sci-fi author, beatmaker

Category: Advice for Young People Page 3 of 4

Misogynistic “Manblogs”, and Feminism

Let's get ripped! And also cherish women.

Let’s get ripped! And also cherish women.

Recently a bot (or a link-commenter-for-hire) left a comment on this site linking to an e-book by a popular “manblogger.” I deleted it.

“Manblogs” typically include:

  • tips on steroid use
  • workout tips
  • diet tips
  • tips on how to pick up women
  • tips on how to be aggressive, macho, and a “winner”

10% of “manblog” content is useful, good advice for becoming an empowered, healthy, confident man. 80% is entertaining nonsense.

But the last 10% is hatred, and that’s why I deleted the link. I don’t tolerate links to sexist (or racist) content on this site (unless it’s for educational purposes).

Some of these manblogs rail against feminism as if it were an evil scourge corrupting the world. They worry about the “feminization” of culture and “girlymen.”

Goals Are For Soccer? (Reevaluating Goals vs. Systems)

Should the idea of goals be left on the field?

Should the idea of goals be left on the field?

Recently my friend Will Spencer sent me this article by Scott Adams (of Dilbert fame). Part of the article is a cautionary tale against listening to advice from successful people re: their methods (for example “follow your passion”). The rest of the article focuses on why Adams prefers systems over goals. “Goals are for losers,” writes Adams, pointing out that the majority of time for a goal-oriented person is spent in a “not yet successful” mindset (having not yet achieved their chosen goal).

I agree with Adams that we should be skeptical of career/success advice and self-help books. For every millionaire who made money on real estate, there are probably at least a dozen who lost their shirt (and didn’t write a book). As for “following your passion,” I had already considered the arguments against (a major theme of Cal Newport’s excellent Study Hacks blog), and generally found them to be lacking. Adam writes that when he worked at a bank, he was advised to avoid loaning money to small business owners who were following their passion; those types of businesses almost always went bust. Good advice, probably, and Newport’s advice on Study Hacks is also mostly sound; I completely agree with his emphasis on deep focus, hard work, effective systems, and attempting to live a meaningful, interesting life.

But for some people (like myself) there is no real choice when it comes to following your passion. If I didn’t, I would literally die of boredom (or at least accelerate my demise; I quickly get despondent and depressed if I am not actively and intensively pursuing writing, music production, and other creative endeavors). I made the choice in my twenties to follow my passion (start a music label and spend most of my time making dance tracks); I would earn money via IT freelancing on an as-needed basis. For me it has worked out so far. Not only is my soul intact, but I have significant savings, passive income streams (music royalties), and plenty of freelance work. Maybe, as Adams suggests, I’m still passionate about making music because I’ve had some success in that area. Certainly it’s nice to have a “win” in your field (money, a good review, a track in the charts, praise from fans, whatever). But most of the time, I create because I feel compelled to create. So my advice to anyone who asks is still to follow your passion. Just expect hard work and be realistic about how you’re going to pay the bills (and yes, you should be skeptical about my advice as well).

So that covers the first part of the article. The second part; where Adams argues against goal setting, made me think. I had never considered goal-setting to be opposed to a systems-based approach, and considered both to be useful tools (or, more accurately, I considered goal-setting to be part of my system).

In my own recent experience, setting and working towards a challenging goal was a positive, empowering experience. I didn’t feel, as Adams writes, that I was in a state of “near-continuous failure” because I hadn’t yet reached my goal. Rather, I felt like I was steadily working towards an important milestone. And that felt great.

But still, reading the article by Adams made me doubt my approach. Did setting the goal lead to success, or was it the system of daily effort that really made the difference? According to Adams I’d be better off tossing out the goal and keeping the system.

Adding fuel to this fire of doubt was the fact that after achieving my most recent major goal (completing the first draft of a novel), I floundered for a couple months. I knew I needed some time away from the manuscript before jumping into revisions, but it didn’t feel appropriate to set another major goal that wasn’t related to the book (after all, all I had was a first draft … I hadn’t actually completed anything yet).

After letting the question simmer in the back of my mind for a few weeks, here’s where I am at the moment:

  • in the long run, systems are more effective than goals (and habits, or actualized systems, are the most effective)
  • goal-setting can still be useful tool, especially if you are trying to create a new pattern in your life, and change the direction of your inertia
  • goal-setting is less helpful in life areas that require regular good habits and/or systems for ongoing success (for example physical health and fitness, unless you are training for a competition or something like that)
  • it’s not necessary to have a main life goal all the time; it is important to know where you are going (life purpose, and a clear vision of what you want your life and/or the world to look like)

You could accuse me of over-thinking this process, and you might be right. But the “tweaks” I make to my life system have real and immediate effects (to my productivity and happiness, to the quality of work I produce, to my ability to help others and make the world a better place).

How has goal-setting helped you? When has it felt awkward and contrived? What are your most effective life systems?

Is Grandiosity a Prerequisite for Greatness?

Young Franzen's grandiosity turned out to be predictive.

Young Franzen’s grandiosity turned out to be predictive.

Just a quick shower thought this morning, something that occurred to me while thinking about Jonathan Franzen’s article/excerpt from The Kraus Project (about Austrian satirist Karl Kraus):

But Kraus had changed me. When I gave up on short stories and returned to my novel, I was mindful of his moral fervour, his satirical rage, his hatred of the media, his preoccupation with apocalypse, and his boldness as a sentence-writer. I wanted to expose America’s contradictions the way he’d exposed Austria’s, and I wanted to do it via the novel, the popular genre that Kraus had disdained but I did not. I still hoped to finish my Kraus project, too, after my novel had made me famous and a millionaire.

What struck me about the passage was Franzen’s confession of grandiosity as a young writer. In Franzen’s case his younger self’s grandiosity turned out to be predictive, but obviously there are far more grandiose young writers who do not become rich and famous (or even moderately successful). So what’s the relationship between grandiosity and greatness? None at all?

I’m trying this hypothesis on for size: grandiosity is a prerequisite for greatness.

Obviously there are many prerequisites for achieving anything even remotely great (as measured by popular appeal, universal appeal across cultures and generations, influence on thinking and the direction of a field, pleasing critics — however you want to define the term). Most would agree that some degree of natural talent is required, as is a cultural context of support (encouraging parents, mentors, access to equipment/gear/materials/information), a diligent work ethic, perseverance, and of course luck. I’d argue that grandiosity is an additional prerequisite, just as important as the others. Grandiosity is simply the conviction that you might be able to achieve something great before you have actually done so.

Is grandiosity only the expression of such a conviction? I don’t think so. If the conviction exists without being expressed, it’s simply silent grandiosity (the best kind). The strong ego is still there. Ego in this case is a good thing, a strong sense of I does not necessarily make someone egotistical. Without a strong ego, without the conviction that the work might lead to something worthy, there’s not chance of greatness. Instead the result is no work at all, or dabbling, or unambitious projects. Thinking small.

What about the artist/creator who sees themselves as a channel for some higher force? “I just get out of the way and the art flows through me.” Fine — whatever works — but the strong ego is still there (in the channeler/conduit role, if not originator).

So how should a person deal with these feelings, the conviction that something great might be achieved, with enough sweat equity? Here’s my take on it:

  • Keep the feeling to yourself. Don’t talk about what you plan to do, refer to only what you have done (and then only when asked).
  • Be in on the joke. The odds are against you. You’re probably wrong. Most people don’t achieve anything great. So what?
  • Focus on the things you can control. You can’t control your natural talent or your cultural background. You can control what you focus on (choose an area where you have some talent!), your practice/work habits, your perseverance, and your internal convictions.

The paradox is that the ego actually gets in the way when you’re doing the work. For creative work you need to be in touch with the subconscious and perceptual and empathic parts of the brain (at least in order to create anything interesting). Thinking about achievement and goals and how the work will be judged is a terrible distraction. But the ego plays a role in organizing and allocating the resources that allow the work to happen and continue (time, money, career), and the ego needs the promise of rewards. Without the conviction that there are rewards to be had (grandiosity), the ego might shut down the work.

The key thing to remember? Without a little grandiosity (hopefully not the obnoxious kind), there is 0% chance of achieving anything great. So cherish your illusions/delusions of grandeur. And keep working.

Advice For Broke Young People

Congratulations, young person! You’ve picked a terrible time to enter the job market. You have so many factors stacked against you that your earning potentially will be negatively effected for decades. Here are a few of the conditions you’re up against:

5 Skills You Need To Thrive In Modernity (That Nobody Bothered To Teach You)

Modern life requires unusual skill sets.

Like rats and pigeons, human beings are highly adaptable, flexible animals.  As a species we inhabit some of the coldest and hottest parts of the planet, as well as all the temperate zones.  Most of us live in cities, some of us make a living from subsistence farming, and a few hang on to traditional hunter-gatherer lifestyles.  Within those broad categories, we have created a stunning array of diverse cultural customs, political systems, economic and production modes, and civic institutions.

The one constant of modern human life is an accelerated rate of cultural and technological change.  This is true not only for those of us who live in cities and use computers; most remaining traditional hunter-gather societies are being forced to change just as rapidly because of climate change, environmental destruction, and interactions with technology-using cultures.  In traditional and modern cultures alike, each generation is growing up with different sets of opportunities, challenges, and cultural landscapes.

It wasn’t always this way.  Humans practiced a variety of hunter-gatherer lifestyles for tens of thousands of years with little, if any, change from one generation to the next.  The change to an agricultural lifestyle was momentous, but in most cases it happened gradually, over a number of generations.

With the Industrial Revolution, and more recently the advent of computer technology, the rate of cultural change has accelerated immensely.  Not only does each generation live differently than their parents, but today’s modern human must learn to live a completely different lifestyle multiple times within a single lifetime.

My parents remember a time before there was a television in every house.  I remember a time before there was a computer in every house.  In my late teens and twenties I learned how to make music with computers; something that was only done by technologically elite experimentalists ten years previously was now available to the masses.  A few years later I learned how to build and program databases.  An arcane skill once practiced only by guys in lab coats with advanced engineering degrees was now available to a kid just out of college with no formal technology training.

Technological change doesn’t just create new opportunities for individuals, it also creates and transforms (and sometimes destroys) entire industries.  Record labels, companies that make film (like Kodak), newspapers, and book publishers have all been forced to radically reinvent themselves (or perish) because of technological change.  People with specialized skill-sets working within those industries can find themselves not only out of work, but without skills for which there is any demand in the new markets.

If the only constant is change, what skills should we teach our kids?  And what skills, or meta-skills, should we focus on in our own lives to stay culturally relevant, economically viable, and sane?

Since my own culture is “western modernity,” more-or-less, that’s what I’ll write about.  The list isn’t meant to be culturally universal, or definitive.

5 Skills Needed To Thrive Within Western Modernity

Page 3 of 4

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén