4 ms·

You don't actually have to be in conditions of siege or famine for them to be stressful. They merely have to be a threat. And what would a common person (i.e. p

You don't actually have to be in conditions of siege or famine for them to be stressful. They merely have to be a threat. And what would a common person (i.e. peasant) have been able to do about that threat? If your village is raided and you escape harm (quite the assumption), why would you generally return to "baseline"? What if the raiders took all your food and you can't feed your family? What if your family was murdered or raped? What if your village was destroyed and you're now a vagrant?

jerf 5y ago
You are making the cognitive mistake of seeing the exceptions as the default, because the exceptions are what come to mind. As I said, when constant persistent stress was occurring, I'm sure it wasn't any better for them than for us. But those were the exceptions. History writes about the famines and the sieges precisely because they're the interesting exceptions. Most people, most of the time, were not in a siege or a famine or under any particular threat from a neighbor. Today, millions upon millions experience this mid-level persistent stress all the time, for decades. In the 21st century first world, it is the norm, rather than the exception. I don't think that's how it used to be. It especially didn't used to be that way when the danger of famine or siege is as low as it is now, making the stress response even more mal-adaptive.
- phonypc 5y ago
  I guess we just have different reads on history. I don't think it's a mistake to view hard times as the default for most of history in most places. They were of course not constant and there are accounts of exceptionally hard times. But I think the background level of hardship for the common person throughout the world >1000 years ago would probably drive most people currently living in the modern first-world to catatonia or suicide.
- inter_netuser 5y ago
  I’ve once stayed on a farm that was away from everything, no phones, no TV, electricity barely. It was a great summer, can confirm.

jerf 5y ago

You are making the cognitive mistake of seeing the exceptions as the default, because the exceptions are what come to mind. As I said, when constant persistent stress was occurring, I'm sure it wasn't any better for them than for us. But those were the exceptions. History writes about the famines and the sieges precisely because they're the interesting exceptions. Most people, most of the time, were not in a siege or a famine or under any particular threat from a neighbor. Today, millions upon millions experience this mid-level persistent stress all the time, for decades. In the 21st century first world, it is the norm, rather than the exception. I don't think that's how it used to be. It especially didn't used to be that way when the danger of famine or siege is as low as it is now, making the stress response even more mal-adaptive.

phonypc 5y ago
I guess we just have different reads on history. I don't think it's a mistake to view hard times as the default for most of history in most places. They were of course not constant and there are accounts of exceptionally hard times. But I think the background level of hardship for the common person throughout the world >1000 years ago would probably drive most people currently living in the modern first-world to catatonia or suicide.
inter_netuser 5y ago
I’ve once stayed on a farm that was away from everything, no phones, no TV, electricity barely. It was a great summer, can confirm.