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

The brain was not designed for this much bad news

sciencedaily.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 376 posts

Re: The brain was not designed for this much bad news

#241

Post by qsera »

XorNot wrote: post #191
qsera wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a conclusion that is arrived over course over long time and many experiences/thought. It is not a news or blog article I read once and made me conclude it.

Have you considered that maybe most of the posters on this website weren't born yesterday and have also spent a lifetime absorbing facts from many sources and experiences? In fact most people have, in some way.

But what is your point? Can't one come to a world view that is vastly different from his contemporaries?

Re: The brain was not designed for this much bad news

#242

Post by NeutralCrane »

xorcist wrote: post #196
qsera wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>We should be aware of current events I have come to the conclusion that there is no way a layman understand the truth about current events. So it is best to not at all be aware of any current events as reported by the media or popular opinion. For example you say "fascism in America", and I wonder is this guy for real? Fascism? If this was true how are all the people who insult Trump on social media still alive or n…

Fascism is a way overused term. Personally I tend to avoid it unless we're seeing paramilitary forces shooting civilians in the face. Other people may have lower thresholds.

What about shooting them in the chest while they drive their car? Or shooting them in the back after they’ve been detained?

Re: The brain was not designed for this much bad news

#243

Post by seba_dos1 »

retired wrote: post #172
alextingle wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say that the vast majority of people who live in a city both work, and socialise almost exclusively there.

Unfortunately not. Average distance to work is 19,9 kilometers. That is well outside the city they live in. Most people can’t afford to live in the city they work in. In Amsterdam my entire team lived outside the city.

Unless they lived in another big city, this is completely off-topic. Suburbs tend to have hit-or-miss public transit access, and the vast majority of people who live in a big city work in that big city (20 kilometers away would usually be just another district within the same city).

Re: The brain was not designed for this much bad news

#244

Post by qsera »

inigyou wrote: post #204
qsera wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What conclusion? I am talking about not having any conclusions at all.

You concluded that America is not fascist.

I did not. I meant that even in the news, there is nothing to substantiate such a point of view.

Re: The brain was not designed for this much bad news

#245

Post by joebates »

standeven wrote: post #6
zeroonetwothree wrote: post #4

I only read local news. It’s pretty nice I don’t feel stressed at all. Turns out random shit far away has no significant effect on my life. And even if it did it’s not like I can do anything about it

The closing of Hormuz caused fuel prices to go up around the globe. Voting differently in the US could have prevented it. So yeah, random shit far away can have significant effects, and sometimes you can do things about it. That said, focusing on local news does sounds like a great approach, but international news still needs some attention.

I really don't think anyone voting against Trump was doing so with the Straight of Hormuz on mind.

Re: The brain was not designed for this much bad news

#247

Post by inigyou »

kelipso wrote: post #236
inigyou wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both Harris and Trump were identical in that respect, so it shouldn't have swayed your decision.

Harris was a known to be bad with respect to the war issue, became very obviously bad when she started campaigning with Liz Cheney. Trump was less known bad, so that difference should certainly have swayed your decision.

Greater variance, same mean

Re: The brain was not designed for this much bad news

#248

Post by bodash »

makeitdouble wrote: post #88

> Long before smartphones or even the printing press, our cognitive architecture was shaped by a single problem: stay alive long enough to reproduce. Our ancestors whose attention drifted past the rustle in the grass left fewer descendants than those who froze, looked and listened. We're having too much of these look back to hunter-gatherer state of affairs to explain modern phenomenons. It feels like they didn't rea…

Given the audience here, I think an adjacent analogy would be “if we were to understand tech today, do we always go back to the beginning of tech?”

Then the answer is more clear as yes and no. Obviously much of our tech today adapts to modern innovations and standards, but it would not be hard to quickly find examples where even the most cutting edge tech are still being affected by the earliest decisions or natural limitations.

Re: The brain was not designed for this much bad news

#249

Post by sokka_h2otribe »

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #237
regenschutz wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neurotypical is the word you're looking for, not "normal".

"normal" is a perfectly fine word and there's no reason to criticize someone for using it.

It would be somewhat ironic in this context to be policing the use of normal.

I also would acknowledge the intent of offering neurotypical as an alternative might be kind.

However I also agree "normal" works quite well. It is especially distinguished by the quotes as "normal" and subjective, not normatively valued.

Re: The brain was not designed for this much bad news

#250

Post by ithkuil »

joshrw wrote: post #72
applfanboysbgon wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a weird quote. It reeks of pretentious pseudo-intellectualism. People vote for a government that does something very tangible about all of those things. The media influenced how Americans voted in the US election, and they voted for a guy that predictably started a major new war in the Middle East. That is a real thing that happened and has impacted billions of people globally with second-order economic effec…

It wasn’t predictable that he would start a war. He presented himself as the anti-war candidate and then betrayed his electorate.

He presented himself as someone who has utter disregard for any form of coherence and people actually argued that that's what made him palatable to the masses. I don't think that someone who voted for him can in good faith claim they didn't know he would betray his promises. All they wanted Is for him to own the libs
Post reply on HN