NPR

Amongst the worst advice to give to young people. You hear it all the time from people who are astonishingly rich and successful, basically because they want to say their success is down to hard work and hard work alone, rather than being exceptionally talented in the area of their success in the first place.

This describes it well



You may have a dream to be an opera singer. If you can't sing, it doesn't matter how hard you work. Even if you can sing, hard work doesn't make your voice one of the best. It needs natural talent plus hard work. If you don't have the first, it ain't happening.

Also, this

Biffer wrote: Sun Jul 09, 2023 8:08 am Amongst the worst advice to give to young people. You hear it all the time from people who are astonishingly rich and successful, basically because they want to say their success is down to hard work and hard work alone, rather than being exceptionally talented in the area of their success in the first place.

This describes it well



You may have a dream to be an opera singer. If you can't sing, it doesn't matter how hard you work. Even if you can sing, hard work doesn't make your voice one of the best. It needs natural talent plus hard work. If you don't have the first, it ain't happening.

Or being born into money or being lucky or being a theiving unethical arsehole or various combinations of the above including obviously being talented and hardworking.

Biffer wrote: Sun Jul 09, 2023 8:08 am Amongst the worst advice to give to young people. You hear it all the time from people who are astonishingly rich and successful, basically because they want to say their success is down to hard work and hard work alone, rather than being exceptionally talented in the area of their success in the first place.

This describes it well

You may have a dream to be an opera singer. If you can't sing, it doesn't matter how hard you work. Even if you can sing, hard work doesn't make your voice one of the best. It needs natural talent plus hard work. If you don't have the first, it ain't happening.

Find it pretty annoying when people completely dismiss natural talent as a factor, in for example music, and say if you practice enough then you will succeed. Of course it's true that if you have the motivation, dedication and put in sufficient time/effort to practice , take lessons, you're going to improve ability and technique, but there is a reason why some are virtuoso soloists and others are forever 2nd violin ( and perfectly happy with that).

My drawing skills are truly terrible - worse than the average 5 year old, but no matter what I do to try to improve I ain't ever going to be Rembrandt. "Following your dreams" needs to be tempered with some realism...

There was a guy, Dan something, who tried the ten thousand hours of practice to go from beginner to pro golfer, starting at age thirty.

He did around six thousand hours before his back packed in, but he got his handicap down to two.

I thought it was a remarkable achievement, but I don’t know how much of that was down to natural talent

Tichtheid wrote: Sun Jul 09, 2023 8:36 am There was a guy, Dan something, who tried the ten thousand hours of practice to go from beginner to pro golfer, starting at age thirty.

He did around six thousand hours before his back packed in, but he got his handicap down to two.

I thought it was a remarkable achievement, but I don’t know how much of that was down to natural talent

That's dedication for you!

Well, no-one could ever convince me this isn't due to sheer natural talent:

GOLF: He’s the nine-year-old Aussie young gun who has hit a golfing milestone* four years earlier than American superstar Tiger Woods — and nine years earlier than Aussie golfing legend* Greg Norman.

Jonathan Hong is now a “scratch”* golfer after a run of incredible rounds that has seen his coach describe him as the “best nine-year-old in the country and one of the best in the world”.

https://www.kidsnews.com.au/sport/at-ju ... 98ed3953ba

Tichtheid wrote: Sun Jul 09, 2023 8:36 am There was a guy, Dan something, who tried the ten thousand hours of practice to go from beginner to pro golfer, starting at age thirty.

He did around six thousand hours before his back packed in, but he got his handicap down to two.

I thought it was a remarkable achievement, but I don’t know how much of that was down to natural talent

Yeah, but he was never going to get a tour card.

tabascoboy wrote: Sun Jul 09, 2023 8:29 am

Biffer wrote: Sun Jul 09, 2023 8:08 am Amongst the worst advice to give to young people. You hear it all the time from people who are astonishingly rich and successful, basically because they want to say their success is down to hard work and hard work alone, rather than being exceptionally talented in the area of their success in the first place.

This describes it well

You may have a dream to be an opera singer. If you can't sing, it doesn't matter how hard you work. Even if you can sing, hard work doesn't make your voice one of the best. It needs natural talent plus hard work. If you don't have the first, it ain't happening.

Find it pretty annoying when people completely dismiss natural talent as a factor, in for example music, and say if you practice enough then you will succeed. Of course it's true that if you have the motivation, dedication and put in sufficient time/effort to practice , take lessons, you're going to improve ability and technique, but there is a reason why some are virtuoso soloists and others are forever 2nd violin ( and perfectly happy with that).

My drawing skills are truly terrible - worse than the average 5 year old, but no matter what I do to try to improve I ain't ever going to be Rembrandt. "Following your dreams" needs to be tempered with some realism...

I think there's an ego thing going on. People who are naturally talented often like to put it down to just the hard work - that's the only bit they have seen. Maybe they don't like the randomness of a) being talented and b) finding the area you have a gift for.

There was an article a while back about somebody explaining how to change careers mid life. It basically went something like "I remembered that I had a 1st class degree in Archeology from Oxford and called up some colleagues to see if they had anything"

Dinsdale Piranha wrote: Sun Jul 09, 2023 10:29 am

tabascoboy wrote: Sun Jul 09, 2023 8:29 am

Biffer wrote: Sun Jul 09, 2023 8:08 am Amongst the worst advice to give to young people. You hear it all the time from people who are astonishingly rich and successful, basically because they want to say their success is down to hard work and hard work alone, rather than being exceptionally talented in the area of their success in the first place.

This describes it well

You may have a dream to be an opera singer. If you can't sing, it doesn't matter how hard you work. Even if you can sing, hard work doesn't make your voice one of the best. It needs natural talent plus hard work. If you don't have the first, it ain't happening.

Find it pretty annoying when people completely dismiss natural talent as a factor, in for example music, and say if you practice enough then you will succeed. Of course it's true that if you have the motivation, dedication and put in sufficient time/effort to practice , take lessons, you're going to improve ability and technique, but there is a reason why some are virtuoso soloists and others are forever 2nd violin ( and perfectly happy with that).

My drawing skills are truly terrible - worse than the average 5 year old, but no matter what I do to try to improve I ain't ever going to be Rembrandt. "Following your dreams" needs to be tempered with some realism...

I think there's an ego thing going on. People who are naturally talented often like to put it down to just the hard work - that's the only bit they have seen. Maybe they don't like the randomness of a) being talented and b) finding the area you have a gift for.

There was an article a while back about somebody explaining how to change careers mid life. It basically went something like "I remembered that I had a 1st class degree in Archeology from Oxford and called up some colleagues to see if they had anything"

That's what I was getting at. They want to believe their success is purely down to their hard work. Now in most cases it is substantially down to their hard work, which is great, but the talent put them in the position to do it.

Taylor Swift would not be where she is today if she was a short fat lass with bad hair who can barely hold a tune.

That opening article has some huge holes in it.

Not having any goal at all is (ironically) only going to work out really well for someone if they have a lot of talent/connections/luck. Just having any goal is better than no goal. Even if someone fails they're going to be able to pivot into something else. The guy that tries to put in 10,000 hours to become a pro golfer is at the very least going to develop self motivation/discipline, more than someone that wastes their free time in a more passive activity.

It also misses that glorifying "hard work" is not just a celebrity thing. It's not just successful celebrities saying hard work can get you anything. It's the entire culture (definitely in the UK and SA). The default perception is always that if someone isn't doing well financially they didn't work hard enough (eg "young people cannot afford a house because they aren't working hard enough"), the opposite is also true if someone is unquestionably hardworking but also not doing well they're seen as heroic (eg "the hard working nurses"). Hard work often doesn't achieve much. That's not going to be any society's message though.

It doesn't sound like he has ever started a business? Things like "keep going in the face of failure is not useful" and "toiling fanatically towards a distant goal sounds inspiring but it creates a single point of failure", is awful advice for any ordinary person wanting to make money other than through employment.

It sounds like he's just scared of failing? If he's never had any goals, then he's never going to fail. Kinda think anyone that ends up as a journalist writing for the Times without that ever being their goal, hasn't had a career path an ordinary person can replicate. If that person thinks that path can be replicated then they're low balling their own talent/connections/luck, or they're a liar. Also think it's not helpful telling people to actively seek to avoid failure.

What about folks with talent who don't back themselves?
I'm pretty sure that's who the target audience of the slogan is.

Was at a Chris Hadfield talky thing a while back. He wanted to be an astronaut as a kid so picked life choices that would put him on a path to get there so he ended up being a fighter pilot, instead of a farmer like his parents. Thar he did actually become an astronaut is somewhat incidental to the fact that his dream mapped out a whole different life for him.

Dinsdale Piranha wrote: Sun Jul 09, 2023 10:29 am

tabascoboy wrote: Sun Jul 09, 2023 8:29 am

Biffer wrote: Sun Jul 09, 2023 8:08 am Amongst the worst advice to give to young people. You hear it all the time from people who are astonishingly rich and successful, basically because they want to say their success is down to hard work and hard work alone, rather than being exceptionally talented in the area of their success in the first place.

This describes it well

You may have a dream to be an opera singer. If you can't sing, it doesn't matter how hard you work. Even if you can sing, hard work doesn't make your voice one of the best. It needs natural talent plus hard work. If you don't have the first, it ain't happening.

Find it pretty annoying when people completely dismiss natural talent as a factor, in for example music, and say if you practice enough then you will succeed. Of course it's true that if you have the motivation, dedication and put in sufficient time/effort to practice , take lessons, you're going to improve ability and technique, but there is a reason why some are virtuoso soloists and others are forever 2nd violin ( and perfectly happy with that).

My drawing skills are truly terrible - worse than the average 5 year old, but no matter what I do to try to improve I ain't ever going to be Rembrandt. "Following your dreams" needs to be tempered with some realism...

I think there's an ego thing going on. People who are naturally talented often like to put it down to just the hard work - that's the only bit they have seen. Maybe they don't like the randomness of a) being talented and b) finding the area you have a gift for.

There was an article a while back about somebody explaining how to change careers mid life. It basically went something like "I remembered that I had a 1st class degree in Archeology from Oxford and called up some colleagues to see if they had anything"

Could be, I mean even if you have raw talent it still has to be discovered and developed to realise the potential. It's good to hear some talented people encourage others simply to enjoy an activity for its own sake however good/bad you are while offering helpful advice, doesn't help anyone if the implied message is "you'll never be as awesome as hard-working self-made me, so give it up", or alternately "it's just laziness holding you back" ( though tbf it's true in my case)

_Os_ wrote: Sun Jul 09, 2023 10:41 am That opening article has some huge holes in it.

Not having any goal at all is (ironically) only going to work out really well for someone if they have a lot of talent/connections/luck. Just having any goal is better than no goal. Even if someone fails they're going to be able to pivot into something else. The guy that tries to put in 10,000 hours to become a pro golfer is at the very least going to develop self motivation/discipline, more than someone that wastes their free time in a more passive activity.

It also misses that glorifying "hard work" is not just a celebrity thing. It's not just successful celebrities saying hard work can get you anything. It's the entire culture (definitely in the UK and SA). The default perception is always that if someone isn't doing well financially they didn't work hard enough (eg "young people cannot afford a house because they aren't working hard enough"), the opposite is also true if someone is unquestionably hardworking but also not doing well they're seen as heroic (eg "the hard working nurses"). Hard work often doesn't achieve much. That's not going to be any society's message though.

It doesn't sound like he has ever started a business? Things like "keep going in the face of failure is not useful" and "toiling fanatically towards a distant goal sounds inspiring but it creates a single point of failure", is awful advice for any ordinary person wanting to make money other than through employment.

It sounds like he's just scared of failing? If he's never had any goals, then he's never going to fail. Kinda think anyone that ends up as a journalist writing for the Times without that ever being their goal, hasn't had a career path an ordinary person can replicate. If that person thinks that path can be replicated then they're low balling their own talent/connections/luck, or they're a liar. Also think it's not helpful telling people to actively seek to avoid failure.

We're all sick of "disruptors" but this character is like a mirror image.
"Just trudge into work every day folks and don't forget to do overtime because you've nothing better to be doing"

Biffer wrote: Sun Jul 09, 2023 9:56 am

Tichtheid wrote: Sun Jul 09, 2023 8:36 am There was a guy, Dan something, who tried the ten thousand hours of practice to go from beginner to pro golfer, starting at age thirty.

He did around six thousand hours before his back packed in, but he got his handicap down to two.

I thought it was a remarkable achievement, but I don’t know how much of that was down to natural talent

Yeah, but he was never going to get a tour card.

Player at my club is +3.2 handicap and is only good enough to be a caddy on the DP World Tour. I asked him if he thought he could turn pro and said no he reckons he would never be good enough! My club pro plays of +1 and played the Jumeirah Course the day after Rahm had won the final event there. He was perviously a pro there, played the course 2-3 times a week and he played of same tees with same pin positions, etc and was 10 strokes worse off despite playing his best golf. He would have been 40 strokes behind Rahm if he played in the Tournament assuming he played his top game every round. I'm a 11 handicapper and would have been 84 strokes behind Rahm at least however I doubt I would have reached some of the fairways off the tee! Getting from 20 to 2 handicap is the easy part, getting from 2 to scratch and then +2 is much, much more difficult. Dan would never have made it as a pro no matter how many hours he put in!

Taylor Swift would not be where she is today if she was a short fat lass with bad hair.

One of the things that I have become massively MASSIVELY interested in of late is the extent to which looks dictate life outcomes. I read an article that said that attractive students typically get better marks than those who are not because they are PERCEIVED to be better, more competent students. https://psychologyeverywhere.com/articl ... s%20groups.
Apparently, this perception of competency based on looks is not confined to academia, it encompasses all areas of life: https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424 ... 0estimates.

In the case that you cite Taylor Swift is a highly regarded singer but I am certain (as you say) that she would not be considered as good a singer if she was not attractive. The deck really is stacked in favour of people who are attractive.

As aforementioned, if you are attractive you are more likely to succeed in school/uni,
You will likely be more confident,
You will have more opportunities to find a mate (obviously),
I'm assuming interviewing for a job is easier because if all things are equal people will employ someone who is attractive over someone who is not.
I'm assuming less loneliness and probably less mental health issues and so on and so forth.....

Hugo wrote: Sun Jul 09, 2023 6:38 pm

Taylor Swift would not be where she is today if she was a short fat lass with bad hair.

One of the things that I have become massively MASSIVELY interested in of late is the extent to which looks dictate life outcomes. I read an article that said that attractive students typically get better marks than those who are not because they are PERCEIVED to be better, more competent students. https://psychologyeverywhere.com/articl ... s%20groups.
Apparently, this perception of competency based on looks is not confined to academia, it encompasses all areas of life: https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424 ... 0estimates.

In the case that you cite Taylor Swift is a highly regarded singer but I am certain (as you say) that she would not be considered as good a singer if she was not attractive. The deck really is stacked in favour of people who are attractive.

As aforementioned, if you are attractive you are more likely to succeed in school/uni,
You will likely be more confident,
You will have more opportunities to find a mate (obviously),
I'm assuming interviewing for a job is easier because if all things are equal people will employ someone who is attractive over someone who is not.
I'm assuming less loneliness and probably less mental health issues and so on and so forth.....

Though porky Adele did pretty well? (However I agree with you)

I have a pet theory that a lot of people my age with depression/anxiety etc are products of being sold dreams when really they should have been encouraged to have hobbies/interests and get half reasonable grades that allow them to pursue them. By far the most broken group of people I know are those who had very clearly defined career plans at 15/16 and actually pursued it into adulthood.

Paddington Bear wrote: Sun Jul 09, 2023 7:12 pm I have a pet theory that a lot of people my age with depression/anxiety etc are products of being sold dreams when really they should have been encouraged to have hobbies/interests and get half reasonable grades that allow them to pursue them. By far the most broken group of people I know are those who had very clearly defined career plans at 15/16 and actually pursued it into adulthood.

How so? I'm interested to hear more, could you elaborate?

Grandpa wrote: Sun Jul 09, 2023 6:57 pm

Hugo wrote: Sun Jul 09, 2023 6:38 pm

Taylor Swift would not be where she is today if she was a short fat lass with bad hair.

One of the things that I have become massively MASSIVELY interested in of late is the extent to which looks dictate life outcomes. I read an article that said that attractive students typically get better marks than those who are not because they are PERCEIVED to be better, more competent students. https://psychologyeverywhere.com/articl ... s%20groups.
Apparently, this perception of competency based on looks is not confined to academia, it encompasses all areas of life: https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424 ... 0estimates.

In the case that you cite Taylor Swift is a highly regarded singer but I am certain (as you say) that she would not be considered as good a singer if she was not attractive. The deck really is stacked in favour of people who are attractive.

As aforementioned, if you are attractive you are more likely to succeed in school/uni,
You will likely be more confident,
You will have more opportunities to find a mate (obviously),
I'm assuming interviewing for a job is easier because if all things are equal people will employ someone who is attractive over someone who is not.
I'm assuming less loneliness and probably less mental health issues and so on and so forth.....

Though porky Adele did pretty well? (However I agree with you)

True. I guess talent will always rise to the top to some extent.

Hugo wrote: Sun Jul 09, 2023 6:38 pm

Taylor Swift would not be where she is today if she was a short fat lass with bad hair.

One of the things that I have become massively MASSIVELY interested in of late is the extent to which looks dictate life outcomes. I read an article that said that attractive students typically get better marks than those who are not because they are PERCEIVED to be better, more competent students. https://psychologyeverywhere.com/articl ... s%20groups.
Apparently, this perception of competency based on looks is not confined to academia, it encompasses all areas of life: https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424 ... 0estimates.

In the case that you cite Taylor Swift is a highly regarded singer but I am certain (as you say) that she would not be considered as good a singer if she was not attractive. The deck really is stacked in favour of people who are attractive.

As aforementioned, if you are attractive you are more likely to succeed in school/uni,
You will likely be more confident,
You will have more opportunities to find a mate (obviously),
I'm assuming interviewing for a job is easier because if all things are equal people will employ someone who is attractive over someone who is not.
I'm assuming less loneliness and probably less mental health issues and so on and so forth.....

Colloquially known as 'pretty privilege'.

sockwithaticket wrote: Sun Jul 09, 2023 7:36 pm

Hugo wrote: Sun Jul 09, 2023 6:38 pm

Taylor Swift would not be where she is today if she was a short fat lass with bad hair.

One of the things that I have become massively MASSIVELY interested in of late is the extent to which looks dictate life outcomes. I read an article that said that attractive students typically get better marks than those who are not because they are PERCEIVED to be better, more competent students. https://psychologyeverywhere.com/articl ... s%20groups.
Apparently, this perception of competency based on looks is not confined to academia, it encompasses all areas of life: https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424 ... 0estimates.

In the case that you cite Taylor Swift is a highly regarded singer but I am certain (as you say) that she would not be considered as good a singer if she was not attractive. The deck really is stacked in favour of people who are attractive.

As aforementioned, if you are attractive you are more likely to succeed in school/uni,
You will likely be more confident,
You will have more opportunities to find a mate (obviously),
I'm assuming interviewing for a job is easier because if all things are equal people will employ someone who is attractive over someone who is not.
I'm assuming less loneliness and probably less mental health issues and so on and so forth.....

Colloquially known as 'pretty privilege'.

This is an extension of the point I made earlier. People like to think that their success is down to their own decisions and choices when there's a significant random/genetic component. I can kind of understand that as it lets one feel in control.

p.s. Taylor Swift also has the fact that she appears to be a decent songwriter in her favour.

Paddington Bear wrote: Sun Jul 09, 2023 7:12 pm I have a pet theory that a lot of people my age with depression/anxiety etc are products of being sold dreams when really they should have been encouraged to have hobbies/interests and get half reasonable grades that allow them to pursue them. By far the most broken group of people I know are those who had very clearly defined career plans at 15/16 and actually pursued it into adulthood.

Or the ones who were following their parents dreams for them until they realised that wasn't their thing.

Dinsdale Piranha wrote: Sun Jul 09, 2023 7:53 pm

sockwithaticket wrote: Sun Jul 09, 2023 7:36 pm

Hugo wrote: Sun Jul 09, 2023 6:38 pm

One of the things that I have become massively MASSIVELY interested in of late is the extent to which looks dictate life outcomes. I read an article that said that attractive students typically get better marks than those who are not because they are PERCEIVED to be better, more competent students. https://psychologyeverywhere.com/articl ... s%20groups.
Apparently, this perception of competency based on looks is not confined to academia, it encompasses all areas of life: https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424 ... 0estimates.

In the case that you cite Taylor Swift is a highly regarded singer but I am certain (as you say) that she would not be considered as good a singer if she was not attractive. The deck really is stacked in favour of people who are attractive.

As aforementioned, if you are attractive you are more likely to succeed in school/uni,
You will likely be more confident,
You will have more opportunities to find a mate (obviously),
I'm assuming interviewing for a job is easier because if all things are equal people will employ someone who is attractive over someone who is not.
I'm assuming less loneliness and probably less mental health issues and so on and so forth.....

Colloquially known as 'pretty privilege'.

This is an extension of the point I made earlier. People like to think that their success is down to their own decisions and choices when there's a significant random/genetic component. I can kind of understand that as it lets one feel in control.

p.s. Taylor Swift also has the fact that she appears to be a decent songwriter in her favour.

Yeah, songwriting is a talent, you can either do it or not. You need to work hard at it, learn how harmony, musical structure etc work, and develop your skill, but there has to be a natural talent there.

Dinsdale Piranha wrote: Sun Jul 09, 2023 7:53 pm

sockwithaticket wrote: Sun Jul 09, 2023 7:36 pm

Hugo wrote: Sun Jul 09, 2023 6:38 pm

One of the things that I have become massively MASSIVELY interested in of late is the extent to which looks dictate life outcomes. I read an article that said that attractive students typically get better marks than those who are not because they are PERCEIVED to be better, more competent students. https://psychologyeverywhere.com/articl ... s%20groups.
Apparently, this perception of competency based on looks is not confined to academia, it encompasses all areas of life: https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424 ... 0estimates.

In the case that you cite Taylor Swift is a highly regarded singer but I am certain (as you say) that she would not be considered as good a singer if she was not attractive. The deck really is stacked in favour of people who are attractive.

As aforementioned, if you are attractive you are more likely to succeed in school/uni,
You will likely be more confident,
You will have more opportunities to find a mate (obviously),
I'm assuming interviewing for a job is easier because if all things are equal people will employ someone who is attractive over someone who is not.
I'm assuming less loneliness and probably less mental health issues and so on and so forth.....

Colloquially known as 'pretty privilege'.

This is an extension of the point I made earlier. People like to think that their success is down to their own decisions and choices when there's a significant random/genetic component. I can kind of understand that as it lets one feel in control.

p.s. Taylor Swift also has the fact that she appears to be a decent songwriter in her favour.

Agreed. It enables people to think their success is meritocratic.

Uncle fester wrote: Sun Jul 09, 2023 7:54 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: Sun Jul 09, 2023 7:12 pm I have a pet theory that a lot of people my age with depression/anxiety etc are products of being sold dreams when really they should have been encouraged to have hobbies/interests and get half reasonable grades that allow them to pursue them. By far the most broken group of people I know are those who had very clearly defined career plans at 15/16 and actually pursued it into adulthood.

Or the ones who were following their parents dreams for them until they realised that wasn't their thing.

Yup. Know a few guys like that. One, a surgeon's son, quit medical school 2 years before he actually told his dad - for 2 years he talked about the exams he'd passed (and, cleverly, the ones he'd have to do again), the ward rounds he'd been on with an inspirational consultant etc. while being your stereotypical 'off to work in the morning but actually sit in the park all day laid-off office clerk'. He was inches away from taking his own life before doing a very brave thing and coming clean with his dad. He's now the world's happiest librarian and wonder dad with a very proud grandpa who learned a few lessons as well. I rarely speak to him anymore (he is my BIL's friend more than mine) but I'm always in a good mood for a few days when I hearing he's genuinely in a good place right now.

clydecloggie wrote: Sun Jul 09, 2023 8:29 pm

Uncle fester wrote: Sun Jul 09, 2023 7:54 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: Sun Jul 09, 2023 7:12 pm I have a pet theory that a lot of people my age with depression/anxiety etc are products of being sold dreams when really they should have been encouraged to have hobbies/interests and get half reasonable grades that allow them to pursue them. By far the most broken group of people I know are those who had very clearly defined career plans at 15/16 and actually pursued it into adulthood.

Or the ones who were following their parents dreams for them until they realised that wasn't their thing.

Yup. Know a few guys like that. One, a surgeon's son, quit medical school 2 years before he actually told his dad - for 2 years he talked about the exams he'd passed (and, cleverly, the ones he'd have to do again), the ward rounds he'd been on with an inspirational consultant etc. while being your stereotypical 'off to work in the morning but actually sit in the park all day laid-off office clerk'. He was inches away from taking his own life before doing a very brave thing and coming clean with his dad. He's now the world's happiest librarian and wonder dad with a very proud grandpa who learned a few lessons as well. I rarely speak to him anymore (he is my BIL's friend more than mine) but I'm always in a good mood for a few days when I hearing he's genuinely in a good place right now.

Christ. Parents forcing their dreams on their kids is so unbelievably selfish of them. I have two teenagers and could not begin to imagine forcing them to pursue a career of my choosing.

Hugo wrote: Sun Jul 09, 2023 7:19 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: Sun Jul 09, 2023 7:12 pm I have a pet theory that a lot of people my age with depression/anxiety etc are products of being sold dreams when really they should have been encouraged to have hobbies/interests and get half reasonable grades that allow them to pursue them. By far the most broken group of people I know are those who had very clearly defined career plans at 15/16 and actually pursued it into adulthood.

How so? I'm interested to hear more, could you elaborate?

Sure, my theory is essentially schools c.15ish years ago (in England at least) offered a narrative of certain jobs/professions etc that emphasised all the good and none of the bad. Of course as we all know there’s no job without the mundane or the shitty, but kids don’t know that and those with very clear dreams often swat aside objections or are blind to them along the way.
Add into this getting into most of these ‘dream’ jobs is bloody hard, so these people often started grafting and sacrificing at 16 or so to make it.
And then - bam they get to the job and it turns out it isn’t everything they were told it would be. To give some examples of my mates/friends of friends etc:
- doctors end up with poor working conditions and pay. Senior doctors are notorious wankers to work for and a large amount of their time is taken up on paperwork.
For a couple of women I know, add in that they feel that they were misrepresented on the extent of the impact wanting children around 30 would have on their careers.
- animal lover turns vet, realises a larger than anticipated part of the job is castration/euthanisation/paperwork
- highly respected sports analyst who realises he’ll never earn proper money
- teachers who discover the bitchiness of the staff room and that lots of kids don’t give a shit
- lawyer with a passion for the environment who ended up representing Rio Tinto
- parliamentary researcher who ended up being sexually harassed by a political idol of hers

I think these clashes with reality/shitty situations just hit those who were so driven harder. I’ve had some crashes down to earth and encounters with shitty work, but I didn’t sacrifice my teenage years/early 20s to be in that situation which I think tends to give people like me more of an ability to roll with the punch rather than get broken by it.

Anyway I’m typing on my phone so hopefully this makes sense

Paddington Bear wrote: Sun Jul 09, 2023 8:55 pm

Hugo wrote: Sun Jul 09, 2023 7:19 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: Sun Jul 09, 2023 7:12 pm I have a pet theory that a lot of people my age with depression/anxiety etc are products of being sold dreams when really they should have been encouraged to have hobbies/interests and get half reasonable grades that allow them to pursue them. By far the most broken group of people I know are those who had very clearly defined career plans at 15/16 and actually pursued it into adulthood.

How so? I'm interested to hear more, could you elaborate?

Sure, my theory is essentially schools c.15ish years ago (in England at least) offered a narrative of certain jobs/professions etc that emphasised all the good and none of the bad. Of course as we all know there’s no job without the mundane or the shitty, but kids don’t know that and those with very clear dreams often swat aside objections or are blind to them along the way.
Add into this getting into most of these ‘dream’ jobs is bloody hard, so these people often started grafting and sacrificing at 16 or so to make it.
And then - bam they get to the job and it turns out it isn’t everything they were told it would be. To give some examples of my mates/friends of friends etc:
- doctors end up with poor working conditions and pay. Senior doctors are notorious wankers to work for and a large amount of their time is taken up on paperwork.
For a couple of women I know, add in that they feel that they were misrepresented on the extent of the impact wanting children around 30 would have on their careers.
- animal lover turns vet, realises a larger than anticipated part of the job is castration/euthanisation/paperwork
- highly respected sports analyst who realises he’ll never earn proper money
- teachers who discover the bitchiness of the staff room and that lots of kids don’t give a shit
- lawyer with a passion for the environment who ended up representing Rio Tinto
- parliamentary researcher who ended up being sexually harassed by a political idol of hers

I think these clashes with reality/shitty situations just hit those who were so driven harder. I’ve had some crashes down to earth and encounters with shitty work, but I didn’t sacrifice my teenage years/early 20s to be in that situation which I think tends to give people like me more of an ability to roll with the punch rather than get broken by it.

Anyway I’m typing on my phone so hopefully this makes sense

Yes, it all makes perfect sense, thanks. I completely relate to what you are describing.

.

Regarding natural talent, I've seen it in a few people to a very high degree in music and art. However, I have a theory on this, it's just my own personal thoughts with nothing to back it up.

The ones who were super talented would sit at a piano for hours without having to be cajoled into doing so, they had to be torn off it to eat their meals. Same with drawing, a friend of mine did practically nothing else for years growing up. He'd sit at a table or desk all day if he could.

There are the freaks, the Mozarts, but there aren't many of them. I think that many of the super talented ones get lost in their activity for hours and days and think nothing of it as it's what they love doing. Starting young is also a bonus as we are developing and learning all the time - nothing really amazes a kid as everything is amazing and new to them.

Having said all that, physiology obviously determines how good you are going to be at sport, Usain Bolt and Michael Phelps had advantages over their competitors and they are so far ahead of "normal" people as to be almost different species

_Os_ wrote: Sun Jul 09, 2023 10:41 am That opening article has some huge holes in it.

Not having any goal at all is (ironically) only going to work out really well for someone if they have a lot of talent/connections/luck. Just having any goal is better than no goal. Even if someone fails they're going to be able to pivot into something else. The guy that tries to put in 10,000 hours to become a pro golfer is at the very least going to develop self motivation/discipline, more than someone that wastes their free time in a more passive activity.

It also misses that glorifying "hard work" is not just a celebrity thing. It's not just successful celebrities saying hard work can get you anything. It's the entire culture (definitely in the UK and SA). The default perception is always that if someone isn't doing well financially they didn't work hard enough (eg "young people cannot afford a house because they aren't working hard enough"), the opposite is also true if someone is unquestionably hardworking but also not doing well they're seen as heroic (eg "the hard working nurses"). Hard work often doesn't achieve much. That's not going to be any society's message though.

It doesn't sound like he has ever started a business? Things like "keep going in the face of failure is not useful" and "toiling fanatically towards a distant goal sounds inspiring but it creates a single point of failure", is awful advice for any ordinary person wanting to make money other than through employment.

It sounds like he's just scared of failing? If he's never had any goals, then he's never going to fail. Kinda think anyone that ends up as a journalist writing for the Times without that ever being their goal, hasn't had a career path an ordinary person can replicate. If that person thinks that path can be replicated then they're low balling their own talent/connections/luck, or they're a liar. Also think it's not helpful telling people to actively seek to avoid failure.

Even though it seemed based on a lot of faulty reasoning and obsession with high powered celebrities as a benchmark I gave it the benefit of the doubt until the phrase:

"...failure is commonly a helpful signal that it's time to try something else".

Or as Homer Simpson put it better: "Son, if something's hard to do then it's not worth doing". Sorry, but fuck right off. So speaks someone who has never really pushed themselves, never gone outside their comfort zone and actually tried something that scares them. Failure is not acceptable in life, it's absolutely essential. Without it you don't grow and mature as a human being. Failure teaches you resilience and humility; how to adapt, problem solve, be better, be both more serious and take yourself less seriously. It highlights all your shortcomings and there are plenty of opportunities to give up along the way. That someone keeps going isn't necessarily because they're narcissists, brainwashed or fed false promises - it's because they choose to do it. Maybe they even love it. Nothing mediocre about doing something you enjoy, and much less should you care what others think.

Everyone finds out that life involves reality checks, compromise and all the rest - there's no way to avoid it without trial and error. So long as you're honest with yourself you'll make the right changes when needed, and wind up in areas you didn't just fall into but learned how to look for yourself. Make your own luck, as it were.

Realism in the author's case is listening to all the voices in life saying something can or can't be done. Following those could well be the reason people wind up depressed. What if they're wrong, or don't actually understand what you want?

Often when you go ahead and prove them wrong there's quite a few that pivot and ask why you hadn't done it sooner etc. It's a copout, and we'd be living in a far more fucked up, angry, disillusioned world if everyone just accepted everything and knew their place. Point about slowly branching out isn't necessarily a bad one but if he had a bit more self awareness he might conclude as you do that writing for the Times is itself a privilege we don't all get farted into our lap every day.

.

Paddington Bear wrote: Sun Jul 09, 2023 8:55 pm

Hugo wrote: Sun Jul 09, 2023 7:19 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: Sun Jul 09, 2023 7:12 pm I have a pet theory that a lot of people my age with depression/anxiety etc are products of being sold dreams when really they should have been encouraged to have hobbies/interests and get half reasonable grades that allow them to pursue them. By far the most broken group of people I know are those who had very clearly defined career plans at 15/16 and actually pursued it into adulthood.

How so? I'm interested to hear more, could you elaborate?

Sure, my theory is essentially schools c.15ish years ago (in England at least) offered a narrative of certain jobs/professions etc that emphasised all the good and none of the bad. Of course as we all know there’s no job without the mundane or the shitty, but kids don’t know that and those with very clear dreams often swat aside objections or are blind to them along the way.
Add into this getting into most of these ‘dream’ jobs is bloody hard, so these people often started grafting and sacrificing at 16 or so to make it.
And then - bam they get to the job and it turns out it isn’t everything they were told it would be. To give some examples of my mates/friends of friends etc:
- doctors end up with poor working conditions and pay. Senior doctors are notorious wankers to work for and a large amount of their time is taken up on paperwork.
For a couple of women I know, add in that they feel that they were misrepresented on the extent of the impact wanting children around 30 would have on their careers.
- animal lover turns vet, realises a larger than anticipated part of the job is castration/euthanisation/paperwork
- highly respected sports analyst who realises he’ll never earn proper money
- teachers who discover the bitchiness of the staff room and that lots of kids don’t give a shit
- lawyer with a passion for the environment who ended up representing Rio Tinto
- parliamentary researcher who ended up being sexually harassed by a political idol of hers

I was actually thinking before even seeing the thread title that there needs to be a 'Dirty Jobs' like youtube channel or website that highlights as many jobs as possible from all the fields. When I was in school, I simply didn't know what was out there and chose something that seemed interesting (teaching history - never got to teach it, bummed out teaching other subjects to, as your example above, kids who didn't give a shit). I left and now enjoy the library world a lot. When I became a librarian at poly tech, my feelings on this were elevated even more when for the first time I was introduced to a huge range of cool, fascinating, niche skilled trades jobs. 'Smart' kids were steered well away from these in my day. Better now, but having worked at two private schools, I can only remember a handful from graduations who weren't going to universities.

Dirty Jobs was fun for showing the sort of things that make the world tick and tended to at least highlight the positive attitudes of workers, if not the enjoyable aspects of the job. My thinking was mixing that joy people have for their field with all the positives and some of the drawbacks of it. In addition to school guidance counselors (in my day as both a student and educator, hopefully it's better) highlighting a wide range of roles, as you say, it's vital to to have resources that show the goods and bads of those from people who actually do it.

Biffer wrote: Sun Jul 09, 2023 8:08 am Amongst the worst advice to give to young people. You hear it all the time from people who are astonishingly rich and successful, basically because they want to say their success is down to hard work and hard work alone, rather than being exceptionally talented in the area of their success in the first place.

Usually at the right place, right time/Nepotism in most cases as well

thunder only happens when it's raining

I'm an insomniac so am pretty much fucked when it comes to following my dreams...


On a serious note, you can have all the passion you need, and the natural talent, but in the end you still need entrepreneurial skills to make a living from whatever you're into.

I saw it when I was still doing photography as a hobby, and trying to at least make some extra money from it. I was never any good, but I saw people with virtually no photography skills making a living from it, because they still knew how to grow the business side of things. The art or special skill is only about 10% of the complete package.

My son and I want to start breeding pythons and boas, starting with Ball Pythons and Redtail boas. My son definitely had the know-how, but we need to learn the business side of things from other breeders.

sounds like someone is just bitter about their failed x factor audition

This is actually something I think about quite a lot, especially since my eldest son turned 10 and we spend a lot of time talking about his future.

I love his idealism. He want's to be a pro rugby player, air force pilot, professional musician who owns a game farm.

But I also try and sprinkle some reason on to him, by saying that being an engineer or a farmer is also cool. I encourage him to think about what the world needs, as well as what his dream is.

I'm sorry bit this thread has it completely wrong. I myself am proof that success can happen if you want it enough. I was a washout struggling to keep a job until I discovered my long drive and since then it's been all gravy.

troglodiet wrote: Mon Jul 10, 2023 4:14 pm I'm an insomniac so am pretty much fucked when it comes to following my dreams...


On a serious note, you can have all the passion you need, and the natural talent, but in the end you still need entrepreneurial skills to make a living from whatever you're into.

I saw it when I was still doing photography as a hobby, and trying to at least make some extra money from it. I was never any good, but I saw people with virtually no photography skills making a living from it, because they still knew how to grow the business side of things. The art or special skill is only about 10% of the complete package.

My son and I want to start breeding pythons and boas, starting with Ball Pythons and Redtail boas. My son definitely had the know-how, but we need to learn the business side of things from other breeders.

All well and good, if that's what you want to do, and not just you being super supportive of something your son wants to do while benching your own future. Is it?