3 ms·

My guess is that the author thinks that you are missing the core problem here. What if being insecure with who you are is the real problem? What if having a lim

by kolbe 9y ago

My guess is that the author thinks that you are missing the core problem here. What if being insecure with who you are is the real problem? What if having a limited understanding of what constitutes 'improvement' is the problem? I would think, for example, that the author would look down very much on your definition of success in eating, given that your standard appears to be "a model of what many people would ideally like to eat."

wutbrodo 9y ago
> I would think, for example, that the author would look down very much on your definition of success in eating, given that your standard appears to be "a model of what many people would ideally like to eat." That was perhaps oddly phrased, but I believe you're misunderstanding me. The way I eat is 1) extremely enjoyable to me, 2) feels _really_ good from a health perspective, and 3) _is_ healthy, at least according to the best guess nutritional science has to offer. Could you clarify what exactly you think the author would find to look down on? It sounds like you misinterpreted me to be saying that my goal was _per se_ to eat in a way that people would think I'm awesome. I really couldn't care less what people think of my diet, as evidenced by the fact that I consistently deal with mild social pressure around my diet (eg, that it's super weird to not like pizza or fried things). What I actually meant was that I don't really suffer much from succumbing to food cravings that I believe aren't healthy for me, because my dietary preferences happen to align with my best understanding of what healthful eating is. (The main exception here, as noted in my other comment, is that I'd ideally eat less meat).
- wright08 9y ago
  The author would find nothing reasonable to object to in your statements. I find this article frustrating because it fails to reiterate a common point bestowed by all self-help pundits worth their salt. Results are highly subjective in many domains. This pseudo enlightened take on interacting with capitalism at large can be concisely boiled down to a simple question. If all of your friends jumped off a bridge, would you jump too? The guy got played by the system and he's mad about it, plain and simple. There's no new information in this article, just a somewhat novel and ironic perspective of how capitalism is a 'terrible' thing. Because we've never read about how people earn money taking advantage of the uninformed before. In all of my research of self-help it's usually very clearly stated somewhere in big red text 'INDIVIDUAL RESULTS MAY VARY' and somehow this genius missed that. His shortcomings from blindly following in the footsteps of others is now the fault of an entire industry interested in offering perspectives to those who wish to grow.

by kolbe 9y ago

wutbrodo 9y ago

> I would think, for example, that the author would look down very much on your definition of success in eating, given that your standard appears to be "a model of what many people would ideally like to eat." That was perhaps oddly phrased, but I believe you're misunderstanding me. The way I eat is 1) extremely enjoyable to me, 2) feels _really_ good from a health perspective, and 3) _is_ healthy, at least according to the best guess nutritional science has to offer. Could you clarify what exactly you think the author would find to look down on? It sounds like you misinterpreted me to be saying that my goal was _per se_ to eat in a way that people would think I'm awesome. I really couldn't care less what people think of my diet, as evidenced by the fact that I consistently deal with mild social pressure around my diet (eg, that it's super weird to not like pizza or fried things). What I actually meant was that I don't really suffer much from succumbing to food cravings that I believe aren't healthy for me, because my dietary preferences happen to align with my best understanding of what healthful eating is. (The main exception here, as noted in my other comment, is that I'd ideally eat less meat).

wright08 9y ago
The author would find nothing reasonable to object to in your statements. I find this article frustrating because it fails to reiterate a common point bestowed by all self-help pundits worth their salt. Results are highly subjective in many domains. This pseudo enlightened take on interacting with capitalism at large can be concisely boiled down to a simple question. If all of your friends jumped off a bridge, would you jump too? The guy got played by the system and he's mad about it, plain and simple. There's no new information in this article, just a somewhat novel and ironic perspective of how capitalism is a 'terrible' thing. Because we've never read about how people earn money taking advantage of the uninformed before. In all of my research of self-help it's usually very clearly stated somewhere in big red text 'INDIVIDUAL RESULTS MAY VARY' and somehow this genius missed that. His shortcomings from blindly following in the footsteps of others is now the fault of an entire industry interested in offering perspectives to those who wish to grow.