←back to thread

Maybe you’re not trying

(usefulfictions.substack.com)
448 points eatitraw | 6 comments | 16 Nov 25 10:14 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
lisper ◴[16 Nov 25 12:16 UTC] No.45944544[source]▶
I think the "maybe you're not actually trying" framing is not very constructive. The author did try, making decisions and taking actions that seemed appropriate for her situation at the time. The problem was that because her attempts to solve the problem failed -- again and again and again -- she stopped trying. Which is a not-entirely-unreasonable thing to do.

I would frame it more like: just because you have tried and failed doesn't mean you can't succeed, even if you have failed again and again and again. Circumstances change. New solutions become available. New resources or new insights present themselves. Sometimes just doing nothing and letting time pass actually produces progress. But the only thing that guarantees failure is to give up altogether.

replies(7): >>45944581 #>>45944586 #>>45944836 #>>45944986 #>>45945004 #>>45945422 #>>45948774 #
gyomu ◴[16 Nov 25 12:22 UTC] No.45944586[source]▶
Also see

“It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose. That is not weakness, that is life.” Jean-Luc Picard

replies(1): >>45944637 #
8bitbeep ◴[16 Nov 25 12:32 UTC] No.45944637[source]▶
Also, not everything is a competition that needs to be won.
replies(2): >>45944972 #>>45945014 #
1. ChrisMarshallNY ◴[16 Nov 25 13:32 UTC] No.45945014[source]▶
I am not competitive. That's a deliberate stance, and one that I've held for decades.

It does contribute to the fact that I haven't achieved greatness, but I have no regrets, and haven't done badly, despite that. It's not weakness, as some folks have found out, over the years.

When I "win," then someone else "loses." I have a problem with that.

replies(4): >>45945263 #>>45945565 #>>45946005 #>>45947521 #
2. whism ◴[16 Nov 25 14:09 UTC] No.45945263[source]▶
If you allow yourself to redefine “achieving greatness” you may be surprised by what is on the other side :)
replies(1): >>45945272 #
3. ChrisMarshallNY ◴[16 Nov 25 14:10 UTC] No.45945272[source]▶
Great point.
4. lanyard-textile ◴[16 Nov 25 14:57 UTC] No.45945565[source]▶
You’ve achieved greatness in your view of the world, and in your empathy for others.
5. dahart ◴[16 Nov 25 15:56 UTC] No.45946005[source]▶
> When I “win”, the someone else “loses.”

Why do you say that? What kinds of “greatness” are you thinking about? Does that mean money, or fame? Why does someone have to lose?

I’m also a bit allergic to competition, but I want to respectfully disagree with this idea that greatness is somehow zero-sum. There’s an enormous number of ways you can “win” without someone else losing anything, so much so that non-competitive “wins” are a regular part of speech. WinArmy on YouTube comes to mind as a stupid example. :P “Win” in that case can mean skilled or lucky.

Making a lot of friends is a win, one where everyone wins. Being a great artist or philosopher or anthropologist is a form of greatness that helps everybody and hurts nobody. Discovering the cure for a disease is greatness.

Even making money, if that’s considered greatness, doesn’t necessarily come at the cost of someone else. If you’re the person in a company who helps make a better product, better marketing, more sales, or any decisions that result in more money in the door, you can make more money for yourself and make more money for everyone around you too. It doesn’t need to come at a loss for the customers either, your product can be positive value for them after paying for it, and in some cases can earn them money. Even the economy isn’t zero-sum.

replies(1): >>45946085 #
6. ChrisMarshallNY ◴[16 Nov 25 16:06 UTC] No.45946085[source]▶
Yeah, I agree.

I guess that I term it in the value system represented by a majority of folks, hereabouts.

In my own universe, I drew the golden ticket.