[ATsch]

I find that saying the phrase "get a life" to people that enjoy what they are doing is extremely condescending. If I enjoy programming all day, or having huge flame wars, or maintaining a huge collection of antique watering cans sorted by volume, then who are you to judge me for that?

[ritchiea]

My guess is in this case the original commenter means "get a life" if you feel pressured to only think about programming or work.

If you are happy and fulfilled programming all day, go for it, program all day. Personally I would also encourage you to at least try and pursue some other interests because experiencing new things is fun & exciting, but if you're happy that's what's most important.

But many of us, especially those of us in the United States, live in a culture where we can be expected to think of our work as our life. A culture where we are encouraged to memorize CPU cache fetch times rather than picking up a novel, going to a museum or spending time with family. When we say "get a life" most of us are arguing against that culture, not telling you how to enjoy your time.

[ATsch]

If this is how it was meant, perhaps a different phrase would have conveyed OPs opinion better. For me, "get a life" is strongly associated with "douchey jock" behaviour, bullying, nerd-shaming (is that word a thing? it is now) and phrases like "you like math? what a nerd, get a girlfriend bro", things I'm sure many people on HN have had to deal with.

[ritchiea]

When I'm reading HN I assume the commenters are at least somewhat similar to myself until I have evidence to think otherwise. The culture here is neither anti-intellectual nor anti-math. Given that we're on HN I'd say it's safe to assume no one is telling you to quit coding or stop caring about math. On this forum issues around workaholism and burn out come up all the time, "getting a life" is a step toward not burning out.

[brudgers]

In the US, the specific phrase 'get a life' carries the connotation of contempt for the persons to which it is offered as advice (typically unsolicited). In normal use, it is an insult that dismisses everything about a person. It isn't just used against nerds, it is also aimed at people who are doing some menial job or at a person who is complaining about some bad behavior imposed upon them by someone who tends to get away with such things.

I'm not saying that is the intended reading here. Nor, that such a reading is charitable.

One of the things I assume when I writing on HN is that I can go back an edit what I wrote to make it better. "Don't forget to live life," might better express the idea. Finishing with "Get a life" after showing the overall intent might better express the sentiment.

Leading with "Get a life" means the reader reads with only their existing context and can reasonably apply standard connotation. It is normally a bullying phrase, and an author ought to expect it to be taken as such without doing a lot of additional work. It is no surprise that it puts people off.

Suppose the author's response to people being put off by the advice "get a life," is something like "well, that's their problem." That's exactly the connotation of dehumanization "get a life" has in US culture and a charitable reading is unwarranted.

[extra88]

Yes, the particular phase "get a life!" was used against nerds, Trekkies, by William Shatner in a Saturday Night Live sketch [0]. It wasn't a new gag, but it raised the fandom's profile into the mainstream and it's often been repeated (e.g. on The Simpsons in Comic Book Guy and his cohort).

I assume the phrase was used here in the most generous sense but that's often not how it will be received. I think it's more constructive to avoid the phrase and to express the sentiment in other ways.

[0] http://snltranscripts.jt.org/86/86hgetalife.phtml

[brudgers]

It was in common usage where and when I grew up several years before Shatner on SNL. Whether my youth was at the forefront or not I don't know...but now that I have a teenager I know that many phrases he uses and thinks are new go back (at least) several decades to when I was the same age.

[BatFastard]

While I agree with you in principle. I think the original poster's intent was keeping a work life balance. Work will consume you. Corporations will consume your life. You may be perfectly happy living in your work, but if you have loved ones they will suffer.

Experience has taught me don't get caught up and lose that balance. Its a long journey to recovery after you have suffered both emotionally and physically.

[TeMPOraL]

As a person who lived through this as a kid, I want to express my strong support for your comment, and provide +1 data point.

IT going mainstream made life a bit easier for us - if you say you're a programmer, people no longer roll their eyes. But that's not because geeky/nerdy lifestyle is more accepted now. It isn't. If I say to my cow-orkers that I code a lot after work, most will be looking at me like a weirdo just as much as my classmates did when I was in secondary school. People who care about technology on an intellectual level - not just on a money-making level, or shiny-trinket level, are still rare and still treated as the weird ones.

[ritchiea]

Honestly most things people are uniquely passionate about that take work outside of your workplace will get you equal or nearly equal weird looks. A lot of people want to go to work to make money and come home to watch TV. I worked for Obama for America in 2008 and spent months walking door to door in Indiana, most people went to to work, took care of their kids and watched TV. And didn't want to spend time doing much else.

As more nerdy and ambitious people, we are the weird ones. Programming in your free time might get slightly weirder looks than participating in local theater or something but I think some of the scorn you perceive is residual from the hostile environment that existed for nerds in grade school and high school. After that people still think you're weird but generally don't care that much, they're busy watching TV & taking care of their kids.

[Insanity]

Yeah, when I say that I do code as a hobby so I spent some free time on it, a reaction I get quite often from coworkers is: "I already code at work". Or "I would rather spent my time having fun".

Oh well, it is not for everyone. :-)

[eru]

> People who care about technology on an intellectual level - not just on a money-making level, or shiny-trinket level, are still rare and still treated as the weird ones.

For the general population, yes. If you are willing to move, there are companies where you can get coworkers that don't roll their eyes.

[fish_fan]

I mostly disagree—it's quite common to have intellectual interest in technology. It simply requires a lot of sacrifice in terms of social life to fit in with your career.

Also, assuming positive intent will get you far in life, especially on forums like this.

[ianai]

The phrase "get a life" could make me feel that way, as well. As I age, though, I see the shortness of life more clearly. There is the distinct possibility that someone who enjoys programming 80 hours/week will in the future realize he/she devoted all of his/her time to work and never took a spin through the other aspects of life.

My bet, though, is that often enough people who are absorbed in their work also enjoy other things. I've seen plenty of posts on HN regarding going for a walk to think and clear his/her mind.

[sitkack]

Suck it nerd! Get a life! (kidding, seriously) As others have said, this HN, everyone here needs to "get a life"

[mikegerwitz]

I agree; I found this comment, while probable well-meaning, very condescending. It seems to approach programming as something one does only for work, or as something that's an impediment for a more meaningful life.

I'm a free software hacker and activist. I'm also a professional programmer. My life outside of work is how I described myself in the first sentence of this paragraph, and I'm unhappy with how _little_ time I have to devote to it. These are things that are fundamental to my identity, so saying "get a life" when talking about what makes me me is telling me that the life I chose isn't one worthy of choosing.

Again, I'm not confident that this was the oldandtired's intent with those comments, but I think there's an important perspective to consider. The username is also suggestive. :)

[kraftman]

I'm not OP but I took it as 'get a life [outside of work]', i.e. don't get bogged down in the crazy 100-hour work weeks and stressing about climbing corporate ladders if it's not what you enjoy.

What you do with your free time is up to you, it's just a reminder that it's your free time not your companies.

[logfromblammo]

It probably would have been better worded as "Work to live, but don't live to work. Don't make your job your whole life."

"Get a life" has always at least had a negative undercurrent, and is often an overt insult implying that one's entire lifestyle is unworthy, and inferior to mainstream lifestyles.

[wruza]

Your quoting style is simply depressing.

[kraftman]

I'm so sorry.

[lend000]

It's the preferred method in Python.

[TomMarius]

The problem is until you try something new you can't be sure you really enjoy what you're doing that much. After 15 years of sitting in a chair and doing what I loved I found out I love other things just as much and I'm sad I didn't know earlier.

[TeMPOraL]

I'm seconding this reading and I'd like to remind everyone that for many here, programming is still an intellectually stimulating experience first and a job second, if at all. Not all code - especially not the interesting one - is made at work.

I suppose GP meant "work-life balance", but for some of us, code is more part of "life" than of "work".

[frostymarvelous]

For one thing, I do know my life revolves around programming.

I work from home and so get to spend time with my kids and have a pretty chill time, but everything I do, is calculated towards solving that next problem.

E.g.when I'm stuck on a problem, I go play with my kids to rest and passively process it.

To me, this is a pretty chill life. This is what a "life" means to me.

Traditionally, people's careers have always been their lives. Blacksmiths, farmers etc, why can't it be now?

[_sdegutis]

I thought I was happy just programming all day and night for probably half of my life. I didn't realize that people need normal light-hearted social interaction and occasional rest and relaxation for our health, both physical and mental. It cost me a great deal to learn this lesson and I hope to spare anyone else from learning it the hard way.

[larkery]

I think there's a case to be made that it is possible to judge whether people's behaviours are helping them to enjoy their lives to the best extent.

It is a very extreme position to say that there is literally nothing which can be generalised about people's experiences, and so one person's heroin main-lining hobby is as good as another's model railway collection so long as they both profess an equal belief in their respective enjoyment.

There must be something more than this that we can say, since we have the distilled thoughts of millennia of some of the most capable humans thinking about these questions (what makes a good life) and lots of case histories of how people's lives have gone.

This is different from judging someone's moral worth or probity or what have you, and I think it is harmful to gloss over the distinction because it creates a kind of skeptical collapse.

This might be what the prior comment means to indicate by getting a life - that we should each individually research this question and not presume we've got a good answer already. If it is what they meant, I agree that their phrasing was unskillful.

[TeMPOraL]

I agree there's a case to be made. There's a strong case to be made. In fact, those of us who heard "get a life" shot at them probably made that case many time. The case is this: someone's hobby of tourism / enjoying cars / writing stories / riding horses / all kinds of sports / engaging in gossips and interpersonal dramas / whatever else mainstream does is at least as valid of a lifestyle as my hobby of geeking out about spaceships and writing code for fun.

This is what many of us had to (usually unsuccessfully) argue to our colleagues (and family members!) during school years, so if a full-blown dismissal of "get a life" phrase is a knee-jerk reaction, it's unfortunately a well trained one.

[lists]

Pleasure and pain equally enable a self-satisfaction one might term 'happiness', like the pleasure of consistently demeaning oneself when one finds oneself frustrated by life because demeaning _others_ is pleasurable.

We are comfortable perceiving other species' limitations, even directly perceiving how their behavior or evolution will be their downfall, but we're not particularly good at analyzing ourselves in this way, and its owing to, rather than in spite of, moral constraints, themselves varying from demographic to demographic, so that ultimately the question becomes "_Which kind_ of human should propagate?" For Aristole, only slave-owners could practice virtue, materially and cognitively (though today, epigenitics would tell us there isn't as much of a distinction here as one would wish, or the recent literature indicating IQ drops the _longer_ one is poor as well; Aristotle ultimately had an idea of this as well, but treated of it separately in On the Soul).

[ImSkeptical]

But don't you really have a secret unfulfilled desire to sit in a dimly lit, extremely noisy, crowded bar, sipping overpriced alcohol while yelling platitudes at people you kind of know?

[jarsin]

Every time I hear 'get a life' it's from people that fill their time partying.

[lr4444lr]

You're getting bent out of shape from a harmless common refrain to the general HN readership - not you - in a well-meaning context? Yeah, get a life.

[codingdave]

I tend to avoid this particular flame war by encouraging people to define their own personal goals in life and make sure their work is driving towards those goals. The bad place to be is to be giving away all your time and energy to work for someone else's goals, in hopes of a big payout so that some future day you can works towards your own goals.

So if you love your work, great. If you were to get hit by a bus tomorrow with no regrets, great. But if you were to do this work for the next 3 years, THEN get hit by a bus, and wish you had done something else with those 3 years... that signals that you might need some changes.

[aswanson]

Exactly. I interpret "get a life" to mean, don't defer living and happiness, indefinitely, however you define them.

[scardine]

"Being right" gives you a high - that is why flame wars can be so addictive. Like cocaine it may give you instant gratification and pleasure but in the end it is not worth.

Despite the unfortunate redaction, I guess the parent is telling that if you find yourself chasing this kind of highs very often, you probably are basing your life on shitty values like "being right all the time".

[aswanson]

Yeah, Im trying to be more conscious of this, I love that cheap high. It's a formula for being an asshole, unfortunately.

[davemp]

Not trying to offend, but . . .

> If I enjoy xyz, who are you to judge me for that?

I find this (common) sentiment troubling and frankly a bit arrogant.

Whether or not you enjoy something is not always good metric for said thing's long term effects on your life.

Other people have experienced different things than you and may have some really good insights. Assuming you know exactly what's best strikes me as arrogant. Judgement and ostracization, while often misused, are effective tools for a society to encourage beneficial behaviours.

[TeMPOraL]

> Judgement and ostracization, while often misused, are effective tools for a society to encourage beneficial behaviours.

Conforming behaviours. Not beneficial. One could argue that conforming to mainstream is beneficial for the society, though I personally don't buy it - if you look at what the average of human interests is, it's all pretty petty. If we were all stuck at the lowest common denominator, I'm not sure if we would get far as a civilization.

Now, one good argument I've heard for following the "mainstream wisdom" on "getting a life" is regret - i.e. that if you won't live a life in a particular way (lots of social interactions, focusing on a spouse and kids, etc.) you'll regret that on your deathbed. I'm still relatively young (in the lower half of my expected lifespan), so I might be wrong about it, but I don't buy that argument either. I've come to the conclusion that regret will happen anyway - people basically regret what they didn't do. If I focus on cranking out widgets, I'll regret not spending time with the kids. If I focus on my family, I'll regret not doing anything actually useful with my life. Etc.

Bottom-line: I think that currently, the pendulum is still too far on the conforming side.

[davemp]

I wasn't commenting on the particular issue. I was merely saying that "who are you to judge me?" is a peer in society. Our lives are interconnected to varying degrees and your life will definately affect others.

Everyone should definately recieve input on how they're living their lives. Some input may not be valuable, but unilaterally dismissing it is hubris.

I'm not arguing for some extreme where people are stoned in the streets. Just that you should entertain some feedback from society.

For example: I was eating lunch outside and staring at my phone the whole time. An older lady came up and said that I should put my phone away, slow down, and just enjoy the weather/my lunch. I gave it some thought and decided that she was right. Now I conciously try to use meals as a true break and it's been refreshing. Valuable input.

Another example: I was out on a rainy day. I was wearing a JHU raincoat (had for $3 from a clearance rack) + boat shoes and someone said I should be careful about what I wear lest people think I'm "white priviledged".

Personally, I think that's bullshit, but I was still respectful. I probably won't be taking their advice, but their input might actually be valuable.

[chii]

> Whether or not you enjoy something is not always good metric for said thing's long term effects on your life.

But isn't this the very definition of judging"?

When people say "get a life", they are implicitly saying that you current life isn't up to measure (by their own values).

[echion]

I think you're agreeing with the post to which you're replying.

[collyw]

For someone that loves algorithmic challenges, I am sure knowing about phone numbers is going to make them ecstatic.

[petraeus]

If you "have a life" you would not be offended by such a comment as you would have a work/life balance and thusly "gotten the life", this is projection in the extreme

[fish_fan]

Only if you're looking for it.

[ColanR]

> then who are you to judge me

Any psychologist with a rudamentary understanding of what is required for a healthy mind.

(not a psychologist myself)

[Tade0]

Psychologists don't judge. They only try to help you if something is a problem for you personally.

[UnpossibleJim]

Well.... I hate to tell you, psychologists judge, they just refrain from exposing their jusgement to their clientele. Psychologists, like doctors and police, are still human. Warts and all. But I get the sentiment and, like those same said psychologists, should probably have kept my opinion for me and my drinking friends =)