5 ms·

I am bit annoyed at these feel-goody "minimalism" articles, almost always inevitably written by some rich kid, who, if they were to live their preachy minimalis

by yoo1I 10y ago

I am bit annoyed at these feel-goody "minimalism" articles, almost always inevitably written by some rich kid, who, if they were to live their preachy minimalism, could at moments notice buy the thing they need in that moment. For everyone else on this planet for whom financial security is not a given, it makes sense to keep more things around than needed in a given instance. So yeah, if you want to declutter your life, go ahead. But don't think that your newly discovered boring lifestyle choices are somehow so good that everyone else needs to make them as well. Especially if the depth of it is "have and do less things, I promise it will make you happy".

sdoering 10y ago
Especially as decluttering doesn't automatically make you happy (in the long term). Like buying stuff doesn't make you happy/unhappy as well. These "do as I say" because "I am the norm" types pf postings are such a drag. A sample of size 1 doesn't have any valid information in it. It is an anecdote - and nothing more. To infer from that is BS imho.
- unclebucknasty 10y ago
  >A sample of size 1 doesn't have any valid information in it. It is an anecdote - and nothing more. To infer from that is BS imho. But, if that sample set had been pg or "similar", it would have been received differently. An entire industry exists that seeks to impart "life wisdom" based on a sample set of one. I've long been over the "here's how I do it, so you should too" books/advice out there, irrespective of the source. But, most people gobble it up if the author is perceived to be successful. However, when the author is "just some guy like everyone else" it tends to come off as preachy and of limited value. But, let 'ol James strike it big, and his books on minimalism will sell out.
  - sdoering 10y ago
    > But, if that sample set had been pg or "similar", it would have been received differently. Not for me. It could also have been Tim Ferriss or any one such entity. > But, most people gobble it up if the author is perceived to be successful. Sadly so. Advice from a (percieved) successful person tends to kill critical thinking for lots of people. >> A sample of size 1 doesn't have any valid information in it. But to be more diplomatic: It might have some inspiration for your own testing, though. Maybe I should learn to be more diplomatic and less black/white.
    - unclebucknasty 10y ago
      >It could also have been Tim Ferriss Ha! Yeah, especially not that guy. He's one person who helped me to get over the whole "seeking advice" thing, with his highly specific "worked for me, so everyone else should do it too" schtick. The advice that's funniest is that wherein if everyone actually followed it, then it could not possibly be effective. Yeah, let's all 1.35 million people who bought the book relocate to a small country where the exchange rate is favorable, start a niche business, and test our products by putting up phony websites with "buy" buttons that don't actually work so we can measure demand. That should work out well for all of us. >tends to kill critical thinking Indeed. In fact, the act of seeking advice can be a creativity killer. It's a mindset of "let me replicate this other person" vs using my unique experience and knowledge to innovate. None of this is to say never learn from others or take advice. Just that there is a culture of hero worship and elevation of others over self that I believe is counterproductive for many. But, you know, don't take my advice. :)
- csydas 10y ago
  I think that's an overly critical reading of a kind of flowery blog-post, and putting a lot of emotion behind what I think was more "hey, try this and see if it helps" as opposed to "DO THIS". I do agree that if it was being offered as a panacea for all modern woes there'd be reason for harsher scrutiny, but as it stands, it's just some blogger opining that having less might help a bit since they believe it's an unfulfilling task for the amount of time and effort. Also, it's not as if this blogger is the only person to suggest minimalism; there was an article on HN not too long ago about how minimalism is kicking up in Japan - a casual search for minimalism will show that it's an idea with some following that is a style of philosophy more than anything really. I'm not sure why this prompted such a harsh reaction, since it's just a fluffy article.
  - sdoering 10y ago
    Oh I was being critical. I know. Non the less - I love the idea of minimalism for me personally (even if I do not live it in large parts of my life). For me as a person decluttering personal relationships and being very selective of people I let into my life is refreshing, freeing and more. Also when I do buy "stuff" I tend to by tools, not "real stuff". And I tend to watch for quality/value first, not price. Something I also learned from the minimalism community. Non the less - I just do not like this notion of N=1 has to work for all. I like to be critical and take such things with a huge grain of salt. But yes - I could have formulated my critique a little bit more diplomatically.
    - csydas 10y ago
      Fair enough. To be honest, I do agree with you that such articles should be condemned when they occur, but I just felt that this was much. And I think you have a reasonable position.
ethanbond 10y ago
Could it be that they have the resources to purchase necessary items because they opted not to purchase the several dozen unnecessary items that their non-minimalist peers had sprung for? It's well established that poorer people not only have fewer resources, but are generally worse at allocating the resources they do have. This is attributed to a difference in perception of money (something to spend vs something to save). It's not a difference between being able to purchase an item versus not being able to. It's a difference between being able to invest heavily in each item you own — certainly a privilege of the well off. In any case, whether the loudest advocates of minimalism are annoying or not, our base level of consumption is far too high for a variety of reasons: environmental, economic, and yes, I think emotional. There are immense resources poured into making people want/need/desire more "things," and if their ability to acquire "things" doesn't make that possible, there's an inherent damage to a person's psyche.
- yoo1I 10y ago
  "Minimalism" isn't the same as being poor. To be honest I don't think your first point is accurate. People aren't poor, because they spend a lot of money, they are poor because they don't have a lot of money. To say that you can lift yourself and your family out of poverty by saving money, makes not a lot of sense. And lot's of the items that one would perceive as unnecessary from a financially comfortable position, don't maybe look that way when you're in the situation yourself. Sure, eating beans everyday might save you money, but then you've spent your life eating beans, and in the end that wasn't the deciding factor. That said, there are many people ( and I agree with you, our society as a whole probably does) who live above their means continually, I just don't think that that's a problem that's confined to poor people. You said > It's well established that poorer [...] are generally worse at allocating the resources they do have. Would you mind expanding on that a little, or link me to some material that you've found useful ?
  - msandford 10y ago
    Well there are people who make $100k living paycheck to paycheck and there are people who make $40k but spend even less and as such grow their assets. Being poor is a thing you can dig yourself out of but it takes a huge amount of energy to do so. It's excruciating to not spend on comfort when you're uncomfortable but that's what it takes. Which is probably why so few people manage to "pull themselves up by their boot straps"
noonespecial 10y ago
It does seem pretty silly when after a good look it turns out that they are really saying, "be happy with all the things you don't need to have because you're so rich you can get them at a moments notice any time you want." It's all so much "I don't even own a television" for the modern ear.
eumoria 10y ago
Yea defintely this. One of the comments is the story of Derek Sivers and cdbaby. His blog post doesn't request anything of you but claims a "simple life" is superior. What it really doesn't do is explain that he will never have to work another day in his life, will always have a nice place to live and food. He worked hard for his wealth but having someone in that position preach the "minimal life" is a little silly. It's easy to not worry when you don't have anything to worry about.
jondubois 10y ago
Yes so true. All this stuff about "de-cluttering your life" makes no sense to regular people. Regular people can barely afford to put a roof over their heads, they would love to be in a position as to have 'too much clutter' in their lives.
kazagistar 10y ago
Maybe it's not an article for everyone, but just somewhat rich people who feel like they live cluttered lives? I thought the start made that clear. On hacker news, there are likely to be people in exactly that situation, since programing pays well and entrepreneurship is a rich man's game. Not all articles have to be about the poor or useful for the poor.
graeme 10y ago
>I am bit annoyed at these feel-goody "minimalism" articles, almost always inevitably written by some rich kid, who, if they were to live their preachy minimalism, could at moments notice buy the thing they need in that moment. That's the point, actually. No article is for everyone. Once you get past a certain point in wealth/income though, stuff becomes a burden rather than an aid. Realizing that you don't need much of the stuff you keep "just in case" is incredibly useful. Maybe the upper 40% in Western societies fall into that category? +/- 20%. note: downvoted by mistake while copying the quote. Sorry about that!
drzaiusapelord 10y ago
Agreed, this is more limousine liberalism. My parents were immigrants and I made special efforts to live above their lifestyle as an adult. Its satisfying and I find no pleasure in living in shitty neighborhoods and worrying about life paycheck to paycheck. I've been there. Its fucking terrible. Having money is wonderful and, regardless of what the media tells you, it does very much make you happy, at least up to a degree. When you don't have money, then that's all you worry about. When you have it, you can focus on other things. Ironically, I probably should be some kind of liberal, but see myself more of a strict moderate. As a Chicagoan, I just saw my property tax rise thousands of dollars a year to pay for public sector union deals signed in the backroom in the 1980s by liberals with a "pass the problems onto the future" attitude. Now my generation is paying for boomer excess. Now "liking what I have" gets harder because I need to work harder to make up for that lost money. My wife and I just cancelled a trip and I'm shopping around for cheaper house insurance and other small things to save money. Considering we're going to be on the receiving end of further tax hikes, which leads to household cuts, how the hell can we even follow his "like what you have" advice? You guys are taking what I have! I noticed the limousine liberal never talks about tax cuts, helping entrepreneurs, helping create jobs and prosperity, etc. They just seem to idolize poverty and taxing middle-class families and when we complain, they tell us to enjoy being poor. What a loathsome philosophy.
csydas 10y ago
> For everyone else on this planet for whom financial security is not a given, it makes sense to keep more things around than needed in a given instance. I'm not sure that this necessarily follows. What is the sense is there, let's say, of having a basement full of christmas decorations, far more than you have space in your home to put up? Or of having three 8-person dinner sets? Or of keeping clothes that you haven't worn in years? Like, the natural conclusion of having money isn't to just buy things for the sake of it, but that you can get what you need instead. Minimalism isn't just "have less", it's use less. See I guess I'm technically a minimalist, but not really by choice - it was a necessity as I moved frequently, always by the skin of my teeth and on my last dollar. I'm "rich" insomuch that I have no outstanding debt (worked full time to pay for University, lived a very frugal lifestyle (lots of eggs+rice for a long time)). It's really weird to me when a template for minimalists gets created, as if the only natural reason why you wouldn't want a lot of things is because you're rich enough to get them. I wasn't starving as I got more from jobs, but I also didn't immediately rush out to fill my apartment with crap once I had a tiny bit saved up.
- yoo1I 10y ago
  Except, the opposite of > own as little as possible, for a clutter-free, minimalist lifestyle is not > keep your basement and your cupboards full of useless junk It seems reasonable to keep one set of Christmas decoration, maybe one and a half if you don't want it to look the same every year, keep one 8-person dinner set for the three times a year you might need it. Occasionally go through your wardrobe to see if you still want to wear all your clothes, and give those away you don't want, but maybe keep two pieces that you never wear just because you like them. A persons life is probably full of examples like this, where it's reasonable to keep items that aren't exactly useful every day, or even every month. These things add up and come to be called clutter, just maybe because they're many pieces, even though they all have their purpose. And don't get me wrong, there is absolutely junk that's too much, and that one probably doesn't need to keep. But in the end this minimalist idea always seems a bit juvenile to me, where when confronted with complexity, the solution is to throw everything out instead of organizing it, recognizing that there aren't perfect systems of organization and managing to live with a small bit of actual clutter, but at the same time being able to actually host some friends coming over for dinner or fix something that's broken without first having to procure a screwdriver.

by yoo1I 10y ago

sdoering 10y ago

Especially as decluttering doesn't automatically make you happy (in the long term). Like buying stuff doesn't make you happy/unhappy as well. These "do as I say" because "I am the norm" types pf postings are such a drag. A sample of size 1 doesn't have any valid information in it. It is an anecdote - and nothing more. To infer from that is BS imho.

unclebucknasty 10y ago
>A sample of size 1 doesn't have any valid information in it. It is an anecdote - and nothing more. To infer from that is BS imho. But, if that sample set had been pg or "similar", it would have been received differently. An entire industry exists that seeks to impart "life wisdom" based on a sample set of one. I've long been over the "here's how I do it, so you should too" books/advice out there, irrespective of the source. But, most people gobble it up if the author is perceived to be successful. However, when the author is "just some guy like everyone else" it tends to come off as preachy and of limited value. But, let 'ol James strike it big, and his books on minimalism will sell out.
- sdoering 10y ago
  > But, if that sample set had been pg or "similar", it would have been received differently. Not for me. It could also have been Tim Ferriss or any one such entity. > But, most people gobble it up if the author is perceived to be successful. Sadly so. Advice from a (percieved) successful person tends to kill critical thinking for lots of people. >> A sample of size 1 doesn't have any valid information in it. But to be more diplomatic: It might have some inspiration for your own testing, though. Maybe I should learn to be more diplomatic and less black/white.
  - unclebucknasty 10y ago
    >It could also have been Tim Ferriss Ha! Yeah, especially not that guy. He's one person who helped me to get over the whole "seeking advice" thing, with his highly specific "worked for me, so everyone else should do it too" schtick. The advice that's funniest is that wherein if everyone actually followed it, then it could not possibly be effective. Yeah, let's all 1.35 million people who bought the book relocate to a small country where the exchange rate is favorable, start a niche business, and test our products by putting up phony websites with "buy" buttons that don't actually work so we can measure demand. That should work out well for all of us. >tends to kill critical thinking Indeed. In fact, the act of seeking advice can be a creativity killer. It's a mindset of "let me replicate this other person" vs using my unique experience and knowledge to innovate. None of this is to say never learn from others or take advice. Just that there is a culture of hero worship and elevation of others over self that I believe is counterproductive for many. But, you know, don't take my advice. :)
csydas 10y ago
I think that's an overly critical reading of a kind of flowery blog-post, and putting a lot of emotion behind what I think was more "hey, try this and see if it helps" as opposed to "DO THIS". I do agree that if it was being offered as a panacea for all modern woes there'd be reason for harsher scrutiny, but as it stands, it's just some blogger opining that having less might help a bit since they believe it's an unfulfilling task for the amount of time and effort. Also, it's not as if this blogger is the only person to suggest minimalism; there was an article on HN not too long ago about how minimalism is kicking up in Japan - a casual search for minimalism will show that it's an idea with some following that is a style of philosophy more than anything really. I'm not sure why this prompted such a harsh reaction, since it's just a fluffy article.
- sdoering 10y ago
  Oh I was being critical. I know. Non the less - I love the idea of minimalism for me personally (even if I do not live it in large parts of my life). For me as a person decluttering personal relationships and being very selective of people I let into my life is refreshing, freeing and more. Also when I do buy "stuff" I tend to by tools, not "real stuff". And I tend to watch for quality/value first, not price. Something I also learned from the minimalism community. Non the less - I just do not like this notion of N=1 has to work for all. I like to be critical and take such things with a huge grain of salt. But yes - I could have formulated my critique a little bit more diplomatically.
  - csydas 10y ago
    Fair enough. To be honest, I do agree with you that such articles should be condemned when they occur, but I just felt that this was much. And I think you have a reasonable position.

ethanbond 10y ago

Could it be that they have the resources to purchase necessary items because they opted not to purchase the several dozen unnecessary items that their non-minimalist peers had sprung for? It's well established that poorer people not only have fewer resources, but are generally worse at allocating the resources they do have. This is attributed to a difference in perception of money (something to spend vs something to save). It's not a difference between being able to purchase an item versus not being able to. It's a difference between being able to invest heavily in each item you own — certainly a privilege of the well off. In any case, whether the loudest advocates of minimalism are annoying or not, our base level of consumption is far too high for a variety of reasons: environmental, economic, and yes, I think emotional. There are immense resources poured into making people want/need/desire more "things," and if their ability to acquire "things" doesn't make that possible, there's an inherent damage to a person's psyche.

yoo1I 10y ago
"Minimalism" isn't the same as being poor. To be honest I don't think your first point is accurate. People aren't poor, because they spend a lot of money, they are poor because they don't have a lot of money. To say that you can lift yourself and your family out of poverty by saving money, makes not a lot of sense. And lot's of the items that one would perceive as unnecessary from a financially comfortable position, don't maybe look that way when you're in the situation yourself. Sure, eating beans everyday might save you money, but then you've spent your life eating beans, and in the end that wasn't the deciding factor. That said, there are many people ( and I agree with you, our society as a whole probably does) who live above their means continually, I just don't think that that's a problem that's confined to poor people. You said > It's well established that poorer [...] are generally worse at allocating the resources they do have. Would you mind expanding on that a little, or link me to some material that you've found useful ?
- msandford 10y ago
  Well there are people who make $100k living paycheck to paycheck and there are people who make $40k but spend even less and as such grow their assets. Being poor is a thing you can dig yourself out of but it takes a huge amount of energy to do so. It's excruciating to not spend on comfort when you're uncomfortable but that's what it takes. Which is probably why so few people manage to "pull themselves up by their boot straps"

noonespecial 10y ago

It does seem pretty silly when after a good look it turns out that they are really saying, "be happy with all the things you don't need to have because you're so rich you can get them at a moments notice any time you want." It's all so much "I don't even own a television" for the modern ear.

eumoria 10y ago

Yea defintely this. One of the comments is the story of Derek Sivers and cdbaby. His blog post doesn't request anything of you but claims a "simple life" is superior. What it really doesn't do is explain that he will never have to work another day in his life, will always have a nice place to live and food. He worked hard for his wealth but having someone in that position preach the "minimal life" is a little silly. It's easy to not worry when you don't have anything to worry about.

jondubois 10y ago

Yes so true. All this stuff about "de-cluttering your life" makes no sense to regular people. Regular people can barely afford to put a roof over their heads, they would love to be in a position as to have 'too much clutter' in their lives.

kazagistar 10y ago

Maybe it's not an article for everyone, but just somewhat rich people who feel like they live cluttered lives? I thought the start made that clear. On hacker news, there are likely to be people in exactly that situation, since programing pays well and entrepreneurship is a rich man's game. Not all articles have to be about the poor or useful for the poor.

graeme 10y ago

>I am bit annoyed at these feel-goody "minimalism" articles, almost always inevitably written by some rich kid, who, if they were to live their preachy minimalism, could at moments notice buy the thing they need in that moment. That's the point, actually. No article is for everyone. Once you get past a certain point in wealth/income though, stuff becomes a burden rather than an aid. Realizing that you don't need much of the stuff you keep "just in case" is incredibly useful. Maybe the upper 40% in Western societies fall into that category? +/- 20%. note: downvoted by mistake while copying the quote. Sorry about that!

drzaiusapelord 10y ago

Agreed, this is more limousine liberalism. My parents were immigrants and I made special efforts to live above their lifestyle as an adult. Its satisfying and I find no pleasure in living in shitty neighborhoods and worrying about life paycheck to paycheck. I've been there. Its fucking terrible. Having money is wonderful and, regardless of what the media tells you, it does very much make you happy, at least up to a degree. When you don't have money, then that's all you worry about. When you have it, you can focus on other things. Ironically, I probably should be some kind of liberal, but see myself more of a strict moderate. As a Chicagoan, I just saw my property tax rise thousands of dollars a year to pay for public sector union deals signed in the backroom in the 1980s by liberals with a "pass the problems onto the future" attitude. Now my generation is paying for boomer excess. Now "liking what I have" gets harder because I need to work harder to make up for that lost money. My wife and I just cancelled a trip and I'm shopping around for cheaper house insurance and other small things to save money. Considering we're going to be on the receiving end of further tax hikes, which leads to household cuts, how the hell can we even follow his "like what you have" advice? You guys are taking what I have! I noticed the limousine liberal never talks about tax cuts, helping entrepreneurs, helping create jobs and prosperity, etc. They just seem to idolize poverty and taxing middle-class families and when we complain, they tell us to enjoy being poor. What a loathsome philosophy.

csydas 10y ago

> For everyone else on this planet for whom financial security is not a given, it makes sense to keep more things around than needed in a given instance. I'm not sure that this necessarily follows. What is the sense is there, let's say, of having a basement full of christmas decorations, far more than you have space in your home to put up? Or of having three 8-person dinner sets? Or of keeping clothes that you haven't worn in years? Like, the natural conclusion of having money isn't to just buy things for the sake of it, but that you can get what you need instead. Minimalism isn't just "have less", it's use less. See I guess I'm technically a minimalist, but not really by choice - it was a necessity as I moved frequently, always by the skin of my teeth and on my last dollar. I'm "rich" insomuch that I have no outstanding debt (worked full time to pay for University, lived a very frugal lifestyle (lots of eggs+rice for a long time)). It's really weird to me when a template for minimalists gets created, as if the only natural reason why you wouldn't want a lot of things is because you're rich enough to get them. I wasn't starving as I got more from jobs, but I also didn't immediately rush out to fill my apartment with crap once I had a tiny bit saved up.

yoo1I 10y ago
Except, the opposite of > own as little as possible, for a clutter-free, minimalist lifestyle is not > keep your basement and your cupboards full of useless junk It seems reasonable to keep one set of Christmas decoration, maybe one and a half if you don't want it to look the same every year, keep one 8-person dinner set for the three times a year you might need it. Occasionally go through your wardrobe to see if you still want to wear all your clothes, and give those away you don't want, but maybe keep two pieces that you never wear just because you like them. A persons life is probably full of examples like this, where it's reasonable to keep items that aren't exactly useful every day, or even every month. These things add up and come to be called clutter, just maybe because they're many pieces, even though they all have their purpose. And don't get me wrong, there is absolutely junk that's too much, and that one probably doesn't need to keep. But in the end this minimalist idea always seems a bit juvenile to me, where when confronted with complexity, the solution is to throw everything out instead of organizing it, recognizing that there aren't perfect systems of organization and managing to live with a small bit of actual clutter, but at the same time being able to actually host some friends coming over for dinner or fix something that's broken without first having to procure a screwdriver.