Being kind to others is good for your health • Hacker News Board

Re: Being kind to others is good for your health

#271

Post by __MatrixMan__ » Mon, Dec 21, 2020, 5:28 PM UTC

dash2 wrote: post #263

__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm gonna check out those links but I just wanted to clarify that I think causation is a myth at all levels, even the hardest of sciences. It's just that it's a more useful myth in those places.

So what's your objection to the standard Pearl/Rubin idea: "X causes Y means that if X, and nothing else, varies, then Y varies"?

When was the last time you encountered a situation where only one thing was varying?

I don't have a problem with the idea on it's own. It's a great way to understand all kinds of things. But data to support explanations of that sort is hard to come by.

What I object to is the belief that all explanations that can in principle be put in terms of cause, must in practice be put in terms of cause--otherwise they're useless (which, I think, motivated a lot of unnecessary handwaving in the bbc article, and probably in the ones that it references too).

Researchers should contribute useful data so that others can reference it to make decisions. That data becomes less useful when they have incentives to skew things so that they can meet the awkwardly high bar of "supports a causal argument" just to be worthy of publication.

It ought to be ok to say: "these things go together. Here's the evidence. It might not be possible to untangle the causal web between them, but if you try one I bet you'll see the other," and leave it at that.

Not to say that untangling the causal web isn't worth doing, but sometimes it's just not in the cards, and demanding that we search for it in the cards is like going hungry because all of the carrots left in the grocery store are strangely shaped.

Re: Being kind to others is good for your health

#272

Post by jelliclesfarm » Mon, Dec 21, 2020, 7:36 PM UTC

phist_mcgee wrote: post #155

closeparen wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Encountering people who live on that level can be a trip. I went to lunch with some classmates after lecture. I had been fixated on the content. But the salient facts to one of my classmates were instead: who had spoken, with how much confidence, how often, for how long, how the professor seemed to feel about it. It was eye opening. There was this whole other dimension to the room, which I could barely see, but to he…

And anecdotally, these keen observation skills I think are more concentrated in women. A lot of times, I find that women in my life are more interested in how I or others are feeling/acting, than the exact details of what actually is happening. I like to think of this as report talk vs rapport talk. Men may just report facts to each other with very little emotion attached, whereas women will try and bond and strength…

Women developed these skills because they are hardwired to care for offsprings. Women are better at noticing small details, they have better hearing and have a sharper sense of smell.

Go back to cavemen times, the men had to follow the blurry beast for dinner. The women had to be alert and vigilant to protect their young. We might think we have come far, but evolution is slow. We are basically living with cavemen genes in an urban jungle.

Sometimes generalizations are true. Evolution takes millions of years.

Re: Being kind to others is good for your health

#273

Post by dkn775 » Tue, Dec 22, 2020, 5:11 AM UTC

Balgair wrote: post #176

randycupertino wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't want to live my life where every interaction is some spy game or thriller,where everyone in the room scans each other for clues. I had a coworker with this mindset and it seemed incredibly tiring on her mindset. She would routinely total up the cost of the exec's outfits and jewelry/shoes/purse and also always be measuring herself against everyone else in the meeting room. Who hadn't brushed their hair, who…

The trick is see such things, gain that information, and then choose to use the data in a way that is nice for the person. That is one element of kindness. For the facelift example, you notice it, and then remark about how youthful the director looks in that new shirt. For the shoes example, you notice it and then remark about their good fashion sense. For the hair example, you go to them and see how the home life is…

This is a good way of putting it. For example, my neighbor reminds me a lot of my father, in a good way. I make sure I don’t just tell friends about this, but I share it with him (he’s about 30 years older than me). I don’t need to do this, but I express it because I know it conveys how much I appreciate the person being around. Other examples are simpler, such as noticing someone’s flat tire and bringing it up to them, complimenting a new hairstyle etc.

Another time a deli worker at the grocery recommended a good turkey flavor, when I saw him next (it was weeks later) I made sure I told him how much I enjoyed it. I then told someone next to me (unsure of what to get) how the man put me on to a delicious flavor (boars head sausalito FYI). I still say “how are you doing sir” when I see this man working and I’m shopping. He remembers me even masked.

All of this really just involves taking things you notice and instead of keeping it to yourself, sharing it! It’s worth doing! I don’t do it for any selfish reasons (except maybe to keep my observation skills sharp). I genuinely feel an appreciation for sharing things I notice about others as they live their lives. My only hope is it makes them feel good about themselves.

Re: Being kind to others is good for your health

#274

Post by bg24 » Tue, Dec 22, 2020, 9:02 AM UTC

Yes. Also being kind to yourself goes a long way. Once we are above the self-credit, self-blame, etc., the brain creates a positive impact to our health. Accepting the reality gracefully also helps our health, though it is not same as being kind.

Re: Being kind to others is good for your health

#275

Post by devdas » Wed, Dec 23, 2020, 7:36 AM UTC

Bakary wrote: post #270

devdas wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Coming from India, the dominant flavour of Europe is some sort of white, Christian group, possibly with a dash of Islamic influence, but mostly monotheistic branches of the same family. There is some variety in languages, and food depending on the climate. The US doesn't have all that much diversity comparitively. There is more diversity in skin colour, but the major cultural groups are far closer to each other than…

>Coming from India, the dominant flavour of Europe is some sort of white, Christian group, possibly with a dash of Islamic influence, but mostly monotheistic branches of the same family. There is some variety in languages, and food depending on the climate. I'd say that this is the same reductive view that Europeans have of India, for comparison.

And from that distance, they are closer to being right.

Wikipedia (not the greatest source, but reasonable for a HN discussion) says in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_Europe that linguistic minorities in Europe are about 14% of the population, while only about 3% are diasporas of non European origin.

Christianity (51% of the population) in Europe is written into the law, so even if you grow up atheist in Europe, you are still culturally Christian.

India is ethnically a bit less homogenous, with three major linguistic groups (Indo-Aryan, Dravidian, Iranian). Religiously, monotheistic groups are about 20% of the population, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_India , and a majority of laws aren't based on a single dominant religious philosophy (the Modi government is working on changing that). There is variation in food based on region, climate, and religious subgroup. The dominant flavour would be some sort of brown, polytheistic groups, strongly influenced by other polytheistic groups and with very strong monotheistic influences from Jainism, Sikhism, Islam and Christianity.

This is the 10000m view, rather than the 3000m view which would show more detail.

Re: Being kind to others is good for your health

#276

Post by goldenkey » Thu, Dec 24, 2020, 12:04 AM UTC

adamsea wrote: post #269

bserge wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything you wrote is interesting, as I am trying to meditate and exercise more, figure out my own brain/mind and what exactly I can change in my life, so thank you!

Welcome, and thank you! That’s awesome. Meditation is something I should do as well.

Thank you as well, to the both of you. I really had nothing to say other than to observe the insightful wisdom displayed in response to my otherwise arcane comment. I _did_ play the devil's advocate a bit, to my own actual opinion. And was pleasantly surprised to see the backlash generate such helpful advice.

We are emotional systems first and foremost, not logical ones. Easy to get that one backwards ;-)

I like your analogy about desires. It is the most immediate rebuttal to pure ethereal logic.

Re: Being kind to others is good for your health

#277

Post by dash2 » Thu, Dec 24, 2020, 7:14 AM UTC

__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #271

dash2 wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what's your objection to the standard Pearl/Rubin idea: "X causes Y means that if X, and nothing else, varies, then Y varies"?

When was the last time you encountered a situation where only one thing was varying? I don't have a problem with the idea on it's own. It's a great way to understand all kinds of things. But data to support explanations of that sort is hard to come by. What I object to is the belief that all explanations that can in principle be put in terms of cause, must in practice be put in terms of cause--otherwise they're usele…

Ok, I’m sympathetic to that POV. I’m grateful for the credibility revolution in econometrics, but it clearly can become an obsession. Prediction on its own can be worthwhile. I wouldn’t say causation is a myth - maybe rather that it’s overvalued.