4 ms·

Every so often essays posted to HN really hit home and this is one of those times. I feel like this topic has been central to a lot of frustrations I've had in

Every so often essays posted to HN really hit home and this is one of those times. I feel like this topic has been central to a lot of frustrations I've had in recent years. A lot of the discussion here seems to be focused on individual agency and how much people are responsible for their circumstances or not, but for me many of the underlying issues are really about lack of understanding on the advice-givers. Sometimes someone is capable of changing their circumstances, but just doesn't know how to go about it. They just never were taught how, or whatever, and when they turn to others for help, they get bad advice. The people they turn to might really care about the person and want to help, but just aren't good mentors. The avocado toast example is important as a flawed position not necessarily because of broader issues about individual versus societal responsibility, but because it illustrates how completely ignorant people can be about their fellow humans' circumstances. This has a whole host of consequences that are extremely powerful, including not providing advice that would actually help, to not recognizing that good people sometimes just make mistakes, that good or bad mentoring actually does matter, and so forth and so on. So maybe someone is entirely capable of improving their financial situation. But is telling them it's because they're eating avocado toast too much really going to help them? No, because the worldview that avocado toast is causing financial ruin is just as flawed as the worldview that everyone is a completely helpless victim. Cruel optimism isn't just cruel optimism, it's ignorant optimism, and proves the point by its very nature that the system is broken in some way: a person who believes avocado toast is the source of financial distress themselves probably is not sound in their financial reasoning, and if they are not in financial distress, it's probably not because of their sound financial reasoning, but rather, other factors. If you cannot correctly identify the systemic impediments to someone improving their situation, and offer realistic advice to them in those circumstances, you're part of the problem, or at least, you're not recognizing the problem. Avocado toast is kind of a perfect example of opportunity costs applied to moral reasoning or something: it's not that it blames the victim, it's that the advice is actively harmful if for no other reason that decent advice is not being given, and then becomes an example of the very thing it's trying to argue against.

victorstanciu 4y ago
Thank you very much for your kind words. It makes me incredibly happy when I hear that something I write resonates with others, if only because it validates my own feelings.
darkerside 4y ago
> If you cannot correctly identify the systemic impediments to someone improving their situation, and offer realistic advice to them in those circumstances, you're part of the problem, or at least, you're not recognizing the problem I'd say it's similar to telling someone who is cleaning, "you missed a spot". Technically helpful, but annoying, but misses the larger point. But, at the end of the day, it's advice that you can take or leave. Why get so offended?
- OkayPhysicist 4y ago
  The meaning of speech is inseparably entangled within the context of both the speaker and the listener, with the most commonly significant piece of that being "Why did you say anything at all?". In the case of "You missed a spot", the speaker is exerting their desire for a spot to get cleaned onto the person already doing the cleaning. Best case scenario, the cleaner is already cleaning for the speaker, in which case the implied command to clean the particular spot is merely a redundant part of a broader command to clean in the first place. In the more commonly aggravating scenario, the speaker is not the intended beneficiary of the cleaning, and the act of commenting on it at all is met with the hostility appropriate of some one trying to control you. In the example of the avocado toast guy, why did he say anything at all? The subtext of "all you have to do to save money is stop spending money on frivolous things" is that it is a defense of the status quo: "You shouldn't complain about our unfair economic system, your suffering is your own fault". But why make that statement? Because the speaker is broadcasting to the world that he thinks he's better than the avocado eating proles. The choice to say anything at all is an even bigger choice than what to say.
  - darkerside 4y ago
    Why am I saying anything right now? Because I believe I have some value to share with the world, or at least another person. Aggravating as advice and comments can be, they can be a small building block to a better world, including helping someone do a better job, even for its own sake. It's surprisingly hard for us as listeners to advice to remain calm and interpret it objectively. Why? Resistance to being controlled is a big part of it as you said. When is that a productive emotion? Are there times it holds us back?

victorstanciu 4y ago

Thank you very much for your kind words. It makes me incredibly happy when I hear that something I write resonates with others, if only because it validates my own feelings.

darkerside 4y ago

> If you cannot correctly identify the systemic impediments to someone improving their situation, and offer realistic advice to them in those circumstances, you're part of the problem, or at least, you're not recognizing the problem I'd say it's similar to telling someone who is cleaning, "you missed a spot". Technically helpful, but annoying, but misses the larger point. But, at the end of the day, it's advice that you can take or leave. Why get so offended?

OkayPhysicist 4y ago
The meaning of speech is inseparably entangled within the context of both the speaker and the listener, with the most commonly significant piece of that being "Why did you say anything at all?". In the case of "You missed a spot", the speaker is exerting their desire for a spot to get cleaned onto the person already doing the cleaning. Best case scenario, the cleaner is already cleaning for the speaker, in which case the implied command to clean the particular spot is merely a redundant part of a broader command to clean in the first place. In the more commonly aggravating scenario, the speaker is not the intended beneficiary of the cleaning, and the act of commenting on it at all is met with the hostility appropriate of some one trying to control you. In the example of the avocado toast guy, why did he say anything at all? The subtext of "all you have to do to save money is stop spending money on frivolous things" is that it is a defense of the status quo: "You shouldn't complain about our unfair economic system, your suffering is your own fault". But why make that statement? Because the speaker is broadcasting to the world that he thinks he's better than the avocado eating proles. The choice to say anything at all is an even bigger choice than what to say.
- darkerside 4y ago
  Why am I saying anything right now? Because I believe I have some value to share with the world, or at least another person. Aggravating as advice and comments can be, they can be a small building block to a better world, including helping someone do a better job, even for its own sake. It's surprisingly hard for us as listeners to advice to remain calm and interpret it objectively. Why? Resistance to being controlled is a big part of it as you said. When is that a productive emotion? Are there times it holds us back?