I think you're reading into the thoughts of others elsewhere too much. I don't think living a "simple life" or whatever is objected by anyone. I don't think "having ideas" is also some big stakes quality that totally upends someone's lifestyle. A lot of the most creative, interesting, and idea-ful people in history lived simple, modest lives. Many writers, painters, musicians, mathematicians, scientists, philosophers, etc. were well known for "schedules" that consisted of waking up late, having a nice meal, going for a walk, doing some creative stuff for a few hours, having a nice dinner, etc etc. A "simple" lifestyle is completely compatible with originality, productivity, creativity, and personal growth. Denying that would be a crime against yourself.
Yes, I think in this forum, sometimes there are hyperbolic takes on working hard, grinding, etc., but I think that's an orthogonal concern about work, startups, and the like.
These negative connotations that you mention come from obvious places. "I'm smart, life is easy, and I'd like to keep it that way." How is this not complacency? It's the epitome of self-satisfaction and a desire to remain static. What on earth grows, evolves, or improves without difficulty, self-imposed or otherwise? This angle works whether it be biological, social, intellectual, artistic, or technical. The very nature of improvement necessarily involves failure, and I contend a desire for comfort—especially that which is stood up from some natural intelligence—is equally a desire to not fail.
Having ideas is one manifestation of an avenue for failure. Most ideas are bad and don't work. Again, "ideas" here transcend business proposals, as we might assume here on HN. For instance, I'm an amateur classical musician, and sometimes when I'm playing a piece, I will try different things not marked in the score. Maybe they'll be good, maybe not. But I'd rather have ideas to try as a means to improve my musicianship (and perhaps even my own musical intelligence!) over simply being smart by reciting a score as written with a bone-dry, scholarly performance. Of course, this means my life is now made a hair more difficult, because the effort I put into performing something may be for nought if my idea turns out to be botched. But that's par for the course when you're doing something new that nobody else has done before. Are scholarly performances a bad thing? Not intrinsically, but I'd explicitly attach negative connotation to your musicianship if that's all you can do.
If I'm honest, I really want to go a step further and link creativity, ideas, etc. to some philosophical notion of being human, but it's certainly an argument beyond my caliber to make.
> "I'm smart, life is easy, and I'd like to keep it that way." How is this not complacency?
It's all about your perspective. "I have many ideas, I'm working hard to achieve them, and I'd like to keep it that way."
This could also be construed as static, self-satisfied, and "complacent" in it's own way. Complacency is ultimately a negative and derogatory word - using it to characterize an approach you don't agree with seems disingenuous.
You can lead a simple life and still be taking risks, and be comfortable with failure. There seems to be some hard intrinsic assumptions going on in this conversation that "having ideas and executing on them" is the only avenue in life worth pursuing, because failure, risk, fulfillment can't be defined along any other angles.
As you say: a "simple" lifestyle is completely compatible with originality, productivity, creativity, and personal growth. Denying that would be a crime against yourself.
You can lead a simple lifestyle, and still experiment with your passions. Creating new musical scores, taking risks, and putting yourself out in the world to fail - none of this is fundamentally incompatible with having a simple lifestyle.
I feel like we are both orbiting the same point but viewing things from two different perspectives. It may be as simple as us not fully agreeing on what a "simple lifestyle" actually entails. In the context of the original post, it's a dichotomy between "having ideas" and "being smart". As the grandparent alluded too, "having ideas" becomes a function on how you can impose yourself upon the world to influence it, "being smart" is a function of how you personally experience the world. I think that is really the heart of it, and for some, your personal experience is paramount to your short time on this planet you get to experience being alive - and compromising that just to have more ideas just seems antithetical to the entire enjoyment of life.
> It's all about your perspective. "I have many ideas, I'm working hard to achieve them, and I'd like to keep it that way."
> This could also be construed as static, self-satisfied, and "complacent" in it's own way. Complacency is ultimately a negative and derogatory word - using it to characterize an approach you don't agree with seems disingenuous.
This is a baffling. "Something that is always changing could be seen as not changing because it's never not changing." I'm having a hard time seeing that as a good-faith rebuttal.
> This is a baffling. "Something that is always changing could be seen as not changing because it's never not changing." I'm having a hard time seeing that as a good-faith rebuttal.
I think we are talking in abstract platitudes to such an extent that the forest might get missing for the trees.
In practical terms, a workaholic can fit the mold of "I have many ideas, I'm working hard to achieve them, and I'd like to keep it that way.". A workaholic can also have all the characteristics of a complacent individual - brimming with self-satisfaction, satisfied with their routine, self-smug attitude, no desire to change their ways.
Ironically, a workaholic could justify such an attitude to themselves by calling other people complacent.
And just for reference, the dictionary definition of the word complacent:
complacent: marked by self-satisfaction especially when accompanied by unawareness of actual dangers or deficiencies
Yes, I think in this forum, sometimes there are hyperbolic takes on working hard, grinding, etc., but I think that's an orthogonal concern about work, startups, and the like.
These negative connotations that you mention come from obvious places. "I'm smart, life is easy, and I'd like to keep it that way." How is this not complacency? It's the epitome of self-satisfaction and a desire to remain static. What on earth grows, evolves, or improves without difficulty, self-imposed or otherwise? This angle works whether it be biological, social, intellectual, artistic, or technical. The very nature of improvement necessarily involves failure, and I contend a desire for comfort—especially that which is stood up from some natural intelligence—is equally a desire to not fail.
Having ideas is one manifestation of an avenue for failure. Most ideas are bad and don't work. Again, "ideas" here transcend business proposals, as we might assume here on HN. For instance, I'm an amateur classical musician, and sometimes when I'm playing a piece, I will try different things not marked in the score. Maybe they'll be good, maybe not. But I'd rather have ideas to try as a means to improve my musicianship (and perhaps even my own musical intelligence!) over simply being smart by reciting a score as written with a bone-dry, scholarly performance. Of course, this means my life is now made a hair more difficult, because the effort I put into performing something may be for nought if my idea turns out to be botched. But that's par for the course when you're doing something new that nobody else has done before. Are scholarly performances a bad thing? Not intrinsically, but I'd explicitly attach negative connotation to your musicianship if that's all you can do.
If I'm honest, I really want to go a step further and link creativity, ideas, etc. to some philosophical notion of being human, but it's certainly an argument beyond my caliber to make.