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

What Everybody Gets Wrong About Jekyll and Hyde (2012)

tor.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 87 posts

Re: What Everybody Gets Wrong About Jekyll and Hyde (2012)

#71

Post by Tenhundfeld »

khedoros1 wrote: post #69
emodendroket wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, the irony is they really don't have better things to do and someday they'll regret not putting the time into such things when it was available to them. But you know the old saw -- youth is wasted on the young.

There were some required reading books that I enjoyed and learned from, and some that I still don't see the point of. On the other hand, some things that I did in my own time in high school laid the foundations for my career and current interests. I can't see that as completely wasted time.

Yeah, I think that's true for a lot of people. The other aspect of this is that your enjoyment/appreciation of a book can greatly depend on what's going on in your life at the moment.

So, it's not just if a book is good or not; it's also if it finds you at the right time. I don't just mean maturity; I also mean what big ideas are swirling around your head at the time.

For example, I read One Hundred Years of Solitude in HS and hated it. I read it again several years later, having mostly forgotten it, and I loved it, thought it was a masterpiece. I recently reread it, several years passing and having mostly forgotten it again, and I couldn't finish it, just didn't resonate the same way and moved too slowly to keep my attention.

If you try reading a classic and are still hating it after 50 pages or so, I recommend just putting down and trying again later in life. Of course, that doesn't work so well for required reading when a teacher wants everyone in the class to discuss the same book.

Re: What Everybody Gets Wrong About Jekyll and Hyde (2012)

#72

Post by WorldMaker »

projectramo wrote: post #61

It is worth pointing out that, in one sense, the "misreading" and the "proper reading" are the same. One is just metaphorical and the other is literal. To state it more clearly, even if you believe that Hyde is the evil in Jekyll's soul, and not just Jekyll acting out his fantasy, the former is a metaphor for the latter. I also disagree with this reading because it is clearly stated that Hyde is smaller than Jekyll b…

> I also disagree with this reading because it is clearly stated that Hyde is smaller than Jekyll because such a small percent of Jekyll is evil.

Given it is Jekyll himself that makes that observation, it may not be all that "clear". Jekyll is a very unreliable narrator in the book, and "I only have a little bit of evil inside, it's small really" is probably one of his lesser delusions.

Re: What Everybody Gets Wrong About Jekyll and Hyde (2012)

#73

Post by bzbarsky »

lostboys67 wrote: post #31
dTal wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Astute observation, succinctly put. I would additionally add that it also works the other way; if a story's themes and metaphors are too clear before the story is over, it can damage suspension of disbelief and hurt enjoyment. This is one reason why the typical teaching methodology of a US high school English class typically has the effect of blunting the enjoyment of classic literature - students are not usually giv…

Why would you not read the book in it entirety first as home work or in the holiday before you are due to cover the book in class? I certainly read all of my assigned texts an din the case of classical studies several other books and plays in the cannon.

Because the teachers explicitly tell you not to.

And then they have assignments that assume that you have not read the book and that you will fail if you have, unless you carefully disguise this fact.

Re: What Everybody Gets Wrong About Jekyll and Hyde (2012)

#74

Post by KGIII »

emodendroket wrote: post #70
khedoros1 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There were some required reading books that I enjoyed and learned from, and some that I still don't see the point of. On the other hand, some things that I did in my own time in high school laid the foundations for my career and current interests. I can't see that as completely wasted time.

Well, I had more free time than I'll probably ever have again and I frittered away a lot of it on bad TV, lame forums, etc.

This may sound strange, but I'm sometimes grateful that, when I was a wee lad, Internet wasn't invented and computers took up whole rooms. I think I'd have wasted even more time than I did.

It means I read a lot of great books, for example. I used to read them and then write about them. I'd spend almost as much time writing and thinking as I did reading the books. I'd make notes, quotes, and tie things in with other literary works.

If I'd had computers and the Internet, I'd have spent that time watching porn and posting fart jokes.

Re: What Everybody Gets Wrong About Jekyll and Hyde (2012)

#75

Post by KGIII »

emodendroket wrote: post #68
moosey wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is an alternative to "I don't speed because I might get ticketed" and "I don't speed because it's the right thing to do", and it's "I don't speed because it benefits me when everyone drives carefully." It can be argued that altruism itself generates dividends for the whole of society, and thus acts of altruism can be seen as self-benefiting, adding a middle that isn't otherwise considered. A good example might…

> There is an alternative to "I don't speed because I might get ticketed" and "I don't speed because it's the right thing to do", and it's "I don't speed because it benefits me when everyone drives carefully." But, really, as a single driver, your behavior doesn't have that much influence on others.

You might be surprised about that.

To use a blunted instrument as a descriptor, you cause an accident and it results in complete stoppage of traffic.

However, much smaller things can actually impact the flow of traffic in a significant manner. Brake late and hard and you can watch the ripple effect for many cars behind you. It can actually cause a ripple that goes back for miles and has effects lasting for much longer than you might think - on the order of minutes to as long as a half hour in extreme situations.

All that from just braking late and hard under the right circumstances...

If you want to improve the flow of traffic, as a single individual, leave space between you and the car in front of you, allow people to merge, and strive to maintain a constant speed. You may actually reach your destination faster, though it isn't intuitive.

Edited to add: I modeled traffic. That is what my business did. I started with vehicular traffic and would later expand to model pedestrian traffic. Traffic is a fascinating subject that is chaotic in nature.

Re: What Everybody Gets Wrong About Jekyll and Hyde (2012)

#76

Post by KGIII »

moosey wrote: post #49
johnsonjo wrote: post #46

"Are we good because we want to be good, or are we good because we just don’t want to be punished?" It's interesting he brings up this point. I once took a leadership class at my University, and in the class my teacher once said, "do you follow the speed limit because if you don't you'll get a ticket or because it is the right thing to do?" He then followed it by saying, "If you follow it because it's the right thing…

There is an alternative to "I don't speed because I might get ticketed" and "I don't speed because it's the right thing to do", and it's "I don't speed because it benefits me when everyone drives carefully." It can be argued that altruism itself generates dividends for the whole of society, and thus acts of altruism can be seen as self-benefiting, adding a middle that isn't otherwise considered. A good example might…

You may be interested in George Price. There are a few documentaries that cover his life and work. He was very interested in altruism and his efforts to figure that out are believed to be why he killed himself. Basically, it drove him insane to think about altruism and if it was actually possible to be altruistic.

Here is a starting point:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_R._Price

Re: What Everybody Gets Wrong About Jekyll and Hyde (2012)

#77

Post by emodendroket »

KGIII wrote: post #74
emodendroket wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I had more free time than I'll probably ever have again and I frittered away a lot of it on bad TV, lame forums, etc.

This may sound strange, but I'm sometimes grateful that, when I was a wee lad, Internet wasn't invented and computers took up whole rooms. I think I'd have wasted even more time than I did. It means I read a lot of great books, for example. I used to read them and then write about them. I'd spend almost as much time writing and thinking as I did reading the books. I'd make notes, quotes, and tie things in with other…

It doesn't sound strange. Even as an adult I feel like it's a mixed bag sometimes.

Re: What Everybody Gets Wrong About Jekyll and Hyde (2012)

#78

Post by KGIII »

emodendroket wrote: post #77
KGIII wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This may sound strange, but I'm sometimes grateful that, when I was a wee lad, Internet wasn't invented and computers took up whole rooms. I think I'd have wasted even more time than I did. It means I read a lot of great books, for example. I used to read them and then write about them. I'd spend almost as much time writing and thinking as I did reading the books. I'd make notes, quotes, and tie things in with other…

It doesn't sound strange. Even as an adult I feel like it's a mixed bag sometimes.

Some of the comments from people whom I infer are significantly younger than I, seem aghast at the idea of having enjoyed the non-connected life as a youth. They are similarly quizzical when they learn that I seldom carry a cell phone and still maintain a landline.

That was the reasoning for my pointing out that it may sound strange.

Even as a well-grown adult, I still go outside and play, sans any compute devices at all. I often hike, snowmobile, ski, snowshoe, ride an ATV, etc and don't even bother with a GPS unit or bring a cell phone. Mentioning this sometimes nets some responses expressing everything from curiosity to suggesting that I'm recklessly endangering myself and others.

Yes, yes I have had (online) people tell me that my doing so is actively endangering others who may need to come rescue me. I'm never quite sure how to respond politely to those types of comments. I guess it is difficult for some people to understand that life existed before the ubiquity of communication devices and always-on networks. They sometimes express more dismay when I point out that, in some locations, not even cellular service is available.

Ah well... But, yeah, it sounds strange to some folks - given the responses I've had to similar commentary.

Re: What Everybody Gets Wrong About Jekyll and Hyde (2012)

#79

Post by Jach »

johnsonjo wrote: post #54
moosey wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is an alternative to "I don't speed because I might get ticketed" and "I don't speed because it's the right thing to do", and it's "I don't speed because it benefits me when everyone drives carefully." It can be argued that altruism itself generates dividends for the whole of society, and thus acts of altruism can be seen as self-benefiting, adding a middle that isn't otherwise considered. A good example might…

Good argument. To me the reason for not speeding due to it being a net benefit to society is just a specific case of speeding due to it being the right thing to do. One point I got from your argument (though not directly stated) is that it's often important to clarify why the thing you are saying is the right thing to do is in fact right. I feel your understanding of altruism seems to coincide with a utilitarianism s…

If you taboo the words "virtue" and "virtuous", what are you left with? Seems like it can be reduced to utilitarianism. If utilitarianism is "what is right is that which maximizes utility according to this utility function", this idea of virtue maximizing can be restated as "what is right is that which maximizes utility according to this utility function, which states its highest utility is that which makes me act more virtuously, with these comparison heuristics to determine 'more' or 'less' virtuous". My own criticism of utilitarianism is that utility functions aren't always objective, and for different people or different contexts can output different values. If you can agree on a function it can be a useful tool in moral reasoning (and especially uncovering inconsistencies if you've agreed to a few functions then find a contradiction with intuition and what the calculations say) but typically we want to know how we should agree on a function in the first place.

Re: What Everybody Gets Wrong About Jekyll and Hyde (2012)

#80

Post by taneq »

abritinthebay wrote: post #39
taneq wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the doxxing I've read about recently has been sjw-led reddit witch hunts. >.>

I would say you’re really not paying attention then. That or selection bias.

Could well be selection bias. I've been gradually removing more and more of the fascist left from my monkeysphere (and it's been great for my overall wellbeing - if someone tells me that a person doesn't deserve a voice because of their gender or skin colour then they're not my friend), so that would be skewing my news sources compared with someone who hasn't been culling in that way.
Post reply on HN