boredom
Are you bad at hacking? Often it’s called imposter syndrome, let’s dive into understanding the self and framing failure. The short answer is probably yes. The long answer is maybe, but it doesn’t matter. The first time a programmer, or at least I opened up a text editor(it was sublime), I was pretty bad at this activity. I couldn’t really talk to my computer.
I didn’t understand it and it didn’t understand me. There was a disconnect, but overtime this feedback loop got tighter and tighter. Suddenly I could loop over stuff, red errors weren’t scary or overwhelming, it felt like a conversation. I hacked throwaway scripts that turned into applications. I developed a level of competency, which is to say - given a problem within this domain I could accomplish X level of complexity of a task in Y time. I improved.
Yet, I didn’t ask myself if I was bad at hacking, not even once. I just assumed I sucked. I didn’t notice myself getting better because I was too busy doing it. The question arises not in the mind of a beginner but in the mind of one that has developed some level of competence, regardless of said level.
The question you’re really asking isn’t if you’re bad at hacking. The question you’re asking is… am I competent enough to accomplish tasks in my domain? Will others percieve me as competent? What is my standing relative to my peers?
These questions eat at the soul. They are the worst kinds of questions to ask for two reasons:
- There’s no way to answer them.
- They are self-defeating because you loose focus of the one you should compare yourself to… yourself.
But it’s particularly hard for hackers to know how good they are, because it’s hard to compare their work. This is easier in most other fields. In the hundred meters, you know in 10 seconds who’s fastest. Even in math there seems to be a general consensus about which problems are hard to solve, and what constitutes a good solution. But hacking is like writing. Who can say which of two novels is better? Certainly not the authors.
There exist two paths which is to say what do I need to know/do to accomplish tasks within a knowledge domain and how do I expand this domain?
The problem with framing learning as competence is fundamentally boredom. Or something akin to a bout of dizziness. Once the feedback loop is broken - once your mind map of your domain stops to expand which is to say discovering novel ways of approaching problems you become bored. Restless. So you dabble and explore new things to find that special place, new problems, new domains. A self driven paradise of perpetual motivation. A mind filled navigating and shaping complex systems of abstractions.
Herein lies the paradox.
Striving for competence does not increase your ability to solve problems, only your ability to use what you already know to solve the problems you have. Hence you stop growing as I have. Growth as a hacker I think has little to do with competence.
You will always be bad at solving problems you don’t know how to solve, yet you will be able to solve more and more complex problems. You’ll never be bored, where is the time to compare competency? The answer will always be obvious. You suck, and with this you approach the task with humility I suppose?
Which domain?
The most interesting one. Try everything, whatever you end up doing the most - keep doing that.
Final thoughts
The idea is to accept yourself as you are, that you are and are not. Boredom is a red flag, it means your’re developing competency. Overwhelming lack of access to abstractions is a red flag - your base is too shaky. It doesn’t matter what you learn this way, but you probably cannot learn everything. If you’re having fun, you’ll know. It’s a pleasant feeling of aporia between you and the ideas in your head :)