Bodybuilding Hard vs Math Hard
I read online somewhere about a distinction I think is increasingly valuable: bodybuilding hard vs math hard. Unfortunately, I can’t seem to find the original article/tweet/etc. In any case, I am not being original here, and that’s ok.
Here’s the idea. Both bodybuilding and math are difficult and they are difficult in different ways.
Bodybuilding is difficult mostly around consistency. You have to be incredibly disciplined to be a great bodybuilder. And, if you can muster the discipline, you are highly likely to achieve excellent results*.
Note, at the absolute extremes, bodybuilding excellence seems to also involve genetics to a certain extent. Frankly, this seems to be true of most things at the absolute extremes. But for the purpose of this example, we will model bodybuilding as being mostly be about will/discipline.
Math is difficult in a different way. Math, at least at the highest level, is mostly about innate gifts, mainly intelligence*.
Note again, this is a simplification. You really can do great and beautiful work in mathematics without “being Einstein,” and hard work absolutely matters. I’ll cover this more later, but go with me here.
Ok, so that’s the high level idea: bodybuilding is mostly about how bad you want it, math is mostly about innate talents. What do we make of this?
Most Things in Life Are “Bodybuilding Hard”
This is the main takeaway for me, after observing people trying to do various things with various levels of intellectual ability: most things in life, and most of the important things, are “bodybuilding hard.”
Things like:
- saving money
- learning something
- being physically healthy
Are mostly about discipline, they are mostly, most of the time in the control of the individual. They are mostly about showing up every day and putting in the work.
But What About “The Big Systems” That Control Our Lives?
My above statement that “habits mostly determine the outcomes in important life areas” can be controversial. And, to be fair, for much of my life, I would have expressed this idea with less certainty. But now, at the ripe old age of 31, I can see that most of my hesitance came from looking at these things on too short a time horizon. In my youth, I would look at those things and note (correctly) that “a person working minimum wage can’t really save that much money in this country.” And that’s true! But the missing piece in that analysis is time. Over time, and in the vast majority of cases, people who are interested in making more money than minimum wage will be presented with opportunities/choices that allow them to do so. So, yes, over a 1-year time horizon, those things can be subject to the whims of nature or capitalism or whatever big system is going on. And, over a 10-year time horizon, the outcomes come to be dominated by habits.
So, I suppose it’s true that I should probably caveat the above with “over a long enough time period.” But, as I get older, and I come to appreciate more and more just how long older people have been alive, I realize that my previous focus on “1-year” time horizons, and the exceptions to the rule that they present, was itself just a lack of perspective. Very few interesting things are built in 1 year. Some are! Sure! But most, are not. Most are built by showing up, day in and day out, over years and years. So, when expressing the general rule, I think it makes more sense to express it in a way that captures most of the truth, and then think about caveats later.
And What About “Math” Hard Stuff
Most things in life are bodybuilding hard, yes. Some things, do seem to be mostly “math” hard. Things like becoming an NBA basketball player, an area overwhelming dominated by extremely tall people, is a good example here. Of course, “discovering special/general relativity” a la Einstein is also a good example. It does seem true, from what I’ve experienced so far in life, that those kinds of outcomes really are reserved for the genetically blessed.
But…I do want to caution against embracing this idea too strongly as a core truth. I think in the basketball case, sure, embrace this idea as reality: if you are a 5’8” dude, basketball is best pursued as a passionate hobby, and you should put your career/wellbeing eggs in some number of other/additional baskets. But, in many/most other cases, it seems like people dramatically overestimate how often a situation/problem is really “special relativity” hard. The vast, vast majority of problems are better modeled as bodybuilding hard. You want to get a college degree? Bodybuilding hard. You want to save up for a down payment or retirement? Bodybuilding. You want to get in shape for the beach this summer? Ok, bit of a layup there, but it’s obviously bodybuilding hard. What about starting a company? Yes, that too, is mostly bodybuilding hard. Changing careers? Bodybuilding hard. Building your own house? I mean, it has “build” in the name…so yeah, bodybuilding hard. Developing a better relationship with your spouse/partner? Yep, also bodybuilding hard.
It’d be a very interesting thing to discuss why do people think so many things are “special relativity” hard. Lots of facets there, but best kept to another post.
In any case, be careful when you think you’ve encountered something that is really “math” hard. It does pop up, for sure. And don’t totally ignore what people say about an area being “like special relativity” (e.g. nuclear fusion seems to have at least a few “math hard” components). But remember that, most of the things in the world around you were built by bodybuilders, and you’ve got a body that can, basically, do the same moves. And though you probably won’t look like Arnold in 6 months, if you apply yourself for 5, 10, 15 years, you will, with very high probability, become absolutely shredded.
Addendum
Ok, if you’ve made it this far, great. Reading a blog the whole way through is another one of those “bodybuilding hard” exercises, and you’ve done it. I want to end with some brief commentary/critiques/lessons in processing this kind of thing. I appreciate when other people do this, so I’ll try to model that here.
A basic thing to watch out for in this article, and anything you see from another person, is the limitation of perspective. This actually came up in the post earlier, when I noted that my younger self lacked a robust perspective on time. Interestingly, my younger self would likely have looked at this post and similarly concluded “this person is demonstrating a lack of perspective,” given that I didn’t emphasize the power of societal superstructures in determining the outcomes of people’s lives (“but Bill Gates grew up with computers” kind of thing).
Anyways, the important thing here is that my perspective, while likely improved in some ways, is still limited. Here’s the big limitation that comes directly to mind, modeled in the following critique: “man who can do things that are math hard sees all problems as bodybuilding hard.” Honestly, that’s a pretty worthwhile critique to consider! The extent to which you are gifted natural talent in a given domain really does impact what you see as “easy”, “hard, but doable with effort”, and “hard, probably not doable even with significant effort.” And I do think, at this point, there is sufficient evidence to suggest I have a decent amount of “math hard” ability. I’m no Einstein, but that doesn’t mean I am particularly deficient in the “natural talents” department. With that said, I do try to keep this in mind when thinking about these questions. Unfortunately, that process is pretty ad-hoc, and at the end of the day, I can only tell you what I’ve seen/experienced/believe I can reasonably extrapolate from.
So, keep that in mind, and think for yourself…and get your ass in the gym!