Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How bad are things?

slatestarcodex.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 122 posts

Re: How bad are things?

#31

Post by joesmo »

nirmel wrote: post #19
lkrubner wrote: post #2

This is a great excerpt: -------------------------- This is part of why I get enraged whenever somebody on Tumblr says “People in Group X need to realize they have it really good”, or “You’re a Group X member, so stop pretending like you have real problems.” The town where I practice psychiatry is mostly white and mostly wealthy. That doesn’t save it. And whenever some online thinkpiece writer laughs about how good p…

I'm one of those people who say that almost all people in America have it really good, and everyone should stop complaining. I'm trying to understand why I'm wrong about the following: - Most people in America are struggling - Most people outside America are struggling much, much more, to a degree not fathomable by Americans. - Therefore, people in America should acknowledge they have it really good and stop complain…

"Most people outside America are struggling much, much more, to a degree not fathomable by Americans."

You cannot possibly know the level of anyone's suffering except yourself. How do you know how much people are struggling in or out of America? How do you know people outside America suffer more? How do you compare suffering? You don't. You can't. Even if you did, it wouldn't matter. You're comparing problems as if they were numbers. They're not. They're not comparable. What hurts one person a lot may not hurt another very much and vice-versa. Postulating a thing you cannot possibly know is where you're wrong. Not to mention belittling the problems of millions of Americans by subjecting them to your random judgement.

Re: How bad are things?

#32

Post by isolate »

joesmo wrote: post #31
nirmel wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm one of those people who say that almost all people in America have it really good, and everyone should stop complaining. I'm trying to understand why I'm wrong about the following: - Most people in America are struggling - Most people outside America are struggling much, much more, to a degree not fathomable by Americans. - Therefore, people in America should acknowledge they have it really good and stop complain…

"Most people outside America are struggling much, much more, to a degree not fathomable by Americans." You cannot possibly know the level of anyone's suffering except yourself. How do you know how much people are struggling in or out of America? How do you know people outside America suffer more? How do you compare suffering? You don't. You can't. Even if you did, it wouldn't matter. You're comparing problems as if t…

Cutting someone's head off is not necessarily worse for their friends and family than insulting them?

Re: How bad are things?

#33

Post by firebones »

nirmel wrote: post #27
firebones wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't seen your logic nailed specifically as a logical fallacy [1][2], but there's something similar to a logical fallacy involved in the type of argument you're making. Namely, that having it relatively good globally should prevent someone from "complaining" (or seeking to improve their situation) locally . [1] http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AppealToWorseProb... [2] http://boards.straightdope.com/sdm…

Appreciate your citing this fallacy. We certainly can complain about problems that exist, regardless of their severity, perhaps because they affect us or people we care about. But I think there is a real problem when worrying about one problem comes at the expense of caring about another more severe problem. Contrived thought experiment: You have the magical power of either curing your own toothache, or curing the wo…

I see where you're going, but "magical powers" take this so far into the realm of hypothetical that I don't think we can use it as a basis for argument.

But let me allow it, and move it to the real of practicality. Based on the skills and resources I now have, the contribution I can now make with my skills and resources (the "magical powers" at my disposal) would only fractionally help cure AIDS. At best, I might be able to supply a certain number of people with life-extending HIV meds by contributing all my assets and future income.

And why AIDS versus a hundred other maladies where my entire wealth and income improves and extends lives? Or does balancing the ability to build capital effectively come into play? Would we be better off with the issues the Gates Foundation is tackling if Bill Gates had decided to spend all his time from 1975 forward working with an NGO trying to eradicate malaria and polio? Or getting in a position where he focused on first world problems so that he could address some global issues?

I appreciate your concern--but "care" isn't necessarily a point in time measurement or a zero sum game--it's possible to care about multiple things at once, and it's possible to care proportionately more as means allow. (And in many cases, it might be more efficient to do so.)

Re: How bad are things?

#34

Post by tailgate »

bloaf wrote: post #11

On the "bad old days:" I think it is important to ask ourselves which of the problems the author is talking about are uniquely "new." For example, PTSD has always been a thing, but our awareness of it has changed. In the past, people with PTSD weren't necessarily thought of as sick even if they were clearly unable to function. A while ago, there would be no ailing grandma "type" as described in the article because wh…

I think you're missing the context in which "people have it pretty good" is said. It's not a statement made by itself out of nowhere, but as part of a moral judgment, to claim people today have right to complain about whatever suffering they are feeling. The author's counterpoint is that it still is pretty terrible even if yesterday was worse.

Re: How bad are things?

#35

Post by joesmo »

isolate wrote: post #32
joesmo wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Most people outside America are struggling much, much more, to a degree not fathomable by Americans." You cannot possibly know the level of anyone's suffering except yourself. How do you know how much people are struggling in or out of America? How do you know people outside America suffer more? How do you compare suffering? You don't. You can't. Even if you did, it wouldn't matter. You're comparing problems as if t…

Cutting someone's head off is not necessarily worse for their friends and family than insulting them?

I think you replied to the wrong comment.

Re: How bad are things?

#36

Post by isolate »

joesmo wrote: post #35
isolate wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cutting someone's head off is not necessarily worse for their friends and family than insulting them?

I think you replied to the wrong comment.

No, but I probably misread yours if you didn't understand my question. I thought you said different kinds of suffering are incomparable, and so I asked about not being able to compare two specific kinds of suffering, murder and insults. (Or rather, acts that can induce suffering and the suffering that results.)

Re: How bad are things?

#37

Post by escape_goat »

To me, this psychiatrist sounds really depressed and like he may be feeling burnt out or isolated at his job. A theme in the two typical cases he cites is that he isn't actually dealing directly with a patient's problems; in both cases, he's a helpless witness to a serious injustice exacerbating those problems, and perhaps making his own efforts to assist the patient seem particularly futile. He seems to be focused on a globalized sense of precarious life, where almost everyone is nearly overwhelmed with problems, but doesn't go past caveat with respect to addressing any evidence against this (i.e. world not collapsing, psychological resiliency of most people). Struggling with these problems is probably affecting his ability to help others. He should find a good therapist and start working through some CBT exercises if he finds himself thinking like this on a routine basis.

Just my two cents based on long-term exposure to psychiatry and depression. I know these things might be really obvious to most people, but I figured they should be pointed out for the benefit of anyone to whom they aren't.

Re: How bad are things?

#38

Post by isolate »

escape_goat wrote: post #37

To me, this psychiatrist sounds really depressed and like he may be feeling burnt out or isolated at his job. A theme in the two typical cases he cites is that he isn't actually dealing directly with a patient's problems; in both cases, he's a helpless witness to a serious injustice exacerbating those problems, and perhaps making his own efforts to assist the patient seem particularly futile. He seems to be focused o…

The name for this in the helping professions is "compassion fatigue", basically the only way out is to stop trying to help so many people for so many hours per week.

Re: How bad are things?

#39

Post by karmacondon »

erikpukinskis wrote: post #5

I think this is a fundamental property of capitalism. People who are happy and taken care of don't need to spend money and are terrible for the economy. If you can create problems for someone, you can market solutions to them. Some of the best selling products in the world, like Coca-Cola, are themselves creating the the problem they purport to solve. For a century, companies have been pushing cultural changes that m…

It seems like you and many other people are of the world view that everyone would behave ideally if only corporate forces weren't influencing them. This may be true, there's no way to know for sure.

It's also possible that most major corporations meet the demands of the market rather than create those demands. Art imitates life. The thing about brand advertising, like for Coca-Cola, is that its done mainly for commoditized products that consumers already want. People already want a cold soda on a hot day. The question is will they reach for a coke or a pepsi? A Big Mac or a Whopper? A dell or a macbook? It's not like none of those things would exist if evil corporations didn't make us want them. The cat is out of the bag now, people already want sodas and fast food. The global advertising empire is primarily fueled by getting people to choose company's product over another, not intentionally making you want things you can't afford.

We cant blame society's ills on corporations, capitalism or any other system of behavior. All of these things are democratic, they reflect the will of the people. And human beings have been making themselves feel bad due to envy and desire for as long as there have been human beings. I would advocate for banning all advertising forever if I thought it would change things. But it won't.

Re: How bad are things?

#40

Post by adrianN »

erikpukinskis wrote: post #5

I think this is a fundamental property of capitalism. People who are happy and taken care of don't need to spend money and are terrible for the economy. If you can create problems for someone, you can market solutions to them. Some of the best selling products in the world, like Coca-Cola, are themselves creating the the problem they purport to solve. For a century, companies have been pushing cultural changes that m…

On this topic I recommend "The Gospel of Consumption" [1]

[1] https://orionmagazine.org/article/the-gospel-of-consumption/

Post reply on HN