4 ms·

> > "I succeeded in a harsher environment, suck it up" > Mm, that quote characterizes the root of a lot of evil in the world (or at least propagates a lot of e

> > "I succeeded in a harsher environment, suck it up" > Mm, that quote characterizes the root of a lot of evil in the world (or at least propagates a lot of evil). That quote isn't a root of evil. It's a statement that has originated in something good, which can be co-opted for evil. My own parents have said that to me. In many instances, their using that idea was for the good. However, there are some instances where the trauma of their occupation/wartime experiences showed, where they used this idea for something bad. Also, one of my professors told me something like that, when it came to my first exposure to C programming in the early 90's. Sometimes you are in a harsh environment, and you do have to suck it up and get on with it. Knowing that others have done objectively better than you are now in an objectively harsher environment is good and useful data to have. Anybody know a graceful way to disincentivize that kind of thinking? Thoughtcrime? Sorry, but seeking to prosecute thoughtcrime is far, far worse than just receiving information others have done better with less -- even if it is being used as a means of aggression.

fapjacks 9y ago
Hey I just wanted to post in solidarity with you about the truly harsh environment (and having to suck it up) of learning C programming in the early 90s. I still to this day tell people in interviews that the most difficult and challenging technical experience of my life was cutting my teeth on pointers in C by myself in the early 90s with nothing but the K&R book.
AgentME 9y ago
>Thoughtcrime? The other user is just asking how to encourage people to be nicer in a specific circumstance, not seeking to literally criminalize things.
- stcredzero 9y ago
  not seeking to literally criminalize things. You don't have to have legal support to create an environment of oppression and toxicity. If one's goal is solely focused on suppression of a certain kind of thinking, then it's doomed to fail. It's like not thinking about white elephants, writ large. It's the Streisand effect. It's far better to focus on positive goals. Build bridges between people. Encourage what you want to see more of. If one is considering thought policing, then it's a sign that something has failed.
  - wyattpeak 9y ago
    This is such a broad interpretation of thought policing as to be absurd. By your definition obligatory anger-management or even general counselling would seem to be thought policing. You can demonstrably control particular types of thought, that's pretty much the basis of clinical psychology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironic_process_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironic_process_theory - which you're describing - is a specific, immediate, psychological effect. It doesn't imply that thoughts can't be suppressed on a longer scale.
    - stcredzero 9y ago
      This is such a broad interpretation of thought policing as to be absurd. No, your interpretation of it is absurd. The key is, are you trying to coerce people to hide their true thoughts, because you just want to control them? Anger Management should be something that is entered into consensually, because all parties know it's to their benefit. You can demonstrably control particular types of thought, that's pretty much the basis of clinical psychology. Sure. But suppressing others against their will for the sake of political power is immoral. I don't see that as a proper aim of clinical psychology, and the above context certainly wasn't what I was thinking about.
jancsika 9y ago
> Thoughtcrime? That's an unexpected and intriguing direction to take. Let's just assume that "disincentivize thinking" is a euphemism for "prosecute thoughcrime" and put it to the test. A project I maintain has a monstrously complex build system. Part of my MO was to fix and improve it to the point that a mere mortal-- and even a newcomer-- can build the software without being a build systems expert. Some of the work was a time-consuming pain. When I got behind users would come up with clever yet complicated workarounds which would propagate through the forums. At that point I had essentially two choices-- either call user workarounds "good enough" or actually fix the bugs so that compilation remains easy. The first option would inescapably lead to an I-had-it-worse-so-suck-it-up rite-of-passage for compiling the software. E.g., if you are compiling on platform V and want to use X, download Y and do command Z. As evidence, stacks of such workarounds characterized the build process before I improved the build system-- phrases like "not for the faint of heart" and "will probably take you a day" were good descriptors. Newcomers were dissuaded from learning it (learning it, i.e., you had to do something more than configure and make) and just depended on binary packages. And the ones who already knew the build system didn't have an incentive to mentor someone who wanted to improve the system-- they already had a mental map of the workarounds and knew that any change to the monstrous system would cause problems and be a time-consuming pain. It was much easier to just to pass on the workarounds. (Plus at some point there were actually zero developers who understood the system well enough to mentor anyone.) The other option was to fix the bugs in the build system. Because I had to slog through a harsh build environment and hated it, I improved it so that it would be easier for newcomers to build. I made a decision that made it less likely for the imperative "suck it up" to appear in the forums wrt to compilation. (Userbase is nice so I don't think they would have put it this way, probably something more like, "Yeah it's difficult, but that's just part of learning the system" or something like that.) At the same time, the people who built the workarounds didn't complain. Instead they said, "Thanks." As I see it I made a decision to improve a system. That decision almost certainly made it less likely for the following argument to be used: "I had it worse (or at least as bad) and did ok, so suck it up." This decision made it possible for more people to enter the developerbase in less time. Lots of positives, not so many negatives. That's a good outcome for what I see as clear ethical behavior on my part. Here's the question then: if "disincentivize suck-it-up thinking" is a euphemism for "prosecute thoughtcrime," don't we have to conclude that it is both ethical and beneficial to prosecute thoughtcrime?

fapjacks 9y ago

Hey I just wanted to post in solidarity with you about the truly harsh environment (and having to suck it up) of learning C programming in the early 90s. I still to this day tell people in interviews that the most difficult and challenging technical experience of my life was cutting my teeth on pointers in C by myself in the early 90s with nothing but the K&R book.

AgentME 9y ago

>Thoughtcrime? The other user is just asking how to encourage people to be nicer in a specific circumstance, not seeking to literally criminalize things.

stcredzero 9y ago
not seeking to literally criminalize things. You don't have to have legal support to create an environment of oppression and toxicity. If one's goal is solely focused on suppression of a certain kind of thinking, then it's doomed to fail. It's like not thinking about white elephants, writ large. It's the Streisand effect. It's far better to focus on positive goals. Build bridges between people. Encourage what you want to see more of. If one is considering thought policing, then it's a sign that something has failed.
- wyattpeak 9y ago
  This is such a broad interpretation of thought policing as to be absurd. By your definition obligatory anger-management or even general counselling would seem to be thought policing. You can demonstrably control particular types of thought, that's pretty much the basis of clinical psychology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironic_process_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironic_process_theory - which you're describing - is a specific, immediate, psychological effect. It doesn't imply that thoughts can't be suppressed on a longer scale.
  - stcredzero 9y ago
    This is such a broad interpretation of thought policing as to be absurd. No, your interpretation of it is absurd. The key is, are you trying to coerce people to hide their true thoughts, because you just want to control them? Anger Management should be something that is entered into consensually, because all parties know it's to their benefit. You can demonstrably control particular types of thought, that's pretty much the basis of clinical psychology. Sure. But suppressing others against their will for the sake of political power is immoral. I don't see that as a proper aim of clinical psychology, and the above context certainly wasn't what I was thinking about.

jancsika 9y ago

> Thoughtcrime? That's an unexpected and intriguing direction to take. Let's just assume that "disincentivize thinking" is a euphemism for "prosecute thoughcrime" and put it to the test. A project I maintain has a monstrously complex build system. Part of my MO was to fix and improve it to the point that a mere mortal-- and even a newcomer-- can build the software without being a build systems expert. Some of the work was a time-consuming pain. When I got behind users would come up with clever yet complicated workarounds which would propagate through the forums. At that point I had essentially two choices-- either call user workarounds "good enough" or actually fix the bugs so that compilation remains easy. The first option would inescapably lead to an I-had-it-worse-so-suck-it-up rite-of-passage for compiling the software. E.g., if you are compiling on platform V and want to use X, download Y and do command Z. As evidence, stacks of such workarounds characterized the build process before I improved the build system-- phrases like "not for the faint of heart" and "will probably take you a day" were good descriptors. Newcomers were dissuaded from learning it (learning it, i.e., you had to do something more than configure and make) and just depended on binary packages. And the ones who already knew the build system didn't have an incentive to mentor someone who wanted to improve the system-- they already had a mental map of the workarounds and knew that any change to the monstrous system would cause problems and be a time-consuming pain. It was much easier to just to pass on the workarounds. (Plus at some point there were actually zero developers who understood the system well enough to mentor anyone.) The other option was to fix the bugs in the build system. Because I had to slog through a harsh build environment and hated it, I improved it so that it would be easier for newcomers to build. I made a decision that made it less likely for the imperative "suck it up" to appear in the forums wrt to compilation. (Userbase is nice so I don't think they would have put it this way, probably something more like, "Yeah it's difficult, but that's just part of learning the system" or something like that.) At the same time, the people who built the workarounds didn't complain. Instead they said, "Thanks." As I see it I made a decision to improve a system. That decision almost certainly made it less likely for the following argument to be used: "I had it worse (or at least as bad) and did ok, so suck it up." This decision made it possible for more people to enter the developerbase in less time. Lots of positives, not so many negatives. That's a good outcome for what I see as clear ethical behavior on my part. Here's the question then: if "disincentivize suck-it-up thinking" is a euphemism for "prosecute thoughtcrime," don't we have to conclude that it is both ethical and beneficial to prosecute thoughtcrime?