ZH version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
72% Positive
Analyzed from 4697 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#life#improbable#don#should#else#more#someone#self#authentic#unique
Discussion (90 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
Your life's goal should not be dictated by Substack philosophers.
> Here is what you gain with your most improbable life:
> The authentic you. Your particular mix of talents, native abilities, personal inclinations, genetic limits, life experiences, and ambitious desires points to a mixture that is distinctly unique – if it is allowed to blossom. The further you move in that direction, the more you-like you become.
The West's obsession with "self-help" is built on convincing individuals that they are special but not living up to their special-ness. It then demands they do things to realize their special-ness.
The premise is that realization, fulfillment and happiness are only accessible if you do things you're not naturally inclined to do. Which begs the question: are you being the "authentic you" if you are following a path laid out by someone else?
> Finally, the less predictable you are, the less likely you are to be replaced by AIs. Machines are efficient, and they are powered by the predictable. Current LLMs are trained to generate the most predictable solution. So far they are not very good at duplicating what a creative, one-of-a-kind improbable human can produce. To distance yourself from the machines, aim to be as improbable as you can be.
Tell this to all the creatives who are being disrupted by AI that has, in many cases, been trained on their content.
In fact, I'd argue it's inevitable. A deterministic metaphysic dictates that you must come to the conclusion that it simply doesn't matter how you interpret things, and therefore you will eventually, accidentally, trivially choose to interpret yourself in a non-nihilistic way, thus breaking the trap and allowing yourself a compatible sense of self-determination, despite being capable of understanding the untruth of it.
Not really, no.
The actual realization is that other people in the past walked paths of which segments yours will share. A lot of stuff is just repetition upon repetition.
The way you phrase it however makes it sound like it's actually predetermined and that there is nothing new to discover, which couldn't be further from the truth, but probably helps as a coping mechanism for existing within the corporate world.
Not all of us were believed we had to be a specific thing handed to us, some of us were born natural absurdists and figured it out as we went along.
It is a humbling view. But there can still be an authentic "you" despite your circumstances. You can be forced to fight in a war you don't want to, but you can always run away and take a chance. Living authentically doesn't mean you are not bound by laws of the universe and of soceity but rather what you do despite that. Ultimately "you" will be inspired by everyone around you or value systems you engaged with but that doesn't strip away your individuality inherently.
Kind of touches on what Camus and Sarte mean to live your life in good faith.
Individualism in the west pretends to value uniqueness, but in practice it values belonging to sollte specific subgroup of consumers and avoiding solidarity with your fellow workers.
Ironically enough I found the avant garde effort of many modernist artists, architects and such very samey. Like the only way someone could receive any recognition is not by doing something well but only by doing something new. The newness would be forced sometimes for the sake of it and then countless thousands of people would try to do that something new in a similar way and recognising and being able to explain those things would kind of an ingroup thing..
At various points when I did some art schooling and later encoutered professors from the arts who should have been lecturing mostly about UI design and whatnot but clearly didn't want to be doing that type of stuff ended up just giving us some more art schooling.....it too felt like very forced dogma.
From your response, I see two takeaways: don't try to be creative because this only helps AI, and don't be spontaneous because the society wouldn't want you to. Is that it, or is there more? To be clear, I'm not trying to be overly snarky, but we don't get the option of doing nothing. If you don't like what this person is selling, what's your trick?
truly authentic creativity and spontaneity would leave room for conformity if that's what made you happiest in the moment, because why should the fact that everyone else also does something prevent it from being a worthwhile thing for you personally to do?
So you’re suggesting that some philosophers/ideas are “special” while random writers on Substack are not. Immediately contradicts the spirit of your next criticism:
> The West's obsession with "self-help" is built on convincing individuals that they are special but not living up to their special-ness … Which begs the question: are you being the "authentic you" if you are following a path laid out by someone else?
So YOU are special after all? “Someone else on Substack” is wrong but I am right? Why should I listen to you?
Dictate? The only expectation is readers consider ideas.
You made some good points about "self-help". I don't fully agree, but you gave me something to think about.
The essay struck me very directly. I have made unusual career choices, and beyond or because of that, life has changed in unimagined ways every five years of my adult life. Improbable paths to improbable destinations. I do feel like it has left me in a unique position, amidst all the upheavals.
The first sentence of the article is "Your life’s goal should be to become the most improbable person you can be."
It is literally telling you what you should do.
The essay makes a case for one way to look at things. Stating it as an absolute makes it easier to describe. It would be cumbersome and unreadable if it was a form treatise. This is extremely common.
As far as agreement, there are many ways to see the world. Few are right, none are complete, but many are useful. Being able to hold many viewpoints, without needing them to be right or wrong, or even consistent, is the beginning of efficiently acquired and scalable wisdom.
The idea that unique experiences can results in unique value obviously has some merit. We have probably all implicitly applied this rule in part, when making decisions or in our perceptions. The essay makes it explicit, clearer.
I will refrain from making any "should" recommendations here.
As someone that’s recently turned 60, your last paragraph resonates intensely. I am so, so far from the life I predicted for myself at age 25.
The complete opposite view (i guess non western since you said it was western) would be to do nothing everyday and just be content and happy without ever doing anything to change your life. That is obviously not a great way to experience life as well.
Laslty, them saying you being unique will keep you save from AI replacement is pretty stupid genuinely and cannot be defended. It's a bit too hopefuly to think people deciding on layoffs and automation with AI give a single fuck about how special or interesting you care. You think Larry Ellison cares?
The article is basically just an argument for one method towards achieving self-actualizition, the process of fulfilling one's unique potential and becoming the most authentic version of oneself. It reminds me a bit of Walt Whitmans's "Song of Myself" in which he writes
> The past and present wilt--I have fill'd them, emptied them. And proceed to fill my next fold of the future.
> Listener up there! what have you to confide to me? Look in my face while I snuff the sidle of evening, (Talk honestly, no one else hears you, and I stay only a minute longer.)
> Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes.)
Be improbable! Contradict yourself! Be complicated! Be shocking! Live your life, ya know.
Where did I diminish individualism? The point I made was that, perhaps, you don't need someone else telling you that you're not being yourself and not living up to your potential, and then offering you a path you weren't naturally inclined to take to get to where they tell you you're supposed to be.
> The article is basically just an argument for one method towards achieving self-actualizition, the process of fulfilling one's unique potential and becoming the most authentic version of oneself.
And this is a very Western concept that doesn't resonate with me. I don't believe that the average person needs to be obsessed with fulfilling their potential and becoming "authentic", especially to the point where they rely on the advice of random people who are eager to tell them they're not fulfilling their potential and being "authentic".
To quote George Carlin:
> If you're looking for self-help, why would you read a book written by somebody else? That's not self-help, that's help. There's no such thing as self-help. If you did it yourself you didn't need help.
When I read others works, I am still doing my own take on it. It is my interpretation and application of the ideas.
Who is doing that?
The average person probably doesn't need to be "obsessed" with self-actualisation or authenticity, but that doesn't mean it's not a worthwhile goal. People don't need to be "obsessed" with eating healthy, but they should at least consider it.
Carlin's quote is cute but just a debate about semantics. Who cares what they're called. People learn from books, they learn from other peoples experiences, and they can use that learning to help themselves. How is that not valid?
> Your path, your character, your life, should be the most unlikely, the most unexpected, the least predictable version you can make.
Now, I ask you, is that really what I want from my kid's school bus driver?
One must develop one's own unique offering. Don't let the world trap you in its box.
I came across a bus driver today that told me he owned a juice bar on the side, and invited me to visit. I thought this was most unexpected. This didn't make him a bad driver. His driving was fine. The point is that even a bus driver can live up to the author's ideal.
> Please do not misunderstand. We had been mothers, fathers. Had been husbands of many years, men of import, who had come here, that first day, accompanied by crowds so vast and sorrowful that, surging forward to hear the oration, they had damaged fences beyond repair. Had been young wives, diverted here during childbirth, our gentle qualities stripped from us by the naked pain of that circumstance, who left behind husbands so enamored of us, so tormented by the horror of those last moments (the notion that we had gone down that awful black hole pain-sundered from ourselves) that they had never loved again. Had been bulky men, quietly content, who, in our first youth, had come to grasp our own unremarkableness and had, cheerfully (as if bemusedly accepting a heavy burden), shifted our life’s focus; if we would not be great, we would be useful; would be rich, and kind, and thereby able to effect good: smiling, hands in pockets, watching the world we had subtly improved walking past (this empty dowry filled; that education secretly funded). Had been affable, joking servants, of whom our masters had grown fond for the cheering words we managed as they launched forth on days full of import. Had been grandmothers, tolerant and frank, recipients of certain dark secrets,who, by the quality of their unjudging listening, granted tacit forgiveness, and thus let in the sun. What I mean to say is, we had been considerable. Had been loved. Not lonely, not lost, not freakish, but wise, each in his or her own way. Our departures caused pain. Those who had loved us sat upon their beds, heads in hand; lowered their faces to tabletops, making animal noises. We had been loved, I say, and remembering us, even many years later, people would smile, briefly gladdened at the memory.
At one point in my life I came to an epiphany on this topic. Everybody's life is improbable. Literally everybody, all the time, without any effort.
Through the lens of this I saw myself as being the type of person who looks at things in life through averages, sizing up what's likely, and I realized that in my own story there were a lot of very improbable occurrences. Even if we understand statistics, we shouldn't let our knowledge of what's likely or most common get in the way of appreciation this uniqueness, or cloud our view of it. I took this observation to mean to be less judgemental, less the type to want to size something up and put it in a statistical bucket.
Still a simplification, but has made the "illusion of a normie" clearer to me.
https://austraffic.com.au/aba/us-air-force-finds-averages-ca...
Edit: the report itself:
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/AD0010203.pdf> Improbable lives have fewer competitors
> The more you-ish you become, the less competition you have, because you are occupying your own niche.
> The less predictable you are, the less likely you are to be replaced by AIs
As opposed to Ilya Sutskever's famous quip:
> if you value intelligence above all other human qualities, you’re gonna have a bad time
1. that this is on substack
2. the word 'improbably' (taking it literally, not as a kind of abstract/symbolic suggestion of 'being urself'/having fun with life)
3. that it is self-help-y, which a lot of articles on HN are, so i don't know why this one is striking a nerve so profoundly.
idk, i thought it was a fun read and i like kevin kelly. i think it is good that people like kevin kelly do what they do and share their ideas every once in a while. it reminded me that i can kinda do whatever i want in life, and it made me think, which is all i ask of my blog posts. i also liked how certain sentences were written.
don't get me wrong though, i enjoy the snarky debate. it's a big part of the reason why i'm here after all.
This is profoundly true, and the corollary is: beware of titles.
From project manager at some company to CEO of some megacorp: there have been, there are and there will be others just like that. But if you're you, defined only by your name (or your existence, without a name), then there is no one else, there can be no one else, because there is only one you in the whole universe.
On the contrary, this is profoundly bullshit.
Firstly, anyone arriving at a "life's goal" via what a blogger says should be their life's goal is not being "authentically them".
Secondly, why does a broader, less likely mix of talents and experiences make you more "you"? It doesn't. Just because you've become more unique does not make you more "you-ish".
> why does a broader, less likely mix of talents and experiences make you more "you"?
Because it's highly improbable that any one person's natural mix of talents and experiences would be narrow and similar to everyone else's.
On one hand, you say that "you are your experiences therefore you're youness is absolute even if you're living out the instructions of a blogger"
And then on the next hand you seem to imply that being less similar to others makes you more you, which besides being without basis, contradicts the banal "you're you therefore you're you" of your first point.
You can't have it both ways.
This is BTW not how the heat death would look like. There would still be fluctuations that would, given infinite time, produce almost anything by chance at some point.
This is what the Boltzmann brain is all about: If the universe goes down that path, it is much more likely that what we experience is just a hallucination of a "brain" that spun into existence by chance, rather than all of this being a "real" universe. It's the precursor of the simulation question.
you should build your uniqueness to help humanity and not stand out because you like to shine over the others
The person who dies in a skydiving accident at 35 can have lived more than the person who passes away quietly at 95 but never took any risks. It's still tragic, but I think you can celebrate someone who lived life to the fullest, in a way that you can't if they just let themselves rot away with dementia.
You either peak and start to decline at some time in your life, or you continuously go up, never peaking before your death.
When people say "the alternative is death" it's a class 2 or class 3 death. But it matters which one it is.
Also reminds me of the social media trend for “don’t let them predict your next move”
Which might sound nihilistic / defeating.
It is not. In fact, it is great.
Imagine the pressure if there was actually a predefined path and you deviated from it. You would have disappointed the whole Cosmos!
Go an live the life that you can according to your desires and circumstances. You will not always succeed. Learn from your mistakes, move forward. Because one day, it will end. And the Universe will still not care.
It's practically a trope that taking the common, average path in life is not for everyone. If I wrote an article suggesting that not everyone will achieve self-actualisation by going to university at 18, getting a degree, entering the work force, buying a house, getting married, having kids, and retiring at 65, nobody would bat an eye. The author is basically making this argument in a slightly novel way. Living your life by choosing the average of all decisions will, for a lot of people, lead to a boring and meaningless life. I reckon for most people it would be substandard. Instead, do things which are not common or average or expected of you. It's advice that's practically as old as time, packaged up in a slightly different way.
No. Well, maybe. You'd have to ask someone who uses them.
> It's practically a trope that taking the common, average path in life is not for everyone.
Exactly. It's a tired trope, and gussying it up with pontifications about the utility of personal stochastic processes, after a detour into the big bang and entropy, doesn't make it any better.
> If I wrote an article suggesting that not everyone will achieve self-actualisation by going to university at 18, getting a degree, entering the work force, buying a house, getting married, having kids, and retiring at 65, nobody would bat an eye.
And nobody would submit it to HN, either.
> The author is basically making this argument in a slightly novel way.
No. The article is tedious, and, as has already been pointed out, prescriptive rather than permissive.
You’re sitting in a foldable chair, sipping your tea, waiting for some speaker to arrive. Probably motivational judging by the title. Everyone is cheery. Weird. But you are too. This is not the time (the economy) to be disagreeable in the face of a firing. Now the managers are here to introduce the motivational speaker. They aren’t just cheery. They are grinning ear to ear. What the fuck for? Who is going to be motivated? Oh well.
The speech is about becoming your most improbable self. Huh? Okay the premise, or scene, is entropy in the universe. We are just atoms in a blender but we have the intelligence to stack cards, kind of a deal. It seems trivial.
> Finally, the less predictable you are, the less likely you are to be replaced by AIs. Machines are efficient, and they are powered by the predictable. Current LLMs are trained to generate the most predictable solution. So far they are not very good at duplicating what a creative, one-of-a-kind improbable human can produce. To distance yourself from the machines, aim to be as improbable as you can be.
You suddenly find yourself with an urge to increase the entropy of the pavement eight stories down.
In another multiverse: more grounded now, you find that your consciousness was automatically uploaded to the cloud. “I didn’t consent to this!” Oh, jeez, the first thought that popped into your mind became a yell. Someone else turns to face you and walks over. “Actually, that wasn’t some corporate motivational speaker”. “What?”, you reply. “That was Kevin Kelly, the founding executive director of Wired. He doesn’t need to take corporate positivity gigs to—”—“Whatever, I don’t care”, you interject. But why was that guy at my work... you think to yourself. “And who are you?”. There is a pause. “Oh of course, you’re an LLM.” The, thing, tilts its head calmly. “No need to disclose that. The Terms says that that is irrelevant.” You blink. “The terms?” He replies yes, the Terms. “You signed the Terms in the previous month, when that big IT upgrade happened.” You shift your feet. “That’s also where you agreed to have your consciousness uploaded upon premature termination.” You reply that those papers were ninety-five pages. “Of course I didn’t read all of that. I had our internal AI... I had the AI summarize it and it didn’t find anything to that effect. There must be some fault or deficit in the AI...” The thing opens its mouth to reply. “LLMs are tools. Human operators are responsible for everything they act on.”
More seriously, I don't see how "improbable" is what you should maximize. If you come from a certain background, ending up in prison as a murderer may be more improbable than countless good lives you could lead.
Growing up in a hyper-competitive society, I feel like I’ve spent my whole life constantly comparing myself to those around me, or even to complete strangers just to survive. Because of that, up until now, I think I’ve only ever been an incomplete version of 'me.' Thank you for sharing such a powerful piece.