The Poison We Pick • Hacker News Board

Re: The Poison We Pick

#101

Post by ryandrake » Fri, Feb 23, 2018, 5:07 PM UTC

Thriptic wrote: post #85

gt_ wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, it depends on what you believe is the culprit, but the easy scape goats are long debunked at this point. We will some day realize that the psychological situation of income inequality (or other socioeconomic equivalences) is the root of drug epidemics. The sooner that happens, the better, because neither incarceration or isolated treatment can address this. Everyone grows up with different experiences and I thi…

> When you isolate the party people and the lushes, you are left with people who simply feel like they don’t count. Correct, which is why fixing income inequality will not solve this problem. Giving someone basic income or access to safety nets doesn't give them the meaning derived from earning a living through hard work and creativity, it doesn't bring back all the friends that moved away, it doesn't replace fallen…

This seems like a step closer to a world where society pays half of people to dig holes and the other half to fill them in, all because of this inescapable idea that a living is something that must be earned.

Fixing income inequality might not give people meaning, but it might free them from financial constraints and give them the opportunity to go out and find that meaning, rather that being trapped in this cycle of always needing to make ends meet.

Re: The Poison We Pick

#102

Post by evunveot » Fri, Feb 23, 2018, 5:08 PM UTC

dmreedy wrote: post #23

I've been talking with my brother a lot about this recently, especially as a function of the overall decrease of 'meaning' in the world. I think it goes back even further, to the advent of postmodernism in the throes of World War I. They were the first lost generation, but I don't think they were the last. The death of modernism and the accompanying assault on the bastions of objective meaning (as discussed in the ar…

I'll be the one to bring up Jordan Peterson, I guess. To attempt to synthesize his views:

1. Even if you start from a position of complete nihilism, you can recognize that pain (both physical and psychological) is real and that you don't like it.

2. You can observe that people who perceive their life as meaningful are more likely to be capable of persevering in the face of extreme pain and suffering. So in a sense meaning is "more real" (stronger) than pain. (I don't get much out of the "more real" aspect, but I think it's part of Peterson's attempt to find harmony between rationality and religion.)

3. Even if/though meaning is completely subjective, you can derive meaning from taking steps toward a goal, specifically a positive vision for your own life that you've imagined in great detail (and ideally written down), including how you want to affect the people around you and the wider community. Having a vision of the life you want to avoid (Hell) is good, too.

4. Your goal (life vision) will change as you move toward it, but that's a good thing because it means you're learning and expanding your horizon.

Peterson and some colleagues created a kind of self-help course based on this sort of thing called Self Authoring and he often cites the positive outcomes it had when they researched it using college students (higher grades and lower dropout rates).

I think he would say that the societal malaise you're talking about is essentially Nietzsche's death of God and that you can draw a line from that loss of a foundation to the horrors of the 20th century (Peterson would probably just say "the gulags"; he sees more of a danger from "radical leftism" in contemporary society than fascism). The above could perhaps be described as his alternative to attempting to address the lack of a social firmament through some totalistic ideology, which has in the past led to pathological totalitarian states like Hitler's Germany and Stalin's USSR.

Re: The Poison We Pick

#103

Post by api » Fri, Feb 23, 2018, 5:12 PM UTC

jaredhansen wrote: post #98

noahdesu wrote: post #48

The first thing I did when I opened this article was search for "rat", and was happy to see it there. From the comments I saw I had a hunch it might be: I recently finished a really powerful chapter in the book "Chasing the Scream: The First and Last Days of the War on Drugs" which describes an experiment involving rats that ostensibly shows that addiction isn't about the chemical, but rather it's about the environme…

Regarding the Rat Park experiment, Scott Alexander had a pretty thorough discussion here: http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/10/25/against-rat-park/

TL;DR: like almost everything else in human psychology "it's complicated" and there are "many factors" yayaya...

Re: The Poison We Pick

#104

Post by maratd » Fri, Feb 23, 2018, 5:14 PM UTC

ArcticUnicorn wrote: post #58

"It’s been several decades since Daniel Bell wrote The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism, but his insights have proven prescient. Ever-more-powerful market forces actually undermine the foundations of social stability, wreaking havoc on tradition, religion, and robust civil associations, destroying what conservatives value the most. They create a less human world. They make us less happy. They generate pain." Thi…

> ever-more-powerful market forces actually undermine the foundations of social stability, wreaking havoc on tradition, religion, and robust civil associations

Is there an actual example of this? I can't think of a single one.

Re: The Poison We Pick

#105

Post by api » Fri, Feb 23, 2018, 5:16 PM UTC

dmreedy wrote: post #23

I've been talking with my brother a lot about this recently, especially as a function of the overall decrease of 'meaning' in the world. I think it goes back even further, to the advent of postmodernism in the throes of World War I. They were the first lost generation, but I don't think they were the last. The death of modernism and the accompanying assault on the bastions of objective meaning (as discussed in the ar…

> But it hasn't been replaced with anything.

Can it be? Maybe the universe is so information-rich that it yields a vast and ever multiplying array of fundamentally undecidable questions. Everyone knows the big ones: god/gods, life after death, ultimate origin of the universe and consciousness, etc., but there's quite a few more.

If there are lots of undecidable things then how do we ever agree on objective meaning without some totalitarian or tribal pressure just dictating one to us?

It takes me back to one of my favorite quotes ever:

“The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents... some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new Dark Age.” ― H.P. Lovecraft

Re: The Poison We Pick

#106

Post by onychomys » Fri, Feb 23, 2018, 5:17 PM UTC

the-dude wrote: post #30

dmreedy wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The loss of a source of meaning in life is a dangerous thing, especially if it isn't replaced by something else. That way lies nihilism, and, if the thesis of the article is to be believed, opiod addiction.

> That way lies nihilism Sounds exhausting.

How long have you waited with that username to make that reference? <3

Re: The Poison We Pick

#107

Post by cptskippy » Fri, Feb 23, 2018, 5:20 PM UTC

jeffreyrogers wrote: post #75

cptskippy wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's harder and harder to know what moral right and wrong are. Morality isn't about what is right or wrong. You need to get past that. There are plenty of situations where there is no right answer and an individual is forced to choose between two wrongs. Morality is what an individual ascribes to be proper or improper and it is very fluid. An individual's morality is influenced by everything from the situation to t…

This viewpoint is part of the problem the person you're replying to was describing. That we are freer than ever to choose our own values, but people are simultaneously finding less meaning in life. That with the erosion of constraints, religion, and social roles people have to create their own substitutes for these things. It's the idea of Nietzsche's Übermensch.

People have always been free to choose their own values and just as always, when your values are wildly outside or in direct conflict with others you have to deal with the fall out. You may choose to go along with the herd even if you don't agree 100% but that's your choice and always has been.

The reality is that most people share a common core set of values and morality because we've all independently concluded that some things are just improper. It's only when we discuss more complicated issues (e.g. abortion) that we start to see divergence.

In the past people were able to run away from their problems. Puritans flew England for the new world. People leave the city for the country or leave the country for the city. Hermits live out in the woods along. You can't really do that anymore without completely unplugging yourself from the world.

The conflict that we haven't really come to terms with is that modern communication enables us to be constantly aware of the morals and values of other people and communities. In the past we only needed to concern ourselves with that of our immediate community but today we see commentary from everyone on everything at all times and are immediately aware of the morals and values of everyone on the planet.

Re: The Poison We Pick

#108

Post by tomp » Fri, Feb 23, 2018, 5:21 PM UTC

smackay wrote: post #56

tomp wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

on the other hand, US has been a democracy for by far the longest. Other European countries pale in comparision, with the possible exception of the UK.

I think the good people of Iceland might disagree with that, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Althing

Interesting, I wasn't aware of Iceland's democratic history! Although admittedly it's far harder to govern 200M people rather than 200k.

Re: The Poison We Pick

#109

Post by Arnt » Fri, Feb 23, 2018, 5:22 PM UTC

sokoloff wrote: post #80

mattnewton wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not clear to me that’s true. What is clear is that I don’t know any US governments willing to test it, because they think they already know what addiction is.

Which parts of GP aren't clearly true? That those countries are smaller, more homogenous, have much more history and common ancestry and culture and community than the US, which is often literally called the "melting pot" [of immigrants from varied backgrounds]?

What's not true is his synecdoche. He says they are more X, Y and Z, but then he slides eloquently to assume that they always were and that the degree of difference always was significant.

Re: The Poison We Pick

#110

Post by api » Fri, Feb 23, 2018, 5:23 PM UTC

evunveot wrote: post #102

dmreedy wrote: post #23

I've been talking with my brother a lot about this recently, especially as a function of the overall decrease of 'meaning' in the world. I think it goes back even further, to the advent of postmodernism in the throes of World War I. They were the first lost generation, but I don't think they were the last. The death of modernism and the accompanying assault on the bastions of objective meaning (as discussed in the ar…

I'll be the one to bring up Jordan Peterson, I guess. To attempt to synthesize his views: 1. Even if you start from a position of complete nihilism, you can recognize that pain (both physical and psychological) is real and that you don't like it. 2. You can observe that people who perceive their life as meaningful are more likely to be capable of persevering in the face of extreme pain and suffering. So in a sense me…

It's really too bad the alt-right has adopted him. I'm not sure the affinity is mutual but it's tarred everything he's said with a toxic association with fascism.

Asking why the fascists like Peterson yields a great deal of insight into fascism.

Among other things fascism represents a fanatical reaction to post-modernity's undermining of foundations. The fascist sees the same problems that Peterson is talking about (hence the affinity) but the fascist's reaction is less intellectual and more emotionally driven. Fascism just says "I will myself to have this meaning, and to defend that meaning I will assert that anyone not holding it is wrong." The fascist actually accepts the premise of nihilism but then rebels against it by substituting "violence" (verbal or physical) for objectivity.

In other words instead of "it is true because God said so" or "it is true because facts demonstrate it" you get "it is true because if you disagree I will hit you."

Other types of totalitarianism are similar, though I think fascism may be alone in the degree to which it is conscious of this. Others such as theocracy and totalitarian forms of leftism seem unaware of their nature as violent cults of will against nihilism but they behave similarly.