4 ms·

> A person who does nothing with their life when they could be doing something is really a narcissist Nah, lots of people just tend to follow the path of least

> A person who does nothing with their life when they could be doing something is really a narcissist Nah, lots of people just tend to follow the path of least resistance at the moment. They don't assume that others will support them forever, they just aren't thinking about it since it is bothersome. If they were forced to do other things then they will do other things, since the force changed what path has the least resistance.

JoeyBananas 5y ago
I agree with you, it might not necessarily be narcissism that causes someone to always do the bare minimum in life. What it really comes down to is lack of discipline.
- sillysaurusx 5y ago
  I've mostly done the bare minimum in life, at things that I didn't want to do. I agree I'm undisciplined. It took a long time to find my own path, and something to strive for. I think your labels are part of the problem. They're not narcissists. They're people. And you look down on them just for being people. If you want to help them, perhaps treat them as equals and listen to them rather than thinking of ways to change them. I wish I knew their gamer tags so that I could play a few rounds of halo with them, or whatever they like to play. They seem chill.
- jcims 5y ago
  I know a kid that is a bit at risk of this. The issue i see isn’t lack of discipline as much as it is lack of passion or motivation for anything. If you explore their desire for the future it is a complete blank. Nothing is interesting to them, the future just seems dark and grim, they are resolute about not having children and it feels like, to them, the world is committing slow-motion suicide and there’s no sense in getting emotionally invested in any particular outcome.
- smolder 5y ago
  What it often (of course not always) comes down to is that they have experienced some trauma or unfairness that ruins their trust in the delayed reward systems that the survivor contingent happily takes advantage of. It's a much greater emotional load to maintain discipline when you experience setbacks that are out of your control, even partly. If 100 people break the law and 10 get the book thrown at them and 90 get away free, those 10 made a bad choice but they also were unlucky. The bad luck part will tend to weaken the cognitive biases that help people stay motivated, i.e. the just world fallacy, and move their locus of control outward. Risks become less appealing. Satiating immediate wants and needs over investing in long term ones may seem rational. How do you address this issue? I think it's cheaper and better for everyone to address unfairness than to try to fix people after they come to feel abused by the world. It would also be better than the status quo of Social Darwinism with a sprinkle of charity and busted social programs. Dear downvoter, I'd be interested in reading why I deserved it.
  - fb13 5y ago
    > How do you address this issue? I think it's cheaper and better for everyone to address unfairness than to try to fix people after they come to feel abused by the world. Yes, but somehow forward thinking isn't a common phenomenon in our society. > Dear downvoter, I'd be interested in reading why I deserved it. Undoubtedly you didn't "deserve" it. The voting system is just a way for the prevailing cliques to signify who's present. This thread is ripe with the hateful and helpless young men referred to in the article, evident by many of the comments. The worse part is that growing trend in this direction on HN. I'd say HN is currently experiencing max Q and I'm not sure it will make it to the other side without succumbing to the pressure(ie decent people leaving the site for good). The experience here is worse than before, but still better than elsewhere. I think that means HN is ripe for innovation!
    - kharak 5y ago
      What is "Q"? You seem to refer to a model that I haven't heard about and I'm curious about it. (And not sure how to Google this one).
- monkeybutton 5y ago
  Could also be depression and learned helplessness. Playing video games all day is just a coping mechanism or distraction from the first two problems.

JoeyBananas 5y ago

I agree with you, it might not necessarily be narcissism that causes someone to always do the bare minimum in life. What it really comes down to is lack of discipline.

sillysaurusx 5y ago
I've mostly done the bare minimum in life, at things that I didn't want to do. I agree I'm undisciplined. It took a long time to find my own path, and something to strive for. I think your labels are part of the problem. They're not narcissists. They're people. And you look down on them just for being people. If you want to help them, perhaps treat them as equals and listen to them rather than thinking of ways to change them. I wish I knew their gamer tags so that I could play a few rounds of halo with them, or whatever they like to play. They seem chill.
jcims 5y ago
I know a kid that is a bit at risk of this. The issue i see isn’t lack of discipline as much as it is lack of passion or motivation for anything. If you explore their desire for the future it is a complete blank. Nothing is interesting to them, the future just seems dark and grim, they are resolute about not having children and it feels like, to them, the world is committing slow-motion suicide and there’s no sense in getting emotionally invested in any particular outcome.
smolder 5y ago
What it often (of course not always) comes down to is that they have experienced some trauma or unfairness that ruins their trust in the delayed reward systems that the survivor contingent happily takes advantage of. It's a much greater emotional load to maintain discipline when you experience setbacks that are out of your control, even partly. If 100 people break the law and 10 get the book thrown at them and 90 get away free, those 10 made a bad choice but they also were unlucky. The bad luck part will tend to weaken the cognitive biases that help people stay motivated, i.e. the just world fallacy, and move their locus of control outward. Risks become less appealing. Satiating immediate wants and needs over investing in long term ones may seem rational. How do you address this issue? I think it's cheaper and better for everyone to address unfairness than to try to fix people after they come to feel abused by the world. It would also be better than the status quo of Social Darwinism with a sprinkle of charity and busted social programs. Dear downvoter, I'd be interested in reading why I deserved it.
- fb13 5y ago
  > How do you address this issue? I think it's cheaper and better for everyone to address unfairness than to try to fix people after they come to feel abused by the world. Yes, but somehow forward thinking isn't a common phenomenon in our society. > Dear downvoter, I'd be interested in reading why I deserved it. Undoubtedly you didn't "deserve" it. The voting system is just a way for the prevailing cliques to signify who's present. This thread is ripe with the hateful and helpless young men referred to in the article, evident by many of the comments. The worse part is that growing trend in this direction on HN. I'd say HN is currently experiencing max Q and I'm not sure it will make it to the other side without succumbing to the pressure(ie decent people leaving the site for good). The experience here is worse than before, but still better than elsewhere. I think that means HN is ripe for innovation!
  - kharak 5y ago
    What is "Q"? You seem to refer to a model that I haven't heard about and I'm curious about it. (And not sure how to Google this one).
monkeybutton 5y ago
Could also be depression and learned helplessness. Playing video games all day is just a coping mechanism or distraction from the first two problems.