Your Most Important Skill: Empathy - <AUTHOR> http://chadfowler.com/blog/2014/01/19/empathy/ <comment><USER2> I'm sure this will get buried at this point, but I have experienced very negative side effects from my ability to empathize with people. Theres a term (which I find silly) that categorizes people as 'empaths' which I gathered means one can almost "link" emotionally with people. While I fid the term silly, i have experienced almost crippling emotional pain when someone close to me is hurting. I hate it, I wish it would go away.

My one friend, brilliant engineer. Has brain cancer. I sit a desk away from him. When he is upset, I can hardly function. My ex-SO, when upset, I can feel the anger and sadness. It destroys me to feel that someone feels that way toward me. Its truly awful and I wish this didn't happen to me. My siblings growing up, I was able to (and I'm not proud of this at all) basically manipulate them into doing whatever I wanted, because I was able to understand how they felt.

People tell me all the time "you're such likeable person, everyone likes you. That'll take you far." My boss said it not a month ago, which took me by surprise, as I don't care for my boss at all.

I wish there was a spectrum opposite the autism spectrum. I don't think I am at all unique in this, and I wish I could talk to others experiencing the same kinds of things.

<comment><USER3> The article is ridiculous really.

If anything, the "skills" demanded by the present economy are those of a high- functioning psychopath [1]. That is, total lack of empathy but with a modest ability to fake it.

[1] [http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/09/10/1015320/-Why- High-F...](http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/09/10/1015320/-Why-High- Functioning-Psychopaths-Rule-The-World)

<comment><USER4> Thanks for saying what I had on my mind. In fact I was perusing the thread to find more voices that agree with your sentiment, spot on.

The following is a comment of mine on HN from nearly an year ago. It was made in response to a post on what the author learned from Steve Jobs in matters of negotiation [a]. It stands true today as it did then. Every time the topic of empathy and its relevance to startup success or success at large comes up, I feel a strong need to revisit this comment. Sadly, I have a feeling I will be posting this for some time to come, in the foreseeable future because I think most people - if they are being genuine - seem to be under the false assumption that somehow there are ways to win in the valley or elsewhere by being anything but ruthless :

\-- -- --

I think every time the issue of Steve Jobs's maniacal side comes up I feel obliged to bring this up:

Steve Wozniak on Steve Jobs:

       I was inspired by Stanford intellectuals like
       Jim Warren talking this way at the club. Lee
       Felsenstein wanted computers to help in things
       like the antiwar marches he'd orchestrated in
       Oakland and I was inspired by the fact that
       these machines could help stop wars. Others in
       the club had working models of this computer
       before Jobs knew it existed. He came down one
       week and I took him to show him the club, not
       the reverse. He saw it as a businessman. It as
       I who told Jobs the good things these machines
       could do for humanity, not the reverse. I
       begged Steve that we donate the first Apple I
       to a woman who took computers into elementary
       schools but he made me buy it and donate it
       myself. [1]

The contrast in the personalities of Jobs and Wozniak could not be more clearer.

However I agree with first part of what toddmorey has said below:

      3. Most importantly, being an asshole may help
      great ideas get powered through, but it's not
      the only way.

The latter part, I'm unsure and circumspect about:

      The people I most admire have found
      success while still being amazing human beings
      to work beside.

In the valley and elsewhere, I think this is increasingly not the case.

I think we should stop telling kids that life rewards the passionate and the skilled.

By rewards I certainly do not mean some inner calm or contentment coming from indulging in what you love. I mean the conventional rewards of recognition, admiration and remuneration.

Life is rigged in favor of the opportunists. The schemers, hustlers and the witty-talkers. But certainly not the plainspoken and the adept.

This is what many kids who have grown up on the stories of Steve Jobs and the valley lore surrounding many other iconic founders, will take away as their guiding principles.

They will grow up thinking, "Life rewards the unabashedly ravenous, merciless and ruthless blokes among us. Life does not spare the dignified, the pleasant or the mild-mannered." There is nothing to suggest otherwise.

No matter how you dice it, your conscience tells you that this is more than a bit disenchanting if not unfair.

[1]

[http://i.imgur.com/a1I9DTs.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/a1I9DTs.jpg)

[https://plus.google.com/+CarmsPerez/posts/GnVTvQNgvpf](https://plus.google.com/+CarmsPerez/posts/GnVTvQNgvpf)

\-- -- --

[a] [http://heidiroizen.tumblr.com/post/80368150370/what-i- learne...](http://heidiroizen.tumblr.com/post/80368150370/what-i-learned- negotiating-with-steve-jobs)

<comment><USER5> I don't think I agree with your interpretation of that story or the conclusions you've drawn from it.

Not wanting to donate the first apple II or use it to "help stop wars" doesn't make Steve Jobs a bad person or demonstrate a lack of empathy. He could have easily understood exactly where Wozniack was coming from, but have drawn different conclusions about what was right. The things that people associate with being "good" aren't always the best indicators of morality or motivation. Someone can be a good person without ever giving money to charity.

And before we crush the dreams of children, it should be pointed out that musicians, artists and athletes are heavily rewarded for their passion and skill every day. So are many successful entrepreneurs. It's our responsibility to chose the right heroes, for ourselves and for the next generation. There's a Judas for every Jesus. We get to choose which one we want to be.

I'm no Steve Jobs fanboy, but describing him as "unabashedly ravenous, merciless and ruthless" is far beyond the pale. Don't let a few rumors and out of context stories color your judgement of an entire human life. Empathy, right?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is a refreshing article considering the mainstream upsell of the selfish "cool" stone-hearted asshole.

Anywho, I used to be one of those kids with little to no capacity for empathy. I wasn't horrible, I would never have hurt anyone, but I had a really hard time relating (nor was I trying to). My pre-school teacher mentioned to my parents that something was off with me (they just thought I was a weird kid), it seemed I had no notion of social feedback, putting me somewhere on the autism spectrum.

Turns out I was going completely deaf, which on the long run ended up being a blessing in disguise (also because I more or less recovered my hearing later on).

Being deaf, you learn to read people as if they came with an instruction booklet, it comes very naturally. I saw how other people had those reactions, emotions showing in their faces, their body language and so on, and how it affected others. I started feigning it and playing with it, effectively manipulating people into reacting the way I wanted them to.

As time moved on, some of these things started coming naturally and it soon hit me like a brick: the best way to get things from others is to understand where they stand emotionally and to show reciprocation and support, i.e. empathy.

It often makes me wonder whether empathy is purely an acquired trait, or if some people have a strong predisposition for it.

The one major drawback of empathy, in my opinion, is feeling utterly useless when you see other people repeatedly hurting themselves, usually thinking they're doing the right thing. It pains me, deeply, but I suppose it's a necessary side-effect.

<comment><USER7> > the best way to get things from others is to understand where they stand > emotionally and to show reciprocation and support, i.e. empathy.

This is the dangerous line this article is suggestive toward: empathy as a tool for manipulative gain.

I wonder if someone truly naturally capable of understanding differing perspectives would even write such an article. It sounds more like a robot discovering a trick they can utilize to score points.

I think empathy is a sense. When I read some people talking about it in this way, it feels like deaf people thinking they're able to hear music because they found a trick of feeling the speaker's bass.

<comment><USER6> I can't help but feel a little offended by your reply but I think I can also understand where you're coming from. To give some perspective, hearing the bass is not a trick, it's your way towards understanding how to listen, or rather feel music differently. Bass is the most obvious thing for most deaf people, so it helps you realize "how the whole thing works". You then gradually realize than you do feel the entire spectrum through your skin, bones, etc., you just have to dedicate a certain amount of effort to it. For reference, I'm the only musician in my family, I got interested in playing piano at age five, had a innate sense for basic chords, while having absolutely no hearing.

<comment><USER8> > I can't help but feel a little offended by your reply but I think I can also > understand where you're coming from.

It's not hard to see how you might feel offended by a comment that took the very experience you were talking about (deafness) and used it to contrive an example of not one, but two repugnant qualities. Yet instead of lashing out, you channeled that into understanding, while still honoring your own reaction. That takes both subtlety and skill. Thanks for giving us an example of the thing we're talking about.

<comment><USER9> And I didn't even notice, so thanks for pointing that out. Agreed, great example.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This blog post is factually incorrect in the sense that it contradicts the current state-of-the-art in psychology research, which comes from the regression analysis of statistically-identifiable personality traits against actual career outcomes in repeated large-n survey research.

Specifically, empathy is associated with "agreeability" in the five-factor OCEAN model (the dominant scientific model of personality traits in psychology). In this model, agreeability has been repeatedly shown to correlate with worse career outcomes and lower professional satisfaction over time.

This is not to say that being an asshole is good, but if we are measuring career performance in terms of the traditional metrics that matter to most people (promotion and pay), the statistical reality is that high levels of empathy don't move the needle in the direction people conventionally assume they want.

<comment><USER11> Googling didn't turn up anything on a link between empathy and agreeableness. Only a study that had both words in the title.

<comment><USER10> From Wikipedia:

"Agreeableness is a personality trait manifesting itself in individual behavioral characteristics that are perceived as kind, sympathetic, cooperative, warm and considerate.... People scoring low on agreeableness are generally less concerned with others' well-being and report having less empathy...."

and:

"Agreeableness is usually associated with a lower income as opposed to aggressive employees who are found to have a higher income."

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreeableness](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreeableness)

<comment><USER12> To save others the time, here are the Wikipedia sources for the quotes listed:

[https://web.archive.org/web/20131217221700/http://www.workpl...](https://web.archive.org/web/20131217221700/http://www.workplaceoptions.com/news/press- releases/press- release.asp?id=B20EA2B071254FDD8DC8&title=%20Agreeable%20Workers%20Viewed%20as%20More%20Productive)

[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886908...](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886908002195)

<comment><USER13> The first source is a press release from what appears to be an HR company which attempts to debunk the claim that agreeableness correlates with lower income based on a survey they contracted through a polling agency.

That survey portends to show that "almost half of American workers (45 percent) believe employees with more agreeable personalities (those who seem more tolerant, less controlling, or more willing to consider co-workers' ideas) are more successful in the workplace". There are a lot of problems with this statement...

(1) Less than half of American workers actually agreed with the stated result. (2) The study survey was carried out by a local North Carolina polling agency with no data available as far as I can tell. (3) Believing that 'agreeable' persons are more successful in the workplace does not contradict the finding that 'agreeableness' correlates with low incomes -- as in many cases, what many individuals believe does not necessarily correspond to the truth.

The study they apparently contracted the survey in response to was called, "Do Nice Guys – and Gals – Really Finish Last? The Joint Effects of Sex and Agreeableness on Income" [1]. Needless to say, you'll want to skip the press release and go straight to that paper.

I am unable to read the second source, thanks to Elsevier's brutal lockdown of scientific research. That being said, I'm hesitant about buying into the thread parent's claim that TFA "contradicts the current state-of-the-art in psychology research" given that I have only been able to find that one study purporting to link "agreeability" with lowered income.

[1] [http://www3.nd.edu/~cba/Nice-- JPSPInPress.pdf](http://www3.nd.edu/~cba/Nice--JPSPInPress.pdf)

<comment><USER10> I linked to Wikipedia because it properly contextualizes the five-factor model and somewhat accurately summarizes the research. If you need academic sources try searching for the following terms (or some variation) at Google scholar:

five-factor agreeableness salary

I get 10,000 results for that search and the teasers show the overwhelming trend of the findings ("a significant negative relationship between agreeableness and salary", "agreeableness is negatively related to initial career success", etc). An online readable version of the paper you mention as being inaccessible is the first result for a Google search on the exact title. Subsequent results do seem to be either media coverage or paywall spam.

[http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?ar...](http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1025&context=cahrs_researchlink)

<comment><USER13> The paper you linked is the one I was able to read -- I linked the full text in my previous post. The paper I was unable to access was "Development and Validation of an International English Big-Five Mini-Markers" which I was interested in for its apparent validation of the model at a more general level.

I peered through the Google Scholar results this morning, and I did indeed find several approachable articles on the subject. For those interested:

[1] "The five-factor model of personality and career success" [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001879100...](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001879100917573)

[2] "The Big Five Personality Dimensions and Job Performance: A Meta-Analysis" [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991....](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x/abstract)

[3] "The effects of personality on earnings" [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167487004...](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167487004000546)

[4] "Ability and Personality Predictors of Salary, Perceived Job Success, and Perceived Career Success in the Initial Career Stage" [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2008....](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2008.00435.x/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false)

The results are varying, [1] and [2] confirm, while [2] seems to disconfirm (haven't read that one beyond the abstract yet as I need to go to work). [3] appears to confirm but only finds this relationship holds true for women.

In any case, thanks 'trevelyan for pointing me towards some interesting weekend reading!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Empathy is a skill and a talent. I've had close personal relationships with a few great salesmen. It's incredible to watch the difference between someone who is gifted in this regard and someone who isn't. It can be worked on, but some people definitely have a natural talent.

Great salesmen are always in a good mood, never negative, never criticize, never go off on random tangents and know what the other person is going to say even before they say it. They can tell immediately how a target market will react to anything in a product or offering. It's like they can easily put themselves in the other person's mindset to understand their gut emotional reaction to things. I only dream of being that good. The best I can do is to clumsily emulate it, but it requires concentration to pay attention to everything, it's like speaking a foreign language but never quite thinking in it.

<comment><USER15> I think empathy needs several things. But above all, it needs one's brain power, or smartness.

In my understanding, empathy is pretty much a skill to emulate the other person's thinking. There's a discussion about Kolmogorov Complexity, which says to emulate an already complex system you need an even more complex system, which means a bigger brain. Of course human minds are not that simple, but I think this is onto something.

In addition to smartness, you'd probably need a patience and some serenity to react (or not react) to the situation accordingly.

<comment><USER16> > I think empathy needs several things. But above all, it needs one's brain > power, or smartness.

I thought empathy had more to do with the part of your brain that is able to pick up on facial expressions, body language, and spoken tone ("social queues") to make inferences that are not otherwise explicit. Mild autism suppresses this part of the brain, meaning you could have someone who is very "smart" but lacks empathy and social skills.

And of course it can be learned, which is part of the treatment for mild autism, but many (most?) normal people are able to tap into something much more instinctive.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I find the amount of people that have a complete and utter lack of empathy staggering. Average people really couldn't care less if someone they don't know is hurt as long as they have what they want; coming across somebody truly empathetic is really a rarity. I've always found this rather depressing.

<comment><USER18> I'm not quite sure how to fix this problem. I'm empathetic (I believe) because I've had terrible things happen to me in my life. I'm not sure _everyone_ has to go through terrible things to be empathetic, and I worry about what my children would have to go through to have that same level of empathy.

How do you teach something where you have to feel it to understand?

<comment><USER19> I'm no longer empathetic, because whenever I felt bad for people because terrible things happened to them, I saw them repeat mistakes. Empathy is behavior that only works if those around you are trustworthy. Societal empathy destroys the requirement to be so; and therefore makes it dangerous for individuals and society to be empathetic.

<comment><USER11> > Empathy is behavior that only works if those around you are trustworthy.

I would argue that this isn't true, so long as you make decisions rationally and not emotionally.

Sharing an emotional state with someone can be a valuable tool in understanding them. Just don't let this shared emotional state cloud your decisions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> One of the odds things I've noticed about empathy is that a great many people are very bad at recognizing it in others. Empathy doesn't just look like playing madlibs to the tune of "You feel $FEELING. That's $ADJECTIVE!".

And beware of anyone who calls for empathy but displays none for their audience. That's just manipulation.

<comment><USER21> Indeed. It does seem that people who talk about empathy will sometimes really mean they want you to agree with whatever they think, or whatever their version of empathy is.

Not that I would accuse TFA of that -- it's explicit about "knowing your enemy" and listening to someone you are disagreeing with.

<comment><USER22> It's not incompatible for someone to have a lot of empathy and still just want you to agree with whatever they think. The real test is whether you find yourself _actually_ agreeing with what they think. If you do, they have successfully gotten into your head and performed inception. If you don't, they bungled it.

<comment><USER21> Well, what I mean to say is that talk about empathy is sometimes talk about "just agree with me and stop with all your opinions otherwise". Which is of course the opposite of envy. I don't really understand about the inception stuff.

<comment><USER22> Then I fail at empathy. ;-)

I'm saying that being able to communicate your ideas requires that you step into the mind of the listener - i.e, empathy. If you do this successfully, you express them in a language that is already familiar to him, and so ( _to him_ ) it seems like you're saying something obvious. If you have to resort to "just agree with me and stop with all your opinions otherwise", then you don't actually understand how he thinks or how to reach him, i.e. you have failed at empathy.

We agree, but I am trying to add a little extra detail and a meta-example to the discussion. :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Incoming armchair psychiatrist...

I think any perceived universal lack of empathy is more a projected personal lack of empathy. I think that if you assume and expect the worst from others you'll in turn hold yourself to the same standard. Everyone's been in a bystander position before, where they knew they could do something but didn't; this is empathy without action, which is mistakenly labelled as a lack of empathy.

Hence the problem is not that we can't empathize but that there's no obligation to do anything, which reflects a general preference towards identifying and branding over the actual work of change and action.

<comment><USER24> Sometimes I joke about people and someone corrects me telling me what a douche I am. But lately I've started thinking that maybe It's easy for me to say these things because just because I say someone for example looks a certain way does not genuinely mean I think that person IS that way.

And then when people correct me, they are actually reacting on their own prejudgements and projecting it on my joke.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I can read anyone like a book. I also know why I have this skill - my mother had a mean temper. No violence, but a lot of screaming and banging doors. So I learnt quickly to measure the temperature of a room. Weird, and cool, that that aspect of growing up produced such a useful skill. _Really_ weird though, was discovering how few have this ability.

<comment><USER26> I too can read anyone like a book, and I'd never really thought about why before but my mum also had a temper and I grew up with 2 separate abusers and left home to a 3rd. I've never considered it a skill before, or indeed realised that it wasn't that common.

I actually find it debilitating at times, because it can come out in weird ways. I will sometimes fixate on situations or even individuals and feel vast amounts of pain for them, even carrying massive guilt for things I cannot fix. (I am seeing a counsellor.)

<comment><USER27> I've seen arguments that this is (part of?) the reason why women are generally more empathic than men.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> True story: I took a parenting course titled Redirecting Childrens Behavior (great course, BTW) from an instructor who also taught an enterprise-oriented course called Redirecting Corporate Behavior. In class, I was curious and had to ask what the difference was. Her response was, "They're the same. People are the same at work as at home."

<comment><USER29> Who was the instructor?

<comment><USER28> [http://redirectionconnection.com/](http://redirectionconnection.com/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I'm glad to see this sort of article in here.

However I would suggest it could be argued that compassion is the bigger skill and talent here, and that it includes empathy.

The etymological root of "compassion" is "to suffer with", to feel someone's pain. To walk in their shoes. To see their perspective. To breathe their air.

When there is compassion there is a better user experience. Apple used to have a lot of compassion but like other recent HN posts have discussed, Apple's software of late suggests they're losing it . . . fast.

One's entire daily activity, including operating vehicles (be they two wheels or more), could benefit from more compassion. Nations would benefit from a more compassionate media. Not to menion more compassionate politicians.

For me, compassion is the thing. It's what the world needs now.

</comment><comment><USER31> I've seen, 9 definitions of empathy on this thread so far. That might be a place to start :)

<comment><USER32> I think there's a lot of associated cultural baggage and expectations that come with our notions about empathy. This muddies the discussion, somewhat: people seem to be conflating the idea of understanding what other people are feeling (and why they feel that way--which doesn't require feeling anything), feeling what other people are feeling (which doesn't necessarily require understanding), and a host of other ideas. (e.g. influencing how other people are feeling--which may require the first to some extent)

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> > _The reason crowds of people exhaust me is that I am constantly trying to > read and understand the feelings and motivations of those around me._

That describes me perfectly.

But there is a general confusion between "empathy" and "compassion".

I have a lot of the former and very little of the latter; I understand what other people experience, but I don't really "feel" it -- I don't suffer when they do.

(I don't know what this says about me -- that's just how I am).

Professionally this has served me well; I'm an independent contractor but the core of what I do is translate what people say to one another. When designing a system it's amazing how users think they have expressed their needs clearly when the tech guys understood a completely different thing; this happens even when everything is written down and formally accepted, etc. The way to fight this problem is to describe the consequences of every choice: if you do this this way, then you won't be able to do that other thing.

Personally, empathy without compassion is more of a flaw. In a conversation I usually know what the other person is going to say, so I answer their questions before they finish asking, and most people don't like it. Or they feel they have found a sympathetic ear and start telling me a lot about themselves, which gets boring quickly.

Small talk with people you know just a little, terrifies me. I have learned to talk about the weather -- that works most of the time, but only for so long (but the conversation can start anew every day).

I wonder if I shared too much.

</comment><comment><USER34> A lack of empathy is the source of many of the worlds problems.

Would we be care more about US drone attacks if we had friends or family living in Afghanistan or Iran? Would we be so cavalier about prison rape if it had happened to us or a close friend?

These things occur when we distance ourselves from the people who are affected. When you look at all the injustice in the world, so much of it would evaporate if the people responsible simply had more empathy.

</comment><comment><USER35> _" Why should you explicitly work to enhance your ability to empathize with others?"_

There's a reason why empathy is declining and I think it's related to the disconnect individuals have when moving from situations where the _" We"_ has been superseded by the _" I"_.

If you live, work with a number of individuals working together, where everyone has particular skills and roles then find yourself in a situation where your existence is on the line, co-operation will beat individuals. You see this in nature where big cats hunt in teams, with combat troops and to an extent startups. Empathy is a by-product, because if you don't help them out, you fail.

People can get a taste of this playing competitive team sports.

<comment><USER36> Nope. That's the wrong explanation for empathy. This won't be popular. Empathy forms in environments where individual outcomes are determined by group perception. Everyone romantacizes it's benevolence but it's really all about manipulating people. Empathy is actually on the rise. Compassion on the other hand...

<comment><USER35> _" Empathy forms in environments where individual outcomes are determined by group perception."_

Can you give some examples or cites for this.

I can give lots of real-world examples where self concern is second and group put first. Animals in nature and humans in groups. This is from an anthropology observational point of view.

 _" Oh so you were perceiving them then? ;)"_

Animals in nature, yes. Humans in real-life under stress, yes.

<comment><USER36> > I can give lots of real-world examples where self concern is second and > group put first.

Oh so you were perceiving them then? ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> tek-cyb-org Wow this is so me. I feel u totally. Unfortunately my "Sensitivity" has caused me to become somewhat introverted yet still able to get through life and doing pretty well. Great article, great to know im not the only one out there. thanks

</comment><comment><USER37> I really enjoyed the book: Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life by Marshall Rosenberg - which despite the title, is actually very relevant to this topic.

I picked it up after hearing a number of very positive reviews, and despite my skepticism, I now understand why it's so highly praised.

I'd try to provide a brief summary, but I know I wouldn't do it justice. I will however say that it's almost certainly one of, if not the best, book I've ever read on improving interpersonal communication and relationships.

The author has a phd in psychology, so the advice has some real science backing it up too.

<comment><USER38> I also can't give a short summary, but one thing about the book struck me: it's a very egoistic book.

He describes in the very beginning that his reason to learn these techniques was to find out how he can get his wishes fulfilled, easier and with less friction. His conclusion is that seriously caring about others wishes and wants is one of the best ways to do that. He also tries to do that without being manipulative.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Sure. I think it's important to empathise with people. Especially in a professional setup. But how do you empathise with the lazy ones who would come to a meeting unprepared, hoping to get a quick tutorial on the subject on the go. Or the condescenders who would assume their expertise on a subject renders all other opinions invalid. In those cases empathy is actually cruel to the remaining who do deserve it. Empathy like every other human emotion isn't really universal.

</comment><comment><USER40> "Social Intelligence" again?

Btw, empathy by itself (if we think of it as so-called mirror neurons based machinery of shaped by evolutionary forces reciprocal altruism) is a "glue" of any social formation, so there is nothing special about it.

If we think of it as an "ability to feel other people's feels" (and reflect and react on them) - then it is OK for some context and not so for another. At least, in a harsh, competitive even hostile environments it is rather a vulnerability.

So, inside any kind of social organization, be it a flock of animals or a village community or a company competing in a crowded market - empathy is what holds it together. It is also the foundation of the social aspect of some religions, but why should one pile up more abstract concepts on top of a simple biological phenomena?

And, of course, it is not _the_ most important skill, given that the social aspect of a human life is, indeed, important, but not the most important. Any so-called "introvert" (with is a last-century meme) will tell you that.

There are people, who would say, that independent thinking, not being a docile sheeple, conditioned by social environment, etc. are more important virtues in life.

There are reasons, why intellectual practices and spiritual growth requires a solitude.

So, high empathy is important for a social worker or a priest or any kind of "manipulator", but I don't buy that it is the most important skill for a techie or an "introvert". Yes, it helps when we have to visit a public place, but why should we make other people as our primary occupation?

</comment><comment><USER41> Love this! Lately, I have been suffering from Impostor Syndrome and there are times I felt like I am doing everything wrong and I even started to question my empathy. Anyway, great article!

</comment><comment><USER42> Previous discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7084299](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7084299)

</comment><comment><USER43> I love the message of this article. Yet I'm also disappointed we needed an article to tell us this. How is having empathy controversial?

</comment><comment><USER44> Great design and UX comes from a deep understanding and empathy of people (including yourself). If I feel your pain, I can help address it.

</comment><comment><USER24> Some here seems to think that introverts can't be empathic which ironically seems like a very hostile attitude towards fellow people.

</comment><comment><USER45> Another side effect of involuntary empathy for me is tending to forgive (sometimes too?!) easily - since I understand, or at least like to believe I understand almost everything as a result of hard to change traits and motivations. Whenever somebody is blamed for something I immediately try to explain why her or his acting is understandable. Empathy might also lower my belief in free will.

</comment><comment><USER46> its good to promote this. thank you for advocating this viewpoint. :)

although as much as i identify a failure at empathy as a serious weakness i have, i continually fail to do anything about it and constantly put my foot in my mouth and offend others.

maybe i just need a lot more practice...

</comment><comment><USER47> I think the most important job-related skill is Social Networking.

<comment><USER48> do you mean like social media or in person?

<comment><USER47> Face to face.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> My empathy is blocked by disgust towards most people, although I am very empathetic.

I am not sure what it is that slight or strong disgust I feel towards almost all people. Maybe it is a psychiatric condition.

</comment><comment><USER50> become a stoic, practice all the virtues, not just empathy

your brain will thank you for it

</comment><comment><USER51> i tried it, did not work for me

</comment><comment><USER52> demands exceeds supply. even socially inept lazy aspies with mediocre coding skills, who'd normally be the last that would get hired (like me) have programming careers. any success you may experience is not likely to have anything to do with your soft skills.

<comment><USER53> I don't agree. In my experience, somebody who can't deal effectively with people will get hired for technical skills and be largely put on the slow track where the benefits of their technical expertise can be reaped while not having to deal with the negatives of their social weaknesses. (I was that guy once. I got better.)

One thing I've gotten better at--with a derivative that's much steeper than the rise in my technical skills over time--is a kind of empathy that I can use in a professional context. What I've found that this lets me do (this can also be read "forces me to do") is understand others' needs and actually _care_ about them at a level that makes it important for me to do the right thing. People can tell when you give a shit about them, and they're more likely to entrust you with responsibility even when you may not be, from a technical or historical perspective, the best candidate. Not just because they like you, but because they can have confidence in your desire to do well, with their interests in mind. That matters.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> Book suggestion thread: Go.

Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ ([http://www.amazon.com/Emotional-Intelligence-Matter-More- Tha...](http://www.amazon.com/Emotional-Intelligence-Matter-More- Than/dp/055338371X))

<comment><USER55> Emotional intelligence is only as good as healthy your social environment will be. If you work or live with toxic or neurotic people neither a great sense of social intelligente nor to be able to feel like them will help you. To be smarter could.</comment></comment>


How to Make Friends over the Internet - <AUTHOR> https://guzey.com/how-to-make-friends-over-the-internet/ <comment><USER2> If you Want making friends online takes patience and persistence, but it's actually quite easy to do. Start by finding people who share your interests so that you'll have something to talk about right away. Then, get to know them better by talking with them online and in-person.</comment>


Domino's in legal battle with Precision Tracking over GPS technology - <AUTHOR> http://www.news.com.au/finance/business/retail/dominos-in-bitter-legal-battle-with-precision-tracking-over-gps-technology/news-story/9a67c8bf6cb4509503c74a54cb925d2e <comment><USER2> Isn't GPS tracking of delivery drivers and arrival time estimation rather old hat these days? I thought such systems had been around for well over a decade?

<comment><USER3> Patents last 20 years, well over a decade.

<comment><USER4> last time I looked into this specific case, the software from precision tracking was pretty crappy and I am not remotely surprised they aborted that partnership. somewhat surprised this is still going.</comment></comment></comment>


Microsoft Dumps MS Money: Yes, Web Apps Had Something to do With It - <AUTHOR> http://mashable.com/2009/06/11/microsoft-dumps-ms-money/ <comment><USER2> What surprises me about this, and perhaps where I disagree with the article, is that personal finance is hardly a solved problem -- particularly by web 2.0 apps.

I do use Mint and I actually love it. But it's mostly just for checking my balances in one place and maybe checking out some of my transactions. I used to use MS Money, and before that Quicken, before the applications themselves devolved into bloatware and banks limited their access.

I guess I just find it surprising that MS didn't see this as an opportunity to compete as a web application against what's actually a pretty weak field. Not that I would personally give MS high odds at winning such a competition, mind you...

<comment><USER3> I know, why didn't MS Money try and compete? They could have pulled a ton of leverage with many banks. They already had the backbone. They should have just flexed a bit of muscle... No innovation in this area shows what will happen in other areas. And that will inevitably mean MSoft might just fail big time if they don't innovate like the start ups are doing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> > How can applications like Mint (Mint reviews) and Quicken, which Microsoft > is now chasing to replace MS Money, come years after MS Money, and take away > its market share?

Umm Quicken came before Microsoft Money.

1991 is the first year I can find for Money 1.0 vs Quicken which was already a product by 1988.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuit>

</comment><comment><USER5> I think the article makes some good points in general, but largely misses the fact that MS Money was not that great of a program in many aspects, nor did it innovate. Likewise with Encarta- it seems that these programs were designed in the 90s and then tried as much as possible to keep that mindset, even as they introduced new features.

<comment><USER6> You are absolutely wrong about this. MS Money was a great program that innovated quite a bit.

The Money team was one of the first Microsoft Groups to realize the web was a paradigm shift. They did two things that are noteworthy.

First, they very early on integrated themselves with banks (sort of a Proto Programmable Web). Most people don't realize Money was connecting to banks a year before Quicken (who offered imports of files but no direct connect)

Second, they realized the web was also a UI shift and wrote a shrinkwrapped app as a web application (I suspect not making it a shrinkwrapped app was beyond their power). In fairness they were clearly inspired by Quicken's use of hyperlinks in program but they took what Quicken did and went one better.

You can see a lot of that from this screenshot (note it's 2002): [http://images.sudhian.com/articles/ShuttleLinux/PartIV/MSMon...](http://images.sudhian.com/articles/ShuttleLinux/PartIV/MSMoney.jpg)

MS Money was actually a revolutionary product in many ways. So much so that people didn't realize how revolutionary it was at the time.

<comment><USER7> You're partially right. I tried both Quicken and Money last year.

As a s/w developer, I could immediately see that Money was suffering from years of neglect. I predicted that it would soon be cancelled and that was one of the reasons I stuck with Quicken (though it too sucks).

Due to the reasons you articulate re: Money's early web focus and my hunch about years of neglect, I think that Money's cancellation had much more to do with internal Microsoft priorities than with the rise of the web finance software companies.

For financial information, I want multi-decade records. With a web startup, I have no assurance that all the time I spend entering and categorizing stuff will pay off if the web guy goes under with my data. With a desktop program, at least I can keep going on for a long time with the old version (I'm still using Quicken 2007).

<comment><USER8> >For financial information, I want multi-decade records.

My wife and I have been recording our family finances in MS Money since January 2003. Maybe we hit a sweet spot with Money 2004 but we never saw a compelling reason to upgrade. I have an uncle who similarly is currently using Quicken from something rediculous, like 1999. The value of the records now, the ability to look back at how various changes (births, moves, Katrina, etc) affected our savings and spending has been unbelievably helpful not only in terms of making informed decisions about the future, but also preventing fights about finances.

As an aside, the other major source of friction has historically revolved around schedules, and Google Calendar is awesome for that. A very useful decision, I think, was giving each other write permission to each others schedules.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> >> they want widgety, simple applications that do one thing well.

Oh my - THAT is a familiar phrase! I think as the general population become more tech-savvy and networking becomes vastly more important, that philosophy will be a big deal. Go UNIX!

<comment><USER10> Um what does simple, widgety applications have to do with UNIX?

<comment><USER11> From: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy>

Doug McIlroy, the inventor of Unix pipes and one of the founders of the Unix tradition, summarized the philosophy as follows:

This is the Unix philosophy: Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work together. Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a universal interface.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I used to work in a software store in Australia and we had people always looking for Money but the latest version was 2005 and never developed beyond then.</comment>


Zynga lays off 18% in restructuring - <AUTHOR> http://www.cnbc.com/id/102655089

<comment><USER2> I'm surprised it's not more.

<comment><USER3> Exactly, I guess it is just the first wave.</comment></comment>


Everyone does not, in fact, have a book in them - <AUTHOR> https://theoutline.com/post/5541/unconventional-wisdom-you-should-not-write-a-book?zd=1&zi=4m5oydnj <comment><USER2> >I put it like this: I have been running since I was about a year old. Almost 40 years! But I cannot for the life of me run a marathon. I am not physically capable of it, even though I can run a few miles in a row.

Yes, you are. You just tell yourself that you are not.

And yes, you can write a book. Whether it gets published or not is another story.

I don't understand why someone whose job it is to find the next best selling novel would write a post like this. It reeks of something a literary- agent/failed writer in Brooklyn would say...

<comment><USER3> Agreed. I _could_ run a marathon if I put in the effort. The reason I "can't" is truthfully that I _can 't be arsed_. If you want to run a marathon what you're saying is that you're happy for training for that marathon to take over your life for, probably, about a year, and I'm not motivated to do that.

With that being said Eddie Izzard, with little training, ran 43 marathons in 51 days. He didn't break any records or win any medals, which I suppose is roughly analogous to getting a book published, but he did do it, over and over again, which is arguably writing the damn book.

All of this suggests that I could probably run a marathon right now if I really felt like it. Fortunately (I'll say it again) I can't be arsed. Same goes for writing the book, because nothing inspires me enough to write an entire book. But I _could_ do it, because I've absolutely written a book's worth of words over the past few years.

<comment><USER4> _But I could do it, because I 've absolutely written a book's worth of words over the past few years._

It depends on the genre and if it's fiction or non-fiction. Non fiction, yes. But fiction is harder because of stylistic attributes and the fact it all has to connect. It's not like writing 300 300-word blog posts.

<comment><USER5> > _Non fiction, yes. But fiction is harder because of stylistic attributes and > the fact it all has to connect._

Ever read Dan Brown?

<comment><USER6> That isn't a counterargument. Regardless of whether or not you think someone's writing is good, to your taste, or nuanced, there's still considerable (and, I think, reasonably rare) skill involved in making something that the general public wants to pluck off of the paperback shelves (or e-reader equivalent). It might be tawdry, silly, and factually inaccurate, but those qualities are orthogonal to whether or not you can write a story that people want to buy.

<comment><USER5> > _there 's still considerable (and, I think, reasonably rare) skill involved > in making something that the general public wants to pluck off of the > paperback shelves_

Is there? The general public can be sold any kind of crap that takes minimal effort -- and in the same way, don't buy masterpieces that take tremendous effort and skill to create.

> _It might be tawdry, silly, and factually inaccurate, but those qualities > are orthogonal to whether or not you can write a story that people want to > buy._

This isn't an argument on actual writing skill though.

It's like you measure a new category like "skill of writing best-selling stuff" that's not necessarily connected to the skill of writing itself -- just to the degree of sales.

But one can sell bad stuff or skilless stuff too. Sales don't show anything more than a skill in sales themselves.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> A negative article. I spent 2 years writing a sci-fi about a guy who builds a blackhole powered computer to simulate another universe. It got less than 150 downloads in 18months. I did it because I was doing nothing else with my life. Ultimately it failed to be succesful. But I gained a lot. It really helped me get a lot of crap off my mind. I learned a lot. I also read 400 books and graphic novels over 4 years. It was a rewarding proccess and would recommend it to anyone. So in that respect I disagree with this article. You don't need financial reward or peoples approval to gain from the experience of writing a book. Everyone does have a book in them.

<comment><USER8> Please post a link.

I have a couple of questions:

i) Have you been able to apply the skills you gained for something else? Did it help you career-wise in any way, or do you just feel like it made you a better, more well-rounded person?

ii) Did you have a job at the same time to sustain yourself?

<comment><USER7> Apologies, Can't link as I used a pen name for freedom of expression. So far nothing attaches me to the book.

Yes I do use the skills, on email daily for example. I understand punctuation a bit better and many word definitions are clearer. As a programmer I could already touch-type. I repeat myself less and edit down my copy removing redundant words. One concise sentence is better than saying the same thing 10 ways. I don't have as much anxiety or stress in general as writing things down gets it all out and helps you understand yourself better. Turning mentalses into logic. You may even find you logically disagree with how you 'thought' you were thinking. This is very resolving. You also learn a lot about the subject you are writing.

Yes I had a job, yes it did affect it. For 2 years writing became my evening hobby instead of coding. Sometimes it felt like I was deviating from what I should be doing. I ignored those feelings. Peers that didn't know me very long judged me as not being into my vocation (something I normally pride myself on.) I felt this affected my stance in the team. But I had more to gain than other peoples opinions. I've been a generalist coder for 15+ years so was a decade ahead of many of them and could afford to drop a gear.

I admit to cheating in the editing phase. After 11 months of editing I'd almost re-written the whole book. I realised like painting, writing is never finished, only left. This is partly because you're always changing. I tried modafinil, wrapped up in a few weeks and moved on.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The article title is actually "No, you probably don't have a book in you".

But the intended meaning of the article is more like "no, you probably don't have a _bestselling_ book in you."

Disclaimer - I've written a kids sci-fi novel in the past year. Something I've been meaning to do for awhile now, and finally got around to actually putting down the words on the page to make it happen.

Now it's one thing to say "I wrote a novel." But to be fair I wrote the _draft_ of a novel that still needs substantial editing before it's ready to publish. I've been picking at it for awhile, and still it's not ready to send out to other editors (or agents).

I've been stuck in edit mode for months now, I've been finding editing much harder than writing. A common feeling. One writer told me that writing is like a party, editing is cleaning up the next day. Some of my published friends and colleagues tell me it takes a few drafts of editing before it's even good enough to send to an agent or editor. So I've got a lot of hard work ahead of me.

But this article is a bit strange because the author is an agent herself, who knows full well that there's a ton of editing and a night-vs-day difference between someone's first cruddy draft and a finished product, for which agents and editors worth their salt will have honed and worked their magic on.

Also a bit discouraging to hear this from an agent, suggesting people's stories may not be worthy enough to be told. if anything I'd want them to encourage more people to write that story they've been thinking about on the train. Can you imagine if JK Rowling heard this and just thought, "she's right, my story probably sucks, better to just focus on my day job."

Though the author does clear things up a little at the end of the article to say write a book because you want to write it, not because someone told you to write it.

But in any case, the title is still misleading because people do have books in them. Even if they're not profitable. Even if the ultimate reading audience is in the single digits. It's still a book that means something to the author and that small but critical audience of readers.

<comment><USER10> > I've been stuck in edit mode for months now, I've been finding editing much > harder than writing. A common feeling. One writer told me that writing is > like a party, editing is cleaning up the next day. Some of my published > friends and colleagues tell me it takes a few drafts of editing before it's > even good enough to send to an agent or editor.

It's a relief to read this. I've written about 135k words an only managed to edit about 15k so far.

<comment><USER9> Nice, congrats on finishing your draft!

Yeah, I'm finding it very difficult to decide what to keep, what to rip out entirely, what to rewrite.

I blew way past my 75k word target to about 98k words now, and still feel like there's a bunch more I need to add.

FYI, I've found Hugh Howey's four-part Writing Insights columns on his blog from last year very useful, helped me get thru my draft.

But I'm finding it hard to take his preferred approach to editing of rewriting scenes from scratch instead of altering or spot-editing them. I took a stab at rewriting one of my earlier chapters, now that I know what happens later on, but don't feel the new version was substantially improved to warrant all the effort.

I think the hardest part for me is killing my darlings, and ripping out the big chunks that I feel are essential.

But I know I need to slog through and get to some point where I can stop picking at it and send out to some alpha readers, then consider actual editors.

I'm still not sure yet if I'll self-publish or go the traditional route.

Good luck!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I think this author has the misconception that people only write to be successful, others, like you, write for their own reasons.

I had a relative who once wrote a book about her life, honestly the book was not very good (both the writing style and content), and largely "sold" (or was given away to) only to family (despite her paying for a book run out of her own pocket and shopping it around to bookstores on her own)

Yet she was immensely proud of her book, which she spent years of her life on. As well she should be, while the book didn't meet any commercial success, it had been a longtime goal for her and she told her story to people who otherwise wouldn't have know about it.

<comment><USER12> Simply documenting people's story has value. I know someone who wrote an autobiography that was basically a chronological description of their life. It wasn't an enjoyable read however it was a largely unvarnished description of their long and varied life.

A large library happily took some copies to go into their archives. First hand descriptions of events are hard to come by. Chances are it will sit unread in their archives for decades but it could one day be interesting source material for someone.

<comment><USER8> I wonder how valuable something like that will be now that there already exists so much online data and documentation about our lives. Maybe traditional memoirs will still provide some insight, considering that they do at least give an organized account.

<comment><USER13> The medium is the message.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Has anyone just farted around self published books or fanfic a bit?

Let me tell you: there's a _lot_ of writing that is nearly unreadable. Sure, you _can_ do it. It's probably best written down and then gently carried over to the archives, only taken out for a good laugh down the road.

Writing well is like programming. You have to spend some time doing it before its really ready for public consumption. Then you get to be educated in how the sausage is made and _then_ you have a start.

The marathon example is a good one. You need to put in preparation, work, training, sweat, and then you can do the finished product.

Writers have workshops and critiquing circles. They have editors. Review, review, review. Draft, draft, draft.

The author is critiquing the idea that some genius will hike up their skirt and drop out a diamond, which the agent will then pick up and make the genius rich. Takes ten years of sweat to have a 3 minute hit.

<comment><USER15> > Writers have workshops and critiquing circles. They have editors. Review, > review, review. Draft, draft, draft.

Sure, that is probably how "professional" writers get good. But we've had good writers before there were all these tools , didn't we? I find it hard to imagine e.g. Bukowski attending a writing workshop.

Some people just have the talent. Others are mediocre and get better with effort.

<comment><USER14> Not to my knowledge. The University Workshop as a reified formal system, yes. But the review and drafting system where you rewrite it yourself and show your friends the work, then rewrite; it has been present for a quite long time. My dim recollection is that it extends into the 1700s in English literature as a thing. I seem to recollect anecdotes of Johnson doing so; Puritan theologian- pastors previewed their ideas in sermons before publishing them.

A more learned historian of literature or theology would be able to provide hard accounts here.

As a general remark, the outsider as genius in full flower springing out of Zeus' forehead is astonishingly rare, and should never be taken to be normative or as an ideal to aspire to. This an ancient principle: there is no royal road to geometry.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The author seems to be be ignoring the fact that talent is immeasurable. There's no metric by which we can truly define it. There's no way to know who "has a book in them" except by looking at who has already written books. It's ridiculous to pay attention to the self-defeating naysayers. If you have a strong enough desire to produce a book, then you've got a book "in you", and there's little sense in letting anyone tell you otherwise.

I've experienced similar conditions learning to code and write software. Some elitists have beliefs along the lines of, "if you don't already know how / if you didn't learn at a young age, then you're not a true talent, and programming is not really for you." Those kinds of people can get fucked.

</comment><comment><USER17> > _I 'm often sent stories that are way too long or too short for the > publishing industry. The average novel is at least 50,000 words._

I find it fascinating that there are sweet spots for the length of an economically successful book (50,000 words), movie (90-120 minutes), or song (3 minutes).

For whatever reason, even collections of short films packaged together as a feature-length movie are rarely successful. Likewise with short written works packaged as a full-length book. I guess songs were the exception in that multiple songs sold together as an album did work (at least until recent years).

It's interesting to think about how attention span, delivery mechanism, costs of goods, and who knows what other factors, created these target lengths.

<comment><USER18> > I guess songs were the exception in that multiple songs sold together as an > album did work (at least until recent years).

I'm fairly sure this was just an illusion. Liking a full album seems really rare, the general sentiment with anyone I talked to about this was that they bought it just to get 2-3 of the tracks available.

Imagine if there was no such thing as a 90-minute movie, and they were _all_ made up of 9, 10-minute movies. They'd appear very successful as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> It's actually possible almost everyone, or at least a great many people, have a good book in them. The hard part I would think is getting it out of them. It takes work and practice.

I've been a professional writer for much of my life, in the sense that for periods of time I've actually been able to eat and pay NYC rent by virtue of people paying me to write things.

But I don't know if I have a book in me. Because every time I try to write things that could possibly turn into a book I read them and they don't sound very good. I know what I'd have to do to change that, namely write a lot every day for a few years until it clicked. But I don't.

But so far I haven't made that a priority, so whatever book might be in me is still there. I think there's a lot of people like that. Many people just can't write and tell stories at all, of course. But many many people can, and would in fact be able to do so compellingly, but they haven't and won't put in the work.

<comment><USER20> > But I don't know if I have a book in me. Because every time I try to write > things that could possibly turn into a book I read them and they don't sound > very good. I know what I'd have to do to change that, namely write a lot > every day for a few years until it clicked. But I don't.

Could you expand on what you mean by this?

problem: you write down something, but it doesn't sound very good

solution: write a lot every day for a few years until it clicked

How is the problem solved by the solution you presented?

<comment><USER19> The problem is a lack of skill.

The solution is lots of practice.

<comment><USER21> It seems to me that you are already a good writer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> This reminds me of the idea that seemed to be very popular a couple years ago that everyone can and should become a programmer. Nothing is quite that simple.

<comment><USER23> It's really sad. The original idea is that application interfaces should make programming accessible. Think the vi editor as used by AT&T secretaries, or Excel spreadsheets.

Some concepts and interfaces simply can't be shrouded in clickable widgets that command the computer to perform some pre-scripted task. Just like people need to use math directly and require the ability to input and manipulate simple equations, some problems require the creation of small programs-- variables, conditionals, and the encapsulation of these things into functions.

Maximizing the utility of computers means everybody should be capable of not only basic grammar or basic math, but basic computer programming. But that doesn't mean everybody needs to be taught to be an author, mathematician, or computer programmer. Rather, actual computer programmers need to design applications in a way that make it simple and easy to apply basic editing, mathematical, _and_ computer science techniques to the task at hand.

That was the original idea back in the day. Then it was co-opted by social movements in a manner that completely misunderstood the notion. Indeed, they have it completely backwards. The way to make programming accessible (and to reduce the outsized power of the programmer class, sharing the wealth) isn't to turn everybody into programmers, it's to make programming a part of every job.

But the fact that programming is largely still the domain of programmers isn't the fault of those social movements. It turns out it's really hard to design interfaces and applications in this manner, and harder still to keep it consistent across unrelated applications so knowledge and experience readily transfer. Arguably the furthest we've ever gotten is early text editors, the shell, and spreadsheets.

<comment><USER24> The fact of the matter is that, broadly speaking, basic programming is a suite of cognitive processes that pretty much all come online at the same, reasonably above-average IQ, and they are irreducibly complex; they cannot be further simplified except by rote execution of formal process, at which point you should just let the computer handle it.

<comment><USER25> That's a pretty bold assertion. Or maybe your understanding of "basic" programming is much more advanced than necessary. I'd consider writing a slightly complex ruleset for filtering e-mail "basic" programming. I don't think that "Put that mail in this folder if the subject contains A unless it's from Jack, then put it in the Jack-Folder" a skill that only comes online at an above-average IQ.

<comment><USER18> I think one of the best newer success stories here is another thing that, like "filters" and "spreadsheets", doesn't even call itself "programming". The Android app Tasker [0] is a "total automation" tool with over a million installs.

[0] [https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=net.dinglisch....](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=net.dinglisch.android.taskerm&hl=en_US)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I think what this person is trying to say is, please do not send me your book. And I kind of get it. I've had to read slush, I've rejected many thousands of manuscripts. You get to your desk in the morning, and every day there's another stack of envelopes (in those days it was all paper). You spend an hour sending it all back where it came from. Virtually all of it completely hopeless. Once in a great while there's something with some potential. The thing about slush is not that most of it is particularly bad, it's particularly nothing at all.

A lot of people do have a book in them. Unfortunately, it's not much different from the other 20 or so that arrived the same day.

</comment><comment><USER27> I do have a book in me, but I question its value as I'd most likely be pulling it out of my ass.

</comment><comment><USER28> The title should be "Not everyone has a book in them". If everyone did not have within them a book, then there would be no new books.

</comment><comment><USER29> Honestly, even accomplished writers sometimes don't have a book in them. I've many works that would be a great Harvard Business Review article but got expanded into books for some reason or other. You probably have a great long read article in you, book... not so sure.

<comment><USER30> Pretty much every business book ever written (hyperbole alert) would have been improved by being an HBR article augmented with some detail and case studies that ended up in the 75-100 page range. But the economics of publishing apparently demand 200-250 pages.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> > for many reasons too boring to get into here, and no, it's not just cheaper > to do ebooks, either

Guessing he's not counting kindle publishing here, but regardless I'd love to know all the little details of why publishing e-books are so difficult

<comment><USER10> Charlie Stross detailed this in a blog post (which I can't easily find). Basically, _printing_ a book is easy in comparison to editing, typesetting, and marketing.

<comment><USER32> I may have mentioned this before, but that's not what publishers said in the '90s, when book prices were increasing rather quickly. Then, it was "paper is costing more and more!"

And, of course, editing and typesetting are done once and should be a flat fee, not a percentage of profits.

Finally, "marketing" is something that doesn't seem to happen to most authors.

<comment><USER33> Simple to try this yourself. Print 1000 copies of your book, record the price.

Then hire a professional copyeditor to do line edits, an illustrator/designer for the cover, and a professional typesetter for the content, a professional indexer if it is non-fiction. Pay for targeted ads to reach 1000 click- throughs of consumers with an interest in your book.

What proportion of the cost was printing?

It is true that a lot of publishers don't spend a lot on marketing. This has noticeably dropped off since 2004 when my first book was published. But it is not true that a publisher who is investing the cost in getting the book out the door is likely to do _no_ marketing. Of course they want the author to market as much as possible. But there will typically be a budget line, at least as big as the advance, often an order of magnitude bigger.

> should be a flat fee, not a percentage of profits

You are welcome to publish via vanity press. Where you pay this flat fee upfront. It is a percentage, for the same reason that investors take a percentage of your business, to distribute the risk. Most books lose money. Most books never make their 'flat fee'.

<comment><USER32> Now print 100,000 copies and see how the numbers align. Sure, almost no books do that, but it's still how the deal works.

> via vanity press.

You realize the general procedure recommended in the self publishing industry is to hire a reputable editor, pay them several thousand dollars, and get results that are comparable to assorted well respected publishing companies.

Yes, the author is taking all the risks. On the other hand, given how little authors are paid, I suspect they're taking all the risks anyway.

<comment><USER10> I will be over the moon if my novel sells 100k. From what Stross has blogged, I've been limiting my fantasies to no more than 10k, and suspect that 1k is much more likely.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I suspect that everyone could write a book if they simply committed to some process. Especially when writing of true events. When I started writing "How To Destroy A Tech Startup In Three Easy Steps" I had the emails and Slack messages to work from. I simply copy and pasted all the relevant communications and suddenly I had a manuscript. Then I simply had to add some background information so that the reader would understand the overall context. I suspect anyone could write a story using a technique like that. And most of us have been through some event which is worth recounting.

</comment><comment><USER35> I published [https://makersatwork.com/](https://makersatwork.com/) It's a great book, but not because I'm a talented writer. It had moderate success, but I didn't tell my story. I took other people's stories and compiled them using a model proven by Jessica Livingston's Founders at Work. It's a book of interviews of interesting people and industry experts. You don't have to be a fiction writer to be a published author. You don't even have to be the story teller.

<comment><USER36> I think Susan Lammers did the original in the tech/computer field, "Programmers at Work." (Not sure if Lammers based it on something else that was also titled similarly):

[https://www.amazon.com/Programmers-Work-Interviews- Computer-...](https://www.amazon.com/Programmers-Work-Interviews-Computer- Industry/dp/1556152116)

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> This is one of my biggest grammatical pet peeves. The title (and corresponding sentence in the article) should really be "Not everyone, in fact, has a book in them." I'm finding this more and more frequently even in legitimate publications and it's maddening.

</comment><comment><USER38> > But do it because you want to, not because someone suggested it one time.

Does this author live in a world where people write books unwillingly to appease their friends?

</comment><comment><USER39> This story is a duplicate of _Practically everybody in New York has half a mind to write a book, and does._ -Groucho Marx sometime between the 19th and 20th centuries.

I hope not everybody has a book in them, that sounds mildly annoying and not sure if someone could cough that up on demand, unless they need to book it to an appointment that they booked. ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯ C'est la vie.

Disclaimer: everything should be taken reactively literally, no exceptions... straight to the gallows without a cigarette for a passive-aggressive send-off.

</comment><comment><USER40> I take great interest in people's literary ambitions and hear them out. My hope is that they really do have a book inside them, a story that just needs to be told or a new idea that the world just needs to know.

However, I usually find that this is not the case. There is no big idea. There is no innate storytelling ability. The genre is not of interest. The true passion is not there. Basic grammar is not there.

So why do they persist with the dream? Exactly because it is a dream. A dream to be published and to get validation from the whole world that they are someone. A dream to be rich and to go on book tours and to be invited in to a premium world of literary events. Like the lottery it is a dream to be the one that gets picked out of the pile of manuscripts for a team of editors, marketing people, lumberjacks and bean counters to devote themselves to their words.

We all want to be listened to and recognition is up there with food and a roof over one's head as a basic human need.

Publishing sets out an awful path for people to achieve these things. As a consequence a lot of wannabee writers are not really cut from the right cloth for it. You have to either be really good or have delusions of grandeur to want to take the path set out by publishing. Unless you really do have a story that does need to be told, some form and genuine motivation not tarnished by the aforementioned dreams of wanting the world to fall at your feet because you are up there with the Shakespeares and Hawkings of this world.

So this creates a situation where the people that really do have a book inside them that needs to be shared are less likely to be the ones putting themselves through the perverse pain that is the rejection world of publishing. In a word, the manuscripts piling up at the publishers really are submitted by the stupid people.

Although writing is generally there to create something for someone else to read, hopefully to enjoy, writing should be like knitting and other hobbies, i.e. a pastime that is personally satisfying to do. There is no reason for someone to read what you have written, in fact you might prefer writing to paper in an open ended way to explore thinking that you might not be able to explore in conversation.

Even though the dialogue is between yourself and the page a little bit of 'rubber duck debugging' goes on. You might find that after writing reams and reams of stuff you have actually sorted ideas in your mind to distil the ramblings into something that can be succinctly summarised into an idea that others can enjoy. The book really might not be needed. If the distillation of ideas has been arrived at before getting to the 'final chapter' then even finishing the work in progress might not be needed and the whole lot can be put in the bin. In some ways word processor crashes of unsaved work can be helpful with this.

We are doing pretty good with video and still images with people being able to do these things for sheer creative enjoyment. Youtube and Instagram are good platforms for people to do video blogs or photo diaries. The feedback works well, some people are happy to do this as a creative hobby. You can do videos about fixing your hamster wheel and not feel compelled that you have to be making the next Hollywood blockbuster mega series. You can post pictures of your hamster doing tricks without feeling you have to be the next Ansel Adams.

The legacy of the publishing industry and the state of current always- monetizing blogging platforms has cut a relatively rough deal for writers who just enjoy the creative fun of writing. Unless you want to restrict your output to mere tweets there is this expectation that you have to be the next J K Rowling. There isn't a happy medium where people can enjoy a modest level of writing and enjoy a modest and socially acceptable reward through likes for doing so. Maybe it is time to move on, to not brush people off with 'you have a book inside you' and to start telling people they have a 'youtube channel inside them'.

</comment><comment><USER41> But what if everyone does?

<comment><USER42> It would show up under x-ray.

<comment><USER43> I know we're supposed to downvote short jokes, but so help me I like this one.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> s/book/good book/

<comment><USER45> IDK, I'd have trouble stringing together enough words to even qualifies for book-length status.

<comment><USER44> Nah, you'd have trouble stringing together enough words that make sense. Joyce threw a typewriter down some stairs for a month and now we all hail Finnegan's Wake as a master piece.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> The tldr is that writing books is hard and most attempts fail.. especially if made by amateurs haphazardly and without practice, instruction or plans that involve learning to do something before being good at it.

It finishes with a satisfying lesson in curmudgeon economics.

...

Anyway... it's interesting that so many people _want_ to write a book. They may be naive, but they do know it's hard. That's why they haven't done it yet.

<comment><USER47> "...it's interesting that so many people want to write a book"

Indeed,

The article's main conclusion, that not everyone can write a best selling novel or biography, is nearly truism in that there are a few bestsellers per months and millions of people in this country (or any country).

I think it the interest of many average people in being best selling writers, along with interest in making and staring in TV shows, comes from the way that all these forms tend to expose the unique, inner, human characteristics of their protagonists. The urge to have this experienced by an audience is strong. And moreover, it's reasonably plausible that just about everyone actually does have inner qualities, that, if cast in the right light, can be extraordinarily beautiful. "All" that is needed is to artfully allow a jump from exterior appearance to inner experience (a very difficult process but one which when done right, seems easy).

The problem is that such portrayal is hard and making that portrayal accessible is also hard and the competition for doing these things separates the few best sellers from the many literary attempts.

<comment><USER43> My read on why writing a book is seductive is more cynical: most people believe that writing a book is an achievement and signifies something about the writer -- depth of thought and feeling, intelligence, vague specialness, etc. So writing a book seems like a fine way to transform an unspecial life into a special one.

What's even better: from the outside, anyone _can_ write a book. We all tell stories, most of us can read and write, and those are the only technical requirements. By contrast, when you're 50 you know there's just no viable path to say becoming a surgeon or painting like the old masters or finally writing that symphony. The skill barriers are just too obvious and high. But you can start writing a book today, and indisputably, you'll be writing a book.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> Dupe of [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17635227](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17635227)

<comment><USER49> (1 comment)

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> I suppose this is the literary equivalent of a software developer writing an article "No, you probably can't program computers"

<comment><USER19> I think a better analogy would be an article along the lines of "Sorry, your good idea isn't necessarily a startup"

<comment><USER51> Right, but based on the article title and phrase that's repeated throughout the article, it would be called "You can't write a computer program", but the point of the article will be "your good idea isn't necessarily a startup."</comment></comment></comment>


Subtle Asian Dating: Why a Raunchy, Self-Aware Subtle Asian Traits group grows - <AUTHOR> https://slate.com/technology/2019/01/subtle-asian-dating-traits-facebook-group.html <comment><USER2> It's extremely difficult to date as an Asian in the us. The traditional dating sites and apps refuse to implement finer grained Asian ethnicity filters, so more than 80% of our effort on apps that do let us click "Asian" such as Coffee meets bagels is spent simply trying to decipher whether the person is from Hong Kong, mainland China, or Taiwan, or some other random East Asian country.

Tinder is basically useless as it refuses to allow us to filter by only Asians.

Not to mention as an Asian in the USA, after you locate a person who is from the same place you are, you then additionally need to decipher how westernized they are. It's sometimes obvious in the profiles, but this is all quite annoying.

The (single) Asian market in the USA is still not large enough to sustain an app that allows finer grained choices. I wonder when someone will realize that a small shop with just couple engineers could swoop in here and make an impact that economically viable for them too.

<comment><USER3> Based on what you're describing, is this specific to dating as an Asian? Or to dating as someone who has specific socio-cultural criteria they want to restrict their search to? Ie is there a difference between the scenario you describe here - seeking someone who grew up in a western country with their roots in a specific Asian country - and someone seeking to only date someone who shares their religion, or income level, etc?

It's interesting how internet mediated human interactions constantly walk that line between giving people access to people/communities/points of view/etc they would have never intersected with without the internet, and at the same time people wanting to remain within the human defined boundaries they grew up within.

<comment><USER4> Narrow-filtered dating for all ethnicities - RacistDates.com coming soon!</comment></comment></comment>


Google is adding Google Meet links to Zoom Calendar appointments - <AUTHOR> https://mobile.twitter.com/rakeshlobster/status/1288208855797702656 <comment> mongo-db-hater Unfair Tweet.

Google calendar is automatically adding Google Meet links to _ALL_ meetings not just when there is zoom link present.

Google Meet is google's VC solution and they are leveraging google calendar for promoting their solution - NOTING EVIL about it here.

In other words, Google Meet in integrated in to Google Calendar. I think it is your responsibility to clearly inform the client that you are hosting Zoom meeting.</comment>


Mobile inventor says today's phones are too complex - <AUTHOR> http://www.theage.com.au/digital-life/mobiles/mobile-inventor-says-todays-phones-are-too-complex-20091105-hyo5.html <comment><USER2> I completely agree with that.

All I want from my phone is the ability to talk, send sms and a clock. If it can take pictures that's nice but not a must. All the other stuff is just 'in the way' for me, I don't use any of it.

The issue is that everybody uses their phone in 'their' way, so which bits are useful change from person to person and we end up carrying all the functionality that we don't use along.

Some way of stripping out unwanted stuff might be the way to go here.

Or a basic model that you select those parts on that you want which then get downloaded.</comment>