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

Depressed People See the World More Realistically (2017)

vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 304 posts

Re: Depressed People See the World More Realistically (2017)

#261

Post by ModelTheorist12 »

zentiggr wrote: post #186
ModelTheorist12 wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given a finite data set, an infinite number of functions/curves can explain it. This is curve-fitting 101 stuff. All explanatory models are either an over-fit or an under-fit to the data. With the fine print being "acceptable error rate". "The Earth is flat" may be wrong, but it could be acceptably wrong to me. This is tackled by model-dependent realism ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism ) and by…

Your false dichotomy is that sure, your flat-earth approximation is fine, but only on basically personal scales (up to a few miles or so). You can't charactierize your loacl approximation as a general theory because it will fail as soon as you scale up to horizon effects, and breaks completely when reaching planetary scale. If you want to keep your flat theory in its applicable scale, fine. Just don't expect to proje…

You seem to be agreeing with me in a disagreeable tone. Instrumentalism [1] is precisely what I am rooting for.

That's exactly what I said in my OP: "All scientific models are scale variant e.g contextual."

>You can't charactierize your loacl approximation as a general theory

The exact same criticism can be laid upon your local approximation.

You have chosen precisely the scale at which your 'general model' works. And you have ignored all other scales at which your 'general model' doesn't work.

You are chery-picking your scale - the domain of applicability of your model.

>Just like the Newtonian model works well until you reach the scales where relativistic effects demand the shift to relativity.

And what if you go the other way? At quantum scale neither Newton nor Einstein works.

>Just don't expect to project it outside of its useful scale

That's exactly what I said also: "Scientific models are pragmatic at best. Useful for a particular purpose within some domain of applicability."

So I don't see how you could possibly be appealing to any notion of a 'general theory' without also coming up with a 'general and objective utility function'. What may be a useful to a Quantum Physicist needs not be useful to a Cosmologist.

The only hope for a 'general theory' is the Theory of Everything. We don't have one of those. Well, physicists don't - theists do.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumentalism

Re: Depressed People See the World More Realistically (2017)

#263

Post by dredmorbius »

jrs235 wrote: post #214
buckminster wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On Amazon UK the book has three ratings, a four star, a three star and a one star. Which are labelled 28%, 45% and 27% respectively. Wtf?

Interesting and WTF for sure. Must have rubbed some people the wrong way... Reading it can be frightening for overachievers and people whose world view and beliefs (the upper class who need servants) requires we have people working for them otherwise their materialist and GDP/economy driven world views might cease to exist...

It's more that the percentages, whilst adding up, don't match.

Re: Depressed People See the World More Realistically (2017)

#264

Post by dredmorbius »

rocelot wrote: post #119
rtkaratekid wrote: post #102

I'm not so depressed these days (thankfully) but this "realism" does tend to manifest is different ways. I'm very self-conscious about not dragging people down because some thoughts that I think daily that are normal for me, seem to be absolutely psychologically crippling for people who previously hadn't, or didn't want to think such things. Usually when I do express these thoughts they're in the form of semi-dark hu…

The other day someone was remarking how quickly one's luck can change (for the better). I don't disagree but for whatever reason my response was, "yah, life is full of ups and downs, the trick is to die on one of the upticks". I thought it was hilarious. They thought I was morbid and cynical. Go figure!

The difference between tragedy and comedy is where you put the ending.

Re: Depressed People See the World More Realistically (2017)

#266

Post by kharak »

cr0sh wrote: post #249
kharak wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had this sentiment quit often in the beginning of my career. Now, I simply realize that my lack of understanding crosses every single piece of technology there is. Fridge? No idea. Cars? Well, I can drive it almost as well as I can open a fridge, everything else is magic. How about bicycle? That's easy, right? Well, I challenge you to just now sit down and write a detailed schematic, describing everything that is n…

I'll take up the challenge: Fridge - well, the standard compressor powered refrigeration system is essentially a heat moving system. What we are doing is moving heat from the inside of the system (which is insulated and mostly "isolated" from the outside of the system) to the outside of the system. This is why you can't cool your house by opening your refrigerator's door, because the heat from the inside of the fridg…

Just finished the Youtube talk on degrading technology / knowledge. Really liked that perspective, although I disagree with quit a bit of Jonathan Blows points.

About the challenge: I had the feeling, that you and a good chunk of readers here could go explain good deal of it all. But my point goes further: We all hit the wall of understanding sooner or later and all what is truly required is to know how use the technology. And that's exactly the same in information technology. I use databases daily. Do I know how they work? A bit, just enough for work and that is all what is needed. That's why I like to disagree with Jonathan Blow. Some people abstracted a great deal of complexity away, because it's simply irrelevant. As a result, we've seen an explosion in tech, just not in the nieces where he's looking. The modern ecosystem in tech is the normal way of economics, where everyone specializes him or herself further and further, understanding the specific domain better at the cost of everything else. Today, the average Joe can code as a result of all this simplifications. But Jonathan Blow compares the elites of coding, people who build engines, with Joe. That's misunderstanding what has happened, the level of analysis is wrong. Also, people like John Carmack are not gone, they simply work on new problems.

And as you mentioned yourself, there is so much technology surrounding you that you have no idea of how it works, like chemistry. Still, you use it to your benefit because other people who know this stuff simplified its use. And not just for you and me, also for other chemist, like coder for other coders.

Now a bit of a rand, skip it if you like: The school system, including university, killed so much of my curiosity, it's insane. I had to learn so much bullshit that I'm almost glad for one of my least great attributes, my bad memory. Because there was really no point remembering most of it. It's just too bad that I can't control my own garbage collector. Last year, I learned a great deal about machine learning (again, as I did it in college, too) and now can remember almost nothing. Despite really enjoying the course and throwing myself into it. What I don't use, I forget and of course I use only a tiny bit of skills and knowledge at work. I'm not happy with the way it is, but it simply is. I also learned so much about databases and liked that subject, but the only thing I really retain is what I use in my work.

That brings me to my final thought tidbit: My brain obsesses with ideas that you would put more in the category of philosophy. It's what you think about when you have nothing to do or start daydreaming that's probably where your brain is best at. I never asked people in tech what they think about in those moments. I'm really, really curious about the answer.

Re: Depressed People See the World More Realistically (2017)

#267

Post by enobrev »

monktastic1 wrote: post #144
esotericn wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've found a lot of correlation between this sort of sense of humour and the type of place I enjoy working at. Me and straight laced folk just don't get on. It doesn't work. There's an impedance mismatch whereby there are all of these invisible lines that I cross without even realising. Like yeah, dude, your job is bullshit. So is mine. Life is, and then you die. If you're not fucking around and having (harmless) fun…

To paraphrase Alan Watts, don't trust anyone who isn't in on the Great Cosmic Joke :)

This isn't a direct response to you, but moreso to this thread. There are some who are in on the joke and have even found quite a bit of humor in it, but no longer find that humor useful. It's like an old joke which was hilarious and insightful at one point but has been told too many times to remain interesting.

I for one tend to envy those who either don't know or don't care. Being cynical seemed cool and somehow "smarter" for some time, and then eventually it can, for some, seem just as naive.

I'd rather look at life earnestly. Yes, it's all fucked and we've no control over it. Society is a fiction, etc. But I'd rather love my wife, do work I enjoy, and not point out the absurdity all day every day to myself and others, because it's just an old stupid joke to which we _all_ happen to be the punchline.

Re: Depressed People See the World More Realistically (2017)

#268

Post by skeptical900067 »

kdmccormick wrote: post #68

> The people most likely to experience depressive realism? Introverts, males, and people with high IQs I cringe every time I see Vice on the front page. To be "depressively realistic", I think they care less about scientific accuracy, and more about making their introverted, male, mildly-depressed audience feel smart.

I had hoped to see a comment like this about Vice higher up. I find that their content is usually insubstantial, and when it is otherwise, facts are presented or omitted staggeringly skewed fashion for maximum emotional engagement. In short, if you want to feel strongly about misinformation and partial-truths, Vice is the outlet for you.

Re: Depressed People See the World More Realistically (2017)

#269

Post by taurath »

potta_coffee wrote: post #227
zzzeek wrote: post #225

> researchers presented both depressed and non-depressed participants with a button and a green light. They then asked the participants to figure out to what degree their responses (pushing the button) controlled that light. Depressed participants were much better at judging the degree of their control, while participants who weren't depressed tended to assume that they had more control over the light than they actua…

Or maybe the person is just an introvert or has sensory issues - then a fun party becomes a torture chamber. As me how I know.

Neutrally overstimmed and negatively stimmed are different though! If you’re just neutrally overstimmed you can find a quiet corner, another room with less noise and fewer people, or hang out on the porch. Negatively stimmed you won’t be able to be in or around the place at all. Depression or anxiety is a “general” upset, whereas overstimmed is a “local” upset.

Re: Depressed People See the World More Realistically (2017)

#270

Post by esotericn »

enobrev wrote: post #267
monktastic1 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To paraphrase Alan Watts, don't trust anyone who isn't in on the Great Cosmic Joke :)

This isn't a direct response to you, but moreso to this thread. There are some who are in on the joke and have even found quite a bit of humor in it, but no longer find that humor useful. It's like an old joke which was hilarious and insightful at one point but has been told too many times to remain interesting. I for one tend to envy those who either don't know or don't care. Being cynical seemed cool and somehow "s…

It doesn't need to be pointed out, sure, but it's useful every day to keep in mind, I think, because it allows you to think about what really matters (as you say, your wife, for example).

It's that kind of 'realistic' mindset that lets you look through a situation in which you're playing a role, and someone else is playing a role, and just be people.

Post reply on HN