6 Harsh Truths That Will Make You A Better Person

[The Βoston Crab]

It's a very very interesting discussion and I'm absolutely certain that Jesus Christ would have your back. Essentially, I agree with you that via a process of hardening yourself to others' needs, there is an inevitable distancing effect which prevents further enrichment of shared experience with that person. That is the essence of karma, by the way. Whatever you choose, you've always moved further from another path, to some degree.

I genuinely believe that your interpretation of kindness and open-mindedness is potentially restrictive, though. Telling my brother something which he doesn't want to hear which ends up helping him to develop his business is a sacrifice I've made out of pure unconditional love. Sure, he's pissed off with me for a few months while my other brother tells him what he wants to hear - again, out of pure unconditional love - but it ultimately strengthens our relationship and our respect and trust for each other.

I think that's the fascinating thing about life. You live with the consequences of everything you do and every single time, your actions have a positive and negative impact.

[Thomas]

I absolutely guarantee the "Ha! You critical consumers, you snipers, why don't you make something yourselves?" line will pee CaBbers off, though.

I often wonder what the world would be like if every single human being was a successful creator/artist/whatever.

I reckon it's fair enough that some people just knock around, enjoy a few books, criticise The X Factor a bit, have a relationship or four, and then die.[nb]I, however, aim to become a bestselling novelist by the time you read this footnote.[/nb]

[Still Not George]

But - aaaaaahhhh!!! - two of my friends have picked up on the article on Facebook and are now citing it as an inspiration for 2013.  I would provide screencaps, but I can't be bothered.  I suppose your point still stands in that they probably still will do nothing, and in any case I wouldn't particularly cite them as being people who had self-motivation problems in the first place. 

I'll agree that the article is very much of the "This worked for me, it will work for you" persuasion.

It's not either - your friends aren't citing it as inspiration because they want to follow it, and the author isn't posting it because it worked for him. It's aspirational aggressiveness, a paean to Manning Up rooted in a desire for everyone else to believe they have done so.

In short, the article could simply have been entitled "6 Reasons Everyone Should Look At My Massive Cock." [nb]On a related note, every single time I see that Glengarry Glen Ross clip I find myself hearing Alec Baldwin say "I have a tiny dick! A really tiny dick!" over and over.[/nb]

[Subtle Mocking]

All seems a bit rich from someone writing a Cracked article.

[Danger Man]

I often wonder what the world would be like if every single human being was a successful creator/artist/whatever.

Let's take one example. Stand-up comedy.

There are a lot of funny stand-ups but only, especially in this country, a handful of TV and radio stations. So only a handful of stand-ups can become famous. If everybody was funny the world would be exactly as it is now but with many more people sitting at home saying "That should be me on there"

Either that or we'd have 100,000 comedy channels. 

[Buelligan]

Like "Prince" Charles?

[Danger Man]

Come to think of it, if everybody was funny then we wouldn't have any humorless people who couldn't understand what was funny if their life depended on it.

In that scenario, where would we find people to work in production companies and BBC managementohnoI'mnotbitteratall......

[olliebean]

Everyone who thinks they've made it seems to profess to know the secret of their success, and then proceed to stuff it down everyone's throat at each available opportunity. And it always hubristically comes down to something they did, and they always expect that everyone else is capable of repeating that. To repeat, their model for self-improvement is their life. Astonishing that anyone gives these egomaniacs the time of day.

This. Almost nobody who professes to know the secret of success has succeeded for the precise reasons they think they did. The more they profess to be "self-made," in general, the more what they say is likely to be bullshit. Their advice - "Do as I did and you will achieve what I achieved" - is missing something important: "Have all the same people and resources and lucky breaks to help you along the way as I did."

[Still Not George]

I often wonder what the world would be like if every single human being was a successful creator/artist/whatever.

I reckon it's fair enough that some people just knock around, enjoy a few books, criticise The X Factor a bit, have a relationship or four, and then die.

The unspoken and unspeakable secret of Western society is that we passed the point where 'workers' were necessary several decades ago. Automation makes it more so with each passing day.

[23 Daves]

This. Almost nobody who professes to know the secret of success has succeeded for the precise reasons they think they did. The more they profess to be "self-made," in general, the more what they say is likely to be bullshit. Their advice - "Do as I did and you will achieve what I achieved" - is missing something important: "Have all the same people and resources and lucky breaks to help you along the way as I did."

I've met a lot of successful media types who query me about my relatively lowly career, and it's almost as if they have a checklist they're running down to try to find a reason why, in their view, I've 'failed'[nb]And you should note that I really couldn't give a shit about having a career in the media at the moment anyway, though if the right job came along I'd take it. But I'm not actively looking. [/nb].   "Have you worked as hard as I did?" is usually a question they keep returning to a lot, with variations along the lines of "How many CVs did you send out?", "How many boots did you lick?", "Did you nearly starve yourself to death?" like it's a huge competition.  They really, truly believe that they've found a method to success, that if you emulate them every step of the way it will work (advice from my Journalism College head in 1999: "Don't waste your time with the Internet, it's a gimmick, nobody will be using it in five years. You need to do what I did, which was...")

The truth is that I've watched some people go on to success and others totally fail, and there is no obvious pattern, though some people who leave their morals in the dustbin have a few advantages.  Some people are hopeless at their chosen career and should never even have considered the supposedly glamorous media world, and you can immediately strike a few out that way - but anyone with an average ability or above seems to end up being awarded career prizes on a seemingly random basis, most of them working very hard along the way purely because that's the bare minimum that's expected of you anyway. 

There are only a handful of media types who are truly exceptional at what they do at any moment in time - and especially at this moment in time, it seems - and the rest could have landed in any league table you care to name depending on whether they took the right jobs at the right time or met the right people at the right time.  You only need to have a scour around online to realise that there's a frightening volume of good writers out there who aren't getting regular paid work in the press. Thinking that you're going to be assured success if you just work your arse off is actually a colossal gamble.

[Danger Man]

Looking at the most successful period of my life I have to trot out the tired old lines, namely it was talent and hard work but it would have been nothing without a bit of luck.

Luck is very important but nobody wants to admit it.

[biggytitbo]

Everyone admits it don't they, as a form of faux modesty/humility.

[Big Jack McBastard]

People who are all spunky (in the American[nb]I'll not say 'Yank' that'll give the wrong impression[/nb] sense) and full of 'get up and go' make me suspicious, too much fucking caffeine and neurosis in their blood.

Go getter-types, they put me on my guard as I think they should everyone. They're either (and sometimes both) trying to sell something, even if it's just 'their'[nb]affected and/or received[/nb] 'unique'[nb]bullshit[/nb] 'personality'[nb]not what they're really like under the hood, once the gloves are off and the shoe is on the other foot and the chips are down and their dander is up and the valley is too deep and the mountain too high.[/nb] or psychotics who're ruled by some mad ideology they've bought into which just so happens to massage their ego correctly, who often come off as utterly flippant and amoral when it comes to other people's actual lives because they're truly only concerned with their shit, ever.

[Danger Man]

Everyone admits it don't they, as a form of faux modesty/humility.

They 'admit' it if you say they are talented.

Try saying 'you spawny git' to a successful person and see what reply you get.

[checkoutgirl]

the article could have been much shorter, and far less patronising as well.

I had to read dozens of Cracked articles before that fact dawned on me. There are about 5 or 6 templates of Cracked articles. One is "Get a job and a woman you useless idiot". Another is "Imagine Star Wars was like real life and stuff". Another is "I was a junkie/drunk/homeless/fisherman and here's what I've learnt (these things are iron rules of life and are definitely true, so there)". Another one is "Imagine these universally perfect things were slightly different".

There's a couple of other ones that I can't be bothered to think of but I definitely noted theme and tone repitition in the articles. They do courses to get people to write in their style (and probably as a money making scam as well).

[biggytitbo]

I shouted 'Oy Sugar, you jammy Sid James cunt purveyor of crappy plastic Argos shite' across him at a pub once and you're right, he didn't take it in the affectionate nature it was intended.

[Subtle Mocking]

I shouted 'Oy Sugar, you jammy Sid James cunt purveyor of crappy plastic Argos shite' across him at a pub once and you're right, he didn't take it in the affectionate nature it was intended.

Well he is an area pillock.

[23 Daves]

The interesting thing about this article is that if you take away the Alec Baldwin stuff and the "What is your value to society?" section (not to mention the references to sexy Zooey Deschanel types trying hard through eating salad) it is essentially just one of those articles you used to get in punk fanzines.  "This is your life, you can make something interesting out of it if you want, so stop talking about it and get up and do it, anyone can".  I don't think it's specific enough to pin down as careers advice, because (as I said at the bottom of page one) it's not asking anyone to be a success as such, just to get involved in some way.

It's an anti-passive hipster rant, really.  In the same way that seventies zines were indulging in anti-passive hippy rants. I'm certain it won't go down in history in quite the same way, and it's incredibly clumsy with some of its references and the masculine tone, but the anger it's provoked seems somewhat disproportionate.

[Thomas]

I clocked the article as dubious as soon as I read 'truths' and 'better person'.

Successful people, creative figures who work hard and make a living doing what they love, can still be pretty glum about stuff and hate themselves. Or perhaps they just aren't bothering to try hard enough.

Do the math: How much of your time is spent consuming things other people made (TV, music, video games, websites) versus making your own? Only one of those adds to your value as a human being.

Says who?

[23 Daves]

Yeah, that is clumsy.  You have to consume books to become a good writer, then continue to consume them to make sure you remain one.  The same principle applies to anything you care to name.  It is a balance a lot of people fail to strike, but you do have to be a passive observer sometimes.

[buttgammon]

While I haven't read the whole thing (my blood is warm enough as it is, thank you very mcuh and I can easily live without it exceeding boiling point), I think I know just enough about this sort of stuff to know it's absolute bollocks. The stuff about listing 'impressive things' that 'you do' is utter balls, because there's no reason why I couldn't find it impressive that I am capable of breathing or shitting. When you think about it, the most basic biological process are much more impressive than some arsehole's self-perceived chili cooking ability.

One harsh truth that will stop you from being a total cunt: never let yourself write an idiotic piece for Cracked or a similarly pathetic website which is full of self-congratulatory 'truths' aimed at 'lesser' people and contains billions of unfunny 'quirky' images and-oh-so-clever bold text and use of the word 'motherfucker'.

[The Βoston Crab]

To what extent can any of us claim to be 'open-minded' if we only consider viewpoints which enable our unhindered progress along the exact same path?

I don't agree with everything this guy suggests, by any means, nor do I disagree with everything that's been said in opposition but the black-and-white vitriol only suggests reinforced prejudice.

I believe that if it feels like the path of least resistance, it's worth my questioning.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

I quite like reading these kind of things, and provocative articles generally. Being open-minded is giving something a chance to appeal. If it fails, such as this one, it warrants criticism or even vitriol.

Once again, the hubris and superciliousness was unnecessary and made for an unpleasant read. Self-labelling 'harsh truths' was a bad way to go about making a series of trite self help points and one ludicrously one-eyed masculine point that casually dismissed possibly hundreds of thousands of female readers.

[Buelligan]

What kind of "better person" feels that they can know enough about their audience to pin down six harsh fucking truths that will make them "better" too, I ask myself?  The sort of person who bores the living shit out of me, that's who.

[biggytitbo]

If you want to improve yourself as a person the sure fire way is to buy a really smashing new hat.

[Danger Man]

but the black-and-white vitriol only suggests reinforced prejudice.

That's Numberwang!!!

[The Βoston Crab]

Is it without value because of the attention-grabbing one-eyed tone or because you live by a different set of values? Does every article need to appeal to every potential reader? I feel that's an unnecessarily dismissive judgement criterion, personally.

I also dislike the use of 'self-help' as a pejorative term, when self-reflection and a desire to improve one's situation seems to be an almost instinctive human pursuit. It suggests defensiveness and reluctance to let one's guard down. I wonder why I personally don't feel insulted by this article. It could be because I'm a cunt but I think it's because I don't find different perspectives especially threatening or in need of being dismissed - I can generally take something of interest from any old wally.

From sharing my own unfiltered reflections over the last couple of years, I appreciate that tone and presentation are incredibly important in how willing people will be to engage with ideas which may or may not align with their established worldview. I am naturally suspicious though when any idea is unanimously dismissed on here, especially when it could be seen to touch a few nerves. I also think that's why I tend to defend the likes of puffy on here and why I will argue the minority viewpoint in many cases. Partly, I'm an awkward fucking prick but mostly because I think it's good to test what I perceive as 'enabling' majority thinking.

In short, I don't think anyone is ever entirely wrong.

[23 Daves]

From sharing my own unfiltered reflections over the last couple of years, I appreciate that tone and presentation are incredibly important in how willing people will be to engage with ideas which may or may not align with their established worldview. I am naturally suspicious though when any idea is unanimously dismissed on here, especially when it could be seen to touch a few nerves.

To be honest, I posted this link up thinking that it would be a springboard for an interesting debate.  Given that I feel 50/50 about its contents myself, I thought it might split opinion down the middle (as it has done on Facebook and Twitter).  It's almost 100% hatred on CaB so far, though.

I don't feel personally insulted by it either - possibly because it takes a lot to really make me see red, or possibly because I didn't feel any of his accusations could be rightfully targeted at me at this point in my life - I just think a lot of his arguments are clumsy and some of the examples he picked to back up his points could have been more carefully chosen.   

[Danger Man]

It's interesting how 'improve your life' is seen as right-wing by several people on this forum.

A tacit admission that 'do nothing' is the lefties default option.

[copyingdogs]

From sharing my own unfiltered reflections over the last couple of years, I appreciate that tone and presentation are incredibly important in how willing people will be to engage with ideas which may or may not align with their established worldview. I am naturally suspicious though when any idea is unanimously dismissed on here, especially when it could be seen to touch a few nerves. I also think that's why I tend to defend the likes of puffy on here and why I will argue the minority viewpoint in many cases. Partly, I'm an awkward fucking prick but mostly because I think it's good to test what I perceive as 'enabling' majority thinking.

In short, I don't think anyone is ever entirely wrong.

This is in most cases a very valid and helpful attitude to take, I find. You can learn a lot from how people respond to information or viewpoints that they might not want to hear. However, I think this article is in some ways a special case in that it sort of implies that if you disagree with it at all, that is proof that you are in fact the exact person it is railing against. There is no room for disagreement with the core values of the article, which are set out as objective fact, when they are in reality only the prevailing set of values of a somewhat damaged and insane society. That's what gets me about this article. If you are personally offended with what you read, you're not only wrong, you're actively narcissistic, lazy and bitter, rather than just being someone who holds different ideals.