Top
Best
New

Posted by HiPHInch 1 day ago

You are how you act(boz.com)
319 points | 184 commentspage 2
conartist6 1 day ago|
Hey, wow, a think piece that didn't even say the word "AI".
pixel_popping 1 day ago|
good piece, I've immediately pasted everything to Sonnet 4.5 to get additional reasoning about it.
vhantz 1 day ago||
> “Fake it until you make it” is often dismissed as shallow, but it’s closer to Franklin’s truth. Faking it long enough is making it. The repetition of behavior, not the sincerity of belief, is what shapes character. You become the kind of person who does the things you repeatedly do.

Then you become the kind of person who fakes things?

skeaker 1 day ago||
I have read it in the past as a way to deal with imposter syndrome. You push past it by believing that you're tricking the system by faking it despite your own perceived inadequacy, when in fact you are performing perfectly fine. You do this until the results of your work are evident enough to ward off imposter syndrome. If you are indeed doing bad fake work then I guess this would fall apart, yes.
freedomben 1 day ago||
Exactly, and it has the potential to really burn others as well as yourself, when they do their work/job on top of what you claimed you had. I am not a fan of the "fake it til you make it" approach.
daveaiello 1 day ago||
We see this around us every day, in every way.

I just realized that you can connect the two with another maxim that we've all heard a million times:

The perfect is the enemy of the good.

This puts further weight behind the intellectual arrow that embodies Franklin's ideals.

ruszki 1 day ago||
> you can always decide what to do next.

I think everybody can find examples from their life when this was not true. And not even just simple one like a reaction to a flying object towards your face, but some high level impulses, like when I was in love, I definitely couldn’t control my acts completely. Of course, I was still responsible for my acts, but they were only instincts, no real thinking was involved.

mooreds 1 day ago||
I enjoyed the post. I accept that it's a bit weird coming from a Facebook exec (ad hominem, etc).

What I found particularly insightful is the point that we have a double standard. I judge myself by my intentions and others by their actions. I'd seen this before, but never tied to historical thinkers.

One way to work around this is to ask yourself "what would I think if I saw a friend doing X" where X is what you intend to do. Of course, most folks are more forgiving of a friend than a stranger, but even that small amount of distance and perspective can help you make a better decision.

delichon 1 day ago||
> We begin pure and only fail because society, obligation, or expectation pulls us away from who we truly are.

s/pulls us away from/reveals

cgriswald 1 day ago|
Your substitution would make that sentence nonsensical. We can’t begin pure and through action be revealed to actually be impure.

Both Rousseau’s and Franklin’s views have utility. One requires one to express one’s inherent goodness. The other defines whether one is good by whether they do good acts. These both promote good acts.

Taking inherent nature from Rousseau but ascribing bad acts to that inherent nature just means no one is truly responsible for their actions. If they are good they do good. If they are bad it is because they are bad. Anyone believing they are just “a bad person” has no reason to even try to be good except to avoid consequences. It’s a bigger cop out than “society made me” while simultaneously puritanical in ignoring the role of outside influence like society.

thehours 1 day ago||
This reminded me of this passage from Anxiety Is the Dizziness of Freedom by Ted Chiang:

> None of us are saints, but we can all try to be better. Each time you do something generous, you're shaping yourself into someone who's more likely to be generous next time, and that matters.

aitchnyu 1 day ago|
The soul takes on the color of its thoughts - Marcus Aurelius. In context, he wrote about the reams of thoughts that fly in our heads and how we automatically rubber stamp most of them as "true".
allemagne 1 day ago||
>The modern American self is best defined by two Enlightenment thinkers who never met but have been arguing in our heads ever since.

This reads to me a little like: "The distracted boyfriend meme can be found at the helm of the Western mind whenever we encounter betrayal and disloyalty."

I get that this is more of a trope or a shorthand than literally saying that a certain thinker invented the idea of a good person being defined by their actions, but to me it's worth saying that these concepts and ideas are probably as timeless as language, not something invented a few hundred years ago, not something invented by Plato.

redbell 1 day ago||
The title reminds me of the quote that goes.. : "You are not what you think you are, but what you think, you are".
dcre 1 day ago|
Vacuous, useless little piece. Sham thinking.
More comments...