Instead of making choices that benefit others, make choices that benefit yourself.
I have a problem with this statement. I think of all the people that have put in hard, boring work so that you can write that blog on an open-source powered internet, so that I can type this response on my unix powered mac, so that we can go to Wikipedia and gain knowledge only the exceedingly wealthy could have had 200 years ago.
Other than that, I'm really at a loss for words.
EDIT: seriously, am I missing something? Even when that one guy was trying to talk about how some child prodigy who had died wasn't very smart, and pg talked about how embarassed he was for hackernes, I don't know if I've ever seen something I disagree with so profoundly. Did the author only mean 'make those choices some of the time'? It seems to me that the natural conclusion to that statement is pretty disgusting.
Did the author only mean 'make those choices some of the time'
"This isn't to say that we should all become selfish beasts concerned only with ourselves. We are lucky to live in a world where most of the really great opportunities involve delivering growth for many people at the same time. I'm not suggesting that we should focus only on personal growth - just that every decision should be optimised so that personal growth is part of the deal, and self-sacrifice is not."
> We are lucky to live in a world where most of the really great opportunities involve delivering growth for many people at the same time. I'm not suggesting that we should focus only on personal growth - just that every decision should be optimised so that personal growth is part of the deal, and self-sacrifice is not.
It seems he's trying to find some middle ground between two outlooks that are taken for granted as being two polar opposites: the Randian selfish pursuit versus the altruistic self-sacrificial.
Balance is good, so can I appreciate that. It becomes apparent that its a false dichotomy if you try and label an open-source project as belonging to one category or the other (Rails and Linux as two examples in the sibling comment).
I think what he meant was something more along the lines of: Don't let self-sacrifice inhibit your ability to accomplish the things you want to.
Helping others is pretty much a necessity on the road to personal growth. To build tools that only you use stunts your ability and your ability to impact the world. Right now I'm on personal projects building things for other people to use, even though I myself have no need of the tools I'm building. In the process however, I'm learning things building those tools, like socket programming and interface design.
I have no problem with that. But the idea that I should reject doing things that benefit a large number of people just because they don't simultaneously benefit me in an optimal way is scary. If you're optimizing for your own personal growth, then you're only going to choose to do something that benefits others when it benefits you more than anything else you might choose to do with your limited time and resources.
Now look, I know, maybe I'm just being selfish and optimizing for my personal happiness when I donate to a cause I believe in, maybe Bill Gates just does philanthropy because he 'made crappy products' and needs to feel good about himself. But I don't believe that those choices are optimal for personal growth, and I believe that the world turns on them.
I'm reminded of Paul Buchheit's post from yesterday "Be good to yourself, and to others. It's actually not possible to do one or the other - you must do both, or neither."
But do you think a Wikipedia contributor thinks, "damn, it's Wikipedia-editing day and I'd really rather be out with my friends...nevermind, better crack on" or that they enjoy the research and editing in itself? Wikipedia is successful in my opinion because it makes contributing enjoyable (and self-benefiting)...it's a framework for swombat's advice.
I think of all the people that have put in hard, boring work...
Those people didn't do their work because they figured it'd be neat if you could share your thoughts on the weather, kittens and startups with the world for free. They did it because it served a goal for them at the time - they were selfish.
DHH did Rails because he wanted a Ruby web framework. Linus did Linux because he wanted a free Unix for his PC. No, they didn't immediately set out to extract money from their efforts (although both did become wealthy from them), but that doesn't make them altruistic.
Avoid things that cost you right now and have only a small chance of providing a return later - I would argue that, despite hindsight being 20/20, both projects had a small chance of success. Sure, they did get notoriety for them, and that was good.
Oh, and Linus got money from Red Hat and VA Linux because they were grateful. I'd argue that they weren't optimizing for personal growth there, either.
I have a problem with this statement. I think of all the people that have put in hard, boring work so that you can write that blog on an open-source powered internet, so that I can type this response on my unix powered mac, so that we can go to Wikipedia and gain knowledge only the exceedingly wealthy could have had 200 years ago.
Other than that, I'm really at a loss for words.
EDIT: seriously, am I missing something? Even when that one guy was trying to talk about how some child prodigy who had died wasn't very smart, and pg talked about how embarassed he was for hackernes, I don't know if I've ever seen something I disagree with so profoundly. Did the author only mean 'make those choices some of the time'? It seems to me that the natural conclusion to that statement is pretty disgusting.