3 ms·

I was only arguing the "I can't tell whether someone's feelings are valid or not" part, not particularly defending the original comment. That said even if the

I was only arguing the "I can't tell whether someone's feelings are valid or not" part, not particularly defending the original comment. That said even if the original comment is insulting and doesnt make its author look great, its factual analysis is spot on. An I also do think that being too nice and catering to everyone's feeling all the time is actually a WORSE type of violence than just being tough and straightforward, especially when it's based on something real. A loser that doesnt know he is a loser should be told he's a loser because he can change after. He will never improve if you never tell him. Personally there are a bunch of stuff I absolutely wish someone has told me a few years back ...

Last5Digits 4y ago
While I agree that being direct is sometimes necessary, the approach one takes must be well considered. As I said in the previous comment, I've personally met people whose lives were ruined by people being "tough and straightforward". These people struggle to identify and address their problems, because they unwillingly think back to the unfeeling and cruel way they've been treated. Even the nicest, most considerate conversion will be extremely anxiety inducing, because it is filtered through their bad experiences. Insecurity is one of the most common problems that people have when identifying their weaknesses, and being direct or tough runs a high risk of increasing these insecurities. Being nice isn't the best approach in every situation, but I would say it's a safe default to pick when you're uncertain about the cause of someone's problems. I'd also warn against using the term "loser" so loosely. We need to consider by which metric we determine someones life to be suboptimal, and the certainty we have in that metric. I think we both agree that maximum human happiness should be the goal to strive towards, but getting there is pretty tricky. Let's imagine a person that works at McDonald's for their entire life, has no friends, and spends all of their free time playing video games while high. Said person has spent many years searching for their optimal path in life, and they found every one, except the one they are on now, lacking. Most people would call this person a "loser", but are they really? After all, they seem to be on a path that optimizes their happiness. Telling that person that they are a loser may cause them to "improve" in the eyes of the average person, but they will, in reality, change their life for the worse. They may be successful, but they'll also be miserable. Whenever you judge someone else using your own personal version of an optimal life, you run the risk of being wrong and forcing that person into suboptimality. We can try to determine things that are likely to increase someones happiness, but the word "likely" is important here. General assumptions about a "good" life tend to be risky, because humans are quite complex, and determining someones best course of action from the outside is always extremely difficult and error-prone.
- davidguetta 4y ago
  I dont think we disagree that much. We are both defending two sides of what should be a balance, with the same stated goal of helping people, and pick one because of our personal experience. Its just make me insane when i see so many people think they are being the good guys by "being nice" when my life (and sometimes theirs) would have been 200% better if i had close friends or family being tougher / more real with me. Fortunately i had the opportunity to meet these kind of people in other settings (boxing, military guys, entrepreneurs, some coaches...) and that helped me so much but not everyone has the same luck.
  - Last5Digits 4y ago
    I definitely agree with a balance of both approaches being optimal. Some people need one and some people the other. I'm actually someone that would've probably also benefited from a tougher approach, as I've wasted a lot of years aimlessly floating through life because I never got any pushback. A few years ago, I would have completely agreed with your first comment, but I've since met some people who allowed me to see things from a different perspective. And, as you said, there will sadly always be people that take the easiest path to feeling good about themselves instead of the path that best for the person with issues. Anyway, thanks for the interesting discussion!

Last5Digits 4y ago

While I agree that being direct is sometimes necessary, the approach one takes must be well considered. As I said in the previous comment, I've personally met people whose lives were ruined by people being "tough and straightforward". These people struggle to identify and address their problems, because they unwillingly think back to the unfeeling and cruel way they've been treated. Even the nicest, most considerate conversion will be extremely anxiety inducing, because it is filtered through their bad experiences. Insecurity is one of the most common problems that people have when identifying their weaknesses, and being direct or tough runs a high risk of increasing these insecurities. Being nice isn't the best approach in every situation, but I would say it's a safe default to pick when you're uncertain about the cause of someone's problems. I'd also warn against using the term "loser" so loosely. We need to consider by which metric we determine someones life to be suboptimal, and the certainty we have in that metric. I think we both agree that maximum human happiness should be the goal to strive towards, but getting there is pretty tricky. Let's imagine a person that works at McDonald's for their entire life, has no friends, and spends all of their free time playing video games while high. Said person has spent many years searching for their optimal path in life, and they found every one, except the one they are on now, lacking. Most people would call this person a "loser", but are they really? After all, they seem to be on a path that optimizes their happiness. Telling that person that they are a loser may cause them to "improve" in the eyes of the average person, but they will, in reality, change their life for the worse. They may be successful, but they'll also be miserable. Whenever you judge someone else using your own personal version of an optimal life, you run the risk of being wrong and forcing that person into suboptimality. We can try to determine things that are likely to increase someones happiness, but the word "likely" is important here. General assumptions about a "good" life tend to be risky, because humans are quite complex, and determining someones best course of action from the outside is always extremely difficult and error-prone.

davidguetta 4y ago
I dont think we disagree that much. We are both defending two sides of what should be a balance, with the same stated goal of helping people, and pick one because of our personal experience. Its just make me insane when i see so many people think they are being the good guys by "being nice" when my life (and sometimes theirs) would have been 200% better if i had close friends or family being tougher / more real with me. Fortunately i had the opportunity to meet these kind of people in other settings (boxing, military guys, entrepreneurs, some coaches...) and that helped me so much but not everyone has the same luck.
- Last5Digits 4y ago
  I definitely agree with a balance of both approaches being optimal. Some people need one and some people the other. I'm actually someone that would've probably also benefited from a tougher approach, as I've wasted a lot of years aimlessly floating through life because I never got any pushback. A few years ago, I would have completely agreed with your first comment, but I've since met some people who allowed me to see things from a different perspective. And, as you said, there will sadly always be people that take the easiest path to feeling good about themselves instead of the path that best for the person with issues. Anyway, thanks for the interesting discussion!