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

The Logic of Envy

robkhenderson.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 56 posts

Re: The Logic of Envy

#31

Post by closedloop129 »

borghives wrote: post #3

i’m a vulnerable narcissist. still don’t know what to do about this information.

If this is more a question than a statement, I would look at these key problems:

>Still, their awareness of their gap between their ambitions and their inability to act causes intense self-criticism.

Figure out why you are not allowed to act. How do others act without enough knowledge? They approach decisions differently.

>In March 2019, doctors told Milwaukee Brewers pitcher Corey Knebel that it was his call whether to end his baseball season early to repair a torn ligament in his elbow. Knebel said during a press conference, “It sucked that it was my decision. I hated that. I really wish the doctor would have just said, ‘Here is what we’re doing.’” He wanted some other omnipotent entity to choose for him.

*edit: A Freudian slip? 'Other omnipotent entity' should be 'other omniscience entity'. Omnipotence doesn't help with making the best decisions.

Re: The Logic of Envy

#32

Post by rjbwork »

philosopher1234 wrote: post #22
rjbwork wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uncomfortable? Not if it were true. But categoricals tend not to be so.

The stomach digests food

Sometimes. Other times the food is bad and the stomach throws it right back up. Sometimes the food is poisoned and the same happens. Sometimes someone is allergic and it kills them before it makes its way through.

Re: The Logic of Envy

#33

Post by ycombinete »

The parts about sex, envy, and denial read like incel philosophy, written from another perspective. I.e. “women aren’t sleeping with me, because they want to deny me the pleasure of sex.”

Overall the impression is that Teach sees everyone as being like the main character in There in there Will be Blood: https://youtu.be/cHuSRHxBgUg

Re: The Logic of Envy

#34

Post by Barrin92 »

>"A common belief is that people turn to porn because they can’t find sex or intimacy in real life. Teach turns this logic on its head: people don’t want sex or intimacy in real life. Thus, porn."

The article dedicates a large chunk to consumption of porn or practice of certain kinks as an example of that theory, but there's not a mention of a very obvious fact, namely that plenty of couples do those same things including together, and they don't fall into either category presented in that quote.

The entire argument looks at behavior through the lens of people who, by definition, already have reasons to be very envious which is tautological. Honestly it just sounds like one more book in the "angsty man self help" genre.

edit: just saw the top comment under the post after writing this one and couldn't agree more:

"People protect themselves with the smokescreen of "everybody" or "people". Every claim Ed Teach makes in his book about his fellow human beings is actually a revelation of who he is, not of who everybody else is. And as for his claim that "No one ever asks, 'Am I the narcissist who's hurting my family?'" then he is either a liar or has had very limited social experience."

Re: The Logic of Envy

#35

Post by pengstrom »

photochemsyn wrote: post #10

Whenever the phrase 'evolutionary psychology' is used in a blog post it makes me physically cringe. One of the greatest problems in the social sciences is the apparent inability to distinguish between cultural influences and fundamental genetic influences. A whole host of so-called 'evolved behavior' is really little more than cultural norms that people have adopted and now view as natural and normal. Claims that the…

Ideas are subject to selection pressures too, no?

Re: The Logic of Envy

#36

Post by smitty1e »

dredmorbius wrote: post #21
smitty1e wrote: post #14

Aside: Clausewitz's "On War" was mostly a collection of notes posthumously published, not by any means a finished product. [1] For such, stick to Sun Tzu. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_War

The Art of War is also an assemblage, much either gathered by or ascribed to Sun Tzu, and comprising in large part of commentaries on the ground text. If Art of War has coherence, it's likely much comes in the transmission and transformation, both prior to and following Sun Tzu. The inconvenience of both writing and reproduction also necessitates brevity, though that need not imply clarity. I'm not sure the distincti…

That's a fair criticism.

Re: The Logic of Envy

#37

Post by a_c »

photochemsyn wrote: post #10

Whenever the phrase 'evolutionary psychology' is used in a blog post it makes me physically cringe. One of the greatest problems in the social sciences is the apparent inability to distinguish between cultural influences and fundamental genetic influences. A whole host of so-called 'evolved behavior' is really little more than cultural norms that people have adopted and now view as natural and normal. Claims that the…

https://xkcd.com/435/

Re: The Logic of Envy

#38

Post by bruce343434 »

Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #9

One of Teach’s most interesting challenges to the reader: Describe yourself: your traits, qualities, both good and bad. Do not use the word ‘am.’ Practice this.

I didn't understand this. Instead of saying "I am a programmer" you're supposed to say "programmer"? Is that really a life changing technique?

Re: The Logic of Envy

#39

Post by fatherzine »

photochemsyn wrote: post #10

Whenever the phrase 'evolutionary psychology' is used in a blog post it makes me physically cringe. One of the greatest problems in the social sciences is the apparent inability to distinguish between cultural influences and fundamental genetic influences. A whole host of so-called 'evolved behavior' is really little more than cultural norms that people have adopted and now view as natural and normal. Claims that the…

Behaviors are subject to natural selection, just like biological organisms are. Some behaviors are innate, others are cultural. Even better, culture is often times elaborate clothing for innate behaviors. Darwin cuts deeper than people give him credit for.

As of behaviors of biological creatures being infinitely malleable and equally valid, like the software on a computer, i.e. behavior being arbitrarily "socially constructed", please explain the spider. Or the bower bird. Or falling in love.

Re: The Logic of Envy

#40

Post by Eddy_Viscosity2 »

bruce343434 wrote: post #38
Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #9

One of Teach’s most interesting challenges to the reader: Describe yourself: your traits, qualities, both good and bad. Do not use the word ‘am.’ Practice this.

I didn't understand this. Instead of saying "I am a programmer" you're supposed to say "programmer"? Is that really a life changing technique?

I think the 'am' constraint is meant to force you to shift your perspective from an internal frame of what you think you 'are' to an external frame of what do you 'do' through actions to/for other people and the world in general. Maybe these actions support what would be on your 'am' list, but maybe they don't and that might be a hint that you may not be who you think you are.

I read the `practice this' part as meaning that you should actively be thinking more about how your actions affect the people and world around you, and less about how the people and the world are affecting you.

Post reply on HN