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

The Collapse of Self-Worth in the Digital Age

thewalrus.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 200 posts

Re: The Collapse of Self-Worth in the Digital Age

#161

Post by nuancebydefault »

MisterBastahrd wrote: post #119
squidgedcricket wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm envious of that intrinsic sense of self worth, but I don't follow how that's a consequence of being Christian. I carry guilt and shame from sins that can't be rectified, knowing that Jesus loves me doesn't help me love myself.

It's pretty funny when you consider that a huge part of Christian evangelism is the attempt to convince normal people that they aren't worth dirt and are condemned to eternal torture unless they believe in somebody that the religious can't prove exists for a feat that they can't prove ever happened.

Religion has to sell itself or else it will eventually cease to exist. Christianity still exists.

That said, my personal feeling is that Christians (at least where I live) these days mostly focus on what to do right themselves (to be a self worthy God loved person) rather than saying what others are not doing right.

Re: The Collapse of Self-Worth in the Digital Age

#162

Post by s1artibartfast »

wpietri wrote: post #147
s1artibartfast wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They also said "Sometimes it's nice just to formulate thoughts in writing". "Just" implies sufficient reward. Visibility is a part of the reward function, but it is not dependent on it.

You're using a meaning of "depends on" which I'm unfamiliar with. Where are you getting it from?

Fair question. I think 'depends' has different connotations if you are talking about a binary outcome or function.

If I were to say something like "life depends on water", the connotation is that water is a necessary condition. You wouldn't use depends if the dependency is situational e.g. "life depends on shoes". Shoes might be the difference between life and death in some situations, but irrelevant in others.

That is to say, if a factor is a poor predictor of the outcome, but perhaps correlated, depends seems misleading.

Re: The Collapse of Self-Worth in the Digital Age

#163

Post by leonhard »

mettamage wrote: post #141
ndarray wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I was willing to stake my whole life on it and use everything in my power to change it You made dating easy by fully revolving your life around it for some period? That sounds very interesting - mind sharing the bullet points with everyone?

Sure, very opinionated but here we go: dating, it’s about matching personality. Do the hexaco.org test, figure out how to identify the extreme dimensions on your profile that you identify with (openness in my case). Learn to find those women. Now be prepared to talk to 10000 women by cold approaching or through online dating. It usually takes more like 200 for a GF but you will be doing socially uncomfortable things,…

Thank you, very interesting. Can you talk more about cold approaching respectfully? How did you overcome that feeling of being a creep in the beginning when you’re not calibrated yet on what works for you?

Re: The Collapse of Self-Worth in the Digital Age

#164

Post by GeoAtreides »

rnd0 wrote: post #74
didgetmaster wrote: post #44

Every user on HN has a score (up votes vs down votes) based on reactions to comments and submissions. How many of us will not be our authentic selves in a comment because of fear of how others might react? I know that I have done this.

Not really the ideal way to approach HN, although understandable. If you're considering HN from a forum perspective, the best advice I've read is to think of 'points' as currency to spend on unpopular opinions. After a certain point, you can 'afford' to say whatever's on your mind (within reason). Reddit is the same. You rack up 'karma' so that you can afford to take some downvotes for speaking your mind. Now, the ot…

> the best advice I've read is to think of 'points' as currency to spend on unpopular opinions. After a certain point, you can 'afford' to say whatever's on your mind (within reason).

That's not really correct; downvotes on HN hide your comment and it eventually becomes dead (it can also become dead if super-users flag it); then it will only be visible for users who are logged in and have explicitly opt-in in seeing dead comments.

So no, you can't use your karma to go against the hive mind on HN, your comment will just be flagged and hidden completely.

Re: The Collapse of Self-Worth in the Digital Age

#165

Post by wpietri »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #162
wpietri wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're using a meaning of "depends on" which I'm unfamiliar with. Where are you getting it from?

Fair question. I think 'depends' has different connotations if you are talking about a binary outcome or function. If I were to say something like "life depends on water", the connotation is that water is a necessary condition. You wouldn't use depends if the dependency is situational e.g. "life depends on shoes". Shoes might be the difference between life and death in some situations, but irrelevant in others. That…

Got it. I am talking about a function, and particularly the expected reward function for a behavior. If some factor has no influence on the score, the function does not depend on that factor. If it does, it does.

Even in your sense of the term, I think I was correct to say that HN "depends so heavily on the upvote". It's a fundamental constituent of how this place works.

But I'd also argue that even in the person I'm replying to later in the chain, it's a reasonable thing to say "describing a reward function that depends on the upvote" with your sense as well. If a person just wants to write, they can write in their journal or type in the reply box and then just close the tab. I do that sometimes here. If they actually click reply, then it's pretty clear their expected value for that involves somebody seeing the text. And the amount of that visibility is strongly determined by the upvote.

Re: The Collapse of Self-Worth in the Digital Age

#166

Post by threecheese »

detourdog wrote: post #150
orbisvicis wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that's why I qualified self-worth by field of competency. I really try to view the world objectively, ignoring the opinions of others, but after N fizzled relationships... is it me or is it you? But just because you are detached from societal values doesn't imply you should be detached from people. I can't enumerate the intangibles I get by surrounding myself with others. I perform better, I have better ideas, I…

The closest conclusion is that some people are flexible and looking forward and others are rigid and looking for reasons to be dissatisfied.

This was a very interesting discussion, and I just wanted to note that both of you are extremely articulate and I quite enjoyed reading your thoughts on this.

- random stranger

Re: The Collapse of Self-Worth in the Digital Age

#167

Post by threecheese »

crazygringo wrote: post #135
nostrademons wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A related observation I've gotten from interacting with normies including my wife: Most people assume there is such thing as a "self" and that it is okay, natural, and desirable to preference yourself when interacting with other people. Indeed, for most normies, there is only various people and their selves interacting. My autistic perspective is that there is only a system of the world, various roles that people hap…

This is a fascinating comment that really made me think. And I'd like to present you with a different perspective. You write that "My autistic perspective is that there is only a system of the world". But it's important to realize that the "system of the world" you've developed is from your perspective exclusively. You are modeling everybody in your system, and you may be doing your best to be 100% objective and not…

This reminds me of a quote from somewhere: All models are useful, none are correct. I (not OP) make a strong effort to be objective in my modeling of the world (even when it hurts), as it’s the only tool I have to understand and predict behavior and behavioral expectations. I wish we had access to predefined objective mental models, or could share them with each other (copy program structure and state across minds).

Re: The Collapse of Self-Worth in the Digital Age

#168

Post by threecheese »

lordleft wrote: post #108
skissane wrote: post #4

The other day I was talking to a psychologist about [difficult personal situation which I am unable to discuss publicly] and she said to me “This must be really damaging to your self-worth.” And, my honest internal reaction to her statement (although I didn’t say it out loud to her) was “Self-worth, what is that?” Because I’m not sure if I have any? I don’t mean that in the negative sense that I think I am worthless…

I am a Christian. Something I have found within my faith tradition (and something I find is lacking in the culture around me) is a sense that I am in possession of an infinitely durable source of dignity and worthiness that is not tethered to who I am or what I have done. I have found this conceit enormously consoling.

Fascinating. Would you elaborate on the mechanics behind the dignity/worthiness?

Re: The Collapse of Self-Worth in the Digital Age

#169

Post by skissane »

bbor wrote: post #56
skissane wrote: post #4

The other day I was talking to a psychologist about [difficult personal situation which I am unable to discuss publicly] and she said to me “This must be really damaging to your self-worth.” And, my honest internal reaction to her statement (although I didn’t say it out loud to her) was “Self-worth, what is that?” Because I’m not sure if I have any? I don’t mean that in the negative sense that I think I am worthless…

Interesting! If I said you were bad at your job and an ugly, inattentive partner, would your primary reaction be one of hurt or just one of calculating self-preservation? I would personally feel very emotional if I heard those things from someone in real life, so it’s an honest question. What emotionally drives you, if not the assessments of your peers? Why excel at work, why find a partner, why do your best to be be…

Absolutely I can have negative emotional reactions to criticism-although it all depends on what the criticism is, who is making it, whether I agree with it. But I don’t mentally link those feelings to a concept called “self-worth”. To the extent I have a “self”, it is a bucket whose contents varies over time, and varying thoughts and feelings go in that bucket-sometimes those feelings can get quite dark, but even then I still don’t think of myself as having a “worth”

What motivates me? Certainly part of me likes it when people say I’ve done a good job. Again I don’t mentally link that feeling with a concept called “self-worth”. But often also I get motivated by the pleasure of the work in itself - when I really get hooked on a program, I find improving it is something I enjoy as an end-in-itself

Re: The Collapse of Self-Worth in the Digital Age

#170

Post by crazygringo »

orbisvicis wrote: post #55
skissane wrote: post #4

The other day I was talking to a psychologist about [difficult personal situation which I am unable to discuss publicly] and she said to me “This must be really damaging to your self-worth.” And, my honest internal reaction to her statement (although I didn’t say it out loud to her) was “Self-worth, what is that?” Because I’m not sure if I have any? I don’t mean that in the negative sense that I think I am worthless…

The flip side of detaching self-esteem from technical competency is that you can make very strong assertions without being arrogant. People of integrity with utilitarian leaning are often labeled amoral or unemotional. People with a strong drive not attached to financial gain are often termed unambitious. Your perceived worth really depends on values of society, so if you remove yourself from the equation, you only h…

> People of integrity with utilitarian leaning are often labeled amoral or unemotional.

That's because utilitarianism [1] is just one of the three major recognized moral systems -- virtue ethics [2] and deontology [3] being the other two.

In real life, we tend to balance the three. Anyone who adhered strictly to one while ignoring the other two would rightly be labeled a kind of amoral monster.

And utilitarianism is generally applied more at the governmental/societal level than at the individual level. At the society level, you want the greatest good for the greatest number. While at the individual level, you want to give a vastly greater good to your young children, and your spouse, rather than treating your children and strangers' children as equals, or your spouse and other adults.

Someone who, in their personal life, uses utilitarianism as their primary guide is going to rightly be called amoral and unemotional. They'd be a monster, truly.

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

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_ethics

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontology

Post reply on HN