Cruel optimism and lazy pessimism(tegowerk.eu)
tegowerk.eu
Cruel optimism and lazy pessimism
https://tegowerk.eu/posts/cruel-optimism/
198 comments
A lot of religious/theological texts and frameworks talk about the balance between self forgiveness and self efficacy, and the need for perspective.
"It was said of Reb Simcha Bunem, a 18th century Hasidic rebbe, that he carried two slips of paper, one in each pocket. One was inscribed with the saying from the Talmud: Bishvili nivra ha-olam, “for my sake the world was created.” On the other he wrote a phrase from our father Avraham in the Torah: V’anokhi afar v’efer,” “I am but dust and ashes.” He would take out and read each slip of paper as necessary for the moment."
"It was said of Reb Simcha Bunem, a 18th century Hasidic rebbe, that he carried two slips of paper, one in each pocket. One was inscribed with the saying from the Talmud: Bishvili nivra ha-olam, “for my sake the world was created.” On the other he wrote a phrase from our father Avraham in the Torah: V’anokhi afar v’efer,” “I am but dust and ashes.” He would take out and read each slip of paper as necessary for the moment."
One medicine that addresses both is a moving away from outcome based thinking and focus on performance.
Ask "did I try my best", opposed to "did I get what I want"
Ask "did I try my best", opposed to "did I get what I want"
Games of skill that also incorporate chance are somewhat helpful for developing this. Unfortunately a lot of those games are also closely associated with gambling (e.g. Bridge, Poker, Backgammon), which is perhaps something we don't want to encourage.
I find deckbuilding games to be decent examples of this. At relatively close skill levels a bad draw can be the difference between winning and losing. It still takes a certain level of introspection to figure that out. Almost all elementary-school aged kids will conflate success with skill, even in games that are pure chance.
I find deckbuilding games to be decent examples of this. At relatively close skill levels a bad draw can be the difference between winning and losing. It still takes a certain level of introspection to figure that out. Almost all elementary-school aged kids will conflate success with skill, even in games that are pure chance.
There is definitely some advantages to processed based thinking, but I think it comes with tradeoffs of it's own.
I've seen a lot people personally who get stuck in a loop of trying and failing. Each time they'll say to themselves 'I did my best' but a result based framework would have told them 'what you did didn't work and you need to try something _different_ next time'.
I've seen a lot people personally who get stuck in a loop of trying and failing. Each time they'll say to themselves 'I did my best' but a result based framework would have told them 'what you did didn't work and you need to try something _different_ next time'.
You are absolutely right. I didnt mean to imply that these was nothing else that goes along with it.
People should totally inspect their efforts and methods in light of their successes and failures. This is how you learn and improve. Your best is not merely how much effort and sweat you put into something, but also your thoughts and methods.
People should totally inspect their efforts and methods in light of their successes and failures. This is how you learn and improve. Your best is not merely how much effort and sweat you put into something, but also your thoughts and methods.
That's one of the main tenets of the Stoic philosophy. The hardest too.
It acknowledges the role of probability in your life. Sometimes things work out, and sometimes they don't. It's not that you have control, or you don't. You have some control, sometimes.
This has always been my line of thinking. Im glad I found the Stoics later to agree with me.
I will admit just this once that maybe I too readily tell myself that I did my best. Sometimes. Often? Please have this message self destruct in one hour.
I will admit just this once that maybe I too readily tell myself that I did my best. Sometimes. Often? Please have this message self destruct in one hour.
On the other hand, if you think you did your best, but you keep failing... maybe you actually are wrong about something, and the world is giving you a honest feedback.
There is a similar idea in the book "atomic habits" by James clear : focus on process not outcome. that’s one of the best advice I ever read.
Wouldn't the challenge be what does it mean that 'one tried their best' ? By using the word best there, it becomes yet another goal.
I think that is a good point.
Im not saying dont have goals or desires. Im not saying to ignore if you succeed or fail either- that is important data and part of learning.
To me - Trying my best means looking back to identify things I know I could have done better with more dedication. Could I have done better with the knowledge and tools I had.
>By using the word best there, it becomes yet another goal.
This is kinda the point. Doing your best becomes a goal in of itself. You have 100% control over it and get the satisfaction of meeting it, independent of if you meet your other goals or not. It builds self respect
Im not saying dont have goals or desires. Im not saying to ignore if you succeed or fail either- that is important data and part of learning.
To me - Trying my best means looking back to identify things I know I could have done better with more dedication. Could I have done better with the knowledge and tools I had.
>By using the word best there, it becomes yet another goal.
This is kinda the point. Doing your best becomes a goal in of itself. You have 100% control over it and get the satisfaction of meeting it, independent of if you meet your other goals or not. It builds self respect
People throughout known history have tried to solve what it means to have free will yet for our freedom to be circumscribed by the world we are part of.
Denying freedom altogether is logically the simplest way out, and is often done on behalf of other people, but I don't think anybody chooses this way for themselves, not at a deep level. Psychologically, we need agency, and it's cruel to deny it to others. So we keep trying out new ways of framing it.
Denying freedom altogether is logically the simplest way out, and is often done on behalf of other people, but I don't think anybody chooses this way for themselves, not at a deep level. Psychologically, we need agency, and it's cruel to deny it to others. So we keep trying out new ways of framing it.
Or you can be _both_ at the same time.
> I can think of times in my life where each view was helpful and warranted, even if they're hard to reconcile with each other.
Almost anything is "within your power". The right sequence of muscle movements, performed by your body, could bring an end to most world conflict, cure near every disease we have, spoof any cryptographic protocol, reinvent basically every creative pursuit…
However, as a regular human, with a brain not quite the size of a planet? Your actions are constrained by your knowledge, reasoning speed, reasoning ability (honed by past experience), mental state, emotional state, alertness, distractedness, loneliness, blood sugar level, blood protein level, percentage water…
You can do more than what you can do at this moment. But you can't do more than you can do at this moment. But you can probably get yourself in a position where, next moment, you can do more than you could do this moment.
Almost anything is "within your power". The right sequence of muscle movements, performed by your body, could bring an end to most world conflict, cure near every disease we have, spoof any cryptographic protocol, reinvent basically every creative pursuit…
However, as a regular human, with a brain not quite the size of a planet? Your actions are constrained by your knowledge, reasoning speed, reasoning ability (honed by past experience), mental state, emotional state, alertness, distractedness, loneliness, blood sugar level, blood protein level, percentage water…
You can do more than what you can do at this moment. But you can't do more than you can do at this moment. But you can probably get yourself in a position where, next moment, you can do more than you could do this moment.
Literally nothing in your "constrained by" list is stopping me from:
> bring an end to most world conflict, cure near every disease we have, spoof any cryptographic protocol, reinvent basically every creative pursuit
The main reason I'm not doing these things is because I'm not rich and I have to work a full time job to simply not be homeless.
> bring an end to most world conflict, cure near every disease we have, spoof any cryptographic protocol, reinvent basically every creative pursuit
The main reason I'm not doing these things is because I'm not rich and I have to work a full time job to simply not be homeless.
Sounds like you're saying we shouldn't bother trying.
> In this situation, though, what's medicine to one is poison to the other. I can think of times in my life where each view was helpful and warranted, even if they're hard to reconcile with each other.
Moral philosopher John Rawls's uses the concepts of original position and veil of ignorance for a thought experiment that is the only fair basis for making decisions about moral principles and how society should be structured. You can think of it as "What we'd all decide for the world if each of us did not know ahead of time which circumstance we'd be born into".
https://open.library.okstate.edu/introphilosophy/chapter/joh...
> The Veil is meant to ensure that people’s concern for their personal benefit could translate into a set of arrangements that were fair for everyone, assuming that they had to stick to those choices once the Veil of Ignorance ‘lifts’, and they are given full information again.
> One set of facts hidden from you behind the Veil are what we might call ‘demographic’ facts. You do not know your gender, race, wealth, or facts about your personal strengths and weaknesses, such as their intelligence or physical prowess. Rawls thought these facts are morally arbitrary: individuals do not earn or deserve these features, but simply have them by luck. As such, they do not deserve any benefits or harms that come from them. By removing knowledge of the natural inequalities that give people unfair advantages, it becomes irrational to choose principles that discriminate against any particular group.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/original-position/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_position
> In this situation, though, what's medicine to one is poison to the other. I can think of times in my life where each view was helpful and warranted, even if they're hard to reconcile with each other.
Moral philosopher John Rawls's uses the concepts of original position and veil of ignorance for a thought experiment that is the only fair basis for making decisions about moral principles and how society should be structured. You can think of it as "What we'd all decide for the world if each of us did not know ahead of time which circumstance we'd be born into".
https://open.library.okstate.edu/introphilosophy/chapter/joh...
> The Veil is meant to ensure that people’s concern for their personal benefit could translate into a set of arrangements that were fair for everyone, assuming that they had to stick to those choices once the Veil of Ignorance ‘lifts’, and they are given full information again.
> One set of facts hidden from you behind the Veil are what we might call ‘demographic’ facts. You do not know your gender, race, wealth, or facts about your personal strengths and weaknesses, such as their intelligence or physical prowess. Rawls thought these facts are morally arbitrary: individuals do not earn or deserve these features, but simply have them by luck. As such, they do not deserve any benefits or harms that come from them. By removing knowledge of the natural inequalities that give people unfair advantages, it becomes irrational to choose principles that discriminate against any particular group.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/original-position/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_position
“Play the hand you’re dealt”
Unpopular opinion (therefore throwaway account): avocado toast guy is right.
Sure, the math doesn't add up. An avocado toast and a coffee every morning won't add up to a real estate deposit. But that's not the point; the point is that people who are barely making ends meet having avocado toast at a coffee shop have the wrong mindset. I'd argue they are barely making ends meet because they're having avocado toast at a coffee shop, and multiple other expenses they can't responsibly afford. I've worked with young people barely making any money out of school, who still religiously went to the pub with their mates for the proverbial pint, and never skipped on Costa del Sol holidays.
I grew up in a lower-to-middle middle class household. Eating out was something we did on special occasions (some birthdays, high school graduation, etc). Travel and holidays were limited to the one holiday a year, to a beach 45 min away from where we lived. It does seem like young people these days have an incredibly distorted sense of what they "deserve" or what they can afford or what's "normal".
Now after decades in tech, a couple of stints at FAANG, I'm pretty comfortable financially. There's a lot of things I can afford in the strictest sense of the word (a 300k Lambo, a boat, whatever), but I know better than to spend money on things I don't really need just because I have enough money to buy them.
Love avocado toast but are on minimum wage? Go to the store, buy bread and avocado, make your own goddamn toast, and organise a picnic with your friends in the nearest park.
Sure, the math doesn't add up. An avocado toast and a coffee every morning won't add up to a real estate deposit. But that's not the point; the point is that people who are barely making ends meet having avocado toast at a coffee shop have the wrong mindset. I'd argue they are barely making ends meet because they're having avocado toast at a coffee shop, and multiple other expenses they can't responsibly afford. I've worked with young people barely making any money out of school, who still religiously went to the pub with their mates for the proverbial pint, and never skipped on Costa del Sol holidays.
I grew up in a lower-to-middle middle class household. Eating out was something we did on special occasions (some birthdays, high school graduation, etc). Travel and holidays were limited to the one holiday a year, to a beach 45 min away from where we lived. It does seem like young people these days have an incredibly distorted sense of what they "deserve" or what they can afford or what's "normal".
Now after decades in tech, a couple of stints at FAANG, I'm pretty comfortable financially. There's a lot of things I can afford in the strictest sense of the word (a 300k Lambo, a boat, whatever), but I know better than to spend money on things I don't really need just because I have enough money to buy them.
Love avocado toast but are on minimum wage? Go to the store, buy bread and avocado, make your own goddamn toast, and organise a picnic with your friends in the nearest park.
I don't think it's actually a case of "spend less and you can save for some goal, like a home" but more like "why spend less now when no matter how much I save, even my whole paycheck, houses aren't going to be affordable to me EVER". I have a really good salary, but where my family lives we absolutely cannot afford to ever buy a house, based on what inflation looks like. I could save everything we had except for rent and grocery costs and we still couldn't save at a rate to match home inflation for the past 10 years. Don't say to "just move", because our roots are here and that's absurd to suggest that we cut ties with everyone we know just to have a chance at the old "american dream".
It's not about the extremes. Some people are barely getting to the end of the month and some of those will be buying expensive toast on the way there and will be better off if they stop that. Lots of people get to the end of the month easily, however much they eat out, and still have zero chance at getting on the housing ladder.
If the cost of housing increases faster each year than your annual salary, it doesn't matter a damn what fraction of your salary you manage to hoard in a year, you still aren't buying a house. But that salary can handle vacations and coffee just fine.
If the cost of housing increases faster each year than your annual salary, it doesn't matter a damn what fraction of your salary you manage to hoard in a year, you still aren't buying a house. But that salary can handle vacations and coffee just fine.
My coworker complains that even though he has received raises every year since graduation their effective spend has decreased because of inflation. So much so that he was making more money as a student than as an FTE.
I believe it. I've gone from paying zero attention to the cost of things... to cutting extras/budgeting in the last five years; with just as many raises!
It really feels like my career leaps have been nullified. Unless I find a similar joint income, I don't know if I'll own a home. There's no family windfall to expect
I know, woe is me. I feel for everyone that doesn't have this padding.
Aside: The down payment stories I hear have been absurd. What's reasonable, on the low end?
It really feels like my career leaps have been nullified. Unless I find a similar joint income, I don't know if I'll own a home. There's no family windfall to expect
I know, woe is me. I feel for everyone that doesn't have this padding.
Aside: The down payment stories I hear have been absurd. What's reasonable, on the low end?
> I've worked with young people barely making any money out of school, who still religiously went to the pub with their mates for the proverbial pint, and never skipped on Costa del Sol holidays.
This is different from coffee and toast. Going to the pub with the mates can be a social obligation, whereas coffee on your own is not.
If you are asking your collegues to skip hanging out and vacation with their friends, you may be asking them to stop having those friends. Sure, maybe they are the wrong friends. Just noting this is a much bigger ask than not having coffee and toast by yourself.
This is different from coffee and toast. Going to the pub with the mates can be a social obligation, whereas coffee on your own is not.
If you are asking your collegues to skip hanging out and vacation with their friends, you may be asking them to stop having those friends. Sure, maybe they are the wrong friends. Just noting this is a much bigger ask than not having coffee and toast by yourself.
How to solve somebody's financial problems:
Step 1. Assume they're spending $20k a year on Starbucks.
Step 2. Tell them not to do that.
Step 3. Pat yourself on the back and award yourself the nobel peace prize for solving poverty.
There's a reason it's unpopular. It's too obvious to be useful and it's almost always used as a strawman counter-arguement to any actual solutions regarding any real economic problem.
You're not telling it to somebody holding an avacodo toast in their hand complaining about how poor they are. You're telling it to people who can't even afford that. It's extremely condescending and arrogant of you.
Step 1. Assume they're spending $20k a year on Starbucks.
Step 2. Tell them not to do that.
Step 3. Pat yourself on the back and award yourself the nobel peace prize for solving poverty.
There's a reason it's unpopular. It's too obvious to be useful and it's almost always used as a strawman counter-arguement to any actual solutions regarding any real economic problem.
You're not telling it to somebody holding an avacodo toast in their hand complaining about how poor they are. You're telling it to people who can't even afford that. It's extremely condescending and arrogant of you.
I think you're half right, but missing a big piece of the puzzle.
I agree with you that people's spending habits don't make sense. I see young people complaining about having to live with their parents when near their 30s who still think a two week vacation with a nice rental and eating out ever night is a basic human right. I'm constantly horrified how many people simply cannot cook their own food. The wouldn't know how to make a good rice and beans dish if they had to.
But the part you're missing is that our current system cannot survive without this spending. That FAANG job that paid you so well, where do you think all that cash came from? My friends making money for insta are basically making that money selling avocado toast.
If people started living like their great depression era relatives they wouldn't be able to afford houses because our entire economic system would break down.
I agree with you that people's spending habits don't make sense. I see young people complaining about having to live with their parents when near their 30s who still think a two week vacation with a nice rental and eating out ever night is a basic human right. I'm constantly horrified how many people simply cannot cook their own food. The wouldn't know how to make a good rice and beans dish if they had to.
But the part you're missing is that our current system cannot survive without this spending. That FAANG job that paid you so well, where do you think all that cash came from? My friends making money for insta are basically making that money selling avocado toast.
If people started living like their great depression era relatives they wouldn't be able to afford houses because our entire economic system would break down.
That piece of the puzzle is systemic, but it has a personal side as well, overlooked by people who claim things like the avocado toast guy is right. Humans need an escape valve to relieve stress without going crazy. In today's society, these escape valves cost money; so people do need to spend some money on a little affordable luxury, whether it's going to the movies, playing video games or indulging in a tasty food.
Perhaps in the past the destitute poor could find some free escape valves to this end, but modern urban society limits access to the social interactions and natural resources that made them possible.
It is a fallacy to suppose that living a monastic life would save enough money to get out of this extreme situation. Even discounting the mental imbalance it would cause, if your income is so limited, the meager savings of suppressing these small luxuries would not radically change your financial situation.
Perhaps in the past the destitute poor could find some free escape valves to this end, but modern urban society limits access to the social interactions and natural resources that made them possible.
It is a fallacy to suppose that living a monastic life would save enough money to get out of this extreme situation. Even discounting the mental imbalance it would cause, if your income is so limited, the meager savings of suppressing these small luxuries would not radically change your financial situation.
It depends how much flow the escape valve controls.
Anecdotally, I used to have neighbours who would order food delivery religiously, multiple times per day, every day. It must have costed a small fortune. Not enough for buying a home, but enough to do something better with.
Anecdotally, I used to have neighbours who would order food delivery religiously, multiple times per day, every day. It must have costed a small fortune. Not enough for buying a home, but enough to do something better with.
I think the idea that the economy needs "momentum" to work is a really interesting topic. Wealth and value is generated as a result of people spending money on things they don't strictly need. That if everybody were to buy exactly only what they need and nothing else, the whole economy grinds to a halt, and we have mass unemployment, and suddenly you can't even buy those few needs that everybody has.
In my opinion this type of argument is built to stop lower classes from complaining more than a cut and dry example of how overspending on ill-perceived necessities can cost you wealth in the long run.
More importantly, there are tons of people who do live fiscally responsible and still can't afford basic necessities (let alone avocado toast).
More importantly, there are tons of people who do live fiscally responsible and still can't afford basic necessities (let alone avocado toast).
The avocado toast example is annoyingly ambiguous and inflammatory. I think this exactly why it went viral.
People have drastically different interpretations of what it means, and end up arguing over that instead.
Nobody disputes you can save $X/day by not purchasing avocado toast and coffee. Everything else is people shadowboxing with themselves.
People have drastically different interpretations of what it means, and end up arguing over that instead.
Nobody disputes you can save $X/day by not purchasing avocado toast and coffee. Everything else is people shadowboxing with themselves.
>the point is that people who are barely making ends meet having avocado toast at a coffee shop have the wrong mindset.
Are there a lot of people (or even any) doing that? Are there a lot of people who don't have bread to eat refraining from having their cake?
Are there a lot of people (or even any) doing that? Are there a lot of people who don't have bread to eat refraining from having their cake?
> It does seem like young people these days have an incredibly distorted sense of what they "deserve" or what they can afford or what's "normal".
I, being fairly young, think that fulltime jobs paying a living wage ought to be normal. Many don't - https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/working-poor/2020/home.htm
Some people are going to overspend and be careless with their money, but that's not the core problem in the US. The core problem is unfairly low wages for many workers.
I, being fairly young, think that fulltime jobs paying a living wage ought to be normal. Many don't - https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/working-poor/2020/home.htm
Some people are going to overspend and be careless with their money, but that's not the core problem in the US. The core problem is unfairly low wages for many workers.
Why bother making all that money if you're not going to do anything with it? When all's said and done you're going to be just as dead.
People who know how to save money on the big stuff and spend money in the places where it gives a high return in joy are the ones doing it right. "It's your duty to be miserable because you're poor" is the most backwards attitude imaginable.
People who know how to save money on the big stuff and spend money in the places where it gives a high return in joy are the ones doing it right. "It's your duty to be miserable because you're poor" is the most backwards attitude imaginable.
[deleted]
If the math doesn't add up then the math doesn't add up. If it's not possible to save for a house with or without avocado toast then talking about avocado toast is really beside the point, isn't it? No amount of "mindset" is going to get you out of the hole.
The problem with "don't buy things you can't afford" is that society really says "you don't deserve things you can't afford". Why is it that some brat that never worked a day in their lives can enjoy Avocado toast every day? Is it just because they won the socio economic lottery? Then on the other side a mother of two abandoned by her partner, working two jobs has to make their own toast and plan trips to the park. Sucks to suck I guess.
There has to be a better way than this. This form of raw Capitalism is not fair. Generational wealth gets to criticize from a perspective of having wealth and cast judgement on those who make not have it for reasons outside their control.
Now take a look at incomes and wealth globally. Fair is you getting a lot poorer.
OK so when what I have to pay for housing is several times more than my parents' generation did even when adjusted for inflation, where is that money going? Hint: not the global poor.
That money is going to your parents generation, and you eventually through inheritance. The global poor still need their check, unless you don't acutally care about fairness.
> That money is going to your parents generation, and you eventually through inheritance.
The owners of UK property may be members of my parents' generation, but they have very little in common with my parents; that money is not coming to me. (And while you could blame them for not jumping through the right hoops to have been eligible for Thatcher's right to buy, I don't think it's fair to say that working-class people should have known to bet a multiple of their net worth on decades of incredibly stupid housing policy).
> The global poor still need their check, unless you don't acutally care about fairness.
Sure, and I'm all for measures to help with that - I've voted for increased aid and will continue to do so. Using the global poor as a reason I can't criticize those with massive unearned wealth is pure whataboutism.
The owners of UK property may be members of my parents' generation, but they have very little in common with my parents; that money is not coming to me. (And while you could blame them for not jumping through the right hoops to have been eligible for Thatcher's right to buy, I don't think it's fair to say that working-class people should have known to bet a multiple of their net worth on decades of incredibly stupid housing policy).
> The global poor still need their check, unless you don't acutally care about fairness.
Sure, and I'm all for measures to help with that - I've voted for increased aid and will continue to do so. Using the global poor as a reason I can't criticize those with massive unearned wealth is pure whataboutism.
[deleted]
It's a bit sad that you're afraid of expressing your opinion because you might lose some fake internet points.
So what?
So what?
My life experience has been similar, and I thought the same thing. Shame you're downvoted in to grey for just eloquently stating an opinion and the reasoning.
I'm all for fixing systemic problems, taming the dragons, etc.
Collectively, that's great. I'd argue that western civilization has never been kindler, gentler, inclusive and diverse than it is at this moment in history. So we've made great strides.
However all of this does very little for the average individual unhappy in their unique situational challenges.
If you're unhappy with the hand you're dealt, and keep shifting the blame to society, you will probably remain unhappy for a long time.
If, on the other hand, you decide to change things in or about yourself, you will find that you have significantly more agency over the situation.
A wise person once told me that whenever you have stress in your life it's because your expectations don't match reality.
I learned that sometimes what had to change was I had to "learn to accept reality", as reality was something that couldn't be changed. As Bruce Lee said, the reed that bends in a storm survives it and grows, while bamboo, being rigid, will snap and break.
There's no panacea to the problem of being happy and content in our short lives. But there are things you can do to improve your odds of enjoying it more while you're here.
In the meantime, we should continue to fix systemic problems, injustices, etc.
Collectively, that's great. I'd argue that western civilization has never been kindler, gentler, inclusive and diverse than it is at this moment in history. So we've made great strides.
However all of this does very little for the average individual unhappy in their unique situational challenges.
If you're unhappy with the hand you're dealt, and keep shifting the blame to society, you will probably remain unhappy for a long time.
If, on the other hand, you decide to change things in or about yourself, you will find that you have significantly more agency over the situation.
A wise person once told me that whenever you have stress in your life it's because your expectations don't match reality.
I learned that sometimes what had to change was I had to "learn to accept reality", as reality was something that couldn't be changed. As Bruce Lee said, the reed that bends in a storm survives it and grows, while bamboo, being rigid, will snap and break.
There's no panacea to the problem of being happy and content in our short lives. But there are things you can do to improve your odds of enjoying it more while you're here.
In the meantime, we should continue to fix systemic problems, injustices, etc.
>I learned that sometimes what had to change was I had to "learn to accept reality"
This was a breakthrough for me as well. Accepting reality as it does not mean you have to like it, but it gives a foundation for moving forward.
I would quibble that it is important to separate reality as it is today, The future it Can Be, and the future it Can't Be.
If you cant accept reality as it is and that some futures are impossible, you will miss the best future that CAN have.
You need to accept the cards you are dealt and then play them to the very best of your ability.
This was a breakthrough for me as well. Accepting reality as it does not mean you have to like it, but it gives a foundation for moving forward.
I would quibble that it is important to separate reality as it is today, The future it Can Be, and the future it Can't Be.
If you cant accept reality as it is and that some futures are impossible, you will miss the best future that CAN have.
You need to accept the cards you are dealt and then play them to the very best of your ability.
Something else worth mentioning is that "cruel" and "lazy" parts of the advice the article talks about has more to do with people who've had it pretty easy lecturing people that haven't.
It's not that the message is wrong, it's that there's no empathy so it just comes across as incredibly tone-deaf (which it of course is).
It's not that the message is wrong, it's that there's no empathy so it just comes across as incredibly tone-deaf (which it of course is).
Interesting, That wasn't my take on the second "lazy" part of the article at all.
For me the lazy part was a counter-statement to first part. It claims that YES, there are individual issues, and individual action matters tremendously.
For me the lazy part was a counter-statement to first part. It claims that YES, there are individual issues, and individual action matters tremendously.
This is what I meant. It's a harsh word, but--at least in my case--the truth is harsh too. I'm lazy. I have a huge array of benefits and privileges laid out in front of me, but I don't take advantage of them, even though I easily could.
Yeah I guess I'm confusing that my bad, lazy I'm talking about is the "arm-chair advice" people give to sound smart. Easy to dispense, little value. No empathy.
> A wise person once told me that whenever you have stress in your life it's because your expectations don't match reality.
I can't agree with this at all.
If expect to have to work 60 hours next week and then I do, should I reflect on why that's stressful?
Or if I'm expecting to lose my house because I don't have a job or money... Where's the stress coming from? I'd probably be less stressed if I were under the illusion that I'd be able to keep my house without money!
Stress is not just expectations.
I can't agree with this at all.
If expect to have to work 60 hours next week and then I do, should I reflect on why that's stressful?
Or if I'm expecting to lose my house because I don't have a job or money... Where's the stress coming from? I'd probably be less stressed if I were under the illusion that I'd be able to keep my house without money!
Stress is not just expectations.
Agreed. What's next: If I am enslaved and my expectation is being paid for my work, I must change my expectation? Fuck that.
What we must do is maintain the expection, fight however you can to change reality and crucially learn how to live with this dissonance, don't let this stress consume you .
> If expect to have to work 60 hours next week and then I do, should I reflect on why that's stressful?
It's not clear to why working 60 hours is stressful to you. Is it because the 60 hours is too long, or the quality of the job? If long hours is the problem, then your expectation is that you shouldn't be working 60 hours, but reality clearly says that you are, and so your stressed. If it's the quality of the job, then you're expecting the job to be something other than it is. You're purposely showing up to a place that you know will make you unhappy.
In this case, the agency you have gives you a few options to consider
> Or if I'm expecting to lose my house because I don't have a job or money... Where's the stress coming from?
The stress is coming from you expecting not to be homeless, while reality is telling you that you will be. A terrible situation for sure (how did you get here?).
If you don't have friends or family that can help you get back on your feet, then your options are very limited (you can't change reality and make someone house you for free). So accepting the temporary homelessness will reduce the stress you feel. Many people choose to be homeless, so it is possible. There are homeless shelters and other programs designed to help you get back on your feet. Accept that this is part of your life moving forward and make plans to get back on your feet.
This is a hard example, but same logic applies. If you're going to be homeless then you're going to be homeless. I understand why that one is hard to accept. Not saying it's easy. But you can either be homeless and stressed because you don't want to be, or you can be homeless and find a way to make it work (live light) while you get back on your feet. I lived on my buddies couch for a month. I know a woman who was homeless as a young single mother, now works in IT. It is possible to overcome these things and put yourself back on your own two feet.
I lost my son at 16. That was very hard to accept. I'd have done anything to turn back time, but that's impossible. Some of the worst parts of life are learning to accept things outside of your control, grieving, and moving on with life. Life is for the living.
It's not clear to why working 60 hours is stressful to you. Is it because the 60 hours is too long, or the quality of the job? If long hours is the problem, then your expectation is that you shouldn't be working 60 hours, but reality clearly says that you are, and so your stressed. If it's the quality of the job, then you're expecting the job to be something other than it is. You're purposely showing up to a place that you know will make you unhappy.
In this case, the agency you have gives you a few options to consider
- talk to management about possibly reducing hours or responsibilities
- if that doesn't work, leave and find another job with better work/life balance. You may have to accept a pay cut to get this. If your expectation is that you'll make $1M a year being a McDonalds worker, well that's another expectation not aligned with reality.
- or alternatively "accept" that is what your job is at this part of life (maybe you have crushing debts you need to pay, and so you accept doing something hard for a while to pay them off)
> Or if I'm expecting to lose my house because I don't have a job or money... Where's the stress coming from?
The stress is coming from you expecting not to be homeless, while reality is telling you that you will be. A terrible situation for sure (how did you get here?).
If you don't have friends or family that can help you get back on your feet, then your options are very limited (you can't change reality and make someone house you for free). So accepting the temporary homelessness will reduce the stress you feel. Many people choose to be homeless, so it is possible. There are homeless shelters and other programs designed to help you get back on your feet. Accept that this is part of your life moving forward and make plans to get back on your feet.
This is a hard example, but same logic applies. If you're going to be homeless then you're going to be homeless. I understand why that one is hard to accept. Not saying it's easy. But you can either be homeless and stressed because you don't want to be, or you can be homeless and find a way to make it work (live light) while you get back on your feet. I lived on my buddies couch for a month. I know a woman who was homeless as a young single mother, now works in IT. It is possible to overcome these things and put yourself back on your own two feet.
I lost my son at 16. That was very hard to accept. I'd have done anything to turn back time, but that's impossible. Some of the worst parts of life are learning to accept things outside of your control, grieving, and moving on with life. Life is for the living.
Every so often essays posted to HN really hit home and this is one of those times. I feel like this topic has been central to a lot of frustrations I've had in recent years.
A lot of the discussion here seems to be focused on individual agency and how much people are responsible for their circumstances or not, but for me many of the underlying issues are really about lack of understanding on the advice-givers.
Sometimes someone is capable of changing their circumstances, but just doesn't know how to go about it. They just never were taught how, or whatever, and when they turn to others for help, they get bad advice. The people they turn to might really care about the person and want to help, but just aren't good mentors.
The avocado toast example is important as a flawed position not necessarily because of broader issues about individual versus societal responsibility, but because it illustrates how completely ignorant people can be about their fellow humans' circumstances. This has a whole host of consequences that are extremely powerful, including not providing advice that would actually help, to not recognizing that good people sometimes just make mistakes, that good or bad mentoring actually does matter, and so forth and so on.
So maybe someone is entirely capable of improving their financial situation. But is telling them it's because they're eating avocado toast too much really going to help them? No, because the worldview that avocado toast is causing financial ruin is just as flawed as the worldview that everyone is a completely helpless victim. Cruel optimism isn't just cruel optimism, it's ignorant optimism, and proves the point by its very nature that the system is broken in some way: a person who believes avocado toast is the source of financial distress themselves probably is not sound in their financial reasoning, and if they are not in financial distress, it's probably not because of their sound financial reasoning, but rather, other factors.
If you cannot correctly identify the systemic impediments to someone improving their situation, and offer realistic advice to them in those circumstances, you're part of the problem, or at least, you're not recognizing the problem. Avocado toast is kind of a perfect example of opportunity costs applied to moral reasoning or something: it's not that it blames the victim, it's that the advice is actively harmful if for no other reason that decent advice is not being given, and then becomes an example of the very thing it's trying to argue against.
A lot of the discussion here seems to be focused on individual agency and how much people are responsible for their circumstances or not, but for me many of the underlying issues are really about lack of understanding on the advice-givers.
Sometimes someone is capable of changing their circumstances, but just doesn't know how to go about it. They just never were taught how, or whatever, and when they turn to others for help, they get bad advice. The people they turn to might really care about the person and want to help, but just aren't good mentors.
The avocado toast example is important as a flawed position not necessarily because of broader issues about individual versus societal responsibility, but because it illustrates how completely ignorant people can be about their fellow humans' circumstances. This has a whole host of consequences that are extremely powerful, including not providing advice that would actually help, to not recognizing that good people sometimes just make mistakes, that good or bad mentoring actually does matter, and so forth and so on.
So maybe someone is entirely capable of improving their financial situation. But is telling them it's because they're eating avocado toast too much really going to help them? No, because the worldview that avocado toast is causing financial ruin is just as flawed as the worldview that everyone is a completely helpless victim. Cruel optimism isn't just cruel optimism, it's ignorant optimism, and proves the point by its very nature that the system is broken in some way: a person who believes avocado toast is the source of financial distress themselves probably is not sound in their financial reasoning, and if they are not in financial distress, it's probably not because of their sound financial reasoning, but rather, other factors.
If you cannot correctly identify the systemic impediments to someone improving their situation, and offer realistic advice to them in those circumstances, you're part of the problem, or at least, you're not recognizing the problem. Avocado toast is kind of a perfect example of opportunity costs applied to moral reasoning or something: it's not that it blames the victim, it's that the advice is actively harmful if for no other reason that decent advice is not being given, and then becomes an example of the very thing it's trying to argue against.
Thank you very much for your kind words. It makes me incredibly happy when I hear that something I write resonates with others, if only because it validates my own feelings.
> If you cannot correctly identify the systemic impediments to someone improving their situation, and offer realistic advice to them in those circumstances, you're part of the problem, or at least, you're not recognizing the problem
I'd say it's similar to telling someone who is cleaning, "you missed a spot". Technically helpful, but annoying, but misses the larger point. But, at the end of the day, it's advice that you can take or leave. Why get so offended?
I'd say it's similar to telling someone who is cleaning, "you missed a spot". Technically helpful, but annoying, but misses the larger point. But, at the end of the day, it's advice that you can take or leave. Why get so offended?
The meaning of speech is inseparably entangled within the context of both the speaker and the listener, with the most commonly significant piece of that being "Why did you say anything at all?". In the case of "You missed a spot", the speaker is exerting their desire for a spot to get cleaned onto the person already doing the cleaning. Best case scenario, the cleaner is already cleaning for the speaker, in which case the implied command to clean the particular spot is merely a redundant part of a broader command to clean in the first place. In the more commonly aggravating scenario, the speaker is not the intended beneficiary of the cleaning, and the act of commenting on it at all is met with the hostility appropriate of some one trying to control you.
In the example of the avocado toast guy, why did he say anything at all? The subtext of "all you have to do to save money is stop spending money on frivolous things" is that it is a defense of the status quo: "You shouldn't complain about our unfair economic system, your suffering is your own fault". But why make that statement? Because the speaker is broadcasting to the world that he thinks he's better than the avocado eating proles.
The choice to say anything at all is an even bigger choice than what to say.
In the example of the avocado toast guy, why did he say anything at all? The subtext of "all you have to do to save money is stop spending money on frivolous things" is that it is a defense of the status quo: "You shouldn't complain about our unfair economic system, your suffering is your own fault". But why make that statement? Because the speaker is broadcasting to the world that he thinks he's better than the avocado eating proles.
The choice to say anything at all is an even bigger choice than what to say.
Why am I saying anything right now? Because I believe I have some value to share with the world, or at least another person. Aggravating as advice and comments can be, they can be a small building block to a better world, including helping someone do a better job, even for its own sake.
It's surprisingly hard for us as listeners to advice to remain calm and interpret it objectively. Why? Resistance to being controlled is a big part of it as you said. When is that a productive emotion? Are there times it holds us back?
It's surprisingly hard for us as listeners to advice to remain calm and interpret it objectively. Why? Resistance to being controlled is a big part of it as you said. When is that a productive emotion? Are there times it holds us back?
> If you cannot correctly identify the systemic impediments to someone improving their situation, and offer realistic advice to them in those circumstances, you're part of the problem, or at least, you're not recognizing the problem.
A personal example I can think of has to do with how I managed my spending in the past: I would make sure not to overdraw from my checking account. Not because I am incapable of budgeting but because I didn't know any methods of budgeting. If I were to hear someone lament about their lack of making ends meet despite good income I would first try to get an understanding about how they budget since I know that was the actual mechanism that helped me make the decision not to buy the proverbial avocado toast.
Of course, finances could still be difficult due to cost increases not being matched by income increases; that is a genuinely unfortunate situation which I'm not sure how to fix. In this case, I would offer condolences over advice ("shit, that sucks, I'm sorry" not "just get a better job, lol") because I don't know what I would do in that situation.
A personal example I can think of has to do with how I managed my spending in the past: I would make sure not to overdraw from my checking account. Not because I am incapable of budgeting but because I didn't know any methods of budgeting. If I were to hear someone lament about their lack of making ends meet despite good income I would first try to get an understanding about how they budget since I know that was the actual mechanism that helped me make the decision not to buy the proverbial avocado toast.
Of course, finances could still be difficult due to cost increases not being matched by income increases; that is a genuinely unfortunate situation which I'm not sure how to fix. In this case, I would offer condolences over advice ("shit, that sucks, I'm sorry" not "just get a better job, lol") because I don't know what I would do in that situation.
Ideas should be judged on their merits, but based on previous behavior I wouldn't necessarily trust Johann Hari's writing out of hand - ie other things in the book.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Hari
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Hari
Hey, thanks for commenting. Your comment actually got me thinking of something I've been meaning to get deeper into for a long time, so I wrote another post about it: https://tegowerk.eu/posts/death-of-the-author/
I've known people in my trade and others trying to get into the trade with similar difficulties. We're all dealt a certain amount of, to put it this way, brain power. Some I've tried to train just couldn't understand the concept of what I was trying to convey, even with pictures and drawings. Others got it well enough, but just either didn't care or became bored.
When I was learning electricity and struggling a little, the instructor told me part of the problem was I didn't yet know the right questions to ask. This blew and opened my mind at the same time! I've used that statement on myself and others ever since. But I also except some won't ever be able to understand these questions.
When I was learning electricity and struggling a little, the instructor told me part of the problem was I didn't yet know the right questions to ask. This blew and opened my mind at the same time! I've used that statement on myself and others ever since. But I also except some won't ever be able to understand these questions.
I love these terms, definitely describes the situation well. I'm not sure how you'd describe the best mindset here. Pessimistic stoicism? Understanding the system is bad, but also realizing you have to work with the hand you were dealt.
My generation (millennial) tends to frustrate me, in that while a lot of people are correct in that the system is setup to lead them to failure, there are so many escape hatches to actually succeed.
I mean think about it, yeah, things are a lot more expensive now than my parents generation, but we also have these advantages:
- We all walk around with super computers in our pockets
- We have instant access to pretty much all of humanity's collective knowledge, practically for free
- Most people have pretty easy access to credit (which is admittedly a double edged sword)
My unscientific observation is that the people that complain the most about "the system" are actually some of the most privileged people, which makes them sound sort of spoiled and ridiculous.
I don't know, on one hand if you came from poverty in a crime stricken neighborhood you have my sympathy and understanding. On the other hand, if you came from a middle class background, you went to college and majored in something utterly useless (I won't mention the degrees... but you know them), racked up a huge debt, and now you're upset that nobody has a great job for you... I have slightly less sympathy. I realize that's a bit of a strawman, but it also just seems to be something I see a lot. If there's a big mistake my generation has made, it's having everyone go to college for degrees they'll never really use. And for some reason the trades have this huge stigma, even though you can make a perfectly good living as an electrician or a plumber.
My generation (millennial) tends to frustrate me, in that while a lot of people are correct in that the system is setup to lead them to failure, there are so many escape hatches to actually succeed.
I mean think about it, yeah, things are a lot more expensive now than my parents generation, but we also have these advantages:
- We all walk around with super computers in our pockets
- We have instant access to pretty much all of humanity's collective knowledge, practically for free
- Most people have pretty easy access to credit (which is admittedly a double edged sword)
My unscientific observation is that the people that complain the most about "the system" are actually some of the most privileged people, which makes them sound sort of spoiled and ridiculous.
I don't know, on one hand if you came from poverty in a crime stricken neighborhood you have my sympathy and understanding. On the other hand, if you came from a middle class background, you went to college and majored in something utterly useless (I won't mention the degrees... but you know them), racked up a huge debt, and now you're upset that nobody has a great job for you... I have slightly less sympathy. I realize that's a bit of a strawman, but it also just seems to be something I see a lot. If there's a big mistake my generation has made, it's having everyone go to college for degrees they'll never really use. And for some reason the trades have this huge stigma, even though you can make a perfectly good living as an electrician or a plumber.
I don't think millennials all suddenly decided apropos nothing to avoid trades and take on useless degrees, they were encouraged to do so by their parents and teachers, and even then doing a useless degree is probably the rational choice since grad schemes have all replaced the equivalent schemes for high school leavers that existed 20+ years ago with no practical difference other than arbitrarily requiring a degree. Their "useless" degree might leave them with the same options their parents had with only a high school education, but it's still better than the options they have without one.
I heard this quote by John Maynard Keynes writing in 1919 about life before the First World War that reminded me of anyone claiming how lucky the current generation is to have smartphones provide modern marvels like Amazon next day delivery-
> The inhabitant of London could order by telephone, sipping his morning tea in bed, the various products of the whole earth, in such quantity as he might see fit, and reasonably expect their early delivery upon his doorstep;
We might have supercomputers in our pockets, but people just use them to do a budget version of things everyone has been doing for 100 years because they can't afford the real thing anymore.
I heard this quote by John Maynard Keynes writing in 1919 about life before the First World War that reminded me of anyone claiming how lucky the current generation is to have smartphones provide modern marvels like Amazon next day delivery-
> The inhabitant of London could order by telephone, sipping his morning tea in bed, the various products of the whole earth, in such quantity as he might see fit, and reasonably expect their early delivery upon his doorstep;
We might have supercomputers in our pockets, but people just use them to do a budget version of things everyone has been doing for 100 years because they can't afford the real thing anymore.
> We might have supercomputers in our pockets, but people just use them to do a budget version of things everyone has been doing for 100 years because they can't afford the real thing anymore.
Firstly, no, not "everyone", a tiny fraction of "everyone". And secondly, because at that time London was the capital of the global superpower whose empire encircled the whole planet. If millennials are comparing themselves to the richest people who lived in the capital of the richest empire of all time, then they're going to be disappointed.
Firstly, no, not "everyone", a tiny fraction of "everyone". And secondly, because at that time London was the capital of the global superpower whose empire encircled the whole planet. If millennials are comparing themselves to the richest people who lived in the capital of the richest empire of all time, then they're going to be disappointed.
> I don't think millennials all suddenly decided apropos nothing to avoid trades and take on useless degrees, they were encouraged to do so by their parents and teachers
No argument there. I think it was well meaning, no parent wants to think their kid isn't college material, but... yeah not every kid is college material.
> and even then doing a useless degree is probably the rational choice since grad schemes have all replaced the equivalent schemes for high school leavers that existed 20+ years ago with no practical difference other than arbitrarily requiring a degree
To me, this is an open question. I know various college dropouts that actually have really good careers. I think their first jobs were harder to get, but once you have a resume I don't think most employers care that much about college (I say as a college grad, so I don't know first hand). Plus, there's just also the matter that if you are going to go into debt for college, maybe get a useful degree? Even if you don't go into certain fields, I think some degrees look better than others. For instance, I know some coders that have a degree in architecture (like, buildings). Even though they aren't designing buildings, it's a somewhat impressive degree. On the other hand, I feel bad for people that got a degree in something like art history or gender studies or political science but didn't go into academia or grad school. I probably shouldn't pick on those, but, oof, those don't seem like a promising path unless you want to be a professor or go into law school or something.
No argument there. I think it was well meaning, no parent wants to think their kid isn't college material, but... yeah not every kid is college material.
> and even then doing a useless degree is probably the rational choice since grad schemes have all replaced the equivalent schemes for high school leavers that existed 20+ years ago with no practical difference other than arbitrarily requiring a degree
To me, this is an open question. I know various college dropouts that actually have really good careers. I think their first jobs were harder to get, but once you have a resume I don't think most employers care that much about college (I say as a college grad, so I don't know first hand). Plus, there's just also the matter that if you are going to go into debt for college, maybe get a useful degree? Even if you don't go into certain fields, I think some degrees look better than others. For instance, I know some coders that have a degree in architecture (like, buildings). Even though they aren't designing buildings, it's a somewhat impressive degree. On the other hand, I feel bad for people that got a degree in something like art history or gender studies or political science but didn't go into academia or grad school. I probably shouldn't pick on those, but, oof, those don't seem like a promising path unless you want to be a professor or go into law school or something.
- We have instant access to pretty much all of humanity's collective knowledge, practically for free
We have access to an overwhelming amount of knowledge, but the problem is that this by itself is not enough to use it. All that knowledge is in a format that is difficult to assimilate and largely lacks the social aspect needed to transfer it effectively.
Humans assimilate knowledge by participating in social groups, most of us acquire it largely by imitation; only some complex academic subjects benefit from isolated personal study, and even then you need a mentor to guide you through it.
The wealthy remain wealthy because they maintain exclusivist institutions, devoted entirely to transmitting such limited social knowledge to their families. It is practically a requirement in order to improve your social standing; people with access to unlimited knowledge but without having the tribe to guide them in its assimilation cannot harness it in a way that is more effective than the people they are competing against.
We have access to an overwhelming amount of knowledge, but the problem is that this by itself is not enough to use it. All that knowledge is in a format that is difficult to assimilate and largely lacks the social aspect needed to transfer it effectively.
Humans assimilate knowledge by participating in social groups, most of us acquire it largely by imitation; only some complex academic subjects benefit from isolated personal study, and even then you need a mentor to guide you through it.
The wealthy remain wealthy because they maintain exclusivist institutions, devoted entirely to transmitting such limited social knowledge to their families. It is practically a requirement in order to improve your social standing; people with access to unlimited knowledge but without having the tribe to guide them in its assimilation cannot harness it in a way that is more effective than the people they are competing against.
I'm not sure that's true, I think people learn by doing more than through social means. I mean, I went to college and got a bachelors, and I remember... practically none of it except the things I use day to day. I would honestly say that other than giving my a scientific viewpoint, most of the "general education" stuff was a complete waste of time. I really can tell you nothing about geology or biology and just the basics of chemistry, and I'm sure I'm not alone.
Right now one of my hobbies is robotics/electronics/makerish stuff, and most of what I've learned has come from youtube/reference documentation/blog posts (I bought a few textbooks as well, although most of them are collecting dust). There's a bit of a social aspect in that I'll ask friends with actual EE degrees for advice sometimes, but even then I mostly get "ah I haven't used that in forever, I don't remember". Most of my learning is by setting a goal, and then more or less learning the skills along the way. I don't know if it's efficient or not, but it's not costing me anything other than time.
The other thing I've been teaching myself is art techniques, and you probably guessed it, I've learned those things in the same way and through practice developing my own style. Again, no institution needed.
Don't get me wrong, I think institutions and the social aspect of them can be tremendously useful, but if you want to learn a skill and you're interested there's practically nothing stopping you, you don't need them, it's just a bonus.
Right now one of my hobbies is robotics/electronics/makerish stuff, and most of what I've learned has come from youtube/reference documentation/blog posts (I bought a few textbooks as well, although most of them are collecting dust). There's a bit of a social aspect in that I'll ask friends with actual EE degrees for advice sometimes, but even then I mostly get "ah I haven't used that in forever, I don't remember". Most of my learning is by setting a goal, and then more or less learning the skills along the way. I don't know if it's efficient or not, but it's not costing me anything other than time.
The other thing I've been teaching myself is art techniques, and you probably guessed it, I've learned those things in the same way and through practice developing my own style. Again, no institution needed.
Don't get me wrong, I think institutions and the social aspect of them can be tremendously useful, but if you want to learn a skill and you're interested there's practically nothing stopping you, you don't need them, it's just a bonus.
I didn't mean that you acquire knowledge by hanging around people (though that happens a lot as well, specially for all knowledge that is not deemed 'academic'). I meant that knowledge acquisition is mediated and guided by your social context; if you're on your own, resorting to YouTube tutorials and online forums will only get you that far, as you will not acquire competence on what are the most useful and practical ways to apply that knowledge.
You need feedback to know that you're orienting your learning in the right direction, to provide a practical overview of the field, and to correct you on the vices you may develop. None of that can be achieved without evaluation of your progress, and that requires belonging to a stable social group that can check your advances beyond isolated interactions.
Again, avance on more academic disciplines can be cheated by reading books, which compile some of that socially transferred content. But practical application of those learned skills requires talking to people who will guide you on what constitutes 'practicality' for other people. In your art example, you may develop your personal style on your own, but you can't know that it will be liked by others unless you exhibit it and listen commentary on how people perceive it.
You need feedback to know that you're orienting your learning in the right direction, to provide a practical overview of the field, and to correct you on the vices you may develop. None of that can be achieved without evaluation of your progress, and that requires belonging to a stable social group that can check your advances beyond isolated interactions.
Again, avance on more academic disciplines can be cheated by reading books, which compile some of that socially transferred content. But practical application of those learned skills requires talking to people who will guide you on what constitutes 'practicality' for other people. In your art example, you may develop your personal style on your own, but you can't know that it will be liked by others unless you exhibit it and listen commentary on how people perceive it.
> I'm not sure how you'd describe the best mindset here. Pessimistic stoicism?
This is the question I asked myself as well. In my own life I've settled on Stoicism as a philosophy of life (though I am far from the ideal sage). I don't think it needs prefixed with "pessimistic" though. I think that, by itself, it's already the middle ground between the two positions. It says that you should only focus on the things that are under your control, but to do so while working for the greater good as well. Fight the dragons, but also fight your own inner battles.
This is the question I asked myself as well. In my own life I've settled on Stoicism as a philosophy of life (though I am far from the ideal sage). I don't think it needs prefixed with "pessimistic" though. I think that, by itself, it's already the middle ground between the two positions. It says that you should only focus on the things that are under your control, but to do so while working for the greater good as well. Fight the dragons, but also fight your own inner battles.
Yeah, stoicism by itself is probably enough. I also really love stoicism, although I feel like in popular culture it has sort of a weird stereotype of being a really grim way to live (which is not at all the case)
Yes, it's weird, because it can actually be joyful. We need to break apart lowercase stoicism from uppercase Stoicism.
I've always talked about shitty optimism which is being optimistic about things where the risk to oneself is minimal. I'm often guilty of it without even noticing.
Not sure I get it. You got an example?
Climate change isn't a big deal.
I'm willing to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian
I'm willing to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian
// Fat? Just start running! Never mind that you can’t afford a gym subscription and live in a car-centric hellscape that’s not even bikeable, let alone walkable
So here's something that's true: you can only move forward from where you are and with what you have. So while it's surely easier to lose weight if you can hire a coach and a nutritionist - if you can't do those things you nevertheless have to find a way!
So if you are "poor and fat" as in this scenario, the idea that you need a gym membership and perfect running streets is a trap. You don't have those things and therefore you are going to be fat forever.
The reality is that plenty of poor people lost weight when they decided to. They found a way - whether by walking around the block or taking the bus to a highschool running track or whatever. It's not easy but it was the only way to do it.
So how to avoid this mental trap? Rather than obsessing on the fact that it's easier for someone else, obsess about the fact that someone in your situation and even worse can do it and has done it. And then start.
So here's something that's true: you can only move forward from where you are and with what you have. So while it's surely easier to lose weight if you can hire a coach and a nutritionist - if you can't do those things you nevertheless have to find a way!
So if you are "poor and fat" as in this scenario, the idea that you need a gym membership and perfect running streets is a trap. You don't have those things and therefore you are going to be fat forever.
The reality is that plenty of poor people lost weight when they decided to. They found a way - whether by walking around the block or taking the bus to a highschool running track or whatever. It's not easy but it was the only way to do it.
So how to avoid this mental trap? Rather than obsessing on the fact that it's easier for someone else, obsess about the fact that someone in your situation and even worse can do it and has done it. And then start.
This reminds me of a conclusion I have come to in life. You have been dealt the cards you have been dealt. Sometimes, usually, it isn’t fair. Now how best can you play your hand? You still might lose, but you can only do the best you can. Being upset, feeling sorry for yourself, whining, complaining, flipping the table over, really doesn’t change anything and is wasting time and energy that could be put towards improving your hand.
This is the harmful mantra that shifts all responsibility down at the individual level, overlooking any structural deficiencies at large. Multiply this behaviour over a large population of individuals, and you have atomised wheel-spinning hamsters without any abstract sense of the world they inhabit. Everyone tries to spin the wheel a bit faster, exacerbating the systemic issue even further.
This is the only advice that is really applicable and actionable at the individual level.
If someone is "poor and fat", telling them to advocate for a less car dependent society isn't helpful.
Practical advice and understanding societal root causes are really two different activities, and people tend to seamlessly slip between them.
Cruel optimism is personal advice. Lazy pessimism is academic analysis.
If someone is "poor and fat", telling them to advocate for a less car dependent society isn't helpful.
Practical advice and understanding societal root causes are really two different activities, and people tend to seamlessly slip between them.
Cruel optimism is personal advice. Lazy pessimism is academic analysis.
It really depends on the exact circumstances imo, and so generic advice like "if you're poor and fat just go for runs" is supremely unhelpful because generic advice is often times simultaneously not actionable and it blames the person for not being able to action on it! For example, if you're fat, poor, and wheelchair-bound, "just run" is a slap in the face and, potentially, advocating for a less car dependent society is actually the best thing they can do so that they can safely take accessible public transport to the one nutritionist their insurance covers!
I agree that it depends on the circumstances. I would argue that generic advice is generally applicable. It can't cover every single corner case specifically designed to evade it.
By that same metric, advocating a person wait for a less car dependent society with accessible public transport is terrible advice for the average fat and poor person.
No hypothetical advice can pass a "No True Scotsman" test.
By that same metric, advocating a person wait for a less car dependent society with accessible public transport is terrible advice for the average fat and poor person.
No hypothetical advice can pass a "No True Scotsman" test.
I'm not suggesting any solutions for all poor fat people. In fact what I'm advocating against is the idea that generic advice for all people of a very broad category is not as generally applicable and, in fact, runs into the rhetoric I said earlier that it both provides inapplicable and blaming advice. There are a great many, many problems with generic advice for a very broad set of society of millions of people.
If no hypothetical advice can pass a "No True Sctosman" test, stop giving hypothetical advice to the simplest example of a complex problem.
If no hypothetical advice can pass a "No True Sctosman" test, stop giving hypothetical advice to the simplest example of a complex problem.
Im not suggesting blanket advice for all people either.
I think we might agree, but just be coming at it from different ends.
>stop giving hypothetical advice to the simplest example of a complex problem.
Surely we agree that a lot of fat people could benefit from eating less and exercising, correct? We could debate what proportion of people fall into the simplest example, but that is less interesting. What is interesting more interesting to me is when you think advice can be given and what kind:
Are you suggesting that nobody should ever give this advice to eat less and exercise more?
Are you suggesting that any advice that ascribes individual agency and control is inappropriate?
Are you suggesting that only discussing the complex socio-systemic causes is appropriate?
I think we might agree, but just be coming at it from different ends.
>stop giving hypothetical advice to the simplest example of a complex problem.
Surely we agree that a lot of fat people could benefit from eating less and exercising, correct? We could debate what proportion of people fall into the simplest example, but that is less interesting. What is interesting more interesting to me is when you think advice can be given and what kind:
Are you suggesting that nobody should ever give this advice to eat less and exercise more?
Are you suggesting that any advice that ascribes individual agency and control is inappropriate?
Are you suggesting that only discussing the complex socio-systemic causes is appropriate?
I'm suggesting that you should give advice to specific people and specific circumstances over giving advice to hypothetically generic people and then casting blame on the many, many individuals for which the hypothetical doesn't apply.
So is it just a matter of disclaimers?
Can you say "fat people who are physically and mentally capable would benefit from eating less than exercising"?
What, specifically, are the harms this is trying to avoid? Does it avoid people incapable of exercises accidentally injuring themselves? People blaming themselves when they have no ability to exercise and no control over their diet?
Can you say "fat people who are physically and mentally capable would benefit from eating less than exercising"?
What, specifically, are the harms this is trying to avoid? Does it avoid people incapable of exercises accidentally injuring themselves? People blaming themselves when they have no ability to exercise and no control over their diet?
I literally already said what the harm of generic advice is: generic advice to a too-broad situation is often both inapplicable and blaming the individual.
What's confusing about that point?
What's confusing about that point?
What I'm trying to get at is why you think those things are so bad that it warrants never issuing general advice, and why the downsides outweigh any potential benefit.
All I can do is guess at the reasons why.
For example, inapplicable advice might lead to collateral damage like someone blaming themselves for not exercising when they are wheelchair bound. This all assumes that anyone who hears the advice can't decide if it is applicable to them or not.
Less charitably, I wonder if you are reacting negatively to the idea that people should feel responsible for their own behavior, and this is the Crux of our difference.
All I can do is guess at the reasons why.
For example, inapplicable advice might lead to collateral damage like someone blaming themselves for not exercising when they are wheelchair bound. This all assumes that anyone who hears the advice can't decide if it is applicable to them or not.
Less charitably, I wonder if you are reacting negatively to the idea that people should feel responsible for their own behavior, and this is the Crux of our difference.
It is not meant to be a government or societal philosophy. It is a personal philosophy. It is exerting control over your life where you can and trying not to let what you can’t control bother you or beat you down.
No, this is about acceptance of the 'hand' you have and having an understanding of what you can control and influence. Which is pretty damn empowering, compared to blaming structural or systemic problems for your situation.
Individual agency is important either way, but people should be aware of its limitations when approaching wide societal problems. Collective consensus has the ability to change the rules of the game once they have become an impediment to the net "well-being" of society. And this can only be assessed when people try to jump out of their subjective experience, reasoning about the world as an outside observer.
The point is to change the structure and try to address systemic problems, rather than putting on your blinders.
Most of us don't have any meaningful avenues to do so (although there's plenty of simulacrums if one just wants to feel like they're "doing something").
But, more importantly, it's generally not something that can be done on a timeframe that would actually benefit you and solve your immediate problem. Yes, we should be fixing systemic problems at proper scale, but meanwhile we still have to function within the current messy state of affairs.
But, more importantly, it's generally not something that can be done on a timeframe that would actually benefit you and solve your immediate problem. Yes, we should be fixing systemic problems at proper scale, but meanwhile we still have to function within the current messy state of affairs.
I find myself to agree with both of you, depending on scope.
When it comes to me and my personal life, I do my best to find what I could be doing differently. I try to find the blame for my problems in myself, because it's the place I can actually make changes.
When thinking about policy or culture, it's the opposite; I seek systemic solutions and look to where there are systemic inefficiencies.
The reason for this fairly bipolar thinking is inertia; I'm only going to be around for so long and I don't have time to wait for the cruise liner of human society to change heading - so I get my run in on the deck. Then I go yell at the captain for getting us lost at sea.
When it comes to me and my personal life, I do my best to find what I could be doing differently. I try to find the blame for my problems in myself, because it's the place I can actually make changes.
When thinking about policy or culture, it's the opposite; I seek systemic solutions and look to where there are systemic inefficiencies.
The reason for this fairly bipolar thinking is inertia; I'm only going to be around for so long and I don't have time to wait for the cruise liner of human society to change heading - so I get my run in on the deck. Then I go yell at the captain for getting us lost at sea.
Counterpoint: flipping the table drags others down to your level if done skillfully and thus reduces jealousy
As does sowing suffering, hatred, and pain in the world.
However, it is a poor solutioning to actually improving your conditions.
You see this kind of illogical thinking from unhinged school shooters.
However, it is a poor solutioning to actually improving your conditions.
You see this kind of illogical thinking from unhinged school shooters.
And this is the problem with "generic" advice from self-help books. They are usually written by someone with privilege from a middle or an upper-middle socio-economic background. What works and is applicable in their situation might be irrelevant in another. For the author of the book, doing exercise means devoting one hour of their leisurely daily routine while not missing anything else. For an impoverished person, doing exercise means leaving their kids screaming and unfed after a long day at work.
The real purpose of the media is to expose and raise the awareness about systemic issues affecting large portions of the population. Then society should attempt to address those issues through the political institutions, with the participation of both the affected and the unaffected group.
The real purpose of the media is to expose and raise the awareness about systemic issues affecting large portions of the population. Then society should attempt to address those issues through the political institutions, with the participation of both the affected and the unaffected group.
I think the mistake is viewing the task as a dragon that must be slayed rather than 10,000 hamsters which need be stomped on in 10,000 days. If we can reframe our large problems into a sequence of small (and potentially even gratifying!) tasks, life becomes easier.
Of all possible things to stomp you chose hamsters?
You made me laugh pretty hard. Re-reading this I’m more disturbed that I framed it as a potentially gratifying task.
Hey, it could be anti-personnel mines...
Fat people should not be running anyway. First, it's ineffective for weight loss, second, your extra body mass puts stress on your joints, resulting in injuries. To lose weight you need a diet, not exercise. And if you want to exercise anyway you should ride a bike, not run.
I am using the concept from the article to provide a counterexample. This isn't a conversation about how to lose weight, but about when to be "optimistic" ie apply yourself to the problem rather than giving up.
Being fat is a problem with caloric intake, not caloric usage.
I've found every time that I wanted to lose weight I needed to get my eating in order. That gave me more energy to work out, which of course helped even more.
But it starts with eating less.
Whenever I focused on just working out, I found I would just eat more and still have a caloric surplus. It never worked as a way to lose weight as I wasn't addressing the root of the problem, overeating.
I've found every time that I wanted to lose weight I needed to get my eating in order. That gave me more energy to work out, which of course helped even more.
But it starts with eating less.
Whenever I focused on just working out, I found I would just eat more and still have a caloric surplus. It never worked as a way to lose weight as I wasn't addressing the root of the problem, overeating.
I agree with you that the exercise example is a little soft, but my sense is it was meant to be one of many, and you might inadvertently be supporting their argument a bit.
There's probably some term for this phenomenon in formal logic or argument, and if there isn't, there probably should be, but...
It seems to me often with these kinds of things you can always say "if you want X enough, you can find a way," and that's logically true, but in practice the effort involved or the threading of the needle is exactly the problem. People have lives, and maybe taking the bus isn't feasible because you're working two jobs, have kids, and literally don't have the time without jeopardizing those things. It's some kind of logical trap, where you can provide all these examples of things to do, in some imaginary context where nothing else in life matters, or where success comes by making exactly the correct sequence of N steps of complicated decisions that is extremely implausible once uncertainty and normal levels of human error are taken into account.
The authors also basically provided an example of the neighborhood not being walkable and then you offer walking around the neighborhood as a solution. I bring this up not to be antagonistic or hostile to you, but I think this is part of what they're talking about: someone has X obstacles, and then in the course of getting advice, those obstacles are ignored in part or in whole. Even if it's unintended, it creates a loss of credibility on the part of the person giving advice (whether or not that credibility loss is warranted or not): "if you're ignoring my problem X, do you really understand my situation? And if not, can I trust that what you're saying will work out?" Then they might even ignore good advice, which then makes the problem worse.
I agree that you can still lose weight if by no other means than not eating as much, and I'm deeply skeptical of someone's inability to lose weight in the absence of some kind of internal physiological limitation. But as someone who's sympathetic to where you're coming from, I kind of read your comment and felt like you were just kind of illustrating the author's points. At what point at a population level do we start recognizing that these systemic factors are in fact causing problems for individuals, and that individuals cannot just bootstrap their way out of it completely? In the same way that you can come up with a complicated series of excuses for a person, you can also do the opposite, whatever that is termed -- you can come up with a complicated series of explanations of how they are culpable by not doing exactly the right series of things that would never be even discussed about a whole other subgroup of society.
I guess it seems to me that dismissing "obsessing on the fact that it's easier for someone else," and asking them instead to obsess about their own situation, is basically the thing the authors are talking about.
There's probably some term for this phenomenon in formal logic or argument, and if there isn't, there probably should be, but...
It seems to me often with these kinds of things you can always say "if you want X enough, you can find a way," and that's logically true, but in practice the effort involved or the threading of the needle is exactly the problem. People have lives, and maybe taking the bus isn't feasible because you're working two jobs, have kids, and literally don't have the time without jeopardizing those things. It's some kind of logical trap, where you can provide all these examples of things to do, in some imaginary context where nothing else in life matters, or where success comes by making exactly the correct sequence of N steps of complicated decisions that is extremely implausible once uncertainty and normal levels of human error are taken into account.
The authors also basically provided an example of the neighborhood not being walkable and then you offer walking around the neighborhood as a solution. I bring this up not to be antagonistic or hostile to you, but I think this is part of what they're talking about: someone has X obstacles, and then in the course of getting advice, those obstacles are ignored in part or in whole. Even if it's unintended, it creates a loss of credibility on the part of the person giving advice (whether or not that credibility loss is warranted or not): "if you're ignoring my problem X, do you really understand my situation? And if not, can I trust that what you're saying will work out?" Then they might even ignore good advice, which then makes the problem worse.
I agree that you can still lose weight if by no other means than not eating as much, and I'm deeply skeptical of someone's inability to lose weight in the absence of some kind of internal physiological limitation. But as someone who's sympathetic to where you're coming from, I kind of read your comment and felt like you were just kind of illustrating the author's points. At what point at a population level do we start recognizing that these systemic factors are in fact causing problems for individuals, and that individuals cannot just bootstrap their way out of it completely? In the same way that you can come up with a complicated series of excuses for a person, you can also do the opposite, whatever that is termed -- you can come up with a complicated series of explanations of how they are culpable by not doing exactly the right series of things that would never be even discussed about a whole other subgroup of society.
I guess it seems to me that dismissing "obsessing on the fact that it's easier for someone else," and asking them instead to obsess about their own situation, is basically the thing the authors are talking about.
> Rather than obsessing on the fact that it's easier for someone else, obsess about the fact that someone in your situation and even worse can do it and has done it. And then start.
AKA: "why don't you just have 10x more willpower?"
AKA: "why don't you just have 10x more willpower?"
I am sorry but your is a criminally bad take. What's the alternative, be stuck in the bad situation forever.
No, the alternative requires a bit more thinking on you part instead of blaming individuals.
For the record there's a whole subreddit dedicated to your "advice" https://www.reddit.com/r/thanksimcured/
For the record there's a whole subreddit dedicated to your "advice" https://www.reddit.com/r/thanksimcured/
Reddit people complaining about something is a good sign that whatever it is is correct.
The "blaming" is in your head, not in my comment
So question to you - if you have a fat and poor friend who's getting unhealthier by the second - how do you help him? What will you actually do?
So question to you - if you have a fat and poor friend who's getting unhealthier by the second - how do you help him? What will you actually do?
Depends on why the friend is fat and poor. Could be they're disabled, in which case they're basically SOL. Wheelchairs are incredibly expensive, it's hard to cook in one unless one pays $$$ for home modifications, removes a wide range of exercise options...
The friend is fat and poor because they eat unhealthy, spend most of their time sitting down watching YouTube or playing games, and work a low skill job because they do not have a skill that will pay them more.
What do you do with said friend?
What do you do with said friend?
You are describing depression without using the word "depression". And, again, it does not get treated by telling people "just go jogging".
Eventually, yes it does.
Most therapists will coach the depressed to exert self control and do things they don't want to.
Medication can help, but behavioral change and pattern formation are crucial to recovery and preventing relapse.
Most of it boils down to just do x, even if you don't want to, because you logically know it is important in combatting depression.
Most therapists will coach the depressed to exert self control and do things they don't want to.
Medication can help, but behavioral change and pattern formation are crucial to recovery and preventing relapse.
Most of it boils down to just do x, even if you don't want to, because you logically know it is important in combatting depression.
That "eventually" covers a lot of ground, and is literally the opposite of "just" in "just do it". Therapists help you get to the point where you can actually do something.
Your mileage may vary, but my experience is that they tell you to just do it, explaining the reasons why it comes down to just doing it each time. They listen to your BS reasons for not doing it in between to let you vent, then tell you again that if you want to do it just do it.
I readily admit that there are differences between a therapist and a random internet stranger. An internet stranger is not paid to listen to your excuses and work them around to the question of why don't you just do it. Some people seriously need the coaxing and empathetic here. At the end of the day however, the message is the same. You want to do it, just do it.
I readily admit that there are differences between a therapist and a random internet stranger. An internet stranger is not paid to listen to your excuses and work them around to the question of why don't you just do it. Some people seriously need the coaxing and empathetic here. At the end of the day however, the message is the same. You want to do it, just do it.
There is a also a different subreddit dedicated to the advice r/loseit.
It would be interesting to see which type of thinking has better weight loss outcomes.
It would be interesting to see which type of thinking has better weight loss outcomes.
Is there anything at all effective you can really do against the dragons? We might see them as particularly destructive lately but we've been breeding them to do just that for the past ten millennia or so.
On an individual level? Probably not. As a group? Of course, just like it's been done many times before: through activism, building a movement, gaining momentum and critical mass, eventually culminating in regulatory intervention. We've beaten plenty of dragons before in our past, from leaded gasoline to women's suffrage.
I try not to attack big problems head on. Instead I ask myself, what can I change in my daily habits that will eventually, erode the dragon away? If the dragon is in a cave and I can dump a bucket of water in there every day, eventually the thing will fly away or drown.
Regulations can work. Sometimes even something as basic as disclosure can drive significant change. In contrast the oh there is just nothing that little old me can do approach is never going to work.
You can take practical fire precautions like clearing brush around your hut. You can make sure you have an escape plan and stay in shape.
Long term, consider making fewer personal offerings to the dragons and plan to relocate to an area with lower dragon density.
Long term, consider making fewer personal offerings to the dragons and plan to relocate to an area with lower dragon density.
> Cruel optimism, the way Hari interprets it, boils down to the folly of suggesting personal solutions to systemic problems.
This is an interesting start but feels too narrow as a definition of the term.
Cruel optimism, in general, seems like it should mean "cruelty by means of optimism". As in, you don't trouble yourself with how something (which you are morally responsible for) isn't going well and some person(s) will be negatively affected, and you justify that with the assumption that everything will turn out fine in the end, or the problem is much milder or easier to solve than it really is.
Neglecting responsibility for a problem justified by downplaying the problem, imagining the problem away.
This is an interesting start but feels too narrow as a definition of the term.
Cruel optimism, in general, seems like it should mean "cruelty by means of optimism". As in, you don't trouble yourself with how something (which you are morally responsible for) isn't going well and some person(s) will be negatively affected, and you justify that with the assumption that everything will turn out fine in the end, or the problem is much milder or easier to solve than it really is.
Neglecting responsibility for a problem justified by downplaying the problem, imagining the problem away.
Glad the author took the time to mention the commodification of relationships.
Yes the concept is from Lauren Berlant, who is quite distinguished in her field, affect theory. She has a feminist viewpoint and tends to be blame neoliberalism for of everything awful, but for that genre - which is not usually my cup of tea. Anyway, I think she has written some interesting pieces.
I found interesting this paper which cites Berlant's concept of cruel optimism: "Disinformation as the weaponization of cruel optimism: A critical intervention in misinformation studies".
It discusses the state of disinformation studies with example such why academic interventions have failed to "correct" e.g. people who believe in QAnon.
Open access link below: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S175545862...
I found interesting this paper which cites Berlant's concept of cruel optimism: "Disinformation as the weaponization of cruel optimism: A critical intervention in misinformation studies".
It discusses the state of disinformation studies with example such why academic interventions have failed to "correct" e.g. people who believe in QAnon.
Open access link below: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S175545862...
> think positive, be happy!
This is correct. It is hard to do all the time. But it's a better way to live. Happiness / unhappiness is a choice (depression other mental illnessesses and additions are conditions to be treated, out of scope, it is not "unhappiness").
Think of it this way.
You can be poor, have kids to feed, homeless, whatever. And unhappy.
Or, can be poor, have kids to feed, homeless, whatever. And happy.
You can wallow in self-pity, blame yourself (or others, society) for your situation, be cynical and pessimistic. Or, be happy, see the positives, be optimistic, try and improve your situation.
This is correct. It is hard to do all the time. But it's a better way to live. Happiness / unhappiness is a choice (depression other mental illnessesses and additions are conditions to be treated, out of scope, it is not "unhappiness").
Think of it this way.
You can be poor, have kids to feed, homeless, whatever. And unhappy.
Or, can be poor, have kids to feed, homeless, whatever. And happy.
You can wallow in self-pity, blame yourself (or others, society) for your situation, be cynical and pessimistic. Or, be happy, see the positives, be optimistic, try and improve your situation.
What is your basis for the assertion that it's always a choice? If it's personal experience, have you considered that yours is not necessarily representative of other people's? Even if you were happy while being in a bad spot before, that doesn't automatically generalize even for yourself, much less for everyone else.
This is an interesting juxtaposition. I am deliberately intensely optimistic - I also happen to have a sadism paraphilia. I've had the intuition these mindsets are related, but this is the first time I've seen a mechanism.
A sufficiently intense optimism might say "I don't care that giving up social media gives you withdrawel pains, you're doing it!". A sadistic attitude towards myself (or whoever's masochistic enough to ask my advice) might help cut through the kind of pity that would prevent pushing a painful but healthy change.
A sufficiently intense optimism might say "I don't care that giving up social media gives you withdrawel pains, you're doing it!". A sadistic attitude towards myself (or whoever's masochistic enough to ask my advice) might help cut through the kind of pity that would prevent pushing a painful but healthy change.
The notion of lazy pessimism is not a pure concept, in the sense that it did not emerge in someone's mind independent from any argument or bias. Who's interest does this notion serve? In which argument would someone use this term and why? And who are we really talking about.
Honestly, it made me squirm. Sounds like a conservative on the freshman debate team trying to sound "compassionate." Like, those Mexicans aren't lazy. They just need to realize that their attitude needs adjusting (said the guy who knows not one person from Mexico.)
This is more clever than deep and certainly less thoughtful than it might seem. Read some James Baldwin. Please.
Honestly, it made me squirm. Sounds like a conservative on the freshman debate team trying to sound "compassionate." Like, those Mexicans aren't lazy. They just need to realize that their attitude needs adjusting (said the guy who knows not one person from Mexico.)
This is more clever than deep and certainly less thoughtful than it might seem. Read some James Baldwin. Please.
Sure, but I mean, often you can’t solve the “systemic problem” so the next best thing is to at least try to work on yourself. Necessary but not sufficient I guess. But cruel?
I think cruel is when you fail to acknowledge the deck is stacked against the person. A millionaire telling someone they are poor because they are spending some of their money on comforts is, at the very least, tone deaf. I can see calling it cruel.
TFA just points out that the opposite tack (It's all society's fault so I'm screwed no matter what I do), is also not helpful. Also (IMO; not sure if author of TFA would agree with me) the "lazy pessimism" is at least partly a push-back against "cruel optimism." If the optimism were paired with more empathy, then lazy pessimism wouldn't be the obvious alternative.
TFA just points out that the opposite tack (It's all society's fault so I'm screwed no matter what I do), is also not helpful. Also (IMO; not sure if author of TFA would agree with me) the "lazy pessimism" is at least partly a push-back against "cruel optimism." If the optimism were paired with more empathy, then lazy pessimism wouldn't be the obvious alternative.
I do agree with you, and that's exactly what I meant when I said that we have overcorrected. Thank you.
Yeah the premise seems to be the people offering optimism have the ability to change the systemic problem but don't, offering cheap talk via optimism instead. To think that "the elites" could all collectively agree to solve every systemic problem the proles complain about is ridiculously naive.
"suggesting personal solutions to systemic problems" is not just cruel optimism, it's a way to shift blame.
Many social problems are not caused by you or by "society" at large.
You live in a "car-centric hellscape"? Shops only sell unhealthy food? The board of directors of some companies took these decisions.
Many social problems are not caused by you or by "society" at large.
You live in a "car-centric hellscape"? Shops only sell unhealthy food? The board of directors of some companies took these decisions.
To be fair, those directors were told it was their fiduciary duty to maximize profits, and the systems surrounding them clamor with nonstop praise. We allow these empires of selfishness to be amassed, we have chosen which wolf to feed ever since we stopped trust-busting.
Somehow life was given to you and now you have an unavoidable fall-back decision that is always in the fabric of your consciousneess (specially when everything feels terrible):
Rebelling against personal responsibility has a deterministic fatal fate that no narrative will protect you from.
What will you do?
Rebelling against personal responsibility has a deterministic fatal fate that no narrative will protect you from.
What will you do?
I love this article. I felt my blood pressure rising as I read the first section.
For anyone struggling with the problems he uses for examples, I think the example exhortations ("Just start running!" "Just be yourself!") illustrate that you should be skeptical about advice from someone who has never solved the problem in question, or solved it accidentally with resources you don't have. It's possible you can learn from their advice, but there's a good chance it won't apply to you in a simple way.
Tellingly, in the first part of the article, it was easy for me to gloss over the parts that touch on problems I don't have. Where I got upset was when it talked about the problems I do have. I think a great deal of the disconnect comes from people with privilege being unable to imagine how people can survive without it. Their prescription is for everybody to live like they have privilege, which is the only thing they can imagine, and accept the suffering that results. Some people can eat whatever they naturally gravitate towards and be healthy... so you should eat anything you want, and if you end up with diabetes, that's the proper outcome for you. Some people can afford $22 avocado toast every day, so you should eat that toast, and if you run out of money for rent, that's fine, that's what happens to people like you. Some people can be blithe and careless about their mental health and be happy, so you should be careless too.
No matter what empathetic language you dress it up in, I think it's a pretty brutal message, that the way the most privileged people are able to live is the only way worth living. You should study like you're a Harvard legacy, manage your money like a trust fund baby, and take care of your body like you're the twenty-year-old offspring of a model and a professional athlete with centenarians on both sides of the family, because that's the only way worth living.
Seen from that perspective, telling people not to bother with individual solutions to their problems is an even more flamboyant display of privilege than someone saying "just be frugal!" or "fix your mental health issues with exercise!" Offering someone a solution, however inadequate, at least acknowledges that their lives require effort and compromise, and that a life of effort and compromise is worth living. It's shitty and inadequate, but it's better than being told that you simply must eat that $22 avocado toast because life without $22 avocado toast would be too ghastly.
I get the 30,000 foot political perspective. Collective and individual solutions are different and therefore competing, and politics doesn't allow for complexity or nuance, so public desire for collective solutions can only come at the expense of belief in individual solutions. I see that logic. However, because people are currently facing these problems alone, they are resorting to individual solutions, and many people are benefiting from individual solutions in ways that matter to them, even if it looks meager and meaningless from a more privileged perspective. It comes off as awfully snobbish and disconnected when you deny the value of the benefits (however small) that people realize from their efforts to manage their health, their finances, etc. And you don't have to do that to promote collective solutions. At least let's hope not, because if so, that's a really tough messaging problem to solve.
For anyone struggling with the problems he uses for examples, I think the example exhortations ("Just start running!" "Just be yourself!") illustrate that you should be skeptical about advice from someone who has never solved the problem in question, or solved it accidentally with resources you don't have. It's possible you can learn from their advice, but there's a good chance it won't apply to you in a simple way.
Tellingly, in the first part of the article, it was easy for me to gloss over the parts that touch on problems I don't have. Where I got upset was when it talked about the problems I do have. I think a great deal of the disconnect comes from people with privilege being unable to imagine how people can survive without it. Their prescription is for everybody to live like they have privilege, which is the only thing they can imagine, and accept the suffering that results. Some people can eat whatever they naturally gravitate towards and be healthy... so you should eat anything you want, and if you end up with diabetes, that's the proper outcome for you. Some people can afford $22 avocado toast every day, so you should eat that toast, and if you run out of money for rent, that's fine, that's what happens to people like you. Some people can be blithe and careless about their mental health and be happy, so you should be careless too.
No matter what empathetic language you dress it up in, I think it's a pretty brutal message, that the way the most privileged people are able to live is the only way worth living. You should study like you're a Harvard legacy, manage your money like a trust fund baby, and take care of your body like you're the twenty-year-old offspring of a model and a professional athlete with centenarians on both sides of the family, because that's the only way worth living.
Seen from that perspective, telling people not to bother with individual solutions to their problems is an even more flamboyant display of privilege than someone saying "just be frugal!" or "fix your mental health issues with exercise!" Offering someone a solution, however inadequate, at least acknowledges that their lives require effort and compromise, and that a life of effort and compromise is worth living. It's shitty and inadequate, but it's better than being told that you simply must eat that $22 avocado toast because life without $22 avocado toast would be too ghastly.
I get the 30,000 foot political perspective. Collective and individual solutions are different and therefore competing, and politics doesn't allow for complexity or nuance, so public desire for collective solutions can only come at the expense of belief in individual solutions. I see that logic. However, because people are currently facing these problems alone, they are resorting to individual solutions, and many people are benefiting from individual solutions in ways that matter to them, even if it looks meager and meaningless from a more privileged perspective. It comes off as awfully snobbish and disconnected when you deny the value of the benefits (however small) that people realize from their efforts to manage their health, their finances, etc. And you don't have to do that to promote collective solutions. At least let's hope not, because if so, that's a really tough messaging problem to solve.
I would rather call it optimistic_nihilism(https://tinyclouds.org/optimistic_nihilism)
> Ugly and alone? Just be yourself! Never mind that we’ve designed for you a society where personal connections are harder and harder to make and maintain, and we’ve commodified human relationships into the equivalent of online supermarket catalogs.
Having done online dating for years, this rings so true. Some people online talk about the success stories but rarely do they acknowledge the absolute slog that can happen for a huge portion of people and that there is no guarantee even with persistence and a good attitude that you'll ever find someone who neither ghosts or treats you like garbage, and has a true connection with you.
I recall a Louis CK joke:
> 'There’s someone for everyone.' Nope. Not at all true, and stop saying it cause it’s mean to people who never find anybody. There are millions of people out there who we’ve all unanimously decided that they are lightspeed ugly and nobody kisses them on the lips even. Nobody touches their genitals their entire life. They just wash 'em, and then they die. That’s all that happens. 'Aww,' and if you’re feeling bad for them, you can go find one and fuck one tomorrow, you can just solve the problem right there with all that kindness in your heart. 'Aww.' Well, go fuck one. 'Nah.' I didn’t think so."
Out of all my friends, only one tried setting me up with someone on a blind date. Goodness, I can't even describe to you the kind of disgust I felt from her face when I walked through the restaurant door for our first and only date. Even though I knew from the first minute that the date was doomed, I did my best to make non-awkward.
Such is life, we can't choose what we inherit.
Having done online dating for years, this rings so true. Some people online talk about the success stories but rarely do they acknowledge the absolute slog that can happen for a huge portion of people and that there is no guarantee even with persistence and a good attitude that you'll ever find someone who neither ghosts or treats you like garbage, and has a true connection with you.
I recall a Louis CK joke:
> 'There’s someone for everyone.' Nope. Not at all true, and stop saying it cause it’s mean to people who never find anybody. There are millions of people out there who we’ve all unanimously decided that they are lightspeed ugly and nobody kisses them on the lips even. Nobody touches their genitals their entire life. They just wash 'em, and then they die. That’s all that happens. 'Aww,' and if you’re feeling bad for them, you can go find one and fuck one tomorrow, you can just solve the problem right there with all that kindness in your heart. 'Aww.' Well, go fuck one. 'Nah.' I didn’t think so."
Out of all my friends, only one tried setting me up with someone on a blind date. Goodness, I can't even describe to you the kind of disgust I felt from her face when I walked through the restaurant door for our first and only date. Even though I knew from the first minute that the date was doomed, I did my best to make non-awkward.
Such is life, we can't choose what we inherit.
> Having done online dating for years, this rings so true. Some people online talk about the success stories but rarely do they acknowledge the absolute slog that can happen for a huge portion of people
I’ve seen the opposite of this: Online spaces are full of consensus stories about how dating is hard, dating is terrible, dating is miserable, and that it’s nearly impossible to find anyone.
Many of my (completely average looking) friends have found success in online dating, but they’re not broadcasting it to the world. They also avoid talking about it with people who are struggling with online dating because those people don’t want to hear about other people doing well.
Among my friends who are struggling with online dating into their 30s, this entrenched cynicism is turning into self-defeating mindsets. As an outside observer it’s frustrating to watch them self-sabotage by insisting that the problems with their dating are 100% society’s fault and 0% due to things they could possibly change. This ranges from not spending enough the tiniest effort on personal appearance to declining second dates or follow up conversations unless everything goes exactly as they imagined it. They retreat to online spaces like Reddit where they can get endless confirmation for their biases that other people and society are to blame, and that there was nothing they could do differently. I’m surprised to read the suggestion that “nobody” is talking about the difficulties in dating when it’s quite literally front page topics on sites like Reddit all of the time.
I’ve seen the opposite of this: Online spaces are full of consensus stories about how dating is hard, dating is terrible, dating is miserable, and that it’s nearly impossible to find anyone.
Many of my (completely average looking) friends have found success in online dating, but they’re not broadcasting it to the world. They also avoid talking about it with people who are struggling with online dating because those people don’t want to hear about other people doing well.
Among my friends who are struggling with online dating into their 30s, this entrenched cynicism is turning into self-defeating mindsets. As an outside observer it’s frustrating to watch them self-sabotage by insisting that the problems with their dating are 100% society’s fault and 0% due to things they could possibly change. This ranges from not spending enough the tiniest effort on personal appearance to declining second dates or follow up conversations unless everything goes exactly as they imagined it. They retreat to online spaces like Reddit where they can get endless confirmation for their biases that other people and society are to blame, and that there was nothing they could do differently. I’m surprised to read the suggestion that “nobody” is talking about the difficulties in dating when it’s quite literally front page topics on sites like Reddit all of the time.
I think this comment demonstrates the article very well. People faced with cruel optimism turn to lazy pessimism. There's no room for nuanced "yes the world sucks, but you have control over your actions" Even if your problems are 80% society's fault, giving up on that last 20% will seal your fate.
>Many of my (completely average looking) friends have found success in online dating, but they’re not broadcasting it to the world. They also avoid talking about it with people who are struggling with online dating because those people don’t want to hear about other people doing well.
Are they really _average_?
Are they really _average_?
Everybody thinks a 7 is average but on the bell curve there’s 70% of people uglier than them.
Men tend to rate women roughly along the bell curve. Women skew their ratings more heavily towards the most attractive men. I’d post the source but it was removed by okcupid.
Men tend to rate women roughly along the bell curve. Women skew their ratings more heavily towards the most attractive men. I’d post the source but it was removed by okcupid.
I used to be in the “just gym” crowd but as I’m getting older, I’m personally seeing how completely and utterly useless any sentence starting with “just” is.
I have a friend who has the full puzzle and can’t seem to put it together. Used to be fat, poor, lived with his parents. In five years he’s completely turned his life around - he’s young, in shape, has a career, and is moving out into his own place. Still can’t get a date. Starting to both rapidly lose his hair to male pattern baldness and his sanity to the numerous rejections he receives.
This isn’t some comment on society or my friend, I’m pointing out how nobody (especially him) seems to know what he needs to be happy. If even specific advice doesn’t work how could generic advice ever help?
Godspeed friend, hope things get better for you.
I have a friend who has the full puzzle and can’t seem to put it together. Used to be fat, poor, lived with his parents. In five years he’s completely turned his life around - he’s young, in shape, has a career, and is moving out into his own place. Still can’t get a date. Starting to both rapidly lose his hair to male pattern baldness and his sanity to the numerous rejections he receives.
This isn’t some comment on society or my friend, I’m pointing out how nobody (especially him) seems to know what he needs to be happy. If even specific advice doesn’t work how could generic advice ever help?
Godspeed friend, hope things get better for you.
Most guys I know that can't get a date refuse to lower their superficial expectations. They spent so much time buying into pop culture that they only want to be seen with a woman that the vast majority of people are attracted to. Then they find themselves in a competition where they don't have a chance. It's like if a high school football player insists on going to a top tier football college, but when he gets there he just sits on the bench, not even realizing he could have been a starter at another school. Basically they need to learn their "league" and mostly stay in it.
I think you are half right. My problem is mostly that if I can match with a woman on the looks, I then often find they are education, intelligence and values wise completely incompatible. Somehow, I cannot meet somebody who is compatible along those dimensions and then looks just right so that we can both be physically attracted to each other.
One thing that was a problem for me for a while was having a bad experience with someone, and writing off entire swaths of the population that had similar characteristics. For a long time I refused to date anyone that ever voted republican or democrat, believed in anything supernatural, had student debt, made less money than their age * 2000, owned a pet, used windows an iphone or photoshop, enjoyed music that is played on the radio, or a bunch of other arbitrary "dealbreakers" that excluded the vast majority of the dating pool.
When I realized that I don't actually care about most of those things, I just was being reminded of previous bad relationships, it became much easier to figure out the things I actually cared about.
When I realized that I don't actually care about most of those things, I just was being reminded of previous bad relationships, it became much easier to figure out the things I actually cared about.
IMO This is a standards problem. No one is going to have all of your compatibilities. In fact, very few people are going to even have a super satisfactory number of them. Especially if physical attraction is part of this: physical attraction is going to fade and it's going to fade fast.
If you're having trouble dating, not because you can't land a date but because all the dates disappoint you, it might be time to evaluate whether or not you're realistically setting your standards. People aren't like an RNG where you can roll and roll and roll until you get your perfectly desired stats. It's more like people will always have bad stats and you have to figure out if you can live with it.
If you're having trouble dating, not because you can't land a date but because all the dates disappoint you, it might be time to evaluate whether or not you're realistically setting your standards. People aren't like an RNG where you can roll and roll and roll until you get your perfectly desired stats. It's more like people will always have bad stats and you have to figure out if you can live with it.
I was in the same boat - symmetrical features, visible abdominals, decent career. Couldn't put it together describes the problem very well.
I found the book 'Models' by Mark Manson to be a big help. Sometimes, the right advice really does make a difference.
I found the book 'Models' by Mark Manson to be a big help. Sometimes, the right advice really does make a difference.
I never understood this obsession with going to the gym. Like, my main problem is meeting women at all. Second main problem is impressing them enough to give me a chance to showcase my attractive qualities, which unlike my unattractive qualities, are not in plain view.
Unfortunately, living in a country where meeting any kind of people at all is extremely hard to start with, I barely get a chance to ever even flirt or ask a woman on a date.
At least your friend is getting rejections. That means he somehow managed to figure out how to routinely get in contact with women.
Unfortunately, living in a country where meeting any kind of people at all is extremely hard to start with, I barely get a chance to ever even flirt or ask a woman on a date.
At least your friend is getting rejections. That means he somehow managed to figure out how to routinely get in contact with women.
> I never understood this obsession with going to the gym. Like, my main problem is meeting women at all. Second main problem is impressing them enough to give me a chance to showcase my attractive qualities, which unlike my unattractive qualities, are not in plain view.
One thing that seems to work is to find an activity that you like, which will also be done along with a significant number of single women[1]. Then just do it and have fun doing it. People are more attractive when they are having fun and less attractive when they are desperately searching for someone. It also gives you a shared interest, which is a natural starting point for conversation. In the worst case, you are having fun, in the best case you will meet someone.
I have had exactly zero relationships successfully start via the stereotypical "someone set us up" "meet at a mixer" "online dating" methods, despite several failed attempts at those. Everyone I went on a third date with was via me doing some activity where I wasn't looking for a date.
There are plenty of things that are out of your control that can sink a relationship. A surprisingly large number of women will flatly refuse to date someone who is shorter than they are, which sucks for short people.
1: A sibling comment suggests Zumba classes. Using this as an example: If you go to a Zumba class obviously looking for a date, you are likely to come off as a creep. If you want to get cardio exercise though, taking a Zumba class instead of buying a treadmill to use at home is going to give you a lot more chances to meet someone, and is a similar time & money investment, so you lose nothing if all that happens is you get fit.
One thing that seems to work is to find an activity that you like, which will also be done along with a significant number of single women[1]. Then just do it and have fun doing it. People are more attractive when they are having fun and less attractive when they are desperately searching for someone. It also gives you a shared interest, which is a natural starting point for conversation. In the worst case, you are having fun, in the best case you will meet someone.
I have had exactly zero relationships successfully start via the stereotypical "someone set us up" "meet at a mixer" "online dating" methods, despite several failed attempts at those. Everyone I went on a third date with was via me doing some activity where I wasn't looking for a date.
There are plenty of things that are out of your control that can sink a relationship. A surprisingly large number of women will flatly refuse to date someone who is shorter than they are, which sucks for short people.
1: A sibling comment suggests Zumba classes. Using this as an example: If you go to a Zumba class obviously looking for a date, you are likely to come off as a creep. If you want to get cardio exercise though, taking a Zumba class instead of buying a treadmill to use at home is going to give you a lot more chances to meet someone, and is a similar time & money investment, so you lose nothing if all that happens is you get fit.
> Like, my main problem is meeting women at all. Second main problem is impressing them enough to give me a chance to showcase my attractive qualities, which unlike my unattractive qualities, are not in plain view.
Going to the gym helps with both of these problems. The gym is a place you can meet people, being fit makes you more confident and makes it easier to meet people, and being fit gives you attractive qualities that are in plain view.
Going to the gym helps with both of these problems. The gym is a place you can meet people, being fit makes you more confident and makes it easier to meet people, and being fit gives you attractive qualities that are in plain view.
The gym I go to has maybe 10 female regulars (including my wife). I think the reason it's so low is because of men advising other men to meet girls at the gym, or people going with that goal in-mind.
My wife has to put up with all sorts of weird behaviour (staring, unsolicited advice, chatting up, following around the gym, and occasionally somebody trying to leave with her, which cuts my workout short) just to get a workout. If we didn't live in such a small living space, we'd build a home gym to get away from public gyms.
I know you're not advising that, but I think more-or-less the gym isn't an environment for meeting people, unless it's truly a per-chance meeting where neither side is actively looking for anything.
My wife has to put up with all sorts of weird behaviour (staring, unsolicited advice, chatting up, following around the gym, and occasionally somebody trying to leave with her, which cuts my workout short) just to get a workout. If we didn't live in such a small living space, we'd build a home gym to get away from public gyms.
I know you're not advising that, but I think more-or-less the gym isn't an environment for meeting people, unless it's truly a per-chance meeting where neither side is actively looking for anything.
I would even suggest to skip the gym (as in body building kind of gym) and go straight to group fitness classes (say Zumba or something similar). Those are choke full of women and positive energy, and finding someone is very easy. I would even go as further and say that you might even get to choose. Ask me how I know ;)
Group fitness classes are great because someone else tells you what to do so there is less to think about when you go.
hitting the gym tends to up testosterone which makes one more likely to take opportunities to start conversations. A lot of men don't take all the opportunities they have, 'just hit the gym' is helpful in those cases.
When I was in college, there were so many people to interact with/meet. I then move to another state, I still go to the bars or whatever (spontaneous interaction with strangers is hard but I at least met a guy friend recently to not solo bars anymore). I also spend so much money... it's bad. Strip club for example waste of money, dim, forget what happened next day. Also kind of sad to pay for interaction.
This problem did plague me in school though, it's all I strove for (getting laid).
Step 1) be attractive as they say. Online dating is brutal too, depressing stuff.
I'm just glad there's an outlet for me (porn). Then I can go about my life still.
This problem did plague me in school though, it's all I strove for (getting laid).
Step 1) be attractive as they say. Online dating is brutal too, depressing stuff.
I'm just glad there's an outlet for me (porn). Then I can go about my life still.
If you're a 4 you have to target other 4s. I guess one problem is a lot of 4s decide to hold out for 7s and if they can't land one they say they will be forever alone.
willcipriano(4)
// there is no guarantee even with persistence and a good attitude
// Such is life, we can't choose what we inherit
I agree that there's no guarantees but something conspicuously missing from this story is anything you've done to better the odds.
Do you go to the gym or work out at home? Have you found a barber who cuts your hair well? Have you had a fashionable friend help you with your wardrobe? Have you spent any time practicing small talk or put any emphasis on becoming more charming?
None of these things guarantee success either but it's weird to not hear about any work you had put in to make this happen (not saying you haven't done it just you didn't mention it)
// Such is life, we can't choose what we inherit
I agree that there's no guarantees but something conspicuously missing from this story is anything you've done to better the odds.
Do you go to the gym or work out at home? Have you found a barber who cuts your hair well? Have you had a fashionable friend help you with your wardrobe? Have you spent any time practicing small talk or put any emphasis on becoming more charming?
None of these things guarantee success either but it's weird to not hear about any work you had put in to make this happen (not saying you haven't done it just you didn't mention it)
Dude, come on, that's what TFA's about lol.
Yup and I disagree with it. I don't blame the dude for the outcome, sometimes you do what you can and it doesn't work out. But did he do what he could?
>Yup and I disagree with it. I don't blame the dude for the outcome, sometimes you do what you can and it doesn't work out.
If it's the case that you can do everything you can and still fail, how are you disagreeing with the article?
If it's the case that you can do everything you can and still fail, how are you disagreeing with the article?
Not gp. Actually agree with the article, but I find it interesting that people seem to be latching on to the first part and ignoring the second part. The article doesn't suggest a solution as much as present a conflict between the two.
Trying to resolve that conflict raises a number of questions: Have you done everything you can? If there's a possibility or even likelihood that you'll fail, should you still try?
Trying to resolve that conflict raises a number of questions: Have you done everything you can? If there's a possibility or even likelihood that you'll fail, should you still try?
// If it's the case that you can do everything you can and still fail, how are you disagreeing with the article
It's about moving the probably of desired outcome from zero to likely. Like, let's say op really wanted someone to "touch his genitals"- badly enough to invest a year in working on his physique, appearance, and personality. There's still no guarantee that it will work but it will move the odds tremendously.
If he does nothing, he's taking the guaranteed fail and I think that's sad.
It's about moving the probably of desired outcome from zero to likely. Like, let's say op really wanted someone to "touch his genitals"- badly enough to invest a year in working on his physique, appearance, and personality. There's still no guarantee that it will work but it will move the odds tremendously.
If he does nothing, he's taking the guaranteed fail and I think that's sad.
Is it moving them from "zero" to "likely", or from "zero" to "nonzero but still very unlikely"?
Because for a lot of people it's really the latter, and it's no surprise when working out hard to basically buy a lottery ticket is not something they are enthusiastic about.
Because for a lot of people it's really the latter, and it's no surprise when working out hard to basically buy a lottery ticket is not something they are enthusiastic about.
>quarantined fail
What does this mean? Im not familiar with the term
What does this mean? Im not familiar with the term
Typo of "guaranteed" - fixed it, thanks.
[deleted]
Strange how "carbon footprint" is being thought of as some kind of corporate conspiracy. It is just a number that can be calculated. If you actually do that then you can see clearly that corporate operations are primarily responsible for carbon output. But it also enables people to lower their own carbon output if they so desire. There is no rational way to make this a conspiracy, yet that is where we are now.
I personally dislike how environmental damage was rebranded as "carbon footprint", since it removes all nuance, ignoring for instance low-CO2 carcinogens that destroy our bodies.
This quantification into a single number is also promoted by the corporate propaganda machine, since it gives companies more leeway to bullshit being green.
While it's not a coordinated conspiracy, something severely suboptimal is happening. Many identify this but simply don't have a better term to voice their frustration, so we're left with "conspiracy".
This quantification into a single number is also promoted by the corporate propaganda machine, since it gives companies more leeway to bullshit being green.
While it's not a coordinated conspiracy, something severely suboptimal is happening. Many identify this but simply don't have a better term to voice their frustration, so we're left with "conspiracy".
Carcinogens and other environmental damage tend to directly affect a country's population and are thus up to governments to regulate. CO2 emissions and climate change are a global issue with hard to quantify effects that can't easily be solved with national legislation. Separating greenhouse gas emissions from other environmental issues absolutely makes sense.
I agree that separating them makes sense.
What's happened in practice is that "carbon footprint" has become almost synonymous with environmental impact as a whole from a responsibility point of view, leading to poor behavior from companies and governments alike for a lack of public pressure.
How much better can you get by pushing production to use greener methods instead of reducing demand or changing it to something else (which would fall on personal consumer activity change or raising cost of production via say carbon tax)?
Obviously there's not a clear distinction between the two, i.e. food deserts / car-only locations forcing people to make certain choices, but it seems like for most things outside of energy production meaningful improvement requires a meaningful change in downstream consumer experience/behavior.
Obviously there's not a clear distinction between the two, i.e. food deserts / car-only locations forcing people to make certain choices, but it seems like for most things outside of energy production meaningful improvement requires a meaningful change in downstream consumer experience/behavior.
Read the linked article. Nobody is arguing that there is literally no such thing as a “carbon footprint”. They are saying there was (is?) a coordinated advertisement campaign designed to help distract people away from supporting legislation of corporations themselves.
Whose fault is it that all those bottles are in the ocean - people who bought them and threw them out, or the people who made them in the first place? PepsiCo definitely wants you to think a certain way.
Whose fault is it that all those bottles are in the ocean - people who bought them and threw them out, or the people who made them in the first place? PepsiCo definitely wants you to think a certain way.
it's not the first time, either. Recall the "weeping native" ad campaign [1].
1 https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec...
1 https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec...
I don't understand how it makes sense for PepsiCo to want consumers to think that way, because rectifying the fault would involve consumers purchasing less from PepsiCo.
The belief, as I understand it is that it is not the consumer's fault, but PepsiCo's.
Therefore, consumers should not have to change any behavior, but PepsiCo should have to clean up the bottles.
Within this belief framework, if PepsiCo wants people to still buy bottles but recycle, Pepsico is evading the clean up and passing it on to the consumers/public.
Therefore, consumers should not have to change any behavior, but PepsiCo should have to clean up the bottles.
Within this belief framework, if PepsiCo wants people to still buy bottles but recycle, Pepsico is evading the clean up and passing it on to the consumers/public.
Not a conspiracy. Doesn’t seem like BP conspired with other petroleum groups to come up with it.
More like “there is a sense that people are becoming increasingly uncomfortable with this global warming thing… since it would be very disruptive to our operations to have regulatory bodies come in (by way of pressure from their constituents), let’s show that we care about the environment too with this PR campaign. It won’t actually be any meaningful steps toward helping the situation, but it effectively takes the pressure off of us.”
No doubt they took a page out of gun manufacturing, sugar manufacturing and tobacco playbooks.
More like “there is a sense that people are becoming increasingly uncomfortable with this global warming thing… since it would be very disruptive to our operations to have regulatory bodies come in (by way of pressure from their constituents), let’s show that we care about the environment too with this PR campaign. It won’t actually be any meaningful steps toward helping the situation, but it effectively takes the pressure off of us.”
No doubt they took a page out of gun manufacturing, sugar manufacturing and tobacco playbooks.
Corporations generally operate for the benefit of people in some capacity.
Name of the man is mentioned in the first paragraph (and three times more).
Name of the woman who actually invented the concept you discuss is relegated to "someone" and a footnote.
Name of the woman who actually invented the concept you discuss is relegated to "someone" and a footnote.
Sigh. Did you read the footnotes though? Because in them I explain that I haven't read Berlant's book, but I did look up--in multiple sources--a rundown of what they meant by "cruel optimism", and as I mentioned in the second footnote, I'm not quite sure Hari's own interpretation matches. They both use the same two words, but with distinct meanings, as it seems to me. And since the meaning and the book I'm discussing are Hari's, obviously his name pops up a lot more.
Did you also read my previous post (https://tegowerk.eu/posts/the-deep/), where I heap praise upon praise on Alma Katsu, a woman? What about this earlier one, where I express just how much a particular woman means to me and to my life (https://tegowerk.eu/posts/serendipity/)? Or did you just make up your mind about me based on a footnote?
Did you also read my previous post (https://tegowerk.eu/posts/the-deep/), where I heap praise upon praise on Alma Katsu, a woman? What about this earlier one, where I express just how much a particular woman means to me and to my life (https://tegowerk.eu/posts/serendipity/)? Or did you just make up your mind about me based on a footnote?
By the way, thank you for the post.
beecafe(1)
I did not say anything about you. I've read the text as it was presented to me and reported some statistics about it that have caught my eye.
Come on, that is dishonest and (I hope) you know it. You weren't reporting statistics, you were making a thinly veiled accusation. Hiding behind "reporting statistics" is no different than "just asking questions": https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions
Some people think they control everything about their lives -- they do think that if they put in the time, effort, and energy, they can achieve anything. When they don't, they blame themselves endlessly. Sometimes, learning that it was something beyond your control (ie social forces were stacked against your particular endeavor) can be liberating and break the person out of personal blame an hopelessness and let them start again.
On the other end of the spectrum is feeling like an endless victim. Sometimes, it's easy to blame everything and lament how everything is stacked against you. This provides psychological solace but can prevent you from moving forward because you're convinced you won't be able to. In these cases, some of the stories of 'self-made' optimism can help get you out of a spot of hopelessness into action.
In this situation, though, what's medicine to one is poison to the other. I can think of times in my life where each view was helpful and warranted, even if they're hard to reconcile with each other.
In this case, the 'truth' isn't really knowable because we can't objectively observe a system we're a part of. So, until we know, I guess it's whatever view gets you where you need to go.