I find the list hilarious, because Ben Franklin was a notorious player, and his time in France (as American ambassador) was legendary - if documented today, it would make the Wolf of Wallstreet jealous. In modern parlance, ‘coke and hookers’ galore.
He also, by all accounts, was instrumental in getting France to support the US war of independence, without which the war would likely have gone an entirely different way.
Not to say he treated anyone badly - by all accounts, all participants enjoyed themselves immensely.
But don’t take these pronouncements as documentations of fact, but rather playing to an audience. He was also one of the major publishers and propagandists in early America, and his audience was profoundly conservative (often in the puritan sense), rural, and poor. It’s how he made one of his first fortunes [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poor_Richard%27s_Almanack].
He probably did follow some of them, when it suited him, but clearly was never hesitant to let them get in the way of a good time either. Taking it too literally is like taking one of those popular business books too literally.
Considering he didn’t have any embassy bureaucracy beyond a few staff helping him, and that any reply from washington would be many weeks away… it seems extremely unlikely he would have had much free time at all in Paris.
which part? your timelines seem pretty off if you think ‘weeks’ was a remotely possible timeline at the time either.
There was no electronic communication of any sort (electricity was barely understood at the time), and best case transit time was around 6 weeks each way, often 8-12 if possible at all. It was also highly seasonal, and still very dangerous.
So the absolute fastest turn around time was 12 weeks/3 months, and more realistically 4-6 months. With some decent odds that one of the legs of the trip might sink, losing all hands.
It’s why a literal founding father (and one of the most influential ones) was the ambassador. No one else could be trusted.
You seem very confused… “many weeks” was the exact quote. “few” was only brought up after the bizarre reply as part of the explanation in “>>few weeks”.
And yes “many weeks” easily covers the range of 20 to 30 weeks.
I was teaching my dog to bark less, and I worried a bit that it might make him sit silently when I actually want him to bark, like if a stranger was coming through the window.
After a ton of training I realized he will never stop barking, he can realize that what he is doing is not right, but the urge to bark at every noise he hears will always be something we have to work on. We will never get it "right".
I think Ben Franklins strict rules are the same way. Obviously you can't run your entire life with military discipline, but you have to set the ideal fairly high because you are going to fall short over and over.
my dogs, when I have them, dont bark, but have exceptional freedom and are expected to act with discretion, I talk to my animals a lot, and watch them closely, responding to there needs and comunications......a big dogs warning "CHUFF" says everything needed....."big dog here....please observe formalitys, aproach calmly, say hi, be pleaant and confident, and all will be fine", with the understanding that I can order a stand down, for non dog people who are of no threat.
dogs, and animals, offer a real ,genuine , opinion on many aspects of life, a check.......,can I walk away from that expectant look...sometimes it's , ha! nice try you manipulative fucker, and other times it's hang it all, your right, lets do the thing, now.....
the leson bieng, to be aware of everything, and one of those things is that try as you might, there are loose ends, which will unpredictably re prioritise everything, and the final proof of living well, is having the capacity to re prioritise, and then go on from there
and a child, or a dog, or a horse, will call your bluff
Fair critique, we should never lose the spirit of play, but Franklin’s guidance seems very much in line with a quote from Gustave Flaubert I often see echoed:
> Be steady and well-ordered in your life so that you can be fierce and original in your work
Genuine question: if you could tell Ben Franklin this, would you? I'm not even disagreeing with you, nor do I think there is a correct answer, but your answer and the reasoning behind it would genuinely interest me.
Sure I would. The conversation would go about as well as it would with any moral realist who believes he has identified the set of virtues or deontic norms which obligation would have us adhere to. I do not know if Mr. Franklin was a "serious man" as de Beauvoir described it, but these are certainly the same kinds of self-flagellatory ethics you would expect a serious man to have.
My interactions with such people usually reflect a piteous tone, as if it were a tremendous shame that I had not stopped for a second to think of the gravity of the situation. That is a necessary frame for them to hold given the preconditions which led to them
becoming a serious man.
while I like redhatting as much as anyone the interesting wrinkle to this criticism of franklin in particular is that this is much more like the way he actually lived than the principles he listed were. in fact, I dare say the only thing he missed on this list was making up for the non-existent sobriety of his youth.
"Franklin did not try to work on them all at once. Instead, he worked on only one each week "leaving all others to their ordinary chance." While he did not adhere completely to the enumerated virtues, and by his own admission he fell short of them many times, he believed the attempt made him a better man, contributing greatly to his success and happiness, which is why in his autobiography, he devoted more pages to this plan than to any other single point and wrote, "I hope, therefore, that some of my descendants may follow the example and reap the benefit."
> TEMPERANCE. Eat not to dullness; drink not to elevation.
"Not to elevation"? Let me direct you to the Finnish language. It contains two tightly related concepts: "nousuhumala" (ascending alcohol buzz) and the subsequent & corresponding "laskuhumala" (descending alcohol buzz).
If you recall the course of an evening of overindulgence, you may notice that these two concepts do describe the terrain.
AIUI these are from his autobiography, which he wrote during the last 20 years of his life. I wonder if he wrote this section before his decade in France? As I understand it, while there, he very intentionally led a life with little temperance, silence, frugality, moderation, and chastity.
One of my greatest pleasures has been orienting my life toward projects and away from pleasures. I now find myself doing a lot of what other people consider work, but self-directed and self-paced in a way that brings me incredible, deep satisfaction. No one, including me, forces me to do these things. I do them because I like doing them. Bodybuilding, maintaining my home, lawn and garden, cooking/brewing/fermenting, building software. I'm not an extraordinarily wealthy man but if I woke up tomorrow with "comfortably live the rest of your life based on interest alone" money I don't suspect my life would change all that much.
Once you're doing that sort of work, the meaning of this rule will become clear as will its meaninglessness.
Some of my most stressful times at work have been when I had the least stuff to do. It's nice for a few days, but when it stretches into weeks I start feeling queasy.
Obviously, being buried under an avalanche of thankless work is just as bad.
My ideal life would be some sprints of large effort (maybe pulling the occasional all-nighter once in a while), followed by rest / low work times.
A constant amount of work, all the same, blurs the days together. Too little, and you start feeling useless. Too much (consistently) and you're overwhelmed.
If these are in priority order, sure. If not, it's 0.9909% of the rules of living.
That Machiavelli quote is a poor take on love as part of life, I agree.
In defense of TFA though, it is titled rules of effective living, not necessarily happy living.
The rules on avoiding cruel people and who treat others badly are kind of like an anti-rule that works here though: if you're judicious and conscientious about that, I think you just end up with loving people around you, in every type of relationship: acquaintance, familial, friendship, intimate...
this feels like another person who sits by himself thinking about things that sound wise to him. he operates on the assumption that he is wise because wise sounding things sound wise to him, and also that those things are wise because they sound wise to him and he is wise. they're great for books, blogs and other one-way forms of communication where their entire job is just satisfying fridge logic so that the audience upvotes and moves along. not so much for dialogue and discussion that will eventually sort every point into buckets labelled "meaningless" or "self-evident". it's the tobacconist's yoga: a contortionate attempt to blow smoke up one's own ass unassisted.
We all know what you should do, be doing, and not do. Of course, we should do our job earnestly and enthusiastically, love our families to death, and protect the weak and help the poor. All in this ethereal world in which there are no trade-offs, good and evil are separated like the ocean and the mountain, and somebody, up there, is looking pensively at our actions.
But the wise person, after reading a few inspirational books and slogans for the masses, gets annoyed at the simplistic "just be kind" that means nothing when out of context, of tough decisions to make, of mornings when everybody and everything annoy them. And so they decide to go back to looking at actions, that words are fleeting, but examples are lasting.
I like how these kind of lists get us talking and thinking about our own experiences. What do you agree with, not agree with?
“Those who bill by the hour work not for you but for the hour.” Strikes me as cynical. Yes some people can run up the clock, but paying by the hour is also fundamentally the most fair work arrangement. You are asking for someone’s time, you pay for that time.
Flat rate work gets into their own issues. For example, suppose you want your home deep cleaned and someone charges you $x to do so. A great deal!
Except you find after the fact they missed a lot of stuff. Technically they followed through on the letter of what you agreed to but they did the bare minimum. There’s no pride in the work. If you had paid by the hour, you could’ve asked them to stay and focus on some areas that matter more to you.
Or conversely, there’s lots of horror stories here about devs accepting flat rate work and getting endlessly dragged thru change requests
>I like how these kind of lists get us talking and thinking about our own experiences. What do you agree with, not agree with?
I panned this list in a different comment but I like it a lot better from this perspective. It's not necessarily there to be right. Sometimes it's there to say things to which your immediate response is "That's bullshit" but in a way that forces you to articulate why, or (and this is even better) to admit that you can't. Like when I read Heinlein.
I bill by the hour, but in chunks (20, 40, etc). I do discovery, define scope and that I determine scope, then work on narrow scoped thing. (Hard part) document each ECR, set scope and communicate price. Likely to next billed-task. Kinda combines fixed&hourly; not perfect.
If point 2 is something so subjective as "deal plainly", point 0 should probably be "be honest with yourself". More to the point—why would anyone want to do otherwise? The hard part is satisfying your own evaluation.
> 4) There exists uncanny congruity between thought and experience.
Charitably, there must be a more effective way to articulate this sentiment.
I could go on, but that seems sufficient to address the overall tone of the writing.
EDIT: I apologize for being so critical. These are clearly well-thought-out points and I'm not trying to detract from that. I'm just not sure how to process someone else's internal understanding of themselves in a generally useful manner.
Yeah, I just realized there are two very different ways to parse the statement. I initially saw it as "Experiences shape thoughts in predictable ways." But the other way to interpret it is "Attitude shapes experiences in predictable ways."
> Prepare for the day when your best friend betrays you.
Before you strap those extra rounds of ammo to your vest, may I suggest simply finding better friends?
There's several on the list that sound a bit paranoid to me. And many more that make it feel like I'm being scolded by a schoolmarm. But there's definitely some gems. My favorite...
Since tough to get financial security when
have a boss, instead start a business,
make it successful, and sell it. Usually
at the beginning, tough to know if some
business direction is good, and good/bad
can change over time. So, keep in mind
new directions.
The business should yield at least enough
for a good family, a house for self and
family in a good neighborhood, and
significant savings.
(2) Health. Do well on diet and exercise.
Don't smoke, drink, or take illegal drugs.
Don't try to climb Mount Everest or
anything similar.
(3) Family. Enabled by the other rules.
(4) Education. K-12, 4 year college,
advanced degrees should yield good ability
at selecting good from bad.
“It ain't what you don't know that
gets you into trouble. It's what you
know for sure that just ain't so.“ –
Mark Twain
Some of the good content may help with
financial security. Friends made can be
crucial for financial security and parts
of family formation. Never stop learning
and for much of education pick some good
and relevant material and largely teach
yourself. For your children, help them
with their education.
(5) Socialization. Understand people and
how to interact. So, special cases
include friends, family, leadership,
media, politics.
More is important, but these five 'rules'
are a start.
I often wonder if there's any real benefit in reading things like this. Philosophising (and meditating) without putting it into practice in your life is largely worthless, but I tend to think with ideas like this you only learn them through experience.
Over my many years I've found that mental pivots that have lasted came at completely unpredictable times. I'd hear or read something like one of these, it would resonate and get me thinking "Hmm, yeah, I should stop that", and it stuck. Presumably my brain was primed to receive the advice at that time.
Psychologists call this the "psychological moment." You can tell a depressed friend 100 times that they should go for a walk and they'll ignore you. Then for some reason the 101st time it sinks in, they go for a walk and lo, they feel better. Psychological moment applies to all sorts of changes. Telling your abused friend that they should take the kids and leave, telling your aging dad that it's time he gives up his driver's license, asking your husband to stop interrupting you. 100 times they ignore it, 101st time it clicks. Everything is timing.
I’ve thought about this before and concluded that it’s because HN/other sites are somewhat hostile to the approach of beginner’s mind, admitting you know nothing but want to learn more, etc. Asking basic questions tends to get you ridiculed or downvoted, and most subreddits have onerous lists of rules you have to follow before asking anything. YouTube and TikTok also incentivize acting like someone that has no doubts and is completely certain that they’re right.
I suppose that dynamic isn’t hugely different from a typical in-person social situation (e.g., a classroom where kids are afraid to look stupid by asking questions) but it would be cool if a social platform incentivized people to ask “dumb” questions they are curious about.
At this point though, ChatGPT is basically fulfilling this function for me, and its lack of judgement is refreshing compared to the typical Ask subreddit.
Agreed about questions, although I have seen people have positive results by starting their question with some humility.
However there is the opposite problem - usually known as 'the empty pot sounds loudest' - where those who respond or comment are often those with the confidence of their simplistic opinions. Those with a more nuanced or expert view are more hesitant, so are less likely to weigh in.
HN is a lot better than other places (youtube comments! reddit!) but of course falls into these traps as well.
I think that's a lot of rules to try to carry around in your head. If it works for this guy, more power to him.
For my money, Do unto others as you would have them do unto you shows up in some form or another in most major civilizations, and there's probably a reason for that. It's simple, makes sense, and covers a lot of situations.
If I had a number two rule to add, it would be slower traffic keep right. That's deep wisdom with a practical application.
> 100) Those who bill by the hour work not for you but for the hour.
This is just not true. Some bill by the hour to be certain that full and focused work is applied for you and your project. In other words, if someone is following even a fraction of these 101 rules, then they are working for you. Maybe I am misunderstanding what this rule is trying to say. But, it seems like the mode of payment is completely orthogonal to the motive and priority of the person working.
Hourly is for work where you don’t know when it will be finished because you have no idea what you’re getting in to. Try demanding a flat rate next time you need a slow leak in a pipe in a wall repaired.
At some point a committee ought to write a manual for life and living. Though by most accounts it might be easier to write a modern standard library for C.
The best use for this kind of writing is to see which points cause a reaction in you. You can then question what is it that caught your attention and discover something about you that you may have overlooked or hadn’t noticed its impact on you.
I don’t think most people can really follow all 101 rules. Honestly, if someone actually could, that would be seriously impressive.
In everyday life, we mess up, we forget, we stay in our comfort zones a little too long.
But it’s all those little side tracks and missteps that end up making life what it is.
If you wish to train your mind with such aphorisms and craft your own, I recommend reading Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, or more modern thinkers like Heidegger and Adorno. Each of them has collections of aphorisms, akin to an elevated 'Farmer's Almanac'.
A lot of these are learned through experiences in life. When you’re young it’s almost impossible to understand or recognize some of these in the moment. As you get older, you start to learn what’s important to you, and what you like and don’t like. Then you tend to respond quicker to situations.
These things remind me of the book “My Year of Living Biblically” by A.J. Jacobs. In our lives if we stopped to consult a list of all the platitudes we’ve ever come across one by one each time we did or experienced anything it would be similarly as absurd full of contradiction paralyzing.
> In more than thirty years as a writer, editor, and publisher, I have, to my best reckoning, introduced, abridged, issued or reissued, and read nearly every major work of inspirational literature produced or translated into English.
I'm always wary of people who spend too much time in the world of inspirational books. It's healthy to read a little, and to "sharpen the ax" every so often, but reading too much of this stuff is mind-numbing outside of historiography reasons.
Odd that this list made you so angry you had to post how boring the people who follow must be? I feel sorry for you. Honestly. Judgement of others tends to make people miserable.
I've always like Ben Franklin's 13 virtues. It's a short list.
TEMPERANCE. Eat not to dullness; drink not to elevation.
SILENCE. Speak not but what may benefit others or yourself; avoid trifling conversation.
ORDER. Let all your things have their places; let each part of your business have its time.
RESOLUTION. Resolve to perform what you ought; perform without fail what you resolve.
FRUGALITY. Make no expense but to do good to others or yourself; i.e., waste nothing.
INDUSTRY. Lose no time; be always employ’d in something useful; cut off all unnecessary actions.
SINCERITY. Use no hurtful deceit; think innocently and justly, and, if you speak, speak accordingly.
JUSTICE. Wrong none by doing injuries or omitting the benefits that are your duty.
MODERATION. Avoid extremes; forbear resenting injuries so much as you think they deserve.
CLEANLINESS. Tolerate no uncleanliness in body, cloaths, or habitation.
TRANQUILLITY. Be not disturbed at trifles, or at accidents common or unavoidable.
CHASTITY. Rarely use venery but for health or offspring, never to dulness, weakness, or the injury of your own or another’s peace or reputation.
HUMILITY. Imitate Jesus and Socrates.
That sounds like a very boring and miserable way to live. To respond with one of my own:
---
When I am an old woman I shall wear purple
With a red hat which doesn’t go, and doesn’t suit me.
And I shall spend my pension on brandy and summer gloves
And satin sandals, and say we’ve no money for butter.
I shall sit down on the pavement when I’m tired
And gobble up samples in shops and press alarm bells
And run my stick along the public railings
And make up for the sobriety of my youth.
I shall go out in my slippers in the rain
And pick the flowers in other people’s gardens
And learn to spit.
I think it's fair to have principles and still have an interesting an active life. The best example of this would have to be, well, Ben Franklin.
I find the list hilarious, because Ben Franklin was a notorious player, and his time in France (as American ambassador) was legendary - if documented today, it would make the Wolf of Wallstreet jealous. In modern parlance, ‘coke and hookers’ galore.
He also, by all accounts, was instrumental in getting France to support the US war of independence, without which the war would likely have gone an entirely different way.
Not to say he treated anyone badly - by all accounts, all participants enjoyed themselves immensely.
But don’t take these pronouncements as documentations of fact, but rather playing to an audience. He was also one of the major publishers and propagandists in early America, and his audience was profoundly conservative (often in the puritan sense), rural, and poor. It’s how he made one of his first fortunes [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poor_Richard%27s_Almanack].
He probably did follow some of them, when it suited him, but clearly was never hesitant to let them get in the way of a good time either. Taking it too literally is like taking one of those popular business books too literally.
Can you link the source for these claims?
Considering he didn’t have any embassy bureaucracy beyond a few staff helping him, and that any reply from washington would be many weeks away… it seems extremely unlikely he would have had much free time at all in Paris.
which part? your timelines seem pretty off if you think ‘weeks’ was a remotely possible timeline at the time either.
There was no electronic communication of any sort (electricity was barely understood at the time), and best case transit time was around 6 weeks each way, often 8-12 if possible at all. It was also highly seasonal, and still very dangerous.
So the absolute fastest turn around time was 12 weeks/3 months, and more realistically 4-6 months. With some decent odds that one of the legs of the trip might sink, losing all hands.
It’s why a literal founding father (and one of the most influential ones) was the ambassador. No one else could be trusted.
[https://www.history.com/articles/benjamin-franklin-france]
Are you confused about what “many weeks” means? it means >>few weeks
How does that work out 6 months in on your ‘many weeks’ work estimate?
Huh? Do you not believe 20 to 30 weeks is >>few weeks?
I have never seen (or used) ‘few’ in the description of something when there was 20 of something.
Technically, a year could also count if you said >> few seconds, but no one will take you seriously if you do either.
You seem very confused… “many weeks” was the exact quote. “few” was only brought up after the bizarre reply as part of the explanation in “>>few weeks”.
And yes “many weeks” easily covers the range of 20 to 30 weeks.
Nope. Just pointing out it’s the wrong scale, and providing context of the right scale. Which is months. Many months.
This doesn’t even make sense. Why don’t you accept it is often used?
You can search older HN comments and see hundreds upon hundreds of instances of “many weeks” and so on…
I was teaching my dog to bark less, and I worried a bit that it might make him sit silently when I actually want him to bark, like if a stranger was coming through the window.
After a ton of training I realized he will never stop barking, he can realize that what he is doing is not right, but the urge to bark at every noise he hears will always be something we have to work on. We will never get it "right".
I think Ben Franklins strict rules are the same way. Obviously you can't run your entire life with military discipline, but you have to set the ideal fairly high because you are going to fall short over and over.
That's the problem with set rules.
Overly productive and active people create rules to better focus their productivity and tame their impulses.
Someone unambitious and lazy would see more benefit from a single rule that says go do something, literally anything!
my dogs, when I have them, dont bark, but have exceptional freedom and are expected to act with discretion, I talk to my animals a lot, and watch them closely, responding to there needs and comunications......a big dogs warning "CHUFF" says everything needed....."big dog here....please observe formalitys, aproach calmly, say hi, be pleaant and confident, and all will be fine", with the understanding that I can order a stand down, for non dog people who are of no threat. dogs, and animals, offer a real ,genuine , opinion on many aspects of life, a check.......,can I walk away from that expectant look...sometimes it's , ha! nice try you manipulative fucker, and other times it's hang it all, your right, lets do the thing, now..... the leson bieng, to be aware of everything, and one of those things is that try as you might, there are loose ends, which will unpredictably re prioritise everything, and the final proof of living well, is having the capacity to re prioritise, and then go on from there and a child, or a dog, or a horse, will call your bluff
Fair critique, we should never lose the spirit of play, but Franklin’s guidance seems very much in line with a quote from Gustave Flaubert I often see echoed:
> Be steady and well-ordered in your life so that you can be fierce and original in your work
Genuine question: if you could tell Ben Franklin this, would you? I'm not even disagreeing with you, nor do I think there is a correct answer, but your answer and the reasoning behind it would genuinely interest me.
Sure I would. The conversation would go about as well as it would with any moral realist who believes he has identified the set of virtues or deontic norms which obligation would have us adhere to. I do not know if Mr. Franklin was a "serious man" as de Beauvoir described it, but these are certainly the same kinds of self-flagellatory ethics you would expect a serious man to have.
My interactions with such people usually reflect a piteous tone, as if it were a tremendous shame that I had not stopped for a second to think of the gravity of the situation. That is a necessary frame for them to hold given the preconditions which led to them becoming a serious man.
while I like redhatting as much as anyone the interesting wrinkle to this criticism of franklin in particular is that this is much more like the way he actually lived than the principles he listed were. in fact, I dare say the only thing he missed on this list was making up for the non-existent sobriety of his youth.
Some are about breaking out of self-imposed constraints and some are just dickish: don't come into my garden and pick my flowers, thank you very much.
The poem:
https://www.poetry.com/poem/141551/warning
(When I am an old woman, I will annotate other people's comments, With inapposite quibbling or info they already know ...)
Today I learned about the red hat society, thank you
Having read quite a bit about Franklin, his life was defined by an extremely generous interpretation of some of those virtues.
"Franklin did not try to work on them all at once. Instead, he worked on only one each week "leaving all others to their ordinary chance." While he did not adhere completely to the enumerated virtues, and by his own admission he fell short of them many times, he believed the attempt made him a better man, contributing greatly to his success and happiness, which is why in his autobiography, he devoted more pages to this plan than to any other single point and wrote, "I hope, therefore, that some of my descendants may follow the example and reap the benefit."
[0] https://www.ushistory.org/franklin/autobiography/page38.htm
This week, I will avoid murder. Other than that, all bets are off
Better be careful around you next week then
> TEMPERANCE. Eat not to dullness; drink not to elevation.
"Not to elevation"? Let me direct you to the Finnish language. It contains two tightly related concepts: "nousuhumala" (ascending alcohol buzz) and the subsequent & corresponding "laskuhumala" (descending alcohol buzz).
If you recall the course of an evening of overindulgence, you may notice that these two concepts do describe the terrain.
Clearly Mr Franklin has never hyperscaled a tech company
AIUI these are from his autobiography, which he wrote during the last 20 years of his life. I wonder if he wrote this section before his decade in France? As I understand it, while there, he very intentionally led a life with little temperance, silence, frugality, moderation, and chastity.
It's funny that this is by Ben Franklin, someone notorious for routinely violating at least half of these virtues.
Reminds me of the Core Principles from Severance.
[flagged]
>1) Do your work—do it on time and fully, if not early and overabundantly.
I cannot overstate how absolutely hollow it must be that work is your #1 rule of living
The next saddest thing is that the only mention of love is a fucking Machiavelli quote
Work != job
One of my greatest pleasures has been orienting my life toward projects and away from pleasures. I now find myself doing a lot of what other people consider work, but self-directed and self-paced in a way that brings me incredible, deep satisfaction. No one, including me, forces me to do these things. I do them because I like doing them. Bodybuilding, maintaining my home, lawn and garden, cooking/brewing/fermenting, building software. I'm not an extraordinarily wealthy man but if I woke up tomorrow with "comfortably live the rest of your life based on interest alone" money I don't suspect my life would change all that much.
Once you're doing that sort of work, the meaning of this rule will become clear as will its meaninglessness.
Some of my most stressful times at work have been when I had the least stuff to do. It's nice for a few days, but when it stretches into weeks I start feeling queasy.
Obviously, being buried under an avalanche of thankless work is just as bad.
My ideal life would be some sprints of large effort (maybe pulling the occasional all-nighter once in a while), followed by rest / low work times.
A constant amount of work, all the same, blurs the days together. Too little, and you start feeling useless. Too much (consistently) and you're overwhelmed.
If these are in priority order, sure. If not, it's 0.9909% of the rules of living.
That Machiavelli quote is a poor take on love as part of life, I agree.
In defense of TFA though, it is titled rules of effective living, not necessarily happy living.
The rules on avoiding cruel people and who treat others badly are kind of like an anti-rule that works here though: if you're judicious and conscientious about that, I think you just end up with loving people around you, in every type of relationship: acquaintance, familial, friendship, intimate...
“35) Give no second chances to anyone who shows disrespect“
This is one of the worst rules I have ever read. Taken literally it can squander a life otherwise well lived.
Yeah, might as well make the rule "35) Be inflexible and cruel when it suits you."
I like that phrasing of it more. Someone following it will live pretty effectively.
I could relate to it only for one reason:
I was treated disrespectfully at a restaurant recently.
I do not plan on returning there ever.
Do you behave in same vein at your work, with your parents, spouse, children, friends etc?
> “35) Give no second chances to anyone who shows disrespect“
This bit me.
I work for a disrespectful person.
It is awful.
[dead]
this feels like another person who sits by himself thinking about things that sound wise to him. he operates on the assumption that he is wise because wise sounding things sound wise to him, and also that those things are wise because they sound wise to him and he is wise. they're great for books, blogs and other one-way forms of communication where their entire job is just satisfying fridge logic so that the audience upvotes and moves along. not so much for dialogue and discussion that will eventually sort every point into buckets labelled "meaningless" or "self-evident". it's the tobacconist's yoga: a contortionate attempt to blow smoke up one's own ass unassisted.
We all know what you should do, be doing, and not do. Of course, we should do our job earnestly and enthusiastically, love our families to death, and protect the weak and help the poor. All in this ethereal world in which there are no trade-offs, good and evil are separated like the ocean and the mountain, and somebody, up there, is looking pensively at our actions.
But the wise person, after reading a few inspirational books and slogans for the masses, gets annoyed at the simplistic "just be kind" that means nothing when out of context, of tough decisions to make, of mornings when everybody and everything annoy them. And so they decide to go back to looking at actions, that words are fleeting, but examples are lasting.
I like how these kind of lists get us talking and thinking about our own experiences. What do you agree with, not agree with?
“Those who bill by the hour work not for you but for the hour.” Strikes me as cynical. Yes some people can run up the clock, but paying by the hour is also fundamentally the most fair work arrangement. You are asking for someone’s time, you pay for that time.
Flat rate work gets into their own issues. For example, suppose you want your home deep cleaned and someone charges you $x to do so. A great deal!
Except you find after the fact they missed a lot of stuff. Technically they followed through on the letter of what you agreed to but they did the bare minimum. There’s no pride in the work. If you had paid by the hour, you could’ve asked them to stay and focus on some areas that matter more to you.
Or conversely, there’s lots of horror stories here about devs accepting flat rate work and getting endlessly dragged thru change requests
>I like how these kind of lists get us talking and thinking about our own experiences. What do you agree with, not agree with?
I panned this list in a different comment but I like it a lot better from this perspective. It's not necessarily there to be right. Sometimes it's there to say things to which your immediate response is "That's bullshit" but in a way that forces you to articulate why, or (and this is even better) to admit that you can't. Like when I read Heinlein.
I bill by the hour, but in chunks (20, 40, etc). I do discovery, define scope and that I determine scope, then work on narrow scoped thing. (Hard part) document each ECR, set scope and communicate price. Likely to next billed-task. Kinda combines fixed&hourly; not perfect.
If point 2 is something so subjective as "deal plainly", point 0 should probably be "be honest with yourself". More to the point—why would anyone want to do otherwise? The hard part is satisfying your own evaluation.
> 4) There exists uncanny congruity between thought and experience.
Charitably, there must be a more effective way to articulate this sentiment.
I could go on, but that seems sufficient to address the overall tone of the writing.
EDIT: I apologize for being so critical. These are clearly well-thought-out points and I'm not trying to detract from that. I'm just not sure how to process someone else's internal understanding of themselves in a generally useful manner.
Yeah, I just realized there are two very different ways to parse the statement. I initially saw it as "Experiences shape thoughts in predictable ways." But the other way to interpret it is "Attitude shapes experiences in predictable ways."
I feel like that second interpretation is the seat of so much misery and of so much happiness.
Uncanny would mean the opposite of predictable
> why would anyone want to do otherwise?
lying to yourself is sometimes a easy way out of cognitive dissonance
Some points contradict others:
20) Get away from cruel people—at all costs.
58) “If we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved.” (Machiavelli)
This is simply a self-help back-of-the-book quotes compilation.
> Prepare for the day when your best friend betrays you.
Before you strap those extra rounds of ammo to your vest, may I suggest simply finding better friends?
There's several on the list that sound a bit paranoid to me. And many more that make it feel like I'm being scolded by a schoolmarm. But there's definitely some gems. My favorite...
> Cynics know nothing.
When I first glanced at your post I thought you were pointing out the irony of contrast between your first and last line.
101 rules? Too many. I vastly prefer not a rule but THE life challenge with thanks to Mary Oliver:
"Tell me, what is it you plan to do with your one wild and precious life?"
these 100 rules are missing an important one. step back, and simplify. these rules are a result of overthinking which is something to avoid.
far simpler rules have been laid out numerous times in the classics.
such as: the golden rule of ethics, ie, dont do unto others what you dont want done to you, and the serenity prayer etc.
> 7) Do not over-talk.
> 72) A positive mental attitude means evaluating circumstances based on their capacity for self-development.
Five rules:
(1) Financial Security.
Since tough to get financial security when have a boss, instead start a business, make it successful, and sell it. Usually at the beginning, tough to know if some business direction is good, and good/bad can change over time. So, keep in mind new directions.
The business should yield at least enough for a good family, a house for self and family in a good neighborhood, and significant savings.
(2) Health. Do well on diet and exercise. Don't smoke, drink, or take illegal drugs. Don't try to climb Mount Everest or anything similar.
(3) Family. Enabled by the other rules.
(4) Education. K-12, 4 year college, advanced degrees should yield good ability at selecting good from bad.
Some of the good content may help with financial security. Friends made can be crucial for financial security and parts of family formation. Never stop learning and for much of education pick some good and relevant material and largely teach yourself. For your children, help them with their education.(5) Socialization. Understand people and how to interact. So, special cases include friends, family, leadership, media, politics.
More is important, but these five 'rules' are a start.
I often wonder if there's any real benefit in reading things like this. Philosophising (and meditating) without putting it into practice in your life is largely worthless, but I tend to think with ideas like this you only learn them through experience.
Over my many years I've found that mental pivots that have lasted came at completely unpredictable times. I'd hear or read something like one of these, it would resonate and get me thinking "Hmm, yeah, I should stop that", and it stuck. Presumably my brain was primed to receive the advice at that time.
Psychologists call this the "psychological moment." You can tell a depressed friend 100 times that they should go for a walk and they'll ignore you. Then for some reason the 101st time it sinks in, they go for a walk and lo, they feel better. Psychological moment applies to all sorts of changes. Telling your abused friend that they should take the kids and leave, telling your aging dad that it's time he gives up his driver's license, asking your husband to stop interrupting you. 100 times they ignore it, 101st time it clicks. Everything is timing.
> 8) Speak only of what you know well.
OK, but that's going to wipe out 99%+ of Internet 'content', HN included.
I’ve thought about this before and concluded that it’s because HN/other sites are somewhat hostile to the approach of beginner’s mind, admitting you know nothing but want to learn more, etc. Asking basic questions tends to get you ridiculed or downvoted, and most subreddits have onerous lists of rules you have to follow before asking anything. YouTube and TikTok also incentivize acting like someone that has no doubts and is completely certain that they’re right.
I suppose that dynamic isn’t hugely different from a typical in-person social situation (e.g., a classroom where kids are afraid to look stupid by asking questions) but it would be cool if a social platform incentivized people to ask “dumb” questions they are curious about.
At this point though, ChatGPT is basically fulfilling this function for me, and its lack of judgement is refreshing compared to the typical Ask subreddit.
Agreed about questions, although I have seen people have positive results by starting their question with some humility.
However there is the opposite problem - usually known as 'the empty pot sounds loudest' - where those who respond or comment are often those with the confidence of their simplistic opinions. Those with a more nuanced or expert view are more hesitant, so are less likely to weigh in.
HN is a lot better than other places (youtube comments! reddit!) but of course falls into these traps as well.
I've narrowed my algorithm to three (not so simple) rules:
1. Know yourself.
2. Work hard.
3. Serve others.
I think 90% of unhappiness comes from violating at least one of these rules.
Conversely, of course, following these rules doesn't guarantee happiness, but (I think) it increases your chances.
1.1 Forgive yourself
Yes! That applies in so many situations.
Rule 102: Stop following other people's rules, except for rule 102
I think that's a lot of rules to try to carry around in your head. If it works for this guy, more power to him.
For my money, Do unto others as you would have them do unto you shows up in some form or another in most major civilizations, and there's probably a reason for that. It's simple, makes sense, and covers a lot of situations.
If I had a number two rule to add, it would be slower traffic keep right. That's deep wisdom with a practical application.
I know Orwell used Zamyatin "We" as an inspiration, but not seen the Gurdjieff attribution before.
P.S. Also a fan of Asian Dub Foundation's Memory War.
> 100) Those who bill by the hour work not for you but for the hour.
This is just not true. Some bill by the hour to be certain that full and focused work is applied for you and your project. In other words, if someone is following even a fraction of these 101 rules, then they are working for you. Maybe I am misunderstanding what this rule is trying to say. But, it seems like the mode of payment is completely orthogonal to the motive and priority of the person working.
Hourly is for work where you don’t know when it will be finished because you have no idea what you’re getting in to. Try demanding a flat rate next time you need a slow leak in a pipe in a wall repaired.
At some point a committee ought to write a manual for life and living. Though by most accounts it might be easier to write a modern standard library for C.
The best use for this kind of writing is to see which points cause a reaction in you. You can then question what is it that caught your attention and discover something about you that you may have overlooked or hadn’t noticed its impact on you.
1. Ignore lists of 101 anything.
I don’t think most people can really follow all 101 rules. Honestly, if someone actually could, that would be seriously impressive. In everyday life, we mess up, we forget, we stay in our comfort zones a little too long. But it’s all those little side tracks and missteps that end up making life what it is.
89) Arrogance is a form of stupidity.
If you wish to train your mind with such aphorisms and craft your own, I recommend reading Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, or more modern thinkers like Heidegger and Adorno. Each of them has collections of aphorisms, akin to an elevated 'Farmer's Almanac'.
A lot of these are learned through experiences in life. When you’re young it’s almost impossible to understand or recognize some of these in the moment. As you get older, you start to learn what’s important to you, and what you like and don’t like. Then you tend to respond quicker to situations.
These things remind me of the book “My Year of Living Biblically” by A.J. Jacobs. In our lives if we stopped to consult a list of all the platitudes we’ve ever come across one by one each time we did or experienced anything it would be similarly as absurd full of contradiction paralyzing.
> 67 concentration produces power
Yeah but it also produces blindness and lots of it.
Be kind as in be like thyself as in see thyself in others as in don't be unkind as in be kind
The rest is noise in an expanding universe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule
Exactly
And yet the phrase "be kind" appears nowhere on that page
> 37) Honor every religion.
“…and the unbelief of those who dissent.”
Everybody's Free To Wear Sunscreen
> In more than thirty years as a writer, editor, and publisher, I have, to my best reckoning, introduced, abridged, issued or reissued, and read nearly every major work of inspirational literature produced or translated into English.
I'm always wary of people who spend too much time in the world of inspirational books. It's healthy to read a little, and to "sharpen the ax" every so often, but reading too much of this stuff is mind-numbing outside of historiography reasons.
> Judge quality not category
I like this one. Would be curious to hear the author's elaboration.
102. Exercise
103. Wear sunscreen.
You do not need 101 rules. Just embrace the three treasures of the Dao:
Compassion, frugality, and humility.
You can more easily get ~90% of these from practicing Christianity. And, if you practice it, you won't need the other 10%.
And, in Christianity, you don't have to do it alone. You instantly get a loving, supportive community to help you on your journey.
> 44) Reduce food intake by twenty percent.
Why exactly twenty percent?
More like how to be mediocre boring life advice
> 42) Do not be an asshole.
This list is paying dividends already!
> 41) Use sarcasm rarely.
...Shoot
Reluctantly admitting 41 is correct right here.
[flagged]
Odd that this list made you so angry you had to post how boring the people who follow must be? I feel sorry for you. Honestly. Judgement of others tends to make people miserable.
Do you always assume that someone who disagrees with you must have been angry about it?
When they use angry phrasing yes. It’s not a difficult concept, reading comprehension. Except maybe it is for the TikTok generation.
> It’s not a difficult concept, reading comprehension.
Maybe don’t be so quick to say that.
[flagged]
I didn’t know Thoreau read “The Secret”.
Rule 0: Don't be a d#ck.
Rule 1: Never read substack.
I always enjoy reading these.
> In terms of investments, virtually nothing, over time, outpaces an index fund.
Stopped reading here, waste of time.
honestly a very good list (is it good because I happen to follow nearly all of these rules?)
nonetheless i made an account just to support it
hey mitch, how goes it?
[dead]
Man, those are great.
Thanks for posting this!