> I dont think that explains who you are (well, some might say braggart) or what you're about.
Yeah, this is classical "rock and a hard place" thing. Someone asks, "Who does this jerk think he is?" You can write a factual answer, and you come across either boring or as a braggart. You can write a flippant answer and you come across cheeky. You can ignore it and come across aloof. It's surprisingly hard to answer well when someone calls you out in an unfriendly way.
If you want to know my personal interests, my favorite thing in the world is scubadiving, I like electronic music quite a lot and was just at a bar with a great DJ here in Saigon, my favorite piece of music in the world is Dvorak's 9th Symphony, I like guns a lot (this is partially an American thing, Europeans need not be alarmed), I snowboard, I'd like to travel to every place in the world, I read a ton of books... I'm a natural introvert, but I like people. Yeah, I'm aiming to be the greatest strategist of this generation. I reckon it'll take me another 20-25 years to get there.
> I have never met you, but I know many users here have and every single one vouches for your credibility. That is something I believe in.
Thanks. I think I'm a decent guy, but I rub some people the wrong way. But I mean, I knew I'd do that when I started. I write pro-wealth, pro-ambition, pro-winning, pro-excellence, pro-individualism, etc, etc, etc. That really bothers some people. Like, a lot. But it's also why my site got relatively popular relatively quickly - there's just not many places like that.
I did a brainstorm a while back - I asked, how could I reach people that were just interested in what I have to say without rubbing people who don't want to hear it the wrong way? I don't want to antagonize who doesn't like what I have to say. Of course not... but I couldn't really find any way to write my site, share it with people who are interested, and have people who aren't interested not find it.
I guess that's the nature of things - you take strong positions, you get criticized. Bothered me a little at first honestly, but you get over it pretty fast. When someone criticizes someone they don't know except via online, they're replying to their idea of you, not you yourself... it's just the nature of things. With some acclimation, the criticism isn't so bad, and you get to do some interesting stuff and meet some interesting people. Worth doing overall, definitely.
That's what rubs me the wrong way: that kind of phrase is a throwaway. You're pro-winning. Great. Until I read your blog, I was a firm believer in losing? Maybe it was because I was striving to be as mediocre as possible, rather than... "excellent"?
I'm not trying to be a wiseass (well, maybe a little), but do you see what I'm getting at?
> That's what rubs me the wrong way: that kind of phrase is a throwaway. You're pro-winning. Great. Until I read your blog, I was a firm believer in losing? Maybe it was because I was striving to be as mediocre as possible, rather than... "excellent"?
Actually, maybe not you, but I think a lot of the modern world is fundamentally anti-excellence. Maybe America less than most places, but a lot of the world Tall Poppy Syndrome going on -
A Swedish friend of mine is a talented mathematician, professional poker player, and was a highly competitive athlete before a shoulder injury derailed him. He said he got all kinds of negativity and abuse and people really hating him for what he did, despite the fact that he's like the nicest, kindest, friendliest person I know. He says they have this phrase for it in Sweden -
So yeah. I think a lot of the world is actually anti-winning, anti-excellence. Look how rich are always portrayed in movies. They're always the bad guys. Look at how the star players get booed. Look at how people cheer against the New York Yankees just because it's a successful and extremely well-run organization that wins.
> I'm not trying to be a wiseass (well, maybe a little), but do you see what I'm getting at?
I understand. Most people don't realize that things are like this because it's so normal. But if you seriously break the mold and go counter-mainstream/counter-culture, you're going to get serious abuse from people. Almost everyone that breaks the mold does. I think that's garbage, that ambition should be celebrated, that achievement should be celebrated, etc.
I also spend a lot of time working on various time tracking and habits and reading lots of science and things like that, but that more pedestrian stuff never really gets spread around the internet - so if you only see my site on an occasional one that climbs HN or Twitter retweet, you're probably seeing the more controversial/aggressive stuff. I'm a believer in hard work and putting the time in too, I'm not a fan of rah-rah-go-go.
But to answer your question, yeah, I think a lot of the world is fundamentally anti-excellence, anti-standing-out. And I think that's bad.
>Look at how the star players get booed. Look at how people cheer against the New York Yankees just because it's a successful and extremely well-run organization that wins.
Don't confuse a distaste for egomania with a hatred of achievement. People don't boo the guy who comes from nowhere, works his ass off, and remains humble despite success. People boo hubris.
Actually, maybe not you, but I think a lot of the modern world is fundamentally anti-excellence. Maybe America less than most places, but a lot of the world Tall Poppy Syndrome going on -
Yes, a lot of the world is at least ambivalent about personal excellence. I think most of the world is trained in school to do enough to plausibly cover their ass and stay out of trouble. That makes them good cogs in the burgeoning machinery of society, but useless to an entrepreneur.
I notice this a lot in music. Many people in America think it's more important to praise some kid for doing some worthless flubbery musical thing than it is to just appreciate good music. If you just be sincere and applaud for what you really like (as opposed to what gets your attention while you try to talk over the music) your kid might pick up on and be inspired by your passion for music. Applauding for any old flubbery thing just to bolster self esteem just teaches kids that it's all bullshit, fake, and you're trapped in a suburban put-on devoid of real meaning.
My advice would be to find a better way to capture that spirit than "winning! excellence! to infinity and beyond!", which to me at least, just sounds corny.
Like many people here, I don't fit into a mold at all, but am pretty comfortable with my life and with most people I deal with. Maybe it comes with age.
With sports, at least, I think people like to see the underdog win because the idea of "sport" isn't just about who's best on paper. For instance, with cyclists, there is an impressive array of physiological tests they take, but it's more fun to watch the races, rather than simply decide, say, the Tour de France over who has a bigger VO2 MAX in the lab.
"My advice would be to find a better way to capture that spirit than "winning! excellence! to infinity and beyond!", which to me at least, just sounds corny."
Not sure how much of Sebastian's work you've read, but none of it really comes across as corny.
It's hard to describe the "point" of his blog. His writings really are all over the place, but almost every single one is legitimately interesting and contains some unique or novel insight.
I think because the topics are so diverse, when you end up simplifying it to "pro-winning" it sounds a little "eh." But if you actually read it, you start to understand what he means.
Might you consider picking your battles a little better? His sole purpose is motivating others to achieve excellence. I'm not sure what you stand to gain by continuing to pick on a guy whose biggest crime is corniness.
I'm not "picking a battle" or trying to belittle Sebastian, I'm just giving him my honest opinion of how he comes across, which I think 1) he can handle, and 2) is perhaps doing him a favor.
I'm not saying anything I wouldn't say to his face.
>but I think a lot of the modern world is fundamentally anti-excellence.
The world isn't as black-and-white as you're indicating here. People are skeptical of the rich guy because for so long the main way to get rich was to rob people. Some rich people still get rich that way today. Many others don't do anything illegal but they're not nice people and aren't what I would call "excellence" by any stretch.
As for booing stars, I think that's usually jealousy and ignorance. They don't understand why he/she is making that much, how long the stars career can be compared to, say a banker or investor.
Sweden, also, isn't about "anti-excellence" it's about the group over the individual. It may be one's opinion that that's the same thing but we really are all in this together (Note: I don't agree with the Swedish approach, I simply don't dismiss it out of hand).
>I think that's garbage, that ambition should be celebrated, that achievement should be celebrated, etc.
I agree, except in my opinion the ends don't necessarily justify the means. For example, if you make money but do by creating no value, less value than would have been provided otherwise or actual negative value then I don't think that should be celebrated, it should be opposed and discouraged.
Well said. Another metaphor for this is the crab bucket. If you've ever seen a bunch of crabs boiled in a bucket, you'll notice that don't have to use lids. If a crab tries to escape the other crabs pull it back down. This is often used as a metaphor for the slums.
Not sure if anyone is following this any more, but good questions here -
> Who was was the greatest strategist of the previous generation?
Of the last, say, 50 years? It's certainly debatable. Depends on what field.
You probably know most of most of the excellent business strategists in finance and technology. For statesmen, probably Deng Xiaoping or maybe Lee Kuan Yew.
It's a subjective thing, like "best painting" or "best painter" - you could put metrics to it or rankings or something, but in the end it's all subjective.
> Rommel was a great strategist. Is it better to be Rommel or to hurt fewer people and to be forgotten?
Actually, interesting you chose Rommel. Rommel was executed by the Nazis (forced suicide, technically) for being part of the plot to overthrow Hitler. I think it's fair to say that if that plot had been better executed, then millions of lives would be saved. So that's the flipside - better strategy can save millions of lives as well.
For what it's worth, Rommel is a hell of a comparison -
Super honorable guy. Was opposed to war crimes, opposed to the Holocaust, opposed slave labor, believed Hitler should be arrested and tried for crimes and replaced... he's the only member of the Third Reich leadership with a memorial or museum in Germany (he has both).
But anyways, it's kind of a false dichotomy. The Romans had an expression - "Si vis pacem, para bellum" - "If you want peace, prepare for war" - I do believe in that, and sometimes - like Hitler blitzkreiging Europe or Saddam invading Kuwait - military action is necessary. But it's never desirable if avoidable.
Yeah, this is classical "rock and a hard place" thing. Someone asks, "Who does this jerk think he is?" You can write a factual answer, and you come across either boring or as a braggart. You can write a flippant answer and you come across cheeky. You can ignore it and come across aloof. It's surprisingly hard to answer well when someone calls you out in an unfriendly way.
If you want to know my personal interests, my favorite thing in the world is scubadiving, I like electronic music quite a lot and was just at a bar with a great DJ here in Saigon, my favorite piece of music in the world is Dvorak's 9th Symphony, I like guns a lot (this is partially an American thing, Europeans need not be alarmed), I snowboard, I'd like to travel to every place in the world, I read a ton of books... I'm a natural introvert, but I like people. Yeah, I'm aiming to be the greatest strategist of this generation. I reckon it'll take me another 20-25 years to get there.
> I have never met you, but I know many users here have and every single one vouches for your credibility. That is something I believe in.
Thanks. I think I'm a decent guy, but I rub some people the wrong way. But I mean, I knew I'd do that when I started. I write pro-wealth, pro-ambition, pro-winning, pro-excellence, pro-individualism, etc, etc, etc. That really bothers some people. Like, a lot. But it's also why my site got relatively popular relatively quickly - there's just not many places like that.
I did a brainstorm a while back - I asked, how could I reach people that were just interested in what I have to say without rubbing people who don't want to hear it the wrong way? I don't want to antagonize who doesn't like what I have to say. Of course not... but I couldn't really find any way to write my site, share it with people who are interested, and have people who aren't interested not find it.
I guess that's the nature of things - you take strong positions, you get criticized. Bothered me a little at first honestly, but you get over it pretty fast. When someone criticizes someone they don't know except via online, they're replying to their idea of you, not you yourself... it's just the nature of things. With some acclimation, the criticism isn't so bad, and you get to do some interesting stuff and meet some interesting people. Worth doing overall, definitely.