Being kind to others is good for your health(bbc.com)
bbc.com
Being kind to others is good for your health
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20201215-why-being-kind-to-others-is-good-for-your-health
275 comments
The variables here are:
* where your boundaries lie along the spectrum from self-serving to doormat
* your propensity to be generous to people on the good side of your boundaries
I myself trend close to what you'd call a stoic. Probably out of fear of being a doormat. My boundaries are healthyish, but I don't quite trust them. So I don't seek out help from others, and in return I hope they don't ask for generosity from me. Being generous without crossing my boundaries is something I have to work on.
I know some narcissists who can actually be quite generous. This fools them into thinking, "There's no way I'm a narcissist!" because they can easily recall past instances of generosity. Yet they're still regarded by others as selfish. Their boundaries are shifted so far in their favor that they feel taxed being generous to others who most would deem worthy of generosity. And they expect sympathy, attention, and generosity in situations where most would not have that expectation.
These abusers often do end up ostracized, but that doesn't always look like solitude. They become victims, upset at their crummy relationships and unable to garner sympathy from others, yet unwilling to ever point the finger at themselves. Some end up alone, yes. Others befriend other victims who they can commiserate with, but those relationships don't last long for obvious reasons. So it's sort of a fleeting, on-again off-again ostracism.
Of course I'm speaking in generalities here. Plenty of victims aren't narcissists, etc. And I do have sympathy. Nobody chooses to be a narcissist. I think some people are just wired that way, or perhaps set on that course by environmental factors early in life. Either way, it's not a choice. So I think it's somewhat of a tragic condition.
My advice would be that if you're consistently getting negative feedback about your personality traits, take it seriously. It'll be tempting to deny and seek disconfirmation, e.g. by changing the subject, blaming your accusers, deflecting to other causes (e.g. race or gender), or running away to find people who will say nice things about you. But for all our follies, human beings are naturally pretty decent judges of character. If you're getting consistent character feedback from lots of different people, it's probably accurate.
* where your boundaries lie along the spectrum from self-serving to doormat
* your propensity to be generous to people on the good side of your boundaries
I myself trend close to what you'd call a stoic. Probably out of fear of being a doormat. My boundaries are healthyish, but I don't quite trust them. So I don't seek out help from others, and in return I hope they don't ask for generosity from me. Being generous without crossing my boundaries is something I have to work on.
I know some narcissists who can actually be quite generous. This fools them into thinking, "There's no way I'm a narcissist!" because they can easily recall past instances of generosity. Yet they're still regarded by others as selfish. Their boundaries are shifted so far in their favor that they feel taxed being generous to others who most would deem worthy of generosity. And they expect sympathy, attention, and generosity in situations where most would not have that expectation.
These abusers often do end up ostracized, but that doesn't always look like solitude. They become victims, upset at their crummy relationships and unable to garner sympathy from others, yet unwilling to ever point the finger at themselves. Some end up alone, yes. Others befriend other victims who they can commiserate with, but those relationships don't last long for obvious reasons. So it's sort of a fleeting, on-again off-again ostracism.
Of course I'm speaking in generalities here. Plenty of victims aren't narcissists, etc. And I do have sympathy. Nobody chooses to be a narcissist. I think some people are just wired that way, or perhaps set on that course by environmental factors early in life. Either way, it's not a choice. So I think it's somewhat of a tragic condition.
My advice would be that if you're consistently getting negative feedback about your personality traits, take it seriously. It'll be tempting to deny and seek disconfirmation, e.g. by changing the subject, blaming your accusers, deflecting to other causes (e.g. race or gender), or running away to find people who will say nice things about you. But for all our follies, human beings are naturally pretty decent judges of character. If you're getting consistent character feedback from lots of different people, it's probably accurate.
I found the clarity of your thinking and writing refreshing, it's rare for someone to observe and recognize these archetypes. I by and large agree with how you see it.
One thing jumped out:
>> I think some people are just wired that way, or perhaps set on that course by environmental factors early in life. Either way, it's not a choice. So I think it's somewhat of a tragic condition.
and
>> My advice would be that if you're consistently getting negative feedback about personality traits from others, take it seriously.
If you think about it these two comments are contradictory. Either you are a victim of your programming, or you have the power to (slowly and painfully) recognize it and change.
I am a firm believer that people ultimately can recognize their problems and change. Recognition is the harder part. For most of us, to recognize the really deep and ugly things about ourselves is really hard and often is only done when someone has hit bottom and are forced to confront that there's something wrong. It's easy to say "listen to feedback" but it's impossible to convince someone they should until they've had some painful experience that forced them to recognize there's something that needs to be heard. But it's possible and important.
The other thought as I was reading your comment - I think you'll enjoy Ray Dalio's Principles book.
One thing jumped out:
>> I think some people are just wired that way, or perhaps set on that course by environmental factors early in life. Either way, it's not a choice. So I think it's somewhat of a tragic condition.
and
>> My advice would be that if you're consistently getting negative feedback about personality traits from others, take it seriously.
If you think about it these two comments are contradictory. Either you are a victim of your programming, or you have the power to (slowly and painfully) recognize it and change.
I am a firm believer that people ultimately can recognize their problems and change. Recognition is the harder part. For most of us, to recognize the really deep and ugly things about ourselves is really hard and often is only done when someone has hit bottom and are forced to confront that there's something wrong. It's easy to say "listen to feedback" but it's impossible to convince someone they should until they've had some painful experience that forced them to recognize there's something that needs to be heard. But it's possible and important.
The other thought as I was reading your comment - I think you'll enjoy Ray Dalio's Principles book.
I quote that book in my HN profile and so many people on HN have found it grossly offensive.
Edit: Just wanted to add that it’s an incredible book that I recommend to everybody.
Edit: Just wanted to add that it’s an incredible book that I recommend to everybody.
[deleted]
>> My advice would be that if you're consistently getting negative feedback about personality traits from others, take it seriously.
This is bland and simple advice at best, that only serves the 'groups' best interest, not the individual.
Half the people you meet are below average intelligence, I'd strongly advise not listening to at least half of what people have to say. The other half could also be giving self-serving advice that isn't in your best interest.
My advice is to ignore everyone.
This is bland and simple advice at best, that only serves the 'groups' best interest, not the individual.
Half the people you meet are below average intelligence, I'd strongly advise not listening to at least half of what people have to say. The other half could also be giving self-serving advice that isn't in your best interest.
My advice is to ignore everyone.
Since when does"take it seriously" mean follow the group's mainstream?
I read the op to imply that one should seriously think and reflect on why this feedback occurrs and if there is some kernel of truth within.
If I constantly get feedback I evaluate it and reflect on it. But that doesn't mean I need to implement everything.
I read the op to imply that one should seriously think and reflect on why this feedback occurrs and if there is some kernel of truth within.
If I constantly get feedback I evaluate it and reflect on it. But that doesn't mean I need to implement everything.
> where your boundaries lie along the spectrum from self-serving to doormat ...
Healthy boundaries are more consistent and universal than you think, with the massive caveat being different cultures handling boundaries differently.
But it’s more about the fundamental psychological nature of human beings and less about individual personality.
IMHO a lot of what you describe boils down to “people who could develop healthier boundaries through therapy or other forms of personal growth and healing.”
Healthy boundaries are more consistent and universal than you think, with the massive caveat being different cultures handling boundaries differently.
But it’s more about the fundamental psychological nature of human beings and less about individual personality.
IMHO a lot of what you describe boils down to “people who could develop healthier boundaries through therapy or other forms of personal growth and healing.”
Is that what stoics really taught or a modern misrepresentation, like "cynic"?
It's a modern misrepresentation. In fact, Stoicism encourages to help your neighbor.
From the Meditations by Marcus Aurelius:
> [...] Do not be carried along inconsiderately by the appearance of things, but give help to all according to thy ability and their fitness [...] (Book V)
> [...] Reverence the gods, and help men. Short is life. There is only one fruit of this terrene life, a pious disposition and social acts. [...] ( Book VI )
You can read the full ebook here [1] (I'd link to project Gutenberg but unfortunately they're still blocking German readers). Alas.
[1] https://standardebooks.org/ebooks/marcus-aurelius/meditation...
From the Meditations by Marcus Aurelius:
> [...] Do not be carried along inconsiderately by the appearance of things, but give help to all according to thy ability and their fitness [...] (Book V)
> [...] Reverence the gods, and help men. Short is life. There is only one fruit of this terrene life, a pious disposition and social acts. [...] ( Book VI )
You can read the full ebook here [1] (I'd link to project Gutenberg but unfortunately they're still blocking German readers). Alas.
[1] https://standardebooks.org/ebooks/marcus-aurelius/meditation...
How about don’t mind helping but don’t really want to start a network effect of mutual back and forth because I don’t want to give up my time doing these things and get caught up in reciprocal network chains.
I think there is a whole lot of anthropological and economic thinking on roles that you haven’t covered. For example gift giving can be a role people use to indicate status, and/or caretaking of a local community. Giving comes with, some people argue, complex social relationships. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy
That's not what stoicism is.
Stoicism has more to do with things that happen to you vs how you treat other people.
It's great that you disclaim it a bit with "can't think of a better word", but it's just inaccurate.
Perhaps "libertarian"? Or "rugged individualist"?
Stoicism has more to do with things that happen to you vs how you treat other people.
It's great that you disclaim it a bit with "can't think of a better word", but it's just inaccurate.
Perhaps "libertarian"? Or "rugged individualist"?
laurent92(3)
I find it kinda weird that you called the doormat archetype gross, and not the abuser.
I read it as 'a gross position, don't put yourself in it'; not 'anyone in such a position is themselves gross'.
Exactly. It's also unpleasant to witness this happening to someone else. In contrast I used 'hate' for the abuser.
[deleted]
Tip: Don't race to make the most uncharitable, extreme interpretation.
I was doing all these things this week, and had a realization that the older I get more and more rely on me. I don't know how it got to be that way. But it was probably doing one kind thing followed by another. And now I'm getting all kinds of help requests. Just in the last week, I helped my cousin move (ridiculous amount of stuff), donated to my other cousins gofund me for his restaurant and stayed up 3 hours talking with him about his problems. Fixed a family friends laptop. The list go on. Its like snowball. I'm just accumulating connections I guess. So I suppose thats good, but on the other hand I probably spent 2 days last week on just doing things for people. If I reflect on it, I can see how this would improve someones mental health to be kind. You are connecting with people and interacting with them. So you definitely feel less lonely for example.
Completing this many quests will definitely cause you to level up.
Unironically that's what I told my self when I was helping around people: "it's just like RPG quests!"
The line between helping others and full on people pleasing is too blurry, and unfortunately I fell into the second camp.
People pleasing is a BAD, BAD thing.
The line between helping others and full on people pleasing is too blurry, and unfortunately I fell into the second camp.
People pleasing is a BAD, BAD thing.
I think helping strangers vs helping family are different. Helping strangers is a very strong form of altruism. You come into their lives, you perform a service or deed and you leave. It could be a recurring thing, like assisting in a soup kitchen or a charity shop but it is both time bounded and emotionally bounded and when you choose to help a stranger the first time or a subsequent time the decision is voluntary.
With family though, (as I notice all your descriptions are from) it is neither time bounded nor emotionally constrained since family don't really leave - they're always there, sometimes physically and certainly emotionally. Your first act of kindness to assist might well be voluntary but the second act could well be more out of a sense of obligation than choice and creates an increasingly involuntary burden.
With family though, (as I notice all your descriptions are from) it is neither time bounded nor emotionally constrained since family don't really leave - they're always there, sometimes physically and certainly emotionally. Your first act of kindness to assist might well be voluntary but the second act could well be more out of a sense of obligation than choice and creates an increasingly involuntary burden.
Good for you brother. Don’t forget to take care of yourself, but the world would be a better place if more people did everything they could to help those around them in need.
I've always noticed when I am doing things for others I can't spend too much time dwelling on what isn't perfect about my life.
I have found you have to be careful not to expect much in return otherwise you can start feeling resentful.
I have found you have to be careful not to expect much in return otherwise you can start feeling resentful.
You’re one among the many quiet heroes of the world. Having friends like this makes life worth living.
I think the key is to want to do these things.
If you don't feel like doing something, you should stop. You'll eventually feel resentful and drained if you keep doing something you don't want to do.
If you don't feel like doing something, you should stop. You'll eventually feel resentful and drained if you keep doing something you don't want to do.
I only help people in the things that I’m likely to be the best resource.
I’ll help you with a career transition discussion. No matter how many hours it takes.
On the other hand when my best friend asked to help him move. I told him no. Laughed in his face. None of my friends dare ask me for physical help now.
I think the world is a better place when we specialize in things we are uniquely gifted at.
I’ll help you with a career transition discussion. No matter how many hours it takes.
On the other hand when my best friend asked to help him move. I told him no. Laughed in his face. None of my friends dare ask me for physical help now.
I think the world is a better place when we specialize in things we are uniquely gifted at.
You don't have to be uniquely gifted to help someone move, just average.
If I’m helping you move I’m taking away time from those I could be helping.
Same reason I don’t pick people from airport. I know I sound like a dick, and I don’t mind the downvotes, they are informative.
You have only so much time.
Same reason I don’t pick people from airport. I know I sound like a dick, and I don’t mind the downvotes, they are informative.
You have only so much time.
You might be trying to apply a business/market principle to domains where they probably are not fitting. Eg specialization has its place in nature, but there is also the problem of overfitting, and those beings usually die out if their environment changes slightly.
Packs of wolves do automatically specialize their individuals (eg alpha wolf spends more time looking after the others) - but the crucial part is that their roles change. If the alpha dies, another individual has to take their place, or the group becomes unbalanced and will probably die because of it. They are not necessarily „gifted“ at being an alpha, but they might be just good enough.
I also cannot imagine helping anybody move who laughed into my face when it was my turn. I actually cannot imagine being their friend at all, but that’s just me maybe.
Packs of wolves do automatically specialize their individuals (eg alpha wolf spends more time looking after the others) - but the crucial part is that their roles change. If the alpha dies, another individual has to take their place, or the group becomes unbalanced and will probably die because of it. They are not necessarily „gifted“ at being an alpha, but they might be just good enough.
I also cannot imagine helping anybody move who laughed into my face when it was my turn. I actually cannot imagine being their friend at all, but that’s just me maybe.
I would never ask someone to help me move. I don’t understand why anyone who’s middle class or higher doesn’t outsource that activity.
If you’re so poor that you can’t hire movers I’d rather give you cash so you could hire someone.
If you’re so poor that you can’t hire movers I’d rather give you cash so you could hire someone.
You do realize that a major part of helping moving is in the socializing, right?
You'd rather pay someone than be with them.
You'd rather pay someone than be with them.
There are better ways to socialize.
The only issue that I have, is that so many people (in my industry/nation/orbit) mistake kindness for weakness.
I live in New York, which has a basic culture of "hyper aggressiveness." It isn't "rudeness," as so many people like to think of New Yorkers. They can be aggressively kind and generous. They are just aggressive.
I'm also in the tech industry, which seems to have a very aggressive and competitive culture.
It doesn't stop me from being kind and courteous, but it gets grating.
My experience is that, when someone mistakes courtesy for weakness, they start trying to "game" me. I put up with it for a bit, until they push too far.
Then the till gets slammed on their fingers.
They get very, very upset. Far more upset than if I had just disabused them early on.
I'm learning to enforce my boundaries earlier. It doesn't make me as popular, but it also prevents those "psycho freakouts."
I live in New York, which has a basic culture of "hyper aggressiveness." It isn't "rudeness," as so many people like to think of New Yorkers. They can be aggressively kind and generous. They are just aggressive.
I'm also in the tech industry, which seems to have a very aggressive and competitive culture.
It doesn't stop me from being kind and courteous, but it gets grating.
My experience is that, when someone mistakes courtesy for weakness, they start trying to "game" me. I put up with it for a bit, until they push too far.
Then the till gets slammed on their fingers.
They get very, very upset. Far more upset than if I had just disabused them early on.
I'm learning to enforce my boundaries earlier. It doesn't make me as popular, but it also prevents those "psycho freakouts."
Kindness takes courage.
There seem to be a lot of people who live at a level of abstraction where they perceive every interaction as being about dominance and submission. In my humble opinion it is a very limited mindset.
I consider myself to be generous person, and also slow to anger. As a result, there are people who think they hit the jackpot and found a submissive pushover who is like a flimsy tree that will bend over at the slightest breath of wind.
Of course it's much more like being water; moving around obstacles, yet always forward and unstoppable.
What matters is showing people that there can be real kindness and strength in the world. Sometimes it plants a seed for others to also have the courage to be kind. I believe that's how to make the world a better place. It sure makes life worth living.
There seem to be a lot of people who live at a level of abstraction where they perceive every interaction as being about dominance and submission. In my humble opinion it is a very limited mindset.
I consider myself to be generous person, and also slow to anger. As a result, there are people who think they hit the jackpot and found a submissive pushover who is like a flimsy tree that will bend over at the slightest breath of wind.
Of course it's much more like being water; moving around obstacles, yet always forward and unstoppable.
What matters is showing people that there can be real kindness and strength in the world. Sometimes it plants a seed for others to also have the courage to be kind. I believe that's how to make the world a better place. It sure makes life worth living.
I think a lot of discussion here is conflating kindness with vulnerability. Kindness can sometimes mean vulnerability, but saying “no” is not inherently unkind. Kindness is also not necessarily self-sacrificing. You can have firm boundaries but be incredibly kind. Working out the differences to me has opened up a new level of relationships.
The key is practically selfless. For eg. You are buying food from restaurant - you see a homeless person standing there with a board asking for food. But you have money only to buy one sandwich. What do you do?
1. Say "no", because you too are hungry
2. Share half of the sandwich?
3. Giving whole sandwich & walk away as a saint?
(3) is super kindness, but that needs different level of thinking & practice. Kindness we are talking here is (2).
Your "no" point comes for the remaining half in (2).
1. Say "no", because you too are hungry
2. Share half of the sandwich?
3. Giving whole sandwich & walk away as a saint?
(3) is super kindness, but that needs different level of thinking & practice. Kindness we are talking here is (2).
Your "no" point comes for the remaining half in (2).
Encountering people who live on that level can be a trip. I went to lunch with some classmates after lecture. I had been fixated on the content. But the salient facts to one of my classmates were instead: who had spoken, with how much confidence, how often, for how long, how the professor seemed to feel about it.
It was eye opening. There was this whole other dimension to the room, which I could barely see, but to her it was front and center.
I don’t aspire to be like that primarily or exclusively, but sometimes it’s helpful to notice and pay attention to.
It was eye opening. There was this whole other dimension to the room, which I could barely see, but to her it was front and center.
I don’t aspire to be like that primarily or exclusively, but sometimes it’s helpful to notice and pay attention to.
And anecdotally, these keen observation skills I think are more concentrated in women. A lot of times, I find that women in my life are more interested in how I or others are feeling/acting, than the exact details of what actually is happening.
I like to think of this as report talk vs rapport talk. Men may just report facts to each other with very little emotion attached, whereas women will try and bond and strengthen relationships by telling stories about people and their feelings. This is why men struggle to understand why women in their life are angry that they never talk or don't share how things are with their day. It's because a lot of times, the two people think that the information they are sharing is what is important, and the other person thinks that it is too much/too little detail.
I think those observational skills make women much more suitable for negotiating and understanding nuances, where sometimes men may struggle to have seen the smaller details.
But of course making sweeping gendered statements is usually not accurate or helpful, just some observations in my opinion, and of course MANY people do not fit into this generalisation.
I like to think of this as report talk vs rapport talk. Men may just report facts to each other with very little emotion attached, whereas women will try and bond and strengthen relationships by telling stories about people and their feelings. This is why men struggle to understand why women in their life are angry that they never talk or don't share how things are with their day. It's because a lot of times, the two people think that the information they are sharing is what is important, and the other person thinks that it is too much/too little detail.
I think those observational skills make women much more suitable for negotiating and understanding nuances, where sometimes men may struggle to have seen the smaller details.
But of course making sweeping gendered statements is usually not accurate or helpful, just some observations in my opinion, and of course MANY people do not fit into this generalisation.
Women developed these skills because they are hardwired to care for offsprings. Women are better at noticing small details, they have better hearing and have a sharper sense of smell.
Go back to cavemen times, the men had to follow the blurry beast for dinner. The women had to be alert and vigilant to protect their young. We might think we have come far, but evolution is slow. We are basically living with cavemen genes in an urban jungle.
Sometimes generalizations are true. Evolution takes millions of years.
Go back to cavemen times, the men had to follow the blurry beast for dinner. The women had to be alert and vigilant to protect their young. We might think we have come far, but evolution is slow. We are basically living with cavemen genes in an urban jungle.
Sometimes generalizations are true. Evolution takes millions of years.
While I appreciate the usefulness of such observational skills and I can do it to a decent degree, I tend not to most of the time. I just switch it off.I don't want to live my life where every interaction is some spy game or thriller,where everyone in the room scans each other for clues. Having said that, I must admit that observational skills pulled me out of very very difficult situations a few times.
> I don't want to live my life where every interaction is some spy game or thriller,where everyone in the room scans each other for clues.
I had a coworker with this mindset and it seemed incredibly tiring on her mindset. She would routinely total up the cost of the exec's outfits and jewelry/shoes/purse and also always be measuring herself against everyone else in the meeting room. Who hadn't brushed their hair, who had recently gotten teeth whitening treatments, she even noticed when one of the directors got a facelift over work from home. She was able to point out his facelift scars via a screenshot she took.
She ended up getting let go for creating a "mean girl" culture when she iced out some new hires.
It just seemed like a very dystopian way to view our coworkers. I prefer to see everyone as a potential friend and not look for flaws.
I had a coworker with this mindset and it seemed incredibly tiring on her mindset. She would routinely total up the cost of the exec's outfits and jewelry/shoes/purse and also always be measuring herself against everyone else in the meeting room. Who hadn't brushed their hair, who had recently gotten teeth whitening treatments, she even noticed when one of the directors got a facelift over work from home. She was able to point out his facelift scars via a screenshot she took.
She ended up getting let go for creating a "mean girl" culture when she iced out some new hires.
It just seemed like a very dystopian way to view our coworkers. I prefer to see everyone as a potential friend and not look for flaws.
The trick is see such things, gain that information, and then choose to use the data in a way that is nice for the person. That is one element of kindness.
For the facelift example, you notice it, and then remark about how youthful the director looks in that new shirt. For the shoes example, you notice it and then remark about their good fashion sense. For the hair example, you go to them and see how the home life is going (colicky kids, a new medical diagnosis, a death in the family, or pure unawareness, etc)
It may seem like 'pandering', but only if you do it to people who can give you a raise. You have to do it for the janitors, bus-drivers, and bar-tenders too. Because you want everyone's life to be a bit better that day.
It's kinda like being a culty-mad-scientist. You have to have all the knowledge, the years of experiments, the cash flow, the ancient texts, the elaboratory. It takes a lot to awake the elder god from it's slumber. But the most crucial step, and the last one at that, is the smarts to know to not to wake up the eldrich world ending demon at all.
For the facelift example, you notice it, and then remark about how youthful the director looks in that new shirt. For the shoes example, you notice it and then remark about their good fashion sense. For the hair example, you go to them and see how the home life is going (colicky kids, a new medical diagnosis, a death in the family, or pure unawareness, etc)
It may seem like 'pandering', but only if you do it to people who can give you a raise. You have to do it for the janitors, bus-drivers, and bar-tenders too. Because you want everyone's life to be a bit better that day.
It's kinda like being a culty-mad-scientist. You have to have all the knowledge, the years of experiments, the cash flow, the ancient texts, the elaboratory. It takes a lot to awake the elder god from it's slumber. But the most crucial step, and the last one at that, is the smarts to know to not to wake up the eldrich world ending demon at all.
This is a good way of putting it. For example, my neighbor reminds me a lot of my father, in a good way. I make sure I don’t just tell friends about this, but I share it with him (he’s about 30 years older than me). I don’t need to do this, but I express it because I know it conveys how much I appreciate the person being around. Other examples are simpler, such as noticing someone’s flat tire and bringing it up to them, complimenting a new hairstyle etc.
Another time a deli worker at the grocery recommended a good turkey flavor, when I saw him next (it was weeks later) I made sure I told him how much I enjoyed it. I then told someone next to me (unsure of what to get) how the man put me on to a delicious flavor (boars head sausalito FYI). I still say “how are you doing sir” when I see this man working and I’m shopping. He remembers me even masked.
All of this really just involves taking things you notice and instead of keeping it to yourself, sharing it! It’s worth doing! I don’t do it for any selfish reasons (except maybe to keep my observation skills sharp). I genuinely feel an appreciation for sharing things I notice about others as they live their lives. My only hope is it makes them feel good about themselves.
Another time a deli worker at the grocery recommended a good turkey flavor, when I saw him next (it was weeks later) I made sure I told him how much I enjoyed it. I then told someone next to me (unsure of what to get) how the man put me on to a delicious flavor (boars head sausalito FYI). I still say “how are you doing sir” when I see this man working and I’m shopping. He remembers me even masked.
All of this really just involves taking things you notice and instead of keeping it to yourself, sharing it! It’s worth doing! I don’t do it for any selfish reasons (except maybe to keep my observation skills sharp). I genuinely feel an appreciation for sharing things I notice about others as they live their lives. My only hope is it makes them feel good about themselves.
Observing other people’s behavior and feelings can be a positive activity for prosocial behavior and when used in constructive ways feels good to do.
Not unlike say, mindfulness. Of oneself, of others.
Says the person commenting on HN at midnight ;)
Not unlike say, mindfulness. Of oneself, of others.
Says the person commenting on HN at midnight ;)
The funny thing is focusing on that will severely hamper your ability to perform in the actual conversation. Outside of gauging the reaction of the specific person you're talking to, if you want to score highly on the "talked for a long time with high confidence and everybody enjoyed it" axis you need to keep your eye on the ball so to speak.
And yet everyone silently hates those people, people who waste everyone’s time just to prove how smart they are, usually failing in the process. There were always those people in my lectures.
> everyone silently hates those people
What? No.
I don’t have a good sense for this. Having friends and colleagues and a partner with the focus and attention span for it is invaluable. Like it or not, power dynamics are real. And teams with someone tuned into their social dynamics can work better than one purely technical and aloof.
Just because one doesn’t have a sense for a thing doesn’t make that thing despicable.
What? No.
I don’t have a good sense for this. Having friends and colleagues and a partner with the focus and attention span for it is invaluable. Like it or not, power dynamics are real. And teams with someone tuned into their social dynamics can work better than one purely technical and aloof.
Just because one doesn’t have a sense for a thing doesn’t make that thing despicable.
I think he's talking about people who respond to the professor's questions in lecture.
Or worse, ask pointless questions just to prove they understand the content.
As the other child of this comment said, I’m not talking about being socially aware. I’m talking about people who are so obnoxious they turn everything into a competition so they can validate their own ego, quite the opposite of being socially aware. Lectures aren’t a competition of who said what.
I love this.
Any tips for doing this during a pandemic? Beyond just the usual of treating people well?
Any tips for doing this during a pandemic? Beyond just the usual of treating people well?
Specifically for the pandemic, I think there are many things. Post on a neighborhood community board (e.g. on reddit, nextdoor, etc) offering food (sanitized). Get toys for underprivileged children. Or, write letters to strangers in elderly care homes and/or prisons, who may not get to see family or have anyone who thinks about them.
> Kindness takes courage.
Not for a kind person. For a kind person it takes courage to be rude. It takes courage to say no, because it's so easy to say yes, because it feels good and it feels right (and I guess is also better for your health?).
I would stop trying to change people or even thinking you can. Someone will pretend they changed all thanks to you, only to be themselves again later when they're done robbing you.
There's a pervasive pattern of the narcissist type surrounded by submissive people and leaving a trail of submissive victims. These people are immediately repelled if they sense you're a waste of their efforts. When you're submissive, they'll take from you and betray you later. When you're not, they don't even ask. They reveal themselves immediately. But they make their money and build their empires by collecting those who yield to them and remain loyal despite occasional revelations of their true character or lack thereof. Trump could easily be seen as such a phenomenon. But most people who are OK with their job will yield to keep it (backed by the psychopathic behavior of corporations and their lack of character, because they aren't people). And many will submit just to make money (even to evil). So there are no shortage of such people to take advantage of. And the more people thrive by doing so, the more we create. Some may even become president.
If you believe you're water, seek water. That is the best approach. Strengthen your water coalition. Stay healthy, strong, and happy. Once you're good, then fulfill your purpose.
Not for a kind person. For a kind person it takes courage to be rude. It takes courage to say no, because it's so easy to say yes, because it feels good and it feels right (and I guess is also better for your health?).
I would stop trying to change people or even thinking you can. Someone will pretend they changed all thanks to you, only to be themselves again later when they're done robbing you.
There's a pervasive pattern of the narcissist type surrounded by submissive people and leaving a trail of submissive victims. These people are immediately repelled if they sense you're a waste of their efforts. When you're submissive, they'll take from you and betray you later. When you're not, they don't even ask. They reveal themselves immediately. But they make their money and build their empires by collecting those who yield to them and remain loyal despite occasional revelations of their true character or lack thereof. Trump could easily be seen as such a phenomenon. But most people who are OK with their job will yield to keep it (backed by the psychopathic behavior of corporations and their lack of character, because they aren't people). And many will submit just to make money (even to evil). So there are no shortage of such people to take advantage of. And the more people thrive by doing so, the more we create. Some may even become president.
If you believe you're water, seek water. That is the best approach. Strengthen your water coalition. Stay healthy, strong, and happy. Once you're good, then fulfill your purpose.
> There seem to be a lot of people who live at a level of abstraction where they perceive every interaction as being about dominance and submission. In my humble opinion it is a very limited mindset.
That is sociopathic so it isn’t always easy to identify but it’s easy to disregard.
Kindness is generally a default. At a minimum it’s called mutual respect and at an absence it’s called being an asshole. It hardly takes any courage to be better than that. I cannot imagine the amount of medication people require if that is their definition of courage, as there isn’t any challenge there. Perhaps it’s a cultural difference.
That is sociopathic so it isn’t always easy to identify but it’s easy to disregard.
Kindness is generally a default. At a minimum it’s called mutual respect and at an absence it’s called being an asshole. It hardly takes any courage to be better than that. I cannot imagine the amount of medication people require if that is their definition of courage, as there isn’t any challenge there. Perhaps it’s a cultural difference.
You can be kind and not be a doormat.
This takes practice and experience but the gist of it here is that you have establish and understand boundaries.
Kindness is giving someone a helping hand when they need it, but not going overboard and letting them take advantage of you over and over again.
In my experience, the less you let vampires suck out your energy, the more you'll be able to give to people and the way to that is by saying No and hearing No.
I personally start by being kind and then await kindness back. If they reciprocate, great. If not, I politely decline their next request and change my response if they change theirs.
Great relationships are formed when there is a mutual exchange of happiness and ideas else it's basically one party taking advantage which is unhealthy.
This takes practice and experience but the gist of it here is that you have establish and understand boundaries.
Kindness is giving someone a helping hand when they need it, but not going overboard and letting them take advantage of you over and over again.
In my experience, the less you let vampires suck out your energy, the more you'll be able to give to people and the way to that is by saying No and hearing No.
I personally start by being kind and then await kindness back. If they reciprocate, great. If not, I politely decline their next request and change my response if they change theirs.
Great relationships are formed when there is a mutual exchange of happiness and ideas else it's basically one party taking advantage which is unhealthy.
This resonates. Executed correctly, kindness is not mutually exclusive from assertiveness.
E.g. It is possible to make a complaint at a restaurant in a factual way and with a smile.
E.g.2. Giving hard feedback with a smile, and constructively.
It comes down to empathy, and the basic rule of treating others as we wish to be treated.
E.g. It is possible to make a complaint at a restaurant in a factual way and with a smile.
E.g.2. Giving hard feedback with a smile, and constructively.
It comes down to empathy, and the basic rule of treating others as we wish to be treated.
I’d go a step further. Not only are they not exclusive they are not really on the same axis at all. They’re just different concepts.
The primary thing they have in common is they are considered opposites by people that have neither.
The primary thing they have in common is they are considered opposites by people that have neither.
I have lived in NY, and my partner was born and grew up in NY, and I find New Yorkers pretty friendly, especially when compared to other cities around the world I've lived in (all of which have had their share of friendly folk). I think you have to be friendly to live cheek by jowl with so many. However New Yorkers are brisk.
The tech industry has definitely become more aggressive over the last 20 years. I credit it to the people who decided they should join it because there is a lot of money to be made, when before it was mostly people who liked technology.
And for that latter point: I consider an aggressive attitude a sign of fear (perhaps a consequence of a kind of imposter syndrome?). Generally I pity the mean people.
The tech industry has definitely become more aggressive over the last 20 years. I credit it to the people who decided they should join it because there is a lot of money to be made, when before it was mostly people who liked technology.
And for that latter point: I consider an aggressive attitude a sign of fear (perhaps a consequence of a kind of imposter syndrome?). Generally I pity the mean people.
My experience in New York and Los Angeles is that the natives are perfectly pleasant, so long as you’re aware of the local mores.
The worst people are the people who move to cities and try and fit in by adopting some caricature of these customs, which is often accompanied by engaging in hideous games of one-upsmanship with their fellow new arrivals.
The worst people are the people who move to cities and try and fit in by adopting some caricature of these customs, which is often accompanied by engaging in hideous games of one-upsmanship with their fellow new arrivals.
I mean, in NYC, don't walk slowly in the middle of a sidewalk, hold doors for people, don't blast TV and music at home, and don't walk on the floor like an elephant with heels first. That's all I got.
NYC is the only ever place I have visited in the US. Perhaps everyone could see I was a tourist. I was impressed with how polite the people where. Was really impressed.
> I live in New York, which has a basic culture of "hyper aggressiveness." It isn't "rudeness," as so many people like to think of New Yorkers. They can be aggressively kind and generous. They are just aggressive.
This part made me think of this video on the NY subway that exemplifies exactly what you're talking about: https://youtu.be/yVzAC7mLxJw
This guy is doing something extremely kind for this lady that it brings her to tears and yet the way he does it almost seems aggressive and demanding but it's such a nice act!
This part made me think of this video on the NY subway that exemplifies exactly what you're talking about: https://youtu.be/yVzAC7mLxJw
This guy is doing something extremely kind for this lady that it brings her to tears and yet the way he does it almost seems aggressive and demanding but it's such a nice act!
Maybe that's because you are giving your kindness to the wrong people?
And for the kindness to be appreciated and not considered as weakness you need to select who to give it to properly. And for that you need to be judgemental.
And bbc and current mainstream median culture will not tell you to be judgemental.
Why? Because they they want to be the teller what is right and what is wrong - not you.
And for the kindness to be appreciated and not considered as weakness you need to select who to give it to properly. And for that you need to be judgemental.
And bbc and current mainstream median culture will not tell you to be judgemental.
Why? Because they they want to be the teller what is right and what is wrong - not you.
> They get very, very upset. Far more upset than if I had just disabused them early on.
I have experienced this a few times in relationships. Was brought up to always be courteous and kind. In our society those are the most admired qualities of a person. In the big world where people didn't grow up the same way I did I felt this is often misinterpreted for weakness. Trouble always starts when I "suddenly" do not budge from a position I believe in. An example is I do not believe in splashing my life on social media.
We were also brought up to be kind to visitors. Go out of your way to make them feel at home. We joke now as adults how the only time we had Coca-cola in the house was when we had visitors. The idea is a visitor shouldn't stay too long so it is best to be kind to them. The problem starts when visitors overstay and continue to expect the same treatment. Or they visit to often.
I have experienced this a few times in relationships. Was brought up to always be courteous and kind. In our society those are the most admired qualities of a person. In the big world where people didn't grow up the same way I did I felt this is often misinterpreted for weakness. Trouble always starts when I "suddenly" do not budge from a position I believe in. An example is I do not believe in splashing my life on social media.
We were also brought up to be kind to visitors. Go out of your way to make them feel at home. We joke now as adults how the only time we had Coca-cola in the house was when we had visitors. The idea is a visitor shouldn't stay too long so it is best to be kind to them. The problem starts when visitors overstay and continue to expect the same treatment. Or they visit to often.
> I live in New York, which has a basic culture of "hyper aggressiveness"
A defining trait of American culture is hyperactivity. Commenting on trivial stuff, moving around restlessly while holding a drink, despise for idle time. The "kindness" thing is a form of hyper-expressivity which is rarely seen in calm cultures.
A defining trait of American culture is hyperactivity. Commenting on trivial stuff, moving around restlessly while holding a drink, despise for idle time. The "kindness" thing is a form of hyper-expressivity which is rarely seen in calm cultures.
This is one of those generalizations that just doesn't work for a country with hundreds of millions of people. You think those in the South and Midwest are hyperactive? Hardly. Those in sleepy beach towns? Nah.
If you think that there are defining traits of that many people in a country that varies so greatly in terms of geography, lifestyle, religion and culture, then you just don't know what you're talking about.
If you think that there are defining traits of that many people in a country that varies so greatly in terms of geography, lifestyle, religion and culture, then you just don't know what you're talking about.
I'm from Miami. Years ago, I was visiting my wife (girlfriend at the time) in the keys. We went out to dinner. I was apparently still in Miami mode. The server said to me (and this took about a minute for him to say): "Relax ... man ... you're ... in ... the ... keys ... now."
So, yeah.
So, yeah.
As a European, I have had numerous work relationships and occasional acquaintances with Americans from California, Arizona, Idaho and NY. Yes, everyone has a different personality and the region matters, but compared to my own Eastern European culture, the difference in mood, confidence and talkativity is rather consistent. Maybe my sample of American people is not completely representative, but these are just my observations as an outsider.
It’s actually interesting those are the samples as I would probably characterize the West & (North) East they’re all from as the most “hyperactive” parts of the country vs the South & Mexican Border at the other end of the spectrum, with the Mid West & rest of the East somewhere in between (but probably closer to the coasts than the south & border).
Look out for any exciting opportunities to visit El Paso, Texas or Birmingham, Alabama for a proper comparison sometime if you can.
Bonus points for Brownsville, Texas where you can get a well steeped mix of the South & border along with a rocket launch!
Look out for any exciting opportunities to visit El Paso, Texas or Birmingham, Alabama for a proper comparison sometime if you can.
Bonus points for Brownsville, Texas where you can get a well steeped mix of the South & border along with a rocket launch!
also, if you converse in English the Americans have it easier to talk which enhances this phenomenon.
The majority live in urban areas where constant input of human activity is probably making them anxious and insane.
I have tinnitus in the city.
I go to the mountains and it’s gone.
Keeping ratings and quarterly growth up is, to my mind, emergent of people who live densely.
Intuiting incorrectly that lots of people moving around organically means life is to be lived on the go.
I have tinnitus in the city.
I go to the mountains and it’s gone.
Keeping ratings and quarterly growth up is, to my mind, emergent of people who live densely.
Intuiting incorrectly that lots of people moving around organically means life is to be lived on the go.
I definitely think Europeans and others from homogeneous or smaller countries struggle to understand the variety and diversity of culture of the United States.
In europe, the surrounding countries are your equivalent to the different states in the us
That isn’t really accurate. There is much more diversity in individual states depending on where you are than in most European countries.
That statement is kind of what I mean. I don’t think most people outside, and to some extent inside the US, appreciate how much diversity of culture exists in the US.
That statement is kind of what I mean. I don’t think most people outside, and to some extent inside the US, appreciate how much diversity of culture exists in the US.
I think morlockabove meant that thanks to the size of the US, the density of different cultures in many orders of magnitude higher in Europe than the US. Th cultural difference between Texans, Washingtonians and a New Hampshireite is minuscule compared to France and Germany, let alone France and somewhere like Estonia.
I believe it misses the fact that there are very different cultures within Washington or Texas. For example, Austin is very different from Houston and even north Houston is very different from south Houston.
Eastern Washington is completely different culturally than western Washington(Seattle etc).
No where else in the world has the massive amount of diversity that the US does at the scale of the US. It’s not even close anywhere else so it is difficult for both US residents and people of other countries to fully comprehend.
Eastern Washington is completely different culturally than western Washington(Seattle etc).
No where else in the world has the massive amount of diversity that the US does at the scale of the US. It’s not even close anywhere else so it is difficult for both US residents and people of other countries to fully comprehend.
>No where else in the world has the massive amount of diversity that the US does at the scale of the US. It’s not even close anywhere else so it is difficult for both US residents and people of other countries to fully comprehend.
I honestly feel as though this is a lack of awareness of other regions and the differences inside of them. I don't know how you can make sweeping statements like that. A cursory look at a linguistic diversity map should immediately hint at a different reality, and that's just one metric. There are places in Africa where you have genetic lines that are distant by tends of thousands of years from surrounding villages as measured by their Y chromosomes.
I honestly feel as though this is a lack of awareness of other regions and the differences inside of them. I don't know how you can make sweeping statements like that. A cursory look at a linguistic diversity map should immediately hint at a different reality, and that's just one metric. There are places in Africa where you have genetic lines that are distant by tends of thousands of years from surrounding villages as measured by their Y chromosomes.
The European Union has the scale of the US and arguably more diversity given there are a few more languages spoken and each one is associated with a different culture. And that's only a part of one continent, and there are more continents.
I completely believe there are differences, but are they really that different compared to areas of similar size in Europe, where you might go through a dozen different languages, different religions, massively varying political party support? And if you look at India or Indonesia, the cultural diversity becomes even more again.
Yes. Significantly different. Do you realize that metropolitan areas in US are not even 50% white or Christian or likely any of the other stereotypes people have of the US outside of the US.
Many cities in the US provide documentation in often 4 or more languages. Schools employ large teams of specialists for teaching English as there are significant amounts of schools where less than half of the student population is a native English speaker.
Cable TV in most areas offers packages of programming in many different languages. In the US, network television is broadcast with a simultaneous Spanish language audio.
This homogeneous white, English speaking, Christian view of the US may have been true in the 1960s, but outside of the rural US, this is no longer valid.
Many cities in the US provide documentation in often 4 or more languages. Schools employ large teams of specialists for teaching English as there are significant amounts of schools where less than half of the student population is a native English speaker.
Cable TV in most areas offers packages of programming in many different languages. In the US, network television is broadcast with a simultaneous Spanish language audio.
This homogeneous white, English speaking, Christian view of the US may have been true in the 1960s, but outside of the rural US, this is no longer valid.
Coming from India, the dominant flavour of Europe is some sort of white, Christian group, possibly with a dash of Islamic influence, but mostly monotheistic branches of the same family. There is some variety in languages, and food depending on the climate.
The US doesn't have all that much diversity comparitively. There is more diversity in skin colour, but the major cultural groups are far closer to each other than European ones.
You don't see how homogenous the culture is because you are so close to it.
The US doesn't have all that much diversity comparitively. There is more diversity in skin colour, but the major cultural groups are far closer to each other than European ones.
You don't see how homogenous the culture is because you are so close to it.
I grew up in Africa. It's interesting that so many US citizens of African descent expect to go back to "The Old Country," and "just fit in." Lot like the Italians and Irish.
As far as Africans go, there's not a whole ton of difference between white Americans and black Americans. I think that, like in Europe, there's entrepreneurs, setting up "Return to Your Roots" tours for diasporans.
Europe probably has more experience with Africans than the US. When I have met black folk in Europe, they have frequently been first- or second-generation Africans, as opposed to the US, where most black folks I know come from families that have lived here for many generations. I think the UK has a similar culture.
I lived in Uganda, when Idi Amin threw out all the Ugandans of Indian descent. These were true Ugandans, who had lived there for generations. It was devastating; both to the people that were thrown out, and the nation, itself. The infrastructure of the nation collapsed, almost overnight.
It's pretty much impossible to "un-mix" a mixed society. That's not for want of trying, though. History is full of "ethnic cleansing" boneyards. It never seems to end well, but we seem to be a bit thick, in learning the lesson.
As far as Africans go, there's not a whole ton of difference between white Americans and black Americans. I think that, like in Europe, there's entrepreneurs, setting up "Return to Your Roots" tours for diasporans.
Europe probably has more experience with Africans than the US. When I have met black folk in Europe, they have frequently been first- or second-generation Africans, as opposed to the US, where most black folks I know come from families that have lived here for many generations. I think the UK has a similar culture.
I lived in Uganda, when Idi Amin threw out all the Ugandans of Indian descent. These were true Ugandans, who had lived there for generations. It was devastating; both to the people that were thrown out, and the nation, itself. The infrastructure of the nation collapsed, almost overnight.
It's pretty much impossible to "un-mix" a mixed society. That's not for want of trying, though. History is full of "ethnic cleansing" boneyards. It never seems to end well, but we seem to be a bit thick, in learning the lesson.
>Coming from India, the dominant flavour of Europe is some sort of white, Christian group, possibly with a dash of Islamic influence, but mostly monotheistic branches of the same family. There is some variety in languages, and food depending on the climate.
I'd say that this is the same reductive view that Europeans have of India, for comparison.
I'd say that this is the same reductive view that Europeans have of India, for comparison.
That seems incredibly unlikely. So unlikely that I'm going to say it's not true. There are certainly cultural differences across the US but you'll have a very hard time convincing people that these differences are greater than those that exist between Finland and Italy, say. Or between Cameroon and Kenya.
Sounds like a fully general counterargument
> That isn’t really accurate. There is much more diversity in individual states depending on where you are than in most European countries.
You ever been in Spain, Italy, Germany or France?
This is simply not true, in Spain they have so many different languages, in the others they have incredibly dialects that seem like entirely different languages and can be only as short as 25km away from one another--something like Badish vs schwabish vs Alemansich vs Hoch Deutsch.
You have to live in places like Hawaii (which I did) before you get anything close to the stark differences I'm talking about, where they have an entirely different set of culture and language (Hawaiian pidgin) to see what is so pervasive all throughout Southern and Central Europe.
You ever been in Spain, Italy, Germany or France?
This is simply not true, in Spain they have so many different languages, in the others they have incredibly dialects that seem like entirely different languages and can be only as short as 25km away from one another--something like Badish vs schwabish vs Alemansich vs Hoch Deutsch.
You have to live in places like Hawaii (which I did) before you get anything close to the stark differences I'm talking about, where they have an entirely different set of culture and language (Hawaiian pidgin) to see what is so pervasive all throughout Southern and Central Europe.
Furthermore, there is this idea of egoism. To think merely of profit - which you see in major cities with millions of people in the United States, it seems - is to be egoistic. The root of kindness is egotistical poverty. After all: egoism overlooks, kindness sees. You may substitute the words 'humility' or 'attention' for 'kindness' for the former and latter claim, and it will still hold true. And therefore, egoism is really inattention for it pays attention to what does not matter.
I would call it outwardly-expressive utilitarianism. The idea that the individual should channel their views, emotions and experiences through self-expression and self-identification, for the purpose of achieving tangible worldly goals. It’s an interesting amalgam of the traditions of Anglo-Saxon liberalism and of Protestantism with its practices for preaching and confession, transitioned on a new geographic and institutional reality.
The mention of utilitarianism reminds me of this idea of insensibility. A calmer culture, I assume, is grounded in sensibility.
> It isn't "rudeness," as so many people like to think of New Yorkers.
I've always suspected the perceived "rudeness" comes not from the residents of New York, but rather the people from neighboring locations that commute into New York for work. New Jersey, I'm lookin' at you.
I've always suspected the perceived "rudeness" comes not from the residents of New York, but rather the people from neighboring locations that commute into New York for work. New Jersey, I'm lookin' at you.
Ah, yes, the classic “no true New Yorker” fallacy.
I tend to agree with this (lived in NYC 13 years) - a lot of the rudest people are the folks to treat NYC as a transient place. That said - these people bring out the aggressiveness in the die hard New Yorkers, which creates a feedback loop... When you live in a densely packed place, it’s hard to find your peace. What happens, is that you experience one stress, unleash it somewhere else, which transfers it to more people, etc. The daily subway commute is a toss-up whether you will have a wonderful morning- get a seat, headphones, read a book, smiles from a stranger... or, barely making the train, getting smashed into a train full of angry, rained-on people, 2 strangers screaming at each other, your blood boiling inside. It’s hard to not accidentally “transmit” that stressed, anxious, distrusting feeling to the next people you interact with, further contributing to the perception that “new yorkers are rude”
> they start trying to "game" me.
Can you elaborate on it? I don't have much experience interacting with people.
Can you elaborate on it? I don't have much experience interacting with people.
It can take many forms.
Folks each have their own "schtick," but it's what they are after that matters.
1) Money
2) Property
They want me to give them money or goods.
3) Prestige
They want me to feed a need for prestige. This can be as simple as agreeing with them in public, an endorsement or referral, or a requirement for some kind of submissive fawning.
I started to write up a detailed description of how this can happen, but realized that this is probably not the best venue for that. Suffice it to say that I have spent my entire adult life amongst some very aggressive and manipulative people, and keeping a good relationship with them, while gently enforcing personal boundaries, has always been a challenge.
For me, I have a personal ethical code that revolves around rigorous personal and "cash register" Honesty, as well as Integrity.
Folks each have their own "schtick," but it's what they are after that matters.
1) Money
2) Property
They want me to give them money or goods.
3) Prestige
They want me to feed a need for prestige. This can be as simple as agreeing with them in public, an endorsement or referral, or a requirement for some kind of submissive fawning.
I started to write up a detailed description of how this can happen, but realized that this is probably not the best venue for that. Suffice it to say that I have spent my entire adult life amongst some very aggressive and manipulative people, and keeping a good relationship with them, while gently enforcing personal boundaries, has always been a challenge.
For me, I have a personal ethical code that revolves around rigorous personal and "cash register" Honesty, as well as Integrity.
I have a book I'd like to recommend, that has helped me, in growing up around aggressive and manipulative people, learn to both identify these behaviors in others as well as learn tools for calmly and clearly enforcing personal boundaries, even in the face of the other side throwing temper tantrums or bullying. Can send it to your contact info, if it's something that'd interest you.
I'd like to read it. Is there any way for you to post the book information anonymously?
I couldn't think of one so instead I'll just go with obfuscation. (it's ISBN 1432763962)
I am interested too, why is the title of a book so secretive?
It's really just I didn't want to pull things into a discussion about someone's personal life.
> I have spent my entire adult life amongst some very aggressive and manipulative people, and keeping a good relationship with them, while gently enforcing personal boundaries, has always been a challenge.
Okay, I’ll bite, why would you keep people like this around you? It sounds unpleasant.
Okay, I’ll bite, why would you keep people like this around you? It sounds unpleasant.
In my life, this was an aggressive employee we hired who was not performing but also passive-aggressive to everyone, and at the beginning we were obligated to give them the benefit of the doubt (due to their explanations that they're struggling with the pandemic, civil unrest, family emergency, elections).
Then even after gathering evidence of their poor performing, they will just keep arguing their case, and would protest to everyone who will listen, and pit people against each other. They will claim they never knew those things were their responsibilities, that they were working hard on it, and that they were just about to address the performance issues, etc.
Then even after gathering evidence of their poor performing, they will just keep arguing their case, and would protest to everyone who will listen, and pit people against each other. They will claim they never knew those things were their responsibilities, that they were working hard on it, and that they were just about to address the performance issues, etc.
I’ve spent most of my life as a member of an extracurricular organization that has “helping others” as a Principal plank in its platform.
Most folks that need help aren’t “pinkie-extended Earl Grey drinkers.” Can be a rough lot.
But I have an amazing bevy of really deep friendships and relationships with folks that I would never had met, otherwise.
Totally worth it.
Most folks that need help aren’t “pinkie-extended Earl Grey drinkers.” Can be a rough lot.
But I have an amazing bevy of really deep friendships and relationships with folks that I would never had met, otherwise.
Totally worth it.
You don't always get a choice.
> when someone mistakes courtesy for weakness
Can you give a concrete example you specifically encountered? I lived in New York for half of my adult life before moving west. I can’t remember ever having to be too worried about that. Is it possible you just have trouble expressing yourself outwardly?
Can you give a concrete example you specifically encountered? I lived in New York for half of my adult life before moving west. I can’t remember ever having to be too worried about that. Is it possible you just have trouble expressing yourself outwardly?
> Is it possible you just have trouble expressing yourself outwardly?
Well, there's always passive-aggressive insults. That's considered a low-risk approach.
Looks like we've pretty much exhausted this thread. I'll just exit, stage left.
Happy Holidays!
Well, there's always passive-aggressive insults. That's considered a low-risk approach.
Looks like we've pretty much exhausted this thread. I'll just exit, stage left.
Happy Holidays!
Your last paragraph is key - once you establish boundaries for yourself, you're free to be generous and kind because you are clear with yourself on what's Ok and what's abusive.
Once you have that, the other factors (industry, city) don't matter - you are able to act the way you want independently of how people are, because you're confident that you won't let their transgressions cross over into "you."
It's been a long process learning this for myself as well.
Once you have that, the other factors (industry, city) don't matter - you are able to act the way you want independently of how people are, because you're confident that you won't let their transgressions cross over into "you."
It's been a long process learning this for myself as well.
[deleted]
I don't know. Leave New York. I chose to move to Chicago rather than New York after college because 1. cost of living 2. people.
The midwest is nice. New York city folks are not. I've worked at two companies where I managed or worked heavily with our New York office and hated it both times.
I realize not every New Yorker is an asshole and not everyone can leave the city on a whim but if its good for your health its worth considering.
The midwest is nice. New York city folks are not. I've worked at two companies where I managed or worked heavily with our New York office and hated it both times.
I realize not every New Yorker is an asshole and not everyone can leave the city on a whim but if its good for your health its worth considering.
> New York, which has a basic culture of "hyper aggressiveness."
We also volunteer in droves [1].
[1] https://gallery.mailchimp.com/e3163e2ee79e21b79cf36982c/file...
We also volunteer in droves [1].
[1] https://gallery.mailchimp.com/e3163e2ee79e21b79cf36982c/file...
This argument sounds true, but I like to think of myself as being occasionally kind, or helpful, or benevolent.. whatever. And yet I just can't come up with a single example of something like that.
In fact I don't believe I even think of myself in categories such as "weak" or "strong". I know I'm extremely averse to conflict, which, I guess, would be considered "weak". I'll let you have your way (within reason), but then that's the last time you'll see me, which is probably not the outcome someone trying to exploit you is hoping for.
In fact I don't believe I even think of myself in categories such as "weak" or "strong". I know I'm extremely averse to conflict, which, I guess, would be considered "weak". I'll let you have your way (within reason), but then that's the last time you'll see me, which is probably not the outcome someone trying to exploit you is hoping for.
As a native New Yorker I resemble that remark :-)
I will say the opposite can also be frustrating. People conflate niceness with kindness or even worse, morality. Being gruff isn’t intrinsically immoral. Being super “nice” isn’t intrinsically moral.
This might sound like some sort of rationalization for bad behavior, but I don’t think so. When you optimize you have to have at minimum a hierarchy of optimization goals. At some point, one goal WILL conflict with another. This means that conflating niceness with morality will inevitably lead to misguided and immoral/unethical behavior.
I will say the opposite can also be frustrating. People conflate niceness with kindness or even worse, morality. Being gruff isn’t intrinsically immoral. Being super “nice” isn’t intrinsically moral.
This might sound like some sort of rationalization for bad behavior, but I don’t think so. When you optimize you have to have at minimum a hierarchy of optimization goals. At some point, one goal WILL conflict with another. This means that conflating niceness with morality will inevitably lead to misguided and immoral/unethical behavior.
To be more specific they evaluated your courtesy as a sign of lower status from their perspective (whether consciously or not) and got angry because you did not in fact react as someone of lower status
As a native NYer I find this comment odd. In the US we have places around the country with Stand Your Ground laws — and locals wanting to exercise that right for the slightest slight, with devastating consequence. And we’re worried about someone being rude/aggressive on a NY street? We have to put all this in perspective.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law
Being kind you have to be firm. Giving someone $20 for a particular purpose is kind, but the person is going to come back over and over so the next kind thing to do is decline to give more without their putting in effort to change their situation.
I tend to be very direct day to day. I think kindness doesn’t have to be in personal interactions, especially in a business context. I’m perfectly polite, but also very honest. I still use empathy to understand where people are coming from. You have to learn to give unconditionally without becoming a doormat. It’s tricky. I think you have to be purposeful with how you give to others. I also help people out and do my best to be kind in my private life (charity, supporting local food banks, etc). I think you can generalize this kindness is healthy thing way to far. For me the reward is helping people and making their lives better. In a business context I think your examples are very different from the more intrinsically rewarding giving and kindness.
>I think kindness doesn’t have to be in personal interactions, especially in a business context. I’m perfectly polite, but also very honest.
To be frank, I find the ratio of people who actually do that to people who think they do that but are really using it as an excuse for not exercising their interpersonal skills is 1:1000. I've known many people that called themselves brutally honest, but with the exception of one particular manager I can recall, it always ended up being an excuse to feel powerful by shocking people with a brazen lack of tact while the truth of the statement, even if occasionally beneficial, was incidental.
Who knows... maybe you're the 1 out of the 1000. The tone of what you wrote sounds more reasonable than what many others have expressed in that vein, so I'm inclined to think so, but it'a hard to tell without having universally accepted bounds to words like kindness, politeness, and honesty. That said, doing good deeds and not directly insulting people we deal with doesn't absolve us from a the basic social necessity to treat other people with compassion and humanity. For that reason, whenever I encounter anyone that touts their honesty at the expense of kindness, I generally consider it a tacit admission that they have some serious work to do on their interpersonal skills and don't realize it.
To be frank, I find the ratio of people who actually do that to people who think they do that but are really using it as an excuse for not exercising their interpersonal skills is 1:1000. I've known many people that called themselves brutally honest, but with the exception of one particular manager I can recall, it always ended up being an excuse to feel powerful by shocking people with a brazen lack of tact while the truth of the statement, even if occasionally beneficial, was incidental.
Who knows... maybe you're the 1 out of the 1000. The tone of what you wrote sounds more reasonable than what many others have expressed in that vein, so I'm inclined to think so, but it'a hard to tell without having universally accepted bounds to words like kindness, politeness, and honesty. That said, doing good deeds and not directly insulting people we deal with doesn't absolve us from a the basic social necessity to treat other people with compassion and humanity. For that reason, whenever I encounter anyone that touts their honesty at the expense of kindness, I generally consider it a tacit admission that they have some serious work to do on their interpersonal skills and don't realize it.
I have been managing people for many years now. It’s a hard balance, but I always start from a place of empathy. I find it easy to be empathetic first and then lay out then business/situational needs. We don’t do brutal honesty, just gentle honesty. When people are brutally honest they just use it as cover for being an asshole. I am probably not being clear about what I think about kindness, it’s a subtle point. Even kindness overdone can be patronizing.
Great! Keep at it, then!
Thanks. I wish text could convey the attachment of emotions experienced when writing it. I deeply care about the humans I work with. At the same time, I have experienced what happens when you try to sugar coat things too much in the guise of kindness. You literally cheat people of their opportunity to improve. At the same time, getting the best out of people as a manager means balancing truth and emotion. It’s a very, very human thing. I just try to remember we are all humans blasting through time as only humans can. It’s worked well so far. As long as you can truly meet another person, its hard to be crass and ignore their perspective
[deleted]
> so many people (in my industry/nation/orbit) mistake kindness for weakness.
A complementary but closely related problem is that many people mistake unkindness for aggression.
A complementary but closely related problem is that many people mistake unkindness for aggression.
Isn't it though? At least if it's intentional.
>> Isn't it though? At least if it's intentional.
I suspect what the grandparent refers to is people who are offended at hearing "no." Example - someone asks to get in front of you at a line. If you're feeling kind, you say yes. Saying "no" is just neutral, but many people perceive it as a "fuck you."
I suspect what the grandparent refers to is people who are offended at hearing "no." Example - someone asks to get in front of you at a line. If you're feeling kind, you say yes. Saying "no" is just neutral, but many people perceive it as a "fuck you."
> Isn't it though? At least if it's intentional.
No, it isn't. You can be unkind and peaceful. Civilization is based on the possibility that people who hate each other can still work together for the common good. Intentional kindness is often disgustingly hypocritical, at least in my (non-U.S.) culture.
No, it isn't. You can be unkind and peaceful. Civilization is based on the possibility that people who hate each other can still work together for the common good. Intentional kindness is often disgustingly hypocritical, at least in my (non-U.S.) culture.
[deleted]
[deleted]
That is often not a mistake. It is typically deliberate. On one extreme there are sociopaths that look for any opening to abuse. This is sinister, but tends to be more rare. The other extreme comprises stupid people who view any criticism as a personal assault, the Dunning-Kruger people. The Dunning-Kruger people tend to assume they are super awesome because people aren't willing to invest the energy to mention otherwise.
For those wonderful angels I am willing to lie to their face, because the nonsense that comes back is a stressful nonproductive time suck. Those are the people nobody wants to work with because they are a net negative and continue to exist merely as padding for future layoffs. The common uniting theme is underdeveloped self-awareness/empathy.
For everybody else kindness is a dose of honesty coupled with empathy and mutual reassurance regardless of excellent or poor performance. When it's sincere it is an investment in relationship building.
For those wonderful angels I am willing to lie to their face, because the nonsense that comes back is a stressful nonproductive time suck. Those are the people nobody wants to work with because they are a net negative and continue to exist merely as padding for future layoffs. The common uniting theme is underdeveloped self-awareness/empathy.
For everybody else kindness is a dose of honesty coupled with empathy and mutual reassurance regardless of excellent or poor performance. When it's sincere it is an investment in relationship building.
These studies are always funny. So what this is trying to tell us is: Volunteering boosts your health, while the data only provides us with "volunteers are generally in better health". Now this study "tried" to adjust to that by some filtering, but this is still a pretty big leap. Essentially what they would need to do is this:
Have one group of people who "actively" is kind to people, i.e. they actually act on their desired.
Then compare the results to a control group who "wants" to be kind to people, ideally has a proven track record of being kind to people, but are not allowed to act on that during the duration of study. Then of course they also need to still be as satisfied and happy as before, otherwise they turn into a biased control group.
Then if there are no differences, and compared to another control group of "normal" humans, there is a statistically significant improvement in health, then and only then, they may be on to something... Otherwise this is just another case of survivor bias.
This is all just pointless. At least here it's for a good cause, but I always am amazed by what kind of conclusions people derive from the well established: Causation implies correlation... Erm, NOT.
Have one group of people who "actively" is kind to people, i.e. they actually act on their desired.
Then compare the results to a control group who "wants" to be kind to people, ideally has a proven track record of being kind to people, but are not allowed to act on that during the duration of study. Then of course they also need to still be as satisfied and happy as before, otherwise they turn into a biased control group.
Then if there are no differences, and compared to another control group of "normal" humans, there is a statistically significant improvement in health, then and only then, they may be on to something... Otherwise this is just another case of survivor bias.
This is all just pointless. At least here it's for a good cause, but I always am amazed by what kind of conclusions people derive from the well established: Causation implies correlation... Erm, NOT.
I agree that some of the examples are a bit fluffy, but later in the article, they mention a much stronger study! They cite an example of high school students being split into a control and treatment group for tutoring students with a clearly observable output based on biological data.
It's "strong" in that you can see some effect in blood of people tutoring vs people waiting. But that's about it, you can't draw other conclusions from it. It says absolutely nothing about volunteering, health, being kind, etc.
I started counting the number of qualifying words, even in the linked studies, and then just gave up.
Is human behavior truly so opaque that experiments cannot be designed that conclusively determine specific causation?
Is human behavior truly so opaque that experiments cannot be designed that conclusively determine specific causation?
Designing the experiments is easy. Designing experiments anyone would want to participate in is tricky… and then you get volunteer selection effects.
When faced with a choice between:
- causality is less widely applicable than we like to think
- our behavior is more complex than we like to think
I'm more inclined to doubt causality. Not that it's not a useful framework in general, but that is less useful when applied by humans to humans regarding human constructs like kindness.
- causality is less widely applicable than we like to think
- our behavior is more complex than we like to think
I'm more inclined to doubt causality. Not that it's not a useful framework in general, but that is less useful when applied by humans to humans regarding human constructs like kindness.
What does that even mean?
What's the difference between A and B?
I assume You don't think a spirit comes down and mediates inter-human interactions- they're not beyond physics- but rather that they're "beyond causality" as in 'normal' models don't have as much predictive power as you'd hope?
But if it's that, then I don't see a practical difference between both choices.
You're correct. I'm not proposing some kind of spooky process that can't be described in terms of causation.
But I am proposing that we should have some skepticism when importing an explanatory style that has worked well in physics and expecting it to perform equally well everywhere. I think we're likely to make mistakes of this sort:
If a cat's head appears from behind the couch, and then later its tail becomes visible--you wouldn't say that the cat's head caused the cat's tail--they're just different parts of the same phenomenon. We're familiar with cats, so we don't make this exact mistake, but I think that we are quite susceptible to misapplying causation to things that we don't understand well, like happiness.
Years ago I had this idea that many of our ideas about causation are flawed in this way. So I developed a habit of taking a causal claim that seems true, flipping the arrow around, and then testing the mutated hypothesis--just to see if it worked backwards. I was surprised by how often it did.
I don't have the data to convince you that the habit of mistrusting my instincts about causation and using "deep down, it probably goes both ways" as a heuristic has caused me to reap benefits that I would have otherwise ignored, but I suspect it strongly enough that I plan to keep doing it.
So the difference between the alternative perspectives is that if you're skeptical about the universal utility of causal nitpicking, you'll learn to recognize when you're wasting your time trying to prove that the laws of physics demand whatever you've noticed. You'll bail sooner on perspectives that don't work, and you'll be more creative about finding new ones.
On the other hand, if you demand a certain style of causal argument, you're more likely to double down against the opacity of human behavior to other humans. You'll design experiments and write articles that inspire further nitpicking about which is a cause and which is an effect, and the matter will remain in stasis--perhaps indefinitely--where its capacity to positively affect people's heath is limited.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't try to uncover underlying mechanisms when we can. When that's in cards it's pretty great. I'm just saying that we shouldn't always expect results of that sort to be within reach, and that reasoning from correlation alone can get us further than we tend to let it.
But I am proposing that we should have some skepticism when importing an explanatory style that has worked well in physics and expecting it to perform equally well everywhere. I think we're likely to make mistakes of this sort:
If a cat's head appears from behind the couch, and then later its tail becomes visible--you wouldn't say that the cat's head caused the cat's tail--they're just different parts of the same phenomenon. We're familiar with cats, so we don't make this exact mistake, but I think that we are quite susceptible to misapplying causation to things that we don't understand well, like happiness.
Years ago I had this idea that many of our ideas about causation are flawed in this way. So I developed a habit of taking a causal claim that seems true, flipping the arrow around, and then testing the mutated hypothesis--just to see if it worked backwards. I was surprised by how often it did.
I don't have the data to convince you that the habit of mistrusting my instincts about causation and using "deep down, it probably goes both ways" as a heuristic has caused me to reap benefits that I would have otherwise ignored, but I suspect it strongly enough that I plan to keep doing it.
So the difference between the alternative perspectives is that if you're skeptical about the universal utility of causal nitpicking, you'll learn to recognize when you're wasting your time trying to prove that the laws of physics demand whatever you've noticed. You'll bail sooner on perspectives that don't work, and you'll be more creative about finding new ones.
On the other hand, if you demand a certain style of causal argument, you're more likely to double down against the opacity of human behavior to other humans. You'll design experiments and write articles that inspire further nitpicking about which is a cause and which is an effect, and the matter will remain in stasis--perhaps indefinitely--where its capacity to positively affect people's heath is limited.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't try to uncover underlying mechanisms when we can. When that's in cards it's pretty great. I'm just saying that we shouldn't always expect results of that sort to be within reach, and that reasoning from correlation alone can get us further than we tend to let it.
This seems unclear. I mean, either X causes Y or it doesn’t. (If you change X, holding everything else constant, does Y change or not?)
One thing you might mean is that causal chains are very complex and variable, so the average causal effect in a large population is not very informative about any individual - it’s an average of many different sized effects.
One thing you might mean is that causal chains are very complex and variable, so the average causal effect in a large population is not very informative about any individual - it’s an average of many different sized effects.
I agree with your second paragraph, mostly. It's a big mess of causes and effects--some going in one direction and some going in the other. To assume that they "average" requires that they be quantifiable and in the same dimension--which might not be the case.
As for your first paragraph, I don't think you can reasonably treat causation like an everywhere-binary like that. Not for arbitrary choices of X and Y.
Take "hunger" and "war" for instance. There are many causal arrows pointing from war to hunger, and several pointing the other way too. You have to zoom in to specific details before the language of causation starts being useful. "good for your health" and "being kind to others" are similarly aggregate concepts.
Causation is a myth, and a damn good one. We use it to reason about nearly everything. But the tendency to use it to reason about actually everything is a dangerous one.
Most of the time you can't "hold everything else constant". We usually have to settle for frobbing X back and forth many times and letting its continued correlation with Y convince us that there is indeed causal wiring between the two. At the end of most experiments is an inductive leap of faith that is justified by the high frob cout.
But sometimes X doesn't go back and forth. Sometimes it's a one-way deal and you only have one of them. Like maybe X is "finding carbon trapped in the earth's crust and releasing it into the atmosphere", and Y is "a global change in climate that poses an extinction risk to humans." In cases like that, we don't have the luxury of waiting for enough induction to bring about the leap of faith.
The situation with kindness and heath is similar. Ideally we'd take whatever wisdom we can from the correlative data that was presented and run with it--maybe there's a cause in there and it would make us healthier, maybe not. Instead we have this artificially high bar for argumentative strength, and when an argument fails to meet it we throw the baby out with the bathwater.
As for your first paragraph, I don't think you can reasonably treat causation like an everywhere-binary like that. Not for arbitrary choices of X and Y.
Take "hunger" and "war" for instance. There are many causal arrows pointing from war to hunger, and several pointing the other way too. You have to zoom in to specific details before the language of causation starts being useful. "good for your health" and "being kind to others" are similarly aggregate concepts.
Causation is a myth, and a damn good one. We use it to reason about nearly everything. But the tendency to use it to reason about actually everything is a dangerous one.
Most of the time you can't "hold everything else constant". We usually have to settle for frobbing X back and forth many times and letting its continued correlation with Y convince us that there is indeed causal wiring between the two. At the end of most experiments is an inductive leap of faith that is justified by the high frob cout.
But sometimes X doesn't go back and forth. Sometimes it's a one-way deal and you only have one of them. Like maybe X is "finding carbon trapped in the earth's crust and releasing it into the atmosphere", and Y is "a global change in climate that poses an extinction risk to humans." In cases like that, we don't have the luxury of waiting for enough induction to bring about the leap of faith.
The situation with kindness and heath is similar. Ideally we'd take whatever wisdom we can from the correlative data that was presented and run with it--maybe there's a cause in there and it would make us healthier, maybe not. Instead we have this artificially high bar for argumentative strength, and when an argument fails to meet it we throw the baby out with the bathwater.
The problem here is that hunger and war are woolly concepts.[1] But I wouldn't say causation is a myth at this level. You can reasonably ask whether hunger causes war and run IV regressions, instrumenting hunger with e.g. rainfall, which have a reasonable chance at testing that hypothesis.[2]
[1] More thoughts about this at: https://wyclif.substack.com/p/on-social-science-about-comple...
[2] Like the literature coming from http://data.nber.org/ens/feldstein/ENSA%20Sources/Geospatial...
[1] More thoughts about this at: https://wyclif.substack.com/p/on-social-science-about-comple...
[2] Like the literature coming from http://data.nber.org/ens/feldstein/ENSA%20Sources/Geospatial...
I'm gonna check out those links but I just wanted to clarify that I think causation is a myth at all levels, even the hardest of sciences. It's just that it's a more useful myth in those places.
So what's your objection to the standard Pearl/Rubin idea: "X causes Y means that if X, and nothing else, varies, then Y varies"?
When was the last time you encountered a situation where only one thing was varying?
I don't have a problem with the idea on it's own. It's a great way to understand all kinds of things. But data to support explanations of that sort is hard to come by.
What I object to is the belief that all explanations that can in principle be put in terms of cause, must in practice be put in terms of cause--otherwise they're useless (which, I think, motivated a lot of unnecessary handwaving in the bbc article, and probably in the ones that it references too).
Researchers should contribute useful data so that others can reference it to make decisions. That data becomes less useful when they have incentives to skew things so that they can meet the awkwardly high bar of "supports a causal argument" just to be worthy of publication.
It ought to be ok to say: "these things go together. Here's the evidence. It might not be possible to untangle the causal web between them, but if you try one I bet you'll see the other," and leave it at that.
Not to say that untangling the causal web isn't worth doing, but sometimes it's just not in the cards, and demanding that we search for it in the cards is like going hungry because all of the carrots left in the grocery store are strangely shaped.
I don't have a problem with the idea on it's own. It's a great way to understand all kinds of things. But data to support explanations of that sort is hard to come by.
What I object to is the belief that all explanations that can in principle be put in terms of cause, must in practice be put in terms of cause--otherwise they're useless (which, I think, motivated a lot of unnecessary handwaving in the bbc article, and probably in the ones that it references too).
Researchers should contribute useful data so that others can reference it to make decisions. That data becomes less useful when they have incentives to skew things so that they can meet the awkwardly high bar of "supports a causal argument" just to be worthy of publication.
It ought to be ok to say: "these things go together. Here's the evidence. It might not be possible to untangle the causal web between them, but if you try one I bet you'll see the other," and leave it at that.
Not to say that untangling the causal web isn't worth doing, but sometimes it's just not in the cards, and demanding that we search for it in the cards is like going hungry because all of the carrots left in the grocery store are strangely shaped.
Ok, I’m sympathetic to that POV. I’m grateful for the credibility revolution in econometrics, but it clearly can become an obsession. Prediction on its own can be worthwhile. I wouldn’t say causation is a myth - maybe rather that it’s overvalued.
One cannot possibly design proper controls with human behavior.
Even in pharmaceutics, confounding variables are already common place that led to a considerable replication crisis, with human behavior it would be even more impossible to control for every variable, and measure only what one wants to measure.
A very simple problem with such a design which would perhaps indicate that human beings that are not allowed to be kind would be less happy is simply that human beings become unhappy when they are told what to do, not necessarily anything related to kindness; it's certainly not implausible.
And the fundamental problem remains that a man cannot be compelled to participate in any study, and that alone is a selection bias that cannot be overcome — studies thus select upon the kind of person who have the time and willingness to participate in them.
Even in pharmaceutics, confounding variables are already common place that led to a considerable replication crisis, with human behavior it would be even more impossible to control for every variable, and measure only what one wants to measure.
A very simple problem with such a design which would perhaps indicate that human beings that are not allowed to be kind would be less happy is simply that human beings become unhappy when they are told what to do, not necessarily anything related to kindness; it's certainly not implausible.
And the fundamental problem remains that a man cannot be compelled to participate in any study, and that alone is a selection bias that cannot be overcome — studies thus select upon the kind of person who have the time and willingness to participate in them.
journalists that received their degree in social science and other similar fields probably never heard of causation/correlation principle and with no principle like this in their mind they can passionately promote whatever social justice agenda they have. (and im not against helping others or being kind. Im against nonsense in social columns on mainstream media like bbc)
Social sciences do seem to have a reasonable background in statistics and experiment design based on those I’ve known. What makes you conclude they wouldn’t know the causation/correlation principle?
The gigantic replication crisis in social science and medicine for a start.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
[deleted]
This is a very good point. But it makes me wonder how much is innate to the topic. If physics has as many confounding variables, I’m wondering if there would be equal difficulty in reproducibility
[deleted]
in theory this looks good. reality is a bit different. I constantly have problems with my left and right neighbor (middle of pandemic and this ahole is doing a barbecue with loud music since yesterday) about their lack of consideration (this in my parents house, where I am right now). In my apartment is no different... loud music, stumping on the floor... that kind of problem you have on a building. my father have a huge heart and does all kinds of good things for people, and I watch him getting screw over by the same people he helps (this includes people he hire to work for his small company).
each passing day I feel more and more inclined to buy me a piece of land with no one around it, build a small house in the center of it and never interact with this kind of people forever.
each passing day I feel more and more inclined to buy me a piece of land with no one around it, build a small house in the center of it and never interact with this kind of people forever.
This has been studied in game theory terms.
The best strategy seems to be to give people the benefit of the doubt initially, being kind and altruistic without reservation. But as soon as they don’t respond in kind, you update your strategy immediately and stop extending any generosity beyond baseline courtesy. The ball is in their court now. If they switch from selfishness to altruism, then you can match them. Otherwise, don’t let yourself be exploited.
I’ve found this approach has simplified many social decisions for me. Even things like whether to say hi to a neighbor passing on the sidewalk. I used to not always be sure of the best way to handle these situations. If you give a hearty greeting and are ignored, you feel lame and rejected. If you ignore them and it turns out they are friendly, they could see you as unfriendly, or they might also be on the fence, waiting to see what you do, and by ignoring them you miss out on establishing a friendship that could be valuable to both of you in the long run.
Now it’s easy: I say hi the first time I see someone and treat them warmly. If they aren’t friendly back, I don’t worry about it. I simply ignore them now unless they make an effort to change the dynamic (happens more than you might think, actually).
This way you don’t miss out on the good people, don’t sweat the bad/manipulative people, and remain flexible in case someone was just feeling shy or having a bad day. Game theory ftw!
The best strategy seems to be to give people the benefit of the doubt initially, being kind and altruistic without reservation. But as soon as they don’t respond in kind, you update your strategy immediately and stop extending any generosity beyond baseline courtesy. The ball is in their court now. If they switch from selfishness to altruism, then you can match them. Otherwise, don’t let yourself be exploited.
I’ve found this approach has simplified many social decisions for me. Even things like whether to say hi to a neighbor passing on the sidewalk. I used to not always be sure of the best way to handle these situations. If you give a hearty greeting and are ignored, you feel lame and rejected. If you ignore them and it turns out they are friendly, they could see you as unfriendly, or they might also be on the fence, waiting to see what you do, and by ignoring them you miss out on establishing a friendship that could be valuable to both of you in the long run.
Now it’s easy: I say hi the first time I see someone and treat them warmly. If they aren’t friendly back, I don’t worry about it. I simply ignore them now unless they make an effort to change the dynamic (happens more than you might think, actually).
This way you don’t miss out on the good people, don’t sweat the bad/manipulative people, and remain flexible in case someone was just feeling shy or having a bad day. Game theory ftw!
(This strategy is called “tit for tat”: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat )
I don't have a link now, but if there is a chance for miscommunication, the good strategy becomes more "forgiving". So you can keep being cooperative and kind for more than one iterations to be sure they really want to defect. Then you can defect too, until they cooperate.
The Evolution of Trust[0] is a fun walkthrough of those game theory strategies. It adds the twist of miscommunication towards the end.
[0]https://ncase.me/trust/
[0]https://ncase.me/trust/
Thanks! That's the link I meant!
If you’re applying game theory here, I’m curious what the objective function would be? (What are you trying to maximize/minimize?)
I think a potential flaw is assuming people are static beings. Consider if you passed me shortly after my dog died...I may not be in a mental state to even notice you said anything. If we passed weeks or months later I could be in a completely different state but we’re still not connecting because you’ve already concluded it wasn’t worth the effort.
I feel like there is a fundamental issue if people look for interactions to be transactional marketplace. It’s completely different than deliberately acting from a place of compassion
I think a potential flaw is assuming people are static beings. Consider if you passed me shortly after my dog died...I may not be in a mental state to even notice you said anything. If we passed weeks or months later I could be in a completely different state but we’re still not connecting because you’ve already concluded it wasn’t worth the effort.
I feel like there is a fundamental issue if people look for interactions to be transactional marketplace. It’s completely different than deliberately acting from a place of compassion
The goal is to maximize how much of your social time and energy is spent on mutually rewarding interactions and relationships relative to one-sided or exploitative interactions and relationships.
A constraint is wanting to remain open to potentially rewarding new relationships (so not simply closing yourself off to people who aren't already in your circle).
Another constraint is remaining flexible for when people update their behavior (in either direction). Which I think answers your objection? If you were in a bad state because your dog died, that's completely understandable. But now it's up to you to salvage the dynamic, not me, as I already went out on a limb once. If you do that, then the first encounter would be water under the bridge and I wouldn't hold it against you.
Giving compassion is wonderful, but life is a lot better when you reserve most of it for people who will respond with compassion in kind, rather than milking it for their own benefit and giving nothing in return. Sticking up for yourself doesn't mean being transactional--it just means that you extend compassion to yourself as well as to others.
A constraint is wanting to remain open to potentially rewarding new relationships (so not simply closing yourself off to people who aren't already in your circle).
Another constraint is remaining flexible for when people update their behavior (in either direction). Which I think answers your objection? If you were in a bad state because your dog died, that's completely understandable. But now it's up to you to salvage the dynamic, not me, as I already went out on a limb once. If you do that, then the first encounter would be water under the bridge and I wouldn't hold it against you.
Giving compassion is wonderful, but life is a lot better when you reserve most of it for people who will respond with compassion in kind, rather than milking it for their own benefit and giving nothing in return. Sticking up for yourself doesn't mean being transactional--it just means that you extend compassion to yourself as well as to others.
While I can understand your perspective and probably would completely agree in the past, it still strikes me as rooted in a transactional expectation. “I did something so now it’s incumbent on you to do something.” My definition of compassion doesn’t encompass giving compassion only if I have the promise of receiving it in return. I also think you can be non-transactional while still having boundaries. Not saying hi back is probably a boundary we’d disagree on.
I found it only feels wrong because I expected something. So the problem is as much in my expectation as their behavior and based in a faulty assumption that interactions are a zero sum game. I don’t always embody non-transactional compassionate behavior but having tried both approaches, once you can get past the expectations of what people can do for you, I find it a better way to live.
I found it only feels wrong because I expected something. So the problem is as much in my expectation as their behavior and based in a faulty assumption that interactions are a zero sum game. I don’t always embody non-transactional compassionate behavior but having tried both approaches, once you can get past the expectations of what people can do for you, I find it a better way to live.
Compassion can mean different things. Merely being polite, positive and listening and not screwing the other over, sure makes sense to be generous about that to many people.
But in many cases compassion may mean self sacrifice: time, money, effort etc. It's fine to expect something back, at least not being mean or more demanding to you or sour about why you didn't do more. There are toxic people like that that you better not help. You can learn it the hard way. Maybe it can be communicated better, but in many cases people are predisposed to see you as a threat. If you offer to help, they think you do it as a scheme to help yourself and screw them. And they will fume even years afterwards that you somehow screwed them over when you genuinely helped them. That you didn't help enough, that you were selfish etc.
You need to choose who you spend your finite energy on. Not every person in a bad place is some idealized angel who is thirsty for your help and will be grateful.
But in many cases compassion may mean self sacrifice: time, money, effort etc. It's fine to expect something back, at least not being mean or more demanding to you or sour about why you didn't do more. There are toxic people like that that you better not help. You can learn it the hard way. Maybe it can be communicated better, but in many cases people are predisposed to see you as a threat. If you offer to help, they think you do it as a scheme to help yourself and screw them. And they will fume even years afterwards that you somehow screwed them over when you genuinely helped them. That you didn't help enough, that you were selfish etc.
You need to choose who you spend your finite energy on. Not every person in a bad place is some idealized angel who is thirsty for your help and will be grateful.
I think we actually agree. I'm not saying that you should expect something in return when being kind to people. That's not real altruism.
I'm more talking about when someone goes in the other direction and is notably unkind, inconsiderate, cold, exploitative, or otherwise disrespectful to you. That's when it's time to switch to a new strategy.
To me, ignoring a neighbor who greets you is pretty cold and disrespectful, but yeah, everyone has a different line when it comes to these things, and it depends a lot on context.
I'm more talking about when someone goes in the other direction and is notably unkind, inconsiderate, cold, exploitative, or otherwise disrespectful to you. That's when it's time to switch to a new strategy.
To me, ignoring a neighbor who greets you is pretty cold and disrespectful, but yeah, everyone has a different line when it comes to these things, and it depends a lot on context.
t4t comes from the prisoner's game, where the choices are 'cooperate' or 'fuck the other person over for your own gain', so that sets the mindset the strategy is meant for.
It seems to me that switching from immediately stopping the kind action (e.g. greening someone) as soon as it's not reciprocated to stopping the kind action if it is habitually not reciprocated could address a lot of those problems.
You could probably also put a maximum age on your game state. E.g. if it's been more than a week since this person failed to reciprocate, then treat this like an initial interaction.
You could probably also put a maximum age on your game state. E.g. if it's been more than a week since this person failed to reciprocate, then treat this like an initial interaction.
You're just playing tit-for-tat. The main benefit it extreme simplicity- in principle, one bit of memory per person, and one if-then decision. And it performs very well in iterated prisoner's games.
Yes, everyone has a complex inner history blah blah blah. There's 6 billion people, and you're not going to give equal attention to all of them, so you need different approaches. Plus, explicitly playing tit-for-tat keeps you from being emotionally gamed as easily.
Yes, everyone has a complex inner history blah blah blah. There's 6 billion people, and you're not going to give equal attention to all of them, so you need different approaches. Plus, explicitly playing tit-for-tat keeps you from being emotionally gamed as easily.
As you state, it’s based on an overly simplified model. I.e., it’s a heuristic that may not generalize well to the more complex realities of life, depending on what you’re trying to achieve. It’s akin to an objective function of “find a reasonable local optimum solution that requires as little overhead as possible” which can completely miss the global optimum. I was asking for clarification because I was curious how important the “overhead cost” function was as a constraint to the OP. That’s probably where our perspectives diverge; I’m usually willing to take on more of that overhead cost if it can break me out of the local solution.
As an aside, the perspective is appreciated but dismissive approaches to comments (“blah blah blah”) tend to go against HN guidelines. You make good points but I wouldn’t want them to be lost to moderators because of the phrasing
As an aside, the perspective is appreciated but dismissive approaches to comments (“blah blah blah”) tend to go against HN guidelines. You make good points but I wouldn’t want them to be lost to moderators because of the phrasing
I can't thank you enough for how much this helps me. I've become very guarded when it comes to strangers. You lay out a good strategy on how to deal with people. This would help one get acquaintances, friends, and weed out the bad ones.
Being helpful and kind to others also requires that you be kind to yourself. You can only give when it is healthy to do so.
Some people will be narcissists, self involved, and mean. Some people will try to take advantage of you. That's okay; You cut them out of your circles and move on. Being kind and pruning your social circles to those who are kind in return is like tending a garden. It isn't 'unkind' to weed the place a bit from time to time to make an environment that you enjoy being in.
Some people will be narcissists, self involved, and mean. Some people will try to take advantage of you. That's okay; You cut them out of your circles and move on. Being kind and pruning your social circles to those who are kind in return is like tending a garden. It isn't 'unkind' to weed the place a bit from time to time to make an environment that you enjoy being in.
> Being helpful and kind to others also requires that you be kind to yourself. You can only give when it is healthy to do so.
Agreed. We all deserve the same fundamental measure of respect. It’s equally important to be kind to myself and to others. The two are the same thing in disguise.
It can take reflection to parse out each situation, but if a “helping” act of mine is actually damaging to me in a way I resent or would prefer to avoid, then am I really being kind to the other person? I’d argue that often I’m actually acting out of an unhealthy impulse of guilt, some sense of social-obligation, self-identity, etc, which is really just about myself.
Sometimes helping another person - even if they want said help - actually doesn’t help them at all, and that’s not really kindness in my opinion. It requires judgement.
True kindness includes more than the “soft and mushy” feelings a lot of us look on with suspicion. Authentic kindness and care can be hard as fuck because it means saying no or not helping someone when your natural impulse is to do so.
See: parenting, family members/friends with addictions, letting go an employee who’s well-intentioned, breaking up with someone who’s nice, etc.
IMHO Buddhist thought is a great tool for thinking about this kind of stuff.
Agreed. We all deserve the same fundamental measure of respect. It’s equally important to be kind to myself and to others. The two are the same thing in disguise.
It can take reflection to parse out each situation, but if a “helping” act of mine is actually damaging to me in a way I resent or would prefer to avoid, then am I really being kind to the other person? I’d argue that often I’m actually acting out of an unhealthy impulse of guilt, some sense of social-obligation, self-identity, etc, which is really just about myself.
Sometimes helping another person - even if they want said help - actually doesn’t help them at all, and that’s not really kindness in my opinion. It requires judgement.
True kindness includes more than the “soft and mushy” feelings a lot of us look on with suspicion. Authentic kindness and care can be hard as fuck because it means saying no or not helping someone when your natural impulse is to do so.
See: parenting, family members/friends with addictions, letting go an employee who’s well-intentioned, breaking up with someone who’s nice, etc.
IMHO Buddhist thought is a great tool for thinking about this kind of stuff.
It's not going to completely solve every problem - that's a pretty high standard! Maybe you could ask your father how he feels about it.
I see and experience the same things you do, and I choose compassion and kindness (my mantra with strangers is: trust, care, help). I can't change other people or the world, but I do choose how I respond to them. I can defy the evil, unhappiness and despair in the world. What I've learned is that it is so much better for me, and for the other people, and for the situation - it doesn't solve every problem, it's not the entire solution, it doesn't even work every time, but it moves the needle; perhaps most importantly, I think it sets an example and inspires others - imagine a world without the compassionate people. Compassion is armor: When people act like jerks, usually it's because they have their own problems, their are overwhelmed, they are afraid, etc. You and I act like jerks too. Have compassion on them and on yourself - life is hard.
> never interact with this kind of people forever
Whatever kind they are, they are everywhere. We all need to find our peace of mind, but at the same time I don't want to withdraw: What am I living for? To avoid? More people are more opportunities to live.
I see and experience the same things you do, and I choose compassion and kindness (my mantra with strangers is: trust, care, help). I can't change other people or the world, but I do choose how I respond to them. I can defy the evil, unhappiness and despair in the world. What I've learned is that it is so much better for me, and for the other people, and for the situation - it doesn't solve every problem, it's not the entire solution, it doesn't even work every time, but it moves the needle; perhaps most importantly, I think it sets an example and inspires others - imagine a world without the compassionate people. Compassion is armor: When people act like jerks, usually it's because they have their own problems, their are overwhelmed, they are afraid, etc. You and I act like jerks too. Have compassion on them and on yourself - life is hard.
> never interact with this kind of people forever
Whatever kind they are, they are everywhere. We all need to find our peace of mind, but at the same time I don't want to withdraw: What am I living for? To avoid? More people are more opportunities to live.
This is accurate. More often than not, trying to do something good for others will end up making you feel like an idiot. For the person on the receiving end, you are a jackpot. Instead of being shown gratitude, you're likely to be exploited.
But then again, would it really be a genuine gesture on the giver's end if they were to filter based on the receiver's character or whether they will be grateful for it?
The positivity from you is likely to be absorbed by the negativity, never to be seen again, instead of snowballing into a boulder of positivity as you'd hoped. I feel the only answer is to be an endless source of positivity. In that case you're not worried whether the drops of positivity from you end up somewhere they're appreciated or not. The negativity sponges might suck you dry, so it's not for everyone. For most of us the answer might be to constrain our positivity outlets into safer, more controllable spaces (volunteering for an organization, etc.) where it is less likely that we might feel anything negative for our efforts.
But then again, would it really be a genuine gesture on the giver's end if they were to filter based on the receiver's character or whether they will be grateful for it?
The positivity from you is likely to be absorbed by the negativity, never to be seen again, instead of snowballing into a boulder of positivity as you'd hoped. I feel the only answer is to be an endless source of positivity. In that case you're not worried whether the drops of positivity from you end up somewhere they're appreciated or not. The negativity sponges might suck you dry, so it's not for everyone. For most of us the answer might be to constrain our positivity outlets into safer, more controllable spaces (volunteering for an organization, etc.) where it is less likely that we might feel anything negative for our efforts.
> This is accurate. More often than not, trying to do something good for others will end up making you feel like an idiot. For the person on the receiving end, you are a jackpot. Instead of being shown gratitude, you're likely to be exploited.
Helping others doesn’t mean you have to set yourself up to be a sucker. Which you kinda point out when you about volunteering. But IMHO in any space our own judgement is still required and essential.
Helping others doesn’t mean you have to set yourself up to be a sucker. Which you kinda point out when you about volunteering. But IMHO in any space our own judgement is still required and essential.
Okay, there is a major definition problem here.
Kindness can and should come with boundaries. No one is entitled to your time or energy. Choosing to spend that energy on another person, without thought of reward, is a form of kindness.
We can and probably should be polite to people by default. That is a way of showing kindness. If the other person decides to be a blackhole, leave them. If they are harming someone, you are free to (and probably should) warn other people.
Kindness does not require you let people take advantage of you.
Kindness can and should come with boundaries. No one is entitled to your time or energy. Choosing to spend that energy on another person, without thought of reward, is a form of kindness.
We can and probably should be polite to people by default. That is a way of showing kindness. If the other person decides to be a blackhole, leave them. If they are harming someone, you are free to (and probably should) warn other people.
Kindness does not require you let people take advantage of you.
I would take a slightly different perspective. I think much of the benefit of volunteering etc. as spoke about in the article is from the feeling of "connectedness". It's not that being generous is in-and-of-itself beneficial, but that it helps connect to other humans. From the article:
"Humans are extremely social, we have better health when we are interconnected, and part of being interconnected is giving"
Being generous and resenting it or moving away from people would probably be antithetical to being connected. Being taken advantage of makes one feel less connected, which might be what you're experiencing.
For a good, short read related to this I'd suggest Sebastian Junger's book Tribe
"Humans are extremely social, we have better health when we are interconnected, and part of being interconnected is giving"
Being generous and resenting it or moving away from people would probably be antithetical to being connected. Being taken advantage of makes one feel less connected, which might be what you're experiencing.
For a good, short read related to this I'd suggest Sebastian Junger's book Tribe
There's no recovery from BNS (bad neighbor situation) in my opinion. I see that as a point of no return. The only sane outcome is, one of the two parties bailing out.
BNS doesn't mean it only happens between neighbors, just that that's what it feels like even if it happens between two parties that are not necessarily neighbors, e.g., two coworkers, two classmates, two CEOs of rival corporations. The list is endless.
BNS is the bane of my existence. I'd do anything to have a life where I'm not in a BNS match with anyone.
BNS doesn't mean it only happens between neighbors, just that that's what it feels like even if it happens between two parties that are not necessarily neighbors, e.g., two coworkers, two classmates, two CEOs of rival corporations. The list is endless.
BNS is the bane of my existence. I'd do anything to have a life where I'm not in a BNS match with anyone.
I was living in a big city when the lockdown was enforced by the company I was working at (at the time) so I decided to spend that time with my parents (cause I could at least help them with anything). I came home to discover the neighbor was fabricating furniture in his backyard (both of our houses have a large backyard). He would work until midnight sometimes, with no acoustic treatment on his improvised factory. I went by his house and talk to him. Explained that I was also working at home and the noise was too much. Long story short, I had to call city hall to resolve the situation. This is the same ahole I mentioned.
I'm a pretty reasonable guy. I can put myself in others shoes. But when I notice that people don't retribute, I tend to act. My father put up with a lot of things (trying to be a better person) that I don't.
I'm a pretty reasonable guy. I can put myself in others shoes. But when I notice that people don't retribute, I tend to act. My father put up with a lot of things (trying to be a better person) that I don't.
Yeah being kind is more a weird tug of war. We really need lessons in how to ensure our own well being in a social context.
Now some would summarize it as: be as kind to you as you're to others. I, like your father, has a weird tendency to do everything for free.. but it's unhealthy and I suffer. But I can't really blame others for that.
Being strong and balanced.. a healthy dose of selfishness (kinda like a kid)
Now some would summarize it as: be as kind to you as you're to others. I, like your father, has a weird tendency to do everything for free.. but it's unhealthy and I suffer. But I can't really blame others for that.
Being strong and balanced.. a healthy dose of selfishness (kinda like a kid)
As a resident in NY during the pandemic, everything that you would think would cause people to cling together and bond in common cause during a difficult time period if you were an optimist, actually caused an increase of rudeness, hostility, annoyance, and battle for resources. From sidewalk space to aggressive driving to competition in apartment buildings for rare gym reservations or even elevator space, people are awful.
Ready for a move to a house of my own without audible neighbors or selfish and uncompromising attitudes.
Struggle for scarce resources triggers ancient and primitive defensive attitudes. Either that or people in the northeastern cities are rude.
Ready for a move to a house of my own without audible neighbors or selfish and uncompromising attitudes.
Struggle for scarce resources triggers ancient and primitive defensive attitudes. Either that or people in the northeastern cities are rude.
Being kind doesn't mean being a chump. Be slightly more kind to others than they are to you, but when they don't reciprocate, draw strict boundaries.
Honestly learning to set boundaries was game-changing for my emotional health and my relationships.
Honestly learning to set boundaries was game-changing for my emotional health and my relationships.
do you see how the negative attitude you carry is eating you alive? be more like your dad
That crosses into personal attack, which is not an effective way to advocate for kindness, and also not allowed on HN.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
In my experience, being kind results in self-interested people taking advantage of you. People who want to climb the corporate ladder often prey on the kind, so I feel that kindness is "taught out" of people. There is a fine line between being kind and being a doormat. I don't really know where the line is though.
I made a similar comment above but it's -all about- that line. AKA boundaries. If you are clear on what's OK with you and what's not OK, then you are liberated to be kind and generous as long as people are on the OK side. If that line is blurry, you end up oscillating between doormat and asshole and it's just an unhealthy place (speaking from past experience.)
Same, definitely have come off as an asshole saying "no" before. Saying "no" is an art, indeed, easier when you know where that line is.
What you're saying is very true but just to clarify I meant something else.
When you don't have boundaries, you are constantly expecting to be transgressed upon, so half the time you let people do it and other half of the time you tell them to fuck off when it would have been fine to help them. That's what I mean by asshole.
What you're talking about is a healthy no. And I agree there are good ways and bad ways to say it, and you're right that being clear on your boundaries enables the good way - can be as simple as "I am sorry, I am just not comfortable with that."
When you don't have boundaries, you are constantly expecting to be transgressed upon, so half the time you let people do it and other half of the time you tell them to fuck off when it would have been fine to help them. That's what I mean by asshole.
What you're talking about is a healthy no. And I agree there are good ways and bad ways to say it, and you're right that being clear on your boundaries enables the good way - can be as simple as "I am sorry, I am just not comfortable with that."
It sounds like there is a mistake in this tread about what being kind is. Being kind doesnt mean being agreeable to any idea and doing things for other people. If someone if asking you to do something you cant do you have the option of kindly telling them you cant do it or telling them you cant do it in a rude or mean way.
It takes effort to be kind.
It takes effort to be kind.
> In my experience, being kind results in self-interested people taking advantage of you.
That's okay. Sometimes you are taken advantage of. Sometimes your kindness truly helps improve another person's life. Sometimes your kindness returns to you amplified.
Risk minimization isn't always the best strategy. It can be okay for things to not work every time.
That's okay. Sometimes you are taken advantage of. Sometimes your kindness truly helps improve another person's life. Sometimes your kindness returns to you amplified.
Risk minimization isn't always the best strategy. It can be okay for things to not work every time.
This is something I have struggled with in my life and am trying to work on. The older I get the more I feel that people generally suck, which is not an attitude I particularly care to have, but it has borne itself out a number of times in my past.
For most of my life I have assumed that people are mostly good, and while this may actually be true, when I reflect on some of the times in my life I was stressed out it was due to extending myself to others, to then later feel taken advantage of or on the hook for future favors.
As an example, I helped an older neighbor put up a wireless security camera. I had the same camera and I used a double-sided industrial strength adhesive to affix it to the side of my house. When my neighbor asked for help and I made it clear upfront that I'm not too handy, and this is just what worked for me. I didn't have a drill or screws for a proper install and in my case those weren't needed. Mine had been installed for 6 months at the time using the adhesive. I told her that if she was OK with that then I'm happy to get out the ladder and install it. Turns out, the siding material on her house was different than mine and her camera only stuck to it for a couple of hours before dropping off, swinging by its solar-panel's charging cable. She stormed over, knocked aggressively on my door during my dinner, and marched me over to the swinging camera to show it to me suspended in the breeze. Her girlfriend also commented on my inept handy work.
So, I helped a neighbor and was honest upfront with a disclaimer. She accepted and then when things didn't work out she made it my fault. I was the schmuck. Oh, and I setup the software on her computer and phone so she could get email alerts for motion activity. Despite the generosity I showed with my time, when the outcome wasn't ideal I got blow-back for my good deed.
This also reminds me of the time I let my choosing beggar neighbor hop on our WiFi network until he got his installed. Needless to say, he never did get his own and became indignant when I cut his access off after several months of free use. Yep, lots of people suck.
For most of my life I have assumed that people are mostly good, and while this may actually be true, when I reflect on some of the times in my life I was stressed out it was due to extending myself to others, to then later feel taken advantage of or on the hook for future favors.
As an example, I helped an older neighbor put up a wireless security camera. I had the same camera and I used a double-sided industrial strength adhesive to affix it to the side of my house. When my neighbor asked for help and I made it clear upfront that I'm not too handy, and this is just what worked for me. I didn't have a drill or screws for a proper install and in my case those weren't needed. Mine had been installed for 6 months at the time using the adhesive. I told her that if she was OK with that then I'm happy to get out the ladder and install it. Turns out, the siding material on her house was different than mine and her camera only stuck to it for a couple of hours before dropping off, swinging by its solar-panel's charging cable. She stormed over, knocked aggressively on my door during my dinner, and marched me over to the swinging camera to show it to me suspended in the breeze. Her girlfriend also commented on my inept handy work.
So, I helped a neighbor and was honest upfront with a disclaimer. She accepted and then when things didn't work out she made it my fault. I was the schmuck. Oh, and I setup the software on her computer and phone so she could get email alerts for motion activity. Despite the generosity I showed with my time, when the outcome wasn't ideal I got blow-back for my good deed.
This also reminds me of the time I let my choosing beggar neighbor hop on our WiFi network until he got his installed. Needless to say, he never did get his own and became indignant when I cut his access off after several months of free use. Yep, lots of people suck.
Be kind to everyone and it will return to you ten fold. It is what worked for me personally and I will continue doing it. Anyone who says that been kind is a weakness, just don't know what been kind really means. Happy holidays everyone!
> Anyone who says that been kind is a weakness, just don't know what been kind really means.
Alright, what does being kind really mean?
Alright, what does being kind really mean?
Only if the people you are kind to appreciate that.
I grew up in a third world dog-eat-dog culture where kindness is generally equated with naivete and everyone has to keep their guard up against each other.
I'm still struggling with ping-ponging between being taken advantage of or being too mean. I don't know where to draw the line and with whom.
In the last couple months alone I've been played for a fool by a few people who, to put it simply, weren't deserving of kindness. It certainly has not been good for my health, mental or physical, and it's going to leave me too cold and cynical for someone who could actually use some kindness, until I being to feel bad about that and open myself up to being exploited and so the cycle repeats.
I grew up in a third world dog-eat-dog culture where kindness is generally equated with naivete and everyone has to keep their guard up against each other.
I'm still struggling with ping-ponging between being taken advantage of or being too mean. I don't know where to draw the line and with whom.
In the last couple months alone I've been played for a fool by a few people who, to put it simply, weren't deserving of kindness. It certainly has not been good for my health, mental or physical, and it's going to leave me too cold and cynical for someone who could actually use some kindness, until I being to feel bad about that and open myself up to being exploited and so the cycle repeats.
When you are kind to others, that tends to create a connection and a shared space with others. You belong more.
But what if you only make anonymous donations, or help others in ways that are "kind" but do not allow others to connect with you? What's the contribution of kindness as "morally positive actions", and the contribution of kindness as a "social(-izing) activity"?
But what if you only make anonymous donations, or help others in ways that are "kind" but do not allow others to connect with you? What's the contribution of kindness as "morally positive actions", and the contribution of kindness as a "social(-izing) activity"?
Kindness can help yourself. You can be kind to yourself by giving yourself space to rest, or not beat yourself up. Or you can help yourself feel that you are having a positive effect on the world by donating. You are actually allowed to feel good for donating, you know :)
Yeah, I suspect most of the benefits come from socializing with people who're nice to you, which being kind to others tends to result in, unless you're bad at avoiding abusive jerks.
With anonymous kindness you relinquish any external reward. Only the most fortunate or humble can afford that.
In todays world, more often than not, being kind is interpreted as weakness.
This is especially true in modern corporate environments, where incentives are aligned to promote a dog eat dog world, no matter what the corporates speak about 'values'. It is compounded by a culture where not getting a promotion or not earning ever increasing salaries, is propagated and interpreted as undeserving, weak or useless.
Human nature is described in Hindu scriptures as 'restless and unpredictable as a drunken monkey, stung by a scorpion'.
So people learn to hide their kindness, and put up a facade of toughness. But just as a lie repeated a million times is percieved as truth, a kind personality hidden behind toughness loses itself and the person becomes a shell of their former selves.
That is why you have news stories today celebrating small acts of kindness, integrity, honesty or truthfulness, where the norm is those acts should be a standard part of every persons life.
This is especially true in modern corporate environments, where incentives are aligned to promote a dog eat dog world, no matter what the corporates speak about 'values'. It is compounded by a culture where not getting a promotion or not earning ever increasing salaries, is propagated and interpreted as undeserving, weak or useless.
Human nature is described in Hindu scriptures as 'restless and unpredictable as a drunken monkey, stung by a scorpion'.
So people learn to hide their kindness, and put up a facade of toughness. But just as a lie repeated a million times is percieved as truth, a kind personality hidden behind toughness loses itself and the person becomes a shell of their former selves.
That is why you have news stories today celebrating small acts of kindness, integrity, honesty or truthfulness, where the norm is those acts should be a standard part of every persons life.
They mention only controlling for health reasons. How do they control for that? Is it even realistic to control all the health reasons?
And what about thousands of other things, such as
1) People who like to take high risks, might be less keen on communal activities, like volunteering.
2) People who have bad habits might also be less likely to volunteer.
3) Depressed, stressed out, cynical people may be less likely to volunteer.
4) Poor people are less likely to donate and also have lower life expectancy.
5) People who died earlier didn't make it into that point in life where they would be able to donate. This one is easier to control though.
And probably countless of other things? I'd need to go deep into the actual study to understand how they controlled for all of that, but right now it makes me very skeptical.
1) People who like to take high risks, might be less keen on communal activities, like volunteering.
2) People who have bad habits might also be less likely to volunteer.
3) Depressed, stressed out, cynical people may be less likely to volunteer.
4) Poor people are less likely to donate and also have lower life expectancy.
5) People who died earlier didn't make it into that point in life where they would be able to donate. This one is easier to control though.
And probably countless of other things? I'd need to go deep into the actual study to understand how they controlled for all of that, but right now it makes me very skeptical.
Yeah I was skeptical about the effectiveness of their statistical controls. But the study with high school tutors allowed to tutor or assigned to a waitlist seems like pretty conclusive evidence that volunteering actually benefits health.
> 4) Poor people are less likely to donate and also have lower life expectancy.
Poor people seems to be quite generous [1].
[1] https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/the-science-behind-b...
Poor people seems to be quite generous [1].
[1] https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/the-science-behind-b...
Well, yes, no, and maybe.
It depends on the giver and on the receiver; and therefore how healthy the relationship/exchange is. Let me explain:
* if the receiver is a narcissist/sociopath, for starter they won't value the "gift" received, nothing will ever be enough, and they always seem to attract plenty fo givers
* if the giver had the disease to please whereas their own worth is depended on being told "good job" or similar, it will eventually deteriorate since in the mind of the giver, what they give will always be > what they receive and won't end well.
* Then there's victimhood chic, where people feel that they need help on everything 24/7 and becomes a co-dependent relationship between them and - slowly but steadily - the entire world; and rapidly reaches a point of impasse since the needs keep escalating and the help keep diminishing
Buddha had the 4-part solution:
1. Help yourself
2. Climb a mountain, tell nobody
3. More suffering is needed
4. The enemy is a wonderful teacher
It depends on the giver and on the receiver; and therefore how healthy the relationship/exchange is. Let me explain:
* if the receiver is a narcissist/sociopath, for starter they won't value the "gift" received, nothing will ever be enough, and they always seem to attract plenty fo givers
* if the giver had the disease to please whereas their own worth is depended on being told "good job" or similar, it will eventually deteriorate since in the mind of the giver, what they give will always be > what they receive and won't end well.
* Then there's victimhood chic, where people feel that they need help on everything 24/7 and becomes a co-dependent relationship between them and - slowly but steadily - the entire world; and rapidly reaches a point of impasse since the needs keep escalating and the help keep diminishing
Buddha had the 4-part solution:
1. Help yourself
2. Climb a mountain, tell nobody
3. More suffering is needed
4. The enemy is a wonderful teacher
OK thank you. I'm glad I'm not the only one who immediately realized that kindness is very easily exploited by the wrong people.
I find it grating because my disposition of being kind gets me in situations where people try to exploit their perception of my kindness. There is this implication of "so you want me to think you're nice? well do this for me and I will." When it turns transactional like that - where their assumption is that I'm being kind to get something (because maybe that's how they interact - by being kind to get things), I feel like I have no choice but to switch to a very serious tone. Then comes the "you're not being very nice" which is the intent: I don't want them to think I'm being nice for personal gain. This is all very cynical and I really need to work on it, but it's a knee jerk response to what seems like slimy behavior.
>1. Help yourself
>2. Climb a mountain, tell nobody
>3. More suffering is needed
>4. The enemy is a wonderful teacher
I love wisdom like this - is there anything that talks about this in depth or is it more of a proverb only?
I find it grating because my disposition of being kind gets me in situations where people try to exploit their perception of my kindness. There is this implication of "so you want me to think you're nice? well do this for me and I will." When it turns transactional like that - where their assumption is that I'm being kind to get something (because maybe that's how they interact - by being kind to get things), I feel like I have no choice but to switch to a very serious tone. Then comes the "you're not being very nice" which is the intent: I don't want them to think I'm being nice for personal gain. This is all very cynical and I really need to work on it, but it's a knee jerk response to what seems like slimy behavior.
>1. Help yourself
>2. Climb a mountain, tell nobody
>3. More suffering is needed
>4. The enemy is a wonderful teacher
I love wisdom like this - is there anything that talks about this in depth or is it more of a proverb only?
Is being kind good for your health, or is having good health make you more kind?
From the article,
“There is research suggesting that people who are in better health are more likely to volunteer, but because scientists are very well aware of that, in our studies we statistically control for that,” says Sara Konrath
“There is research suggesting that people who are in better health are more likely to volunteer, but because scientists are very well aware of that, in our studies we statistically control for that,” says Sara Konrath
I wonder how it is possible to control for that? They mentioned only controlling for health, but what about thousands of other things?
Few as an example:
1. Individuals who do high risk activities might be less likely to do volunteer work.
2. Individuals who simply have bad habits in life might be less likely to volunteer.
3. People who die earlier won't even make it far enough to be in position to donate.
4. Poor people are less likely to be able to donate and can get less care for medicine, have worse conditions generally.
I see thousands of such examples, I don't think it's possible to control for all of that, is it? You would have to
1) List all of those things that should be controlled. I imagine already this to be an amazing feat.
2) Somehow gather all this data from people.
Few as an example:
1. Individuals who do high risk activities might be less likely to do volunteer work.
2. Individuals who simply have bad habits in life might be less likely to volunteer.
3. People who die earlier won't even make it far enough to be in position to donate.
4. Poor people are less likely to be able to donate and can get less care for medicine, have worse conditions generally.
I see thousands of such examples, I don't think it's possible to control for all of that, is it? You would have to
1) List all of those things that should be controlled. I imagine already this to be an amazing feat.
2) Somehow gather all this data from people.
If you read the article you'll see they did a prospective trial where they assigned either wait-list or volunteering to two groups. This wasn't just looking at correlations between volunteering and health.
I did read the article. The second study also raises many questions.
What is meant by wait-listing? Does it mean their future is unclear and for this reason could their stress levels be higher?
Was maybe tutoring itself the activity that worked well not the kindness part in particular?
But anyway intuitively I believe volunteering and kindness do have health benefits, definitely reduces stress, feelings of guilt and just in general makes you feel better about yourself. So from this mental state there might be health benefits.
And while chemical levels differed it is still unclear what health effects there were. Being "linked" doesn't say much.
What is meant by wait-listing? Does it mean their future is unclear and for this reason could their stress levels be higher?
Was maybe tutoring itself the activity that worked well not the kindness part in particular?
But anyway intuitively I believe volunteering and kindness do have health benefits, definitely reduces stress, feelings of guilt and just in general makes you feel better about yourself. So from this mental state there might be health benefits.
And while chemical levels differed it is still unclear what health effects there were. Being "linked" doesn't say much.
Exactly, it's not possible to control for that, just propaganda to promote volunteering as a good thing.
I love volunteering. Best feeling I the world.
My health is in shambles. So these days I have to take pride in just making sure kids have food.
Horrible feeling when people ask for help, and I know I’ll just be a burden.
My health is in shambles. So these days I have to take pride in just making sure kids have food.
Horrible feeling when people ask for help, and I know I’ll just be a burden.
How on earth can they control for that in short term studies? Is it even possible to get any statistical significance on that? Smells like bullshit, there is no way there is causation on health from volunteering.
Think about it, if you are volunteering you are likely to not just have good health, but afford good health care, have plenty of free time for various activities, less stress in life, enjoy and seek social activities, outdoor activities, etc. All those things could impact health, but not volunteering itself.
Think about it, if you are volunteering you are likely to not just have good health, but afford good health care, have plenty of free time for various activities, less stress in life, enjoy and seek social activities, outdoor activities, etc. All those things could impact health, but not volunteering itself.
If you read the article, it gives more details. For example, they did a controlled trial on two groups of students: one group was put on a waitlist, the other group given tutoring tasks. The tutoring group had lower levels of inflammatory markers.
The same wat you control for anything. You assign a group to do a specific thing. If a certain group performs better, its due to the task not preconditions, because the tasks were assigned, not observed and the selection process is random.
Why not both? (Zoidberg.)
Be kind, do no harm, and take no shit. Even if you have to tell someone to go fuck themselves, you can find a kind way to do it, which might actually more effective.
[deleted]
At some point, I switched off mentally towards my colleagues. NGAF and being kind can pass for the same thing for a while but indifference has its own problems.
Was kind for 5-6 years, but found out It drained me out. Sorry, but I won't be this time, this year, later, ever again so much to so many people.
Perhaps you spent so much energy being kind to others that you forgot to be more kind to yourself?
This dial has more than two positions, you know...
Does watching people be kind to others also have health benefits? I’ve noticed quite a bit of videos on YouTube about tipping people large sums of money or giving away items to strangers and use that as evidence that people like to watch them. Are people attracted (not consciously) to the same mental/physical benefit?
Yes. Also being kind to yourself goes a long way. Once we are above the self-credit, self-blame, etc., the brain creates a positive impact to our health. Accepting the reality gracefully also helps our health, though it is not same as being kind.
Many IRC channels have a culture of generosity, strangers assisting each other in real time. More generally, I wonder if this and working on open source projects would be equivalent to helping strangers/volunteering in real life.
Forgiveness too.
Forgive everyone who you imagine did you wrong. And imagine everyone forgiving you.
Then forgive yourself.
Forgive everyone who you imagine did you wrong. And imagine everyone forgiving you.
Then forgive yourself.
His effective powerful prayers brought my lover back just in 24 hours.......
He has solution to all relationship/marriage problem and health issues such as herpes…? ???????????? ??? ??? ??
Robinson.buckler @ ‘ ‘ yahoo ‘ ‘ . ‘ ‘ com !!!!!!!
Thank you!!!!!!!
He has solution to all relationship/marriage problem and health issues such as herpes…? ???????????? ??? ??? ??
Robinson.buckler @ ‘ ‘ yahoo ‘ ‘ . ‘ ‘ com !!!!!!!
Thank you!!!!!!!
The book "Art of Happiness" surely agrees with this title, it has the points of view of science and religion (Buddhism) on it and reaches the same conclusion.
Great book.
Great book.
Causation may be backwards here - people with good mental health are more likely to be kind to others because there is no mental baggage standing in the way.
Could it simply be that people who are kind to others are happier in their lives, and being happy and satisfied is correlated to being healthy?
Or maybe it's the opposite. Healthier people not only care about themselves more, but about others as well.
Does kindness include lying by omission?
I would say being a jerk reduces your life expectancy by inviting aggressive behavior towards you.
As with basically every study that comes out these days in the social sciences, my response is: "We'll see."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
> I live in New York, which has a basic culture of "hyper aggressiveness."
Are you sure you're not over-generalizing from your social circles? That's quite the generalization. I think I know a bunch of New-Yorkers who would disagree.
Are you sure you're not over-generalizing from your social circles? That's quite the generalization. I think I know a bunch of New-Yorkers who would disagree.
Kindness is how we'll save our planet
Kindness is a polite word for love
Kindness is a polite word for love
Mods: orig title starts with the word "Why"
Also, you know, the right thing to do...
I try to help people in a leveraged way.
Related tip: avoid mean people
Much easier to be kind when you’re in good health.
Well, yeah, being alone puts you at higher risk of schizophrenia and dementia, experiencing and expressing negative emotions makes you stressed and tired, we're social animals.
Kind of interesting how as a society we seem to be rejecting it - a lot of technology enables us to be alone or at least not in direct contact with others.
I wonder what the ramifications of that will be in the future.
Kind of interesting how as a society we seem to be rejecting it - a lot of technology enables us to be alone or at least not in direct contact with others.
I wonder what the ramifications of that will be in the future.
> …a lot of technology enables us to be alone or at least not in direct contact with others.
What I've seen during the pandemic is that technology enables my family to be in direct contact (if not physically) with others for most of our waking time. Certainly, my kids spend more time with their friends virtually than I did with mine physically as a child.
Does the physical part matter? The article references a study where altruistic behavior (a donation) has benefits even if that behavior isn't done in person.
What I've seen during the pandemic is that technology enables my family to be in direct contact (if not physically) with others for most of our waking time. Certainly, my kids spend more time with their friends virtually than I did with mine physically as a child.
Does the physical part matter? The article references a study where altruistic behavior (a donation) has benefits even if that behavior isn't done in person.
Reality is constructed of information states if we really want to be honest with ourselves. There is never really a _true_ information state. Charles Sanders Peirce called the world we build a 'phaneron,' the information state as presented by the senses. Everyone's eyes are a blurry figment of what the true photonic field is. Same with touch when it comes to surfaces and well, all the senses. And those senses degrade over time as we age.
I hate hearing the phrase 'real world' or 'physical' being used to describe non-electronic interaction. Call the in-person stuff analog if you'd like. But the digital stuff is just as real. We never have the entire quantum state of other people accessible. We always just get a small blurry sample of their true presence. Does it matter whether it goes through air or down a copper wire?
The only difference is with regard to security. I can see that argument as valid. But unless security/imposters are a concern, it's still the real deal.
I hate hearing the phrase 'real world' or 'physical' being used to describe non-electronic interaction. Call the in-person stuff analog if you'd like. But the digital stuff is just as real. We never have the entire quantum state of other people accessible. We always just get a small blurry sample of their true presence. Does it matter whether it goes through air or down a copper wire?
The only difference is with regard to security. I can see that argument as valid. But unless security/imposters are a concern, it's still the real deal.
Our bodies are composed of information too.
LOL basically you have to accept that our current scientific understanding is that our minds are embodied constructs (your mind doesn’t exist in any meaningful way without your brain, which is a physical organ and fundamentally and essentially integrated with the body).
Thought itself is embodied.
Your argument proves the necessity of physical contact for human health.
Our biologies - our brains and bodies - require the information (chemical impulses, electrical impulses, etc) provided by our senses when embodied physical touch, sight, sound, the body heat of another person, etc, occur.
Unless a perfect simulacra of physical human interaction (including the ability for us to move our own physical bodies) was created, there will always be a lack of the information (consider the chemicals released by exercise, by a hug, and impact of said chemicals on the brain, the combination of chemicals from eating with the chemicals of being close to someone you like) which our embodied minds require for health.
You’d have to put a brain in a vat and feed it every single electrical impulse and chemical it would normally receive from being part of the body.
Otherwise you lose information and god knows what happens.
I don’t deny the value of interaction via the Internet, etc.
To imply it is anywhere near replacing the information density of embodied physical contact is just a sign of a lack of information - education - about all this stuff.
LOL basically you have to accept that our current scientific understanding is that our minds are embodied constructs (your mind doesn’t exist in any meaningful way without your brain, which is a physical organ and fundamentally and essentially integrated with the body).
Thought itself is embodied.
Your argument proves the necessity of physical contact for human health.
Our biologies - our brains and bodies - require the information (chemical impulses, electrical impulses, etc) provided by our senses when embodied physical touch, sight, sound, the body heat of another person, etc, occur.
Unless a perfect simulacra of physical human interaction (including the ability for us to move our own physical bodies) was created, there will always be a lack of the information (consider the chemicals released by exercise, by a hug, and impact of said chemicals on the brain, the combination of chemicals from eating with the chemicals of being close to someone you like) which our embodied minds require for health.
You’d have to put a brain in a vat and feed it every single electrical impulse and chemical it would normally receive from being part of the body.
Otherwise you lose information and god knows what happens.
I don’t deny the value of interaction via the Internet, etc.
To imply it is anywhere near replacing the information density of embodied physical contact is just a sign of a lack of information - education - about all this stuff.
I understand the idea, but sadly we're tied to these primitive bodies that have their own needs and urges.
Perhaps in the future we will learn to shut off the primal instincts, but for now, it seems to do more bad than good if we ignore them.
Perhaps in the future we will learn to shut off the primal instincts, but for now, it seems to do more bad than good if we ignore them.
Agreed. Want to gently critique:
> sadly we're tied to these primitive bodies
Our bodies (and the sensations and emotions produced by them) are not primitive. They’re super sophisticated and we are nowhere near being able to replicate them.
There’s interesting work btw on the fundamentally intertwined nature of emotion and “rational” thought.
> sadly we're tied to these primitive bodies
Our bodies (and the sensations and emotions produced by them) are not primitive. They’re super sophisticated and we are nowhere near being able to replicate them.
There’s interesting work btw on the fundamentally intertwined nature of emotion and “rational” thought.
By primitive, I mostly meant the primitive brain and responses.
Emotions are a drawback imo, the fact that they're so deeply intertwined with the logical parts is a drawback.
We often act against our own best interests and health purely because we're afraid, for example.
Biological bodies are indeed, very sophisticated and versatile, too bad we can't control any of the features.
Emotions are a drawback imo, the fact that they're so deeply intertwined with the logical parts is a drawback.
We often act against our own best interests and health purely because we're afraid, for example.
Biological bodies are indeed, very sophisticated and versatile, too bad we can't control any of the features.
> Emotions are a drawback imo, the fact that they're so deeply intertwined with the logical parts is a drawback.
Homie I hope you eventually wake up and smell the coffee :).
Take away emotions, lol, and you literally are no longer a human being.
Lol take away emotions and you literally die - fear, anger, sadness,desire, hunger, joy, curiosity. Intellectual curiosity is an emotion. The joy of solving a problem, doing something with some slick and elegant logic? Emotion.
> We often act against our own best interests and health purely because we're afraid, for example.
Best interest? The very concept fundamentally depends on caring about something - being alive, the good of humanity, whatever. Caring about absolutely anything? An emotion :).
We actually are able to control a lot, but not all of our bodies. Once we accept that we are inherently emotional beings and work on being more conscious of our feelings and mindful ;).
FWIW while it’s a lifelong effort, practicing to neutrally observe our feelings and treat them more as data to analyze, without divorcing ourselves from them or denying them, is a powerful tool to counterbalance the ease of confusing a transitory feeling with one’s self and the counterproductive behavior or decision-making which often stems from that. AKA practicing mindfulness.
Lol which I’m not really doing, writing such a heated comment ;).
Laughter? Emotion.
I don’t know if you’ve noticed but computers are perfectly logical and have no emotion and they’re not fucking alive.
Take a page from Commander Data’s book and try to appreciate the fundamental nature of humanity :).
Homie I hope you eventually wake up and smell the coffee :).
Take away emotions, lol, and you literally are no longer a human being.
Lol take away emotions and you literally die - fear, anger, sadness,desire, hunger, joy, curiosity. Intellectual curiosity is an emotion. The joy of solving a problem, doing something with some slick and elegant logic? Emotion.
> We often act against our own best interests and health purely because we're afraid, for example.
Best interest? The very concept fundamentally depends on caring about something - being alive, the good of humanity, whatever. Caring about absolutely anything? An emotion :).
We actually are able to control a lot, but not all of our bodies. Once we accept that we are inherently emotional beings and work on being more conscious of our feelings and mindful ;).
FWIW while it’s a lifelong effort, practicing to neutrally observe our feelings and treat them more as data to analyze, without divorcing ourselves from them or denying them, is a powerful tool to counterbalance the ease of confusing a transitory feeling with one’s self and the counterproductive behavior or decision-making which often stems from that. AKA practicing mindfulness.
Lol which I’m not really doing, writing such a heated comment ;).
Laughter? Emotion.
I don’t know if you’ve noticed but computers are perfectly logical and have no emotion and they’re not fucking alive.
Take a page from Commander Data’s book and try to appreciate the fundamental nature of humanity :).
Perhaps you're right. My opinion has only been formulated from my own experience, so it's very limited. Emotions have simply been a net negative for me, and I barely experience the good ones.
Word. And I appreciate your thoughtful response. Emotions aren't easy - they're work. Like with many things though, the work pays off over time.
The most surprising part of therapy to me was just how rational, analytical, and logical it all is. Like, things start to make sense which didn't before. Therapy has many components but identifying irrational distortions in our own thought processes is a huge part of it. Which strengthens our ability to rationally assess and interact with our own feelings as they arise.
Thus, counterintuitively, embracing emotional work actually decreases the discomfort/negative impacts of the unpleasant or negative emotions we wish to avoid. Unfortunately, avoidance actually makes it worse.
And therapy often feels unpleasant, but, so does exercise. And therapy's a lot less unpleasant than whatever motivates one to engage in therapy to begin with ;).
LOL FWIW I've basically found that personal growth is a process of discovering my own backwards/inverted internal logics. : /.
If the stuff I said before resonates, FYI, it's all basically cribbed from Buddhist thought or research on mindfulness (UCLA has a pretty good center doing mindfulness research & this is a good book: https://www.uclahealth.org/marc/fully-present).
I got lucky enough to be able to do (still do) a significant amount of therapy w/a skilled shrink (psychologist with Phd with at least some cognitive-behavioral background work, ideally having significant clinical experience) which has been a huge help to me. I also got lucky and the shrink in question had excellent judgement and was the right kind of person for me, which is critical. Seen bad shrinks too.
Lol so all this means I'm definitely biased from my own experience.
FWIW I hope you find opportunities to cultivate the good emotions as they arrive in your life, from a simple cup of coffee (or whatever you like) to whatever. In addition to it's own benefits, this has been shown to improve our ability to manage or mitigate negative emotions in a healthy way.
I don't do it enough but there's significant amounts of research showing that writing in a journal (about anything) about ten minutes a day has really positive mental health outcomes, as does making a daily short list of 2-3 small things (like coffee ; ) to be grateful for.
And of course stuff like exercise, yoga, some kind of physical activity. Sorry if I've gotten preachy - as you can tell it's something I have strong feelings about, hah, pun intended.
Point being, while I can't speak to your circumstances, as a general rule it's actually very simple and straightforward to apply (but simple isn't the same as easy! Doing 101 pushups - simple, not easy) all the good science around specific, straightforward techniques for increasing genuine and healthy positive emotions, and mitigating the discomfort of negative ones or sort of neutralizing them altogether.
And all of this eventually helps one cease any self-destructive coping/self-medication behaviors (which I have done/do) - drugs, alcohol, computer games, overwork, etc, which, in this context, beyond their moment of actual use, make negative emotions worse and make it tougher to experience positive emotions.
Like mastery of any skill it takes patience and time but pays off in a big way.
peace! :)
-a
The most surprising part of therapy to me was just how rational, analytical, and logical it all is. Like, things start to make sense which didn't before. Therapy has many components but identifying irrational distortions in our own thought processes is a huge part of it. Which strengthens our ability to rationally assess and interact with our own feelings as they arise.
Thus, counterintuitively, embracing emotional work actually decreases the discomfort/negative impacts of the unpleasant or negative emotions we wish to avoid. Unfortunately, avoidance actually makes it worse.
And therapy often feels unpleasant, but, so does exercise. And therapy's a lot less unpleasant than whatever motivates one to engage in therapy to begin with ;).
LOL FWIW I've basically found that personal growth is a process of discovering my own backwards/inverted internal logics. : /.
If the stuff I said before resonates, FYI, it's all basically cribbed from Buddhist thought or research on mindfulness (UCLA has a pretty good center doing mindfulness research & this is a good book: https://www.uclahealth.org/marc/fully-present).
I got lucky enough to be able to do (still do) a significant amount of therapy w/a skilled shrink (psychologist with Phd with at least some cognitive-behavioral background work, ideally having significant clinical experience) which has been a huge help to me. I also got lucky and the shrink in question had excellent judgement and was the right kind of person for me, which is critical. Seen bad shrinks too.
Lol so all this means I'm definitely biased from my own experience.
FWIW I hope you find opportunities to cultivate the good emotions as they arrive in your life, from a simple cup of coffee (or whatever you like) to whatever. In addition to it's own benefits, this has been shown to improve our ability to manage or mitigate negative emotions in a healthy way.
I don't do it enough but there's significant amounts of research showing that writing in a journal (about anything) about ten minutes a day has really positive mental health outcomes, as does making a daily short list of 2-3 small things (like coffee ; ) to be grateful for.
And of course stuff like exercise, yoga, some kind of physical activity. Sorry if I've gotten preachy - as you can tell it's something I have strong feelings about, hah, pun intended.
Point being, while I can't speak to your circumstances, as a general rule it's actually very simple and straightforward to apply (but simple isn't the same as easy! Doing 101 pushups - simple, not easy) all the good science around specific, straightforward techniques for increasing genuine and healthy positive emotions, and mitigating the discomfort of negative ones or sort of neutralizing them altogether.
And all of this eventually helps one cease any self-destructive coping/self-medication behaviors (which I have done/do) - drugs, alcohol, computer games, overwork, etc, which, in this context, beyond their moment of actual use, make negative emotions worse and make it tougher to experience positive emotions.
Like mastery of any skill it takes patience and time but pays off in a big way.
peace! :)
-a
Everything you wrote is interesting, as I am trying to meditate and exercise more, figure out my own brain/mind and what exactly I can change in my life, so thank you!
Welcome, and thank you! That’s awesome. Meditation is something I should do as well.
Thank you as well, to the both of you. I really had nothing to say other than to observe the insightful wisdom displayed in response to my otherwise arcane comment. I _did_ play the devil's advocate a bit, to my own actual opinion. And was pleasantly surprised to see the backlash generate such helpful advice.
We are emotional systems first and foremost, not logical ones. Easy to get that one backwards ;-)
I like your analogy about desires. It is the most immediate rebuttal to pure ethereal logic.
We are emotional systems first and foremost, not logical ones. Easy to get that one backwards ;-)
I like your analogy about desires. It is the most immediate rebuttal to pure ethereal logic.
The issue is that in-person interactions provide a bunch of sensory information that doesn’t come from a screen (touch/smell/taste/3D/surround sound).
There is a reason people don’t say, “I was really in Hawaii when they just watched a video or did a video call with a friend there”.
There is a reason people don’t say, “I was really in Hawaii when they just watched a video or did a video call with a friend there”.
I believe it matters. I mean, sure, short term you can stay apart. But can you imagine not getting even a hug for 5, 10 years?
Helping others any way I can does make me feel good (so does receiving help, for that matter), I guess that's the case for the majority.
Helping others any way I can does make me feel good (so does receiving help, for that matter), I guess that's the case for the majority.
> But can you imagine not getting even a hug for 5, 10 years?
Yes? My friends did not hug each other growing up. Hugs were for family members, which the kids are with every day during the pandemic.
Yes? My friends did not hug each other growing up. Hugs were for family members, which the kids are with every day during the pandemic.
Leaving out all the garbage - "Research actually testing whether volunteering could have a protective effect against Covid-19 has yet to be conducted" - the article is just Blue Zone Theory.
- Being social with other human beings (in person) is good for you.
- Light exercise is good for you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Zone has issues, but I think it's approximately good.
- Being social with other human beings (in person) is good for you.
- Light exercise is good for you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Zone has issues, but I think it's approximately good.
"Happiness? It's quite simple. Practice ALTRUISM" --Unknown
The alternatives are:
Victim. "I am too weak and poor to help anyone but I expect people to help me." This belief corrodes you.
Stoic(can't think of a better word.) "I don't help anyone and therefore I don't expect anyone to help me". Well, better than the victim but ends up passing up many opportunities where others are genuinely ready to help.
Abuser "I don't bother to help others but I take advantage of them" - becomes obvious very quickly and you are ostracized and hated.
Doormat "I help everyone but because I don't have healthy boundaries, I end up attracting abusers and victims." Gross.
The "best people" are clear and confident with their boundaries and generous with their time and resources when people are on the right side of the boundary. I see this a lot with truly successful senior managers and businesspeople, for example.
Even in politics, when a candidate runs for office, they want to tell stories of "X came to me and needed help and I really took the time to hear them and help them (kindness). Then Y came and they sought to rip us off and I told them to go fuck themselves (boundaries)." We seek that as species, we expect that out of the best among us, and therefore we reward those who operate from this place (and it's good for lots of other reasons.)