The unsettling truth about the ‘Mostly Harmless’ hiker(wired.com)
wired.com
The unsettling truth about the ‘Mostly Harmless’ hiker
https://www.wired.com/story/unsettling-truth-mostly-harmless-hiker/
217 comments
I struggle with this in my personal life. To most friends and acquaintances I can be friendly, personable, interesting, and engaging when we meet. But at home, with close family, and especially with my wife I struggle to be that person. My default state is that I mostly want to be left alone. All the people closest to me seem to want something -- time, attention, help, emotional support etc. none of which I seem to need from anybody else and leads to annoyance and resentment on my part. It doesn't help that I have a particularly stressful job managing a large team with silly interpersonal issues and politics that I have to deal with.
My wife and I have our good moments, are good parents (I think), but day to day is such a struggle. It is constant cycle of me wanting to be left alone and her wanting something or the other from me and getting annoyed that I show reluctance to do it leading to resentment on both sides. Not sure how to fix it or where to turn to for help. I am not an angry person and I don't physically yell or hurt her but she has said that me being reluctant with most things is a form of emotional abuse, which after reading this concerns me and is cause for introspection.
My wife and I have our good moments, are good parents (I think), but day to day is such a struggle. It is constant cycle of me wanting to be left alone and her wanting something or the other from me and getting annoyed that I show reluctance to do it leading to resentment on both sides. Not sure how to fix it or where to turn to for help. I am not an angry person and I don't physically yell or hurt her but she has said that me being reluctant with most things is a form of emotional abuse, which after reading this concerns me and is cause for introspection.
How strange, just created an account to say that I am the same way and was thinking about this a lot last night. (Although, I don’t think I am emotionally abusive, as I feel my spouse demands things that are entirely unreasonable, like frequently asking me to leave work in the middle of the day to come help with something or buying a house and dog when we had less than $1,000 in our account).
All I wanted my whole life was a happy family with a happy relationship like my parents had. That didn’t happen and now all I want is to be left alone, and it’s like everyone wants something from me but I don’t need or want anything from them. I have a great job now, so the only thing I look forward to each day is hopefully reaching financial independence before I’m 40. At least then I can “buy” some alone time.
All I wanted my whole life was a happy family with a happy relationship like my parents had. That didn’t happen and now all I want is to be left alone, and it’s like everyone wants something from me but I don’t need or want anything from them. I have a great job now, so the only thing I look forward to each day is hopefully reaching financial independence before I’m 40. At least then I can “buy” some alone time.
There has been plenty of unreasonable stuff over the years. Early in our marriage she spent close to 1000$ at the mall which left us short of funds to pay her grad school tuition that I had been saving to pay for her. Till date she refuses to understand our financial picture and will be completely lost if I were to get hit by a bus tomorrow. Also, she has not worked for >90% of our ~10 year marriage to follow her passion for art which has made ->$0 so far. I am fine with that because we don't need 2 incomes and I am happy she has the freedom to pursue her passions. Thankfully, like you, I have done pretty well in my career and could probably retire in a cheaper country or some midwestern town tomorrow. This is in addition to all the other things she has anxiety about doing -- driving the car to new places, walking the dog when it is dark outside etc.
I had the exact same wish. I just wanted a happy family like my parents had. I adore my child. Now I just wish we could both get out of this without damaging him too much and I can be left alone.
I had the exact same wish. I just wanted a happy family like my parents had. I adore my child. Now I just wish we could both get out of this without damaging him too much and I can be left alone.
I agree 100% with 08-15s reply. Looks more that she is abusing you.
I was married to a woman who behaved in a similar fashion. Calling me during work days for ridiculous reasons. Never satisfied. Needed constant attention. Took all disagreements as personal attacks. Needy, prickly, never thankful to anyone. In the end we separated as everything in the marriage was one way street in her direction.
Today I regret that I did not leave her more early but tried to rescue the family by letting everything her way.
Looking back she had a Narcistic Personality Disorder (which was meanwhile confirmed by a psychologist).
Get books on narcissism. Try to speak to a professional if you believe she is narcistic. But NPS is (almost) not treatable. So the only solution is to leave if she is narcistic.
Luckily I managed that our kids stayed with me after separation. And for the kids protection, don't leave the kid with her when you leave. (Recommended Reading: "Children of the self absorbed" by Nina Brown).
I was married to a woman who behaved in a similar fashion. Calling me during work days for ridiculous reasons. Never satisfied. Needed constant attention. Took all disagreements as personal attacks. Needy, prickly, never thankful to anyone. In the end we separated as everything in the marriage was one way street in her direction.
Today I regret that I did not leave her more early but tried to rescue the family by letting everything her way.
Looking back she had a Narcistic Personality Disorder (which was meanwhile confirmed by a psychologist).
Get books on narcissism. Try to speak to a professional if you believe she is narcistic. But NPS is (almost) not treatable. So the only solution is to leave if she is narcistic.
Luckily I managed that our kids stayed with me after separation. And for the kids protection, don't leave the kid with her when you leave. (Recommended Reading: "Children of the self absorbed" by Nina Brown).
Do you feel that she doesn't hold up her side of the deal? Did you ever talk about what you expect her to do?
Why are you still together?
Why are you still together?
> she has said that me being reluctant [...] is a form of emotional abuse
> her grad school tuition that I had been saving to pay for her
> she has not worked for >90% of our ~10 year marriage
My friend, you are not abusing your wife. She is abusing you. She is also gaslighting you into thinking you are the problem. You're not. And she is using your child to blackmail you emotionally.
> things she has anxiety about doing -- driving the car to new places, walking the dog when it is dark outside
This isn't anxiety, it's laziness. But if you're merely reluctant about the exact same things, she calls it "a form of emotional abuse." Brilliant.
Unfortunately, the way the law is currently applied, there is nothing you can do without violating it.
> her grad school tuition that I had been saving to pay for her
> she has not worked for >90% of our ~10 year marriage
My friend, you are not abusing your wife. She is abusing you. She is also gaslighting you into thinking you are the problem. You're not. And she is using your child to blackmail you emotionally.
> things she has anxiety about doing -- driving the car to new places, walking the dog when it is dark outside
This isn't anxiety, it's laziness. But if you're merely reluctant about the exact same things, she calls it "a form of emotional abuse." Brilliant.
Unfortunately, the way the law is currently applied, there is nothing you can do without violating it.
She’s likely wanting your presence and testing your loyalty or something? Definitely would help to see a couples therapist but if not, I think setting clear boundaries - like work time is work time - but also scheduling time together would put her at ease and prevent random requests.
100% this. I've been working through similar issues in my personal life (complicated by COVID, natch) and what I've come to is that I need to get way better about setting clear boundaries and expectations with people I care about. This can be done in a compassionate way, and relationships will be better in the long run even if doing the boundary setting feels hard or mean in the short term.
I’m going to get downvoted for this but here goes. For a marriage to be successful, one partner has to be dominant. A marriage of equals doesn’t work and your parents (and mine) have happy relationships because this principle was followed. I converted to Islam around 8 years ago and married a Muslim woman and I could not be more happy. For the last 6 years, everyday is bliss and I’ve never performed better at work.
Well you're certainly right that it's easy to want to downvote your statement. I'd like to learn:
Can you explain what the advantages of the dominant marriages are? Since you mention Islam, I assume you're the dominant one. I'm going to assume your wife is happy in her role. Do you think the female can be the dominant one in a relationship, too, or how is that decided?
Can you explain what the advantages of the dominant marriages are? Since you mention Islam, I assume you're the dominant one. I'm going to assume your wife is happy in her role. Do you think the female can be the dominant one in a relationship, too, or how is that decided?
Not my post, but if I may I’d like to offer my input, please.
The word “dominance” seems to carry a negative connotation in the context of interpersonal relationships. There a lot of historical factors that are the cause of this and it's beyond the scope of this conversation to delve deeply into that.
Nonetheless, as far as Islam is concerned, it is the role of the man to wield the influence/be dominant in his household. This is by virtue of his responsibilities -- his attachment to the Masjid (or “Mosque” in the West), his duty to earn a living for the household and his duty as an educator and paragon of good character, not just in the home but in his community as well.
The word “dominance” may suggest a sense of oppression in modern times. But in the scope of Islam, that husband who is “dominant” in reality eschews all reprehensible conduct that could be associated with the word.
As I mentioned before, yes, in Islam there are expectations on the Muslim wife. But likewise there are expectations (if not more) on the Muslim husband. Again, that Muslim man assumes dominance in the household out of the necessity that is to submit himself both internally and externally to the conduct of the Prophet Muhammad (peace and prayers be upon him).
The advantages of this lie in the husband assuming his natural role as prescribed by Allah and exemplified by the Messenger of Allah (peace and prayers be upon him). If the situation were to be reversed, then this could not be the case. If anything, the man would not just be neglecting his duties as a husband, but as a Muslim as well. If the situation were to be reversed, it would behove the woman to instead leverage this dominance in order to encourage her husband to fulfill the rights he owes to her and to humanity. If he accepts this, then the natural order as described above would inevitably fall into place.
The word “dominance” seems to carry a negative connotation in the context of interpersonal relationships. There a lot of historical factors that are the cause of this and it's beyond the scope of this conversation to delve deeply into that.
Nonetheless, as far as Islam is concerned, it is the role of the man to wield the influence/be dominant in his household. This is by virtue of his responsibilities -- his attachment to the Masjid (or “Mosque” in the West), his duty to earn a living for the household and his duty as an educator and paragon of good character, not just in the home but in his community as well.
The word “dominance” may suggest a sense of oppression in modern times. But in the scope of Islam, that husband who is “dominant” in reality eschews all reprehensible conduct that could be associated with the word.
As I mentioned before, yes, in Islam there are expectations on the Muslim wife. But likewise there are expectations (if not more) on the Muslim husband. Again, that Muslim man assumes dominance in the household out of the necessity that is to submit himself both internally and externally to the conduct of the Prophet Muhammad (peace and prayers be upon him).
The advantages of this lie in the husband assuming his natural role as prescribed by Allah and exemplified by the Messenger of Allah (peace and prayers be upon him). If the situation were to be reversed, then this could not be the case. If anything, the man would not just be neglecting his duties as a husband, but as a Muslim as well. If the situation were to be reversed, it would behove the woman to instead leverage this dominance in order to encourage her husband to fulfill the rights he owes to her and to humanity. If he accepts this, then the natural order as described above would inevitably fall into place.
[deleted]
As salaamu alaikum. I love you. Thank you for sharing this post and making the most profound comment that I have read on this site, bar none.
It is strange to assume that two people who are different by their very nature can be “equal”. The sense of equality between a man and a woman can only come about by the fulfillment of the rights that exist between the two of them, which are different but have to be observed reciprocally.
The problem is that we (meaning humanity at large) are totally unaware of the rights that we owe to each other. Not just in the household, but outside of it as well. Worst of all, we are unaware of the rights that are due to our Creator.
May Allah, the One who is Most Gracious, strengthen you and your wife. Ameen.
It is strange to assume that two people who are different by their very nature can be “equal”. The sense of equality between a man and a woman can only come about by the fulfillment of the rights that exist between the two of them, which are different but have to be observed reciprocally.
The problem is that we (meaning humanity at large) are totally unaware of the rights that we owe to each other. Not just in the household, but outside of it as well. Worst of all, we are unaware of the rights that are due to our Creator.
May Allah, the One who is Most Gracious, strengthen you and your wife. Ameen.
Just a thought, but what if you set a daily time limit of being fully engaged and present with your wife, say for an hour or two, but then it is understood that you need ~3 hrs of alone time.
Sounds like you’re an introvert and need time to recharge from managing a team and you’re burnt out from that.
I think she’d be delighted with an hour a day of full presence, perhaps more on the weekend.
Sounds like you’re an introvert and need time to recharge from managing a team and you’re burnt out from that.
I think she’d be delighted with an hour a day of full presence, perhaps more on the weekend.
This is a good suggestion and something I am going to attempt to negotiate. I think part of the problem is something a person called out below -- we are fundamentally different. She does not need the same amount of time alone and may resent me for wanting that. But something to try.
Counselling might help too, perhaps. It can be very difficult to explain what you need and why, but doubly so when the other party has difficulty hearing and understanding what you're trying to say. A professional counsellor can really help with that.
If she resents you for something that is your nature, that’s (as you know) unsustainable. Resentments like that may need to be dealt with with the help of a neutral therapist.
I’m not sure how I would feel if my partner wanted to spend 3 times as much time alone as with me. That’s kind of degrading unless you are both into that.
What are you getting out of the relationship at all? Sounds like they should leave and be alone.
What are you getting out of the relationship at all? Sounds like they should leave and be alone.
Yea for sure but I think the message is that 1 hour of engaged time - such as going on a short date (at home or other) is much better than 4 hours disengaged and thinking of work while watching Netflix
In the TV show Six Feet Under one of the couples found happiness when they realized they shouldn't live together but they were happy to date each other and see each other regularly, just not all the time, because the boyfriend went through cycles when he enjoyed socializing and cycles when he wanted to be alone.
That strikes me as fine if both people are happy with the arrangement, but if kids are in the picture or one of the partners is unhappy with this arrangement I don't know if it will work.
That strikes me as fine if both people are happy with the arrangement, but if kids are in the picture or one of the partners is unhappy with this arrangement I don't know if it will work.
Have you considered getting a psych evaluation? I’m not trying to swipe at you, I’m approaching this with the most positive of intent.
What you’re describing sounds like a personality disorder of some sort. Identifying such may help surface strategies for lessening those feelings. Disclaimer: not a mental health professional, but have had a couple in my personal life.
What you’re describing sounds like a personality disorder of some sort. Identifying such may help surface strategies for lessening those feelings. Disclaimer: not a mental health professional, but have had a couple in my personal life.
I believe it's called a mask. People with some personality disorders gradually develop a sort of behavioral mask to wear in public in order to fit in into the wider society and be able to achieve one's goals. However, having it 'on' is apparently taxing, so it comes off around people who are in one way or another part of some inner circle for whom there's no point to pretend.
> I believe it's called a mask ... a sort of behavioral mask to wear in public
It is indeed fairly common. I'm affected (thankfully not strongly these days) by bipolar behaviour. I try to present a more average me as the mask.
> in order to fit in into the wider society and be able to achieve one's goals.
It can be more selfless than that. In work life it is about fitting in (or at least not standing out in an inconvenient way) but in personal life it is more that I don't people to worry overly. I have things well managed, I know I can push through, I know it will pass, there is no need to cause stress in others.
> However having it 'on' is apparently taxing
During a bad patch, the extra concentration adds up over time if you find yourself having to work at it for a while. I don't have many prolonged bad patches, I imagine it can get exponentially harder for those more severely affected than me. It is why a lot of people experiencing mental health issues retreat away from interaction even if they are not otherwise particularly introverted.
It is indeed fairly common. I'm affected (thankfully not strongly these days) by bipolar behaviour. I try to present a more average me as the mask.
> in order to fit in into the wider society and be able to achieve one's goals.
It can be more selfless than that. In work life it is about fitting in (or at least not standing out in an inconvenient way) but in personal life it is more that I don't people to worry overly. I have things well managed, I know I can push through, I know it will pass, there is no need to cause stress in others.
> However having it 'on' is apparently taxing
During a bad patch, the extra concentration adds up over time if you find yourself having to work at it for a while. I don't have many prolonged bad patches, I imagine it can get exponentially harder for those more severely affected than me. It is why a lot of people experiencing mental health issues retreat away from interaction even if they are not otherwise particularly introverted.
That’s what I call it. I’ve been hiding being bipolar since I was nine years old.
I had a significant personality change after a psychotic break and most people don’t think I’ve changed. I know I have.
I had a significant personality change after a psychotic break and most people don’t think I’ve changed. I know I have.
How do you know you've changed and it's not just the perception of how you see yourself post the event? Did you change your thinking patterns as well? If you're uncomfortable to share that's more than okay and very understandable.
Love to. I’m a card-carrying member of the Over-sharers Club
The way I think and care about people has changed. I no longer care what people think about me. At the same time, I have a depth of compassion and empathy I couldn’t have had before.
I have no obligation to anyone. This lets me choose to care about someone without getting unnecessarily attracted. As a result, I can share my love and support freely without worrying about people taking advantage of me. I have no guilt showing people the door.
As a result of this, my motivations have changed. To use a metaphor, I see myself as a light in a dark world. My goal is to make everyone’s day a little better. I’m not some kind of savior, though I have saved lives. I’m just a “good person” trying to do “good things”.
My interests have changed in odd ways. I’d never have written erotica but sex is far more interesting to me now. This isn’t a result of me being repressed. I’ve always been asexual and been hypersexual since I was nine. But now I’m deeply exploring sexuality in my writing.
The last one is both odd and the most fundamental to my being. Just take it at face value.
I had a deep, spiritual connection with wolves from six years old until my break. That connection was a core part of me and without it, I wouldn’t have known who I was.
That connection is gone and I really don’t care about it. As far as I’m concerned, it was delusional thinking.
I no longer have the spirituality that was such a part of me. There is only the rational world now. (Side note: My faith in God had always been rational, not emotional or spiritual.)
If I had to guess, I think sexuality took the place of spiritually in my brain.
It’s quite possible I haven’t changed as much as I think, but the world inside my head is so vastly different, I can’t understand the person I was before.
The way I think and care about people has changed. I no longer care what people think about me. At the same time, I have a depth of compassion and empathy I couldn’t have had before.
I have no obligation to anyone. This lets me choose to care about someone without getting unnecessarily attracted. As a result, I can share my love and support freely without worrying about people taking advantage of me. I have no guilt showing people the door.
As a result of this, my motivations have changed. To use a metaphor, I see myself as a light in a dark world. My goal is to make everyone’s day a little better. I’m not some kind of savior, though I have saved lives. I’m just a “good person” trying to do “good things”.
My interests have changed in odd ways. I’d never have written erotica but sex is far more interesting to me now. This isn’t a result of me being repressed. I’ve always been asexual and been hypersexual since I was nine. But now I’m deeply exploring sexuality in my writing.
The last one is both odd and the most fundamental to my being. Just take it at face value.
I had a deep, spiritual connection with wolves from six years old until my break. That connection was a core part of me and without it, I wouldn’t have known who I was.
That connection is gone and I really don’t care about it. As far as I’m concerned, it was delusional thinking.
I no longer have the spirituality that was such a part of me. There is only the rational world now. (Side note: My faith in God had always been rational, not emotional or spiritual.)
If I had to guess, I think sexuality took the place of spiritually in my brain.
It’s quite possible I haven’t changed as much as I think, but the world inside my head is so vastly different, I can’t understand the person I was before.
Another note on masks. If you’ve always been known for your positive traits and your negative ones can be overlooked by people who like you, many people won’t notice if your positive traits get better and your negative ones become smoothed out.
If they do notice, they chalk it up to maturity.
If they do notice, they chalk it up to maturity.
Yes, this happens quite a bit as we can’t really see what’s going on inside other people’s minds. It is very interesting to say your sexuality took over spirituality in your case. How old were you when this happens? During puberty, adolescence and early adulthood we go trough transformations that are in a way not very well understood, in regard to sexuality I mean, think all the hormonal production going through the roof and stabilizing later on in life, but this is connected to mental health as well. Although I am not suffering of serious mental issues, just some anxiety and depression here and there for short periods of time, I remember first experiencing anxiety as an adolescent and didn’t know what it was then. It was mild though.
> How old were you when this happens?
I was 32 when this all happened.
I was 32 when this all happened.
> However, having it 'on' is apparently taxing
That just sounds like standard introvert, though.
The hiker in the article, on the other hand, seems to be off-the-deep-end introvert.
That just sounds like standard introvert, though.
The hiker in the article, on the other hand, seems to be off-the-deep-end introvert.
I assume you can be an introvert who has no mental issues.
I also assume you can be an introvert who has some spectrum and type of mental illness, sexual and gender classification they choose, past exploitation and/or violence committed against you, etc.
I just think it is interesting b/c the person underneath the shell is different person to person and I think we lump very granular groups into large piles for ease of discussion and use.
I think he wanted a mental health, possibly a moral/spiritual awakening but he was toward the end or had completed the hike and was facing reality that there was a mental issue or past event in his life that he could not get past. Maybe just going back to the "real world" was just to much if it had to be in his own skin with his past.
I also assume you can be an introvert who has some spectrum and type of mental illness, sexual and gender classification they choose, past exploitation and/or violence committed against you, etc.
I just think it is interesting b/c the person underneath the shell is different person to person and I think we lump very granular groups into large piles for ease of discussion and use.
I think he wanted a mental health, possibly a moral/spiritual awakening but he was toward the end or had completed the hike and was facing reality that there was a mental issue or past event in his life that he could not get past. Maybe just going back to the "real world" was just to much if it had to be in his own skin with his past.
It's... Not even close. What I had in mind was what clinical narcissists, sociopaths and psychopaths do. Their brains are wired completely differently than what is regarded as normal, to the point where you can see that on CT scans. There was a story about a researcher who figured out he's a high-functioning psychopath by looking at his CT scans. I'm digressing. So, typically, starting from a very early age they'd learn the behaviors they need to do in order to not get into trouble. Down to 'make an upward arch with your mouth when you see someone who knows you'. Must be very hard to live like that, I don't think it's comparable to what introverts do. Because introverts simply amplify behaviors that they do have, or understand, or are at least able to relate to from parts of personal experience. Contrast that to literally coming up with an artificial persona that you can't even relate to in any way and having to always stick to that.
This is why the masks ar pretty much always super charming and likeable. If you're acting anyway, might as well act like someone that's super likeable. Pretty much how you max out a player in some game.
This is why the masks ar pretty much always super charming and likeable. If you're acting anyway, might as well act like someone that's super likeable. Pretty much how you max out a player in some game.
Maybe this is oversharing, but maybe not. I have shades of this in myself. I have a much smaller friend group than many folks and a cynical take on most peoples motivations. I can say that some of why I feel this way is just "how Im bent" and some is from childhood experiences of having my trust betrayed or my naivety taken advantage of. Throw in a bit of unpredictable mom behavior and I generally dont want to owe anything to anyone.
When I first meet people Im more than happy to share, give of myself, etc. Usually I will either feel that gestures are not reciprocated, or taken for granted, so I pull back. Ive wondered if I feel like Im expecting too much of my generosity and I think Ive been guilty of that before. At this point though I think I have reflected enough and changed to where this is not the case.
Long term- I feel like being social requires me to "be on" which is exhausting to me. I would rather only see people when I can be decent company so I end up seeing people much less than more socially adept folks...
When I first meet people Im more than happy to share, give of myself, etc. Usually I will either feel that gestures are not reciprocated, or taken for granted, so I pull back. Ive wondered if I feel like Im expecting too much of my generosity and I think Ive been guilty of that before. At this point though I think I have reflected enough and changed to where this is not the case.
Long term- I feel like being social requires me to "be on" which is exhausting to me. I would rather only see people when I can be decent company so I end up seeing people much less than more socially adept folks...
You might just be an HSP: https://www.amazon.com/Highly-Sensitive-Person-Thrive-Overwh...
I've had this problem in many contexts. Some of it stems from childhood circumstances, but it's also that I often read people better than they seemingly know themselves, i.e., noticing anger that they don't think they have. This can cause a lot of stress.
I've had this problem in many contexts. Some of it stems from childhood circumstances, but it's also that I often read people better than they seemingly know themselves, i.e., noticing anger that they don't think they have. This can cause a lot of stress.
From the about portion of that, it mostly reads like symptoms of people with Schizoid Personality Disorder or Avoidant Personality Disorder. While it can be a good survival trait in the grand scheme of things, culturally in the US it's as useful as being born poor.
It's pretty different. My kid had it, and there were some things we did early to help him study, but nothing like either of those disorders. It's more tied to very high empathy.
However, you do have to learn how to avoid taking on other people's emotional burdens.
However, you do have to learn how to avoid taking on other people's emotional burdens.
Or on the autism spectrum. A lot of people with HFA/asperger's would describe their inner experience as very much like 'HSP' even if from the outside they wouldn't be obviously considered so.
I can relate to some of your quirks. I am now 50+, with 3 kids, and I've left most of the quirks behind.
I used to always try to please others. My dysfunctional family liked it that way. It made their life easier. That was one of the last quirks to go. It was only after being forced into being assertive to defend my kids, I've realized that it is ok to stand up for yourself. Life's been much better since, surprisingly, most people appreciate assertiveness. And being assertive is not nearly as exhausting as being nice.
It was a long journey, started with therapy 25 years ago.
I used to always try to please others. My dysfunctional family liked it that way. It made their life easier. That was one of the last quirks to go. It was only after being forced into being assertive to defend my kids, I've realized that it is ok to stand up for yourself. Life's been much better since, surprisingly, most people appreciate assertiveness. And being assertive is not nearly as exhausting as being nice.
It was a long journey, started with therapy 25 years ago.
I have the same issue as well. Often I feel like people are taking advantage of me. I feel like I have a good sense of people's intentions even before they say them. Also if I don't receive reciprocation in any way, it further reinforces to me the taking advantage of belief.
This is indicative of a personality disorder. My father had BPD and behaved this way. My mother was borderline and behaved this way.
People like this do not behave abusively towards their loved ones all the time, it's pretty on-and-off. The loved one is typically a dependent or avoidant. They remain in the relationship because they need the positive affirmations, and healthy people do not want to be with a dependent or avoidant. So, no choice but to suffer the negativity also.
It's clear that this man developed a personality disorder as the result of suffering abuse as a child.
People like this do not behave abusively towards their loved ones all the time, it's pretty on-and-off. The loved one is typically a dependent or avoidant. They remain in the relationship because they need the positive affirmations, and healthy people do not want to be with a dependent or avoidant. So, no choice but to suffer the negativity also.
It's clear that this man developed a personality disorder as the result of suffering abuse as a child.
> It's clear that this man developed a personality disorder as the result of suffering abuse as a child.
I don't think the causality is clear at all. If he treated his parents the way he treated his girlfriends then his childhood would have been rough no matter how loving they were.
If he behaves like he did in the article: polite at first but increasingly hostile the longer the relationship lasted then he must have been a hellish teenager to wrangle. One part of the article mentions that his anger at his father may have been the result of putting him in an institution.
I don't think the causality is clear at all. If he treated his parents the way he treated his girlfriends then his childhood would have been rough no matter how loving they were.
If he behaves like he did in the article: polite at first but increasingly hostile the longer the relationship lasted then he must have been a hellish teenager to wrangle. One part of the article mentions that his anger at his father may have been the result of putting him in an institution.
> It's clear that this man developed a personality disorder as the result of suffering abuse as a child.
I'd say that is pretty hard to tell from the hearsay and all these are just speculations, which are okay. We're learning more from these conversations anyway.
I'd say that is pretty hard to tell from the hearsay and all these are just speculations, which are okay. We're learning more from these conversations anyway.
Thank you for your gentle and respectful method of disagreement.
I agree that my assumption was based on hearsay. Fundamentally, I don't believe that children who are loved and protected by their primary caregivers shoot themselves in the stomach in an attempt to die.
I agree that my assumption was based on hearsay. Fundamentally, I don't believe that children who are loved and protected by their primary caregivers shoot themselves in the stomach in an attempt to die.
You're welcome. Mental health is a very misunderstood topic because it is something we cannot directly peer into and the stigma associated with mental health makes people hide it very well.
It is possible to have a who child goes off the rails in a very nurturing and a generally normal family. I've seen cases where one of the many siblings gets to become a sociopath and the family never understands why and they continue to be normal and consistently try to get their sibling back on track. It is clear that abuse in the family doesn't always play a role. But quite often it does and while mental health has a hereditary component, a bad environment only makes things worse.
I recommend Ramsay's movie 'We need to talk about Kevin' to make an idea of how wrong it could go. Surely, it is a movie but it's not too far from reality.
It is possible to have a who child goes off the rails in a very nurturing and a generally normal family. I've seen cases where one of the many siblings gets to become a sociopath and the family never understands why and they continue to be normal and consistently try to get their sibling back on track. It is clear that abuse in the family doesn't always play a role. But quite often it does and while mental health has a hereditary component, a bad environment only makes things worse.
I recommend Ramsay's movie 'We need to talk about Kevin' to make an idea of how wrong it could go. Surely, it is a movie but it's not too far from reality.
This is indicative only of specific personality disorders. There are several other personality disorders that don't behave this way and are defined by other actions entirely, eg. schizotypal personality disorder is mostly being defined by distorted perceptions and belief systems.
It is sadly typical and can result in something a friend of mine experienced. She left her husband, told friends that he was abusive, and the general response was "Him? But he's such a great guy! You must be lying."
( Fortunately for her, the friends who attempted to console him pretty soon noticed how violent he got when he talked about her. When he threw a glass at the wall at a friend's apartment, she started getting a lot of apologies. )
It's almost an adaptive behavior. If they were violent to strangers, they wouldn't have long term acquaintances.
( Fortunately for her, the friends who attempted to console him pretty soon noticed how violent he got when he talked about her. When he threw a glass at the wall at a friend's apartment, she started getting a lot of apologies. )
It's almost an adaptive behavior. If they were violent to strangers, they wouldn't have long term acquaintances.
Could be politeness as a response to social uncertainty followed by aggression once things are more clear. Like how some people fight with loved ones because they can’t just walk.
I think there may be an element of survivorship bias at play. There's kind of a 2x2 you can draw where people can be publicly/privately kind/abusive. People who are kind all the time (or at least, not abusive all the time) are unremarkable, I'm not sure there are many people who are publicly abusive and privately kind, and people who are both publicly and privately abusive are way more likely to end up in prison, or homeless, or otherwise away from people. So that leaves us noticing the strange pattern of people who are publicly kind and privately abusive. It's like, the most remarkable pattern that's actually present for us to remark upon.
I think you can find people who are publicly abusive and privately kind in online communities.
I just finished listening to a podcast called My Year in Mensa, which centers around an unmoderated Mensa facebook group, and the author's interactions with them. As you can imagine from an unmoderated community, it sucks and a lot of people say shitty things there.
A common refrain the author heard from people defending the group is "They're the nicest people in real life!", which may absolutely be the case, but publicly, they are presenting abusive versions of themselves.
I just finished listening to a podcast called My Year in Mensa, which centers around an unmoderated Mensa facebook group, and the author's interactions with them. As you can imagine from an unmoderated community, it sucks and a lot of people say shitty things there.
A common refrain the author heard from people defending the group is "They're the nicest people in real life!", which may absolutely be the case, but publicly, they are presenting abusive versions of themselves.
Ooh, that's a great example.
> I'm not sure there are many people who are publicly abusive and privately kind
Gordon Ramsay perhaps?
Gordon Ramsay perhaps?
I've watched a lot of his shows and have developed a kind of celebrity respect for him, enough that I've gone on and read interviews with him and with people in his orbit (like the restauranteurs featured on his shows.) Turns out a lot of people say he's actually far kinder than you'd think, off-camera, to all the people he's seemingly abusive to!
All the yelling and vitriol is kind of a spliced-down highlights reel, is the impression I've gotten, the stuff that makes for good tv. It's there and it's real, but it's a smaller part of a guy who's generally nice and genuinely cares about the people on his shows.
Good suggestion though.
All the yelling and vitriol is kind of a spliced-down highlights reel, is the impression I've gotten, the stuff that makes for good tv. It's there and it's real, but it's a smaller part of a guy who's generally nice and genuinely cares about the people on his shows.
Good suggestion though.
There could also be a survivorship bias of relationships. The friends you still have are the ones who are willing and able to put up with your shit. The others are no longer in your life.
So when you're around them, you know you can let out your bad side to some extent. You don't know that with random strangers.
So when you're around them, you know you can let out your bad side to some extent. You don't know that with random strangers.
there is a broad class of psychological problems called "personality disorders" and they're basically "spectrum" disorders, there's no one size fits all diagnosis for anybody, and even skilled practitioners go through a tricky and time consuming process of diagnosing patients directly, i.e. we can't diagnose him from here based on 2nd hand information, and especially because we are not skilled practitioners.
wrt your "personal theory" (sense of obligation leads to resentment), that's too simplistic, but for the sake of argument, let's say you are on the right track, here's how to improve your understanding of personality disorders: all people feel the resentment of obligations to those close to them. That part is actually the normal part. The question is, why doesn't the person with this disorder (we are hypothesizing) feel the other positive parts of a close relationship that help a better adjusted person feel in balance, and then take the normal resentment of obligations in stride.
wrt your "personal theory" (sense of obligation leads to resentment), that's too simplistic, but for the sake of argument, let's say you are on the right track, here's how to improve your understanding of personality disorders: all people feel the resentment of obligations to those close to them. That part is actually the normal part. The question is, why doesn't the person with this disorder (we are hypothesizing) feel the other positive parts of a close relationship that help a better adjusted person feel in balance, and then take the normal resentment of obligations in stride.
This doesn't apply to all personality disorders. Schizotypal and paranoid personality disorders do not have this behavior at all.
Agreed.
Its the idea that the more you learn about people and have to be around them, you start to judge them and then realize they aren't like you, so you push them away and crater relationships on purpose so you can be alone and unencumbered by other people's problems. It sounds to me like he did just that. Easier to have short-term relationships and human contact when you need it, but not long enough where you start to get bitter about having to continue being around people you don't like.
He created a world that seemed to fit his personality better than what he had been doing most of his life. It must have been beneficial in some way if he continued doing it for so long.
Its the idea that the more you learn about people and have to be around them, you start to judge them and then realize they aren't like you, so you push them away and crater relationships on purpose so you can be alone and unencumbered by other people's problems. It sounds to me like he did just that. Easier to have short-term relationships and human contact when you need it, but not long enough where you start to get bitter about having to continue being around people you don't like.
He created a world that seemed to fit his personality better than what he had been doing most of his life. It must have been beneficial in some way if he continued doing it for so long.
> But soon he started to clam up and shut her out. “If something upset him, he would stop talking to me completely. Which can be lonely when you share a 500-square-foot apartment,” she says.
You definitely get the sense that he just wanted to be alone at times. Hard to do that when you're in a long term relationships because you have to adjust to some else's schedule. Easier when your acquaintances are short-term.
You definitely get the sense that he just wanted to be alone at times. Hard to do that when you're in a long term relationships because you have to adjust to some else's schedule. Easier when your acquaintances are short-term.
And still no reason to treat people like crap, as he apparently did.
Seems to me that there are two factors:
1) If you are weird, then you have mismatched expectations about relationships (and other social obligations) than majority society. Not providing something that is expected would be 'neglect', while expecting something that is not provided would be 'entitlement'. Social rules with strangers or casual acquaintances are much simpler.
2) Being in some kind of deep relationship means emotional stakes are higher. Perceived violations due to (1) causes higher emotional damage if they are from someone near than someone distant.
1) If you are weird, then you have mismatched expectations about relationships (and other social obligations) than majority society. Not providing something that is expected would be 'neglect', while expecting something that is not provided would be 'entitlement'. Social rules with strangers or casual acquaintances are much simpler.
2) Being in some kind of deep relationship means emotional stakes are higher. Perceived violations due to (1) causes higher emotional damage if they are from someone near than someone distant.
Could be the fact that strangers don't know you so they can't judge you. Your long term friends and family know you possibly better than you do. Being around friends and family can be a great way to learn about yourself. The problem is, some people see themselves and hate it.
My theory about what might have governed his behavior: boredom. He was designing a game, which is a system designed to mitigate the boredom issue. Knowing people better could make them boring to one's eye -- there are familiar patterns, and not much interesting new patterns developed. Nature has a lot of interesting new patterns.. but maybe he eventually got bored out of that too.
Reading the article he was someone who was prone to neglect people close to him. I wouldn't look for an explanation that applies to everyone for that behavior.
I've known people closely people like that, there's a selfishness to their lack of acknowledgement of others' needs and wants, but it's more of a drive to do that than a reaction to their existence; if and when they have nobody else to hollow out with their negativity and neglect, they'll turn it on themselves, and over time there will be just less and less of themselves.
Notwithstanding that they can be charming on a superficial level.
There's lots of ways people can have that pattern of being a completely different beast to strangers than to intimate partners in a bad way. Say on the other end the ones that make their whole world about you, but that specially means that every single bad feeling of theirs will be offloaded or straight up blamed on you.
I've known people closely people like that, there's a selfishness to their lack of acknowledgement of others' needs and wants, but it's more of a drive to do that than a reaction to their existence; if and when they have nobody else to hollow out with their negativity and neglect, they'll turn it on themselves, and over time there will be just less and less of themselves.
Notwithstanding that they can be charming on a superficial level.
There's lots of ways people can have that pattern of being a completely different beast to strangers than to intimate partners in a bad way. Say on the other end the ones that make their whole world about you, but that specially means that every single bad feeling of theirs will be offloaded or straight up blamed on you.
From experience, I would explain it by an inability to accept others, which could be traced to perfectionism and low self-esteem.
With long term acquaintances, you start to notice imperfections. If you have a low self-esteem, you could develop this peronality where you are constantly judging others, and trying to control and make them perfect, because they are part of your life.
This could have been caused by constant criticism received during childhood, or abusive parents who were themselves perfectionist in treating you, and didn't show enough acceptance, pride and love.
With long term acquaintances, you start to notice imperfections. If you have a low self-esteem, you could develop this peronality where you are constantly judging others, and trying to control and make them perfect, because they are part of your life.
This could have been caused by constant criticism received during childhood, or abusive parents who were themselves perfectionist in treating you, and didn't show enough acceptance, pride and love.
I think its easy to lice in a shell you create for yourself 10-12 hours a day. Its harder to live that life with people you're around all the time. My Dad for instance was well liked at his job and in the community. As soon as he left work and those people behind the smiles and jokes stopped and he was just mean and quiet with a temper that was never far from reach. I think the person he was at work was the person he wanted to be, but the person he was with us was his true self.
Its either that or he truly hated my mother, my brother, and myself.
Its either that or he truly hated my mother, my brother, and myself.
He wasn’t abusive to his roommate or coworkers, so the divide wasn’t stranger/close acquaintance.
Sorry to spell it out, and I don’t expect any sympathy for it, but the pattern was man/woman.
Sorry to spell it out, and I don’t expect any sympathy for it, but the pattern was man/woman.
I highly doubt the pattern was as you put it man/woman. That pattern seems to indicate that he was more abusive to people who were closer to him.
I think it comes from liking people a priori, but having a habituated expectation that the people we know will take from us (our happiness, our time, etc.)--so that one can't feel safe to be oneself with those one knows. IMO this expectation typically comes from childhood and can best be mitigated via mindfulness.
Perhaps some form of social anxiety or avoidant attachment? It's easy to be friendly (or an asshole) in brief superficial interactions, but longer interactions lead people to intimacy that some find undesirable... fear of rejection can present as hostility (essentially proactive rejection).
I had an ex that was sort of like this. She wasn’t necessarily abusive, but she needed everyone to like her and the people that already did she didn’t have to do anything to impress. I interpreted it as a deep insecurity resulting in really fake behavior: a mask as a sibling poster said.
I think it's because when you spend a lot of time with someone, you start to notice all of their annoying quirks you don't usually see when you just met them. So after a while you start to get tired and annoyed of them, and the way to deal with it is with anger.
There could also have been some trauma/abuse with parents/family. The author of the story seemed to suggest something happened between him and the father.
Or it could be novelty in the new people overpowering any more negative thoughts. The novelty falls off leaving the other to show through.
Need for approval maybe. Skilled at getting approval from strangers. Once in a relationship that disappears.
"Familiarity breeds contempt"?
That theory really seems sensible to me.
Whenever I read a biography about some person I admire, I always end up disliking that person. Failed relationships and abandoned responsibilities are exceedingly common (especially among artists and people who are highly driven to success). I think that most of us have some “unsettling” details in our past. People are imperfect.
The allegations of physical and mental abuse here are particularly bad, and I’m not trying to make any excuses for Rodriguez. But they aren’t exactly uncommon in this world, either.
The tone of this article feels a little too judgmental to me. Like Rodriguez somehow had an obligation to all the people who were interested in his story, and has let them down. But is it really surprising that someone who died in such unusual conditions, with no friends or family to report him as missing, would have had a rough past?
The author also says at one point “maybe that’s the prettiest bow you can put on the box that contains this strange story”. But why should we as interested observers feel the need or be entitled to “put a bow” on this other man’s life?
The allegations of physical and mental abuse here are particularly bad, and I’m not trying to make any excuses for Rodriguez. But they aren’t exactly uncommon in this world, either.
The tone of this article feels a little too judgmental to me. Like Rodriguez somehow had an obligation to all the people who were interested in his story, and has let them down. But is it really surprising that someone who died in such unusual conditions, with no friends or family to report him as missing, would have had a rough past?
The author also says at one point “maybe that’s the prettiest bow you can put on the box that contains this strange story”. But why should we as interested observers feel the need or be entitled to “put a bow” on this other man’s life?
Well, the guy's dead. People should probably back off. An inability to change is almost a functional definition of death. If anything, those judging him could look in the mirror. Why the need to seek answers about someone? Why the need to judge whatever you find out? As someone who has only ever read a few comments on HN about this story - because I have no interest in this sort of thing - I'm judging society for how they handle this person. Harshly.
Edit-Why not check your egos and ids for once and let it go?
Edit-Why not check your egos and ids for once and let it go?
Somehow I read this and I'm not sure what the actual Unsettling Truth was, but it still was interesting, I learned a few new things, and I've been following this one pretty close.
The more I read about this the more I'm reminded of Chris McCandless.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_McCandless
The more I read about this the more I'm reminded of Chris McCandless.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_McCandless
The unsettling truth is that he was deeply troubled, and, at times, an abusive asshole who didn’t necessarily warrant quite as much compassion from strangers as he was given.
I’m open to the idea that it may not really matter, and everyone deserves the dignity to not be buried anonymously. But there were a lot of resources invested in this case because he looked very relatable in photos. He was very different from what people thought of him, and what motivated them, and therefore the truth is unsettling wrt that effort.
This doesn’t mean the effort was wrong, or that he was a monster not worthy of compassion. He was clearly fighting some demons, sometimes winning, sometimes losing, sometimes unleashing them on others. It defies easy moral judgements, and I believe the article does an excellent job saying as much.
But meanwhile, thousands die anonymously and unnoticed every year, and their photos and circumstances of death are far less compelling, but many if not most of them would have life stories that do not include multiple episodes of physically and psychologically abusing everyone close to them.
Compassionate efforts often cannot be shifted according to utilitarian calculations (which is one argument for getting together and making them someone’s actual job, in a process usually called “government”). But stories like this do maybe serve to make some people think about the best allocation of such efforts.
(The other unsettling truth is that HN can read this story and come away asking what people could possibly object to in his life story, and why one should believe the spouses (plural) that describe his dark side)
I’m open to the idea that it may not really matter, and everyone deserves the dignity to not be buried anonymously. But there were a lot of resources invested in this case because he looked very relatable in photos. He was very different from what people thought of him, and what motivated them, and therefore the truth is unsettling wrt that effort.
This doesn’t mean the effort was wrong, or that he was a monster not worthy of compassion. He was clearly fighting some demons, sometimes winning, sometimes losing, sometimes unleashing them on others. It defies easy moral judgements, and I believe the article does an excellent job saying as much.
But meanwhile, thousands die anonymously and unnoticed every year, and their photos and circumstances of death are far less compelling, but many if not most of them would have life stories that do not include multiple episodes of physically and psychologically abusing everyone close to them.
Compassionate efforts often cannot be shifted according to utilitarian calculations (which is one argument for getting together and making them someone’s actual job, in a process usually called “government”). But stories like this do maybe serve to make some people think about the best allocation of such efforts.
(The other unsettling truth is that HN can read this story and come away asking what people could possibly object to in his life story, and why one should believe the spouses (plural) that describe his dark side)
@IfOnlyYouKnew Very level headed and great comment. It’s amazing how much victim blaming HN does on almost any topic.
Separately, IMO, previous girlfriends or friends, etc. won’t go out of their way to spit on someone’s grave. I think the exception is when someone finally feels safe to speak out that they were abused or if the person was a true POS.
Not sure why the default logic in this case is to automatically assume the exes are bad mouthing the deceased just because they can. Sure, it happens, but in this case there were two separate first-hand accounts and from the girl’s parents.
Separately, IMO, previous girlfriends or friends, etc. won’t go out of their way to spit on someone’s grave. I think the exception is when someone finally feels safe to speak out that they were abused or if the person was a true POS.
Not sure why the default logic in this case is to automatically assume the exes are bad mouthing the deceased just because they can. Sure, it happens, but in this case there were two separate first-hand accounts and from the girl’s parents.
I think the most unsettling truth is about how titles are being assembled in search of ad revenue, since "Formerly anonymous hitchhiker who died alone lived troubled life" gets a lot less clicks -- since that seems almost like a non-story.
Assembling dialogue around the divisive narrative of a misleading title is just something that plays into it and I think something we all need to avoid.
Assembling dialogue around the divisive narrative of a misleading title is just something that plays into it and I think something we all need to avoid.
yawn
It's a slippery slope (and mildly sociopathic) to start judging people's worthiness of being murdered (or sought justice for) based on whether they were a good or bad person.
Allocating resources based on how charming someone's photo is is also wrong, and worthy of discussion, though presumably people at least aren't doing that consciously.
Edit: I'm fairly disturbed that this appears to be controversial.
Allocating resources based on how charming someone's photo is is also wrong, and worthy of discussion, though presumably people at least aren't doing that consciously.
Edit: I'm fairly disturbed that this appears to be controversial.
I don't think there's any indication this person was murdered, nor that there's anybody to seek justice against.
Ah, I guess that's on me for only skimming the article. Still, death is death. We shouldn't trivialize it just because the person in question wasn't a good person, which is what it felt like the GP was suggesting.
This is wholly platitudinous. There are individuals whose death is of near zero utility to me and individuals whose death is of positive utility to me even accounting for any knock-on effects of considering any human death trivial.
I know one is usually meant to just nod when people say things like "all human life matters" and "no death is anything but horrible" and all that, but it's really not true.
In fact, if I model people's actions I find that nearly everyone will nod along with those things but few people act in a manner that is consistent with that action.
I know one is usually meant to just nod when people say things like "all human life matters" and "no death is anything but horrible" and all that, but it's really not true.
In fact, if I model people's actions I find that nearly everyone will nod along with those things but few people act in a manner that is consistent with that action.
The article says one thing the investigators are sure of from the beginning is he died of "natural causes."
Toward the end it seems like he might have starved to death or maybe of dehydration.
Toward the end it seems like he might have starved to death or maybe of dehydration.
>The other unsettling truth is that HN can read this story and come away asking what people could possibly object to in his life story, and why one should believe the spouses (plural) that describe his dark side
What's unsettling about thinking that hit pieces on a dead man with quotes from supposed "ex girlfriends" is obnoxious?
What's unsettling about thinking that hit pieces on a dead man with quotes from supposed "ex girlfriends" is obnoxious?
We are all chimpanzees of varying temperament.
The internet finds a story like this and spends a month on it.
"Good chimp killed? Good chimp killed on hike? Hiking good, hikers good. Must be good victim chimp. How can good chimp have bad thing happen?"
Then somebody finds out who the chimp is, and somebody gets a thousand bucks to write
"Good chimp not so good. Fought with other chimps. Shouted, got quiet, not share food. Not good chimp die on trail. Bad chimp wander off to die because bad. Sad but ok."
That's the natural cycle of news, it's been going on since the press was invented and it's mostly ok.
What's frustrating is the internet adding the layer of
"Bad chimp? Bad Chimp?! What kind bad chimp? Bad chimp have excuse to be bad? No? Put on list of Villain Chimps! Vvvvvvvvillllainous chimp."
Dysfunctional dude didn't do so well with his personal relationships on his way to an early grave. Ok-doke.
The internet finds a story like this and spends a month on it.
"Good chimp killed? Good chimp killed on hike? Hiking good, hikers good. Must be good victim chimp. How can good chimp have bad thing happen?"
Then somebody finds out who the chimp is, and somebody gets a thousand bucks to write
"Good chimp not so good. Fought with other chimps. Shouted, got quiet, not share food. Not good chimp die on trail. Bad chimp wander off to die because bad. Sad but ok."
That's the natural cycle of news, it's been going on since the press was invented and it's mostly ok.
What's frustrating is the internet adding the layer of
"Bad chimp? Bad Chimp?! What kind bad chimp? Bad chimp have excuse to be bad? No? Put on list of Villain Chimps! Vvvvvvvvillllainous chimp."
Dysfunctional dude didn't do so well with his personal relationships on his way to an early grave. Ok-doke.
Yea that’s the first thing I thought. If I wanted to write an honest and fair assessment on someone, I probably would take the stories from ex-girlfriends (or anyone else with a potential ax to grind) with a grain of salt. A lot of us wouldn’t want our biographies to be written by ex’s.
Unfortunately the author really didn’t have many more people to interview as the guy was a bit of a loner.
Unfortunately the author really didn’t have many more people to interview as the guy was a bit of a loner.
Sure, but how many of us have exes that would say we beat them? I would be very surprised if even the more acrimonious breakups of mine claimed that I hit them. Pretty sure most of us have never laid a hand in anger on our partners.
Were there any police reports? Was he arrested for battery? Honestly it's pure hearsay otherwise. We can't really be expected to take the word of jilted ex lovers at face value, sorry.
Believe what you want. No one is really trying to convince you, specifically. It's just a human interest story at the end of it.
For my part, I find it sufficient for me to conclude this guy hit his girlfriend.
For my part, I find it sufficient for me to conclude this guy hit his girlfriend.
>It's just a human interest story at the end of it
Its really not, it's a "hey let me trash this dead guy for clicks" story.
>For my part, I find it sufficient for me to conclude this guy hit his girlfriend.
Someone claiming to be your ex sent me a message saying you kill puppies and beat women. That's sufficient for me to believe you abuse women and animals.
Its really not, it's a "hey let me trash this dead guy for clicks" story.
>For my part, I find it sufficient for me to conclude this guy hit his girlfriend.
Someone claiming to be your ex sent me a message saying you kill puppies and beat women. That's sufficient for me to believe you abuse women and animals.
I think the "unsettling truth" was that he turned out to be a flawed human being rather than the person that people who didn't even know him built him up to be in their imaginations.
It's even more banal than that. The "unsettling truth" is he's got an ex who is willing to spread some unsubstantiated dirt about him that may not be true, or may be exaggerated. (Was there ever a police report? A restraining order? Probably not, or it would be mentioned.)
That's it. It's a non-story.
That's it. It's a non-story.
I was pretty interested in the McCandless story as well. Krakauer uncovering the possibility of him eating the Eskimo potato plant which may have ultimately killed him was really eye opening.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/05/01/403535274/in...
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/05/01/403535274/in...
What an absurd story. Wikipedia lists one travel, in fact the first and last one. How sad. And why the heck do you venture out into the bushes only to live in a abandoned bus? I mean, yeah, how convenient. I can see that. But it is also weird.
I read the book by Krakauer a few years ago. Tragically, he could've crossed the river he thought was blocking his way back to civilization by a hand-operated cable car only 800 meters away from his shelter. He wandered into the wild without a good map.
To his credit, though, there is the possibility that he was simply unable to walk because he poisoned himself accidentally [0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_McCandless#Lathyrism_due...
To his credit, though, there is the possibility that he was simply unable to walk because he poisoned himself accidentally [0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_McCandless#Lathyrism_due...
When your goal is to be away from people, not necessarily shelter or technology.
What's absurd about it?
I would imagine that someone inclined to live in the bushes by themselves would be interested in/wanting to build their shelter themselves, or at least use something that has natural origin. At least that is how I imagine it. What did you achieve if you leave civilisation behind only to use something a shelter which wouldnt exist without civilisation?
It's clear he was seeking solitude more than he was seeking nature. It just so happens the two go together frequently. It does not particularly appear any 'achievement' was intended.
By being incredibly stupid mostly.
Exactly my thoughts, reminded me very much of Into the Wild.
The unsettling truth was that he was apparently an abusive malcontent who decided to run away from the problems he created once again.
It's a shame, he could have had a healthy and productive life just posting every day to the Linux kernel mailing list.
Yep. He just missed finding his people, unfortunate.
And also that he basically left his life behind with no intention of ever coming back and hiked until he literally starved to death.
It sounds like he was aware enough of these flaws that he decided to do something about it. That's a lot better than some people who go a lifetime without ever being self-aware.
> he decided to do something about it
But not, apparently, therapy.
But not, apparently, therapy.
Based on what? Some ex’s word?
One person could be an aberration. But when multiple people all say similar things, it's a pattern.
It's not just "some ex's" word. It's her word and the words of the other people who knew him.
It's not just "some ex's" word. It's her word and the words of the other people who knew him.
But he told obscure jokes! But yeah, I think the title is clickbait, nothing here actually seems unsettling.
> On a Saturday night in September 2016, K was injured when a terrorist set off a bomb on West 23rd Street in Manhattan. “I had pretty bad PTSD to which he hated caring for me, even kept a dated log of every time I needed help, to the point where he left me outside in the dark—knowing that at that time I couldn't be outside alone or be in the dark without panicking,” she recalls, before adding, “and this is only the light stuff.”
You don’t find this behavior unsettling? How about this anecdote being characterized as “this only the light stuff”?
You don’t find this behavior unsettling? How about this anecdote being characterized as “this only the light stuff”?
Maybe I've become jaded living in a low socioeconomic area but this sounds like the people living 2 doors down from me. They're forever having screaming matches, both diagnosed with mental health issues, they rarely work. But they're not that unusual here at the bottom end of the income distribution.
I was a little to flippant in my comment, maybe I should be more unsettled?
I was a little to flippant in my comment, maybe I should be more unsettled?
Not to diminish her problems, but at the same time this is extremely reminiscent of girlfriends that are super attention seeking and constantly have “problems” that need to be resolved immediately. Sounds like this guy wasn’t super emotional and was distressed by incessant calls for attention.
A person who has such high levels of distress or lack of emotional regulation that they cannot manage by themselves the level of emotional turmoil they experience sounds... like PTSD, which uh, yeah, she has PTSD and this was a known behavior that he presumably chose and accepted when he was dating her. It makes no sense to date someone and then actively neglect their needs, even if their needs are greater than people who don't have a severe, chronic illness.
[deleted]
[deleted]
The unsettling truth is that society really, really despises people with schizoid personality disorder.
(EDIT: People with SPD are averse to violence and prone to all kinds of abuse. The he-said/she-said stuff is particularly useless here.)
(EDIT: People with SPD are averse to violence and prone to all kinds of abuse. The he-said/she-said stuff is particularly useless here.)
You’re not doing people with the disease any favors by equating it with spousal abuse.
IME Society rarely notices people with schizoid personality disorder- most people with schizoid don't even go to a doctor and never get formally diagnosed. This is especially true compared to schizoid's siblings in the personality disorder categories (Category A), paranoid and schizotypal.
(Minor edit: Also, committing spousal abuse is distinctly not a trait of schizoid personality disorder.)
(Minor edit: Also, committing spousal abuse is distinctly not a trait of schizoid personality disorder.)
I think they're both true. Despising without noticing is a good description, since it fits the homeless and so many of them are SPD.
SPD is fine when you're just a loner, but it's naturally less appealing for society when you're incapable of forming connections and reciprocating basic social contracts (some people even use the latter as the sole criterion of "personhood").
Maybe Rodriguez’s story is similar to Cody’s. He was alone in a vast, unfamiliar city. He’d destroyed his relationships. He left his apartment in anger. And then, as he traversed the mountains, walking through sugar maple and oak, hickory and poplar, stepping over roots and rocks, he tamed his demons too. The many people who met him didn’t sense the dark, brooding, sometimes dangerous person who left Brooklyn.
People who decide to commit suicide sometimes appear to others to be feeling a lot better in the time between the decision and the final act. It can look externally like an upswing, like they've gained a new perspective and things aren't weighing on them as heavily. It sounds like he was conscious that his behavior was bad for other people, and he didn't believe he could change. That's a terrible position to be in: to feel you can't fully function in the presence of others but to feel their absence keenly as well, to be incapable of being with others without hurting them, but also incapable of being alone. I can't imagine how bad it would have to be to starve yourself to death, but I can't help wondering if that's what he did.
People who decide to commit suicide sometimes appear to others to be feeling a lot better in the time between the decision and the final act. It can look externally like an upswing, like they've gained a new perspective and things aren't weighing on them as heavily. It sounds like he was conscious that his behavior was bad for other people, and he didn't believe he could change. That's a terrible position to be in: to feel you can't fully function in the presence of others but to feel their absence keenly as well, to be incapable of being with others without hurting them, but also incapable of being alone. I can't imagine how bad it would have to be to starve yourself to death, but I can't help wondering if that's what he did.
> People who decide to commit suicide sometimes appear to others to be feeling a lot better in the time between the decision and the final act.
I suspect this is just an instance of the pretty common response to having made a decision that was weighing on you. If it's a big one (divorce, career change, etc.) I'm sure most of us have experienced this at least 2nd hand.
I suspect this is just an instance of the pretty common response to having made a decision that was weighing on you. If it's a big one (divorce, career change, etc.) I'm sure most of us have experienced this at least 2nd hand.
Anecdotally, I can confirm that it's similar in essence and just overwhelmingly stronger in effect. It's a bit like having finally decided every single one of the big decisions of life in the same split second (because that's what it is in the moment).
It's also stronger than that because the very likely "normal state" of your brain up to that point is severe depression, so you're not anywhere near what people might consider an average state of mind, and you're getting that strong of a kick.
You can ride that euphoria for quite a while even through some of the nagging doubts clawing their way back between the initial feeling and the last action. I doubt much research can be done for what I'm about to say (and I might be very wrong), but I have the feeling that when you're alone (mentally) you can ride that wave for a decent amount of time yet with just a very brief REAL interaction with another human being you can snap out of it. It might not fully dissipate but still break the trance-like state.
Not a lot of interactions might feel real like that, but when they do they can be life-changing (for obvious reasons) even when the subject matter is frivolous.
You'll likely never know just how many you changed, nor why.
We often notice how "easy"/quick it is to hurt somebody by saying something even light-hearted, but when it comes to that extreme you'd be surprised how very few words about mundane things can prevent a collapse (at least that time).
It's also stronger than that because the very likely "normal state" of your brain up to that point is severe depression, so you're not anywhere near what people might consider an average state of mind, and you're getting that strong of a kick.
You can ride that euphoria for quite a while even through some of the nagging doubts clawing their way back between the initial feeling and the last action. I doubt much research can be done for what I'm about to say (and I might be very wrong), but I have the feeling that when you're alone (mentally) you can ride that wave for a decent amount of time yet with just a very brief REAL interaction with another human being you can snap out of it. It might not fully dissipate but still break the trance-like state.
Not a lot of interactions might feel real like that, but when they do they can be life-changing (for obvious reasons) even when the subject matter is frivolous.
You'll likely never know just how many you changed, nor why.
We often notice how "easy"/quick it is to hurt somebody by saying something even light-hearted, but when it comes to that extreme you'd be surprised how very few words about mundane things can prevent a collapse (at least that time).
You made it to my quotes file, which is a somewhat high bar even if it doesn't help for anything ;-)
> We often notice how "easy"/quick it is to hurt somebody by saying something even light-hearted,
I've been very aware of this for the last ten years after realizing that despite my good intentions I could sometimes hurt others.
> but when it comes to that extreme you'd be surprised how very few words about mundane things can prevent a collapse (at least that time).
I think this will be important to keep in mind too going forward.
Thanks!
> We often notice how "easy"/quick it is to hurt somebody by saying something even light-hearted,
I've been very aware of this for the last ten years after realizing that despite my good intentions I could sometimes hurt others.
> but when it comes to that extreme you'd be surprised how very few words about mundane things can prevent a collapse (at least that time).
I think this will be important to keep in mind too going forward.
Thanks!
This is a thoughtful comment. I do think it is incredibly hard to gauge "relative effect" between people, so I don't think we can really rank them (except for ourselves, of course). There is some nuance here.
I've also experienced a lot of variance in my social group in terms of what things have really seemed to set them back.
I really like your point that seemingly "small" things can make a huge difference in someone else's state of mind. It's a strong argument for being as kind as you can by default, because you really have no idea what those around you are going through.
I've also experienced a lot of variance in my social group in terms of what things have really seemed to set them back.
I really like your point that seemingly "small" things can make a huge difference in someone else's state of mind. It's a strong argument for being as kind as you can by default, because you really have no idea what those around you are going through.
I initially thought about writing what you're concluding, but after giving it more thought my conclusion wasn't that one has to strive to be kind but instead to be sincere. Kindness for its own sake might even be upsetting to me, instead of kindness "happening" alongside sincerity.
But I realized that this was due to my own preferences (having more interactions that don't feel scripted, a human connection even with all the not-so-good parts), so I decided to leave it out of the message. Because I have no way to really prescribe anything to anybody, I don't know what is "best" if being kind and being sincere ever conflict, and I don't know what other people in such a vulnerable situation might react to or want. For all I know it might be diametrically opposed in a significant subset of people having gone through the same process.
From the other side of things, I have had decent outcomes attempting to be both at once when someone is in crisis. Using my better judgment to figure out what to prioritize if conflict arises between the two - often based on what I perceived from the other person. There's time for advice, there's time for being heard, there's time to be.
I'd hardly call that an exact science, but I remind myself and anyone who I think should hear it that you shouldn't beat yourself up for trying to help and not "succeeding". That it's not your fault, nor is it the fault of the person in pain to do something so violent because they want to stop feeling that pain. Faulting leads nowhere constructive, even though later on I could find strength to figure out (and own up to) my own part of responsibility in life - which can be constructive. I guess the HN-equivalent discussion is all the debate around the naming of "git blame" :)
We just simply don't have enough information about the universe to really know better most of the time, and as a consequence of that you can't reliably predict much of it all even with the best and most genuine attempts to help. (I realize I am saying obvious things, but I'll leave it there)
From the other side of things, I have had decent outcomes attempting to be both at once when someone is in crisis. Using my better judgment to figure out what to prioritize if conflict arises between the two - often based on what I perceived from the other person. There's time for advice, there's time for being heard, there's time to be.
I'd hardly call that an exact science, but I remind myself and anyone who I think should hear it that you shouldn't beat yourself up for trying to help and not "succeeding". That it's not your fault, nor is it the fault of the person in pain to do something so violent because they want to stop feeling that pain. Faulting leads nowhere constructive, even though later on I could find strength to figure out (and own up to) my own part of responsibility in life - which can be constructive. I guess the HN-equivalent discussion is all the debate around the naming of "git blame" :)
We just simply don't have enough information about the universe to really know better most of the time, and as a consequence of that you can't reliably predict much of it all even with the best and most genuine attempts to help. (I realize I am saying obvious things, but I'll leave it there)
It's a good point, but perhaps mostly a semantic one. "Kindness" here was not meant to imply insincere but I think I get the distinction you are drawing. I guess I was mostly thinking along the lines that it's impossible to have a good model of the mental state of the person you are dealing with, so you simultaneously should be forgiving of rough edges in their treatment of you, and thoughtful about your treatment of them - absolutely I think this includes the sort of judgment you are talking about.
Thanks to this stack of comments I finally understood why my college friend appeared to feel better days before he took his life - he made his decision and was at peace with it.
> People who decide to commit suicide sometimes appear to others to be feeling a lot better in the time between the decision and the final act.
To misquote a line from a favorite TV show;
"Fear accompanies the possibility of death. Calm shepherds its certainty." -Ka D'Argo, Farscape
I have attempted suicide, and that line fits for me. As another reader has pointed out there is also peace that comes from making a choice and knowing that your pain will be ending soon.
To misquote a line from a favorite TV show;
"Fear accompanies the possibility of death. Calm shepherds its certainty." -Ka D'Argo, Farscape
I have attempted suicide, and that line fits for me. As another reader has pointed out there is also peace that comes from making a choice and knowing that your pain will be ending soon.
Having been on that edge and (luckily) not having the guts, I found that the moment when you can't give yourself the certainty to just do it is somehow even darker than contemplating it.
I hope you have that certainty in hope for a better future with you in it and that things are better for you now.
I hope you have that certainty in hope for a better future with you in it and that things are better for you now.
>not having the guts
This is the point that nobody understands. It's HARD to do! The easy thing to do is let the momentum of living bring you to the next day. It's very difficult to over-ride instinct and cause life-threatening injury to oneself.
So I laugh when I hear "it takes more courage to live", or "they took the cowards way out".
Thank-you for your gentle words. To once again misquote (from a movie): "I'm not dead yet."
This is the point that nobody understands. It's HARD to do! The easy thing to do is let the momentum of living bring you to the next day. It's very difficult to over-ride instinct and cause life-threatening injury to oneself.
So I laugh when I hear "it takes more courage to live", or "they took the cowards way out".
Thank-you for your gentle words. To once again misquote (from a movie): "I'm not dead yet."
Christ, I can't imagine what it feels like to be in a place where the only choice one sees is out. Hope you're feeling better.
Thank-you.
I am. I'm not.
Major Depressive Disorder is a bitch with a long memory.
I am. I'm not.
Major Depressive Disorder is a bitch with a long memory.
>sugar maple and oak, hickory and poplar
I feel the trees mentioned are somehow involved too.
I feel the trees mentioned are somehow involved too.
Okay, this quote stood out -- “He was a crazy good coder. Except he would always code everything the hardest way possible, kind of like you hired Rembrandt to paint your bathroom. You know it is going to be lit, but over the top.”
A good read and a good reminder that people are always much more complex than we think. I wonder sometimes if by being exposed so often to fairly flat depictions of characters in movies and on TV if folks forget that. I know I do sometimes.
A good read and a good reminder that people are always much more complex than we think. I wonder sometimes if by being exposed so often to fairly flat depictions of characters in movies and on TV if folks forget that. I know I do sometimes.
This quote stood out for me as well, for the reason that my own depiction of a "good coder" has evolved into someone who codes a solution in the simplest way possible using the best tools, not the "hardest" or most "lit" way.
I was planning to post exactly this. Reminds me of that famous anecdote about the guy who was using different branches in the same source control repo for different functions - who everyone said was a genius but no one could figure out how to touch his code.
I have a similar story, a friend of mine had (and still has) a webdev shop and he said he has a slightly autistic programmer who is his best employee and he's a genius, nobody can understand his code.
One day they called me because at 8PM they were still at the office trying to crack a problem. After a short discussion, I suggested to use a (.*) regex to solve it, without seeing the code, that was the best I could do. Another call 30 min later, I suggested the same but on a different level. At the third call I told them that if they need to keep doing that, something is deeply flawed and they should rewrite it. No more calls came :)
I kinda see where this sentiment is coming from and it's really hard to convince people otherwise. People see movies like Rain Man and they see scientists with huge blackboards and they can't understand a thing so it must be a work of a genius.
One day they called me because at 8PM they were still at the office trying to crack a problem. After a short discussion, I suggested to use a (.*) regex to solve it, without seeing the code, that was the best I could do. Another call 30 min later, I suggested the same but on a different level. At the third call I told them that if they need to keep doing that, something is deeply flawed and they should rewrite it. No more calls came :)
I kinda see where this sentiment is coming from and it's really hard to convince people otherwise. People see movies like Rain Man and they see scientists with huge blackboards and they can't understand a thing so it must be a work of a genius.
I think that if you do some bad things and also code somewhat, a lot of people will assume that you are basically genius. It is as if people felt the need to balance and since they said something bad about you, they will overcompensate in coding skills department.
But it is unfair to nice good coders who don't get praised as crazy good, cause they were not assholes to people.
But it is unfair to nice good coders who don't get praised as crazy good, cause they were not assholes to people.
Yeah this screams "antisocial coder" to me. Coding with an audience of one.
Through, honestly, I would not qualify the above a good coder. It is more off highly intelligent but not good coder.
Reading that I felt like I saw myself in it, a bit of my earlier self. Perfectionism was required at all costs back then and my work would be very much over-considered compared to a more elegant simplistic solution scoped for the scale of the problem at hand. It's a lonely way to work and generally is less collaborative (so less learning once you get to a level). It's hard to feel like you are making progress over time when your only standard is perfection.
It's hard to say from a single quote from a single person. I dare say most developers confuse difficult with complex.[0] His coding style may have been brutally simple, even if that meant very hard. He also could have been a bad programmer.
I often take a look at a problem from multiple perspectives in order to try and find ways of minimizing the number of special cases or minimizing the number of states in the (perhaps implicit) finite state machine. This is often harder than just gut-feeling my way through the most intuitive ad-hoc coding solution.
For instance, if something has an optional timeout, I strongly prefer to write it as a non-optional timeout that defaults to something absurdly large (but not so large as to uncover multi-billion-year overflow bugs in libraries I'm using), usually 100 years. Maybe that's the hard way of doing it, but it gets rid of special handling of the optionality. I'm sure some colleagues would describe this as "the hardest way" to write an optional timeout, but it objectively has fewer code paths to reason about and test. Some people really hate seeing code that doesn't treat the no-timeout case as a special case, because they just find it uncomfortable to switch perspectives. They really want to code it up as they most naturally think about it, not in the way that yields the least twisted code.
In another case, one of my colleagues wrote some minor error recovery logic for a distributed system. I politely told him that his solution had too many implicit states and would get stuck if messages were delayed between systems. I proposed a simple 4-state machine: ok, trying_to_resovle, resolved, and taking_too_long_to_resolve. But, he was the one originally assigned the task, I didn't have any real authority, and it wasn't worth a fight. He said the way he wrote it was "easier" and "more natural." A few months down the road, his solution got stuck and never alerted us that it was taking too long to resolve the error, because messages got delayed between systems. In an afternoon, I whipped up my original proposal: since the recovery action is idempotent, when you go into the recovering state, just blindly fire off the recovery action every x seconds until you either get confirmation of resolution, or after y seconds give up and alert the humans that the problem might not be resolved. As far as I know, my 4-state FSM solution is still in production years later. I'm sure the author of the original felt a 4-state finite state machine was "the hardest way to write it."
In a third case, we have a pretty slick internal publish-subscribe system, but the error handling is just level-based: the subscriber provides a callback taking a boolean that indicates if the publisher has just gone from "bad" to "okay" (true) or "okay" to "bad" (false). Publishers have an upper time limit of inactivity after which they'll publish out a size zero message, so if a subscriber doesn't get any messages in that maximum idle period plus some configurable leeway, then the subscriber needs to assume the publisher has died and go into error mitigation/recovery/alerting logic. It's a pretty simple two-state FSM. The start state is the "bad" state. Every message results in the current time being recorded as the latest timestamp, and if the current state is "bad", transition to the "ok" state and pass true to the health status callback. If there's not an existing timer, create one for transitioning back to a "bad" state. When the timer goes off, check the latest recorded timestamp, and see if you really should transition to a "bad" state and call the health status callback with false. Otherwise, calculate the next timeout based on the latest heartbeat and reset the timer. The problem is that it starts out in the "bad" state, so in order to handle the case of publishers being dead at subscription time, all subscribers need to implement their own timer logic, and a lot of subscribers either don't try to handle the case or handle it incorrectly. I spent a while trying to convince the main developer for the pub-sub system to switch to a tristate FSM: start, bad, and ok. If you use 100 years for the default time to transition from the start state to the bad state, you'll get backward-compatible behavior for subscribers that just assume their first health status callback must be their initial notification that the publisher is live. The other state transitions were all really easy to work out. I sent him an email with a pretty state transition table showing all 4 possible state transiions, what triggered them, and which transitions triggered which health status callbacks. It's really dead simple: 3 states, 4 transitions, and it greatly simplified code on the subscriber side and stopped forcing all subscribers to implement their own poor solutions, and it was 100% backward compatible if default parameters were used. He kept on pushing for various ad-hoc solutions with more implicit states and state transitions because his gut feeling solution was easier for him than thinking in terms of a 3-state finite state machine. We went through a couple back-and-forths with me pointing out flaws in his ad-hoc proposals, and him not pointing out any flaws in my FSM, but just complaining that it was "complex". But, he didn't really mean "complex", he meant "hard"[0] because he wasn't accustomed to thinking in terms of state machines. With the extra corner cases and implicit states in his ad-hoc proposals, his solutions were more complex by an objective complexity metric. But, I'm sure he'd complain that my 3-state, 4-transition state machine was writing it "the hardest way."
I also strongly prefer to put throttles with very high limits in cases where we don't think throttles will ever be necessary. When the network admins are yelling at you that you're killing the network is no time to have to code up a throttle instead of just changing a configuration. I've had people argue that putting in throttling logic is too complicated. When some middlewear daemon got absurdly slow, I've also had to tell those same people "The middlewear admins are screaming. If the middlewear daemon's memory usage hits 3.75 GB, we need to kill your programs to keep the middlewear from falling over." Sometimes a colleague complaining about complexity is really trying to simplify things to a dangerous degree.
[0] https://www.infoq.com/presentations/Simple-Made-Easy/
I often take a look at a problem from multiple perspectives in order to try and find ways of minimizing the number of special cases or minimizing the number of states in the (perhaps implicit) finite state machine. This is often harder than just gut-feeling my way through the most intuitive ad-hoc coding solution.
For instance, if something has an optional timeout, I strongly prefer to write it as a non-optional timeout that defaults to something absurdly large (but not so large as to uncover multi-billion-year overflow bugs in libraries I'm using), usually 100 years. Maybe that's the hard way of doing it, but it gets rid of special handling of the optionality. I'm sure some colleagues would describe this as "the hardest way" to write an optional timeout, but it objectively has fewer code paths to reason about and test. Some people really hate seeing code that doesn't treat the no-timeout case as a special case, because they just find it uncomfortable to switch perspectives. They really want to code it up as they most naturally think about it, not in the way that yields the least twisted code.
In another case, one of my colleagues wrote some minor error recovery logic for a distributed system. I politely told him that his solution had too many implicit states and would get stuck if messages were delayed between systems. I proposed a simple 4-state machine: ok, trying_to_resovle, resolved, and taking_too_long_to_resolve. But, he was the one originally assigned the task, I didn't have any real authority, and it wasn't worth a fight. He said the way he wrote it was "easier" and "more natural." A few months down the road, his solution got stuck and never alerted us that it was taking too long to resolve the error, because messages got delayed between systems. In an afternoon, I whipped up my original proposal: since the recovery action is idempotent, when you go into the recovering state, just blindly fire off the recovery action every x seconds until you either get confirmation of resolution, or after y seconds give up and alert the humans that the problem might not be resolved. As far as I know, my 4-state FSM solution is still in production years later. I'm sure the author of the original felt a 4-state finite state machine was "the hardest way to write it."
In a third case, we have a pretty slick internal publish-subscribe system, but the error handling is just level-based: the subscriber provides a callback taking a boolean that indicates if the publisher has just gone from "bad" to "okay" (true) or "okay" to "bad" (false). Publishers have an upper time limit of inactivity after which they'll publish out a size zero message, so if a subscriber doesn't get any messages in that maximum idle period plus some configurable leeway, then the subscriber needs to assume the publisher has died and go into error mitigation/recovery/alerting logic. It's a pretty simple two-state FSM. The start state is the "bad" state. Every message results in the current time being recorded as the latest timestamp, and if the current state is "bad", transition to the "ok" state and pass true to the health status callback. If there's not an existing timer, create one for transitioning back to a "bad" state. When the timer goes off, check the latest recorded timestamp, and see if you really should transition to a "bad" state and call the health status callback with false. Otherwise, calculate the next timeout based on the latest heartbeat and reset the timer. The problem is that it starts out in the "bad" state, so in order to handle the case of publishers being dead at subscription time, all subscribers need to implement their own timer logic, and a lot of subscribers either don't try to handle the case or handle it incorrectly. I spent a while trying to convince the main developer for the pub-sub system to switch to a tristate FSM: start, bad, and ok. If you use 100 years for the default time to transition from the start state to the bad state, you'll get backward-compatible behavior for subscribers that just assume their first health status callback must be their initial notification that the publisher is live. The other state transitions were all really easy to work out. I sent him an email with a pretty state transition table showing all 4 possible state transiions, what triggered them, and which transitions triggered which health status callbacks. It's really dead simple: 3 states, 4 transitions, and it greatly simplified code on the subscriber side and stopped forcing all subscribers to implement their own poor solutions, and it was 100% backward compatible if default parameters were used. He kept on pushing for various ad-hoc solutions with more implicit states and state transitions because his gut feeling solution was easier for him than thinking in terms of a 3-state finite state machine. We went through a couple back-and-forths with me pointing out flaws in his ad-hoc proposals, and him not pointing out any flaws in my FSM, but just complaining that it was "complex". But, he didn't really mean "complex", he meant "hard"[0] because he wasn't accustomed to thinking in terms of state machines. With the extra corner cases and implicit states in his ad-hoc proposals, his solutions were more complex by an objective complexity metric. But, I'm sure he'd complain that my 3-state, 4-transition state machine was writing it "the hardest way."
I also strongly prefer to put throttles with very high limits in cases where we don't think throttles will ever be necessary. When the network admins are yelling at you that you're killing the network is no time to have to code up a throttle instead of just changing a configuration. I've had people argue that putting in throttling logic is too complicated. When some middlewear daemon got absurdly slow, I've also had to tell those same people "The middlewear admins are screaming. If the middlewear daemon's memory usage hits 3.75 GB, we need to kill your programs to keep the middlewear from falling over." Sometimes a colleague complaining about complexity is really trying to simplify things to a dangerous degree.
[0] https://www.infoq.com/presentations/Simple-Made-Easy/
Sounds like he was HFA (High-Functioning Autistic), with some extra Trauma Sauce.
It can be quite difficult for folks like this (Disclaimer: IR1) to find happiness. Crowds, high-stimulus environments, external expectations can be quite chafing.
It can also be tempting to latch onto external things and people, to try to heal something that can't really be healed; but only mitigated (long story, but I went through that kind of thing, myself). I can understand anger, when they don't "fix" us.
I can also relate to the "sleep it off" thing. It would be sort of like Miranda, in Serenity.
It's a really sad story. There are quite a few people like that.
It can be quite difficult for folks like this (Disclaimer: IR1) to find happiness. Crowds, high-stimulus environments, external expectations can be quite chafing.
It can also be tempting to latch onto external things and people, to try to heal something that can't really be healed; but only mitigated (long story, but I went through that kind of thing, myself). I can understand anger, when they don't "fix" us.
I can also relate to the "sleep it off" thing. It would be sort of like Miranda, in Serenity.
It's a really sad story. There are quite a few people like that.
> Sounds like he was HFA (High-Functioning Autistic), with some extra Trauma Sauce.
Or he could have bipolar, schizophrenia, anxiety, C-PTSD or a number of other things.
All of those would explain what I’m seeing.
Personally, I’m bipolar and I share an a lot of traits with autism. You can’t know what’s happening in a person’s head unless you take time to talk to them or they’ve left a detailed journal.
Or he could have bipolar, schizophrenia, anxiety, C-PTSD or a number of other things.
All of those would explain what I’m seeing.
Personally, I’m bipolar and I share an a lot of traits with autism. You can’t know what’s happening in a person’s head unless you take time to talk to them or they’ve left a detailed journal.
Absolutely. I can only speak to what I know, and this, I happen to know, all too well.
I just found that I could relate to pretty much everything he was about (check out my code for some truly anal coding), with the exception of the abuse, but I could also easily see myself getting into that, if I had the trauma background (although I don't have that, exactly, I am quite familiar with what trauma can do to even neurotypicals).
I just found that I could relate to pretty much everything he was about (check out my code for some truly anal coding), with the exception of the abuse, but I could also easily see myself getting into that, if I had the trauma background (although I don't have that, exactly, I am quite familiar with what trauma can do to even neurotypicals).
Yes, that's what I hoped the conclusion would be more about.
I'm quite similar to this guy, some of us find a way to adapt to their environment, their differences, accepting the fact they can't "fix" that real-world environment, but.. that's a harmful experience, mostly for yourself
I'm quite similar to this guy, some of us find a way to adapt to their environment, their differences, accepting the fact they can't "fix" that real-world environment, but.. that's a harmful experience, mostly for yourself
How is it like Miranda (just trying to figure out your metaphor)? One possible response to extreme over stimulation or aggression is to completely shutdown?
If you remember, the Parliament added some kind of stuff in the atmosphere, and everyone just lay down and died.
When I was working through my stuff, I often would have loved to do that.
It's really a special kind of hell. We can't stand being ourselves. I grew a beard, because I couldn't stand looking in the mirror. Shaving it was actually a watershed, for me.
When I was working through my stuff, I often would have loved to do that.
It's really a special kind of hell. We can't stand being ourselves. I grew a beard, because I couldn't stand looking in the mirror. Shaving it was actually a watershed, for me.
[deleted]
I would like to mention that Mostly Harmless's identity and history were first reported by Jason Nark of Adventure Journal way back in December (and discussed on HN [0] at that time). His piece [1] is now fully updated to include the original article as well as the updates.
Nark isn't credited in this particular Wired article (although he was credited in Thomson's first article for Wired [2]). This is the despite the fact that Nark, as far as I can tell, wrote the first mainstream article about Mostly Harmless and also was the first reporter to determine his identity.
I suppose Nicholas Thomson must have researched it independently for this new wired piece, explaining why it's being released so much later and with no mention of the reporter who "broke" the story.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25526104
[1] https://www.adventure-journal.com/2020/12/the-mystery-of-dec...
[2] https://www.wired.com/story/nameless-hiker-mostly-harmless-i...
Nark isn't credited in this particular Wired article (although he was credited in Thomson's first article for Wired [2]). This is the despite the fact that Nark, as far as I can tell, wrote the first mainstream article about Mostly Harmless and also was the first reporter to determine his identity.
I suppose Nicholas Thomson must have researched it independently for this new wired piece, explaining why it's being released so much later and with no mention of the reporter who "broke" the story.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25526104
[1] https://www.adventure-journal.com/2020/12/the-mystery-of-dec...
[2] https://www.wired.com/story/nameless-hiker-mostly-harmless-i...
> Nothing Else Matters” by Metallica on the piano. “I could be quiet around him,” she wrote, “and it never felt awkward.”
Listen to a piano cover while you read the story: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmL12NRE4hQ
And if you liked this story, you will probably also like "The Hunt for the Death Valley Germans" https://www.otherhand.org/home-page/search-and-rescue/the-hu...
Listen to a piano cover while you read the story: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmL12NRE4hQ
And if you liked this story, you will probably also like "The Hunt for the Death Valley Germans" https://www.otherhand.org/home-page/search-and-rescue/the-hu...
> It reminded everyone that it is still possible to disappear.
It's possible to disappear if nobody is looking for you and you have enough cash. Even the latter is somewhat optional, it just means you are much less comfortable.
Fundamentally in this world, many (most?) of us are redundant. A person missing here or there is only missed if their social web is wide enough.
It's possible to disappear if nobody is looking for you and you have enough cash. Even the latter is somewhat optional, it just means you are much less comfortable.
Fundamentally in this world, many (most?) of us are redundant. A person missing here or there is only missed if their social web is wide enough.
Does anyone remember a Wired (?) story from the earliest days about a teenager who got mixed up in a geek subculture and disappeared into sewers under the city? A quick search on their site didn't really yield what I think I remember.
> disappeared into sewers under the city
This might interest you: I watched the quite disturbing documentary "Dark Days" a few years ago about homeless people living in subway and sewage tunnels under New York. They had built small apartments down there and even had electricity.
Here are the first 10 minutes on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dh4s78Db5OQ
This might interest you: I watched the quite disturbing documentary "Dark Days" a few years ago about homeless people living in subway and sewage tunnels under New York. They had built small apartments down there and even had electricity.
Here are the first 10 minutes on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dh4s78Db5OQ
there's an excellent book about this called Mole People by Jennifer Toth.
Suddenly Futurama is a little bit less funny for me.
This rings a bell. I remember reading a book that sounds like this, some 35 years ago... It was my gateway to discover The Hobbit, since one sentence in this book (which wasn't that good) mentioned these geeks getting together to play "Tolkian" (maybe "Tolkienian") games. It may have been this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dungeon_Master
Perhaps its about the DnD kid? I vaguely remember hearing about that, in the early days of DnD there was a college kid in Michigan who disappeared, and it was thought he had been in the steam tunnels under the campus as part of a DnD campaign or something. I don't remember all of the details, or if it ended up being true, but I think it kind of became a trope surrounding DnD for a while, and there was a Tom Hanks movie about it.
> I don’t remember all of the details, or if it ended up being true
Not as far as any link between the disappearance and D&D, no:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Dallas_Egbert_III#Disapp...
> and there was a Tom Hanks movie about it.
Mazes and Monsters, the novel and the movie, were inspired by the (false) story of the event.
Not as far as any link between the disappearance and D&D, no:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Dallas_Egbert_III#Disapp...
> and there was a Tom Hanks movie about it.
Mazes and Monsters, the novel and the movie, were inspired by the (false) story of the event.
Thanks! This sounds like what I had in mind.
Had no idea the movie even existed.
Had no idea the movie even existed.
I see this story as extremely positive. Technology can bring closure to unknown number of families. Many cold cases will be solved. This is just the start.
>A genomics company, Othram, had taken his DNA and started to do cutting-edge genetic analysis to identify him. Collier County had sent them a bone fragment; they had extracted the hiker’s DNA and then begun searching for genetic similarities among people in a database called GEDmatch to build a tree of potential relatives. They learned that the hiker had Cajun roots; that his family had come from Assumption Parish, Louisiana; and that there were family members with the name Rodriguez. The founder of the company, David Mittelman, went on Facebook to talk about the case. I bought Facebook ads on my personal page to promote my story in the region of Louisiana where I thought his relatives likely lived.
>A genomics company, Othram, had taken his DNA and started to do cutting-edge genetic analysis to identify him. Collier County had sent them a bone fragment; they had extracted the hiker’s DNA and then begun searching for genetic similarities among people in a database called GEDmatch to build a tree of potential relatives. They learned that the hiker had Cajun roots; that his family had come from Assumption Parish, Louisiana; and that there were family members with the name Rodriguez. The founder of the company, David Mittelman, went on Facebook to talk about the case. I bought Facebook ads on my personal page to promote my story in the region of Louisiana where I thought his relatives likely lived.
The graphic designer in me wants to flog whoever is responsible for that graphic at the top. The drop shadows go 3 different directions and the one on the taped paper has way too much offset.
[deleted]
From the article
> It reminded everyone that it is still possible to disappear.
Actually, it did the opposite
> No, she said. “I don't think I was committed to Vance as a human. I detached myself as a person to Vance, in that I didn't want to get too attached to a dead stranger. But I was committed to solving the case with others because it would be a great way to prove that people can do great things together.”
This sums up what I thought about the whole thing. The unsettling truth is that a man went off grid and strangers, looking for nothing more than a selfish desire to know, put him right back on it.
> It reminded everyone that it is still possible to disappear.
Actually, it did the opposite
> No, she said. “I don't think I was committed to Vance as a human. I detached myself as a person to Vance, in that I didn't want to get too attached to a dead stranger. But I was committed to solving the case with others because it would be a great way to prove that people can do great things together.”
This sums up what I thought about the whole thing. The unsettling truth is that a man went off grid and strangers, looking for nothing more than a selfish desire to know, put him right back on it.
Was he abused by his father or something? Sounds like it should be investigated further. People usually don't just become like this without a good reason.
Sounds like it none of your business. Speculating about the metal state of others and playing internet doctor is insulting.
Dead people generally don't have the need for a doctor.
The history in the article strongly suggests he was abused by his father.
If I had to live in a NYC apartment with an ex-girlfriend, I'd probably respond by disappearing into the woods, living away from civilization too.
[deleted]
[deleted]
AIUI, being shot in the gut is a long (it can take hours) and incredibly agonizing way to die. It appears he was not merciful on any substantive relationships, including with himself.
> The unsettling truth about the ‘Mostly Harmless’ hiker
This is the "unsettling truth", the last paragraph, we all been so Twitter'ed everyone needs to look for more -
> Yet it’s hard not to look at this story with anything but sadness. The boy who raised his hand to get help from a passing truck—and whose body still bore the scar of that Louisiana field—had grown into the man who didn’t seek help as he died in a Florida swamp. A man was able to disappear in no small part because no one was looking for him. A man was harmed and maybe harmful. And then he went into the woods and became Mostly Harmless.
This is the "unsettling truth", the last paragraph, we all been so Twitter'ed everyone needs to look for more -
> Yet it’s hard not to look at this story with anything but sadness. The boy who raised his hand to get help from a passing truck—and whose body still bore the scar of that Louisiana field—had grown into the man who didn’t seek help as he died in a Florida swamp. A man was able to disappear in no small part because no one was looking for him. A man was harmed and maybe harmful. And then he went into the woods and became Mostly Harmless.
Is there an official term for people that appear to be charming and outgoing to strangers, but often moody and/or distant to people they know well?
This sub thread here goes into some detail. I'm also very curious about the same. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25793526
Thank you, I'll check it out.
The more unsettling truth is how the world became interested in someone like him even though he was mostly an asshole. This article says more about human nature and our tendencies to make unwarranted assumptions based off of superficial qualities then it does about him.
Would he garner the same amount of attention if he wasn't white or good looking?
Would he garner the same amount of attention if he wasn't white or good looking?
This was my observation as well. I don't think this case would've gotten the same amount of attention if the person wasn't good looking. There are countless Doe's missing for whom an army of online strangers hasn't sprung up and made their mission to identify the person (and some unwarranted expectations based just on a bunch of photographs).
Agree. I have noticed that when bad things happen to good looking white people it gets 100x more attention than if it happens to ugly/non-white people.
It's only unsettling if you don't believe in redemption.
In this thread: It’s Friday. We do the usual and judge someone we know nothing about, whom we have never met, and begin by call them an asshole and a psychopath. This is the top story on Hacker News. Brought to you by Wired, Inc.
[deleted]
TL;DR: This is about a hiker who went by the name Mostly Harmless who was found dead in his tent. No one knows how he died. That's it. But for the unusual name, it seems safe to say that this would not be on the front page of HN.
The mystery was well covered on HN before due to him being a programmer and plausibly active in coding/gaming online communities:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24981786
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24981786
His photo gets posted to /r/brooklyn every few months. I really don't know what this story resonates so well with people.
Every day there are reports of many new missing/homeless/dead people, why is this man more important than all the others?
Every day there are reports of many new missing/homeless/dead people, why is this man more important than all the others?
I think the way they ID’ed this John Doe (trawling forum posts, DNA testing and advertising) is pretty interesting and I upvoted on that basis. It’s also a partial answer to a mystery that was pretty widely shared around the internet, so is interesting on that basis as well.
For fans of the hitch hikers guide series, the name isn’t unusual. It’s the name of one of the books.
(and the entire entry for the planet Earth inside the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy book) ;)
It's an unusual name for a person.
Much like c22. It was just a trail name.
[deleted]
Many communities have nicknames that are unusual
[deleted]
This stuff is disturbing. These articles read like hit pieces. The guy can't even defend himself and you have all these wild claims from supposed ex-girlfriends. It's just bizarre. Let the guy lie in peace.
It's honestly disgusting how people have made it into a game of trying to figure out who he was. Cutting him open for bone fragments. He died alone in the woods. Was there any reason to think it was caused by malace? No. Then fuck off and let him be.
It's not a "game."
Identifying an unknown deceased person so the next of kin can be notified is part of a normal death investigation, even when there is no foul play.
He seems to have made a positive impact on people who met him on the trail, which is why those people wanted to find out who he was. They wanted to give his friends and family closure.
Identifying an unknown deceased person so the next of kin can be notified is part of a normal death investigation, even when there is no foul play.
He seems to have made a positive impact on people who met him on the trail, which is why those people wanted to find out who he was. They wanted to give his friends and family closure.
Sure, you have a high sanctity moral foundation. Many others do not. To me, a dead man with no family ties is just a sequence of tissue arranged in a certain way. I will deal with it as I deal with bark or fungus. There is no person left.
There may have been family waiting for word of him. No one knew at the time.
How is it unsettling? Everything in that article is, average for Americans. People just applied romantic notions to something they didn't know, in attempt to understand. It got popular, people joined in, and the mystery was the thrill, the chase.
I don't think it's any different from when you ask a person to describe their pet, they describe themselves.
The fearful part is, how, everyone, decided that in good faith, they should work together, to unlock this past vs just leaving it to the government.
This is a case where it seemed he didn't like his parents, and probably didn't want/care to let them know of his demise.
His romantic life, same, probably didn't care to know either.
But, Mystery solved? We did it Reddit! /s
I don't think it's any different from when you ask a person to describe their pet, they describe themselves.
The fearful part is, how, everyone, decided that in good faith, they should work together, to unlock this past vs just leaving it to the government.
This is a case where it seemed he didn't like his parents, and probably didn't want/care to let them know of his demise.
His romantic life, same, probably didn't care to know either.
But, Mystery solved? We did it Reddit! /s
My personal theory is that you have some sort of obligations to long term acquaintances but you owe nothing to strangers on the trail. It's this feeling of obligation that leads you to resent people over time.