The anecdote about reading a 3000 page manual looking for exploits is something I realized a couple of years ago.
Almost everything takes that level of dedication to be really good at, so there's no point in forcing yourself into something you hate. You have to invest an enormous amount of time and it doesn't get any easier.
The whole "I go home every night after work, pour myself a glass of wine and read the case law" is an interesting point as well. I quickly realized that despite a lot of techies being very loud about WLB, that's not how it works with exceptional people.
They are so interested in what they do that WLB is not really a thing. Or at the very least, it wasn't at some point in their life.
---
To that effect, I think consistency is overrated for skill acquisition.
1) A couple of months of intense learning can progress you the same as a couple of years of passive learning (Sidenote: this is why I think YOE requirements are stupid, it's measured in passive time)
2) Skill progression is very non-linear in my experience. At some point a bunch of knowledge clicks together and you're suddenly way more effective despite not having gained much extra explicit knowledge (Though you may have gained tacit knowledge!)
The main reason I'm trying to improve my consistency is actually for other people, not myself. I prefer to work in bursts, alternating between prospecting and intense work. But that makes it hard for other people to work with you because your output isn't predictable.
Are you aware that the first time you use an acronym you're supposed to define it? They're not even used in the article. I'm not a native speaker so I'm used to have to stop to look up words, but it makes reading the comment much slower, especially when it's acronyms that are used so little they don't even show up in search results.
> Are you aware that the first time you use an acronym you're supposed to define it?
Tell this all the people who use abbreviations and acronyms in source code.
Of course there is no place of "first time" use in code as one does not read code linearly.
So abbreviations and acronyms in code are bad. Very bad. Most of the time you can't even look up the stuff someone made just up to save a few key strokes (which is irrelevant as there is code suggestion even in command line editors these days).
Using abbreviations and acronyms in code makes it cryptic. Always.
(The only legitimate place to use abbreviations and acronyms is imho some highly domain specific sub-language where all the domain experts know all the abbreviations and acronyms, and only those domain experts works on this code part.)
> Q: In the following text, what do "WLB" and "YOE" refer to? [paste contents of GP]
> A (GPT-4): In the given text, "WLB" refers to "Work-Life Balance," which is the equilibrium between one's professional and personal life. "YOE" refers to "Years of Experience," a common metric used to quantify the amount of time someone has spent working in a particular field or role.
Probably, yes. Is it more efficient for the single poster to write out a few extra words, or for the hundreds of readers to go to Google or AI to help them interpret the letters? I work in accounting, an industry that throws out work-life balance into daily conversations, and i still didn't recognize it.
> I quickly realized that despite a lot of techies being very loud about WLB, that's not how it works with exceptional people.
> They are so interested in what they do that WLB is not really a thing.
(I'm assuming WLB = work-life balance)
There's a really important distinction: a job asking someone to work crazy hours is very different from choosing to spend your personal time coding or learning technical things that may or may not be directly related to your $job.
Some people have hobbies as Nd interests that closely mirror what they do for work. Learning about stuff that you're interested in anyway, but also applies to your job, is not a problem of balance.
I've sometimes been so invested in something I'm working on that I'll pick it up late at night after everyone else is in bed. The balance part of this is when I do that, I'm going to take off early another day. That's a big difference from working extra hours or being told to work extra hours.
I have a similar opinion as you, but there seem to be a lot of people who advocate for strict 9-5 and will not do anything outside of that which feels very unrealistic to me.
Some of us don't have an option. My daughter's school is open from 8 to 6; I can't possibly get to work any earlier or stay any later than those constraints allow.
> The whole "I go home every night after work, pour myself a glass of wine and read the case law" is an interesting point as well. I quickly realized that despite a lot of techies being very loud about WLB, that's not how it works with exceptional people.
I think there's a _huge_ difference between working all the time because you've got a boss threatening to fire you if you don't versus because you're voluntarily learning to supercharge your career.
The problem is the mental fatigue / penalty as a consequence of not working in things you are interested in.
I work @FAANG, for the stuff that I am actually interested in, I found myself casually hitting 60 hours per week without even thinking about it, plus M hours at home working on adjacent stuff / ideas. I worked here during my last semester of uni when I finished my thesis, and I was fine because I was doing genuinely interesting stuff.
However, the mental exhaustion that comes with context switches or dealing with uninteresting and mundane stuff that still involve effort makes it very difficult for me to actually spend time writing code or doing something productive after / outside.
This second point is under-appreciated. Many, if not most, skill based activities work like this. It's a weak mess for a long time then suddenly things start to click together and progress hockey sticks upward.
I'm a highly consistent person. I'm sure many of us here are. I guess I agree that some base level of motivation is necessary but it's a bit of a chicken and egg problem. Motivation is controlled by the dopamine pathway in the brain. If you have no motivation, and you don't do anything, your dopamine pathway will remain in a weak state, and you will not gain motivation.
You need a higher level motivation (ie: I want to achieve X). And then you have to be driven by that factor far more than the day to day motivational factors (ie: I crave Y).
Turning up the volume on the higher level motivation and turning down the volume on the cravings requires discipline. But it's also a feedback loop. Once you train your dopamine cycle, you will feel more rewarded by things that move you toward your higher level goals. And you won't experience as strong of cravings.
> Once you train your dopamine cycle, you will feel more rewarded by things that move you toward your higher level goals. And you won't experience as strong of cravings.
But don’t neglect the Passion Paradox (great book).
High motivation for a higher goal can be a trap. You still get tired. Now you have a situation where you are highly motivated with no gas in the tank. Because there’s no energy to do the thing, but lots of motivation, the motivation starts looking for distraction. You find yourself doing and getting nowt done.
It is difficult in those moments to realize what’s happening and stop. The correct action is to walk away and rest. But you’re full of motivation! You want to stay and do.
Rest doesn’t hit the dopamine rewards. So you don’t. And then you spiral into more and more busywork. A waste.
For all us procrastinators, this would be a good explanation for why the closer we get to the deadline, the higher gear we're able to achieve. This would be a great spin on Tim Urban's explanation of procrastination (which is also a fantastic explanation).
As a mild procrastinator who used to be a severe procrastinator, I think the higher gear comes from the fear of consequences (e.g. missing the deadline). The closer you get to missing the deadline, the more the adrenal system activates & pumps adrenaline and cortisol. The work isn’t rewarding in this mode, but you do it because you are afraid of compromising your goal.
The opposite mode is what your parent describes, where “the work is the reward” because you feel good about the work you are putting in towards the goal. In this pathway, the adrenal system is producing dopamine.
Your parents’ theory on training could help partly explain why adults are more commonly able to find satisfaction in the effort.
Edit: Watched Ted; my thoughts are basically redundant, but I’ll leave it here. Thank you for sharing that.
Ha, runs directly contrary to this blogpost [0] that's done well on HN a few times.
> At its core, chasing motivation is insistence on the infantile fantasy that we should only be doing things we feel like doing. The problem is then framed thus: “How do I get myself to feel like doing what I have rationally decided to do?”. Bad. The proper question is “How do I make my feelings inconsequential and do the things I consciously want to do without being a little bitch about it?”.
Just goes to show you shouldn't take these pop psych self-help lessons too seriously. The one I cited more aligns with how I tick, but I doubt there's a one size fits all optimal approach to habit-forming/productivity -- even at such a meta level.
Another motivational success story built around a character who overcame obstacles which serves as an example we can hold in our minds: "I too can be an Omar!"
I'd like to see some analysis of failure, some stories about people who worked hard and gave it their all but just didn't get anywhere, or who got derailed by one thing or another and lost their motivation. Of course, who would want to be that example?
In the world of mountaineering there's a famous archive of accident data, Accidents in North American Mountaineering, that's a must-read for anyone contemplating getting into climbing mountains with any seriousness. The stories are many - bad judgment, bad luck, lack of preparation, exceeding one's capabilities, etc. but they're all very informative.
There are many ways to go wrong, and maybe that information is more valuable than examples where everything goes right.
I think looking at success stories is probably more valuable. Failure stories are de-motivating, depressing and reveal a model that might subtly affect how your implement patterns - in subconscious and conscious ways. The human mind is best at following established patterns.
Positive psychology and getting motivated by success stories is one thing, probably universal.
Failure stories are not necessarily de-motivating. I find a good mental energy boost when I read or see 10 ways in which a certain thing went wrong and then coming up with an 11th way that works. Many inventions fall in this category (well known examples: Edison, Wright brothers) I understand not everyone thinks that way naturally.
Just at finding patterns to emulate. The mind seems to work better at replicating something than it does finding what NOT to do. No proof of this just my observation.
At one place, I gave the strongest possible recommendation of a hiring candidate, even though they barely had the senior-level track record on paper that we wanted, because (in addition to signs that they already grokked real-world team software engineering like a smart senior) it seemed clear they cared about the craft, were already skilled and wise about it, and would keep learning.
I advocated for the candidate, and also gave HR a heads-up that, if the other interviewers didn't agree to leveling the candidate at senior, we needed some promotion path with clear criteria that we could communicate, to distinguish us from the candidate's current company.
(Unfortunately, I was splitting that job req. with another team, who had some work before the hire would move fully to my team. The other team lead gave the candidate a CS-student Leetcode gatekeeping, which the candidate didn't do well at. These "coding" interviews need to end before they started, IMHO. It blocks some of the best people, and reinforces the counterproductive thinking among new grads that team software engineering is anything like school homework assignments or interview performance art.)
I've gotten a few candidates hired based on similar principles, and it has turned out well each time, though my sample size is not large. How has it worked for you?
My data points mostly aren't from people I've hired, but from many people I've worked with or known from techie communities. So there's some survivor bias there.
Like much of the my engineering culture philosophy, it's based on things I've seen work and not work. There's no grand unified theory of everything, and we usually don't know exactly to which factors to attribute success or failure.
I also try not to be simple-minded judgemental, especially when it comes to excluding people. For example, someone experienced might have less conspicuous excitement, but still pride themselves on rock-solid effective execution, and we can also see that working out very well. Or someone might be coming from a ruthless stack-ranking deathmatch company, but that doesn't mean they can't think like a highly-effective collective if they're shown what that's like.
Sure, underlying motivation is important, but you keep moving on through discipline.
Motivation is only a reminder for why you're doing it, but it also comes and goes, discipline is what makes you go even when motivation is no longer there in those millions of specific moments.
Author found someone who's motivation was very high, but was also naturally and mentally inclined to be disciplined through his very harsh routine.
1. Motivation: be honest with yourself about how much you have, how much you need, how it changes over time and how you might capitalize on it when it's there.
2. Effortlessness: emphasize positive feedback loops that you enjoy and that help you achieve a flow state, even if they're not strictly "optimal" for achieving your goal.
3. Belief: be confident that if you have enough motivation and positive feedback loops, consistency will pay off!
The conclusion is a paraphrase of my personal recipe that I refer to as 3P rule: passion, perseverance and patience.
No matter what words you use in the end the idea is that you have the internal source of constant life energy that makes your heart beat, you just do what you need to do no matter what and lastly, you do not think about time and interrupt yourself by “is it ready yet?/Wann sind wir da?”[0]
In my experience as a self-taught programmer who switched careers to software, the first 3-4 years not much time at all to spend with family and friends. After that period you reach a plateau of sorts, the top of the bell curve, where you are "caught up" to traditionally taught peers. The mandatory time spent learning drops significantly and anything new becomes optional since the fundamentals are now ingrained. That's the point where you can take it easy and spend time with loved ones and pursue other hobbies. That 3-4 years is a sacrifice to raise one's earning potential, which could mean a higher quality of life for his family. It's an investment.
My belief is that it would be the same case if today one switched from programming to medicine, or any other specialized field - some years of catching up and then one day, that person is qualified to practice their craft like anyone else in that field who is qualified.
Nothing feels effortless. Even stuff you enjoy. Not if you keep at it. It will get shitty at times.
Developing long term habits is a complex thing but I think you need to:
* Decide you are going to do the thing regularly
* Quitting is not an option
* But if you do quit don’t fret just get back on the wagon
Make a schedule and always do it.
Adjust “it” for other variables as needed.
For example go to the gym if feeling tired but do an easier session. You still tick off going to gym. Then figure out why you were tired and see if any adjustments are needed. Is it a one off late night or a bad trend.
This is true, but we also have to acknowledge that consistency is _fueled_ by something. Sometimes intensity helps us get over a psychological bump so that we see some initial progress and then want to keep going. So it's good advice, but it won't be that helpful if it assumes 100% self-control. Self-control is the hard part.
It means I dream about the problem and work on it - then try and remember to pay attention to my family/ eat/ crap / etc
otherwise if I'm not commited to the idea, I think about the money, procrastinate then at the last possible moment (incl using your excuses) do the above.
I've never read papers out of uni assignments. Do you have suggestions for great papers "everyone" should read or how to find interesting papers to read?
This is one of the best articles I’ve ever seen linked here. Nitpick on this and that aspect of it, sure. But the ideas are simple.
Figure out what you want to achieve and keep practicing. Keep showing up. And figure out what you’re motivated to do to get you there… even if that thing isn’t quite the optimal path. It won’t matter because you’re motivated and will stick with it.
Of course it’s not easy. If theres anything that shows the difference between simple and easy this is it. But figure it out and the rewards - well the clip from the BJJ black belt speaks for itself.
This is just a layman's article attempting to articulate a pathway to success.
Which is fine, but it's not rigorous by any means, and doesn't show any scientific insight that would inform a strategy for long term success.
For example, I am doing fine with my consistent workout and diet routine for the past two weeks. How long will that last? Unknown. I did lose enough weight to reach nonobesity, but then I fell apart. How does one reaches past that? I haven't seen any new 'insight' that will help me. I just have to grind and hope I grind past success into long term lifestyle change, I suppose.
The advice here is one of the more practical articles on getting yourself to work better. Finding an effortless path makes it a bit easier but as humans you have 50 variables that can throw a wrench into that and lose some motivation, so expect lots of grind regardless, but make it easy on yourself as the article says
As a self-taught developer, I've found that networking and community involvement have been crucial in my growth and success. Through attending meetups, conferences, and joining online communities, I've been able to learn from others and expand my knowledge in various areas of development.
As the founder and organizer of GDG Cloud Philly, I have had the opportunity to collaborate and network with other like-minded individuals. Through this community, I have not only gained knowledge on new topics but also honed my leadership and organizational skills, which have proven valuable in my professional career.
K dude. Running a GDG has helped me consistently learn new technologies as well as how to public speak. Consistently organizing events has helped with that.
Almost everything takes that level of dedication to be really good at, so there's no point in forcing yourself into something you hate. You have to invest an enormous amount of time and it doesn't get any easier.
The whole "I go home every night after work, pour myself a glass of wine and read the case law" is an interesting point as well. I quickly realized that despite a lot of techies being very loud about WLB, that's not how it works with exceptional people.
They are so interested in what they do that WLB is not really a thing. Or at the very least, it wasn't at some point in their life.
---
To that effect, I think consistency is overrated for skill acquisition.
1) A couple of months of intense learning can progress you the same as a couple of years of passive learning (Sidenote: this is why I think YOE requirements are stupid, it's measured in passive time)
2) Skill progression is very non-linear in my experience. At some point a bunch of knowledge clicks together and you're suddenly way more effective despite not having gained much extra explicit knowledge (Though you may have gained tacit knowledge!)
The main reason I'm trying to improve my consistency is actually for other people, not myself. I prefer to work in bursts, alternating between prospecting and intense work. But that makes it hard for other people to work with you because your output isn't predictable.
Good article though :).