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

How Bad Are Things? (2015)

slatestarcodex.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 144 posts

Re: How Bad Are Things? (2015)

#71

Post by DisruptiveDave »

gorio wrote: post #63
DisruptiveDave wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but really I've internalized the idea that everyone is living a life less than what they hoped their life would be to various extents and that there is also a near infinite combination of ways to achieve this effect such that no one can be dismissed for their misery in any respect without also dismissing the "legitimate" misery of a wide swath of people. There's a downside to this logic, one of the enabling sort. I…

I don't see how that is a pragmatic view. Rather the idea that you can fix something with personal responsibility, true introspection and growth to find true happiness is quite distinctly romantic.

It is pragmatic in execution. Taking active steps to understand and manage the way your mind works, deal with reality without bias or judgment, and relieve yourself of attachments and desires that cause suffering is about as pragmatic as you can get.

Re: How Bad Are Things? (2015)

#72

Post by reroute1 »

ryanbrunner wrote: post #68
TeMPOraL wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's there to "recognize" about the statement that "some people really have it better because they fall on the right side of a normal distribution"? To a good degree of approximation, the talk about one group having it better than other is a discussion about one group's mean and/or right tail being greater than the other's. The statement you want the author to recognize is equivalent to that in a probability distri…

When talking about groups, that makes sense. I think one of the points that the author is making is that it doesn't make sense to apply this to individuals within this group. "White males are privileged" is a reasonable statement to make with plenty of evidence to support it. "You have it better than me because you're a white male" doesn't, because there's a significant amount of overlap in the bell curves of "better…

'"White males are privileged" is a reasonable statement to make with plenty of evidence to support it.'

Is it though? I think you're going to need to be a lot more specific than that to make a reasonable statement. You can try to support your original statement, but that's so vague it could mean whatever you want.

Re: How Bad Are Things? (2015)

#73

Post by DisruptiveDave »

SolaceQuantum wrote: post #54
DisruptiveDave wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course, we agree there. Re: your final sentence, what I'm actually saying here is that this version of "kindness" may be actively harming some people in the long run. But because humans are generally bad at long-term thinking, we follow our instincts (i.e. "make this person feel immediately better any way possible in this immediate moment"). So, "kindness" isn't necessarily kind in these situations. Your desire to…

I should clarify because I feel there is some confusion- I do not desire to help someone. I do not desire to be kind, nor compassionate. I merely find it more useful to be willing to listen to others and come from a place to desire to understand first, evaluate second, act third. I've stated to my companions that I'm not a compassionate, empathetic, or kind person (to their vehement disagreement) because my willingne…

Good clarification. Listen -> evaluate -> act is a solid approach.

Re: How Bad Are Things? (2015)

#74

Post by mistermann »

hirundo wrote: post #36

If people wore an accurate net misery score on their foreheads, I wonder if it would reduce or increase identity based conflict? Would we look at the scores of people at the intersection of disadvantaged groups, see that they were suffering a lot more, and increase our support for them? Or would we see that putatively privileged classes suffer about as much as others, and conclude that people are people, and our symp…

An interesting variation of this idea: a crowdsourced website that performs an incredibly vigorous and intellectually honest evaluations of discrete situations, encompassing as many possible perspectives as possible.

Resulting in something like:

"From perspective , this group could be considered unfairly disadvantaged by ."

"From perspective this group could be considered unfairly disadvantaged by ."

"Unfairly", and all other terms, would require very strict definitions.

The crowd sourcing part would come in by people pointing out logical flaws or missing perspectives.

I wonder if this might improve people's ability to more "correctly" evaluate reality, as well as make the boundary between matters of fact and matters of opinion more obvious, rather than all opinions being little more than a mishmash of subconscious heuristics based on personal experiences and a partial understanding (likely unbalanced) of the relevant facts.

I would consider this an attempt at finally applying the same academic rigor (that has yielded such success) in the hard sciences to the far more complicated soft sciences. Does anyone know of any undertaking that does this in any way?

Re: How Bad Are Things? (2015)

#75

Post by DisruptiveDave »

SolaceQuantum wrote: post #43
DisruptiveDave wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but really I've internalized the idea that everyone is living a life less than what they hoped their life would be to various extents and that there is also a near infinite combination of ways to achieve this effect such that no one can be dismissed for their misery in any respect without also dismissing the "legitimate" misery of a wide swath of people. There's a downside to this logic, one of the enabling sort. I…

I only said it's important to be able to listen and acknowledge that people are troubled. That a person is troubled and therefore abusive to others is just an extension of that. I don't understand this downside you're explaining.

Well, unless I'm wildly misreading it, the quote I attached to my post calls out a very stark judgment on people's perceived sufferings. Specifically, the "no one can be dismissed for their misery..." line.

Re: How Bad Are Things? (2015)

#76

Post by icebraining »

asdf21 wrote: post #38
SolaceQuantum wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I understand, your interpretation of CBT is not correct. I understand that the first step of CBT is to analyze a patient as a whole to decide what behaviors need to be adjusted. This requires recognizing that trauma happened and its effect on the behavior of the person. Is this incorrect?

You identify goals and problematic beliefs and behaviors that impinge on the patient's ability to meet those goals. You can "recognize" that trauma occurred without analyzing it in depth.

> You can "recognize"

Sounds like you are attributing a definition to that word in other's comments and replying to that, but maybe when they say recognize, they mean exactly what you are suggesting here, and they read your use of dismiss as not even "recognizing".

Re: How Bad Are Things? (2015)

#77

Post by SolaceQuantum »

DisruptiveDave wrote: post #75
SolaceQuantum wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I only said it's important to be able to listen and acknowledge that people are troubled. That a person is troubled and therefore abusive to others is just an extension of that. I don't understand this downside you're explaining.

Well, unless I'm wildly misreading it, the quote I attached to my post calls out a very stark judgment on people's perceived sufferings. Specifically, the "no one can be dismissed for their misery..." line.

Yeah, I don't dismiss that someone is miserable. I can also say they are abusive, hurt their children or spouse, are cruel and sadistic, or a myriad of other things. None of them make them not worth acknowledging their misery if they are miserable. In fact, just the opposite- it gives me a full idea of their motivations so I can better understand how to act around them in order to further my own interests of not being a target of their abuse, or how to best report their behavior to the correct authorities.

Re: How Bad Are Things? (2015)

#78

Post by bilbo0s »

DisruptiveDave wrote: post #71
gorio wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how that is a pragmatic view. Rather the idea that you can fix something with personal responsibility, true introspection and growth to find true happiness is quite distinctly romantic.

It is pragmatic in execution. Taking active steps to understand and manage the way your mind works, deal with reality without bias or judgment, and relieve yourself of attachments and desires that cause suffering is about as pragmatic as you can get.

I gotta agree with HN User "gorio" on this one. Your initial explanation, and your clarification are a bit closer to romanticism, (or perhaps idealism?), than pragmatism.

Pragmatism is relating to matters of fact or practical affairs often to the exclusion of intellectual or artistic matters. (That's a dictionary definition.) But yeah, in war for example, you are very much not thinking about taking active steps to manage your mind, or managing the way your mind works, or anything of that nature. You just become very pragmatic. Your desires become almost the only thing you consider at the pragmatic extreme represented by combat for instance.

I think you're speaking more on a certain type of idealism maybe? The practice of following ideals, or living under their influence. But romanticism works too.

Re: How Bad Are Things? (2015)

#79

Post by alecmg »

throwayEngineer wrote: post #12

What should humanity do? The big hitters are Drug addiction and Chronic Pain. I don't have a solution for drug addiction, but I can't blame our generation for not finding a solution. No generation has, and given caffeine addiction, it's extremely hard for others to help with. Chronic Pain needs to end. Between Doctors of Physical Therapy and medications, there are little reason for people to be experiencing chronic p…

> given caffeine addiction

Caffeine is not addictive. Physiological effect of constant coffee drinking go away without side effects after two weeks. It has no (known) negative effects on health or sociological function as actual drugs have.

I can't figure out why you mentioned caffeine at all

Re: How Bad Are Things? (2015)

#80

Post by psweber »

tmaly wrote: post #53

I always try to remind myself that everyone is fighting their own battles. If someone cuts me off while I am driving, I come up with alternate explanations. Maybe that person really has to use the bathroom etc. Rather than think a person is just being evil. Something I have noticed before, the physical demeanor of people you see walking around you has a psychological effect on yourself. Many years ago this came up in…

I started using that approach in late adolescence as I was discovering that everyone has an internal world that I can't understand. I tried to give people the benefit of the doubt and operate under the assumption that there is an underlying reason for hostile behavior.

Over the years, I got seriously burned personally and professionally by malicious people that I made excuses for in my head. It hardened my heart and caused me to be less understanding and forgiving of people.

Now I've come full circle. I'm back to your approach, but I play more defensively. People likely have a reason for being malicious that is out of their control. I don't need to judge them, but I do need to protect myself and my loved ones.

Post reply on HN