Don't be Hard on Yourself

Or, Now's not the Time to be Obsessed with Your Inadequacy.

Yesterday on Twitter I shared the following video:

As someone who was, as the alternative title states, in danger in "overfitting" the way I look at myself, my past, and my aspirations to a certain way, this video was an eye-opener. I wish this blog post to communicate a few more of my ideas regarding that topic. My audience, today, is people like me who get easily discouraged, burnt-out, and regretful, especially "former gifted kids" who are afraid that they have lost the advantage they had way back in elementary, and, some days, are unable to let go of that, and they always compare themselves to others who they think handled their gift better. Nevertheless, I hope anyone with self-esteem issues regarding intelligence can benefit.

First, a brief summary of the video above, and why it sparked a wave of inspiration in me: the first point is that a person's development is not a linear trajectory, implying that, what seems to be a huge headstart may not necessarily pay off in dividends later on. Rather, development is more complex. Part of the complexity is that these headstarts often come in narrow, specialized, technical fields. Indeed, it may seem linear in these sorts of fields. However, the real world is what David Epstein (not that Epstein) calls a wicked learning environment. This kind of learning environment is where objectives are unclear and feedback may be scrambled or inaccurate -- generally a very unwelcoming environment, as opposed to a kind environment which gives a clear objective and clear feedback, like math: all you have to do is to internalize the strategies you need to get you to your desired solution. Epstein gives chess as an example: grandmasters are able to play well because their brains are wired to quickly interpret patterns where we would just see a mess of pieces. For the wicked world, in contrast, we need a "broad training base", where we form "conceptual frameworks" that we can adapt to a myriad of different situations. This is especially viable in the Information Age, because of the glut of free information available; whereas in previous ages specialists would contribute more, nowadays it's generalists, people who are able to form frameworks and skills that they can generalize across fields, who contribute. This is how the GameBoy was created: integrating old technologies to form something new. Indeed, many new and unusual things are really just novel combinations of usual things. Finally, to end the video, David Epstein urges us to recognize that the world is changing, and planning for what or who we want to be in 10 to 20 years is essentially like making plans for a stranger in a different universe! That is, thinking that not having the necessary technical knowledge now would basically end up destroying your future is an untenable worldview. Rather, instead of comparing ourselves to other people, we should rather compare ourselves to who we were yesterday, and move based on that.

It is, altogether, a very encouraging video, especially his last words, on how, if you don't know with 100% certainty where you will end up (none of us do), it is a lost cause to even feel behind. Again, a person's development is obscured, complex, and non-linear. Rather, it is better to incrementally increase our knowledge base (perhaps, our wisdom too?), so that we are more knowledgeable than we were yesterday. This is the only comparison that matters and that we should expend mental energy on. That is some general life advice that I feel applies greatly to myself. Think about it: some people just seem so much better in technical fields than I am. Paralysis comes: I do nothing out of disappointment. And what do I accomplish in the end? Nothing. This, as opposed to if one steadily grows and grows -- and then, perhaps they won't be a chess grandmaster or best in the world at solving rubik's cubes, but they will just be astonished at how far they've come. All of human ambition can be likened to climbing mountains. You look at what's ahead and you quail in fear. And you wonder at those who went before, and have succeeded. Perhaps at this point, you feel that because they started earlier, that is why they are so far ahead. But why don't you start, little by little? In a week or two, look down at the ground so far away.

This is alright to motivate you to progress. But remember that mountains aren't a good picture because they are still vaguely linear; individual human progression is still infinitely more complex than climbing mountains. In fact, any metaphors concerning a human's progress (really, anything about a human) are, I believe, inherently inadequate, because there is nothing else in the world like the human soul. But they may serve to highlight certain aspects of it well enough.

You may also still be nevertheless discouraged, because it's alright to be become better, but what if you want to be the best? Or among the best, in any case. If you're anything like me, you want to become the best at something, and you become discouraged because you see particular cases like in Chess, where if you didn't start when your age was in the single-digits, then say goodbye to becoming a grandmaster. That's just how it is. In following this thread, let's focus on technical things one aspires to be the best at, such as competitive math, competitive programming, and even videogames. Yes, why video games are a hooker for many people is because they give you a clear objective, immediate feedback (remember, kind environments?), and provide lots of opportunity for technical advancement. Whether it be a strategic RPG or a first-person shooter, or even something as ludicrous as stabbing people with lego swords (Minecraft, heh, I love you), there is a clear goal to be achieved, clear standards to base yourself on. This logic remains unchanged for competitive math and programming. People here are, essentially, playing a videogame, and they participate because they experienced something analogous to you finding a game that you happen to be good at (or a game that makes you feel good at it, in any case), and so are motivated to feed time to. So, why do we value the latter two more? Well, math and programming are legitimately useful skills to have, while 360 no-scoping n00bs isn't, so the reasoning goes. Yet, don't videogames also train your reflexes, team-building skills, and reaction time, which is very handy for people who aren't athletic? So why do we look down on people who spend their lives playing videogames? Perhaps, they are donating too much time to and overfitting themselves to a certain environment that won't end up helping them that much? But how does this logic not apply to math or programming champions? It is well-known, in the latter case, that competitive programming, past a certain point, ends up not being beneficial at all in making you a good, industry-level software engineer. Indeed, it can internalize bad programming practices, such as preoptimization and obscure variable names, all nonos, any software engineer will tell you.

What I think is the solution here is that the best of the best in all three of those examples simply found something that they were good at. Not to say it's all talent and no work; they worked hard as hell for what they achieved! I think part of the reason young people often prevail in these fields is that youths don't have many obligations other than their choice of videogame or competition to think about, so they can dedicate loads of time to it! I think that, if you were to ask them, they would agree that these skills are most excellently combined with a wider knowledge base, so that these skills may be integrated into the real world, as opposed to building these skills and only these skills by themselves.

Maybe you're at the point in your life where you don't care about the real world yet, and you just want to feel like you're the best in something. In this case, I have nothing except to remind you that there are more important things in life, the universe, and YOU. Laugh if you want, but there are tales of people selling their souls to Satan just so they can get material wealth, and, yes, wordly expertise. You don't want to grow up and realize that you've massively underperformed on all the other important areas of life, areas that you still need to live a fulfilling and happy life, in pursuit of this one single technical goal. That, I think, is the worse regret out of the two. I will say that you need success in your life to be happy. But you don't need such a narrow definition of success. It is much better to succeed as a well-rounded person. Why don't we take some of that "combining things from different fields" advice, and, if you are exceptional in two things you love, like cooking and engineering, then you can say that among engineers, you are among the best chefs, and among chefs, you are among the best engineers. I think embracing the different traits and interests that make you you is a much better model of success.

If you want to be the best, I am quite sure that part of it is you crave praise and recognition. This is how I know my own wants to be. I say, both to you and myself, there are many things to be said for praise, but there is far more to be said for true, genuine development. They may not ever hear it, but the people who proceed, build, and create quietly earn my respect. Moreover, there are healthier ways you can earn this recognition, and the better victory here, would be curing the insecurity that leads you to believe that you have to be good at something that you might not even like for it itself. This includes things like mathy people who nevertheless may not even do well in/enjoy doing competitions. Don't feel like you have to do something because you are being pressured or lured by external expectations, like a dog being led somewhere by the promise of treats.

That being said, it's not like I disparage the people who are able to really be among the best in these technical fields. They are very impressive and inspirational, but, again, you see, you have to ensure that you're not comparing yourself mercilessly to them. I am almost certain that some of these people have their own internal challenges -- wishing that you are them would simply switch out the kind of challenges you need to face.

So, to end off, there is no reason for you to beat down on yourself because you made mistakes, or you did badly in the past, that make you feel as if you, in your essence, are worthless as a human being. Let go of it.