It reminds me of British customer service. If you haven't lived in the UK you might not be familiar with the phenomenon of a checkout person being surly. They clearly don't want to be scanning your groceries or engaging in inane chit-chat with you. And they have almost no pretence about that fact. At first it was a shock to me but after some time I grew to appreciate it. It's a similar observation many who have lived in both New York and California make about the general difference in phoneyness between the coasts. New Yorkers may seem assertive/rude/cold at first but you will soon love the fact you always know where you stand.

So I interpret the author as saying: not only are you being forced to write about something you don't want to write about, you can't even admit you don't want to write about it. Instead you make excuses like you are blocked, you big phoney. While that is likely to be a valid insight for some cases, I don't believe that it applies to all cases.

In the UK I generally saw good customer service is "I had a problem, that problem was solved quickly and efficiently". The time spent solving that problem is likely unpleasant, so get it over with as soon as possible.

In the US it feels more "The person trying to handle the problem is personable and friendly". The time it takes doesn't matter so much, as there's a focus on trying to make my time during it as enjoyable as possible.

I get super frustrated waiting at a bank or similar and the person in front is having a chat with the teller, I don't want to be in the bank, I don't want to have a chat, I have some specific goal (like getting change) that I want achieved and leave as soon as possible. That is what I consider "good" service.

I absolutely love US customer service, but then I also get annoyed when incompetent service agents keep trying to help when they should really hand it over to someone more competent. I guess that's because they are worried that they might lose their job if the customer is unhappy.

I always joke that every company needs exactly one German. One German is enough to call out all the bullshit americans praise over the top, but if there's too many nothing will ever get done because everything is impossible.

I really wonder if there is a middle ground. I certainly haven't encountered it in any country I've lived in.

It's even more interesting here in Canada; kind of inbetween US and UK. There's in fact a bit of a debate of the 2 approaches.

What you're seeing is the collapse of skill and the shift to sales. It derives heavily from the banking industry, interesting you use the bank as your example. When the banks got automated(ABMs), you might expect the number of employees employed by the banks went down but it went way way up. They are no longer tellers, they are sales.

Sales people aren't there to solve your problem. They want to sell you something, and a good sales person is personable, friendly, and you don't realize they are doing it.

Service also needs to be cognizant of overall "load" on the environment. It might be ok to chat when there's no one else around, but not when ten people are waiting. It's a bit of a balancing act and so few people providing service really understand it.

In practice, thinking about myself, I'm definitely Cali-school-of-thought and I do think your dog is cute, I do think that's a cool haircut, and I do think that's a snazzy dress. And when people compliment me or talk to me I'm pretty sure they're being genuine. One thing, though, is that it's nice when people are aware of where they are and the people around them. It's definitely unreasonable to expect to have a conversation when there's a long line behind you. And perhaps we in California could learn to do that less.

But I do like the article itself because it's kind of tough love: be honest to yourself that you don't like what you're thinking. But isn't that what writer's block is? That you can't come up with something you think is worthwhile? It isn't that you literally can't write. It's that what you do write seems lame, and maybe that's because you're thinking lame things, but that's the problem and you already know that.

We look at what Californians say and what they do and we notice a gap. The California-nice CEO says he genuinely cares about his employees’ well being and the cuts healthcare so he can get a fifth home. California-nice voters claim to care about the poor and then vote “to preserve the character of the neighborhood”. California-nice people tell you that they love the planet—-just look at these paper straws—-then drive to their single family homes with lawns.

As a famous New Yorker likes to say, don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining.

> It's called being a decent person.

Engaging in small talk can be inconsiderate, as the post upstairs demonstrates. Maybe the guy doesn't have time for the ceremony and the chitchat. A lack of small talk doesn't mean you're automatically rude or an asshole. Small talkers can be huge assholes, too, by doing things like wasting everybody's time with BS and worthless blather.

Moderation in anger, reasonable patience, and appropriate friendliness are good, subject to judgement within the given circumstances, but the idea that being "nice" is some kind of virtue and a defining feature of decent human beings is preposterous. Many evils in the world are fostered by nice people terrified of speaking the truth and causing displeasure.

Q: What if all people are assholes, but some are at least honest about it?

Unfortunately, I have observed that New Yorkers are now performatively complaining and being rude. They believe they have to be a little negative, so they find something wrong with the current situation, no matter how tenuous. They're supposed to be grouchy so they act like your presence is a burden even if they're actually really happy you're there.

There's nothing wrong with it, it's just a different style. But it's no more or less phoney than anywhere else.

Source: lived for 20 years in New York, and 20 years in CA.

My first gig at a large company was an inside sales role. The first territory I was handed was the Bronx and some zip codes in NJ. I was warned about the personalities of the people I would be dealing with (mostly attorneys and law librarians) when I was calling them - The office I was working out of was in the Midwest.

After the first four or five times people cut you off and tell you, "Listen pal, I don't have all day to sit her and listen to your sales pitch. Either tell me what you want or get off my phone, I have other stuff I need to." You appreciate the curtness and ability to cut the bs and get down to business. I was way more successful just telling these people, "This is why I'm calling. . ." instead of running through the 12 step sales process we were trained to adhere to.

So yes, I agree with you 100% on knowing where you stand with New Yorkers and in general people in the East Coast.

Whilst true, and perhaps forgiveable, with regard to checkout persons I did hate it when the same general disdain for customers permeated the whole service sector. This is changing thankfully and going to a restaurant in the UK is now no longer (or at least, not always) a chore. Speaking as a native Brit.

I think saying "Don't enjoy it? Don't do it!" is misunderstanding the gulf between those two counts. The entire service industry would likely grind to a halt if people actually took that advice.

I don't understand the point of what you said here.

Q: When you arrive in a restaurant and your server pitches up and says "Hi, how are you?" in a super-bright, ultra-cheerful way, do you immediately think:

a) wow, they genuinely enjoy serving people or b) they've been told/taught to greet customers that way, _every single time_

?

It was obviously part of the job and nothing personal, although we were nice and not assholes in any way. Some people find it super cool, I just found it the most fake bullshit ever, and really hope they weren't actually forcing their staff to drink with customers but rather encouraging or just allowing it.

If I have to think about the staff's conduct, good or bad, usually that means something is wrong.

Why the UK? Have you ever been to the Czech Republic? Or Russia, from what I've heard?

How have you arrived at this conclusion?

I'm guessing by "British" you mean English. I've lived in Scotland for almost 15 years, and I can certainly tell you that "British" customer service is not Scots customer service. For a starter, most Scots do not identify as "British", so then to use your broad brush is a bad look.

If your experience was in England, please just say so.

In anycase, my experience shopping in Scotland is vastly different from shopping in the home counties.

I believe strongly that they are right that avoidance is one of the key reasons people who want to write don't. One of the challenges I've experienced is that that sensation of avoidance can from two opposing sources:

1. If I'm not saying what I really feel, I get a vague sense of guilt and unease. I feel insincere and it makes me shy away from writing. It starts to feel less like I'm sharing and more like I'm a guilty defendent on the witness stand trying to assemble a convincing alibi. My conscience keeps telling me I'm going down the wrong path.

2. When I am saying what I really feel, I get a different discomfort. I feel this blushing cringe, like I accidentally posted private poetry meant for a lover to my Facebook feed. I am being vulnerable and exposing myself to attack. My sense of self-protection tells me I'm taking a risk.

The hard part is that these two sensations can feel quite similar but the way to take action on them is directly opposed. If it's my conscious making me squirm, I need to change course. But when it's my vulnerability, it usually means I'm on the right path.

It's taken me years and a lot of introspection to learn to tease these apart. On good days, I'm able to lean into the discomfort of the latter and avoid the former so that I can say something I truly believe is worth saying.

You can just write but not publish: A historically popular choice in times when expressing yourself too clearly was worse for your longevity than smoking. Another option is to be so cryptic nobody knows quite what you mean (looking at you, German 18th-19th century philosophers)

Or write and publish under a pseudonym. Good enough for Voltaire is good enough for anyone.

- Lack of experience (you're blocked because you need to go do something first in order to be able to relate first-hand about it)

- Lack of knowledge (you're blocked because you don't yet fully understand your subject, or you have the head knowledge but haven't really assimilated it yet)

- Lack of coherence (you're blocked because you haven't yet been able to condense your feelings on the subject into words that make sense)

Is there a value in writing straight from the heart? Of course there is. But even in "lying", as the author puts it, there is value in exploring the positions of others through the writing process. This is a great way to validate what one DOES believe as well as to better understand those one might disagree with.

Is that not the point? The author could have tempered their words to fit into something more palatable to a wider audience. But then they'd be saying what they think would be easily received and not what they actually felt.

I whole-heartedly agree with the author that much of the difficulty for many writers is having the courage to say what they mean. And it takes courage to say that that's the problem, because it risks hurting readers' feelings. But that kind of shock might be necessary to get people out of their rut.

And, even if not, if it's what the author feels, I respect their honesty. I'd rather read something heartfelt that I disagree with than a pile of prose whose sharp edges have all been rounded off to the point that only a meaningless pebble remains.

The issue is also tempering to the words to what is actually true about world and human psychology.

Something being funny or insulting or strong in words does not imply it brings in deep truth. Pretty often, it creates false description of world. And the words being strong are making that lie more convincing.

> But then they'd be saying what they think would be easily received and not what they actually felt.

Feelings are not facts. It way more honest to write about feelings in a way that makes it clear you write about feelings. Instead, articles like this pretend to describe the world around and not feelings.

> And it takes courage to say that that's the problem, because it risks hurting readers' feelings

When you lie about other people mental state or make it up, them objecting is 100% valid. Their feelings are rightfully hurt. Because the actual issue is not that you was impolite, it is that you are saying untrue things about them.

I'm partly writing this out for my own benefit, so apologies if this sounds perscriptive.

Even if you haven't anything interesting to say, you're mind is thinking something regarding the topic.

One might not know the first thing about "Luminal Collapse in Early Breast Cancer", but I bet you can write a million questions.

"How 'early' is early breast cancer? What exactly is collapsing and how can I see it? This luminal collapse thing sounds ominous, what exactly does it mean for outcomes? The 'collapse' part is particularly ominous sounding. If I suffered from breast cancer, that word would be pretty scary. I wonder what the relation is between scariness of medical terms and the decisions of patients to undergo treatment."

Immediately, you've something on the page and some off-topic ramblings.

By the time you've answered those questions and filtered out the truly off-topic material, you'll probably realise there's a better framing or some underlying truth. You've achieved an early draft and are ready for editing!

tl;dr: I don't love the tone of the article but the general and common advice of writing drunk and editing sober is probably good advice.

Recognizing which one is the problem is difficult because they compound each other. Each one has a different fix.

I struggle with capacity and fixing that probably requires me to make time and rearranging my life to make more energy available. If that means talking to a therapist, don’t be afraid to. :)

This person seems to think that everyone naturally thinks in words, instead of that being a skill they learned and got good enough at that they don't even notice it.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysgraphia

But I think that's where the author maybe is missing the point; yes, we can always find something to write. That doesn't mean it's worth writing, especially in whatever context had me sit down to write.

Whether in writing, other arts, or even science and engineering, I think it is quite possible to be strongly motivated to create yet to have an empty mental hole where the target idea will live. Capturing all the qualities of the hole is not the same thing as capturing what you want, the thing that is supposed to be there instead of that hole.

You can struggle to find more external context or infer things about the absent target, but you are stuck until some kind of creative insight or exhaustive exploration drags it to light. Capturing the process or the meta experience of having this hole is not your goal at all, and so no amount of dumping what you already know will fulfill your creative longing. Some creative processes may be supported by journals or other intermediate work products, but that does not mean that you can make progress just by producing more such stuff either. You really can be blocked by a failure to induce new insights.

To say that you should write out what is in your mind and declare that progress is to assume that your goal is just to reach some metric of output. That the specific topic either does not matter or is already clearly defined. But writing/creative blocks can be about a future or hypothetical that hasn't been located yet, not just some reluctance to document what has already been imagined.

https://www.additudemag.com/7-executive-function-deficits-li...

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6128763_ADHD_and_Dy...

> The remedy is simple, although it does involve a short, sharp shock of frankness with oneself. Stop lying about who you are, and write the things that are actually inside you. If, deep down, you want to write about misunderstood teen gymnasts with pet magic lions, your literary fiction about sad suburbanites will not easily come out of you, and it will probably not come off well.

This is great advice. Maybe not so easy to internalize for people stuck on the other side of the wall, but worth thinking about.

I really don’t like the framing here. To be blunt, this person is being a jerk.

For a real discussion on the process of making art of any kind, I recommend reading [Art and Fear](https://www.amazon.com/Art-Fear-Observations-Rewards-Artmaki...) by David Bayles and Ted Orland. It’s a lot more insightful about human nature than calling people lairs for falling into the same patterns that have existed since Art has existed.

I’m a fan of the audio book but definitely listen to the sample first. The narrator may not be to your taste.

In particular I think the 'lie' most people who are trying to write but can't get it to happen are telling themselves is that they _want_ to be writing at all. Most of the time people want to want to write, but they don't actually _want to_. If you truly want to do something, it happens effortlessly (barring some problematic anxiety getting in the way). The rest of the time, you just wish you wanted to.

The distinction between "wanting to do something" and "wanting to want to do something" has been very helpful in my life. Particularly because it helps me not feel bad when I can't get myself to do something. Usually giving up on wanting-to-want and doing something else for a while eventually leads to the actual desire coming back, once it's freed from the anxiety of trying to force it.

I want to stay in bed, binge Netflix, play video games and read books all day. One year from now, that's not what I want to have spent the past year doing. I don't know about everybody else, but this is an underlying tension in my life.

This backwards logic underlies all of 'depression', in my experience. If you have a neurotic need to be something or have done something, that neurotic need can only manifest in 'symbolic action' -- like visibly starting work (only to give up shortly thereafter), or performatively talking about how you're doing something or planning to do it. But neurotic motivation isn't _actual_ motivation. It's only purpose, I think, biologically must be to get you 'near' what you feel like you should be doing, in hopes that that causes it to happen somehow.

When you have a neurotic motivation that's at odds with who you are, or that you don't know how to immediately act on, it causes you to sort of .. shut down. Because you can't immediately become who you 'wish you were', you just do ... nothing, operating in the lowest-energy state, chasing immediate rewards like eating, doing things that are suggested to you, and binging the highest-dopamine rewards like video games or netflix.

When I've realized this about particular 'needs' in the past, I've been able to see the need dissipate, and I suddenly feel much free-r to actually be myself and do things I want to do, which confusingly is more effective at getting to whoever you actually wanted to be anyway. The key is not _needing_ to be that person. If you feel bad about not being something, it just, like, breaks everything in your brain. In the case of TFA: if you feel like you need to be a writer, you sit down and think about writing, but your creativity is broken because you're just operating neurotically. So quit it; don't try to write until you _want_ to.

Related: https://kajsotala.fi/2017/07/how-i-found-fixed-the-root-prob... which is the article that initially got me thinking in ways that got rid of some of the 'neurotic needs' that were making it hard to be freely motivated. Although it feels like I keep finding new problems of this sort, I've definitely fixed a few of them in the past, and somehow once fixed they seem to _stay_ fixed.

A large fraction of the people I have known were able to do so because of a major wake-up call such as: flunking out of school, being fired from a job (or multiple jobs in a row), or hitting "rock bottom" with substance abuse.

My neurotic motivations kept me at "On academic probation for 7 out of 11 semesters" instead of "flunked out." If I went back in time and gave this advice to my younger self, I would not have taken it because when you are afraid of drowning, you won't let go of the driftwood to swim towards the yacht.

I suspect therapy can get you there a lot faster. For some people, getting high or tripping can help.

The first step is looking for it though. If you find yourself saying "I want to do X but I keep not doing it", that's a sign something's messed up. I imagine that meditating on that feeling can target the neurotic drive directly.

I have work to do and sometimes it feels like an insurmountable mountain, so I alt+tab to something else for a little respite.

But I can tell it is self-destructive behavior. Maybe acknowledging it is the first step.

[obviously I am also talking to myself here...]

That concept been helpful for me too. The problem I have with this article is it’s presentation is not very helpful to people who don’t already understand the underlaying ideas behind the motivation to write the article.

"By contrast, when you’re in touch with your honest aesthetic/spiritual/material/intellectual priorities, writing is pretty easy. I don’t mean, like, that it’s easy to write immortal masterpieces—there are heights of aesthetic perfection that can only be reached when the right material meets a well-trained set of hands. But writing a decent enough first draft—something to fuck around with until it’s readable—should be fairly simple. Sure, it takes discipline to open the document and begin typing rather than continuing to scroll Twitter. But once you begin, it shouldn’t feel like trying to squeeze champagne out of wrought iron. It should feel like opening a floodgate—whether that results in a furious swell or an amiable trickle."

Assuming everyone faces the problems the same way you did is a common failing of humanity. This is why most advice fails to work. The advice was right for a specific person at a specific time when they where ready to hear it and able to understand it.

Yes, of course, not all writer's block and it's not the whole picture and it won't work for everyone, and on and on. Everything is always more complicated; we knew that going in, that's a given. It's a ~1000-word article; it can't be the whole truth of anything. But I'd rather read one clear insightful treatment of some of the truth than a mess of qualifiers.

Being forced to lie is one of the most mentally degrading things one can be imposed on.

On the one hand, writing dross is actually quite good practice.

On the other hand, having standards (at least before publishing) is something that should be encouraged.

Ooh, not only is "Overton" capitalized but so is "Window."

Even better-- since the main use of the term has been to elucidate changes to acceptable discourse over time, simply calling it a "shifting Overton Window" would be rather pedestrian. Rather than reflect honestly on the purpose of writing that sentence, the author seems to double down by adding the word "rapidly" to make the sentence appear as more than a mere truism.

In conclusion, I agree with the author's point that authors should stop lying to themselves and just write their actual opinions.

But seriously, solving writer's block seems ripe for disruption. How are there not already several Decentralized Apps in this space? Did the regulators beat us all to the punch?

Compare people's apologetic and noncommittal tech presentations now, to those from the old films with 1950s people in their lab coats and thick-rimmed glasses. They had utmost confidence and verbal fluency back then.

I don't think this is a good example. There was a huge barrier to entry in the 50s to end up in a position to be recorded talking about something. Capable speakers would have been chosen more often than not.

There has always been pressure from various groups to say or not say things. I think the only thing that has drastically changed is how much easier it is to put something out there, and for the public to respond.

I'm sure Galileo would think political correctness is much better now than in his time.

edit: I just found this link that is a pretty interesting list of scientists being ignored, ridiculed, beaten, jailed, and killed for politically incorrect ideas that were later proven correct.

https://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/maveri...

Sometimes, what I think helps the most is the mindset that choosing the correct words, writing the most poetic prose, and being eloquent is not what matters. What matters the most is actually finishing the piece! If I were allowed one advice to inspiring writers, I would just say this: use Kindergarten level language if you have to, write in broken English, use French, or even mix up some pig-latin for all it matters, but just complete the piece. Writing is an iterative process and the biggest hurdle in that process is finishing the first draft. Once you are past that, rest is just reading it a lot and revising until you think that yeah, it doesn't suck after all.

This speaks directly to the author's point. When we cringe from our own writing, I think it's often one of:

1. We didn't express are true feelings well, so we feel deceitful or inauthentic. This is the vague shame and guilt you feel when you wrote what you thought you were supposed to say but not what you really believe.

2. We did express our true feelings, and we're scared of the vulnerability it creates. When you bare your soul, you lower the shield between you and your audience. You show them exactly where your soft spots are. Any criticism will cut all the more deeply. This is that blushing cringe you feel when realize your heart is laid bare for all to see.

4. Maybe our true-feelings are mistaken and we'll come off as a sham (this ties with inferiority complex).

5.

6.

7. ...

I understand that I may have some overlap with the author, but while the author stresses on being genuine with oneself, I stress on actually completing the piece (whether or not genuine) and not worrying about auxiliary stuffs like word choice, rhythm of the writing, eloquence, etc. that can always be improved upon in next iterations.

Plus, sometimes people can write super dishonest texts they are totally cool with. It is pretty often much much easier to express inauthentic things.

What if I look deep down inside myself and what comes out are boring Star Trek reruns? I'm not going to write those, I'm going to have writer's block until I come up with something more original.

"We've all seen that movie or read that book before" is a perfectly valid reason not to write something.

He's correct that a lot of people are scared to do that initial brain dump and that brain dump is a necessary first step in the creative process.

First, just write. Later, edit.

But first, just write. You have to start somewhere and first drafts are notorious for being terrible.

For example, an idea for a blog post came to my mind 30 minutes ago:

You can't wander into a supermarket and see a substance as addictively tempting as heroin stocked next to the Advil. Imagine you're just trying to get groceries on some mundane Sunday afternoon and go home within a half hour when you turn your head and see a magazine with a picture of your favorite <YouTube content creator/acid techno producer/dog> on the racks. If this were me, and the thing I saw was one I highly cherished, under my default mode of action, the rest of my entire afternoon would be set in stone. The time would have been lost. I have remembered about the most interesting thing in the location of the most mundane things, and I feel validated. So I will get distracted.

And my argument would be that the <YouTube content creator/acid techno producer/dog> that occupies a my time is not at fault. The fault would lie with us as a species, because although natural selection filters out the most successful genes and ideas, it does not put limiters on the ones that are successful to a fault. Laws, regulations, and legislation are, at a simplistic level, ways of preventing people from getting what they want. What if what I "truly" want is the thing that will destroy me?

The above is what I would consider an idea that is not fully thought though. I came up with it in all of fifteen minutes. Through some shred of luck, I've managed to do what the article encourages and wrote it down somewhere.

I could spend a lot of time writing a blog post explaining this idea. I could cite sources. I could throw it online just for the sake of finishing something, not because I believe the product of my effort is perfect. Then I could be told that I shouldn't have finished what I did, because my writing was a net negative. Even though I know that I have never really written any blog posts, and that releasing shitty blog posts is inevitable if you are ever going to blog consistently.

It's sad that I have to picture comments like these in front of me, because they will always exist, but even if they are harsh, that doesn't mean they're wrong. It's sad because that is what ultimately destroys my motivation to share most of what I've made with anyone, unless it offers no real grounds for opinion (in the sense of the universality of mathematical formulae).

At the same time, the difference between carrying on or not shouldn't be determined by how harshly the critic happens phrase their criticism. People have told me that I need to stop being so vulnerable and develop thick skin. You can tell all the dismissive people to "be nicer", but there will always be more dismissive people.

That is the reason that the idea I'm proposing, however disjointed and rough it is, will probably not become a blog post. It's the idea that people should not write to be seen unless they have enough focus to pass a certain bar. That if you have nothing insightful to say, you should keep quiet instead, and of course I am not going to be able to define "insightful" in a closed vacuum all by myself.

And of course, the only real reason I feel comfortable writing all of this here is because it concerns an article about not caring what people are going to think of what you say. If it were under any other article, all that insight becomes implicit, and you are on your own in dealing with the guilt and fear.

I am tempted to give myself the habit of telling everyone who judges what I say that I was just trying to finish something for once, instead of wallowing around wishing I finished something for all of my life. "This piece is awful because I finished it." I can see dozens of places I could have improved if I had the heart - but no, I had to ship instead.

Maybe that still won't be a good enough excuse. If so, then I guess the fear the original author dismisses is justifiable, at least.