Meta discussion: "How to.." articles are beginning to annoy me. They should be titled "How I did this..." or "What I did that worked for me.." A title of "How to..." implies their methodology is prescriptive.
Yeah, not that I don't admire the zen-in-the-art-of-who-gives-a-fuck Hank Moody approach to life, it's just not all that practical in the framework of, say, career development. If you want to build a building, you start laying bricks, you don't wander around with the expectation that you'll suddenly just stumble into one.
I agree with your statement and I would add that some people (still) do not realize that it takes many years to be an "overnight success". Without arguing the merits of the "10,000 hours of practice" idea, the point is that you have to practice your craft a lot to become "good".
Recently, a colleague asked me, and I am summarizing here, what shortcut(s) can he take to get to my "level" (as a web developer)?
My answer was that there are no shortcuts - it takes hard-work and a lot of time to become "good". This blunt easy can be hard to swallow, but why is there a seemingly sense of "entitlement"?
Without my copy of the current issue of Make Magazine[1] directly in front of me, either Saul Griffith ("MENTORing Kids Into Makers") or AnnMarie Thomas ("Real Tools for Kids") talk about how young people are not putting in the hours - loosely speaking - in terms of learning engineering or science. I think that there's a sense that hard-work isn't necessary - just being "smart".
What happened with getting your hands dirty by putting in the long hours? For me, the pursuit of happiness without the dedication to working hard is a folly.
Unfortunately as long as there are people desperate for guidance (even if it's misleading or inaccurate), there will be people offering their [poor, biased, etc] guidance. See: Top-selling self-help books, "how-to" posts on the front page of HN, etc.
Generally HN does ok with this. Most of the "advice" posts that survive the frontpage are from established industry people (or are at least well-written), and "Show HN" posts typically survive much greater.
I can see what you mean but I don't see more than one at a time on the front page usually so it's not totally annoying. I honestly like them even if they do contradict each other. I think the trick is not to take them at face value but to try some, see what works, and throw out what doesn't. That leaves you with a personal mix that uniquely works for you. I think they're all valuable in their own ways.
Once upon a time I used to love zenhabits. I used to look at what Leo had accomplished (losing weight, living minimally, doing what you love (blogging) and building a business around it etc.) and thought he was worth listening too.
Over time I started noticing that you could pretty much pick anything published on his blog and find an earlier post contradicting it. Try it for yourself, find a post you like on the blog and then google "[subject] site:zenhabits.net" and smile as you see the contradictions that appear.
Life isn't straight forward and if it was as easy as following simple step by step instructions the "self-help" industry would be redundant. Life is difficult, do whatever it is that works for you and if anyone says they have found the "secret to success" take it with a grain of salt.
I agree with your conclusion (life isn't straightforward, do what works for you, don't trust "secret to success"-pushers), and having never really read zenhabits before I'll believe your premise that a lot of the content there contradicts other content there.
Looking for the least-malicious way of explaining that though, you could say maybe the author is someone who is able to change their mind, even if it makes them look dumb. I think that's probably a good thing.
I think a better way to look at it is that life is full of challenge. You can either learn how to get comfortable dealing with certain challenges and stick to those, or dig into new territory.
If you're comfortable with the challenges you expose yourself to on a regular basis then it really wouldn't be difficult - sadly for me, I get bored easily and so far I've not found a way to stick to doing the same for very long.
I really, really don't get this. I'm all for making my life more simple and more relaxed. But I just can not agree from the very beginning, so the rest gets lost on me.
Most good things happen without a plan: friendships, falling in love
Okay, that may technically be right. However, if you're operating on a home->work->home schedule, your chances to find love are minimal. Umm, a new hire is an attractive lady, you suddenly find out that you have a lot in common and fall in love. Chances?
In reality, if you're interested in finding a right person, you have to plan. What are the places that increase your chances of meeting a compatible person? How do you approach? What do you talk about? Yes, things might happen without a goal, but with a goal they will happen.
finding a job, and so on.
This is so totally wrong. So here I am, in my job that I don't like, and then - bam - without a plan I just land a new job. Maybe someone from Google just calls you on a whim. Awesome! As someone who starts a new job this Monday: "Does not happen!"
In reality, you get your next performance review, and there's no pay rise. So you think enough is enough and start with a plan. You plan for a position and for salary range. You plan on how many interviews you can have each week without raising too much suspicion. You plan on how to learn about the company and on the questions you'll have and how you'll demonstrate your strengths. And then, in a couple of months, you have a new job. The 'other you', the guy without plans, would still be in the same position he was months before.
I was really interested in zen habits and I'm subscribed to the blog so I read all the new entries. Unfortunately, they all now seem to rehash everything that's been said before - have no goals, reduce clutter, become vegan, have no goal, relax ... some of his advice is really good, but some just does not make sense to me.
Yes, I does happen. It did to me and it did to others. I think you are right as well: A lot of things in life need planning and good execution. But there's another very important ingredient: opportunities.
You go to a bar to meet new people. That's a good plan to create opportunities.[1] But there are a lot of opportunities when you are not looking for them. And when you are not expecting these they can be very hard to notice. I think that's the point of not planning: Not a anarchistic approach to life but going into the world with open eyes.
I leave you with a bit of science: A bunch of poeple are asked to rate themselfes how 'lucky' they are.
"I gave both lucky and unlucky people a newspaper, and asked them to look through it and tell me how many photographs were inside. On average, the unlucky people took about two minutes to count the photographs, whereas the lucky people took just seconds. Why? Because the second page of the newspaper contained the message: "Stop counting. There are 43 photographs in this newspaper." This message took up half of the page and was written in type that was more than 2in high. It was staring everyone straight in the face, but the unlucky people tended to miss it and the lucky people tended to spot it."
[1] That may be something you'd want to fix about yourself. Just like anything else, you can learn to be socially skilled. The basics are not seeming miserable (who wants to talk to a miserable person?), engaging people, making people feel good about themselves, not complaining, and reflecting all this in body language.
Just like anything else, practice is all it takes. If I were you, I might read some stuff about pickup - because the best way to pick up a girl is to be socially skilled. Those guys have definitely done a lot of research in that arena. Unfortunately it can be a very seedy industry. There was this great article I was going to show you about social vibing, something that was kind of an epiphany for me, but the site (bristollair) seems to have sold its soul.
Basically, the point is you want to be an upper, not a downer.
Also, forgot the biggest shortcut for social skills: smiling! Try to trick yourself into thinking of something that makes you happy/something really funny that makes you laugh inside instead of just moving your muscles. People want to be around happy people!
You're right but I also think the article is right. So all things considered, maybe the takeaway is that doing the things the article lists will create opportunities you didn't think of creating and pursuing a healthy mix of goals and no goals like the article describes can help you both achieve your plans but also open doors to places you wouldn't have done otherwise.
"Again and again I therefore admonish my students in Europe and America: Don't aim at success -- the more you aim at it and make it a target, the more you are going to miss it. For success, like happiness, cannot be pursued; it must ensue, and it only does so as the unintended side effect of one's personal dedication to a cause greater than oneself or as the by-product of one's surrender to a person other than oneself. Happiness must happen, and the same holds for success: you have to let it happen by not caring about it. I want you to listen to what your conscience commands you to do and go on to carry it out to the best of your knowledge. Then you will live to see that in the long-run -- in the long-run, I say! -- success will follow you precisely because you had forgotten to think about it."
Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT, a refreshing "new" form of psychology based on Eastern philosophy) advocates not setting goals, but rather leading a value driven life. Determine what you value, and make sure your life heads for those values, the rest tends to just follow.
But with that said, I still personally find setting goals to work very well for me. So I still do it. I met all of my goals for 2011, and am completely on track so far for 2012. For whatever reason, setting goals is very motivating for me.
That's a bit oversimplified. The ACT approach is that goals can be useful things, in moderation, when they're serving your values. But if you get too caught up in the outcome associated with the goal -- whether you succeed or fail, whether anyone recognizes or not -- then you're likely to have problems.
For instance:
"My company failed. This is a disaster. I'm such a loser."
"We beat our sales target by 200%! We're geniuses!"
"After months of work, we finally shipped. Now I feel empty and have no enthusiasm for what's next. Why aren't I happy?"
(Of course those are oversimplified too, but you get the idea.)
You are correct. It's been a while since I read these books. Looking back at Harris's book (The Happiness Trap) he has an entire section of the book dedicated to values, and he stresses that values are more important than goals. But he does still say to set goals.
_Get Out of Your Mind and Into Your Life_ was the first book on the subject, written by Steve Hayes who started ACT. Since then many more books have been written. Another popular one is _The Happiness Trap_[0] by Russ Harris.
GOOYMAIYL is a workbook with a technical/scientific bend to it. He cites a lot of studies and data, and supports his theories quite a bit. If I had to guess, HN would enjoy this book, it's pretty geeky.
The Happiness Trap is much more of a self help book. No cited studies or any real hard data. Just gives a more gentle, friendly approach to ACT. Also an enjoyable book in its own right.
I'd like to ask what size your goals are, in order for you to have met all of them? Are they the size of "I will send this email today" or larger which include more micro-management?
Large enough to take true effort to accomplish, but not so large as to force an unrealistic change in my life. My main goals for 2011 were: make vim my full time editor, run a half marathon, and find a better job.
Cool, thanks. I've recently aligned my goals at the same depth as the ones you stated - and it takes a lot of the pressure off, and enough pressure to direct my behaviour toward working towards those goals.
Over-committing seems like a bad idea, especially from a site preaching Zen and minimalism. You'll stress yourself out, burn out trying to finish all of your accomplishments, and probably to lackluster work on each of them.
The opposite is true. If anything, learn to say "No" more.
I've done years setting lots of goals, and done years when I set none. Even though ending the year with a list of "failed" goals is difficult, I much prefer it to not setting any at all.
Building a habit is easy to measure and gives good short-term feedback. You can end every day knowing if you've done what you needed to, and because you practice daily it's constantly reinforced.
From experience I've found the goals I achieve are usually the ones that are reinforced on a regular basis. My personal preference would be to build goals on top of habits, rather than exclusively one or the other.
Goals are important so that you know where you are headed, otherwise I tend to stagnate and not amount to much. I need a direction to go in. But I think it is important to keep in mind that goals are just a direction, they do not define the entire trajectory. Like Leo says, life is too chaotic and unpredictable. I find that it is good to have goals, but at the same time keep an open mind and change as time goes on. Things in life change quickly, e.g., perceptions, environments, opportunities, etc. One needs to learn to adapt those directions/goals, make the journey enjoyable and create enriching life experiences. Of course, all of that is not easy, it comes from deep introspection about what you want and which direction you want to go.
[Edit: I want to add that, it is also important the kinds of goals that you make. More abstract goals like, what kind of person you want to be, what skills you want to develop define a more flexible and enriching trajectory than a fixed goal like "make $X". Individual accomplishments are secondary to growing yourself as as person; then again, I believe that was Leo's point after all].
I think the author is drawing an implicit distinction between external outcomes (get this job, earn this much money, complete this project) and internal habits. His thesis seems to be that if you focus on your internal habits, your external outcomes will take care of themselves.
I completely agree. The article is a circular contradiction. The author's goal is listed right in the article:
"How did I do it? By creating new disciplines I actually liked doing. This is the secret to a healthy, productive life and to making an impact on the world. Create good, sustainable habits that you enjoy, and you’ll end up with a life you can be proud of."
Didn't he have a clear purpose or reason (goal) for focusing on those 4 practices?
Summary of article:
Goals are bullshit. Reach your goal of happiness by focusing on doing repeatable actions. Then you'll reach your goal and win life.
This is one of the problems with the post. He is really referring to meaningless, shallow, and unrealistic goals, yet he does not say that and instead suggests not setting any goals whatsoever.
Perhaps he does not understand the connection between setting goals and achieving them. The purpose of setting the goal is not a random NYE drunken wish, it's to assess something that you think you'd like to happen more seriously.
Want to start a social, location-based picture sharing company this year? Great! Setting the goal means taking the time to understand whether that might be a good idea and the implications around it. The analysis is the reason that people who set goals are more successful.
Why does agreeing with someone get me down votes? I would have imagined no change. But to feel that strongly that ppl take the trouble to click down - why is that?
It's impossible to not have goals and not plan. The author's suggestions: "Get up earlier", "Talk to more strangers", etc. are goals in and of themselves.
Whenever this topic comes up, what people are really talking about is the degree to which you can plan for a particular goal in terms of its time frame and complexity. The author touches on this relationship. That is, the more complex the goal and the more time required to achieve it, the less specific you can get in creating a plan to achieve it. If my goal is to lose 30 pounds by the end of the year, it's unrealistic for me to plan out my exact meals and workouts a year in advance. But it's perfectly realistic to have a more general plan of eating healthier food and doing more exercise, and leaving the "implementation details" for that week or day.
What I don't like about the article is that the author doesn't back up his suggestions with anything but personal experience and opinions. There are scientific studies that claim benefits in explicit goal-setting. If you're going to make a strong case, you need to address those studies and bring in some counter-evidence.
Getting up earlier is something you just do, it's not a goal. Losing 30 pounds is more of a goal because it's an expected outcome, but eating more salad and drinking less Coke is something you just do.
I disagree. That's like telling a depressed person to be less depressed. It's not wrong or anything, but it's much more of a process than you're implying.
Anything that is challenging for you can become a goal. I find it very very hard to wake up early, especially when I don't need to, and some mornings I fail.
Waking up early is in fact a goal I have been working on over the past six months or so, and I do this by working at it incrementally. Today I get up at 10, next week at 9:30, etc...
It's a difference of mindset. Maybe you're just over thinking it. If you think it's a "goal", you aspire to it and hope to achieve it. If its just something you do, you just do it. If you want to complicate the idea, then think of it as developing an internal locus of control. But it's simpler than that.
Not setting goals is dumb. When you lose aspirations you lose focus and you lose direction. A better way? Create attainable and realistic goals.
My resolution last year was to be more patient with my family. I'm the only one from my entire extended family that followed a techie path early on. Its a pretty damn clear fact that I think about situations differently and it creates tension in the family when we're having discussions. Taking more time to work with my parents and simply let go of some cases is a great feeling when you get along better at family outings like Christmas or Easter.
This year? I'm going to give back to those that deserve it. This means for alll the services that I use on a regular basis: imgur, Dropbox, Evernote, Serviio, TrueCrypt, Ventrillo, etc. etc. I'm going to go to their site and make a donation or purchase the paid version. These guys all deserve it so why shouldn't I help support them because God knows their work has helped me more than enough.
Good resolutions are worthwhile. Saying that you'll run a triathalon in a year is dumb and unfocused.
It appears that the gist of the article is: don't plan, just be awesome and lucky. The article also drips with survivorship bias,e.g., the "good relationships happen without a plan" concept does not taken into account those who don't plan and don't end up in relationships. The author could just say "being awesome and lucky worked for me, I bet it could work wonders for you, too!"
I'm sick and tired of "Get up early" advice. What works for you doesn't work for everyone. I feel more productive in the evening, sometimes near midnight. So to get enough sleep I can't get up before 9 AM. Maybe working in 6 AM works great for you. For me it's nightmare.
For anyone wanting to effect change in their lives, look to research that can be backed up by scientific method. I dislike the self-help industry immensely. One example of good, scientifically backed advice is the work of Richard Wiseman: http://richardwiseman.wordpress.com/ In particular, I've found his book 59 Seconds quite useful. Similarly, I learned about Wiseman's work from the Less Wrong community, which is equally useful: http://lesswrong.com/
Trust Nerds to deconstruct philosophy to the point it sounds ridiculous. Instead of, for instance, finding some meaning or direction in it, or even trying to 'get it' at all.
So here's the 'Cliffs Notes': Sure, making time for ... whatever, is a goal. But different in kind from all the other indirect, distant goals we often choose. Those seem to give us something to 'aim at' but don't providing the arrow, or the bow, or even a compass to find the target.
There's a tiny kernel of truth - over-commit to others, and you will have a much easier time of following through than if you set goals merely for yourself.
So sign up for things other people expect you to do, and you'll be in better shape than if you just make vague goals for yourself.
People over-commit all the time. Whether they know it or not, most people are optimistic about the things they think they can do, especially if it is something they've been doing for a long time. I think new years resolutions are for people who wish they were motivated (like me [which is why I don't set these types of things]). The beginning of the year always makes me feel like I am going to get things done, though. I guess people just need to start doing and stop thinking about doing, but it is not always that easy.
Agreed. What I kept thinking as I read the thing is how this is all a new goal, albeit a different one. Overpromise, get up early, and so on... Err... All those are goals. He says he did them for a year and his life changed... So is the goal to do those things for a year?
This. Having goal allows you to measure your current performance compared to them. Without any goals you will always be stuck as the same person you were yesterday.
Over-commit: I have to disagree with this completely - if things don't go well it leads to disappointment and being taken advantage of. How about 'be realistic' and 'be communicative'.
Maybe the point is to push people to commit properly? Many people under commit and thus do just enough to satisfy those commitments. I know when I'm super busy I am also super productive. When I was working full time and going to grad school I would go days without reading a 'fun' website. I was slightly over committed, but it drove me to be some of the most productive I've ever been.
It's not me I'm worried about but the expectations of the people I commit to. For example I've done a lot of humanitarian work and once you are seen working for 'free' it's hard to have that conversation about how your time is actually limited. I'm probably still learning how to set boundaries however so my advice (to myself) is 1. set boundaries, 2. commit.
I've implemented at least two of these things by accident and I can attest to how well they work.
I totally over-commit myself and over promise. I started a business and I've practiced taking on work that I was not trained for at all and far beyond my comfort zone and I have ended up learning and growing far more than I could have hoped. And, I totally delivered and things went great! On top of that I'm also doing a startup on top of my other business and it's been an incredible help as far as learning new skills on the fly goes.
I've also gotten into being generous. I accepted the position of being on the board of a charity (part of over committing too) and during that time I've offered up not only my time in a traditional volunteerism sense but I've also offered the resources and skills of my business to help the charity on two occasions for free and it really paid off in the way of making great connections, new, wonderful friends, and making a name for myself.
I've been trying to practice waking early but I still haven't mastered it. I really really need help in that area. I bought Lark and it's been helpful but I need far more improvement as I'm only able to wake up when I want about 20% of the time.
- Set goals
- Don't set goals
- Build an MVP
- Don't build an MVP, build the full product
- etc etc
Meta discussion: "How to.." articles are beginning to annoy me. They should be titled "How I did this..." or "What I did that worked for me.." A title of "How to..." implies their methodology is prescriptive.