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

The Logic of Envy

robkhenderson.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–56 of 56 posts

Re: The Logic of Envy

#51

Post by philosopher1234 »

staticman2 wrote: post #50
philosopher1234 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think him seeing narcissism everywhere implies that he’s projecting. Sure, maybe he is. Or maybe he’s making a genuine observation that has unpleasant ramifications. Maybe he has some hard won insight into humanity. Why can’t it be true? Also, making empirical observations and hypothesizing about their causes may not be standard, but that says nothing about their validity. Granted it’s not proof. I think your…

"Maybe he has some hard won insight into humanity." Why would we presume that? He obviously believes humans are not a reliable source of information as to what they are thinking, so like Freud he knows humans better than they know himself. That seems to open up the possibity that he's in cuckoo land, it's not like someone can correct a false notion of his by saying "No, actually I don't want my wife to be a sorority…

I agree that we don’t have the intellectual technology yet to prove or disprove these claims. But you can introspect, observe things about yourself and compare them with your theories.

The fact that these things are hard to prove doesn’t make them wrong.

> He obviously believes humans are not a reliable source of information as to what they are thinking, so like Freud he knows humans better than they know himself.

What do you mean by this? Obviously humans are wrong about themselves and others all the time. I don’t see why you can’t know things about someone else that they don’t themselves know. I think if you actually read the book you would see that often what he’s doing is listening to what people say even more than they themselves are.

> Why would we presume that?

We shouldn’t, and I didn’t, but it’s just as possible as your belief that he’s crazy. We should think about what he said instead, and see if it makes sense.

Re: The Logic of Envy

#52

Post by staticman2 »

philosopher1234 wrote: post #51
staticman2 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Maybe he has some hard won insight into humanity." Why would we presume that? He obviously believes humans are not a reliable source of information as to what they are thinking, so like Freud he knows humans better than they know himself. That seems to open up the possibity that he's in cuckoo land, it's not like someone can correct a false notion of his by saying "No, actually I don't want my wife to be a sorority…

I agree that we don’t have the intellectual technology yet to prove or disprove these claims. But you can introspect, observe things about yourself and compare them with your theories. The fact that these things are hard to prove doesn’t make them wrong. > He obviously believes humans are not a reliable source of information as to what they are thinking, so like Freud he knows humans better than they know himself. Wh…

"I think if you actually read the book you would see that often what he’s doing is listening to what people say even more than they themselves are."

In order to do this he'd have to have a microphone in every room in the world constantly recording.

He doesn't.

I think you really mean he listens to someone for a little while and then decides, like Sherlock Holmes, he's heard all he needs to hear and the case is solved so to speak.

At any rate evolutionary psychology, for all it's flaws, seems a much more compelling framework to try to understand humanity.

Re: The Logic of Envy

#53

Post by philosopher1234 »

staticman2 wrote: post #52
philosopher1234 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that we don’t have the intellectual technology yet to prove or disprove these claims. But you can introspect, observe things about yourself and compare them with your theories. The fact that these things are hard to prove doesn’t make them wrong. > He obviously believes humans are not a reliable source of information as to what they are thinking, so like Freud he knows humans better than they know himself. Wh…

"I think if you actually read the book you would see that often what he’s doing is listening to what people say even more than they themselves are." In order to do this he'd have to have a microphone in every room in the world constantly recording. He doesn't. I think you really mean he listens to someone for a little while and then decides, like Sherlock Holmes, he's heard all he needs to hear and the case is solved…

>In order to do this he'd have to have a microphone in every room in the world constantly recording.

Why would he need that? I mean exactly what I said, he observes things about things people have said or written that are usually overlooked, and exposes major problems with their dominant i reforestations. He also investigated these interpretations and hypothesizes about what biases might be leading to them.

>I think you really mean he listens to someone for a little while and then decides, like Sherlock Holmes, he's heard all he needs to hear and the case is solved so to speak.

No, I don’t mean this. I think you might find the book interesting, you seem to have some mistaken ideas about it.

>At any rate evolutionary psychology, for all it's flaws, seems a much more compelling framework to try to understand humanity.

Ok, this feels a bit like a non sequitur. Not sure the connection. However if you want to talk about evo psych, I will say that I think it really lacks in a mechanical explanation of psychology. And ironically suffers from the exact same problem you criticized this book for, that the claims are unprovable. What I mean is that it’s all very good to say “being a bastard was useful 10,000 years ago” but it tells us nothing about why some people develop these traits and others don’t.

It’s like saying “it’s advantageous for programs to be bug free”. Great, I still know nothing about why some programs have bugs and others don’t.

Re: The Logic of Envy

#54

Post by staticman2 »

philosopher1234 wrote: post #53
staticman2 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I think if you actually read the book you would see that often what he’s doing is listening to what people say even more than they themselves are." In order to do this he'd have to have a microphone in every room in the world constantly recording. He doesn't. I think you really mean he listens to someone for a little while and then decides, like Sherlock Holmes, he's heard all he needs to hear and the case is solved…

>In order to do this he'd have to have a microphone in every room in the world constantly recording. Why would he need that? I mean exactly what I said, he observes things about things people have said or written that are usually overlooked, and exposes major problems with their dominant i reforestations. He also investigated these interpretations and hypothesizes about what biases might be leading to them. >I think…

My point is how do you know he listens to people more than they do?

Maybe when I speak to him for 10 minutes I say "I feel nervous" and then when I go home I say "I feel brave" for 80 minutes?

I don't tell him about anything I said at home. He only has access to things I tell him, things he overhears, or things he catches me say on video, right?

So if most of the time I talk when he isn't present, how do you know he listens to me more than I do?

Incidently I'm curiously what you think of this sentence:

"“I had to write it in a car during stolen time in the middle of the woods or night, and eventually it took a global pandemeconium for me to Philip K. Dick the book during a manic week off just to get what you see here.”"

Philip K Dick was famously mentally ill later in life and wrote a scrawling religious treatise about how a beam of light sent from God revealed to him the truths of the world. Dick also did things like write letters to the head of the CIA and throw them in the trash because had paranoid delusions about the cia going though his trash.

Is Last Psychiatrist jokingly calling himself a crackpot?

Re: The Logic of Envy

#55

Post by philosopher1234 »

staticman2 wrote: post #54
philosopher1234 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>In order to do this he'd have to have a microphone in every room in the world constantly recording. Why would he need that? I mean exactly what I said, he observes things about things people have said or written that are usually overlooked, and exposes major problems with their dominant i reforestations. He also investigated these interpretations and hypothesizes about what biases might be leading to them. >I think…

My point is how do you know he listens to people more than they do? Maybe when I speak to him for 10 minutes I say "I feel nervous" and then when I go home I say "I feel brave" for 80 minutes? I don't tell him about anything I said at home. He only has access to things I tell him, things he overhears, or things he catches me say on video, right? So if most of the time I talk when he isn't present, how do you know he…

Oh, I don’t mean that in his personal life he’s listening to people more than they are themselves (I wouldn’t know). I mean that’s what the book is. He shares excerpts from literature or media or behavior you may have seen yourself and draws your attention to portions of it that you probably have ignored before.

So you don’t have to trust me about that, you can observe it in the book.

Re: The Logic of Envy

#56

Post by dredmorbius »

smitty1e wrote: post #36
dredmorbius wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Art of War is also an assemblage, much either gathered by or ascribed to Sun Tzu, and comprising in large part of commentaries on the ground text. If Art of War has coherence, it's likely much comes in the transmission and transformation, both prior to and following Sun Tzu. The inconvenience of both writing and reproduction also necessitates brevity, though that need not imply clarity. I'm not sure the distincti…

That's a fair criticism.

Thanks.

They're both hugely influential books. AoW is much shorter ;-)

Post reply on HN