91–100 of 122 posts
I'm an addict in long term recovery, and I hang out with lots of addicts trying to get or stay clean. Obviously this crowd has problems! But what's interesting is that as I've been making friends who aren't addicts, they have problems that are every bit as messed up as the recovery crowd. There are two main differences, though: "normal" people are much more committed to hiding their problems (I feel as though I only…
Makes me think that everybody's journey deserves respect.
I'm an addict in long term recovery, and I hang out with lots of addicts trying to get or stay clean. Obviously this crowd has problems! But what's interesting is that as I've been making friends who aren't addicts, they have problems that are every bit as messed up as the recovery crowd. There are two main differences, though: "normal" people are much more committed to hiding their problems (I feel as though I only…
I don't mean any offense when I say this, but I kind of resent this type of perspective. I can't say for sure but I suspect if we knew each other, I would fall into the "non-addict friend with problems" type category. You do correctly point out that a lot of people worry whether they will be judged for revealing a problem. This has happened to me and my family quite severely. Long-term, deeply close friends have aban…
I think my comment might have come off as being sort of condescending to people who are unwilling to talk about their problems for fear of judgement, like if only they would just do that everything would be OK!
Of course that's not the case! When you reveal your problems to someone, they often jump to blaming you, judging you, and so on. I meant that people recognize that I've dealt with that a lot, and that I won't blame them or judge them. Sometimes I can offer them some practical advice, but often that's just condescending, so I just express sympathy.
As for circumstances, I firmly believe that it's possible, albeit difficult, to be happy under any circumstances. This doesn't mean that you're not allowed to seek better circumstances, but I've always found that I'm best at improving my external circumstances when I'm feeling OK internally.
Finally, my one liner "guide to happiness" was meant to be suggestive of broad principles, not "this is exactly what you need to do to be happy!". I should have made this clearer. Balance is an extraordinarily important part of it! People have thought and written about this basically forever -- in fact it's the original, and in my opinion, the only legitimate question in philosophy. It's also the whole point of religion. So to think that one can sum it up in a few platitudes is more than a little bit silly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Christianity. It got me a head start[0] and I think I was lucky to start with friends who explained that forgiveness is just the start and that I was supposed to be living a new life. That said, like other believers here I don't usually mention it as it can effectively derail discussions. [0] I'd tried for a 2/3 years before admitting I couldn't do this on my own, -I was so impulsive I didn't recognize I was doing so…
Faith is extremely good for this. I didn't want to kickstart the perennial HN argument about 12 step programs, but that's how I found mine. I would add that I'm not exactly a Christian, although I find a lot of inspiration in the gospel and the writings of Christian thinkers -- so one doesn't have to go "all the way" and believe in life after death and miracles and stuff -- it's often enough to focus on forgiveness a…
The Gospel of Thomas is a good example of this genre. The Zen-to-Magic ratio is much higher than in most Christian texts. Though, fwiw, mainstream Christians consider it heretic for some reason.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>sincerely no offense meant Thanks! Guess it depends. Once you see it working it is hard not to. As for the irrational part, my take is that once I believe in a almighty / close-to-almigthy God (close-to because of the free will part) everything falls in place. I don't argue about creationism or not etc, I accept science as very useful models and don't make a fuzz of it, I actually don't even think about because it i…
I was happier when I was religious. That's the main reason I've considered going back to it. Couldn't do it :(
I think there is more to it than you and most people have seen, in particular I don't just feel better but I know that it has already transformed me to some degree. That said I'd almost say recommend to wait until one "gets" it, and then hold onto it.
That doesn't mean don't try, but don't force it. Ask whatever-it-is to help, read the parts that are accessible (I found Proverbs are partially good business advice.)
And whoever else reads this - don't let anyone scam you, - you should be looking for a personal connection to whatever-it-is that will help you, not someone to fleece you.
If this helps, keep it, if not leave it.
(I'll be offline for a few hours now.)
To me, this psychiatrist sounds really depressed and like he may be feeling burnt out or isolated at his job. A theme in the two typical cases he cites is that he isn't actually dealing directly with a patient's problems; in both cases, he's a helpless witness to a serious injustice exacerbating those problems, and perhaps making his own efforts to assist the patient seem particularly futile. He seems to be focused o…
The name for this in the helping professions is "compassion fatigue", basically the only way out is to stop trying to help so many people for so many hours per week.
He got attached to some of his patients, tried to help them outside his practice. A handful of these people became part of his (and now mine) family's social circle. A woman on SDI became a nanny, a former factory worker is now our handy-man, another guy he put up in an apartment he was rehabbing and still lives there. At some point, some dude lived in my in-laws basement (my wife just shrugged that off, it apparently happened every few years).
I cringe when I look back on how I thought about psychiatry earlier. I thought it was rich people just going to complain about how sad they felt instead of just sucking it up.
Life is a struggle, for everybody. We have no idea how bad it is indeed. And now, psychiatry to me seems like a terribly lonely profession.
I think this is a fundamental property of capitalism. People who are happy and taken care of don't need to spend money and are terrible for the economy. If you can create problems for someone, you can market solutions to them. Some of the best selling products in the world, like Coca-Cola, are themselves creating the the problem they purport to solve. For a century, companies have been pushing cultural changes that m…
Frankly the world is getting better every year. Not quickly, but gradually. I welcome a world where our biggest problems come from Coca-Cola and vacations and video games.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Parks, libraries and schools are largely not communally-owned spaces, but government-owned. Crucial distinction. It's only a crucial distinction if you don't consider yourself part of your own municipality. For the rest of us, (local) government is an expression of communion. > Many people rightfully may consider their extended families to be not worth interacting with I'm not convinced about the "rightfully" part.…
Even if you believe "local government is an expression of communion," that would not invalidate the fact that there are important distinctions, as a many political scientist and public choice theorist have outlined. You may well believe it to be a purely benevolent arrangement by and for the people, but that is very weak and ignores problems highlighted by James M. Buchanan, Gordon Tullock and many others. I don't un…
Can you enumerate some of them, or point me to a simple resource? I have no desire to go read full-size papers, so something light that goes beyond the trite "we oppose any form of social organization" would be nice.
> The implications of this statement, even if true, are quite unfortunate
I guess that is true. Maybe yours is the more optimistic view of mankind. Your discomfort does not invalidate my viewpoint, though.
As for rejecting various parts of consumer culture, how would I participate in web 2.0 while rejecting walled gardens?
> Whether you define profits [..] I can't tell how it is anything but neutral
There is value in a society beyond profits. Individual freedom, social coherence and emotional stability cannot be valued at all, except perhaps in lost productivity when they break down. There are also forms of productivity that are not expressed as profit even though they could: childrearing and other forms of care come to mind. In addition, "profits" rarely include common costs (like depletion of fish stocks), or they are valued well below their true cost (e.g. carbon tax).
No, I cannot see how "profits" can be seen as neutral, when the true cost/benefit ratio to society is so skewed.
> it is genuinely difficult to say that a majority of consumers are making a wrong choice, if it may be that is what they intended by their own volition
Difficult as it is, the debate around the obesity epidemic is certainly heading in that direction.
I'm an addict in long term recovery, and I hang out with lots of addicts trying to get or stay clean. Obviously this crowd has problems! But what's interesting is that as I've been making friends who aren't addicts, they have problems that are every bit as messed up as the recovery crowd. There are two main differences, though: "normal" people are much more committed to hiding their problems (I feel as though I only…
Answering your edit: don't people have to come to this conclusion on their own, rather than be "convinced"? Doesn't someone have to pass through some period of anhedonia, and the realization that "things" aren't going to make them happier, before they can start to see the structure that will help? If so, and if your desire is to help normal people, I guess your choices are to a) find a strategy that sells anhedonia a…
But is this really the only way? In AA we like to emphasize that there's no such thing as "hitting rock bottom". That is, even if you haven't lost everything, you can have the foresight to stop drinking and get your shit together, and recognize the necessity of changing yourself.
That said, most people, myself included, have to hit quite a few rock bottoms before we get the point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think this is a fundamental property of capitalism What precisely is "this"? > Some of the best selling products in the world, like Coca-Cola, are themselves creating the the problem they purport to solve. I can't imagine what problem you're referring to. Are you saying Coca-Cola creates thirst? > This has fueled economic growth while making us generally more vulnerable How do you measure that? By any measure I'm…
I imagine he's saying Coca-Cola makes you fat and diabetic, and thus unhappy, whereas it purports to make you happy. So it creates the problem it says it solves.
But that argument is really weak.
All products are obviously intended to improve your life in some way.
If a product causes more problems than it solves long term, it's true that people may buy more products to solve those problems.
But to assume that they would buy more of the exact product that caused the problem is really silly. Why not buy some of all the other products in the world that would make me better off, and one that addresses my particular problem?
Specifically, if Coca-Cola makes people fat and diabetic, does anyone really believe that a big enough portion of those affected would react by buying even more Coca-Cola that this is a viable business strategy?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even if you believe "local government is an expression of communion," that would not invalidate the fact that there are important distinctions, as a many political scientist and public choice theorist have outlined. You may well believe it to be a purely benevolent arrangement by and for the people, but that is very weak and ignores problems highlighted by James M. Buchanan, Gordon Tullock and many others. I don't un…
> Even if you believe "local government is an expression of communion," that would not invalidate the fact that there are important distinctions, as a many political scientist and public choice theorist have outlined Can you enumerate some of them, or point me to a simple resource? I have no desire to go read full-size papers, so something light that goes beyond the trite "we oppose any form of social organization" w…
A consistent pessimism for mankind should involve rejection of authority beyond corporate villains.
As for rejecting various parts of consumer culture, how would I participate in web 2.0 while rejecting walled gardens?
Web 2.0 is a useless term, but since we can assume it refers to social media that is intrinsically walled gardens, you simply do not participate in it. However, that you can't isn't strictly true. Metcalfe's law would make it harder since you'd need to restrict yourself to smaller social sites. Yet you're deriving utility from sites like HN, clearly, so this "Web 2.0" distinction strikes me as elusive. There's plenty of mitigations to lower your exposure to walled gardens while still nominally using them, it's not necessarily a binary proposition of accept/reject. Though, who ever said that rejecting consumer culture would be easy? Going outside any grain involves forgoing opportunities.
Your paragraph about profits is a tautology. Of course unquantifiable (psychic) profits are different and unrelated. Value and profits are not the same thing, and it's a red herring to bring up things like childrearing (which babysitters and nannies do for profit, nevertheless). How does this defy the intrinsic existence of profits and their neutrality? And, certainly, someone may indeed find value and derive profits (psychic or monetary) from conserving fish stocks or any other environment. Not only that, markets can be environmentalist. Check out these guys: http://www.perc.org/
Difficult as it is, the debate around the obesity epidemic is certainly heading in that direction.
No shit, people make decisions ex ante that prove ex post to have been incorrect (by whatever measure). I am unsure of what you intend by invoking the obesity epidemic (I''m presuming specifically for the USA?)