there are posts with good titles, when i understand the concept from the title and expect the post to elaborate. i find this post in the links in Pain is Not The Unit of Effort, and i though i knew what i will see. i was wrong.
i expected to read post with examples about the places when pain actually pay off. pain is orthogonal to success, and it’s mean that sometimes you will need pain to success, and i expected to see list of such examples. only part 2 was example of that. part 1 and 3 was examples of things that are not pain, and part 4 just left me bewildered. part 5 sounds like counter-argument to me. and the Antidotes sounds like counter-arguments too. they look to me like examples of dysfunctionality, exactly the attitude that the original post come against.
i will address part 4 specifically as this is the part i find most strange and confusing.
Ye Xiu strategy sounds to me clearly inferior, like signal you will always cooperate on the Prisoner Dilemma—you basically incentivize people to defect against you. why it’s a good thing?
”That wasn’t a real disaster.” sounds like True Scotsman, moreover, in defining disaster as “You simply die” you make this word useless. categories exist to point on cluster of things. “everything” and “the empty set” are both useless categories. why would you want to take useful word and render it useless? <very bad things that worth to guard against> sounds like good category to me.
if you recover in less the a minute from startup fail, you don’t sound surprised enough for the disparity between your map and territory. emotions serve purposes—like making you try hard to avoid this outcome. and not “hard” as throwing willpower on it, but “hard” as dedicating per-planing and perception and all your ability to think. if you don’t know your start up will fail, you should be surprised, if you do, you should do something to prevent it. also, Chesterton’s Fence. human emotions exist for a reason, and i deeply suspect ideologies that glorified emotionless. it’s like throwing away really useful tool that was optimized by the blind goddess of evolution. you sure you can do better? really sure?
you say “I’m still in the game.” and i think about the time i understood the problem with the social script of “don’t give up”. sometimes, it’s bad to stay. WHY do you think it’s good to stay? why you judge the one leaving the startup world bad thing and you remaining good thing? what are the criteria of the judgment?
part of my problem with glorify-pain culture is it anti-reflection, it’s all “go forward in full force” and not ’let’s stop and evaluate the options and see what option is best”.
you give examples but not reasons it was worth it, or that it was even good thing. and i have the feeling there are unsaid something this post try to reflect, but i can’t imagine what person will be persuaded by post like that, what kind of algorithm can create that post. ITT total failure on my part.
maybe i should write the post i expected to find here. the problem? i don’t have enough real-world examples for that.
there are posts with good titles, when i understand the concept from the title and expect the post to elaborate. i find this post in the links in Pain is Not The Unit of Effort, and i though i knew what i will see. i was wrong.
i expected to read post with examples about the places when pain actually pay off. pain is orthogonal to success, and it’s mean that sometimes you will need pain to success, and i expected to see list of such examples. only part 2 was example of that. part 1 and 3 was examples of things that are not pain, and part 4 just left me bewildered. part 5 sounds like counter-argument to me. and the Antidotes sounds like counter-arguments too. they look to me like examples of dysfunctionality, exactly the attitude that the original post come against.
i will address part 4 specifically as this is the part i find most strange and confusing.
Ye Xiu strategy sounds to me clearly inferior, like signal you will always cooperate on the Prisoner Dilemma—you basically incentivize people to defect against you. why it’s a good thing?
”That wasn’t a real disaster.” sounds like True Scotsman, moreover, in defining disaster as “You simply die” you make this word useless. categories exist to point on cluster of things. “everything” and “the empty set” are both useless categories. why would you want to take useful word and render it useless? <very bad things that worth to guard against> sounds like good category to me.
if you recover in less the a minute from startup fail, you don’t sound surprised enough for the disparity between your map and territory. emotions serve purposes—like making you try hard to avoid this outcome. and not “hard” as throwing willpower on it, but “hard” as dedicating per-planing and perception and all your ability to think. if you don’t know your start up will fail, you should be surprised, if you do, you should do something to prevent it. also, Chesterton’s Fence. human emotions exist for a reason, and i deeply suspect ideologies that glorified emotionless. it’s like throwing away really useful tool that was optimized by the blind goddess of evolution. you sure you can do better? really sure?
you say “I’m still in the game.” and i think about the time i understood the problem with the social script of “don’t give up”. sometimes, it’s bad to stay. WHY do you think it’s good to stay? why you judge the one leaving the startup world bad thing and you remaining good thing? what are the criteria of the judgment?
part of my problem with glorify-pain culture is it anti-reflection, it’s all “go forward in full force” and not ’let’s stop and evaluate the options and see what option is best”.
you give examples but not reasons it was worth it, or that it was even good thing. and i have the feeling there are unsaid something this post try to reflect, but i can’t imagine what person will be persuaded by post like that, what kind of algorithm can create that post. ITT total failure on my part.
maybe i should write the post i expected to find here. the problem? i don’t have enough real-world examples for that.