3 ms·

> most problems in your life can't be solved by reading a book, period. How do you know? Not to be rude but why should I trust you more than some author of a

> most problems in your life can't be solved by reading a book, period. How do you know? Not to be rude but why should I trust you more than some author of a "self-help" book? I mean, a religious person might tell you that you can solve all your problems reading Scripture. Heck, I openly maintain that most people could solve most of their problems by reading (and applying) the "Core Transformation Process" book. Do you mind if I ask what your own personal experiences are that have led you to form your opinion? > And not to doubt your personal story Thank you! :-) > but actual clinical depression is typically not solved by one off hypnotherapy sessions with self-help gurus. Oh I know! (This wasn't the first thing I tried. I was miserable and desperate enough to shell out ~$4000 to attend a week-long seminar in hope of meeting this guy and getting help. At one point I volunteered for a demonstration on stage, ten minutes later (subjectively it was ten seconds) I was cured. I've written about it on HN a little, if you're interested you can search my comments. A few years later there was a relapse. It lasted three days and then I went back to normal. Those three days are the single most frightening thing that has ever happened to me. Only time in my life I've ever contemplated suicide. Thank God, after the third day I woke up normal again.) My basic point is that, whatever this guy is doing, that's what we should be paying attention to. Now, you might say it's unfortunate that the ways he's chosen to bring the information to people is unscientific, and people do say that and worse, but it would be foolish IMO to throw that baby out with the bathwater of self-help.

coldtea 7y ago
>How do you know? Not to be rude but why should I trust you more than some author of a "self-help" book? For one, because he doesn't try to sell you anything. Second, you don't get to "know" because you are hand-fed some hard proofs or figures. You either know it already (and agree) or can see the point the parent is making, correlate it with your experiences and observations, and recognise it's true -- or, of course, you don't (and e.g. you have a different experience).
- carapace 7y ago
  > For one, because he doesn't try to sell you anything. Publishers of philosophy, literature, history and science books are also trying to make a buck, eh? > Second, you don't get to "know" because you are hand-fed some hard proofs or figures. I don't understand this sentence. > You either know it already (and agree) or can see the point the parent is making, correlate it with your experiences and observations, and recognise it's true -- or, of course, you don't (and e.g. you have a different experience). Right, and it seems to me that the way forward is to share our experiences in good faith to try to find the mutually true union of our worldviews, eh? If I understood GP's experiences better I might be better able to understand where a statement that looks to me to be so bizarre ("most problems in your life can't be solved by reading a book, period. Self-help or otherwise.") might make sense. I mean, think about it: books are where we store our knowledge, eh? Is GP including textbooks? FFS, If you can't solve your problems by reading books we should just burn the libraries?
  - coldtea 7y ago
    >Publishers of philosophy, literature, history and science books are also trying to make a buck, eh? The parent however, we can presume, is neither of those things. And even if they were, they don't suggest you buy any particular work they sell in their comment, so the point still stands. >I don't understand this sentence. You asked the parent "How do you know?". This to be implies "where is your hard proof" - so I read it that way. So, my point is, in this, and other cases, one does not "know" because they have some hard irrefutable hard proofs or statistics. What would those be? Some official study cited as saying "94.2% of self-help books are inaccurate and bogus"? There can't be such a thing. So, there's no point in asking how the parent knows, if by that you mean what's their objective, measurable basis of knowing that. It's one of the many cases where people can only think and decide for themselves whether what the other says is valid, matches their own observations, makes sense, has some hidden intention/profit motive behind it or not, and so on. >Right, and it seems to me that the way forward is to share our experiences in good faith to try to find the mutually true union of our worldviews, eh? Yes. >FFS, If you can't solve your problems by reading books we should just burn the libraries? I don't think anybody said that we can't solve problems by reading books. E.g. we can certainly solve math problems, or a medical student learn how to fix diseases through books. What's said is that self-helf books (and we could qualify it by saying most self-helf books), are mostly profit-driven, platitudes, silver-bullet formulas, that don't work, and don't solve problems for the majority of people who cling to them (which tend to accumulate such books, and run from guru to guru, and method to method over the years). Of course there's also solid advice in some of those books. Usually of the kind that everybody knows already -- but have trouble following. Much akin the Christian "be kind" etc.

coldtea 7y ago

>How do you know? Not to be rude but why should I trust you more than some author of a "self-help" book? For one, because he doesn't try to sell you anything. Second, you don't get to "know" because you are hand-fed some hard proofs or figures. You either know it already (and agree) or can see the point the parent is making, correlate it with your experiences and observations, and recognise it's true -- or, of course, you don't (and e.g. you have a different experience).

carapace 7y ago
> For one, because he doesn't try to sell you anything. Publishers of philosophy, literature, history and science books are also trying to make a buck, eh? > Second, you don't get to "know" because you are hand-fed some hard proofs or figures. I don't understand this sentence. > You either know it already (and agree) or can see the point the parent is making, correlate it with your experiences and observations, and recognise it's true -- or, of course, you don't (and e.g. you have a different experience). Right, and it seems to me that the way forward is to share our experiences in good faith to try to find the mutually true union of our worldviews, eh? If I understood GP's experiences better I might be better able to understand where a statement that looks to me to be so bizarre ("most problems in your life can't be solved by reading a book, period. Self-help or otherwise.") might make sense. I mean, think about it: books are where we store our knowledge, eh? Is GP including textbooks? FFS, If you can't solve your problems by reading books we should just burn the libraries?
- coldtea 7y ago
  >Publishers of philosophy, literature, history and science books are also trying to make a buck, eh? The parent however, we can presume, is neither of those things. And even if they were, they don't suggest you buy any particular work they sell in their comment, so the point still stands. >I don't understand this sentence. You asked the parent "How do you know?". This to be implies "where is your hard proof" - so I read it that way. So, my point is, in this, and other cases, one does not "know" because they have some hard irrefutable hard proofs or statistics. What would those be? Some official study cited as saying "94.2% of self-help books are inaccurate and bogus"? There can't be such a thing. So, there's no point in asking how the parent knows, if by that you mean what's their objective, measurable basis of knowing that. It's one of the many cases where people can only think and decide for themselves whether what the other says is valid, matches their own observations, makes sense, has some hidden intention/profit motive behind it or not, and so on. >Right, and it seems to me that the way forward is to share our experiences in good faith to try to find the mutually true union of our worldviews, eh? Yes. >FFS, If you can't solve your problems by reading books we should just burn the libraries? I don't think anybody said that we can't solve problems by reading books. E.g. we can certainly solve math problems, or a medical student learn how to fix diseases through books. What's said is that self-helf books (and we could qualify it by saying most self-helf books), are mostly profit-driven, platitudes, silver-bullet formulas, that don't work, and don't solve problems for the majority of people who cling to them (which tend to accumulate such books, and run from guru to guru, and method to method over the years). Of course there's also solid advice in some of those books. Usually of the kind that everybody knows already -- but have trouble following. Much akin the Christian "be kind" etc.