Hacker News Reader

Comment by nostrademons | Hacker News Reader

I'm curious about contextual dependence in this...

For example, I can often be relentlessly resourceful in technical matters. If an approach doesn't work, then there's some other combination of code that may get us there, it just won't be as easy or elegant. But then we can usually simplify it after the fact to make it reasonably maintainable.

But when it comes to social matters, I'm far more likely to just give up than to keep pushing people or trying different approaches. A lot of that is simply because I know that code has no feelings: I won't be burning any bridges because I think that function definition deserves to die. But it's hard to tell when you've pushed a person too far, or when they'll get offended because you went behind their back, and if that'll bite you later.

Is there a way to apply resourcefulness in one situation to another, and basically "cross-train" to become more persistent in different domains?

View on HN

YMMV, but I've found that in interpersonal situations the kind of resourcefulness that pays off the most is actually internally directed. If I give closer attention to my own reactions, I start to see what I'm doing to create or maintain a problem. That gives me new choices I didn't have before. I can stop doing those things or I can add something new, whereas it's hard to directly change what others are doing.

I've often wondered why this (applying introspection to social matters) works. For one thing, if I'm experiencing a certain reaction, the other person is often experiencing something similar (or opposite, but opposite is similar). For another, human relationships are systemic, meaning if a shift occurs in one place (you), some corresponding shift often occurs in another (them), yielding an effect that would be hard to bring about directly.

I guess what I'm saying is that the kind of resourcefulness you use in technical matters can be applied to social ones, but you have to learn how those two fields differ. If you try to naively treat one like the other, people will resist you till the cows come home. But the underlying qualities, like curiosity and play and trying different things, bridge both areas.

Yeah, this has happened in my experience too. Changing my own actions as a way to affect change is easier than changing someone else's actions. This is both in the social domain and actually physically affecting someone (e.g. sparring). In chess or Go or any other strategy games, this would be "initiative".

I've also found something similar to that opposite-emotion reaction with other people. I think it has a lot to do with the parts of our brain responsible for mirroring other people and empathy. For example, changing an internal state often reflects in the non-verbal cues that affects someone else subconsciously.

There are old (50+ years old) leadership manuals that points this and other things out.

> I'm far more likely to just give up than to keep pushing people or trying different approaches

That's how I feel about marketing and self-promotion

I feel your pain, but that's what has to be done to make it all work.

I know, but the question is "How?" Particularly because if you just do it naively - like calling the same prospect over and over again and begging them to buy - you tend not to get very good results. Relentlessly resourceful, not just relentless.

I'm faced with similar issues, but I find that by reaching out to the people and other resources around me, things arise that I would have never otherwise considered.

When you face a dead end, that's exactly when you need to tap into the relentless (never giving up) resourcefulness (looking in places you have not yet considered).

Sounds great in theory, but it's much harder in practice.

It's like starring up a 70 foot wall and wondering how to get over it.

With people (by which I assume you mean co-founders or colleagues), being resourceful usually means finding out what is important to them in life and in that moment. Then you shouldn't have to push them very much (or at all) to get things done - they will almost always be things they want themselves. When this is not the case, you need to be resourceful in figuring out why they don't want to do something. Usually there's a legitimate reason which can be addressed.

With technical matters it seems good to be relentless and focus on your needs. As you mentioned, the goal is to simplify code so that it's maintainable and satisfies you.

With social matters you usually need to be relentless and focus on other people's needs. The goal is to find out what's irking a friend or a customer and fix it to satisfy them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com