Live data from Hacker News

The Man Who Saves You from Yourself (2013)

harpers.org

81–90 of 143 posts

Re: The Man Who Saves You from Yourself (2013)

#81
post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>This is like saying, "Now that we don't have phrenology, we need a new phrenology." No, we just accept we can't figure out how people work or what kind of people they are by feeling their skulls. We live with the ambiguity and... But that's the whole point: a lot of people simply cannot live with the ambiguity. For them, ambiguity means uncertainty, and uncertainty means fear and a lack of stability in general. Ins…

Do they really need that certainty, or has that been trained into them from an early age?

That is a very good question. But it appears religion (even atheist religions) manifests itself in just about every society so it probably is a need of most people to a certain extent.

Maybe the answer is to keep inventing better religions. The old ones keep appearing more and more ridiculous and pernicious. I suppose this trial and error produces lots of cults and casualties.

Or maybe the answer is for people to grow up and take personal responsibility and truthfully examine what we really know about life and stop trying to hide from reality. That's the path I personally have chosen. But I think the first might be easier on a mass scale. IDK.

Re: The Man Who Saves You from Yourself (2013)

#82
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never 'had' religion - I was raised by atheists. So, I never had a 'void' to fill. So, what does that make of me? I feel like a 'moral' person - do I need something other than common sense, empathy, and civility to be moral?

No, of course not. You're obviously just fine as you are. That said, your atheist parents may have done a particularly good job teaching you common sense, empathy, and civility, or you may be naturally inclined towards common sense, empathy, and civility in a way that not every person is. For those individuals who aren't inclined to common sense, empathy, or civility, and for those individuals with parents who aren't…

>>For those individuals who aren't inclined to common sense, empathy, or civility, and for those individuals with parents who aren't so good at teaching common sense, empathy, and civility, religious organizations can play a very useful role.

It can also make them use religion to justify their lack of common sense, empathy and civility.

Re: The Man Who Saves You from Yourself (2013)

#83
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never 'had' religion - I was raised by atheists. So, I never had a 'void' to fill. So, what does that make of me? I feel like a 'moral' person - do I need something other than common sense, empathy, and civility to be moral?

The trouble is when a serial killer says the same thing.

Like John Wayne Gacy who read bible verses to the young men he was strangling?

Re: The Man Who Saves You from Yourself (2013)

#84
post #3

I remember this article when if first came out. Of all the weirdness outlined, one item, which wasn't even part of the main story and added as a bit of color detail, stated: "Sullivan first worked with Singer in the early Nineties. One case involved a woman posing as a psychologist, who had persuaded several of her male clients to undergo sex-reassignment surgery. (The men later alleged that they had been brainwashed…

I'd be quite skeptical that she was ever able to successfully trick anyone into undergoing SRS. For one thing, it's fairly expensive. Secondly, no reputable surgeon would perform the procedure without verifying that the psychologist who wrote a letter was actually a licensed practitioner. Third, the WPATH Standards of Care specify that SRS should only be performed on patients who have two letters of approval from two…

You speak in the present tense. Was this true in the 60s?

Re: The Man Who Saves You from Yourself (2013)

#85
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a humanist, and it has made my worldview much, much brighter . I don't walk around with a load of guilt anymore. The things that happen to me are not "God" punishing me for something my great^n grandparents did, but effects with causes, some of which I can control. I get out of bed. I believe in myself. It's nice. It's hopeful. It makes sense.

Unfortunately religious guilt often gets replaced by secular neo-Malthusian doomsday ideology. That might not be your experience but it seems to be common. It plugs into the same port: "forgive us nature for we have sinned... we have overshot our ecological carrying capacity..." Another thing about secularism that bothers me (and I am not religious) is the strong negative association with birth rates. Look up the sta…

I'm not convinced that lack of religion and pessimism are correlated at all. In my experience, religious people are as likely to be pessimistic as non-religious people. The latter may be more cynical, but those people were almost always religious at some point in their lives and their darker attitudes are caused by their disillusionment about religion, rather than by lack of religion.

I think you have some deeply rooted misunderstandings about the relationship between religion and fertility. Religious people have more kids primarily because most organized religions frown upon birth control. It has nothing to do with hope or optimism and everything to do with the fact that they are having sex just as often as non-religious folks but are much more likely to conceive. Another reason is that non-religious people tend to be more independent in their thinking and they question and resist social pressures -- and even economic incentives -- to have kids. Atheist couples are much more open to sitting down and having a conversation about whether they want kids and, if they do, whether they are ready.

As for religion and evolution... I don't even know where to begin. Just because you're popping out child after child doesn't mean those children are likely to survive, prosper and reproduce. That is traditionally why people have felt the need to have lots of kids: you didn't know how many of them would live long enough to have kids of their own. It is only very recently that modern medicine has significantly decreased child mortality and increased lifespans. This is yet another reason why developed countries have lower birth rates.

The bottom line is that your entire narrative seems to be that lack of religion leads to pessimism, which then leads to lower fertility, and this is somehow going to have evolutionary implications. To anyone who is knowledgeable about any of these topics, this is just sheer, unadulterated nonsense.

Re: The Man Who Saves You from Yourself (2013)

#86

This is a long article with a lot of items to discuss, but my take is that its "easy" to "brainwash" people because a lot of what's being offered is actually good, but, of course, used cynically and for social control. The Hare Krishna kid didn't know it before, but he now realizes that meditation helps with his social anxiety. Except now, he's in bed with the Krishna's, instead of finding a personal and secular path…

Worth remembering though that there are many cultish aspects to the mainstream, e.g. political movements fight tooth and nail to influence what young children are taught at school.

Same with technology choices & favored practices.

Re: The Man Who Saves You from Yourself (2013)

#87
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who determines what 'real therapy' is?

I can't tell if you're being serious but medically certified psychologists are the most qualified to answer that question. Therapy is a medical science, but every layperson seems to think they have enough knowledge to comment on what it is or whether it's needed.

> Therapy is a medical science,

Therapy is a practice, not a science.

> but every layperson seems to think they have enough knowledge to comment on what it is or whether it's needed.

Ah, the "leave it to the experts" trope.

Giving that responsibility to someone else is the same as relying on a guru or a religious personality to tell you what to believe & do.

If you look into psychology & related fields, there are different traditions & approaches. A practitioner will go to school for a few years learning a particular curriculum. What is to say that that curriculum & approach is correct for you? That takes a leap of faith.

The workings of the human brain & the dynamics of personality is actually not fully known. There is a lot of progress being made and that knowledge is something that you have access to. Hopefully you can have an independent & thoughtful mind to make your own decision.

There's also issues with the Pharmaceutical industry. Pharmaceutical companies want to make money and making money means selling drugs. Hence it is in their best interest to have people regularly take their drugs.

Also notice that natural remedies, used for most of the history of life, are discredited. Why? The Pharmaceutical industry has an interest in controlling the channel of your medicine. They cannot profit from natural remedies that are commodities.

A side effect of many anti-depressants is suicide, yet these drugs are heavily advertised and prescribed. Billions of dollars are being made every year. Notice that there are ulterior motives that do not relate to your health.

Btw, Pharmaceutical companies also visit doctor offices and have a symbiotic relationship with the doctors. Some doctors are ethical & some doctors are not...

Re: The Man Who Saves You from Yourself (2013)

#88
post #77

So here is a question : What is the difference between a cult and an established religion ? Is it the size of the following ? Is it the time of origin, i.e. recent vs long ago ? Is it the number of followers ? Or is it some combination of the above, or something else altogether ?

Good question. According to webster, it has to be 'relatively small' to be a cult. From the article, it seems that the cults have a higher relative level of exploitation. My guess is that there is a continuum that runs between the two.

Edit: My guess substantiated by wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult

Re: The Man Who Saves You from Yourself (2013)

#89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't tell if you're being serious but medically certified psychologists are the most qualified to answer that question. Therapy is a medical science, but every layperson seems to think they have enough knowledge to comment on what it is or whether it's needed.

> Therapy is a medical science, Therapy is a practice, not a science. > but every layperson seems to think they have enough knowledge to comment on what it is or whether it's needed. Ah, the "leave it to the experts" trope. Giving that responsibility to someone else is the same as relying on a guru or a religious personality to tell you what to believe & do. If you look into psychology & related fields, there are dif…

Medicine is based in science. Not sure what you are getting at by claiming it isn't.

Re: The Man Who Saves You from Yourself (2013)

#90
post #77

So here is a question : What is the difference between a cult and an established religion ? Is it the size of the following ? Is it the time of origin, i.e. recent vs long ago ? Is it the number of followers ? Or is it some combination of the above, or something else altogether ?

Easy.

A "cult" is a disparaging term for a religion that someone other than yourself belongs to. YOUR belief group on the other hand is obviously not a cult, but a religion.

(Actually I guess it might be size, but in common vernacular I think the above is actually often the case).

Post reply on HN