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

How We Got to Be So Self-Absorbed: The Long Story

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 63 posts

Re: How We Got to Be So Self-Absorbed: The Long Story

#41

Post by dalbasal »

Lately I'm becoming convinced that we give ideas far too much credit. Greek individualism, introspective theology, Ayn Rand or the human potential movement... these are ideas.

I think we're overthinking. We are fantasticaly intellectual creatures, and I personally enjoy ideas like these a lot. But, I think most of our psyche is just much simpler, more primitive.

What is the social setting we are living in, is it adequate? Do we have enough friends, shared mission, sense of collective belonging. Are we secure in our social lives? What is the condition of your life as a homo sapien?

Think of it this way. If we were alien zookeepers designing the sapien enclosure for maximum ethical zookeeping, what are the ideal conditions in the enclosure? What conditions would make the exhibits stressed or depressed.

Ideas matter, but indirectly. Does your introspective theology come with a community, how does that community interact?

Re: How We Got to Be So Self-Absorbed: The Long Story

#42

Post by pokemongoaway »

dalbasal wrote: post #41

Lately I'm becoming convinced that we give ideas far too much credit. Greek individualism, introspective theology, Ayn Rand or the human potential movement... these are ideas. I think we're overthinking. We are fantasticaly intellectual creatures, and I personally enjoy ideas like these a lot. But, I think most of our psyche is just much simpler, more primitive. What is the social setting we are living in, is it adeq…

Yes people are putting all of their eggs in one basket when practicing intellectualization for such long stretches of time.

Re: How We Got to Be So Self-Absorbed: The Long Story

#44

Post by matthewmacleod »

AmericanChopper wrote: post #39
asdfman123 wrote: post #5

"There was always a dark side to the Human Potential Movement. If a positive attitude and a sense of self-worth are what matters for success, then failure is always your own fault." I always thought my alma mater, Stanford, was backwards about students suffering from depression for exactly that reason. Promoting positivity is great, unless it means ostracizing and shaming people who are already suffering. It was hard…

What’s wrong with failure being your own fault? The only thing I ever take away from failure is a lesson on how to fail less next time. Finding other things or people to blame failure on is just a barrier to personal growth.

If failure is your own fault, then logically success must be your own making.

But that of course misses out on a huge chunk of understanding. I have been pretty successful compared with many people I grew up with - sure, I worked hard for that, but I also had the benefit of good parents, enough money, no discrimination, free education, and so on. It’s easy to forget that a kid from a less supportive background has to work harder to get to the same place. It’s not their fault that they had to work through college, or drop out to care for a family member.

Personal effort obviously contributes to success and failure. But it’s totally obvious that it’s not the only factor.

Re: How We Got to Be So Self-Absorbed: The Long Story

#45

Post by dasil003 »

grigjd3 wrote: post #40
paidleaf wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It was hard to be there because the highest ideals were positivity and productivity It's interesting how language/vocabulary changed as well. "I'm upset because I wasn't productive today". When did people get told that their lot in life was to be productive. And who told them to think or talk like that? How did people start to view themselves as machines whose worth is measured by production? Also, where did the "m…

We've been moralizing work in the US at least my whole life.

Yeah, this is something I often associate with the SV bubble, but when I think back on it it's been ingrained in my upbringing from the beginning.

Re: How We Got to Be So Self-Absorbed: The Long Story

#46

Post by throwaway37585 »

coldtea wrote: post #35
throwaway37585 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apologies for the long reply in advance. Due to a shortage of time (don't we all wish for more of it?), I'll summarize and address the first article you linked to. Paragraph 1: Alt-right figure A identifies as libertarian. Alt-right figure B identifies as a former libertarian. Paragraph 2: Alt-right figures C and D identify as libertarian. Alt-right figure E kicked out of libertarian conference. This last example see…

All those ("identifies as X but isn't really") responses bring to mind the "no true Scotchman". > "Libertarian fascism" is a literal contradiction. So is war in the name of the "religion of Peace and Love", or being cruel in the name of Christ, or being pro "equality" (like communists) and creating a party elite. One important aspect of any ideology is not just what it pays lip service to, but how people actually use…

> All those ("identifies as X but isn't really") responses bring to mind the "no true Scotchman".

If someone calls themselves a pacifist but advocates violence, is that a "no true Scotsman"?

> but how people actually use it

Yet there is no evidence for the ridiculous claim that libertarianism is a "gateway drug" to fascism.

> and what it enables its followers to do

What exactly does libertarianism enable its followers to do, that leads to fascism?

Re: How We Got to Be So Self-Absorbed: The Long Story

#47

Post by throwaway37585 »

coldtea wrote: post #34
throwaway37585 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> libertarian fascism What does this mean?

Means Atlas not only shrugging, but wanting to lead and coerce the "sheeple" towards what "he knows" is best...

This seems vague. Elaborate?

Re: How We Got to Be So Self-Absorbed: The Long Story

#48

Post by icantdrive55 »

maroonblazer wrote: post #18

I did a couple Lifespring courses back in the early 90's at the behest of my dad - which was surprising given he is a staunch Roman Catholic - who found them enlightening. I too found them to be eye-opening. The experiential learning approach was profoundly effective. E.g. one exercise conducted on the very first day - so that no one really new who anyone else was - involved 5 minutes of wandering around the room in…

Never forget a EST seminar I was dragged to in the ninties.

I really tried to keep an open mind, but it was just a money grab in the end.

1. The very attractive main speaker had a PHD, and let everyone know--at nausium. (After the event, I went up to talk to her, and she claimed it was from Stanford. I called Stanford the next week and she never went there. She was a highly skilled speaker though--weird, but brilliant on EST's part.)

2. A guy in the crowd stood up, and said, "I'm spending this months rent on the down payment for the course." (I think he was telling the truth--sadly.)

3. The women in the back of the room who signed people up after the "religious" seminar, were all paid models. (I just asked one of them. I had a hard time believing such stunning women were just fellow EST members. The one girl I talked with was sent to the event by her agency.

4. The sad part is there are people are still so gullible to just, "Wish it--want it--do it!" By Brian Griffith

Re: How We Got to Be So Self-Absorbed: The Long Story

#49

Post by Sangermaine »

paidleaf wrote: post #36
asdfman123 wrote: post #5

"There was always a dark side to the Human Potential Movement. If a positive attitude and a sense of self-worth are what matters for success, then failure is always your own fault." I always thought my alma mater, Stanford, was backwards about students suffering from depression for exactly that reason. Promoting positivity is great, unless it means ostracizing and shaming people who are already suffering. It was hard…

> It was hard to be there because the highest ideals were positivity and productivity It's interesting how language/vocabulary changed as well. "I'm upset because I wasn't productive today". When did people get told that their lot in life was to be productive. And who told them to think or talk like that? How did people start to view themselves as machines whose worth is measured by production? Also, where did the "m…

>When did people get told that their lot in life was to be productive.

Hacker News is the worst about this. It's very creepy, the constant talk of "productivity". I recall a comment in one of the threads about Anthony Bourdain's suicide bemoaning the loss of productivity due to his death.

Re: How We Got to Be So Self-Absorbed: The Long Story

#50

Post by lowracle »

bvinc wrote: post #23

This is just not the direction I would have gone to explain why we're all so self absorbed. I wouldn't think the focus on kids having self esteem would affect very much at all. The way I look at it, we're social creatures, meant to live in tribes in close contact with our people. But capitalism and technology keep us isolated and in competition with each other. We live in houses with yards and fences and don't talk t…

I can say from my personal experience that the moments that felt the most lonely in my life were the days I spent going to the university library working on projects / thesis, seeing hundreds of people around me, but not being able to interact with them. Everyday my brain was punishing me for not engaging in possible social interactions.

I spent two months traveling alone and didn't felt lonely at all.

So yeah I think the negative effects of loneliness are just the consequences of a natural mechanism to force us to be social.

Post reply on HN