5 ms·

Stress is not just a matter of the facts of every day life. That's almost like saying all that matters is if you can eat and sleep. That is not what most people

Stress is not just a matter of the facts of every day life. That's almost like saying all that matters is if you can eat and sleep. That is not what most people want out of life. They want meaning in their life, respect, and love. Those are all things that are way way way more difficult to get today than at almost any time during human history.

watwut 6y ago
I really don't think so. The people in the past were not getting automatic respect and were not getting automatic love. The marriage was often economic transaction and you often had to live among people who did not respected you. The marriage happened after short time of knowing each other and if it turned out mistake, that was it forever, no love. Some people's lives had meaning, plenty of others were basically surviving in routine .
- courtf 6y ago
  We don't really know this with such certainty. Our records have gaps and only extend a few thousand years back, at most. Even then, we often only have bits and pieces for certain populations. It's a large stretch to generalize over human history.
- RunningDroid 6y ago
  >The marriage happened after short time of knowing each other and if it turned out mistake, that was it forever, no love. This makes it sound like you believe love is a bool that gets set at the beginning of the relationship, but from what I understand love is a float that the couple can work to increase.
  - watwut 6y ago
    No, love don't have to die. But, initial passion, is not love. And people are much different in the first period when they are trying to make best impression and later on after months. In extreme case, many abusers (of both genders) show themselves only after months. For long term love, it matters greatly whether you two are match by personality and values. And short term engagement make it easy to select wrong partner.
- freeone3000 6y ago
  Personal contact is super important to people. Physical closeness is important. Being able to meet people in person is important for personal relationships. This stuff matters, and it's very hard to get right now.
all2 6y ago
> Stress is not just a matter of the facts of every day life. Stress is the response to every day life. We don't have the coping skills we used to have. Kids, children, were conscripted, given weapons, and sent to a different continent to fight and die. Twice. After the first time, the Spanish Flu hit and killed millions of people. The kids who lived through that time were mentally tough and capable of coping with the tragedy of both events. They lived full lives, had purpose, had families. By and large, they had a few things that today's kids don't; religion and nuclear families. To some extent, God is a panacea. Having certainty of one's final destination makes the road there a lot more manageable. They also had nuclear families and all the benefits that go with them. We are now at the tail end of a "softening". Peace makes for soft people.
- SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
  Given that WW1 coined the term "Shell Shock", I think you're making heroic caricatures out of real people. If anything the "softening" is that we can now speak of these things, rather than force them down under stoic veneers and alcoholism. https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-48528841 https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-48528841
- Grimm1 6y ago
  What world do you even live in? The US has had constant military engagements for the last 20-30 years, the largest terrorist attack on US soil, the complete economic erosion of the middle class followed by the largest recession since the great depression and now the largest depression since the great depression with the largest pandemic since 1918 where we're also on track for millions dying. This is one of the roughest times in history to be growing up in compared to those times. Then there is their idea of "effective coping". It was to drink more and smack their wives. Your romanticization of those people is utterly off the mark.
  - all2 6y ago
    > It was to drink more and smack their wives. That is also a caricature. I think the middle ground between what you have said and I what I have said is more likely to be true. > Your romanticization of those people is utterly off the mark. Noted. In retrospect, I agree.

watwut 6y ago

I really don't think so. The people in the past were not getting automatic respect and were not getting automatic love. The marriage was often economic transaction and you often had to live among people who did not respected you. The marriage happened after short time of knowing each other and if it turned out mistake, that was it forever, no love. Some people's lives had meaning, plenty of others were basically surviving in routine .

courtf 6y ago
We don't really know this with such certainty. Our records have gaps and only extend a few thousand years back, at most. Even then, we often only have bits and pieces for certain populations. It's a large stretch to generalize over human history.
RunningDroid 6y ago
>The marriage happened after short time of knowing each other and if it turned out mistake, that was it forever, no love. This makes it sound like you believe love is a bool that gets set at the beginning of the relationship, but from what I understand love is a float that the couple can work to increase.
- watwut 6y ago
  No, love don't have to die. But, initial passion, is not love. And people are much different in the first period when they are trying to make best impression and later on after months. In extreme case, many abusers (of both genders) show themselves only after months. For long term love, it matters greatly whether you two are match by personality and values. And short term engagement make it easy to select wrong partner.
freeone3000 6y ago
Personal contact is super important to people. Physical closeness is important. Being able to meet people in person is important for personal relationships. This stuff matters, and it's very hard to get right now.

all2 6y ago

> Stress is not just a matter of the facts of every day life. Stress is the response to every day life. We don't have the coping skills we used to have. Kids, children, were conscripted, given weapons, and sent to a different continent to fight and die. Twice. After the first time, the Spanish Flu hit and killed millions of people. The kids who lived through that time were mentally tough and capable of coping with the tragedy of both events. They lived full lives, had purpose, had families. By and large, they had a few things that today's kids don't; religion and nuclear families. To some extent, God is a panacea. Having certainty of one's final destination makes the road there a lot more manageable. They also had nuclear families and all the benefits that go with them. We are now at the tail end of a "softening". Peace makes for soft people.

SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
Given that WW1 coined the term "Shell Shock", I think you're making heroic caricatures out of real people. If anything the "softening" is that we can now speak of these things, rather than force them down under stoic veneers and alcoholism. https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-48528841 https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-48528841
Grimm1 6y ago
What world do you even live in? The US has had constant military engagements for the last 20-30 years, the largest terrorist attack on US soil, the complete economic erosion of the middle class followed by the largest recession since the great depression and now the largest depression since the great depression with the largest pandemic since 1918 where we're also on track for millions dying. This is one of the roughest times in history to be growing up in compared to those times. Then there is their idea of "effective coping". It was to drink more and smack their wives. Your romanticization of those people is utterly off the mark.
- all2 6y ago
  > It was to drink more and smack their wives. That is also a caricature. I think the middle ground between what you have said and I what I have said is more likely to be true. > Your romanticization of those people is utterly off the mark. Noted. In retrospect, I agree.