To 'Do the Work,' Know What It Is

Thursday, February 03, 2022

Image by Ian Chen, via Unsplash, license.
I recently ran into a couple of things that caused me to make a connection I want to remember, and that a passer-by might find helpful. I'll mostly write about the first.

Mild curiosity about a popular self-help guru I find quite cultish led me to an article with a title that, thanks to Poe's Law being at work, I couldn't tell was the author's attempt at being a contrarian -- or merely a clever attempt to hook members of said guru's audience in hopes of offering a rival or supplemental product of his own.

And I'll never know, because I didn't bother to finish the article.

It may sound ironic at first, but: It was the author's attempt to prove he "did the work" that put me off. Apparently, followers of the guru convince themselves they aren't wasting their money/protect themselves from having to consider possibly worthwhile information/maintain whatever communal emotional high the guru helps them get -- by parroting You didn't do the work at people who so much as say Meh about this guru.

Granted, it is often important to establish one's competence or authority at the outset of a piece of persuasive writing, especially if one's subject matter requires uncommon expertise or experience. That's not what I was reading when I quit. The author was trying too hard, as if he didn't believe himself, or felt like he had to overcome all possible objections from the Kool-Aid drinkers.

I don't care that you read eighteen (!) self-help books. I ended up thinking, among other things, while this guy -- be he "over" this guru, a would-be sycophant, or an aspiring usurper -- was beginning to marshal his irrefutable (and possibly interminable) über- I.Did.The.Work.

If these people are all sheep, why the hell should he care if they think he did the work? And if they aren't, he could have cut to the chase way sooner.

The point at which I quit reminded me of a college roommate who was very rationalistic and liked to argue. He was also a creationist, and it was through discussing this subject with him that I learned that there is a difference between knowing that something is true (and why) -- and trying to argue a point to someone else's satisfaction.

This writer came across like the latter, rather than as someone who knew what he was talking about and wanted to help me think about that thing.

Back to the roommate... The day -- I am not making this up -- he angrily thumped his Bible and said I have faith! was the day I knew that -- despite having solid, inductive evidence on my side -- he would never be satisfied (or admit satisfaction) with it.

I knew I was right, I knew that he didn't care, and I realized it shouldn't matter to me past a certain point what he thinks or cares about. I was thenceforth free in a way I hadn't been before.

Many people never achieve that kind of freedom from the opinions of others.

Apart from having a good chuckle later on and a lesson I'd never forget, every conversation with this person about this subject past a certain point was a waste of my time.

Whatever you think of a self-help guru, or an expert, or a philosophical thinker, I recommend that you be clear with yourself why you have that opinion and what it means for your life. That's "the work" and if you feel a strong need to tell other people you did it, especially it it's to insult them or to make yourself feel good, you probably aren't done.

The second thing? You'll just have to wonder. I see no useful purpose in noting it here, except to remind myself that I have more work to do.

-- CAV

2 comments:

Snedcat said...

Yo, Gus, I've had several of those experiences. The first I can remember was arguing once with an anti-nuke. I mentioned something about levels of background radiation, and after a couple of minutes of increasingly bizarre seeming non-sequiturs, he said that all radioactivity is created by humans. This fellow was an Ivy Leaguer who had graduated from one of the leading prep schools in the country. It was a nice lesson in knowing when to just not bother any more.

The most thought-provoking in my personal experience--not in considering what they say but in wondering how the hell their brains work--are language cranks. I remember in particular one Hindutva nutcase who loved to pop into linguistics and history newsgroups to state that Sanskrit originated in India, and all other Indo-European languages spread from there--a view that is quite common among Hindu nationalists. He stated quite matter-of-factly that Sanskrit was the language of the Hindu gods, who bequeathed it in full rigor to the Brahmins, and all other languages are bastardized versions of Sanskrit spoken by the descendants of losers who were expelled from India and interbred with apes; the less like Sanskrit a language is, the greater the ape admixture in their ancestry, you see. And thus, people who don't speak Sanskrit are intellectually incapable of understanding true knowledge, and therefore can be safely ignored. Why he thought it necessary to tell all this to us ape men is unclear--did he similarly waste his time lecturing his dog?

Though I've seen some threads with pyramidiots that are arguably worse, such as a particularly stupid architect who went on and on about how the pyramids were built by using the flow of the Nile to raise blocks to the top of the pyramids in an amusement-park-like water slide sort of thing. A couple of scientifically literate types who had a taste for the absurd pointed out that that violated conservation of energy, never mind all the other ludicrosities in it, and he simply replied that the law of conservation of energy is a western belief that doesn't hold for other cultures. --He was also famous for trying to translate a Middle Egyptian text, one of the most basic texts used in studying it, and he posted a fluent and utterly incomprehensibly off translation. A day later, after getting extensive queries about his version, he posted that sorry, he had read the text backwards. If you've done much translation, you know that to be able to make a text read backwards into a fluent translation, you have to be an utter idiot. (Okay, perhaps not 0.01% of the time. That instance was not this fellow.) So that's impressive in a way.

(I remember one class I took in grad school, a Manchu reading course, in which we were translating the emperor's preface to an imperial Manchu-Chinese dictionary. The first page went swimmingly, then we finished maybe two more pages the next five classes. I mean, this text was a brain-buster. We couldn't figure out any interpretations to make it make sense, and every time a passage seemed to settle down into a local maximum of sense-making, as it were, suddenly the next word couldn't fit into the grammar of the sentence at all and you'd just sit there staring at it as your brain searched frantically for another local maximum of sense-making. At one point, I wanted to find the Chinese names of towns mentioned in the preface, so I went to the library to check the Chinese version, which was most illuminating. The next class I said, "You know, we've been reading the pages out of order." After about three seconds we all had a good laugh, and we then finished the whole thing in two more hours. So yeah, that architect's feat is a noteworthy cautionary example.)

Gus Van Horn said...

Snedcat,

That ape-man question is indeed a good one, although it verges on the kind of thing one says to amuse oneself when one realizes there isn't a real conversation going on, nor can there be.

Gus