4 ms·

> People are endlessly fascinated with the piece of success that we might have some hope of exercising control over. It gives people something constructive to t

> People are endlessly fascinated with the piece of success that we might have some hope of exercising control over. It gives people something constructive to try to work on. This is generally better than hating your life and buying lottery tickets while not bothering to work towards anything. Except there's a lot more going on here and a lot more at stake. Beliefs about the world, specifically beliefs about, long story short, why bad things happen to good people, can dramatically affect policy decisions and what a given culture considers acceptable. Someone feeling good about themselves is absolutely not a good enough reason to mangle reality. And that seems to be all that this whole mess is about. You want to believe you are in control of your life so you bury everyone else with you when that's absolutely not what we need right now to actually understand why things happen. Rejection of the influence of randomness means we do not examine or account for said randomness. It means we think safety nets are worthless. It means we vote against free healthcare. It means we leave people to fend for themselves because we convince ourselves that it logically makes sense. If people control everything and if their determination is all they need, then we do not need to help them. For a large slew of events that can randomly hit a person, there is often a very non-random source. But we are so focused on an individual-based rhetoric that we cannot admit that sometimes people affect others and that is a much bigger lever to pull than trying to convince every individual person to be some sort of a superhero who has no problems.

DoreenMichele 8y ago
Your remarks in no way fit with anything I am trying to communicate.
- projektir 8y ago
  You're communicating that there are just two dichotomies: either one believes luck is real and so should just do nothing and buy lottery tickets, or one believes it's not real and is doing things that are useful. Otherwise, I'm not sure what you were aiming at with the lottery ticket example, given that it's pretty much nobody's choice even if they believe in luck.
  - DoreenMichele 8y ago
    I spent nearly 6 years homeless. There are an awful lot of people who are homeless whose plan seems to be "buy lottery tickets" and otherwise do little or nothing to improve their situation because it seems hopeless. They feel they need a "big win" and anything less won't matter. I worked hard at solving my problems and eventually got myself off the street. There are lots of people who seem to apply that same general mentality to life. We know that diet and lifestyle are huge factors in health outcomes, but many people don't really take that seriously. The connection between eating right and better health isn't immediate and obvious enough. I write about issues like homelessness and I generally look at both pieces of the equation -- what the individual can do for themselves in spite of society not being helpful enough and what society needs to do differently. I see zero reason to assume that encouraging individuals to not engage in learned helplessness should be an excuse for society to not offer a social safety net or work on improving the one that exists.
    - chillingeffect 8y ago
      cool... would you point us to some of your writing? i needed some scary/wake-up moments to nudge my health into the right zone!
      - DoreenMichele 8y ago
        I don't like posting my health blog on HN. You can find it via my twitter account if you really want. Pocketputer.com should get you to both Street Life Solutions (About page) and San Diego Homeless Survival Guide (Links page). My Patreon link is in my profile as well.
    - projektir 8y ago
      That's cool I guess, but I neither buy lottery tickets nor believe diet/lifestyle are irrelevant, yet I'm a big believer in the importance of luck and the importance of believing in the importance of luck (hehe), so where does that leave me in your dichotomy? There's more room here than learned helplessness, in fact, I think that doesn't derive from the "luck is important" mindset at all. See my post here since I'd just be repeating the same thing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17535786 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17535786
another-one-off 8y ago
> Except there's a lot more going on here and a lot more at stake. Beliefs about [...] why bad things happen to good people, can dramatically affect policy decisions and what a given culture considers acceptable. Someone feeling good about themselves is absolutely not a good enough reason to mangle reality. nodnodnod > Rejection of the influence of randomness means [...] people control everything and if their determination is all they need, then we do not need to help them. Well, it is complicated and gets very subtle. For every person who is struck by catastrophe through sheer bad luck, there is at least one who is struck by catastrophe after a series of terrible personal choices. Deciding which is which is not an easy choice. For example, imagine a bush-walker standing at the bottom of a cliff - a rock falls, and kills them. Looks a lot like bad luck. However, in the Australian mining industry, workers are essentially forbidden from standing near cliffs because that sort of thing is /actually quite likely/. Because they deal with the risk all the time, they see it as a choice to made. Not mangling reality cuts two ways. Just because a choice isn't obvious doesn't mean that decisions don't play a role. In addition we can't attribute success solely to luck. Success strikes randomly in a small pool of people who have the capacity to be successful. That pool is small, and the people in it shouldn't be made responsible for the vagaries of the universe at large.
- projektir 8y ago
  > Well, it is complicated and gets very subtle. For every person who is struck by catastrophe through sheer bad luck, there is at least one who is struck by catastrophe after a series of terrible personal choices. This one will get complicated since it's effectively a discussion on free will. :) I will say that trying to examine why people do what one could call stupid or terrible choices is an interesting exercise. Consider, for instance, the act of smoking in a smoking-dominated country. I have grown up in such a country and I did not pick up smoking because I considered it bad. But I am also a significant outlier for other reasons (let's say I didn't have a lot of friends growing up). From a 3rd party perspective, especially one originated in a country that doesn't smoke a lot, picking up smoking seems like a very terrible idea, and it seems very straightforward to judge those people. But consider it from the dynamics of the country: what does it mean to be a smoker, what does it mean to be a non-smoker, in such a country? Are there consequences to each? Why do most people end up smoking? What would they have to give up to not do it? Is a decision of an outlier like myself relevant/useful? What is the breaking point after which a culture switches from an activity being mainstream vs not? If we say smoking is a terrible choice, we'd be forced to conclude that people in countries that smoke a lot must be worse people in some sense than people in countries that do not smoke a lot. A similar conclusion was once made by Milgram. But I think by now we realize that these conclusions are definitely not the right ones, so we need some other explanation. > For example, imagine a bush-walker standing at the bottom of a cliff - a rock falls, and kills them. Looks a lot like bad luck. However, in the Australian mining industry, workers are essentially forbidden from standing near cliffs because that sort of thing is /actually quite likely/. This, for example, doesn't sound like a choice from the perspective of the walker or worker, because they don't have the information. So on that level it looks to me to still be random. It's like choosing a career when you don't know anything about the market or what makes a good career - it's basically random from your perspective, even if there are deterministic paths all around. After all, most physical luck (i.e., accidentally tripping) is also deterministic internally, but it's luck to us because we can't tell. It is not random for the whoever manages the Australian mining industry, because they have the information. One way to reduce randomness is having more information, which can be extended to educating people more.

DoreenMichele 8y ago

Your remarks in no way fit with anything I am trying to communicate.

projektir 8y ago
You're communicating that there are just two dichotomies: either one believes luck is real and so should just do nothing and buy lottery tickets, or one believes it's not real and is doing things that are useful. Otherwise, I'm not sure what you were aiming at with the lottery ticket example, given that it's pretty much nobody's choice even if they believe in luck.
- DoreenMichele 8y ago
  I spent nearly 6 years homeless. There are an awful lot of people who are homeless whose plan seems to be "buy lottery tickets" and otherwise do little or nothing to improve their situation because it seems hopeless. They feel they need a "big win" and anything less won't matter. I worked hard at solving my problems and eventually got myself off the street. There are lots of people who seem to apply that same general mentality to life. We know that diet and lifestyle are huge factors in health outcomes, but many people don't really take that seriously. The connection between eating right and better health isn't immediate and obvious enough. I write about issues like homelessness and I generally look at both pieces of the equation -- what the individual can do for themselves in spite of society not being helpful enough and what society needs to do differently. I see zero reason to assume that encouraging individuals to not engage in learned helplessness should be an excuse for society to not offer a social safety net or work on improving the one that exists.
  - chillingeffect 8y ago
    cool... would you point us to some of your writing? i needed some scary/wake-up moments to nudge my health into the right zone!
    - DoreenMichele 8y ago
      I don't like posting my health blog on HN. You can find it via my twitter account if you really want. Pocketputer.com should get you to both Street Life Solutions (About page) and San Diego Homeless Survival Guide (Links page). My Patreon link is in my profile as well.
  - projektir 8y ago
    That's cool I guess, but I neither buy lottery tickets nor believe diet/lifestyle are irrelevant, yet I'm a big believer in the importance of luck and the importance of believing in the importance of luck (hehe), so where does that leave me in your dichotomy? There's more room here than learned helplessness, in fact, I think that doesn't derive from the "luck is important" mindset at all. See my post here since I'd just be repeating the same thing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17535786 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17535786

another-one-off 8y ago

> Except there's a lot more going on here and a lot more at stake. Beliefs about [...] why bad things happen to good people, can dramatically affect policy decisions and what a given culture considers acceptable. Someone feeling good about themselves is absolutely not a good enough reason to mangle reality. nodnodnod > Rejection of the influence of randomness means [...] people control everything and if their determination is all they need, then we do not need to help them. Well, it is complicated and gets very subtle. For every person who is struck by catastrophe through sheer bad luck, there is at least one who is struck by catastrophe after a series of terrible personal choices. Deciding which is which is not an easy choice. For example, imagine a bush-walker standing at the bottom of a cliff - a rock falls, and kills them. Looks a lot like bad luck. However, in the Australian mining industry, workers are essentially forbidden from standing near cliffs because that sort of thing is /actually quite likely/. Because they deal with the risk all the time, they see it as a choice to made. Not mangling reality cuts two ways. Just because a choice isn't obvious doesn't mean that decisions don't play a role. In addition we can't attribute success solely to luck. Success strikes randomly in a small pool of people who have the capacity to be successful. That pool is small, and the people in it shouldn't be made responsible for the vagaries of the universe at large.

projektir 8y ago
> Well, it is complicated and gets very subtle. For every person who is struck by catastrophe through sheer bad luck, there is at least one who is struck by catastrophe after a series of terrible personal choices. This one will get complicated since it's effectively a discussion on free will. :) I will say that trying to examine why people do what one could call stupid or terrible choices is an interesting exercise. Consider, for instance, the act of smoking in a smoking-dominated country. I have grown up in such a country and I did not pick up smoking because I considered it bad. But I am also a significant outlier for other reasons (let's say I didn't have a lot of friends growing up). From a 3rd party perspective, especially one originated in a country that doesn't smoke a lot, picking up smoking seems like a very terrible idea, and it seems very straightforward to judge those people. But consider it from the dynamics of the country: what does it mean to be a smoker, what does it mean to be a non-smoker, in such a country? Are there consequences to each? Why do most people end up smoking? What would they have to give up to not do it? Is a decision of an outlier like myself relevant/useful? What is the breaking point after which a culture switches from an activity being mainstream vs not? If we say smoking is a terrible choice, we'd be forced to conclude that people in countries that smoke a lot must be worse people in some sense than people in countries that do not smoke a lot. A similar conclusion was once made by Milgram. But I think by now we realize that these conclusions are definitely not the right ones, so we need some other explanation. > For example, imagine a bush-walker standing at the bottom of a cliff - a rock falls, and kills them. Looks a lot like bad luck. However, in the Australian mining industry, workers are essentially forbidden from standing near cliffs because that sort of thing is /actually quite likely/. This, for example, doesn't sound like a choice from the perspective of the walker or worker, because they don't have the information. So on that level it looks to me to still be random. It's like choosing a career when you don't know anything about the market or what makes a good career - it's basically random from your perspective, even if there are deterministic paths all around. After all, most physical luck (i.e., accidentally tripping) is also deterministic internally, but it's luck to us because we can't tell. It is not random for the whoever manages the Australian mining industry, because they have the information. One way to reduce randomness is having more information, which can be extended to educating people more.