[munificent]

I like this article a lot.

I think a lot of the distinction between persistence and obstinance comes down to identity, attachment, and self esteem.

Almost everyone who is persistent or obstinant has something to prove. They have some deep-seated feeling that they need to demonstrate something to their community, a sense that maybe their value is in some ways conditional on what they provide. Content people who feel almost everyone already loves them rarely change the world. (That's no indictment of contentment, maybe changing the world is overrrated.)

The difference between persistence and obstinance is that obstinant people feel that every step on the path to solving the problem is a moment where they may be judged and found wanting. They are rigid because any misstep or dead end is perceived as a sign that they are a failure. It's not enough for them to solve the problem, they have to have been completely right at every step along the path.

Persistent people still have that need to prove themselves, but they hold it at a different granularity. They give themselves enough grace to make mistakes along the way, take in advice from others, and explore dead ends. As long as they are making progress overall and feel that they will eventually solve the problem, they are OK with themselves.

In other words, persistent people want to garner respect by giving the world a solution to the problem. Obstinant people want that respect by showing the world how flawlessly smart they are at every step, sometimes even if they never actually solve the problem.

Or put another way, persistent people have the patience to get esteem only after the problem is solved. Obstinant people need it every step of the way, which is another sign that obstinance has a connection to insecurity.

It's a delicate art to balance the drive to prove yourself with the self love to allow yourself to make mistakes, admit being wrong, and listen to others.

[eslaught]

Your analysis seems to assume that the only form of motivation is external. By this logic, persistent/obstinant people do things because they hope for some external reward (e.g., praise, recognition, fame, possibly financial compensation). The difference is merely at the granularity of the goal this is attached to.

My experience is that the persistent people I know have at least some degree (and often a large degree) of internal motivation. They do things because the process of problem solving is rewarding in and of itself, and/or they have some intrinsic motivation about solving the problem. They are not out to please anyone else except themselves.

Maybe no one is purely 100% internally motivated. But my experience is that the more persistent people I know generally have a higher percentage of internal motivation. In contrast the people who give up more easily generally have a lower percentage of internal motivation; if they really only care about the external reward, it often turns out there are lots of ways to do that, and many are shorter than solving "hard" problems.

[ensocode]

Thanks, I thought the same but as you mentioned, there is no 100% intrinsic/extrinsic motivation. On the other hand there could be some self esteem problem within oneself which triggers motivation intrinsically but has external sources (i.e. childhood, always not enough, no unconditional love) so in the end there might not be a difference between internal and external.

[munificent]

I think the line between extrinsic and intrinsic motivation is very blurry.

If you're doing something because you want some recognition or fame, that's arguably extrinsic: you're doing the thing because you want other people out in the world to pat you on the back. But while you're doing the work, you're mostly thinking about how good it will feel to get that pat on the back. At that point, is it really that different from other instrinsic motivations?

[nxobject]

That’s a fantastic crystallizing idea. In my experience, I’ve tried to temper that dance between self drive and flexibility by reflecting on what overarching goals to commit to… the resulting sense of understanding and control at an overarching level like that is what has helped me.

Of course, the hard part is in knowing what goals to commit to, and what to back off from!

[smusamashah]

Having someone close who is obstinate makes the article very relatable (my father, talking him into something is like to talking to a stone, no matter how convincing you are and even if he seems to budge, it will take just a single moment to spring back).

For me this line "The persistent are attached to the goal. The obstinate are attached to their ideas about how to reach it." explained what's going on but the article doesn't seem to provide a solution (I know that's not the point). Now you say it's related to insecurity and it makes sense in my case and looks like a probable root cause. Something that can be worked on. But that's one sample, now I want to know if all stubborn / obstinate people like that are insecure.

[pastorhudson]

I think one solution is to help them have your idea and take credit for it. If it’s their idea then they are already convinced it’s a good one. Persistent people can get a lot done when they don’t care about who gets the credit.

[smusamashah]

That's a very good idea, something that can be tried with some attempts. Thank you very much for sharing.

[pdfernhout]

The distinction you outline reminds me of Carol Dweck's "Growth Mindset" research. She suggests (based on studies) that children praised for being "smart" become afraid to take risks which might show them less than perfectly smart. They become consumed with "image maintenance" to the point of even tearing down peers so as to look "smarter" than them. By contrast, she suggests children praised for effort, learning, progress, and related things learn to be persistent even when things are difficult, uncertain, or have a learning curve. If the distinction you draw is correct, perhaps "obstinate" people were praised as smart and "persistent" people were praised for hard work and stick-to-it-iveness and related things?

"What Having a “Growth Mindset” Actually Means" by Carol Dweck https://hbr.org/2016/01/what-having-a-growth-mindset-actuall... "[It is a common misconception that] growth mindset is just about praising and rewarding effort. This isn’t true for students in schools, and it’s not true for employees in organizations. In both settings, outcomes matter. Unproductive effort is never a good thing. It’s critical to reward not just effort but learning and progress, and to emphasize the processes that yield these things, such as seeking help from others, trying new strategies, and capitalizing on setbacks to move forward effectively. In all our research, the outcome — the bottom line — follows from deeply engaging in these processes."

[ChrisMarshallNY]

Great comment.

I remember someone I knew, saying “I can’t tell if it’s an asset or a defect! If I’m stubborn, it’s a defect, but if I’m tenacious, it’s an asset.”

> That's no indictment of contentment, maybe changing the world is overrrated.

I think a significant number of “world-changers” have not had personal happy endings. They may have done a lot of good, but it didn’t do much for their own personal happiness.

I tend to be “tenacious,” but I also like to do really high-Quality work, so it may look like “stubbornness,” to a lot of folks.

For example, I have spent the entire day, today, tweaking haptics and voiceover text in the app I’m developing. I became aware of a very small, rare, cosmetic bug, that most folks would shrug off, but it really bothers me, and I’m going to make sure it gets fixed, tomorrow.

[munificent]

> I remember someone I knew, saying “I can’t tell if it’s an asset or a defect! If I’m stubborn, it’s a defect, but if I’m tenacious, it’s an asset.”

I've had very similar conversations with my therapist many times. The conclusion I've come to is that almost every personality trait has both adaptive and maladaptive aspects. You can try to maximize the former and avoid the latter, but ultimately any personality superpower you have is going to bring some consequences along with it.

I try to be more accepting of the fact that most of the psychological stuff is comes from one side coins where the other sides are often my most valuable attributes.

[ChrisMarshallNY]

> ultimately any personality superpower you have is going to bring some consequences along with it.

This has been my experience. Some of the most talented, kindest, people that I've ever known, have "rough" exteriors. Many times, it's due to being treated like crap, for their assets.

[pfisherman]

Counterpoint: contentment is a prerequisite for healthy sustained effort. It’s easy to get up every day and chisel away at something inch by inch - sometimes with little to no perceptible progress - when you are fulfilled elsewhere in your life.

[munificent]

This is a good point!

[esafak]

Since I'm seeing people repeat the mistake, I'd like to point out that it's obstinate.

[gradschoolfail]

Maybe we can use the new word obstinant as a noun, a shorter form of “obstinate people”.

[kazinator]

But the obstinates are mostly failing. So it can't be important to them to be right. It's more important to them to be consistent. Changing your mind about something to them is backpedaling. They are letting down everyone else who believes the same stuff.

Probably some obstinates fell for the all-American "believe in yourself" nonsense. If you just have confidence and believe in yourself, you will succeed in spite of setbacks.

The obstinate interprets that as never changing one's mind; if you change your mind, then that means you didn't believe in yourself and are letting down everyone who believed in the same program.

[anonyfox]

> But the obstinates are mostly failing

I believe there is a "trying too hard". Solving a worthwhile problem itself might be difficult enough to begin with, but trying to map out a solution plan and stubbornly make every checkpoint a success along the way statistically leads to failure.

Every single step has a chance of ("perfect") success that is not 100%. The more steps, the lower the overall chance of hitting the original problem/solution with the exact path of steps. And if the original plan contains a dead end one could not foresee, people give up at some point alltogether.

But persistence simply means more like "lets take multiple shots at solving the problem", discovering stuff along the way, pivot the strategy or change direction, but ultimately just trying to solve the problem X times, which over time increases the chance of solving it.

[munificent]

> But the obstinates are mostly failing.

I don't think this is true. For the majority of tasks which are small and relatively easy, both obstinate and persistent people will hit the winning solution on the first try and can't be distinguished.

It's only when you hit a really large or hard problem that these psychological differences start being more apparent.

[nsguy]

Obstinant can just be a nay-sayer though? Someone who isn't even trying to solve the problem their way but someone getting in the way of problems being solved at all.

I have a lot of respect for people that are confident in something who are willing to actually go and do that something, even if they're wrong. Persistence in this context is persevering through being wrong and not giving up until you figure out a way to solve the problem.

[munificent]

Nay-sayers exist too, but I think they are out of scope for what PG is talking about. He's talking about the people actually working on solving a problem, not someone on the sidelines.

[nsguy]

Right. It confused me but re-reading PG's post he's certainly making that distinction. Yeah- I have seen the bash your head against a wall and not take any input kind of stubborn.

[andrewflnr]

That confusion does make this exact obstinate/persistent terminology tricky for conversations outside this particular HN thread, though. Which is a shame, because the underlying distinction as you've laid it out is very important.

[gofreddygo]

> Content people who feel almost everyone already loves them rarely change the world.

What's wrong with that ?

I've grown tired of listening to people's tales and rants on their constant need to disrupt something, change some industry , empower someone and put a dent somewhere.

Stop, Look around, why is it so hard to find something meaningful ? Because it isn't profitable (without being exploitative).

More people ought to learn to be content. When the need arises, it will find its heroes.

[hyperthesis]

"Giving the world a solution" vs. "showing the world how flawlessly smart they are" reminds me of being "visited" by a genius (muse, inspiration). You now have the gift to share, but it doesn't show you're a genius.

[gradschoolfail]

Feels like you have hit a nail, but! Seems to be more to that introspective vs extraspective difference there! Obstinants are somehow more introspective! Which could be odd!

PG comes across as obstinate, by the way.. (in this essay, but maybe not in real life)

[baxtr]

> Almost everyone who is persistent or obstinant has something to prove.

In other words they want to increase their relative status in their community.

[hcfman]

I bet you like the article because you identify with it :)

[hi_dang_]

Bob,

Since you’re the GPP author - as someone who recently published a Steam title and has glowing community reviews, I wish your comment was the article.

pg just doesn’t do it for me. It’s a nonsensical word salad of half-baked conjectures and aphorisms. There’s nothing to discuss because there’s nothing thought provoking in there.

I am however glad it spurred you to write something worth reading (again).

[brabel]

> It’s a nonsensical word salad of half-baked conjectures and aphorisms.

I found this article excellent and definitely thought provoking, and I am just wondering how can someone read that and come out with a bad impression like that?!

Do you have some undisclosed issue with PG??

[matheusmoreira]

I think articles like TFA are a big reason why so called "obstinate" people exist to begin with. Look at the incredibly harsh judgement it passes out on them. At one point it stops just short of directly calling them stupid.

The simple fact is people want to be good. People are afraid of being wrong. They are afraid of failure. They look for the one deep truth that will guide them and protect them from wrong. Once they believe they have found that truth, is anyone surprised that they cling to it?

TFA would have you believe these fears are irrational. Just keep at it, right? Just power through the judgement of your fellow humans. But it is not irrational. Nor is it stupid as TFA seems to imply. The simple fact is if you put yourself out there, there will be consequences. You will be judged.

I sent some code for an idea I had to a mailing list. At some point someone called it "schizophrenic". Maybe to you this is literally nothing, just an innocuous comment that promptly slides off. However, for a long time I actually thought I was insane for thinking and imagining the things that I did. I have to make an effort to suppress thoughts like that to even so much as write this comment on this website. So for me that was a particularly harsh judgement. I don't think I'll forget the moment I read that word until the day that I die. I will certainly never show my face there again.

It takes a certain audacity to put yourself out there. It takes a certain sociopathy, a certain arrogance. Succeed, and it actually leads to the judgement of your naysayers instead of you. They are quite literally judged by history as wrong. Such judgement is even observed in TFA, look at how the so called "obstinate" are singled out for being stupid failures. Such is the nature of humanity.

[brabel]

> It takes a certain audacity to put yourself out there. It takes a certain sociopathy, a certain arrogance.

I am sorry but you are taking things far too seriously. People have always had to "put themselves out there", it's part of living in a society rather than as a hermit. If you don't pull your weight in a tribe, others, not just you, may literally die, every hand counts. Others expect you do that, justifiably. Being judged is always going to be part of living in a society. But that's a good thing, not a bad thing! Learn to take criticism well. Some word someone said shouldn't affect you so strongly. Perhaps that was said by a 13 year old that doesn't know any better. Or by someone suffering from serious mental illness who finds some solace in trying to get other people on the internet disturbed.

Being judged as stupid is of course very harsh, but it's also not wrong sometimes. Do some people behave stupidly sometimes?? Of course they do, we all do. That doesn't make us bad people, and we shouldn't despair because we believe we have been categorized as stupid: we should definitely consider whether it's a fair assessment given the circumstances, and try to do better next time. Very smart people can, and do, behave stupidly, specially when talking about religion or politics. Even smart people can say the most stupid things. I think no one is very smart or very stupid in every context, there's always a context where you'd look totally stupid even if you're Albert Einstein. Imagine Mr. Einstein trying to hunt in a jungle in Africa. Even with practice, he'd probably never get good at it. His very way of thinking, very scientific and evidence driven, what we consider intelligent, would get him eaten in no time over there. What count there is being fast thinking, acting on instinct... that's how you survive there, and that's what you would count as "smart" if you lived there.

Anyway, hope some of what I say here helps someone :).

[munificent]

> as someone who recently published a Steam title and has glowing community reviews

Congratulations!

> pg just doesn’t do it for me.

For me, he's hit or miss. He has a writing style that tries very hard to boil things down into very simple terms while also approaching subjects that are deep and complex. Often the result is so oversimplified that it misses the mark.

But I do believe pg is thinking deeply about this stuff and there's often insight in his writing even if the narrative ends up too simple and self-satisfied for my taste.

[deanputney]

I read your comment, then looked at Bob's and thought "Ah, he's from Seattle." And I was right.

[ido]

What do either of these comments have to do with Seattle?