I did enjoy this article, and it's always interesting when someone has their "come to Jesus" moment about desire and achievement. In the author's case, however, I doubt he will completely take it...
Exemplary
I did enjoy this article, and it's always interesting when someone has their "come to Jesus" moment about desire and achievement. In the author's case, however, I doubt he will completely take it further and eschew all the notoriety he's earned for himself, retire from public life, and live a simpler existence. The allure to be somebody is too strong. It's hypnotizing to have a lot of money and respect from fuddy-duddies. He's even got a podcast where he preaches this stuff. Because if you're not somebody, who are you?
I've struggled with it myself. For a long time, I wanted to be somebody. Specifically, a famous literary author. What a trap that was. When I finally got to the point where I was meeting literary authors, I realized how much of joke the whole thing was. They don't make any money. Nobody reads their books. They all either have to teach to keep a roof over their heads or they just come from wealth already. Being "somebody" in the literary world, the place I wanted to be, was just a facade. And it was an insular club that wouldn't have someone like me anyway. I'm far too working class.
I believe in the Buddhist idea that desire is the root of suffering. I suffered for some time, wanting things I couldn't have, or longing for an ideal that doesn't exist. I still want things I can't have, it makes me feel momentary unhappiness, but then it passes. It's human to desire, you can't eradicate it, but you can understand it within your own existence and treat it accordingly. They key is to treat it in a non-judgmental way. It just is.
I find life to be more pleasant with fewer possessions, fewer commitments, and fewer responsibilities. When you live this way, you're often left with just your own thoughts much of the time and that can be scary if you don't like being alone with yourself. But I do. I think I'm pretty cool and I like to think by myself. When you like yourself, you don't need to fill your life with wants because there are naturally far fewer of them.
I think the author has really examined this topic academically, and that's admirable, but I can't imagine he lives his life true to what he's espousing. He does say he moved from a fancy suburb of Washington DC to another suburb of Boston. So there's that. But at least he's making strides to find greater meaning in the internal rather than the external. When he stops publishing articles about his journey in the Atlantic, you'll know he's on the right track.
This article might be behind a paywall for some, but I thought it was an interesting and timely read for myself. I'm currently feeling a good bit of dissatisfaction with my work situation, even...
This article might be behind a paywall for some, but I thought it was an interesting and timely read for myself. I'm currently feeling a good bit of dissatisfaction with my work situation, even though by all accounts I've got it made.
You would think that a Harvard hotshot would be able to understand that a desire for a lack of desire is just a form of nihilism. Whether you take the naive approach and try to satiate it by...
You would think that a Harvard hotshot would be able to understand that a desire for a lack of desire is just a form of nihilism. Whether you take the naive approach and try to satiate it by adding or take the converse approach and try to directly reduce it by assaulting it, if your goal is to erradicate it and be "free" then you've simply got a death wish, as you no longer affirm life. So, hey, I'm not judging as long as you don't lie about it and have the decency to do/say as you mean without dragging us healthy spirits into it. With that being said, I wish you all well and that you may have the strength to survive your own death(s), since ultimately we all have to die from time to time.
I don't think the author expresses "a desire for a lack of desire". The article goes on at length about the human desire for satisfaction and how a lot of our pursuits are misguided w.r.t. this...
I don't think the author expresses "a desire for a lack of desire". The article goes on at length about the human desire for satisfaction and how a lot of our pursuits are misguided w.r.t. this aim. It gives a good description of why pursuing different desires only leads to fleeting happiness. Nothing wrong with that, but it won't give a sense of contentment.
The argument seems to boil down to: the motivations for your actions should be intrinsic to you and not external, if you want satisfaction.
The author doesn't claim however that there is anything wrong with pursuing desires that have external motivations. To some degree they are necessary (e.g. having enough for food and shelter), it's just that it won't last.
In the end the article gives some concrete suggestions, but I'm not sure if those are really applicable for everyone. "Go from prince to sage" kind of implies being in a very privileged situation to begin with. It might be great advice for people that are financially set, but for someone living from paycheck to paycheck it feels presumptuous.
I don't mean to be an ass as I understand you may be approaching this from a more regular practical perspective, but topics like these demand a level of nuance that can make even the bravest...
I don't mean to be an ass as I understand you may be approaching this from a more regular practical perspective, but topics like these demand a level of nuance that can make even the bravest uncomfortable, so allow me to elaborate.
My point is that the very idea of "contenment", "satisfaction", "freedom" or whatever you want to call it as an absolute ideal is nihilistic and stems from a misunderstanding of, well, everything.
Of course it only makes sense that one would desire stability, implying at least some small sense of satisfaction, to the extent that it enables life and health. But the fact that it can only ever be provisional is not a bug in our brain's software, it is a feature. Now, the author does touch upon this, the problem is that it doesn't seem like they actually understand the implications nor what it ultimately means.
The distinction between "external" and "intrinsic" motivation in this context is the same kind of schizophrenic split that is found in the division some draw between "soul" or "mind" and "body". They're part of the same thing, not distinct entities, and it doesn't make sense to "favor one over the other". If you don't know both you know neither.
Now let's take a look at the articles concluding remarks:
Each of us can ride the waves of attachments and urges, hoping futilely that someday, somehow, we will get and keep that satisfaction we crave. Or we can take a shot at free will and self-mastery. It’s a lifelong battle against our inner caveman. Often, he wins. But with determination and practice, we can find respite from that chronic dissatisfaction and experience the joy that is true human freedom.
And there it is. The article is far from enlightening and is rather a regurgitation of the same crap a lot of people uncritically repeat. The christian/buddhist/stoic lie of absolute freedom/peace/self-mastery. We can't let Dionsysus in, in doing so we might just become what we really are. How scary!
P.S. Do note my use of the word "absolute". I do think there are virtues to be found in these perspectives, my point is that by imposing themselves as absolutes they become self-defeating.
Why? I don't follow why striving for e.g. contentment would stem from a "misunderstanding of everything". That seems like a very broad statement. At its core the justification for it will be some...
Exemplary
My point is that the very idea of "contenment", "satisfaction", "freedom" or whatever you want to call it as an absolute ideal is nihilistic and stems from a misunderstanding of, well, everything.
Why? I don't follow why striving for e.g. contentment would stem from a "misunderstanding of everything". That seems like a very broad statement. At its core the justification for it will be some kind of value judgement like "satisfaction is better than new experiences". That is something people can reasonably have different opinions about. Some might feel they've already had enough excitement and thus agree with it. Some might feel they haven't had the chance to realize some of their dreams. Dismissing the first groups value judgements as nihilistic needs some form of justification.
Of course it only makes sense that one would desire stability, implying at least some small sense of satisfaction, to the extent that it enables life and health.
We are reading the article from opposite ends I think :) Satisfaction/contentment, the author argues, is not fleeting in the same way realizing your dreams or getting a new car or becoming famous is. Those goals once achieved will just be replaced with others; leading to the hedonic treadmill. Some material goals and such are a prerequisite for finding satisfaction (the level of these could vary from person to person). Satisfaction is not a prerequisite for life nor physical health (probably not mental health either).
The distinction between "external" and "intrinsic" motivation in this context is the same kind of schizophrenic split that is found in the division some draw between "soul" or "mind" and "body". They're part of the same thing, not distinct entities, and it doesn't make sense to "favor one over the other". If you don't know both you know neither.
I think there is a valuable distinction to be made between intrinsic and external motivations. External ones require feedback from others (e.g. adulations, comparative wealth, or subservience of others). Intrinsic ones are known by you without needing to be validated by others (eg. mastering a skill). That said, we are social beings, so we do have a deep seated need to be validated by others. But, beyond a certain point it will become unfulfilling.
We can't let Dionsysus in, in doing so we might just become what we really are. How scary!
The author seem to ascribe to this out of experience. I.e. they had the respect of their peers, a good job etc etc, but noticed that even though they had achieved a lot of their dreams they were still feeling unfulfilled/unsatisfied. For them the answer was to want less and focus on what they judged to be truly meaningful and stop wasting energy on the things that only gave them a quick burst of dopamine...
I don't mean to be an ass
No worries, I assume good intentions from others and don't think your an ass :) Interesting to read your thoughts on the matter.
It seems people in this thread have already decided they don't like what I have to say, so while this may be pointless I still think it's only fair and courteous for me to try to address some...
It seems people in this thread have already decided they don't like what I have to say, so while this may be pointless I still think it's only fair and courteous for me to try to address some points of contention.
Why? I don't follow why striving for e.g. contentment would stem from a "misunderstanding of everything". That seems like a very broad statement.
It is meant to be. Please realize that I'm talking in a much more expansive sense than the individual.
At its core the justification for it will be some kind of value judgement like "satisfaction is better than new experiences". That is something people can reasonably have different opinions about. Some might feel they've already had enough excitement and thus agree with it. Some might feel they haven't had the chance to realize some of their dreams. Dismissing the first groups value judgements as nihilistic needs some form of justification.
I can agree that in the context of the author's individual life their shift of focus into the "internal" rather than the "external" is at least somewhat conducive to a healthier perspective and I'm not trying to take that away from them. However, the reason I quoted the last paragraph is to show that while they try to appear nuanced throughout the article their conclusion still ends up giving them away. Qualifying our constant striving as an "affliction", "a problem", "vestigial", "[something to which we're] doomed", "the dissatisfaction curse", "a lifefong battle against the inner caveman" is an incredibly negative characterization of our existence. It certainly doesn't sound like the talk of a healhty spirit but rather someone who's grown weary of life, for life is that constant striving, and that still wants to look at it as something that should be, if not somehow "solved" or "transcended", at least agressively tamed instead of embraced and expressed healthily.
Case in point:
These were the ideas I related to my daughter that spring afternoon. She listened with interest, then made a brief rejoinder. “So what you’re saying is that the secret to satisfaction is simple,” she said. “I just have to go against several million years of evolutionary biology,” plus the entirety of modern culture, “and I’ll be all set.”
The fact that this whole argument could be framed as "go[ing] against several million years of evolutionary biology" is the very problem. You are not a "victim" to evolution, you are evolution!
Satisfaction is not a prerequisite for life nor physical health (probably not mental health either).
Well... it actually is. I mean, sure, you don't specifically need a flashy car or to be famous (in fact such things can be so obscene that they become self-defeating) to be satisfied in a healthy sense, but some degree of satisfaction/contentment (inasmuch as there is in stability and safety) is absolutely crucial to our health and is exactly why human individuation exists in the first place! It's the same reason that people build homes instead of nakedly weathering the elements; when the walls that once constituted a home become a prison then you have a problem, but only then.
I think there is a valuable distinction to be made between intrinsic and external motivations. External ones require feedback from others (e.g. adulations, comparative wealth, or subservience of others). Intrinsic ones are known by you without needing to be validated by others (eg. mastering a skill). That said, we are social beings, so we do have a deep seated need to be validated by others. But, beyond a certain point it will become unfulfilling.
Isn't it ironic that we touched upon buddhism, which emphasizes the unity of life, but are still unable to abandon this rather relativistic stance overly concerned with individual, subjective viewpoints? At risk of sounding harsh, such thinking is incredibly unimaginative. I think Nietzsche put it very succintly:
"Everything is subjective," you say; but even this is interpretation. The "subject" is not something given, it is something added and invented and projected behind what there is.—Finally, is it necessary to posit an interpreter behind the interpretation? Even this is invention, hypothesis.
The gap between you and others is largely illusory, so to think this way is to miss the forest for the trees.
The author seem to ascribe to this out of experience. I.e. they had the respect of their peers, a good job etc etc, but noticed that even though they had achieved a lot of their dreams they were still feeling unfulfilled/unsatisfied. For them the answer was to want less and focus on what they judged to be truly meaningful and stop wasting energy on the things that only gave them a quick burst of dopamine...
To be fair I did come across as overly critical of the author. Then again, I actually think that given their story their paradigm shift is for the most part commendable. My grip is that to view the relationship between "external" and "internal" as an either-or (or where one ought to topple the other) instead of acknowledging that they are dispositions that exist in a superimposed state, are ultimately part of the same thing and are therefore inextricable is precisely the root of the insanity that drives people to become caricatures of themselves in the first place.
No worries, I assume good intentions from others and don't think your an ass :) Interesting to read your thoughts on the matter.
Thank you, I appreciate it. I know I can come across as overbearing and exacting but I think topics like these demand it. For what it's worth, I don't think your perspective or those put forth by other commenters are "wrong" since they're all bound to have something valuable to offer/reveal, but even then we can still have some degree of perspectival objectivity.
That is a good point. There is certainly a value judgment characterizing these things as bad. This above is more of an interpretation of the authors point and also a judgment call. I think an...
Qualifying our constant striving as an "affliction", "a problem", "vestigial", "[something to which we're] doomed", "the dissatisfaction curse", "a lifefong battle against the inner caveman" is an incredibly negative characterization of our existence.
That is a good point. There is certainly a value judgment characterizing these things as bad.
It certainly doesn't sound like the talk of a healhty spirit but rather someone who's grown weary of life, for life is that constant striving, and that still wants to look at it as something that should be, if not somehow "solved" or "transcended", at least agressively tamed instead of embraced and expressed healthily.
This above is more of an interpretation of the authors point and also a judgment call. I think an alternate way of viewing it is that the author realized that some of their desires were not conductive with leading a healthy happy life. They're not weary of life, just cautious not to waste it on things that ultimately brings them little satisfaction. The author certainly haven't given up everything and now lives in a barrel in Athens atempting to emulate Diogenes. Clearly they still strive for things, but maybe just not as much or as obscesively. To me that seems like "the talk of a healhty spirit", even if I personally might have made other choices.
Satisfaction is not a prerequisite for life nor physical health (probably not mental health either).
Well... it actually is. I mean, sure, you don't specifically need a flashy car or to be famous (in fact such things can be so obscene that they become self-defeating) to be satisfied in a healthy sense, but some degree of satisfaction/contentment (inasmuch as there is in stability and safety) is absolutely crucial to our health and is exactly why human individuation exists in the first place! It's the same reason that people build homes instead of nakedly weathering the elements; when the walls that once constituted a home become a prison then you have a problem, but only then.
I think we are applying different meanings to satisfaction/contentment. Satisfaction/contentment is, if I understand the author's point correctly, more like an abscence or dismissal of desires. We can both agree that we have some basic needs that must be met, e.g. food and shelter as you mention. However, when some basic needs are met we still have new desires. Accepting the way things are and then dismissing those desires will lead to more contentment with the world and your own place in it (good according to the author). The other path is trying to meet those desires which in turn leads to more desires in an unforgiving cycle (bad according to the author).
My grip is that to view the relationship between "external" and "internal" as an either-or (or where one ought to topple the other) instead of acknowledging that they are dispositions that exist in a superimposed state [...]
Fair point. It is a categorization and you could come up with other ways of dividing motivations. I think the reason the "internal" ones are better than the "external" ones to author is more of an observation of the outcome. Chasing the latter they obeserve does not lead to happiness, focusing on the former does (for them).
I did enjoy this article, and it's always interesting when someone has their "come to Jesus" moment about desire and achievement. In the author's case, however, I doubt he will completely take it further and eschew all the notoriety he's earned for himself, retire from public life, and live a simpler existence. The allure to be somebody is too strong. It's hypnotizing to have a lot of money and respect from fuddy-duddies. He's even got a podcast where he preaches this stuff. Because if you're not somebody, who are you?
I've struggled with it myself. For a long time, I wanted to be somebody. Specifically, a famous literary author. What a trap that was. When I finally got to the point where I was meeting literary authors, I realized how much of joke the whole thing was. They don't make any money. Nobody reads their books. They all either have to teach to keep a roof over their heads or they just come from wealth already. Being "somebody" in the literary world, the place I wanted to be, was just a facade. And it was an insular club that wouldn't have someone like me anyway. I'm far too working class.
I believe in the Buddhist idea that desire is the root of suffering. I suffered for some time, wanting things I couldn't have, or longing for an ideal that doesn't exist. I still want things I can't have, it makes me feel momentary unhappiness, but then it passes. It's human to desire, you can't eradicate it, but you can understand it within your own existence and treat it accordingly. They key is to treat it in a non-judgmental way. It just is.
I find life to be more pleasant with fewer possessions, fewer commitments, and fewer responsibilities. When you live this way, you're often left with just your own thoughts much of the time and that can be scary if you don't like being alone with yourself. But I do. I think I'm pretty cool and I like to think by myself. When you like yourself, you don't need to fill your life with wants because there are naturally far fewer of them.
I think the author has really examined this topic academically, and that's admirable, but I can't imagine he lives his life true to what he's espousing. He does say he moved from a fancy suburb of Washington DC to another suburb of Boston. So there's that. But at least he's making strides to find greater meaning in the internal rather than the external. When he stops publishing articles about his journey in the Atlantic, you'll know he's on the right track.
this link should ditch the paywall
This article might be behind a paywall for some, but I thought it was an interesting and timely read for myself. I'm currently feeling a good bit of dissatisfaction with my work situation, even though by all accounts I've got it made.
You would think that a Harvard hotshot would be able to understand that a desire for a lack of desire is just a form of nihilism. Whether you take the naive approach and try to satiate it by adding or take the converse approach and try to directly reduce it by assaulting it, if your goal is to erradicate it and be "free" then you've simply got a death wish, as you no longer affirm life. So, hey, I'm not judging as long as you don't lie about it and have the decency to do/say as you mean without dragging us healthy spirits into it. With that being said, I wish you all well and that you may have the strength to survive your own death(s), since ultimately we all have to die from time to time.
I don't think the author expresses "a desire for a lack of desire". The article goes on at length about the human desire for satisfaction and how a lot of our pursuits are misguided w.r.t. this aim. It gives a good description of why pursuing different desires only leads to fleeting happiness. Nothing wrong with that, but it won't give a sense of contentment.
The argument seems to boil down to: the motivations for your actions should be intrinsic to you and not external, if you want satisfaction.
The author doesn't claim however that there is anything wrong with pursuing desires that have external motivations. To some degree they are necessary (e.g. having enough for food and shelter), it's just that it won't last.
In the end the article gives some concrete suggestions, but I'm not sure if those are really applicable for everyone. "Go from prince to sage" kind of implies being in a very privileged situation to begin with. It might be great advice for people that are financially set, but for someone living from paycheck to paycheck it feels presumptuous.
I don't mean to be an ass as I understand you may be approaching this from a more regular practical perspective, but topics like these demand a level of nuance that can make even the bravest uncomfortable, so allow me to elaborate.
My point is that the very idea of "contenment", "satisfaction", "freedom" or whatever you want to call it as an absolute ideal is nihilistic and stems from a misunderstanding of, well, everything.
Of course it only makes sense that one would desire stability, implying at least some small sense of satisfaction, to the extent that it enables life and health. But the fact that it can only ever be provisional is not a bug in our brain's software, it is a feature. Now, the author does touch upon this, the problem is that it doesn't seem like they actually understand the implications nor what it ultimately means.
The distinction between "external" and "intrinsic" motivation in this context is the same kind of schizophrenic split that is found in the division some draw between "soul" or "mind" and "body". They're part of the same thing, not distinct entities, and it doesn't make sense to "favor one over the other". If you don't know both you know neither.
Now let's take a look at the articles concluding remarks:
And there it is. The article is far from enlightening and is rather a regurgitation of the same crap a lot of people uncritically repeat. The christian/buddhist/stoic lie of absolute freedom/peace/self-mastery. We can't let Dionsysus in, in doing so we might just become what we really are. How scary!
P.S. Do note my use of the word "absolute". I do think there are virtues to be found in these perspectives, my point is that by imposing themselves as absolutes they become self-defeating.
Why? I don't follow why striving for e.g. contentment would stem from a "misunderstanding of everything". That seems like a very broad statement. At its core the justification for it will be some kind of value judgement like "satisfaction is better than new experiences". That is something people can reasonably have different opinions about. Some might feel they've already had enough excitement and thus agree with it. Some might feel they haven't had the chance to realize some of their dreams. Dismissing the first groups value judgements as nihilistic needs some form of justification.
We are reading the article from opposite ends I think :) Satisfaction/contentment, the author argues, is not fleeting in the same way realizing your dreams or getting a new car or becoming famous is. Those goals once achieved will just be replaced with others; leading to the hedonic treadmill. Some material goals and such are a prerequisite for finding satisfaction (the level of these could vary from person to person). Satisfaction is not a prerequisite for life nor physical health (probably not mental health either).
I think there is a valuable distinction to be made between intrinsic and external motivations. External ones require feedback from others (e.g. adulations, comparative wealth, or subservience of others). Intrinsic ones are known by you without needing to be validated by others (eg. mastering a skill). That said, we are social beings, so we do have a deep seated need to be validated by others. But, beyond a certain point it will become unfulfilling.
The author seem to ascribe to this out of experience. I.e. they had the respect of their peers, a good job etc etc, but noticed that even though they had achieved a lot of their dreams they were still feeling unfulfilled/unsatisfied. For them the answer was to want less and focus on what they judged to be truly meaningful and stop wasting energy on the things that only gave them a quick burst of dopamine...
No worries, I assume good intentions from others and don't think your an ass :) Interesting to read your thoughts on the matter.
It seems people in this thread have already decided they don't like what I have to say, so while this may be pointless I still think it's only fair and courteous for me to try to address some points of contention.
It is meant to be. Please realize that I'm talking in a much more expansive sense than the individual.
I can agree that in the context of the author's individual life their shift of focus into the "internal" rather than the "external" is at least somewhat conducive to a healthier perspective and I'm not trying to take that away from them. However, the reason I quoted the last paragraph is to show that while they try to appear nuanced throughout the article their conclusion still ends up giving them away. Qualifying our constant striving as an "affliction", "a problem", "vestigial", "[something to which we're] doomed", "the dissatisfaction curse", "a lifefong battle against the inner caveman" is an incredibly negative characterization of our existence. It certainly doesn't sound like the talk of a healhty spirit but rather someone who's grown weary of life, for life is that constant striving, and that still wants to look at it as something that should be, if not somehow "solved" or "transcended", at least agressively tamed instead of embraced and expressed healthily.
Case in point:
The fact that this whole argument could be framed as "go[ing] against several million years of evolutionary biology" is the very problem. You are not a "victim" to evolution, you are evolution!
Well... it actually is. I mean, sure, you don't specifically need a flashy car or to be famous (in fact such things can be so obscene that they become self-defeating) to be satisfied in a healthy sense, but some degree of satisfaction/contentment (inasmuch as there is in stability and safety) is absolutely crucial to our health and is exactly why human individuation exists in the first place! It's the same reason that people build homes instead of nakedly weathering the elements; when the walls that once constituted a home become a prison then you have a problem, but only then.
Isn't it ironic that we touched upon buddhism, which emphasizes the unity of life, but are still unable to abandon this rather relativistic stance overly concerned with individual, subjective viewpoints? At risk of sounding harsh, such thinking is incredibly unimaginative. I think Nietzsche put it very succintly:
The gap between you and others is largely illusory, so to think this way is to miss the forest for the trees.
To be fair I did come across as overly critical of the author. Then again, I actually think that given their story their paradigm shift is for the most part commendable. My grip is that to view the relationship between "external" and "internal" as an either-or (or where one ought to topple the other) instead of acknowledging that they are dispositions that exist in a superimposed state, are ultimately part of the same thing and are therefore inextricable is precisely the root of the insanity that drives people to become caricatures of themselves in the first place.
Thank you, I appreciate it. I know I can come across as overbearing and exacting but I think topics like these demand it. For what it's worth, I don't think your perspective or those put forth by other commenters are "wrong" since they're all bound to have something valuable to offer/reveal, but even then we can still have some degree of perspectival objectivity.
That is a good point. There is certainly a value judgment characterizing these things as bad.
This above is more of an interpretation of the authors point and also a judgment call. I think an alternate way of viewing it is that the author realized that some of their desires were not conductive with leading a healthy happy life. They're not weary of life, just cautious not to waste it on things that ultimately brings them little satisfaction. The author certainly haven't given up everything and now lives in a barrel in Athens atempting to emulate Diogenes. Clearly they still strive for things, but maybe just not as much or as obscesively. To me that seems like "the talk of a healhty spirit", even if I personally might have made other choices.
I think we are applying different meanings to satisfaction/contentment. Satisfaction/contentment is, if I understand the author's point correctly, more like an abscence or dismissal of desires. We can both agree that we have some basic needs that must be met, e.g. food and shelter as you mention. However, when some basic needs are met we still have new desires. Accepting the way things are and then dismissing those desires will lead to more contentment with the world and your own place in it (good according to the author). The other path is trying to meet those desires which in turn leads to more desires in an unforgiving cycle (bad according to the author).
Fair point. It is a categorization and you could come up with other ways of dividing motivations. I think the reason the "internal" ones are better than the "external" ones to author is more of an observation of the outcome. Chasing the latter they obeserve does not lead to happiness, focusing on the former does (for them).
I've a general rule that if someone has to preface something with "I don't mean to be an ass" or the like, they are in fact meaning to be an ass.
I could make a joke about your username, but I guess that would make me a huge ras.
I guess you guys aren't ready for me yet.
You are correct.