many would even find being forced to engage in that intrusive. Unfortunately once those bonds are formed between some members of a team, often the team dynamic is shifted weirdly as some people feel forced into the "buddy buddy system"...it's classic now and forcing it into remote work seems like a nightmare — Avicebron (14 days ago)
This completely ignores the why somebody is unmotivated.
I remember being beat down very early in my career. I took advanced math classes, could build compilers, loved embedded device work, wanted to work on more advanced things (operating system level, backend, devices, etc). The only people that would even talk to me were people that wanted web pages built. All because I wasn't fortunate enough to go to a big name school or any education beyond a BS.
Often the only motivation I had at that point was to not starve. But after working for an abusive boss and 2.5 bad companies. I was burned out, used up, and left with nearly zero motivation.
I spent the better part of the 7 years: moving for my spouse (they have a phd with limited regions to work in), helped various family members through health issues, then had a health scare of my own. Now waiting on a partner to have a surgery. After their recovered, I'll finally be getting back out there.
I'd still like to do software work on anything that isn't related to web pages. At this point, I'm not sure how to make that happen.
We do web apps so if that's a disqualifier, might not be able to help. But if you're open to web app development at a large tech company, send me an email. Your story reminds me of my own.
If your grades were good at the small name school a master's degree at a big name school might be both within reach and give you a shot at compiler and OS work.
Got some therapy, journaled a bunch. I eventually realized having an abusive boss or working for an abusive company is the same as having an abusive partner. Recovery is similar.
As for the burnout, that takes time. You have to learn when to work and when to walk away at the end of the day.
There are different challenges with moving on from an abusive work environment too. I felt gaslit in my experience, and encountered people who won't sympathize and dismiss the negative effects (while abusive romantic relationships are more understood).
In my experience, I realized I could spend a lifetime processing it and feeling bitter, or do my best to forget and let it go. It was helpful for me to change my environment and social circle, disconnect from past colleagues on social media, and change industries for a bit.
Things haven't been perfect for me, but I'm most back to where I used to be with effort and belief in myself (like 90% there, though I'm still more fragile if I make mistakes; though my current boss is particularly kind). It took a year to get mostly over it, though still unmotivated, and about a year and a half to feel recovered. To prevent it in the future, I also balance multiple projects, so my performance at work isn't as big of a deal to my identity anymore (which counterintuitively makes me better at my job).
I had a similar experience. The following was helpful for my unique situation, over the course of a year and a half:
1. I consciously decided to stop processing the past and let go. Instead, I moved on to the opportunities I currently have. I adjusted social media to remove reminders of my past workplace (including muting old colleagues). The questionable professional networking benefits wasn't worth the toll to my mindset.
2. Valuing myself a lot more wa helpful. I don't perpetuate the environment by by treating others unfairly for self-gain, but I avoid straining myself to help out others (where there's often no actual award or appreciation) unless it's mutual beneficial. I've found that a lot of people don't appreciate favours, and may even feel entitled to them from you.
3. Boundary-setting was important. This includes revealing less personal information at work (it can be used against me, though I'm trying not to take it too far) and declining overwork when I can (in a tactful, graceful way). This led to cutting off a one-sided friendship (where I was constantly asked for favours and support without receiving it back), because boundary-setting was challenged and not respected. It was painful, but ultimately helpful.
4. A shift in identity from my job to myself as a professional not tied to a workplace helped massively. I also started doing multiple projects, so negative problems at work don't affect my identity.
5. I kept up healthy habits. This includes a consistent sleep schedule, avoiding simple carbs when I can for diet, exercise, and avoiding outrage-producing information sources, like low-quality news websites and especially Reddit.
Due to additional time and focus, I started seeing someone in a fulfilling romantic relationship. I don't intend to reveal that past (I want to move on, as I'm a different person now). She's genuinely nice, too; she really enriches my life, though I'm avoiding repeating the mistake of tying my self-worth to anything external, including her. So, while perhaps I was the ideal, dedicated worker before, I'm still pretty good now, and happier with parts outside of my life.
In short: I committed to moving on and letting go of my negative past experience to reduce distractions. I then fixed personality flaws that tied my self-worth to others (by consequence, I learned boundary-setting, which counterintuitively improved my relationships). I also earned a belief in myself again, by sticking to hard but healthy habits and making good, consistent progress in developing skills I always wanted to have.
Last quick note: I got a lot of mileage from referring to "Feeling Good" by David Burns for self-treatment with CBT whenever I felt trapped by negative thoughts. "Intimate Connections" also by Burns helped me for relationship advice, which helps with enjoying the present.
I have a lot of respect for Carmack but I wish he wouldn't tweet things like this. It just feeds into confirmation bias. You could say the same thing about the work ethic of immigrants... well yes, it's self selecting. Just like the autodidacts who make careers without formal education. For the vast majority of us, an education has huge benefits. And for the hard sciences and math, it's generally just too hard to "do" without learning first.
It's always odd when people with at least a somewhat scientific world view decide they can draw broad conclusions from their extremely limited experience, especially when they start throwing around hopelessly vague, impossible to measure terms like "do-er".
It's great to share your personal experience, that's not worthless, but you gotta understand and accept the limitations of that.
The problem with this phrasing is it implies that motivation is an inherent aspect of individuals. Nobody is a do-er. Motivation is impacted by a variety of factors.
Actually there are people who are do-ers. Not everyone is wired the same.
Personally I can’t NOT do things. Regardless of if I get paid, it works out, or I even get yelled at for doing it - I fix things, pull things apart and make them better, clean things up, learn, and solve problems regardless of the discipline. If I’m not doing those things, I feel terrible. If I do those things (and the more the merrier), I feel good. I’ve built large scale engineering teams at FAANG’s and laid (inspected) foundations for buildings I’ve made myself without error - concurrently.
It pays well, if I’m smart enough to do things that provide value and most people can’t. But even if it doesn’t, I can’t help myself.
So far that includes networking, electrical (permitted, household and commercial), coding, welding, machining, commercial contracts, logging, real estate investment, piloting small aircraft, rock climbing, concrete work (inspected, residential and commercial), fathering 2 healthy strong and well adjusted boys, framing, hydraulic engineering and water delivery design, teaching and mentoring many strong leaders, bespoke financial instruments, and many more. All at a level equivalent or exceeding highly rated professionals or successful folks I’ve worked with or partnered with. It’s weird, but it is what it is. I can’t help myself, and it feels almost like a disease sometimes. I did El Capitan (Mescalito) solo aid in my early 20’s for my first big wall, ‘off the couch’.
It causes friction because either people don’t believe it, or once they do they can’t understand it - sometimes they even get angry or resentful. I don’t do it because I’m trying to show off. It just is who I am.
I'd be interested to hear the perspective of the people left in your wake. The cost of engaging with a strong-willed "do-er" is what happens when someone, by the do-er's measure, fails to keep up (or, god forbid, gets in the way). At that point, the do-er's productive ability has to be weighed against their capacity (or track record) for coercion or abuse. Steve Jobs comes to mind. If you've personally received pushback or resentment, it may be less out of misunderstanding of, or a lack of appreciation for, your ability, and more to do with your having been an asshole.
But that may just be my own trauma speaking.
In any case, I think a zen approach is often undervalued, especially per productivity and creativity. "Do" is, after all, a verb, not a noun; a performance, not a crafted object. It's one thing to be proud of one's manifest accomplishments, but to define oneself as a "do-er"...? One can "do" a great many things, including "damage" and "harm."
I for one would really like to see more action-bias in the world about me, & less zen / uninvested / amotivated.
Computers are fascinating as heck & we have so much to do. Abiding by the non-weird people who don't see this as the most interesting, fascinating, richly-interesting field, playing by their rules, giving them endless comfort space & grace, being zen about it all... it's boring. It's less than I want to see for humankind.
I find it hard to figure out how the two sides tolerate each other better. Your own phrasing of "I'd be interested to hear the perspective of the people left in your wake" is how I think the overwhelming amount of people feel & see motivated individuals, is what gets thought about them. I try to be sympathetic & helpful & meet people where they want, but I feel like the "normal" behavior to deal with weird people is to be silently pissy & angry & unhelpful & isolate them, to hold them in contempt of normality for their urges to be a bit extra. I don't see a lot of bidirectional sympathy, a lot of recognition that mismatched motivations are a two way street, are a bidirectional issue. And I see a lot of assumptions that the extra behavior is almost always problematic & troublesome.
I consistently got top ratings from everyone I worked with as a leader and manager, and the issues I mention have been rare - and generally from those I’ve not wanted to be around because I didn’t agree with their approach or didn’t like their ethics. If that answers your question. Some of
It is from clearly great pain they have been in, in the past, that had nothing to do with me, but was funneled in my direction when I did not fail like they wanted me to.
And I work hard to ensure what is done is the best that can be, and others don’t get hurt. Which, interesting enough, does involve a lot of meditation.
It really doesn't, considering the proposed metric was "perspective of people left in your wake" and not "ratings from colleagues, as related by you." A hypothetical aimed less at considering what people think of you and more of what people think of themselves after having encountered you, it's a matter of who is being centered in such a meditation.
You sound like a great self-marketer. What I've learned is that great self-marketers are fun to be around and work with as long as the reality distortion field is up; however, the risk one takes is in someday finding oneself outside the field, which is a life-altering and frequently psyche-shattering experience. The do-er generally does not care, if they even notice at all; convinced of the virtuousness of their ethos, they're too busy "doing." (Though, to be frank, there is some schadenfreude-tinged consolation in that that often includes "doing" themselves into legal or ethical trouble, or a divorce.)
I'm sorry if that's harsh. I've seen careers destroyed and dreams deferred by people who speak like you speak. Maybe you're different.
You’re welcome to talk to them if you run across them, somehow. I tend to be overly honest, and pretty much the opposite of self marketing.
The only reason I replied here was because I felt it important that folks know where Carmack might be coming from.
The only legal trouble I’ve ever been in, the other side filed to settle and dismiss (which I was ok with, despite having a strong claim for civil damages into the 6 figures on them), because once I pulled my records for the court it was clear they had committed at least one crime of felony perjury - hard to prove, but what I had certainly seemed to
show they had met the bar - and likely 4-5 other identifiable crimes while doing this including potentially criminal conspiracy - for which evidence would
be visible in discovery.
Never had a complaint at work filed against me, never even been questioned by the police or detained except for some speeding tickets a decade ago.
I have had to file criminal complaints against a few people over the years when they persisted in clearly criminal acts despite being confronted about it. I wish I hadn’t needed to, but I made sure to provide a comprehensive set of evidence to the investigators, and they all were seen through.
Also, with projects, I’ve always worked my ass off to make sure we’re persuing solid projects that aren’t pie in the sky BS, and if something isn’t working out, people are able to land well in other teams. I’ve never had to lay people off or fire someone because something blew up, even when it wasn’t my doing. I have been on the receiving end of it happening, which is part of why I care so much to not do that to others I suppose.
It has really not been easy to do so, but I put in the work, because it matters to me.
Replying defensively was a surefire way to prove that you'd missed the point. I'll give that you truly embody the salesman ethos, at least. Unfortunately, that includes a tendency to try to spin potential negatives into positives. What that means is that anyone aware that you are attempting to "sell" cannot trust your characterization of events. And so, I do not.
You know the beauty of not actually selling? That’s ok if you don’t believe or care or whatever.
The only reason I even bother is I guess a version of the whole ‘what if you could go back in time and tell yourself something when you were a kid’.
I honestly had no clue of what was even possible, or what it even meant to be congruent with ones values, and it took a lot of pain, mistakes, and learning to figure it out.
> So far that includes networking, electrical (permitted, household and commercial), coding, welding, machining, commercial contracts, logging, real estate investment, piloting small aircraft, rock climbing, concrete work (inspected, residential and commercial), fathering 2 healthy strong and well adjusted boys, framing, hydraulic engineering and water delivery design, teaching and mentoring many strong leaders, bespoke financial instruments, and many more
That seems like extremely useful wiring; it's often an uphill climb for me. Do you have any sense of what is going on under the hood? Why do you feel good if you do these things / bad if you don't? Did this come factory installed, or did things happen in your life which set this in place?
Also, do you feel this trait has made your life happy?
I happen to know two people who have a similar trait. One, I learned, did it to distract themselves from inner demons. I don't know the other well, but they seem to enjoy themselves much more than the first.
Hard to say frankly. Some of it is learned, some pre wired. When I was about 11, and at a friends house, his Dad came home in a rage and started beating him. I intervened, stood up to him (despite him being 2+ ft taller and about 120 lbs bigger than I was at the time and in a raging fury), and made him back down. I remember calculating the odds at the time he would snap and kill me vs back off at the time, and toeing the line I know I would likely get away with to protect my friend. I also remember looking directly into his eyes with cold fury as he raged. My friends Mom talked to my Mom afterwards because she was worried I would get myself killed. My mom made sure to let them know if the father ever did anything like that again, the Sheriff’s would be visiting and not in a friendly way. Both of us have always been that way.
I wouldn’t describe my life as easy - but it has been easier than a great many, and the traumas I’ve been exposed to I’ve handled better than most near as I can tell from this, and haven’t been made worse by it. I haven’t ever really enjoyed easy for the sake of easy?
If and when I feel that I pushed and did what I could, as hard as I could, that feels, at worst, ok. Usually even good? If I made a difference, did something I did not know or others did not know was possible, or helped someone in need and made a difference - that is even better. It is often hard to know the results of ones actions, but I do the best I can. Sometimes, you’re not allowed to know. During my EMT clinical rotations, I held the hand of and calmed an older man with obstructive stroke as they attempted to (and failed) to stent him, as I was the only one with the right type of blood pressure measuring equipment, and I wonder sometimes how he did. He was very scared, and rightfully so - but we aren’t allowed to follow up. His story is one of many I’d like to know, but never will.
When I don’t do the best I can, it feels like I’m wasting my limited time here, and that feels terrible, because I know often what could be. The further I diverge, or even worse, if I don’t live my values - being honest, working hard to make the right thing happen for everyone, learning and pushing myself to grow, facing harder truths or working to improve from mistakes or weaknesses I’ve discovered - the more it bothers me - at first, like a mosquito in the back of my mind, then like a knife in the gut if I refuse to listen.
When I live in line with my values, take care of what is important to me, that is - the right thing. It feels good. Even if it is brutally or emotionally hard work, it feels right, I sleep well, and I’m ready to go the next day.
Very interesting. I think I understand where you're coming from, and also why this is trait is not common.
The values you place focus on are particularly well developed, and it's helpful to see how important they are to you. I tend to default to a goal orientation, with values mostly "implied in" through choices of goals at various levels. I'm going to think about how I might use some of these ideas in my life. Thanks for taking the time!
I’m glad it’s helpful to you. It has taken time to understand - and the single most valuable part, if anything, I’d recommend is spending the time to meditate and understand yourself and how you’re wired, so you can understand and better live in a way that aligns with your values.
The closer you get, the easier it gets, and the better the feedback loop works. It takes time, and never really ends.
I'm in the same group as you. I'm completely unable to keep my stupid mouth shut if I see people doing stupid shit or being inefficient.
This got me promoted at my last company, which was fun for a while, I could actually change the stupid processes and ways of working - but it wasn't my thing in the long run.
Now I'm working in a smaller team as a normal coder and still can't keep my trap shut - but at least people are a lot more experienced and I've got less stuff to complain about =)
When I was younger, I did that a lot. And being around people who are more experienced is a great place to be in general, as it helps to learn!
I learned over time a lot about structural incentives and the environmental and emotional reasons why people do things (including myself), and it’s helped me at least in figuring out how to make the right thing happen more often, instead of causing more friction by pointing out that clearly the right thing is not happening instead. And how to avoid places where their values and mine don’t align, and so I’d just end up constantly trying to swim against the current.
Not sure if it helps - it took time to learn (and prioritize) the mentoring and guiding skills and how to avoid the folks and situations who are real problems.
> Nobody is a do-er. Motivation is impacted by a variety of factors.
Many people are motivated by the satisfaction of getting things done and working together with others toward accomplishing something.
There are many people who are motivating more or less by doing. The people who would still be coding in their spare time if programming jobs paid minimum wage simply because they enjoy doing it.
Counterintuitively, you usually have to pay those people more because they're usually in the highest demand.
While you're right that motivation isn't purely an inherent trait of the individual, it is certainly a factor. The old nature vs nurture (or circumstance) debate. The answer is usually a mix of both.
There's a neurochemical component to it for sure. Motivation is a complicated process that takes place in the brain, and can be influenced by genetics, lifestyle, and drugs.
Some people's brains are just wired from the beginning to be more of a Do-er. Some people gain that skill through practice or drugs, and some people learn to Do in spite of a brain that seems to be constantly fighting against that.
Motivation for a particular thing is also highly dependent on your material circumstances. I ski a lot more living by the mountains than I did when I lived two hours away. I ski a lot less than I did before I had kids.
Agreed, and key to both job negotiations and many other situations is to find out what motivates the other party to do as they do, even if it seems to be aligned with your own interests, if the motivation is a different one then that may spell trouble down the road.
Part of the problem finding these people is they probably aren't looking to work for you. They know their resume isn't going to pass your assumptions. So instead of applying to jobs they're never be considered for they're out trying to do something instead.
I tend to think of "educated" as meaning "having done this before", while do-er is someone who will maintain motivation.
Someone who thrives on novelty will be an uneducated-doer at the start of a project, then convert to an educated-apathetic after completing it. They won't be inspired to do the same thing again because it's not novel. But while it is novel, you can bet they will dedicate a lot of time to it.
Someone who thrives are familiarity will start as an uneducated-apathetic. They will get frozen due to not knowing what to do. But with guidance they can be taught what to do, then will go on to be an educated-doer. These people are happy to keep doing the same projects over and over again. They like what they know.
Most of us fall somewhere in the middle. But I'm sure most of us have worked with both types: the hyper-focused person who works 80 hours a week to get some cool PoC out the door; and the "stick to the process we have in place, please" type. Both are valuable in certain situations, and a liability in others. Carmack and Torvalds appear to be the first kind of person -- granted, I've never met them -- but they do seem to like to build amazing things, then hand them over to someone else to maintain.
I know lots of successful devs who are the latter. They crank out the same kind of code for clients project after project, and will happily work with tools like Wordpress because that's what they know and it makes them money.
Everyone knows that it's our (old people) job to say "It can't be done!"
Younger folks are supposed to be "boundary pushers," because they don't know that it can't be done. They keep trying, until they give birth to beautiful unicorns.
Has nothing to do with education, and everything to do with age and [lack of] experience.
Disrupt! FTW!
At least, that's what they tell me, while dissing my experience.
The horn on the baby is fully formed and while coming "out", a majority of the time it kills the mother and in turn dies without proper care. Only a very small percentage of unicorn mothers survive and in turn the babies. This is why unicorns are rare ;)
If a CTO asks me to do something I think is initially infeasible, that’s my opportunity to try my best to figure it out not my free pass to sit and complain about what I was assigned to do.
If it really is infeasible it’s a win win. Either I figure out how to do something nobody else could have done or I end up giving the next person tasked to take a swing a lot of info about what doesn’t work and maybe they figure it out.
you are the person I hire. I will often know there are a great many unknowns. I also may know it's not possible. But the attempt often yields its own value. Also you can very often sell a close approximation of the actual impossible thing.
John Carmack works on cutting edge technology, so he embarks on things that are already difficult and the answer is not known ahead of time. Now if you are talking about deadlines, then sure. It can be intuited if the deadline is unreasonable. There are problems out there where the answer isn't known or even close to being known without significant effort. A "Do-er" in the case is valuable because they are willing to go the distance to try things. Though I will say, its unclear why an educated person cannot also be a Do-er. Those are two independent variables IMO. I would say I'm a Do-er and I got educated so I could "do" more.
I am reminded of one of my favourite sitcoms - Blackadder
(shortly after burning Dr Johnson's only manuscript of the Dictionary, and realising it will take ten years to re-create):
"No, I love the dictionary, and would like to have my manservant Baldrick read it. Unfortunately it will take him about ten years to learn to read, so please leave it here."
Also easier to convince someone ignorant of the problem domain that they have an adequate understanding of the problem domain, than to convince someone with an comprehensive understanding of the problem domain that the problem is solvable and worth investing effort into.
I am increasingly of the opinion that there is little difference between doing and learning. In fact I would argue that anyone who thinks you can learn without doing is simply wrong.
No, I have no opinion about picking people. What I do have is the notion that it's very easy to convince yourself that you know when you just have theory. (I have a physics degree, and that seems to come with the territory - there is an XKCD cartoon, of course, that lampoons the physicist considering some long-standing problem in biology or chemistry and believing that the idea they just had after 2 minutes would be somehow novel or useful.)
Theory is great, and opens a lot of possibilities. But until you pull out the soldering iron, or the compiler, or the hammer and saw, and make mistakes, you can't really say you know a thing. At best, you know how to start.
Are you saying you learned nothing in your physics degree? You learn different things when you do stuff like soldering, but you still learn things when you practice math and theoretical problems.
The main value of a degree is that basically nobody learn those things properly on the job. So after a few years in industry the person with a degree now knows both theory and practice, while those who just worked only knows the practice and has a glaring lack of theory. And theory is extremely valuable, modern society cannot function without having a lot of people who understands the theory well. Not everyone needs it but some do.
This is why I don't like when bigco's interview process discounts candidates' open source contributions; it's the only proof of someone being a "do-er!"
As an example, it's pretty hard to fake that you're a top contributor to an open source project.
Open source contributions aren't discounted, they are treated just like any other development experience you have. A multi year effort at a job receives a few seconds worth of attention as they read the few lines you put in your resume and helps you get hired at higher levels. Open source gets similar levels of attention per level of effort expended by you, if it is a hobby project you spent a few hundred hours on then that is as relevant as a job you stayed a month at, ie not relevant at all unless the project is successful and headed by you.
This is an incredibly silly thing to write: an average Joe has no working knowledge of psychology and no ability to motivate themselves, let alone anyone else.
How could you motivate the 'unmotivated' if, at most companies, employees won't have an honest conversation with their manager about their or the firm's problems? That's step 1 of psycology discussions.
The statement could be true of false, I feel this entire thread is the blind leading the blind
Carmack hit the nail on the head again. In high school, I had lots of incredibly smart friends who all turned their nose up at the idea of learning how to program. The only person I knew who seemed interested was a sophomore who was retaking his freshman math class. Despite that, I humored him and taught him the basics of Linux one afternoon. The next week when I saw the kid, he was talking about an FTP server he had set up to share movies with his family.
I still get mad about it, because even though I was the one who taught him, I can't help but feel like I've never done anything as cool as that. I most certainly could, but the whole idea jades me and sends me back to the documentation I'm pouring over. Another good example is the "nerds vs hippies" generalization that people like to make: half the world's programmers are immobilized by choice, while the other half is motivated by blindness. Only together can they achieve great things.
In one of the other forums I hang out on, people come in all the time asking if programming is a good way to make tons of money. These people typically dabble for a little bit, get bored, and move on. The ones who just like to mess around, to play with programming, they flourish.
> I still get mad about it, [...] never done anything as cool as that.
Quite the contrary, you should feel proud. IMHO, the real metric of success in life is not what you have achieved, but what your "students" have achieved, so in that metric you're the boss!
As a mediocre frontend dev, this hits hard. I bought a bunch of texts to up my DS&A and college level math skills as I'd like to eventually be able to excecute on 3D animation in the browser, but the books end up sitting on my desk as I consider I'm too old/there're too many people who _do_ have these skills already, etc.
What sort of 3D animation do you want to do? If you're talking about shaders, you might be doing yourself a disservice with the bottom-up approach.
In my opinion, learning to use math functions as tools rather than having a deep understanding of how they work is an equally valid approach. I know several great WebGL developers who really aren't very good at math.
Consider the following definitions of the dot product:
A) Algebraically, the dot product is the sum of the products of the corresponding entries of the two sequences of numbers. Geometrically, it is the product of the Euclidean magnitudes of the two vectors and the cosine of the angle between them. These definitions are equivalent when using Cartesian coordinates. In modern geometry, Euclidean spaces are often defined by using vector spaces. In this case, the dot product is used for defining lengths (the length of a vector is the square root of the dot product of the vector by itself) and angles (the cosine of the angle of two vectors is the quotient of their dot product by the product of their lengths).
or
B) The dot product takes two vectors as inputs, and returns a value of 1.0 if they're pointing the same direction, -1.0 if they're pointing in opposite directions, and 0.0 if they're perpendicular (as long as they're unit vectors of equal length). This function can be used for diffuse lighting calculations (i.e. is the light direction facing the same way as the surface?), checking if a point is in front of another point, etc.
In my opinion, the second definition is much more useful for someone interested in 3D on the web, but it's something you won't find in math textbooks.
This is perhaps where I go wrong, as I assume it's 'all the same thing'. I currently work on a web app that provides an editing interface for 2D animation with DOM objects (so, rectangles), so I have a notion of using matrices for camera transforms but the extension into 3D animation seems like another planet. I get what you're saying with the tool perspective, but I'm usually nervous about "how do I fix something if something breaks".
In the past when I've spoken of what I work on with friends of friends who're professionals in other fields, and I'd frequently be asked about my 3D animation skills as they had some business idea they wanted to execute on. This experience was primarily my motivation to looking further into 3D rather than say gaming so gun to my head 3D modeling and editing would be the first stop.
So, it seems to me that if you already do 2D animation, then figuring out 3D should be something you almost think of as guaranteed. Like it's inevitable that you'd get it right if you put in the time, and then you just make some estimate of like, hmm, maybe 6 months, maybe 3 months, but I'm sure to have figured it out by then.
But I also think that this mindset is something that needs to be learned. Maybe it can only be learned by successfully achieving enough new skills adjacent to things you know. So doing so lets you gain the confidence you'll always figure it out given enough time, and then also maybe gives you a kind of mental pattern of ways to successfully do so.
Never measure yourself by others. Compare yourself to who you were yesterday. You'll always be happier with yourself than you were yesterday and eventually you'll look up and realize someone is looking up to you.
This is especially relevant now as we have instant exposure to the best of the best of any field simply by opening a social media app.
3D demand is only growing because browsers haven’t been able to handle it until recently.
Anecdotally, I develop webgl and the tooling is meh. Far from figured out and even harder if you want to port to React Native too.
As far as math, some is required. But mostly understanding the relationship between position, velocity and acceleration for animations. As well as sin cos and tan for viewport and triangles.
Don’t give up. Age doesn’t matter. Do a little a day.
Luckily, the math for rudimentary 3d is pretty accessible and well documented. There are tons of quality libraries out there for doing linear transformations, so you likely won't need to learn the nuts & bolts unless you really want to. As a bonus, working in 3d is the best way to build an intuition for a lot of linear algebra subjects.
Just keep looking for different niches until you find one that intrigues you enough to get into it without thinking about money. Maybe that niche isn’t even programming.
If we assume doers as being goal-oriented, then I can see it being easier to educate them in ways to help them get closer to their goals faster and more efficiently. On the other hand, someone who doesn't really care about the goal, isn't going to care as much about getting there sooner or in a better fashion.
That said, I've found myself in both camps on various projects. When you're working on something where the end result is really exciting, it makes a huge difference on you and your team. It's exhilarating. On the flip side, projects were you don't care about the end result, are really brutal to work through. You just work for the paycheck. Any sort of educating about how to do things better feels particularly pointless.
It is also very easy to turn a "do-er" into someone unmotivated by ignoring or discounting their experience, knowledge, and effort. You should also consider if you're really "educating a do-er," or engaging in some form of nepotism.
The confluence of these two notions is at a sort of induced early blooming in potential workers and thinkers, where simply being chosen for extrinsic support and attention is a better predictor of outcomes than actual or initial ability. That scares people because it doesn't just fly in the face of meritocracy, but questions it at a fundamental level.
He's a very smart guy but I expect the net result of his work in this area to be basically zero. Doesn't sound like he has the background for it, and the task is genuinely huge.
Doing involves a lot of implicit knowledge that reading frequently fails to cover. There's a density of information in doing that reading sometimes lacks.
I would say there is no way to 100% cover with reading what you need to learn on the job. Also there is no way to cover some concepts with 100% on the job training (much harder to make a HS grad a petroleum engineer by just throwing them on a platform in the gulf without any formal education).
You have to have some implicit knowledge of how things work in order first...but that doesn't always come from formal education.
The challenges are compounded when two people come from very different experiences. The same words mean different things to them and then instead of fostering the transfer of knowledge, "the words get in the way."
I suspect this is a root cause of a lot of social and political friction. Doing or showing is sometimes the only hope of getting past that.
This is why most if not all trades have apprenticeships. You have to know what to do and all see what to do...otherwise you could screw something up because you misinterpreted the instructions or design.
> Can you educate a person who lacks the skills for what you need, but is willing to put lots of effort and determination?
But will that motivation remain once they're over the excitement of learning? You have no guarantees that by the time the Do-er is educated they will still be motivated.
> Can you motivate an educated person that has the skills for what you need to act on them with lots of effort and determination?
The implication of the tweet is that this is "harder", but I don't like the word "harder" here, what does it mean? That it will take longer? That it will require more effort on your part? That it is more likely to fail?
Alternatively, hire a motivated and educated person?
If someone is a motivated Do-er, why can't they motivate themselves to go through education? That also confuses me, you say you're motivated, but don't want to put the time and effort to learn?
Basically, I think this whole "Do-er" and "educated" dichotomy assumption is BS. I think it be more apt to talk about "passion" versus "just a job that pays my bills".
If you expect someone to go above and beyond on the job, without you motivating them to do so through actual benefits and compensation (like better pay, bonuses, etc.), you better make sure you found someone passionate enough about the task itself to be motivated to do so purely based on what the task is.
I don't know, honestly in my experience, some do-ers just couldn't cut it, some things are hard and you need people with the talent, not just the motivation. That's because I think some do-ers are also "shortcut takers", they tend to skip really putting in the work of deep understanding, and if your problem requires that, and they always try to skip that part, their efforts just won't provide ROI.
Meanwhile, a non-motivated educated person might just take longer as they're not putting as much effort on a daily basis, but they can still make progress.
But it depends on the task and the understanding required for it. Lots of task actually benefit from shortcuts, you don't need a major for most programming tasks, you don't even need any understanding of algos, data-structures, hardware, OS, distributed systems, math, etc. A lot of task you just need very simple knowledge of a framework and just put in the time to try a few things until it works, google the answers, etc.
So I'm assuming here by "do-er" we mean someone who doesn't bother learning anything unless the task at hand requires them too, and is also going to put constant effort and energy into the task on a daily basis. And this will always be more optimal in the total time spent learning/doing ratio, but if presented with a difficult task, you don't know if the do-er will be able to learn what's needed, because they have no cred that tells you that they are someone who can or can't learn such complicated things. That's where education comes in, you already know the person knows complicated stuff or was able to learn it.
I like this punchy summary, it's been in the back of my head in a more wordy fashion for a long time now when it comes to hiring. I used to do technical interviews (nowhere near the scale and diligence of the big players though), and I tended to gloss over a lot of details, that is, there wasn't so much a "scoring checklist", instead I looked for traits like curiosity and enthusiasm. Our technical assessment included working with XML and JSON; early on (early-to-mid 2010's) a lot of people said "I've never worked with JSON before", later on it was "I've never worked with XML before".
Some just gave up before finishing the assignment and didn't show up to the interview at all.
I think the most interesting hire we did from our technical interviews was someone who solved in a modern version of J2EE, years after Spring had become the 'de facto' standard as a response to J2EE itself. But Spring became that thing it swore to destroy, and the J2EE solution looked pretty elegant.
"We learned quickly that the most important predictor of success is determination. At first we thought it might be intelligence. [...] There are plenty of people as smart as Bill Gates who achieve nothing." by Paul Graham
Had my share of educated, but unmotivated people I've had to work with. They often have the skill of passing classes, but not other things. It seems like they don't know what a job is, or care to know.
On the other hand, some of the best people I've worked with in software engineering were never officially trained for it.
Taking uni courses later in life, it's because the educated are taught in a very long, boring, and ineffective manner. They believe that's how good education happens because that's what the "experts" do. Turns out that one Khan Academy video is a better instructor than an hour with the math professor here. Students show up just to complete the homework, then forget it, because it's not relevant. Then the uni's pile on wholey unnecessary classes so they can claim to be "elite" and "well rounded", which drains the knowledge relevant to your work even further.
Effective education will happen once we remove federal funding from universities. No more administrative cruft, no more extra general classes to pad coffers, no more relying on tenure to excuse poor quality education.
Partially depends on how skilled you are at educating and at motivating.
Tech is a very thing-oriented and idea-oriented line of work, and motivating others is a people-oriented task. You need to be inclined toward knowing other people and understanding what makes them tick. Then you can show them connection between that and the work you're doing.
There's no reason one person can't be good at all of that, but the field attracts people who are good at the thing-oriented and idea-oriented stuff since that's the main need.
I'd rather hire a hard worker than someone just motivated. It is laughably easy to kill someones drive and motivation (see burnout), where a hard worker is still going to put forward their best effort regardless of how they feel about the work they are doing.
But if you are a big company it that can burn through people, it might be better to hire the motivated as they tend to put in free extra hours, where as a hard workers tend to quit at quittin time and go do something else.
> My experience has been that it is easier to educate a Do-er than to motivate the educated
So, if someone wants to do something to give that person tools to achieve it will be productive.
If someone does Not want to do something it is very difficult to talk them into doing it.
Makes sense. But I do not know in what context this is discussed our what is the supposed implications.
I agree. It really only suggests that incentives are more important than current skill/information.
a) someone has an incentive to do something, but knows not how
b) someone is very agreeable or pliant in their personality, and is willing to carry out instructions if they don't already know how
c) someone's incentives are not well aligned to do the thing, or are not agreeable/pliant enough to do it anyway, but knows how to do it
If I know how to set up and administer a mail server, under c) I won't do it if there are no incentives (e.g. pay). If I need a mail server, but don't know how to do it, as under a) I will pay someone to do it, or to teach me.
b) is probably quiet and long-suffering, but may never understand the whys and wherefores.
So incentives are probably more important than analyzing things in terms of "doers" vs. "non-doers". Could have implications for hiring policies -- less important that candidate does not have 5 years of Frobnitz framework experience, more important to provide an incentive for the candidate to become proficient.
But I think this was not the point. He said "read what you love until you love to read" which sounds like Stockholm Syndrome. So, I don't really think he was saying anything deeper than "follow your bliss", unfortunately.
This is similar to something he said in an interview long ago: "I
think the ability to ship a product is far more important because someone who’s not very creative can have little bouts of creativity, but someone who’s not very productive doesn’t have a bout of productivity and
ship a product. You just have to grind it out."
God, Twitter sucks. I can't even navigate to Carmack's profile (https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack) from the tweet without hitting a sign-in block. I had to copy the URL and then paste it into my browser.
Aside from the fact that the two are not mutually exclusive but rather fit a DE,D!E,!DE,!D!E pairing resulting in a higher number of non-doer (!D) educated (E) people in industry, the statement is quite on point. Being a doer implies that you will by definition get more out of an education.
Is this really useful, or another rationalization for choosing the less educated option, believing they are easier motivated? It is a grand generalization. As an accomplished do-er with multiple degrees, would I be filtered out via this thinking?
This is about regimen, this is about stamina, this is about sticktoitiveness; and if you don't want it, you don't need it, you'll never. And I mean never.
The Grit article on Wikipedia mentions persistence and tenacity and stick-to-it-tiveness as roughly synonymous; and that grit may not be that distinct from other Big Five personality traits, but we're not about to listen to that, we're not going with that, because Grit is predictor of success.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grit_(personality_trait)
To the original point,
> In psychology, grit is a positive, non-cognitive trait based on an individual's perseverance of effort combined with the passion for a particular long-term goal or end state (a powerful motivation to achieve an objective). This perseverance of effort promotes the overcoming of obstacles or challenges that lie on the path to accomplishment and serves as a driving force in achievement realization. Distinct but commonly associated concepts within the field of psychology include "perseverance", "hardiness", "resilience", "ambition", "need for achievement" and "conscientiousness". These constructs can be conceptualized as individual differences related to the accomplishment of work rather than talent or ability.
> That's because the educated don't want to just "do" , they want to be successful at it.
I've actually observed the opposite. For a non-insignificant number of people, it seems like their university degree is seen primarily as a piece of paper that allows them to demand a high wage while actively avoiding mental or physical exertion.
To be fair, a lot of folks get degrees in part to avoid the sorts of jobs that require physical exertion, which have traditionally been low-skill jobs. I'm not so sure it is true much anymore, considering that a business degree often gets your a retail management job. A fair amount of those store managers unload the truck along with others.
Aside from MBAs (and even of those, the more prestigious among them) after undergraduate $some_profession, when has 'a business degree' ever led to much significantly better than 'a retail management job' on average?
The only problem if there is one IMO is that everyone is so encouraged/socially pressured into university, that even in the absence of any intellectual curiosity or merit in a particular field they must go. So of course certain programmes or universities get saddled with poor 'retail management' (or worse!) metrics.
There is a stigma against not pursuing undergraduate study (ever increasingly far down the socio-economic ladder) and also against having working to lower-middle class jobs with a degree! We can't have it both ways! If so many people should be post-nominally lettered, then naturally so many jobs should be staffed by graduates.
> a piece of paper that allows them to demand a high wage while actively avoiding mental or physical exertion
I’d argue that the piece of paper is more for a semi-secure livable wage than a high wage, with or without physical exertion. From my anecdotal subgroup, I’ve yet to meet a person who expects (let alone: hopes for) high wages (above $25/hr) as a result of their degree.
Ooooh yeah. After being in national level sports teams, high-performing bands, I took up swing dancing as a hobby. I was garbage at it. After 5 years I'm approximately mediocre at best. Took me a very long time to come to terms with being not at all talented at something. But it's been a wonderful journey of meeting people, humility and learning how to learn something totally new again. I doubt I'll ever be great, but I have no plans on stopping (global pandemic aside).
There are also now a wide range of surrogate activities for doing that come with way less risk of failure than doing: planning the doing, managing the doing, strategizing about doing, ...
Not everyone likes taking risks and dealing with failures (and there will always be some - even if it us just on the way to success).
You can try this yourself -- the next time you're feeling demotivated, start with the smallest amount of tiny measurable action. If you can't get out of bed, move your fingers, shake your head, work your way up to standing up, walking, leaving your house, and very slowly building momentum.
If you're procrastinating about work, start with opening up a terminal, launch your editor, write one tiny snippet of code that just compiles, add another snippet, build momentum.
You'll find yourself making excuses, telling yourself that none of this matters, or that you're too tired, or that you're not in the mood. Accept the thoughts and push through the actions.
Very quickly, as the dopamine hits from these tiny successes arrive, you'll find your attitude changing, and this turns into a feedback loop where you end up performing more actions, further improving your mood and attitude.