![dieworkwear's tweet photo. I've seen so many tweets in response to Paul Graham's post that I have to chime in.
Everyone who has replied to Paul's post misses an important dimension to taste: social relations.
Taste touches on everything — film, music, art, furniture, industrial design, cars, etc. For obvious reasons, I can't talk about all of these subjects, not just because I'm not an expert, but also because this is Twitter. Thus, I will stick to what I know, fashion, which happens to be the topic that sparked this conversation.
Everyone who has replied so far takes beauty as an objective variable, like scientific laws or mathematical truths (which, if you dig deep enough, turn out to be conditional, but we'll set that aside). In this regard, a person's taste is their ability to identify some objective truth in beauty. It's asserted that a person who has good taste in fashion must have good taste in furniture and art. So on and so forth.
In reality, our judgments of taste are not neutral or objective. They are extensions of our social relations. We know this because the suit spread around the world on the back of the Second British Empire. By any reasonable measure, elite men's dress in regions stretching from France to China was obviously superior in cut and styling. But as the British Empire spread around the world, this colorful, extravagant garb was slowly pushed aside by the austere, drab clothes once promoted by Beau Brummell.
We can also see this relationship happen within English society. In the early 20th century, elite Guardsmen commissioned Edwardian-style suits from Savile Row tailors. But when lower, working-class youths started to buy ready-to-wear imitations of these clothes — wearing them while causing a ruckus on the streets — the elites dropped the style and moved on.
This gets back to a very simple dynamic that German sociologist Georg Simmel wrote about in his 1902 essay "On Fashion." As he observed, fashion is often a game of imitation, with people copying their supposed "social betters." When they succeed, those at the top of the hierarchy move on to distinguish themselves. French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu put it more succinctly when he said that our notions of "good taste" are often nothing more than the preferences and habits of the ruling class.
In response to Paul's tweet, @nntaleb wrote yesterday: "Your sense of aesthetics is best reflected in the way you dress & the way you organize your surroundings. [...] Without aesthetics (elegance in both looks and behavior), a human is no human."
But what does it mean to "dress elegantly?" Most people assume this means wearing upper-class British dress. Critical theorist Max Horkheimer would have described this dynamic as a kind of internalized repression — a way of "inserting social power more deeply into the very bodies of those it subjugates."
I love tailoring and elegant dress, but I would caution someone who puts too much weight on them. I disagree that a person is less of a person if they don't dress elegantly. It's just clothes.
There are lots of people who don't have to learn "good taste." Their taste is simply the collection of objects and mannerisms that make up the natural way of being in their social circle. Yet, we admire their taste because they have cultural capital.
Before stylists dressed him, Rocky's outfits were just his version of how people in his social group dressed. Similarly, people often post images of JFK Jr.'s outfits on style inspiration boards, even when the outfits are objectively not that great. The dark suit with a collar gap, a backpack, and square-toed shoes shown above could have been worn by anyone in the 1990s. But this photo gets posted everywhere because you're not admiring the outfit — you are admiring JFK's cultural, political, and economic capital. You are admiring status.
Most of us don't have much cultural capital. My guess is that you're a pretty average middle-class person who works a desk job. Your life is probably not that glamorous. You are not part of any cool social groups. Thus, if you were to let your taste naturally manifest, it would express itself as the boring person you are.
Thus, to develop good taste, you have to figure out the visual language of culture as shaped by history, and play around with different identities until you figure out what works for you. Are you a nerd? Maybe you can try different variations of the "intellectual" stereotype, such as Ivy Style. Are you a rugged guy? Maybe you can try different identities around that, such as the laborer (workwear) or soldier (military surplus). Are you artsy? Look at how musicians and artists dressed in the past.
Paul's post fundamentally assumes that dressing well takes a lot of time and effort. I agree with this. Unless you have a lot of cultural capital, you have to invest time into this project, as you have to learn a new language.
Albert Einstein could walk to any old store around the corner and be told how to dress by a clothier. The scope of choices was much narrower because clothing was defined by time, place, and occasion. The world has changed dramatically, and you can't even easily find a tailor anymore.
IMO, this is also true for almost every area of aesthetic life: interior design, art, music, etc. People I know who have great taste in these areas invest tremendous time and energy in them. This is why people should be very careful about assigning too much moral weight to taste. No one would think that someone is good or bad just because they happen to know a lot about physics or sunflower seed production. The same should be true concerning whether someone dresses well or not.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HBVxNNMbcAMlLlJ.jpg)
![dieworkwear's tweet photo. I've seen so many tweets in response to Paul Graham's post that I have to chime in.
Everyone who has replied to Paul's post misses an important dimension to taste: social relations.
Taste touches on everything — film, music, art, furniture, industrial design, cars, etc. For obvious reasons, I can't talk about all of these subjects, not just because I'm not an expert, but also because this is Twitter. Thus, I will stick to what I know, fashion, which happens to be the topic that sparked this conversation.
Everyone who has replied so far takes beauty as an objective variable, like scientific laws or mathematical truths (which, if you dig deep enough, turn out to be conditional, but we'll set that aside). In this regard, a person's taste is their ability to identify some objective truth in beauty. It's asserted that a person who has good taste in fashion must have good taste in furniture and art. So on and so forth.
In reality, our judgments of taste are not neutral or objective. They are extensions of our social relations. We know this because the suit spread around the world on the back of the Second British Empire. By any reasonable measure, elite men's dress in regions stretching from France to China was obviously superior in cut and styling. But as the British Empire spread around the world, this colorful, extravagant garb was slowly pushed aside by the austere, drab clothes once promoted by Beau Brummell.
We can also see this relationship happen within English society. In the early 20th century, elite Guardsmen commissioned Edwardian-style suits from Savile Row tailors. But when lower, working-class youths started to buy ready-to-wear imitations of these clothes — wearing them while causing a ruckus on the streets — the elites dropped the style and moved on.
This gets back to a very simple dynamic that German sociologist Georg Simmel wrote about in his 1902 essay "On Fashion." As he observed, fashion is often a game of imitation, with people copying their supposed "social betters." When they succeed, those at the top of the hierarchy move on to distinguish themselves. French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu put it more succinctly when he said that our notions of "good taste" are often nothing more than the preferences and habits of the ruling class.
In response to Paul's tweet, @nntaleb wrote yesterday: "Your sense of aesthetics is best reflected in the way you dress & the way you organize your surroundings. [...] Without aesthetics (elegance in both looks and behavior), a human is no human."
But what does it mean to "dress elegantly?" Most people assume this means wearing upper-class British dress. Critical theorist Max Horkheimer would have described this dynamic as a kind of internalized repression — a way of "inserting social power more deeply into the very bodies of those it subjugates."
I love tailoring and elegant dress, but I would caution someone who puts too much weight on them. I disagree that a person is less of a person if they don't dress elegantly. It's just clothes.
There are lots of people who don't have to learn "good taste." Their taste is simply the collection of objects and mannerisms that make up the natural way of being in their social circle. Yet, we admire their taste because they have cultural capital.
Before stylists dressed him, Rocky's outfits were just his version of how people in his social group dressed. Similarly, people often post images of JFK Jr.'s outfits on style inspiration boards, even when the outfits are objectively not that great. The dark suit with a collar gap, a backpack, and square-toed shoes shown above could have been worn by anyone in the 1990s. But this photo gets posted everywhere because you're not admiring the outfit — you are admiring JFK's cultural, political, and economic capital. You are admiring status.
Most of us don't have much cultural capital. My guess is that you're a pretty average middle-class person who works a desk job. Your life is probably not that glamorous. You are not part of any cool social groups. Thus, if you were to let your taste naturally manifest, it would express itself as the boring person you are.
Thus, to develop good taste, you have to figure out the visual language of culture as shaped by history, and play around with different identities until you figure out what works for you. Are you a nerd? Maybe you can try different variations of the "intellectual" stereotype, such as Ivy Style. Are you a rugged guy? Maybe you can try different identities around that, such as the laborer (workwear) or soldier (military surplus). Are you artsy? Look at how musicians and artists dressed in the past.
Paul's post fundamentally assumes that dressing well takes a lot of time and effort. I agree with this. Unless you have a lot of cultural capital, you have to invest time into this project, as you have to learn a new language.
Albert Einstein could walk to any old store around the corner and be told how to dress by a clothier. The scope of choices was much narrower because clothing was defined by time, place, and occasion. The world has changed dramatically, and you can't even easily find a tailor anymore.
IMO, this is also true for almost every area of aesthetic life: interior design, art, music, etc. People I know who have great taste in these areas invest tremendous time and energy in them. This is why people should be very careful about assigning too much moral weight to taste. No one would think that someone is good or bad just because they happen to know a lot about physics or sunflower seed production. The same should be true concerning whether someone dresses well or not.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HBVuQoPaoAEkWP_.jpg)
![dieworkwear's tweet photo. I've seen so many tweets in response to Paul Graham's post that I have to chime in.
Everyone who has replied to Paul's post misses an important dimension to taste: social relations.
Taste touches on everything — film, music, art, furniture, industrial design, cars, etc. For obvious reasons, I can't talk about all of these subjects, not just because I'm not an expert, but also because this is Twitter. Thus, I will stick to what I know, fashion, which happens to be the topic that sparked this conversation.
Everyone who has replied so far takes beauty as an objective variable, like scientific laws or mathematical truths (which, if you dig deep enough, turn out to be conditional, but we'll set that aside). In this regard, a person's taste is their ability to identify some objective truth in beauty. It's asserted that a person who has good taste in fashion must have good taste in furniture and art. So on and so forth.
In reality, our judgments of taste are not neutral or objective. They are extensions of our social relations. We know this because the suit spread around the world on the back of the Second British Empire. By any reasonable measure, elite men's dress in regions stretching from France to China was obviously superior in cut and styling. But as the British Empire spread around the world, this colorful, extravagant garb was slowly pushed aside by the austere, drab clothes once promoted by Beau Brummell.
We can also see this relationship happen within English society. In the early 20th century, elite Guardsmen commissioned Edwardian-style suits from Savile Row tailors. But when lower, working-class youths started to buy ready-to-wear imitations of these clothes — wearing them while causing a ruckus on the streets — the elites dropped the style and moved on.
This gets back to a very simple dynamic that German sociologist Georg Simmel wrote about in his 1902 essay "On Fashion." As he observed, fashion is often a game of imitation, with people copying their supposed "social betters." When they succeed, those at the top of the hierarchy move on to distinguish themselves. French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu put it more succinctly when he said that our notions of "good taste" are often nothing more than the preferences and habits of the ruling class.
In response to Paul's tweet, @nntaleb wrote yesterday: "Your sense of aesthetics is best reflected in the way you dress & the way you organize your surroundings. [...] Without aesthetics (elegance in both looks and behavior), a human is no human."
But what does it mean to "dress elegantly?" Most people assume this means wearing upper-class British dress. Critical theorist Max Horkheimer would have described this dynamic as a kind of internalized repression — a way of "inserting social power more deeply into the very bodies of those it subjugates."
I love tailoring and elegant dress, but I would caution someone who puts too much weight on them. I disagree that a person is less of a person if they don't dress elegantly. It's just clothes.
There are lots of people who don't have to learn "good taste." Their taste is simply the collection of objects and mannerisms that make up the natural way of being in their social circle. Yet, we admire their taste because they have cultural capital.
Before stylists dressed him, Rocky's outfits were just his version of how people in his social group dressed. Similarly, people often post images of JFK Jr.'s outfits on style inspiration boards, even when the outfits are objectively not that great. The dark suit with a collar gap, a backpack, and square-toed shoes shown above could have been worn by anyone in the 1990s. But this photo gets posted everywhere because you're not admiring the outfit — you are admiring JFK's cultural, political, and economic capital. You are admiring status.
Most of us don't have much cultural capital. My guess is that you're a pretty average middle-class person who works a desk job. Your life is probably not that glamorous. You are not part of any cool social groups. Thus, if you were to let your taste naturally manifest, it would express itself as the boring person you are.
Thus, to develop good taste, you have to figure out the visual language of culture as shaped by history, and play around with different identities until you figure out what works for you. Are you a nerd? Maybe you can try different variations of the "intellectual" stereotype, such as Ivy Style. Are you a rugged guy? Maybe you can try different identities around that, such as the laborer (workwear) or soldier (military surplus). Are you artsy? Look at how musicians and artists dressed in the past.
Paul's post fundamentally assumes that dressing well takes a lot of time and effort. I agree with this. Unless you have a lot of cultural capital, you have to invest time into this project, as you have to learn a new language.
Albert Einstein could walk to any old store around the corner and be told how to dress by a clothier. The scope of choices was much narrower because clothing was defined by time, place, and occasion. The world has changed dramatically, and you can't even easily find a tailor anymore.
IMO, this is also true for almost every area of aesthetic life: interior design, art, music, etc. People I know who have great taste in these areas invest tremendous time and energy in them. This is why people should be very careful about assigning too much moral weight to taste. No one would think that someone is good or bad just because they happen to know a lot about physics or sunflower seed production. The same should be true concerning whether someone dresses well or not.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HBVtlsTbIAAOp3q.jpg)
Olivia
Online
Tvisha Dholakia
@_tvisha_
Building
London | Mumbai
Joined April 2011
623 Following
246 Followers
619 Posts
"We are healthy only to the extent that our ideas are humane." - Kurt Vonnegut
I've seen so many tweets in response to Paul Graham's post that I have to chime in.
Everyone who has replied to Paul's post misses an important dimension to taste: social relations.
Taste touches on everything — film, music, art, furniture, industrial design, cars, etc. For obvious reasons, I can't talk about all of these subjects, not just because I'm not an expert, but also because this is Twitter. Thus, I will stick to what I know, fashion, which happens to be the topic that sparked this conversation.
Everyone who has replied so far takes beauty as an objective variable, like scientific laws or mathematical truths (which, if you dig deep enough, turn out to be conditional, but we'll set that aside). In this regard, a person's taste is their ability to identify some objective truth in beauty. It's asserted that a person who has good taste in fashion must have good taste in furniture and art. So on and so forth.
In reality, our judgments of taste are not neutral or objective. They are extensions of our social relations. We know this because the suit spread around the world on the back of the Second British Empire. By any reasonable measure, elite men's dress in regions stretching from France to China was obviously superior in cut and styling. But as the British Empire spread around the world, this colorful, extravagant garb was slowly pushed aside by the austere, drab clothes once promoted by Beau Brummell.
We can also see this relationship happen within English society. In the early 20th century, elite Guardsmen commissioned Edwardian-style suits from Savile Row tailors. But when lower, working-class youths started to buy ready-to-wear imitations of these clothes — wearing them while causing a ruckus on the streets — the elites dropped the style and moved on.
This gets back to a very simple dynamic that German sociologist Georg Simmel wrote about in his 1902 essay "On Fashion." As he observed, fashion is often a game of imitation, with people copying their supposed "social betters." When they succeed, those at the top of the hierarchy move on to distinguish themselves. French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu put it more succinctly when he said that our notions of "good taste" are often nothing more than the preferences and habits of the ruling class.
In response to Paul's tweet, @nntaleb wrote yesterday: "Your sense of aesthetics is best reflected in the way you dress & the way you organize your surroundings. [...] Without aesthetics (elegance in both looks and behavior), a human is no human."
But what does it mean to "dress elegantly?" Most people assume this means wearing upper-class British dress. Critical theorist Max Horkheimer would have described this dynamic as a kind of internalized repression — a way of "inserting social power more deeply into the very bodies of those it subjugates."
I love tailoring and elegant dress, but I would caution someone who puts too much weight on them. I disagree that a person is less of a person if they don't dress elegantly. It's just clothes.
There are lots of people who don't have to learn "good taste." Their taste is simply the collection of objects and mannerisms that make up the natural way of being in their social circle. Yet, we admire their taste because they have cultural capital.
Before stylists dressed him, Rocky's outfits were just his version of how people in his social group dressed. Similarly, people often post images of JFK Jr.'s outfits on style inspiration boards, even when the outfits are objectively not that great. The dark suit with a collar gap, a backpack, and square-toed shoes shown above could have been worn by anyone in the 1990s. But this photo gets posted everywhere because you're not admiring the outfit — you are admiring JFK's cultural, political, and economic capital. You are admiring status.
Most of us don't have much cultural capital. My guess is that you're a pretty average middle-class person who works a desk job. Your life is probably not that glamorous. You are not part of any cool social groups. Thus, if you were to let your taste naturally manifest, it would express itself as the boring person you are.
Thus, to develop good taste, you have to figure out the visual language of culture as shaped by history, and play around with different identities until you figure out what works for you. Are you a nerd? Maybe you can try different variations of the "intellectual" stereotype, such as Ivy Style. Are you a rugged guy? Maybe you can try different identities around that, such as the laborer (workwear) or soldier (military surplus). Are you artsy? Look at how musicians and artists dressed in the past.
Paul's post fundamentally assumes that dressing well takes a lot of time and effort. I agree with this. Unless you have a lot of cultural capital, you have to invest time into this project, as you have to learn a new language.
Albert Einstein could walk to any old store around the corner and be told how to dress by a clothier. The scope of choices was much narrower because clothing was defined by time, place, and occasion. The world has changed dramatically, and you can't even easily find a tailor anymore.
IMO, this is also true for almost every area of aesthetic life: interior design, art, music, etc. People I know who have great taste in these areas invest tremendous time and energy in them. This is why people should be very careful about assigning too much moral weight to taste. No one would think that someone is good or bad just because they happen to know a lot about physics or sunflower seed production. The same should be true concerning whether someone dresses well or not.
![dieworkwear's tweet photo. I've seen so many tweets in response to Paul Graham's post that I have to chime in.
Everyone who has replied to Paul's post misses an important dimension to taste: social relations.
Taste touches on everything — film, music, art, furniture, industrial design, cars, etc. For obvious reasons, I can't talk about all of these subjects, not just because I'm not an expert, but also because this is Twitter. Thus, I will stick to what I know, fashion, which happens to be the topic that sparked this conversation.
Everyone who has replied so far takes beauty as an objective variable, like scientific laws or mathematical truths (which, if you dig deep enough, turn out to be conditional, but we'll set that aside). In this regard, a person's taste is their ability to identify some objective truth in beauty. It's asserted that a person who has good taste in fashion must have good taste in furniture and art. So on and so forth.
In reality, our judgments of taste are not neutral or objective. They are extensions of our social relations. We know this because the suit spread around the world on the back of the Second British Empire. By any reasonable measure, elite men's dress in regions stretching from France to China was obviously superior in cut and styling. But as the British Empire spread around the world, this colorful, extravagant garb was slowly pushed aside by the austere, drab clothes once promoted by Beau Brummell.
We can also see this relationship happen within English society. In the early 20th century, elite Guardsmen commissioned Edwardian-style suits from Savile Row tailors. But when lower, working-class youths started to buy ready-to-wear imitations of these clothes — wearing them while causing a ruckus on the streets — the elites dropped the style and moved on.
This gets back to a very simple dynamic that German sociologist Georg Simmel wrote about in his 1902 essay "On Fashion." As he observed, fashion is often a game of imitation, with people copying their supposed "social betters." When they succeed, those at the top of the hierarchy move on to distinguish themselves. French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu put it more succinctly when he said that our notions of "good taste" are often nothing more than the preferences and habits of the ruling class.
In response to Paul's tweet, @nntaleb wrote yesterday: "Your sense of aesthetics is best reflected in the way you dress & the way you organize your surroundings. [...] Without aesthetics (elegance in both looks and behavior), a human is no human."
But what does it mean to "dress elegantly?" Most people assume this means wearing upper-class British dress. Critical theorist Max Horkheimer would have described this dynamic as a kind of internalized repression — a way of "inserting social power more deeply into the very bodies of those it subjugates."
I love tailoring and elegant dress, but I would caution someone who puts too much weight on them. I disagree that a person is less of a person if they don't dress elegantly. It's just clothes.
There are lots of people who don't have to learn "good taste." Their taste is simply the collection of objects and mannerisms that make up the natural way of being in their social circle. Yet, we admire their taste because they have cultural capital.
Before stylists dressed him, Rocky's outfits were just his version of how people in his social group dressed. Similarly, people often post images of JFK Jr.'s outfits on style inspiration boards, even when the outfits are objectively not that great. The dark suit with a collar gap, a backpack, and square-toed shoes shown above could have been worn by anyone in the 1990s. But this photo gets posted everywhere because you're not admiring the outfit — you are admiring JFK's cultural, political, and economic capital. You are admiring status.
Most of us don't have much cultural capital. My guess is that you're a pretty average middle-class person who works a desk job. Your life is probably not that glamorous. You are not part of any cool social groups. Thus, if you were to let your taste naturally manifest, it would express itself as the boring person you are.
Thus, to develop good taste, you have to figure out the visual language of culture as shaped by history, and play around with different identities until you figure out what works for you. Are you a nerd? Maybe you can try different variations of the "intellectual" stereotype, such as Ivy Style. Are you a rugged guy? Maybe you can try different identities around that, such as the laborer (workwear) or soldier (military surplus). Are you artsy? Look at how musicians and artists dressed in the past.
Paul's post fundamentally assumes that dressing well takes a lot of time and effort. I agree with this. Unless you have a lot of cultural capital, you have to invest time into this project, as you have to learn a new language.
Albert Einstein could walk to any old store around the corner and be told how to dress by a clothier. The scope of choices was much narrower because clothing was defined by time, place, and occasion. The world has changed dramatically, and you can't even easily find a tailor anymore.
IMO, this is also true for almost every area of aesthetic life: interior design, art, music, etc. People I know who have great taste in these areas invest tremendous time and energy in them. This is why people should be very careful about assigning too much moral weight to taste. No one would think that someone is good or bad just because they happen to know a lot about physics or sunflower seed production. The same should be true concerning whether someone dresses well or not.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HBV2y-UbcAE5txJ.jpg)
Of course that's your contention. You're a first-time SaaS bear. You just got finished listening to some podcast, Dario on Dwarkesh, probably. Now you think it’s the end of white collar work and seat-based pricing is screwed. You're gonna be convinced of that til tomorrow when you get to “Something Big is Happening”. Then you’ll install ClawdBot on a Mac Mini, vibe code a dashboard on top of a postgres database and say we’re all just a couple ralph loops away from building a Salesforce competitor. That’s gonna last until next week when you discover context graphs, and then you're gonna be talking about how the systems of record will be disintermediated by an agentic layer and reposting OAI marketing graphics.
“Well, as a matter of fact, I won't, because ultimately the application layer is just ….”
The application layer is just business logic on top a CRUD database. You got that from Satya’s appearance on the BG2 pod, December 2024, right? Yeah, I saw that too. Were you gonna plagiarize the whole thing for us? Do you have any thoughts of your own on this matter? Or...is that your thing? You get into the replies of anyone posting a SaaS ticker. You watch some podcast and then pawn it off as your own idea just to impress some VCs and embarrass some anon who’s long SaaS? See the sad thing about a guy like you is in a couple years you're gonna start doing some thinking on your own and you're gonna come up with the fact that there are two certainties in life. One: don't do that. And two: you dropped thirty grand on Mac Minis and LLM API calls to come to the same conclusion you could’ve got for free by following a handful of VC accounts.
Today, we're launching WhatsApp MCP servers on @periskope_app
Connect your WhatsApp to Periskope, and get a hosted MCP server to:
- Summarize your messages across chats
- Send messages on your behalf
- Manage groups, create tasks and more
2 min to setup. No code needed 👇
Hooked to @ABiggerSpalash's podcast lately - it's sharp, super engaging, very high quality content and really well done. If you like brain food that doesn’t feel like homework, give this one a listen! 🎧
@ABiggerSpalash Hahaha, yes, and very much in keeping with this post 🥰
"How we spend our days is, of course, how we spend our lives."
@ABiggerSpalash Year end, hopefully! Will you be around?
@ABiggerSpalash The thread and the substack are both such great reads!
Ebook - https://t.co/9057CwqAcu
This prodigy has published a book of poetry. Firstly, so proud and secondly, I urge everyone to check it out - link in the next post.
@pragyaparomita
This is the Amazon India link -
Cacophonic Contemplations https://t.co/4medMnlmAI
@CurlyHairdFucc Re: "not enough time" - maybe I'm being too simplistic, but seems to be that time spent doing good (nation-building) work should count in lieu of active campaigning.
Good case study indeed.
There's something broken in the democratic process if ~1.5 years of the 5 year term is spent on campaigning - a distraction from the real job of country governance. This needs reform.
@MandarKagade But I was referring to active party-serving activity - fundraising, debates, rallies, etc. which start as early as 18mnths (anecdotal, based on what I see as an avg citizen in big-media re: a certain globally interesting upcoming election) & unlikely to contribute to governance
@MandarKagade Fair point - arguably there's a bit of visible work that incumbents do closer to the term end that counts towards campaigning (pushing through large projects / populist policies etc.) …
Everything takes longer than you think.
The problem isn’t that you’re not working fast enough--the problem is your expectations were never realistic to begin with.
Why does this matter? Because every day, we have to estimate how long things will take. Tasks, errands, projects, etc.
Especially if you’re doing something new, give yourself more time to figure it out.
Build in buffers.
Build in time to get into flow.
Build in time to recuperate.
Build in time to troubleshoot.
Build in time to fix the things you didn't even know you had to worry about until they happened.
When you adjust your own expectations about how long work actually takes, you can make more realistic plans.
And when you have more realistic plans, you’ll be less stressed in all areas of life.
Last Seen Users on Sotwe
Trends for you
Most Popular Users
Elon Musk 
@elonmusk
241M followers
Barack Obama
@barackobama
119.2M followers
Cristiano Ronaldo
@cristiano
112.2M followers
Donald J. Trump
@realdonaldtrump
111.8M followers
Narendra Modi
@narendramodi
107.1M followers
Rihanna
@rihanna
98.1M followers
NASA
@nasa
92.2M followers
Justin Bieber
@justinbieber
91.3M followers
KATY PERRY
@katyperry
88.5M followers
Taylor Swift
@taylorswift13
82.4M followers
Lady Gaga
@ladygaga
73.9M followers
Virat Kohli
@imvkohli
71.3M followers
Kim Kardashian
@kimkardashian
70.2M followers
YouTube
@youtube
68.7M followers
Bill Gates
@billgates
64.4M followers
Neymar Jr
@neymarjr
64.1M followers
The Ellen Show
@theellenshow
62.4M followers
CNN
@cnn
61.8M followers
Selena Gomez
@selenagomez
61.6M followers
X
@x
60.8M followers