6 ms·

> but really I've internalized the idea that everyone is living a life less than what they hoped their life would be to various extents and that there is also

> but really I've internalized the idea that everyone is living a life less than what they hoped their life would be to various extents and that there is also a near infinite combination of ways to achieve this effect such that no one can be dismissed for their misery in any respect without also dismissing the "legitimate" misery of a wide swath of people. There's a downside to this logic, one of the enabling sort. I consider myself fairly empathetic, but with a very pragmatic tint. I find many, many people take on complaining and a victim/underdog status with an almost hobby-like approach. And I watch how others react, which is exactly as expected: sympathy, attention, allowing those complainers a way out of personal responsibility or true introspection (specifically into their role in managing reactions to external events). It's a never ending cycle. And it hardly ever promotes growth. And almost never results in true happiness (happiness is probably the wrong word...maybe contentedness is better, tho maybe not). So, the same way you wonder about those people who "dismiss others' concerns," I wonder about those who kowtow to others' words and fail to consider the reality (perceived, of course) behind them. It often feels lazy to me. And short-term thinking. Truly caring about another person sometimes means forsaking short-term "feel goods" for long term growth.

asdf21 7y ago
Ataraxia.. ;)
SolaceQuantum 7y ago
I only said it's important to be able to listen and acknowledge that people are troubled. That a person is troubled and therefore abusive to others is just an extension of that. I don't understand this downside you're explaining.
- malvosenior 7y ago
  They're essentially talking about enabling. Sometimes listening and acknowledging can actually be harmful. Especially over a long term period of time if the person being acknowledged isn't actually changing (or attempting to change) the underlying behavior that's driving the unwanted effects. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling
- DisruptiveDave 7y ago
  Well, unless I'm wildly misreading it, the quote I attached to my post calls out a very stark judgment on people's perceived sufferings. Specifically, the "no one can be dismissed for their misery..." line.
  - SolaceQuantum 7y ago
    Yeah, I don't dismiss that someone is miserable. I can also say they are abusive, hurt their children or spouse, are cruel and sadistic, or a myriad of other things. None of them make them not worth acknowledging their misery if they are miserable. In fact, just the opposite- it gives me a full idea of their motivations so I can better understand how to act around them in order to further my own interests of not being a target of their abuse, or how to best report their behavior to the correct authorities.
kazagistar 7y ago
Sure, the idea that the right solution is always sympathy and material assistance is a bit reductionistic. But the idea that what's best for people is always tough love and a job is just as reductionistic and oversimplified. And at scale, neither blanket solution is perfectly effective, but one at least leans towards kindness.
- DisruptiveDave 7y ago
  Of course, we agree there. Re: your final sentence, what I'm actually saying here is that this version of "kindness" may be actively harming some people in the long run. But because humans are generally bad at long-term thinking, we follow our instincts (i.e. "make this person feel immediately better any way possible in this immediate moment"). So, "kindness" isn't necessarily kind in these situations. Your desire to help is betrayed by your mind. Your actions are harmful. Think about that.
  - SolaceQuantum 7y ago
    I should clarify because I feel there is some confusion- I do not desire to help someone. I do not desire to be kind, nor compassionate. I merely find it more useful to be willing to listen to others and come from a place to desire to understand first, evaluate second, act third. I've stated to my companions that I'm not a compassionate, empathetic, or kind person (to their vehement disagreement) because my willingness to listen does not spawn from any of the reasoning you are pointing as flawed.
    - DisruptiveDave 7y ago
      Good clarification. Listen -> evaluate -> act is a solid approach.
- BurningFrog 7y ago
  Nick Lowe made a song out of this paradox: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0l3QWUXVho https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0l3QWUXVho
gorio 7y ago
I don't see how that is a pragmatic view. Rather the idea that you can fix something with personal responsibility, true introspection and growth to find true happiness is quite distinctly romantic.
- DisruptiveDave 7y ago
  It is pragmatic in execution. Taking active steps to understand and manage the way your mind works, deal with reality without bias or judgment, and relieve yourself of attachments and desires that cause suffering is about as pragmatic as you can get.
  - bilbo0s 7y ago
    I gotta agree with HN User "gorio" on this one. Your initial explanation, and your clarification are a bit closer to romanticism, (or perhaps idealism?), than pragmatism. Pragmatism is relating to matters of fact or practical affairs often to the exclusion of intellectual or artistic matters. (That's a dictionary definition.) But yeah, in war for example, you are very much not thinking about taking active steps to manage your mind, or managing the way your mind works, or anything of that nature. You just become very pragmatic. Your desires become almost the only thing you consider at the pragmatic extreme represented by combat for instance. I think you're speaking more on a certain type of idealism maybe? The practice of following ideals, or living under their influence. But romanticism works too.
    - DisruptiveDave 7y ago
      > dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations. That's the definition. What I outlined - granted, without the specific action steps - is sensible and realistic. And it distinctly is not about happiness. Romantic would be "just be happy." Would you consider behavioral therapy romantic? Edit: I'm really hoping you guys aren't saying that anything involving a person managing their mind/emotions is romantic and impractical.
PaulHoule 7y ago
see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Games_People_Play_(book) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Games_People_Play_(book)
Balgair 7y ago
> happiness is probably the wrong word...maybe contentedness is better, tho maybe not Eudaimonia is the word you're looking for. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eudaimonia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eudaimonia There are a lot of arguments against it. I think there are good points in these counter arguments, but come down on the side of Eudaimonia, personally. Counter arguments: https://bigthink.com/the-moral-sciences-club/eudaimonism-is-false https://bigthink.com/the-moral-sciences-club/eudaimonism-is-... https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/646/is-virtue-necessary-to-achieve-eudaimonia https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/646/is-virtue... https://brill.com/view/book/edcoll/9789004395794/BP000003.xml?lang=en https://brill.com/view/book/edcoll/9789004395794/BP000003.xm...
rland 7y ago
This is how a therapists' training distinguishes them from a friendly ear. It's very hard to get through the pattern of behavior that you describe, because the combination of empathy and pragmatism required to facilitate growth requires a fine balance. Too much pragmatism will push away the self-victimizing friend, and too much empathy will never facilitate growth. Professional therapists often fail in this, which is one way that people can see a therapist for years and never make progress on their issue.

asdf21 7y ago

Ataraxia.. ;)

SolaceQuantum 7y ago

I only said it's important to be able to listen and acknowledge that people are troubled. That a person is troubled and therefore abusive to others is just an extension of that. I don't understand this downside you're explaining.

malvosenior 7y ago
They're essentially talking about enabling. Sometimes listening and acknowledging can actually be harmful. Especially over a long term period of time if the person being acknowledged isn't actually changing (or attempting to change) the underlying behavior that's driving the unwanted effects. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling
DisruptiveDave 7y ago
Well, unless I'm wildly misreading it, the quote I attached to my post calls out a very stark judgment on people's perceived sufferings. Specifically, the "no one can be dismissed for their misery..." line.
- SolaceQuantum 7y ago
  Yeah, I don't dismiss that someone is miserable. I can also say they are abusive, hurt their children or spouse, are cruel and sadistic, or a myriad of other things. None of them make them not worth acknowledging their misery if they are miserable. In fact, just the opposite- it gives me a full idea of their motivations so I can better understand how to act around them in order to further my own interests of not being a target of their abuse, or how to best report their behavior to the correct authorities.

kazagistar 7y ago

Sure, the idea that the right solution is always sympathy and material assistance is a bit reductionistic. But the idea that what's best for people is always tough love and a job is just as reductionistic and oversimplified. And at scale, neither blanket solution is perfectly effective, but one at least leans towards kindness.

DisruptiveDave 7y ago
Of course, we agree there. Re: your final sentence, what I'm actually saying here is that this version of "kindness" may be actively harming some people in the long run. But because humans are generally bad at long-term thinking, we follow our instincts (i.e. "make this person feel immediately better any way possible in this immediate moment"). So, "kindness" isn't necessarily kind in these situations. Your desire to help is betrayed by your mind. Your actions are harmful. Think about that.
- SolaceQuantum 7y ago
  I should clarify because I feel there is some confusion- I do not desire to help someone. I do not desire to be kind, nor compassionate. I merely find it more useful to be willing to listen to others and come from a place to desire to understand first, evaluate second, act third. I've stated to my companions that I'm not a compassionate, empathetic, or kind person (to their vehement disagreement) because my willingness to listen does not spawn from any of the reasoning you are pointing as flawed.
  - DisruptiveDave 7y ago
    Good clarification. Listen -> evaluate -> act is a solid approach.
BurningFrog 7y ago
Nick Lowe made a song out of this paradox: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0l3QWUXVho https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0l3QWUXVho

gorio 7y ago

I don't see how that is a pragmatic view. Rather the idea that you can fix something with personal responsibility, true introspection and growth to find true happiness is quite distinctly romantic.

DisruptiveDave 7y ago
It is pragmatic in execution. Taking active steps to understand and manage the way your mind works, deal with reality without bias or judgment, and relieve yourself of attachments and desires that cause suffering is about as pragmatic as you can get.
- bilbo0s 7y ago
  I gotta agree with HN User "gorio" on this one. Your initial explanation, and your clarification are a bit closer to romanticism, (or perhaps idealism?), than pragmatism. Pragmatism is relating to matters of fact or practical affairs often to the exclusion of intellectual or artistic matters. (That's a dictionary definition.) But yeah, in war for example, you are very much not thinking about taking active steps to manage your mind, or managing the way your mind works, or anything of that nature. You just become very pragmatic. Your desires become almost the only thing you consider at the pragmatic extreme represented by combat for instance. I think you're speaking more on a certain type of idealism maybe? The practice of following ideals, or living under their influence. But romanticism works too.
  - DisruptiveDave 7y ago
    > dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations. That's the definition. What I outlined - granted, without the specific action steps - is sensible and realistic. And it distinctly is not about happiness. Romantic would be "just be happy." Would you consider behavioral therapy romantic? Edit: I'm really hoping you guys aren't saying that anything involving a person managing their mind/emotions is romantic and impractical.

PaulHoule 7y ago

see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Games_People_Play_(book) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Games_People_Play_(book)

Balgair 7y ago

> happiness is probably the wrong word...maybe contentedness is better, tho maybe not Eudaimonia is the word you're looking for. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eudaimonia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eudaimonia There are a lot of arguments against it. I think there are good points in these counter arguments, but come down on the side of Eudaimonia, personally. Counter arguments: https://bigthink.com/the-moral-sciences-club/eudaimonism-is-false https://bigthink.com/the-moral-sciences-club/eudaimonism-is-... https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/646/is-virtue-necessary-to-achieve-eudaimonia https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/646/is-virtue... https://brill.com/view/book/edcoll/9789004395794/BP000003.xml?lang=en https://brill.com/view/book/edcoll/9789004395794/BP000003.xm...

rland 7y ago

This is how a therapists' training distinguishes them from a friendly ear. It's very hard to get through the pattern of behavior that you describe, because the combination of empathy and pragmatism required to facilitate growth requires a fine balance. Too much pragmatism will push away the self-victimizing friend, and too much empathy will never facilitate growth. Professional therapists often fail in this, which is one way that people can see a therapist for years and never make progress on their issue.