Live data from Hacker News

Cognitive Distortions of People Who Get Stuff Done (2012) [pdf]

pdfs.semanticscholar.org

151–160 of 160 posts

Re: Cognitive Distortions of People Who Get Stuff Done (2012) [pdf]

#151

The Big Five * Personal exceptionalism * Dichotomous thinking * Correct overgeneralization * Blank canvas thinking * Schumpeterianism (creative destruction) i don't endorse the guy and didn't vote for him, but, um, this reminds me of Trump. i mean, how can we assess any person who actually succeeded at a goal that thousands of others wanted but failed to achieve? i don't know. how did this guy avoid losing? it's just…

He didn't really. Hillary was just such a unpalatable candidate that she lost the election. Look at the turnout data and you will see. Trump didn't do anything special.

That's actually wrong to say Trump didn't do anything special. Trump had almost 63 million votes which is more than Romney's almost 61 and McCain's almost 60.

Hilary had 65.8 million which was almost exactly what Obama got in 2012, 65.9. To say that Trump did nothing is the same narative that Bernie supports started blaming Hilary supporters for losing. It's always the people that vote at fault and not the people who didn't vote.

Re: Cognitive Distortions of People Who Get Stuff Done (2012) [pdf]

#152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Believing luck is not real pretty much immediately activates the just world hypothesis." This doesn't follow, and the article adnzzzzZ linked explains how it doesn't follow. In particular, if you divide the concept of truth up into "objective truth" and "pragmatic truth" as the article suggests, you can believe the just-world hypothesis is false on an objective level while still believing that you should ignore luck…

Are you sure? If you are careful about how you divide these worlds it should work well enough, but then adnzzzzZ goes ahead and makes this statement: "Stop using luck as an excuse for your failures and other people's failures." This doesn't really sound they have the objective world setup well, and would trivially slide down to judging unlucky people. I'm convinced that the just-world hypothesis is one of the most ev…

>the world is broken and requires fixing, and the world should be fixed before the individual is fixed

This is just fundamentally wrong. The correct level of analysis to fix the world is the individual. If individuals aren't responsible for their actions and doing their best in life then the world will never be fixed. By saying that the world needs to be fixed before individuals you're giving people an excuse to not try their best.

Re: Cognitive Distortions of People Who Get Stuff Done (2012) [pdf]

#153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure? If you are careful about how you divide these worlds it should work well enough, but then adnzzzzZ goes ahead and makes this statement: "Stop using luck as an excuse for your failures and other people's failures." This doesn't really sound they have the objective world setup well, and would trivially slide down to judging unlucky people. I'm convinced that the just-world hypothesis is one of the most ev…

>the world is broken and requires fixing, and the world should be fixed before the individual is fixed This is just fundamentally wrong. The correct level of analysis to fix the world is the individual. If individuals aren't responsible for their actions and doing their best in life then the world will never be fixed. By saying that the world needs to be fixed before individuals you're giving people an excuse to not…

Have you read my post? I've already addressed this, and my point specifically that individuals may not be responsible for what happens to them, but they often are responsible for what happens to others, and that the latter in many cases is a stronger lever than the former (i.e., luck is non-symmetric and not-global). By focusing on the dichotomy between the individual situation, you're forgetting this very important dynamic.

> By saying that the world needs to be fixed before individuals you're giving people an excuse to not try their best.

Frankly, it's the least of my concerns if I am giving someone excuses or not or if someone is trying their best. My concern is whether the world makes sense, is reasonably fair, and if people in it are happy. People trying, or not trying, their best, is only relevant if it is somehow interfering with that goal. At the end of the day I don't think people doing their best is all that relevant because it's not an objective measure and by definition varies between people. This smells of a religious kind of "sacredness", of people trying to create value out of nothing through "virtuous" action and living. This is the kind of thing people turned to when the world was so bad that improving it was impossible, so they turned inwards, so that even in the darkest circumstances they could feel good about themselves. Are you familiar with such philosophy? Is that what you're doing here? Do you think this is a good time and place for that?

If someone's best is a broken bridge, and someone's mediocre is a working bridge, guess which bridge I want? The world doesn't care about my "best" or your "best" and never did and never will. The bridge only works if it is built correctly, it doesn't care if someone did their "best".

We should not be focused on what is our personal best, because that's irrelevant and self-focused and leads to a shallow kind of selfishness. It undermines what can be built by human hands through collective effort. It gives credit when none is due (to work with no results). It makes us focus inward and generates concern with esteem and status. We shouldn't be worried about that, we're not animals. We should focus on what works, what's a good idea, what brings results.

Re: Cognitive Distortions of People Who Get Stuff Done (2012) [pdf]

#154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's cool I guess, but I neither buy lottery tickets nor believe diet/lifestyle are irrelevant, yet I'm a big believer in the importance of luck and the importance of believing in the importance of luck (hehe), so where does that leave me in your dichotomy? There's more room here than learned helplessness, in fact, I think that doesn't derive from the "luck is important" mindset at all. See my post here since I'd j…

so where does that leave me in your dichotomy? 1. I wasn't talking about you in specific. 2. It's a relatively brief forum comment. It's not reasonable to assume it needs to cover all possible use cases as if it were, say, a scholarly paper. 3. It's entirely possible to engage someone in discussion and say "Ah, well, that sounds like a dichotomy that I don't fit." or something like that without being attacking or dis…

> I don't like talking to people who come across as hell bent on shooting down everything I say rather than trying to understand my point. So I think I'm probably done replying to you in this thread.

I am just going to note that you're doing a very similar thing with statements like these:

> I see zero reason to assume that encouraging individuals to not engage in learned helplessness should be an excuse for society to not offer a social safety net or work on improving the one that exists.

So you may not be getting the results you're expecting because you're generating strawmen in your posts to which naturally the other poster is going to be inclined to reply in the somewhat less understanding manner.

It's not always easy to keep these discussions fully level and polite, and I absolutely fail in that all the time, but, like, pot, kettle.

Re: Cognitive Distortions of People Who Get Stuff Done (2012) [pdf]

#155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

so where does that leave me in your dichotomy? 1. I wasn't talking about you in specific. 2. It's a relatively brief forum comment. It's not reasonable to assume it needs to cover all possible use cases as if it were, say, a scholarly paper. 3. It's entirely possible to engage someone in discussion and say "Ah, well, that sounds like a dichotomy that I don't fit." or something like that without being attacking or dis…

> I don't like talking to people who come across as hell bent on shooting down everything I say rather than trying to understand my point. So I think I'm probably done replying to you in this thread. I am just going to note that you're doing a very similar thing with statements like these: > I see zero reason to assume that encouraging individuals to not engage in learned helplessness should be an excuse for society…

I frequently have nice exchanges on HN. This just doesn't happen to be one of them.

Re: Cognitive Distortions of People Who Get Stuff Done (2012) [pdf]

#156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are those not addressing states of disease?

They can be used to treat disease, but are often used to prevent disease. Statins in particular are used to prevent cardiovascular disease from developing.

If someone has high cholesterol don't they already have the beginnings of disease? Are there people taking statins with zero plaque in their arteries?

Re: Cognitive Distortions of People Who Get Stuff Done (2012) [pdf]

#157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can be used to treat disease, but are often used to prevent disease. Statins in particular are used to prevent cardiovascular disease from developing.

If someone has high cholesterol don't they already have the beginnings of disease? Are there people taking statins with zero plaque in their arteries?

As far as I know, high cholesterol only correlates with heart attacks and strokes. there are also people who have high cholesterol and will not experience a heart attack in their life.

Re: Cognitive Distortions of People Who Get Stuff Done (2012) [pdf]

#158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The criticism of creative destruction in particular - sure >it may have costs but is not doing so any better? Thinking >that preserving the status quo at the cost of advancement is >in itself a distortion arguably. This creative destruction obviously only has to happen when something cannot be changed. Then there's the question: why can't it be changed? In stiff organizations this is well-known to be there virtually…

> My far-fetched theory is that teamwork is still something very rarely found. You could probably test this by looking at different work environments outside of Silicon Valley or even the US. Also, a few years ago I read a NYT opinion article citing research into what teams perform best. It wasn't all that dependent on IQ, but on those where where, everyone contributes more equally, people were better at reading each…

Thanks for the references, the NYT article is really interesting.

Actually I recently had a discussion about the exact topic. At my current work we have something like team work, the last time before I had that was years ago in university where we could hand in together exercises in a group. That was one woman, two men in the group. That was awesome, we truly developed the understand and the solution together.

Another point though is that individuals (me for instance) have to learn to work in teams (again). Having worked for years as 1-man-army, I had a hardy time working effectively with other people.

Re: Cognitive Distortions of People Who Get Stuff Done (2012) [pdf]

#159
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In addition to spullara's Beck link, the "construal level theory" seemed to ring true to what you were describing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construal_level_theory

I recently heard that the same brain regions are involved in processing temporal and spatial distances.

would make sense: space, environment, reality, decision, hope .. not unrelated IMO

Re: Cognitive Distortions of People Who Get Stuff Done (2012) [pdf]

#160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone has high cholesterol don't they already have the beginnings of disease? Are there people taking statins with zero plaque in their arteries?

As far as I know, high cholesterol only correlates with heart attacks and strokes. there are also people who have high cholesterol and will not experience a heart attack in their life.

Those with high cholesterol have plaque in their arteries. That is not normal and I would consider that a state of disease.
Post reply on HN