August 25, 2004

seek out the exceptional minds

zzzzazzdggg59.jpg
More thoughts on “How To Be A Copyw­ri­ter”:

4. Seek out the excep­tio­nal minds, avoid ever­yone else.

Life is short. You don’t want to end up in The Water­coo­ler Gang.

OK, I

"Hugh's Daily Cartoon" Newsletter. A new cartoon sent out every weekday morning to your inbox [RSS version here.]. A wee chuckle to start your day off right etc.

80 Responses to “seek out the exceptional minds”

  1. arne jensby says:

    Ah — takes one to know one. Could be very few peo­ple, you would end up having con­ver­sa­tions with. Eli­teist non­sense — every body has a his­tory to tell, if you’ll lend an ear. So train your ear as an alter­na­tive to narro­wing yuor vision is my advice.
    All the best
    Arne

  2. P" says:

    It’s excep­tio­nal for you, mediocre for someone else.
    It’s mediocre for you, excep­tio­nal for someone else.
    I have a fee­ling that most of these sto­ries are about you. Espe­cially the bar­ten­der one.

  3. hugh macleod says:

    P”, I would say I was ven­ting my two cents based on per­so­nal expe­rience, and not because I found my two cents car­ved on stone tablets on top of a moun­tain, han­ging out with a bur­ning bush etc.
    Of course, my sch­tick wasn’t bar­ten­ding. But like I said, it’s an alle­gory.
    Should I have pic­ked another pro­fes­sion? Would you have pre­fe­rred that? Copyw­ri­ter, perhaps? ;-)
    Also:
    “It’s excep­tio­nal for you, mediocre for someone else.
    It’s mediocre for you, excep­tio­nal for someone else.“
    Ummm… Yes, true… but irrelevant.

  4. Jim Jarrett says:

    Wan­ting to work with excep­tio­nal peo­ple — that are excep­tio­nal in the way you are (or are ins­pi­red by) — is exactly the way to be excep­tio­nal your­self, (create excep­tio­nal teams or art or pro­ducts or breakth­roughs or …).
    Should we sus­pend all jud­ge­ment, beco­ming pure rela­ti­vists? No.
    Should we assume our jud­ge­ment is anything more than per­so­nal? No.
    Should we dis­co­ver what we are excep­tio­nal at, encou­rage other peo­ple to find what they are excep­tio­nal at, and encou­rage ever­yone to find others they can be excep­tio­nal with? Yes.
    Should we sac­ri­fice our own excep­tio­nal expe­rien­ces to inc­lude those who we find mediocre, only to be mediocre our­sel­ves? Hell no.
    Every time my boss asks me what one thing our team could do to improve our pro­ducts and abi­lity to deli­ver, I tell him, “Half the peo­ple, twice as good.” Excep­tio­nal deli­vers. We have con­trol over crea­ting the exceptional.

  5. hugh macleod says:

    Jim Jarrett, I totally agree =)

  6. Dave Bauer says:

    I like what Jim says about encou­ring others to find what they are excep­tio­nal at. I think that is the key. Not they only some peo­ple can be excep­tio­nal, but that ever­yone has the poten­tial, but they are not all living up to that poten­tial.
    So the key is to avoid the folks who have sett­led for medioc­rity and work with those that are trying to meet their potential.

  7. Scheherazade says:

    I think the folks to be around are those whose talent is com­bi­ned with bra­very, a willing­ness to take risks, and a willing­ness to dis­co­ver and then be them­sel­ves. I have seen excep­tio­nal talent (cle­ver­ness, con­cen­tra­tion, ver­bal or quan­ti­ta­tive abi­lity) and without this pas­sion and authen­ti­city it doesn’t inte­rest me. Your site and wri­tings have hel­ped me recog­nize this. I think this is what you mean by excep­tio­nal minds — a com­bi­na­tion of inte­lli­gence, talent, pas­sion, and bra­very. A willing­ness to direct one’s own talents, rather than use them in the ser­vice of the con­ven­tio­nal. This defi­ni­tely inte­rests me. I think it is the rea­son peo­ple who are hap­piest are hap­piest, and peo­ple who are bit­te­rest are bit­te­rest. Talent without risk-taking and pas­sion looks almost sad­der to me than mediocrity.

  8. ah says:

    Abso­lu­tely. My “excep­tio­nal” may not be yours, but the prin­ci­ple holds. And if you’re excep­tio­nal, and I don’t recog­nize it, you will find that use­ful infor­ma­tion about me.
    Is the most elec­tric and gene­ra­tive model a collec­ti­vist slog where *Ever­yone has a Con­tri­bu­tion to Make*? Or is it a sun­rise mea­dow dance neatly sides­tep­ping the mush­rooms and rocks and ordure and the self-congratulatory mut­te­rings of the Recei­ved Obvious.
    Hugh’s sallies here help me deter­mine a more cons­cious ans­wer to that. Fuck the poor and mediocre. They can’t afford me. And don’t want to. My coo­king gives them indi­ges­tion.
    Doesn’t mean I don’t tithe a part of my very fine income and efforts to serve others as asked. Just don’t expect me to wear the Bibli­cal bushel as a coo­lie hat. It Will Catch On Fire.
    A. the Hunny

  9. DJ Coffman says:

    Well, I’ve been kee­ping an eye on your blog here for a spell. Seeing as how many things you speak about I hold the same views on. Sooo, i sup­pose I may be of a like mind.. not so sure if I would cate­go­rize myself as excep­tio­nal– not sure I would cate­go­rize myself in any­way— but I do know that I tend to surround myself with peo­ple who have vision.

  10. a passing reader says:

    You are irre­le­vant. Get off your horse and drink your milk.

  11. Nia says:

    I am/want to be a teacher. I’m going to be the one making excep­tio­nal minds, or at least direc­ting minds towards the fields where they’ll be excep­tio­nal.
    It’s good to fell this con­fi­dent sometimes.

  12. will says:

    Except for the fact that peo­ple get really pissy at me when I tell them that they don’t have the qua­li­ties I need in them to make things work and thus they’re was­ting my time, I think this is right on.
    I’ve been spen­ding the last cou­ple of years figu­ring out bet­ter ways to honestly reject peo­ple. Less because I want to become an expert in rejec­tion and more because I rea­lize this whole thing is sub­jec­tive and about what I need and I don’t want to crush peo­ples’ dreams – I just want them to stop was­ting my time.
    On the flip side, some peo­ple do come through with inte­res­ting ideas by acci­dent so I try not to burn too many brid­ges. On the flip flip side, some peo­ple really need a big kick before they figure out they need to go find something else to do.

  13. Brian says:

    I fear medioc­rity worse than death!

  14. Rich says:

    I find a lot of what you say inte­res­ting. But some­ti­mes the way you say it (“fuck the poor, they can’t afford me”) leads me to assume you’re natu­rally unplea­sant and/or on coke. I’m not knoc­king exce­llence, nor the idea that see­king out excep­tio­nal minds is a Good Thing. Just that to do so at the cost of being civil is a price not worth paying. I’d rather tole­rate fools some of the time, be a bit more rela­xed about life and be more fun to be around.

  15. hugh macleod says:

    You’re con­fu­sing “car­toons” with “car­too­nist”, RIch ;-)

  16. Shazam says:

    Your “crea­ti­vity”, which I thought a good theme at first, now seems cur­tai­led to crea­ti­vity in adver­ti­sing. Your idea of good wri­ting is wri­ting good ads. As time has gone on, it has struck me that you your­self have a fear of medioc­rity and do all you can to tell your­self that you have not ended up as mediocre. This I unders­tand, it is a com­mon fear amongst those who regard them­sel­ves as “crea­ti­ves” but spend most of their time wri­ting ads for medocrities.

  17. hugh macleod says:

    Sha­zam, actually, I would say you might be pro­jec­ting your own fears on me, but what the hell.
    I do find your lack of valid e-mail or web address rather telling in that regard…

  18. Max K. says:

    Hugh — I just wan­ted to write to say that I really appre­ciate what you write.
    Thank you.
    –Max

  19. j david says:

    Hugh,
    You’re words reso­nate with me. I am a true fan of excep­tio­nal minds, excep­tio­nal peo­ple, and excep­tio­nal expe­rien­ces. I detest waste– was­ting my time on medioc­rity, was­ting poten­tial on dead ends, was­ting away while life hap­pends to me.
    But not all excep­tio­nal minds are found in excep­tio­nal peo­ple and not all of my excep­tio­nal expe­rien­ces have been with the bri­lliant among us.
    Like you, I feel more con­nec­ted to the excep­tio­nal rather than the ave­rage (with a tip-of-the-hat Jethro Tull’s Thick as a Brick!). But expe­rien­cing it requi­res cul­ti­va­tion in some, patience to see in some others, and humi­lity in our­sel­ves.
    My plan: con­nec­ting with the excep­tio­nal is mostly about me, not about others. I get to decide what “excep­tions” I’m loo­king for. I will try to find it where it is, to build it where I can, and not be afraid to walk away if it isn’t there.
    What’s your plan Hugh?

  20. hugh macleod says:

    My plan? Keep on doing what I’m doing.
    i.e. Start con­ver­sa­tions with like-minded folk, turn them into mar­kets. Heh.

  21. Jamie says:

    I gene­rally like what Hugh has to say. But I am not sure if he’s got the pedi­gree to say what he’s saying in this post.
    He didn’t make it in New York, for wha­te­ver rea­son. So he left, which is fine. He’s now wor­king in a small town somewhere in England. That, I am sorry to say, doesn’t sound ama­zing to me. It sounds a little bit sad. Water­coo­ler sad.
    Jamie

  22. Few thoughs on your com­ments and your post:
    Settle is such a nasty word.
    You create your own excep­tio­nal mind. Those without the desire to do the same, are not worth your time.

  23. Andreas says:

    Most excep­tio­nal peo­ple I’ve met don’t desc­ribe them­sel­ves as being excep­tio­nal. They just do their thing.
    It is a model I am trying to emu­late. Not always suc­cess­fully, so far.
    Good wri­ting, Hugh.

  24. Bill says:

    The one thing this con­ver­sa­tion hasn’t really addres­sed is why it’s best to work with excep­tio­nal minds. I would argue that it’s only when you work with excep­tio­nal peo­ple that you reach, even exceed, your level of talent.
    You can be good in a void and please your­self with the qua­lity of your work but I’m not con­vin­ced you can reach what you’re capa­ble of that way. And God knows you can make a pretty good living being “good enough,” which is all you need for a paycheck. In fact, you’re pro­bably bet­ter off just being good enough if a paying gig is all you’re inte­res­ted in.
    Namby pampy though it may sound, if you want a sense of satis­fac­tion from what you do, you want excep­tio­nal peo­ple around to moti­vate you, feed you, push you and ins­pire you.
    One of the other rea­sons wri­ters should want to work with excep­tio­nal peo­ple is because it’s one thing to write a piece it’s another thing to exe­cute. For exam­ple, you can write great copy for a TV ad, or a movie, but without a great direc­tor you’re hoo­ped. And great per­for­mers and so on.
    “Great script. Too bad the ad suc­ked.“
    There’s a nice roman­tic notion of the iso­la­ted wri­ter. This is lar­gely crap. In the real world, ever­yone depends on other peo­ple, even wri­ters. To the degree it is pos­si­ble, I want those peo­ple to be exceptional.

  25. Kate says:

    Psst… Go ahead and avoid us, but don’t ANNOUNCE it. Have some tact.

  26. Ben says:

    Hugh, I totally agree.
    Who’s the big­ger fool? The fool, or the per­son wor­king for the fool?
    We all become pro­ducts of our envi­ron­ment. Best to choose the enviroment. =)

  27. Ron says:

    Hugh, I’d like to res­pond but I’m not sure I’m excep­tio­nal enough to join the con­ver­sa­tion. All these other bri­lliant minds who already res­pon­ded are inti­mi­da­ting. I guess we can only tell if we made the cut by seeing if you write a com­ment to our com­ment. The others must just be a bunch of poorly used and currently dis­car­ded fur­ni­ture. You know, I’ve found some ama­zing things peo­ple have pla­ced along the streets in piles of rubbish…

  28. lmb says:

    It is the excep­tio­nals which grow the pool of know­ledge, by craw­ling over the edges and clai­ming new terri­tory. This is exci­ting, inte­res­ting and crea­tive.
    Howe­ver, two things are impor­tant to remem­ber.
    One is that about 80% of those peo­ple are for­got­ten because the approaches they explo­red fai­led or did not stand the test of time. This is the risk.
    The other is that you are buil­ding on top of the com­mon pool, which has pro­vi­ded you with a kick start — nowa­days peo­ple learn in school about Pytha­go­ras, the solar sys­tem, the human body, che­mistry etc, all of which have been ‘excep­tio­nal’ or even cabal sec­rets once, but have flown back to the com­mon pool for others and more peo­ple to build on than ever.
    The les­son?
    Don’t diss eli­tism; it’s nee­ded to grow.
    Don’t diss the ave­rage, for you are stan­ding on its rising tide, and it’ll be drow­ning you if you fail.
    I’m wor­king on a somewhat lar­ger essay dea­ling with some of these thoughts, so they are not yet well organized.

  29. jamie says:

    The Sufi’s have a law called the Law of the Lad­der. Essen­tially it warns that on the spi­ri­tual road in life you can only assist those who are one rung below you. Just as impor­tant, you can only be assis­ted by someone one rung above you. The sad truth of the mat­ter is that not all of us hear the wis­dom of the most spi­ri­tually advan­ced. And how sad, too, that if we sit up high upon the lad­der the fee­ling of impo­tence in not being able to help those below.
    Presc­rip­tion: Help those you can help. Accept help from those who can help you. Do both and drink plenty of water. Call if you think your rung is one rung away.

  30. jamie says:

    The Sufi’s have a law called the Law of the Lad­der. Essen­tially it warns that on the spi­ri­tual road in life you can only assist those who are one rung below you. Just as impor­tant, you can only be assis­ted by someone one rung above you. The sad truth of the mat­ter is that not all of us hear the wis­dom of the most spi­ri­tually advan­ced. And how sad, too, that if we sit up high upon the lad­der the fee­ling of impo­tence in not being able to help those below.
    Presc­rip­tion: Help those you can help. Accept help from those who can help you. Do both and drink plenty of water. Call if you think your rung is one rung away.

  31. ohreally says:

    We view peo­ple through the lens of cir­cums­tance… and a per­son who is quite unex­cep­tio­nal in one cir­cums­tance may be won­der­ful in another. We rarely see the best of others, and thus we rarely make use of the best they have to offer.

  32. ~Janet says:

    but what is life if we stand still and are *gasp* satis­fied with that which we have? what is the point of con­ti­nuing if we have nothing to strive for, nothing to reach for, no poten­tial to push toward?
    the word “eli­tism” has far too many con­no­ta­tions attached. i, for one, like the words “cons­tant motion for momen­tum” or something vague along those lines.
    i’ve tried sit­ting on my ass and it bores me to no end. to the point where i cried today because i hate my life because i sit in this damn chair get­ting no clo­ser to my life goal, even if it is just a sum­mer job.
    thanks for your site, it’s daily enter­tain­ment to my mediocre sum­mer life, sit­ting here at my desk job.
    i once read a blurb that see­med to sum­ma­rize me per­fectly: i am in a flux of latent pos­si­bi­li­ties. i dream, each and every day, from small situa­tions to lar­ger pic­ture of things that could be, and the one ques­tion that remains on my mind and always has a dif­fe­rent ans­wer to is: what if? it’s so power­ful, no? a sim­ple 2 words, “What If…“
    heh. as always, i lost my point somewhere in the jour­ney of this com­ment.
    cheers.

  33. hugh macleod says:

    Thanks for all the com­ments, gang. I was offline for a few hours.
    Andreas, I would agree. Most excep­tio­nal peo­ple I know are very humble.

  34. Max K. says:

    I had the good for­tune, once upon a time, of wor­king for a short time along­side one of the wri­ters of Inves­tors’ Busi­ness Daily’s regu­lar column on suc­cess and suc­cess­ful peo­ple. I had always been a huge fan of IBD and that column in par­ti­cu­lar so I took a few minu­tes to exci­tedly pick his brain and share with him some of the wri­ting ven­tu­res I had recently embar­ked upon for myself. After chat­ting for seve­ral minu­tes about all the won­der­ful peo­ple he’s met and inter­vie­wed, he stop­ped and thought for a moment. “You know…” he said, “of all the peo­ple I’ve spo­ken with over the years, there’s one thing they had in com­mon: Each and every one of them loved what they were doing.”

  35. hugh macleod says:

    Yeah, Max K. Love is power­ful stuff, indeed.

  36. Lord Krishna says to his pupil Arjuna in the Bhagavad-Gita, “Bet­ter one’s own dharma [path, aim in life], howe­ver imper­fect, than the dharma of another per­fectly per­for­med.“
    So I’m not sure what is “excep­tio­nal” as it’s quite sub­jec­tive, but as long as one is com­mit­ted to beco­ming or being excep­tio­nally them­sel­ves you’re pro­bably going to reso­nate with me.
    There’s abso­lu­tely no need to reject or even avoid peo­ple. There’s a self-selection pro­cess in play. In my expe­rience, as you become more excep­tio­nally your­self, there’s almost a mag­ne­tic energy field (not lite­rally, it’s a metaphor) crea­ted that natu­rally draws in ALIGNED people…and ever­yone else runs away as fast as they can ;-)

  37. Katherine says:

    “What about you? What’s your plan?“
    To work with peo­ple who do, and who appre­ciate, good work. To avoid peo­ple who worry about who is, or isn’t, “exceptional.”

  38. S. Rouhani says:

    Bring out the best in peo­ple. It’s there. Somewhere. If you can do that, THEN you can call your­self truly excep­tio­nal. Then you could even call your­self tre­men­dously excep­tio­nal. You could even add an f word to it, and it would be alright.

  39. Jobriga says:

    I agree with Sha­zam.
    Also with the idea that dif­fe­rent peo­ple are excep­tio­nal in dif­fe­rent areas. An excep­tio­nal Java pro­gram­mer may not be excep­tio­nal at tal­king to customers.

  40. Erebus Rino says:

    Wow. So you only want to work with excep­tio­nal peo­ple. The ques­tion is, how can you tell who they are?

  41. hugh macleod says:

    Ere­bus, that comes with expe­rience (hope­fully). Heh.

  42. Erebus Rino says:

    I’m going to run the risk of soun­ding like an awfully old-fashioned fuddy-duddy, but I’m going to stick my neck out and say, Hugh, your aims are going to be dif­fi­cult to achieve, as there simply are no excep­tio­nal peo­ple in adver­ti­sing. There just can’t be, it’s flog­ging toas­ters. Let’s ‘ring­fence’ (wow, jar­gon) the word ‘excep­tio­nal’ and save it for Da Vinci, Sha­kes­peare and Eins­tein, huh?

  43. RichW says:

    The poor are still paying some of my bills, so I can’t tell ‘em to fuck off just yet, though I hope to get there.
    What I find inte­res­ting in con­ver­sa­tions about secu­rity and inse­cu­rity is that in this new world order, seems that folks who have made a name with big corps or hot post-IPOs have ins­tant cred for wha­te­ver POV they wish to toss out to the mas­ses. Much as I res­pect Godin, would we care about him as much if he star­ted out with Lycos or Info­seek ins­tead of Yahoo!? (although I guess you could argue that those two might have become Yahoo-like with Godin). Same could be said for just about any of the myriad of brand­blogs out there. There are some very good bran­ding case stu­dies on com­pa­nies in mar­kets­pa­ces we’ve never heard of and could care less about, but it’s the folks who do the mains­tream stuff that get read and dis­cus­sed. As if nobody else could’ve thought of these tac­tics.
    Those of us who don’t the right com­pany names on our CVs have to work all that har­der, even though we may be just as bri­lliant. I sug­gest les­son one is to do the internship with the big guys and hot guys were bri­lliance is all around you because osmo­sis works. Do it even if it means a term in poverty. You’ll get pay­back.
    If you’ve already gone down the wrong path,figure out where bri­lliance exists and is still acces­si­ble to your lot. Then worm your way into it. Suck it up and ingra­tiate your­self. Never too late. If you’re game and can match wits with the folks you’re trying to impress, you’ll find suc­cess. If not, go back to doing what you were doing and learn to be con­tent with it.
    As for your cri­tics, blogs are about POV. Nothing else. Any con­sis­tent POV can find a mar­ket. I hap­pen to like yours. It’s cha­llen­ging.
    I think “pre­ten­tious asshole” as a brand is per­fectly legi­ti­mate, pro­vi­ded it sells. Not that I’m sug­ges­ting that’s my fee­ling about GV, but it wouldn’t neces­sa­rily be a bad thing.

  44. Mark Huebner says:

    Most indi­vi­duals com­monly accep­ted as “great” wor­ked at other, less glo­rious pur­suits. The fil­ter of his­tory remo­ves that con­text lea­ving us with sin­gu­lar icons clean­sed of the mun­dane strug­gles they endu­red.
    Eins­tein wor­ked as patent office clerk and deve­lo­ped the Theory of Rela­ti­vity with his excep­tio­nally inte­lli­gent wife. Sha­kes­peare may not have been so excep­tio­nal if he never had to com­pete with the bri­lliant Mar­lowe. And Da Vinci star­ted out like every other artist at the time…a young “stu­dio slave” for an esta­blished artist. Their asso­cia­tion with other talen­ted indi­vi­duals was a key fac­tor in their suc­cess.
    No, you’re not going to become an icon simply by han­ging out with excep­tio­nal peo­ple. But if you might learn something other than who was caught copu­la­ting on the boar­droom table.

  45. Jon Husband says:

    Re: your “i.e. Start con­ver­sa­tions with like-minded folk, turn them into mar­kets. Heh.“
    Coinversations ?

  46. hugh macleod says:

    Jon Hus­band– you, know, con­ver­sa­tions.
    e.g.
    “You sell com­pu­ters? I make com­pu­ters…“
    Very Wirearchy-friendly, I assure you ;-)

  47. Pagan Savage says:

    Bri­lliant. Those who do not unders­tand will be left behind. Some may choose to usher other’s along; howe­ver, I, with few excep­tions, do not. Is this self-centered? Of course. But everything we do is for the self.

  48. john t unger says:

    Look, unless someone knows something I don’t, we’re all mor­tal. So any time was­ted in my life by medioc­rity comes straight out of my allot­ted span. It’s like drip poi­son… bore me, and you might as well be injec­ting me with slow death. Of course, the same applies when the medioc­rity is my own fault.
    I think the key is to be so fuc­king bri­lliant that ever­yone but the very bri­lliant and the total fools will be too inti­mi­da­ted to approach you at all. How’s that for stra­tegy? Use the bri­lliant peo­ple as a foil to spur your­self and the total fools as enter­tain­ment fod­der…
    and yeah, con­text. If you rou­ti­nely take risks, you will spend some por­tion of your life in both camps: bri­lliant and total fool.

  49. dbc9box says:

    ‘m with Ere­bus and Sha­zam on this one. Does that mean I’ll get
    ban­ned, as I’m sure they will if they con­ti­nue to cri­ti­size your
    arro­gant and self-defeating metho­do­logy?
    What about all the ‘excep­tio­nal’ peo­ple who func­tion even further
    above your own lofty level, will they be jus­ti­fied in thro­wing you and
    your les­ser ideas out with the trash, or will they just be peo­ple who
    to you ‘don’t get it’.
    It’s this pseudo-intellectualisation and jus­ti­fi­ca­tion of the pro­cess
    of esta­blishing hie­rachi­cal values that’s most detes­ta­ble. Its this
    place from which history’s grea­test ini­qui­ties and most regret­ta­ble
    events have risen from.
    Hit­ler anyone?

  50. Scott Cramer says:

    I agree. I seek out the excep­tio­nal (sex) but to achieve my goals I can not yet — rea­lis­ti­cally — afford to throw out the non-exceptional (cash). Thro­wing them out “like old fur­ni­ture” would unfor­tu­na­tely be like thro­wing out the baby with the bath­wa­ter for me at this stage of my game. It con­cerns me, though, because dea­ling with dullards wears you down — spea­king dullard-speak, breathing dullard-air. After a (short) while I can see that Jane Goo­dall sme­lled as bad as the apes; it’s hard to quickly soap up for high society.
    Three more things come to mind that I can see affec­ting one’s abi­lity to pola­rize them­sel­ves and live by your sta­te­ments (not to play into calling you Moses, but if your words are reso­na­ting true in one’s own thoughts). (1) Loca­tion. The abi­lity to run across (sex) in BFE. So, you say? Move. — Thanks for pla­ying, that’s my segue to #2 — (2) Per­so­nal trade-off. There are things we do — or, more often, that we do *not* do — that go against our ambi­tions to only make those choi­ces lea­ding to a “life of excep­tio­nals”. For myself, sta­ying near my four-year-old daugh­ter trumps anything. Every­body pro­bably has at least one of these. The cha­llenge here is not using it as a “crutch ratio­na­li­za­tion”. (3) Peo­ple are not Ginsu kni­ves. Is that a pre­re­qui­site to be excep­tio­nal? Cri­ses dull or jag­ged the edge. I would warrant to say that stri­ving to shar­pen that edge again shows merit as excep­tio­nal — but in the meanwhile are you truly a dullard? Food for thought — I myself have not fully diges­ted.
    I appre­ciate your thought pro­vo­ca­tion. I want to pass along something I think you — and others here — can appre­ciate.
    Her­man Mel­vi­lle wrote this let­ter tal­king about Ralph Waldo Emer­son and his phi­lo­sophy:
    Nay, I do not osci­llate in Emerson’s rain­bow, but pre­fer rather to hang myself in mine own hal­ter than swing in any other man’s swing. Yet I think Emer­son is more than a bri­lliant fellow. Be his stuff beg­ged, borro­wed, or sto­len, or of his own domes­tic manu­fac­ture he is an uncom­mon man. Swear he is a hum­bug — then is he no com­mon hum­bug. Lay it down that had not Sir Tho­mas Browne lived, Emer­son would not have mys­ti­fied — I will ans­wer, that had not Old Zack’s father begot him, old Zack would never have been the hero of Palo Alto. The truth is that we are all sons, grand­sons, or nephews or great-nephews of those who go before us. No one is his own sire. — I was very agreeably disap­poin­ted in Mr Emer­son. I had heard of him as full of trans­cen­den­ta­lisms, myths & ora­cu­lar gib­be­rish; I had only glan­ced at a book of his once in Putnam’s store — that was all I knew of him, till I heard him lec­ture. — To my sur­prise, I found him quite inte­lli­gi­ble, tho’ to say truth, they told me that that night he was unu­sually plain. — Now, there is a something about every man ele­va­ted above medioc­rity, which is, for the most part, ins­tinc­tually per­cep­ti­ble. This I see in Mr Emer­son. And, frankly, for the sake of the argu­ment, let us call him a fool; — then had I rather be a fool than a wise man. — I love all men who dive. Any fish can swim near the sur­face, but it takes a great whale to go down stairs five miles or more; & if he don’t attain the bot­tom, why, all the lead in Galena can’t fashion the plum­met that will. I’m not tal­king of Mr Emer­son now — but of the whole corps of thought-divers, that have been diving & coming up again with bloodshot eyes since the world began. I could rea­dily see in Emer­son, not­withs­tan­ding his merit, a gaping flaw. It was, the insi­nua­tion, that had he lived in those days when the world was made, he might have offe­red some valua­ble sug­ges­tions. These men are all crac­ked right across the brow. And never will the pullers-down be able to cope with the builders-up. And this pulling down is easy enough — a keg of pow­der blew up Block’s Monu­ment — but the man who applied the match, could not, alone, build such a pile to save his soul from the shark-maw of the Devil. But enough of this Plato who talks thro’ his nose. –Let­ter to Evert Duyc­kinck, March 3, 1849.
    –fin– Scott

  51. Don’t toss out your com­for­ta­ble old fur­ni­ture, you might end up buying it back at twice the price!
    If you only surround your­self with drea­mers and sche­mers, then you run the risk of losing your com­mon sense. Anyone remem­ber the dot-com 90s? Can I get a wit­ness? Of course, if you only surround your­self with sen­si­ble, pre­dic­ti­ble busi­ness­folks then you won’t be moti­va­ted to try anything new.
    Ever­yone has something use­ful to share: pre­dic­tions, com­mon sense, or even card-toons. — this com­ment is hereby dec­la­red public domain.

  52. cynthia says:

    i like when all the assho­les con­verge in one com­ment box

  53. devnul says:

    Ima­gine a society of ico­noc­lasts. Ima­gine a society where the domi­nant ethos is “fuck the poor.” Next time you’re in an con­fi­ned, public space, try ima­gi­ning that the per­son next to you has mul­ti­ple drug resis­tant tuberc­le­ro­sis. Maybe that will help snap you out of your mego­la­ma­nia­cal self-absorption.

  54. hugh macleod says:

    Nice to see the rigo­rous debate Guys =) Thanks

  55. hugh macleod says:

    john t unger: “and yeah, con­text. If you rou­ti­nely take risks, you will spend some por­tion of your life in both camps: bri­lliant and total fool.“
    Wow. I really like that thought. Seriously.
    Yeah, I think being a fool is a big part of the journey.

  56. hugh macleod says:

    dbc9box, I’ve been tos­sed about like old fur­ni­ture many times ;-)
    Made me har­der, made me smar­ter. It’s all good.
    My expe­rience has also been, peo­ple who are good at disc­ri­mi­na­ting and set­ting prio­ri­ties are much less likely to screw you over than peo­ple who are bad at it.
    Rela­ti­vism isn’t as well-intentioned as it likes to pre­tend it is.

  57. hugh macleod says:

    Ummm… Kathe­rine,
    “To work with peo­ple who do, and who appre­ciate, good work. To avoid peo­ple who worry about who is, or isn’t, “excep­tio­nal”…“
    Without good peo­ple, without excep­tio­nal peo­ple, without peo­ple who hold them­sel­ves and others to very high pro­fes­sio­nal stan­dards, you don’t get to make even good work, let alone excep­tio­nal work. You get to make drek.
    Good work, I mean really good work, doesn’t just hap­pen, doesn’t just spring into being because a bunch of nice, affa­ble, well-intentioned peo­ple met for brunch and deci­ded it would be a good idea. Good work hap­pens because somewhere along the line someone deci­ded to fight like hell to make it hap­pen.
    Your sta­te­ment seem to imply that good work is gene­rally a groovy, conflict-free proc­cess. My expe­rience says other­wise.
    To use my day job as an exam­ple:
    Let’s say you’re the boss of a com­pany and you’re coming to me asking if I can help you raise your sales. Let’s say your com­pany is in a pre­ca­rious state. Let’s say you really, really need the sales curve to go up or else the busi­ness will go under. And let’s say if we fail then the bank will take away your house, close down your com­pany and force you to lay off 30 good peo­ple who gave everything to the cause. Then yeah, well, I would SERIOUSLY recom­mend you start worr­ying about whether I was excep­tio­nal or not.

  58. Erebus Rino says:

    Scott Cra­mer, well done, beau­ti­ful. I’m like, so totally with Emer­son on this one. Like.
    My ear­lier point, well fiel­ded by Mark Hueb­ner, was inten­ded in the spi­rit of what Emer­son says. But the excep­tio­nal achie­ve­ments reached by Sha­kes­peare, Eins­tein, Da Vinci et al are not to be deva­lued in them­sel­ves just because their current springs from the happy, rare mee­ting of the streams of chance, gene­tics, know­ledge and his­tory. I am not a subsc­ri­ber to the ‘great Man’ theory of his­tory, I favour the idea that the pres­su­res of human desire, expe­rience and his­tory cul­mi­nate occa­sio­nally in one indi­vi­dual whose socio-historical impor­tance is ine­vi­tably (as humans) defi­ned through the base cir­cums­tan­ces of their phy­si­cal and tem­po­ral exis­tence (i.e. the thing we think first about Eins­tein is the hair and the ton­gue, right?).
    That just seems obvious to me. Hell, I’ll admit, I think I’m excep­tio­nal. I’m a wri­ter and I really do think I’m the dog’s bollocks. But at the same time, I know this is irre­le­vant — because I have deve­lo­ped what I think is the mildly psycho­tic delusion/safety net that I think is neces­sary to both suc­ceed, or if not, guard against fai­lure. It’s simply this: if I fail, it is not me, I remain excep­tio­nal, it is the world that is wrong.
    Of course, thin­king the world is wrong is going to give me some pro­blems if in fact I do even­tually have to admit I’ve fai­led. But that’s the trade-off. Other­wise I’d have self-harm with a woo­den spoon at every rejec­tion let­ter. Ins­tead: the peo­ple who have rejec­ted me are major-league assho­les.
    This is very straight­for­ward stuff, I know. But what I’m saying seems con­tra­dic­tory:
    A. No-one doing anything crea­tive should think of them­sel­ves as anything less than ‘poten­tially excep­tio­nal’, other­wise what busi­ness do they have? ‘Oh yeah, I’m a pretty good sculp­tor, not great, but I’m still going to show my stuff.’ I scream, ‘WHY?!?!’ (the infu­ria­ting thing is that most crea­tive types DO think they’re excep­tio­nal, it’s just self-regarding post-religious modesty that keeps them from saying so).
    B. This neces­sary stand­point of regar­ding one­self as excep­tio­nal is utterly irre­le­vant, as one can never trust the world to recog­nise the excep­tion — and achie­ving true great­ness is always in the hands of his­tory, not yours.
    The­re­fore: believe you’re great, take the rejec­tion let­ters, take people’s com­ments, and at the same time thin­king your work is great, don’t give a shit about it. This is the age of accep­ting the great con­tra­dic­tions, I think (the big­gest one of all, of course,being ‘Be a good per­son your whole life, save the wha­les, don’t give peo­ple crabs, and remem­ber: you’re not going to hea­ven at the end of it).
    But I am ram­bling on and long and on, and I apo­lo­gise. My ori­gi­nal point was simply going to be this: self-justification often hides behind abs­trac­tion, so what I want is, Hugh (or anyone else) is to know spe­ci­fi­cally what you regard as ‘excep­tio­nal’ in the peo­ple you work with. What cri­te­ria would I need to make the grade? I’m tal­king exam­ples, anec­do­tes, hard facts, baby. Can you give me what I need?

  59. Aaron says:

    My entire life has been spent resen­ting that which is stu­pid and mundane.

  60. rick says:

    Sigh… This is just so reduc­ti­vist. There are only 2 clas­ses of peo­ple? Excep­tio­nal and mediocre? And you call that vision??
    Of course we all want to surround our­sel­ves with bright peo­ple — they cha­llenge us and make things more inte­res­ting. But don’t con­fuse arro­gance with exceptional.

  61. hugh macleod says:

    “Sigh… This is just so reduc­ti­vist…“
    Nothing like star­ting off a com­ment with the word “Sigh” to elec­trify your audience, Rick.
    It’s a bit like star­ting a con­ver­sa­tion with a girl who won’t sleep with you with the phrase “We need to talk about us” in order to get her to change her mind. ;-)

  62. Christine says:

    When I star­ted rea­ding ‘gaping void’ not to long ago it see­med you had a lot of inte­res­ting ideals and con­cepts. But now, each time I visit, I am less impres­sed with the (repeat) con­tent.
    The fact that you believe you are deser­ving of only “the excep­tio­nal minds” is quite ego­tis­ti­cal. And frankly any­more, you read like a Sales­man.
    Just a com­ment from someone who pre­fers to look for the excep­tio­nal in everything.

  63. hugh macleod says:

    “Just a com­ment from someone who pre­fers to look for the excep­tio­nal in everything.“
    Chris­tine:
    1. It’s a great phi­lo­sophy for living, and should be applau­ded.
    2. Yet it’s so utterly worth­less on a prac­ti­cal level if you’re being paid a lot of money to make hard choi­ces. And nobody pays you a lot to make easy ones.
    Frankly, having read your blog for a while, I would say you are as every bit aware of that as I am.
    Wha­te­ver. Seems like 1 and 2 are in con­flict. They are not in align­ment.
    So, what do you do if your basic inner phi­lo­sophy is not alig­ned with how you make a living?
    Do you try to make the job more like you, or vice versa?
    Or is that deci­sion ulti­ma­tely made by someone else?
    Ques­tions, questions…

  64. Thanks for the post, Hugh. Clearly ever­yone has dif­fe­rent ideas of what it means to be excep­tio­nal. I believe the excep­tio­nal per­son has pas­sion, an open and inde­pen­dent mind, honesty, authen­ti­city, and a willing­ness to stand up and take res­pon­si­bi­lity for what needs to be done ins­tead of saying, ‘that’s not my job’. It’s not neces­sa­rily about inte­lli­gence or crea­ti­vity, although often the excep­tio­nal per­son has both (so I sup­pose there are levels of excep­tio­na­lity). I pre­fer to surround myself with excep­tio­nal peo­ple because they reflect my values.
    I also like your com­ment ‘fuck the poor, they can’t afford me.’ I relate to it in a figu­ra­tive, not lite­ral, sense… with the ‘poor’ being unex­cep­tio­nal, uni­ma­gi­na­tive pros­pec­tive clients who think they have nothing to learn from anyone (des­pite the fact that their busi­ness is in the toi­let.) They’re closed-mindedness results in a poverty of know­ledge and insight, and they’re not worth my time. Sounds callous, but it’s just the old adage, ‘don’t cast your pearls before swine.’ Don’t work for anyone who doesn’t appre­ciate your value.

  65. Katherine says:

    “Good work hap­pens because somewhere along the line someone deci­ded to fight like hell to make it hap­pen.“
    Well, duh.
    My point is that “excep­tio­nal” is too fuzzy a metric to apply in most situa­tions. I honestly don’t care if my per­so­nal assis­tant is gif­ted, crea­tive, excep­tio­nal. I care very much that she hand­les my sche­dule and tra­vel arran­ge­ments without alie­na­ting my clients or stran­ding me in Chi­cago.
    Same thing with your exam­ple. I want to know exactly how my ad agency plans to inc­rease sales, and I want them to be able to demons­trate that they’ve accom­plished simi­lar results for other clients. If they can’t do that, then I don’t care how many pretty awards they have sit­ting on their shel­ves, or how many ins­pi­ring mani­fes­tos they’ve published.

  66. hugh macleod says:

    Kathe­rine,
    Yeah, agreed.

  67. Dun­can J. Watts wri­tes: “Real science occurs in the same messy ambi­guous world that scien­tists strug­gle to cla­rify, and is done by real peo­ple who suf­fer the same kind of limi­ta­tions and con­fu­sions as any­body else.… Our papers get rejec­ted, our ideas don’t work out, we misun­ders­tand things that later seem obvious, and most of the time we feel frus­tra­ted or just plain stu­pid.“
    This is the story of my own expe­rience, and to that I would also add the impos­si­bi­lity of kno­wing about everything in one’s own field, let along the wider world, the uner­tainty in the face of cri­tics, some of which are genuine and others of which are less so, and the dif­fi­culty of expres­sing that which is so clear in one’s own mind as clearly in writ­ten words, equa­tions, algo­rithms or dia­grams.
    In such a state is the excep­tio­nal. How, then, to expect them to simply dec­lare them­sel­ves as such? Any self-declaration will draw a mix­ture of the pro­found and the pedes­trian. Pro­bably the only way to find the excep­tio­nal is to know what you are loo­king for, more or less, and to then go looking.

  68. dave says:

    Andreas: you have desc­ri­bed the para­dox that I think most peo­ple whom con­si­der them­sel­ves to be excep­tio­nal (inc­lu­ding myself) strug­gle to over­come.
    Here is the logic behind our afflic­tion:
    –You can­not truly be excep­tio­nal, in every sense of the word, without being morally excep­tio­nal.
    –Being morally excep­tio­nal is to be truly hum­ble.
    –One who pas­ses jud­ge­ment upon another based upon _any_ metric has aban­do­ned humi­lity.
    So then, by bra­zenly dis­mis­sing others as lac­king excep­tio­nal qua­li­ties, Hugh the­re­fore can­not be excep­tio­nal. And in doing the same thing, neither can I.
    As others have men­tio­ned, part of being excep­tio­nal is having an abi­lity to cul­ti­vate a har­mo­nic exis­tence. When we fail to do so, we our­sel­ves fail to be excep­tio­nal.
    It is easy to toss up our arms in frus­tra­tion when dea­ling with a see­mingly incom­pe­tent boss, co-worker, or spouse. But it is at this point in time that we must stop to rea­lize that these ‘dif­fi­cult’ peo­ple are ulti­ma­tely in our life because we allo­wed them to be there. If my level of cons­cious­ness and self-worth is so awe-inspiring, than why have I allo­wed these hurd­les to become a part of my life?
    In my view, those whom have reached the true pin­nacle of excep­tio­na­lity view the above ques­tion dif­fe­rently: These pro­blems I seem to encoun­ter, they are of my own making, how can I over­come them? What can I do in order to ensure the most amount of smi­les on the most amount of faces?
    Once you reach this level of cons­cious­ness, you sail through life. This is why Andreas remarks that in gene­ral, the peo­ple she’s obser­ved to be excep­tio­nal, are not trum­pe­ting their achie­ve­ment. To them, having self-fulfillment is an almost natu­ral and effort­less occu­rance. They needn’t tell others about it. Their humi­lity does not per­mit their doing so. Having the oppor­tu­nity to live in a state of self-actualization is in and of itself suf­fi­cient com­pen­sa­tion.
    Exam­ples of his­to­ri­cally excep­tio­nal peo­ple in this regard might inc­lude Mother Teresa, Con­fu­cious, Abraham Mas­low, Bob Mar­ley, and/or Epic­te­tus.
    — — -
    Thank you, Hugh, for the sti­mu­la­ting dis­cus­sion. Your blog is new to me and was found via blog­dex.
    e-mail = digs ( at ) myway .com

  69. hugh macleod says:

    All good points, Dave.
    Moral of the story: it’s OK to seek out the excep­tio­nal minds, just not OK to dis­cuss it with others. Heh.
    Maybe “remar­ka­ble” would’ve been a less con­ten­tious word choice. But less punchy. Oh well…

  70. boris says:

    This is a truly enligh­te­ning dis­cus­sion. I think the pro­blem with the world at the moment is that it isn’t run by ad agen­cies. Peo­ple keep com­plai­ning about the lack of accoun­ta­bi­lity, honesty and results from our society’s lea­ders, without rea­li­sing that such mun­dane con­cerns are bet­ter seen as the lack of CREATIVITY and EXCEPTIONALITY. If the world was more sup­por­tive of the truly, crea­ti­vely excep­tio­nal (don’t bug me, anyone who’s excep­tio­nal *knows* they’re excep­tio­nal, we’re self-selecting) we’d be so much bet­ter off. For ins­tance, pro­ducts would be nicer, peo­ple would be ins­pi­red to spend more (which in the long run pro­vi­des oppor­tu­ni­ties for the poor any­way), and so on. I’m sur­pri­sed no-one’s pic­king this up. Don’t poli­ti­cians read blogs?

  71. Beck says:

    I just recently quit my job to go work somewhere else. I’d been inter­vie­wing at various pla­ces for over a year, but no place had really impres­sed me. Last week, tal­king to the direc­tor who would be my boss, he told me, “Other pla­ces I’ve been and peo­ple I’ve wor­ked with all try to surround them­sel­ves with ave­rage peo­ple who make them look good in com­pa­ri­son. I hate that. I only hire peo­ple who are smar­ter than me and har­der wor­king.“
    I accep­ted the offer without a second thought.

  72. P" says:

    from monty python:
     – All of you guys are so excep­tio­nal!
     – I’m not! (some­body from the crowd)

  73. kate macdonald says:

    I remem­ber a poem by Bukowski:
    The Stron­gest of the Strange
    You don’t see them often
    For whe­ree­ver the crowd is they are not,
    these odd ones ‚not many ,
    but from them come the few good pain­tings,
    the few good sypho­nies,
    the few good books,
    and other works
    and from the best of the strange ones
    perhaps nothing,
    they are thier own pain­tings,
    thier own books,
    thier own music,
    thier own work.
    Some­ti­mes I think I see them,
    say a cer­tain old man
    sit­ting on a cer­tain bench
    in a cer­tain way
    or a quick face going the other way
    in a pas­sing auto­mo­bile,
    or there’s a cer­tain motion
    of the hand of a bag boy
    or a bag girl
    while pac­king super­mar­ket gro­ce­ries,
    some­ti­mes its even someone
    you’ve been living with for some­time,
    some­ti­mes its even someone
    you’ve been living with for some­time
    you will notice a light­ning quick glance
    never seen from them before
    some­ti­mes you will only note thier excis­tance sud­denly in vivid recall some months,
    some years after they are gone.
    I remem­ber such a one
    he was about 20 years old
    drunk at 10am
    sta­ring into a crac­ked new orleans mirror
    face drea­ming againt the walls of the world
    where did i go?

  74. Ben Hamilton says:

    “I am uni­que, just like every­body else.
    We all have our strenghts,
    We all have our weak­nes­ses,
    That is what makes us uni­que.“
    I used to believe (genui­nely) that I was bet­ter than ever­yone else. I went from nothing to having a VC put great gobs of cash into my dream. I was achie­ving. I wor­ked hard. Too hard. I had a ner­vous break­down. Depres­sion, sui­ci­dal. Then, with the help of my CBT psy­co­lo­gist, came up with the above man­tra.
    It gives me value (I am uni­que), it gives you value (you are uni­que).
    To phrase this another way, I am excep­tio­nal in something, you are excep­tio­nal in something.
    It is not about anyone being mediocre.
    Life is about asso­cia­ting with peo­ple who share your pas­sion about what you are excep­tio­nal at. Your pas­sion may change, who you asso­ciate with will change.
    It’s ok not to spend a lot of time with the others, but it is foo­lish to dis­miss them as mediocre.

  75. Ruth says:

    I love it.
    I’m the con­tro­ver­sial ruth­lily­cat at livejournal.com  — look me up and join my blog if you’re interested.

  76. meditemaniac says:

    its been inte­res­ting rea­ding all your views here and i can’t believe the amount of com­men­tary over such a short times­pan! (aside to hugh — do you really work/sleep? you’re quite omni­pre­sent).
    to add a little thought — i fun­da­men­tally agree with the nur­tu­rist view touched on ear­lier that most have the innate abi­lity but lack the motivation/catalyst. the solu­tion for excellence/exceptionality and what we should be stri­ving to is to solve THAT riddle. when ever­yone (read “the majo­rity”) start clim­bing the lad­der con­cien­tiously — then we will see pro­gress and then will our hopes be attai­ned as huma­nity.
    the best we can acheive with mini­mal par­ti­ci­pa­tion is disc­rete bub­bles of achei­ve­ment (read “the bri­lliant”). sure feeds the indi­vi­dual ego for those that make it but lea­ves the rest behind and in a rut. espe­cially the gaw­kers!
    out of curiou­sity — are most of you com­men­ters here based in the US? the tone and idiom here sug­gest so but i just wan­ted to check. it would be inte­res­ting to see if this is a cul­tu­rally uni­que mode of thought. to make it sim­pler — who here is not in the US? (disc­lo­sure — i am in kuwait)
    hugh — a final note: keep up the bri­lliant work.

  77. coderman says:

    i find there is another alter­na­tive to avoi­ding the water coo­ler grou­pies: iso­la­tion. this is actually a good thing, as it allows me to be pro­duc­tive in an attempt to do something with merit that will lead to many con­ver­sa­tions with gif­ted peo­ple. until then i toil…
    [i’ll end up in the dissipated-dreams-midlife-depression cate­gory most likely, but at least i didn’t take anyone else with me. heh]

  78. Hugh:
    I like what you write. Ever read any Ayn Rand? I ask because even though I think she’s over the top I do agree with her in many regards. Espe­cially when it comes to having to deal with peo­ple who just can’t keep up with you.
    Gaylord

  79. Justin says:

    What is most exep­tio­nal off all is this fork in the road web­site. Everything on this web­site is true in pers­pec­tive, and unders­tan­ding your­self could very well lead you to a exep­tio­nal pers­pec­tive. I turn, doing so will only pro­mote great ideas, and to me ever­yone has a great idea but get­ting of their block and doing so is another thing. Idea+Ambition=(You tell Me)