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

The unsettling truth about the ‘Mostly Harmless’ hiker

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 218 posts

Re: The unsettling truth about the ‘Mostly Harmless’ hiker

#31

Post by IfOnlyYouKnew »

rriepe wrote: post #11
blakesterz wrote: post #4

Somehow I read this and I'm not sure what the actual Unsettling Truth was, but it still was interesting, I learned a few new things, and I've been following this one pretty close. The more I read about this the more I'm reminded of Chris McCandless. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_McCandless

The unsettling truth is that society really, really despises people with schizoid personality disorder. (EDIT: People with SPD are averse to violence and prone to all kinds of abuse. The he-said/she-said stuff is particularly useless here.)

You’re not doing people with the disease any favors by equating it with spousal abuse.

Re: The unsettling truth about the ‘Mostly Harmless’ hiker

#32

Post by DeafSquid »

elliekelly wrote: post #20
LatteLazy wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But he told obscure jokes! But yeah, I think the title is clickbait, nothing here actually seems unsettling.

> On a Saturday night in September 2016, K was injured when a terrorist set off a bomb on West 23rd Street in Manhattan. “I had pretty bad PTSD to which he hated caring for me, even kept a dated log of every time I needed help, to the point where he left me outside in the dark—knowing that at that time I couldn't be outside alone or be in the dark without panicking,” she recalls, before adding, “and this is only the…

Sounds like she should have left him sooner

Re: The unsettling truth about the ‘Mostly Harmless’ hiker

#33

Post by TeaDrunk »

rriepe wrote: post #11
blakesterz wrote: post #4

Somehow I read this and I'm not sure what the actual Unsettling Truth was, but it still was interesting, I learned a few new things, and I've been following this one pretty close. The more I read about this the more I'm reminded of Chris McCandless. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_McCandless

The unsettling truth is that society really, really despises people with schizoid personality disorder. (EDIT: People with SPD are averse to violence and prone to all kinds of abuse. The he-said/she-said stuff is particularly useless here.)

IME Society rarely notices people with schizoid personality disorder- most people with schizoid don't even go to a doctor and never get formally diagnosed. This is especially true compared to schizoid's siblings in the personality disorder categories (Category A), paranoid and schizotypal.

(Minor edit: Also, committing spousal abuse is distinctly not a trait of schizoid personality disorder.)

Re: The unsettling truth about the ‘Mostly Harmless’ hiker

#36

Post by shrimp_emoji »

rriepe wrote: post #11
blakesterz wrote: post #4

Somehow I read this and I'm not sure what the actual Unsettling Truth was, but it still was interesting, I learned a few new things, and I've been following this one pretty close. The more I read about this the more I'm reminded of Chris McCandless. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_McCandless

The unsettling truth is that society really, really despises people with schizoid personality disorder. (EDIT: People with SPD are averse to violence and prone to all kinds of abuse. The he-said/she-said stuff is particularly useless here.)

SPD is fine when you're just a loner, but it's naturally less appealing for society when you're incapable of forming connections and reciprocating basic social contracts (some people even use the latter as the sole criterion of "personhood").

Re: The unsettling truth about the ‘Mostly Harmless’ hiker

#37

Post by tppiotrowski »

The article talks about his ability to be friendly to strangers but abusive to his long term acquaintances. I have observed this pattern and curious if anyone knows what drives this?

My personal theory is that you have some sort of obligations to long term acquaintances but you owe nothing to strangers on the trail. It's this feeling of obligation that leads you to resent people over time.

Re: The unsettling truth about the ‘Mostly Harmless’ hiker

#38

Post by at-fates-hands »

blakesterz wrote: post #4

Somehow I read this and I'm not sure what the actual Unsettling Truth was, but it still was interesting, I learned a few new things, and I've been following this one pretty close. The more I read about this the more I'm reminded of Chris McCandless. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_McCandless

I was pretty interested in the McCandless story as well. Krakauer uncovering the possibility of him eating the Eskimo potato plant which may have ultimately killed him was really eye opening.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/05/01/403535274/in...

Re: The unsettling truth about the ‘Mostly Harmless’ hiker

#39

Post by ajkjk »

mlang23 wrote: post #14
blakesterz wrote: post #4

Somehow I read this and I'm not sure what the actual Unsettling Truth was, but it still was interesting, I learned a few new things, and I've been following this one pretty close. The more I read about this the more I'm reminded of Chris McCandless. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_McCandless

What an absurd story. Wikipedia lists one travel, in fact the first and last one. How sad. And why the heck do you venture out into the bushes only to live in a abandoned bus? I mean, yeah, how convenient. I can see that. But it is also weird.

What's absurd about it?

Re: The unsettling truth about the ‘Mostly Harmless’ hiker

#40

Post by throwaway56745 »

IfOnlyYouKnew wrote: post #26
blakesterz wrote: post #4

Somehow I read this and I'm not sure what the actual Unsettling Truth was, but it still was interesting, I learned a few new things, and I've been following this one pretty close. The more I read about this the more I'm reminded of Chris McCandless. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_McCandless

The unsettling truth is that he was deeply troubled, and, at times, an abusive asshole who didn’t necessarily warrant quite as much compassion from strangers as he was given. I’m open to the idea that it may not really matter, and everyone deserves the dignity to not be buried anonymously. But there were a lot of resources invested in this case because he looked very relatable in photos. He was very different from wh…

It's a slippery slope (and mildly sociopathic) to start judging people's worthiness of being murdered (or sought justice for) based on whether they were a good or bad person.

Allocating resources based on how charming someone's photo is is also wrong, and worthy of discussion, though presumably people at least aren't doing that consciously.

Edit: I'm fairly disturbed that this appears to be controversial.

Post reply on HN