3 ms·

> This is such unhelpful, unsympathetic advice. I think writing this advice off as unhelpful is actually more harmful than offering it in the first place. I t

> This is such unhelpful, unsympathetic advice. I think writing this advice off as unhelpful is actually more harmful than offering it in the first place. I think this is very real and very helpful advice. Is it hard to follow? Speaking from experience: absolutely. Self-control is like a muscle: exercise it frequently, and it gets stronger. It also gets tired and needs rest, and it atrophies with disuse. And like exercise, it's almost always beneficial. Even folks with physical disabilities see very real benefits from exercise, even when it's hard and painful! I used to live next door to a man who walked with a cane and very obviously struggled to go up and down stairs... And yet any time I would offer him help, he would refuse, because he knew the effort would keep him as mobile and active as he could be, given his circumstances--and do accept that help would actually harm him in the long run by accelerating the decline in his abilities. I doubt I would have his level of discipline were I in his situation, and to this day I envy that of him. I think going so far as to say "telling someone to exercise self-control is unhelpful/unsympathetic" is exactly analogous to telling someone exercise is harmful. Not "too much exercise is harmful", but "any exercise is harmful", which is obviously untrue. I'll be the first to acknowledge that humans are innately lazy, and that exercise is hard/boring/inconvenient/whatever. However, we do no one justice by giving them reasons to excuse that laziness. Justifying a lack of internal effort/ability should be and explanation of last resort, not the baseline. Put differently: very few people are physically incapable of doing a pushup (or whatever other basic exercise you want to reference) due to actual physical limitations. Most who cannot simply haven't put in the work to reach the point where they can. [E] This turned out longer than I anticipated. It turns out I feel strongly about this, and feel like this is one of the most toxic aspects of the society I feel like I inhabit. People should be encouraged to push their abilities, not given excuses not to. It's all too easy to accept those excuses as truth, and this prevents us all from reaching our highest potential. This feels like a net harm to society and a driver of very real inequality

KittenInABox 2y ago
> Self-control is like a muscle: exercise it frequently, and it gets stronger. It also gets tired and needs rest, and it atrophies with disuse. Addiction is not a matter of self-control.
- deelowe 2y ago
  Few things are. The world would be a better place if people would try to help each other more.
  - try_the_bass 2y ago
    Wanting people to understand that they can improve their own self-control is trying to help them. With more self-control comes more agency and more control over one's own outcomes. How is that being spun as a bad thing? I don't understand how we've reached a point that it's considered more "helpful" to teach people they have no control over their actions, rather than helping them gain more control over those actions?
- wubrr 2y ago
  It's 100% a matter of self-control.
  - fragmede 2y ago
    No it's not. That's a lazy way of thinking. Addiction isn't that simple, and deluding yourself into thinking it's that simple does yourself a disservice. It's not a moral failing, it's a disease.
    - wubrr 2y ago
      Self control is not 'simple', nor did I say anything about a 'moral failing'. 'Deluding yourself' by arguing against a position you imagined does yourself a disservice and just seems like a simple straw-man.
    - try_the_bass 2y ago
      And it's not lazy or delusional to claim addiction is as simple as being a disease? If anything, that's a more lazy approach than saying it's a failing of self-control, which is itself a complicated and complex issue (hence my paragraphs and qualifications and whatnot above). Writing it off as "a disease" removes all agency from the individual involved, whose lack of self-control is probably why they're addicted in the first place. That's true regardless of whether or not the addiction itself is a disease or a lack of self-control. Saying "it's a disease" is also hugely insulting to the many people who have broken addictions by improving their self control. Even if you consider it a "disease", every person who has accomplished this has proven that the cure sometimes really is "improve your self-control". And if that works in some cases, how can you prove whether or not it will work in another case without trying it first?

KittenInABox 2y ago

> Self-control is like a muscle: exercise it frequently, and it gets stronger. It also gets tired and needs rest, and it atrophies with disuse. Addiction is not a matter of self-control.

deelowe 2y ago
Few things are. The world would be a better place if people would try to help each other more.
- try_the_bass 2y ago
  Wanting people to understand that they can improve their own self-control is trying to help them. With more self-control comes more agency and more control over one's own outcomes. How is that being spun as a bad thing? I don't understand how we've reached a point that it's considered more "helpful" to teach people they have no control over their actions, rather than helping them gain more control over those actions?
wubrr 2y ago
It's 100% a matter of self-control.
- fragmede 2y ago
  No it's not. That's a lazy way of thinking. Addiction isn't that simple, and deluding yourself into thinking it's that simple does yourself a disservice. It's not a moral failing, it's a disease.
  - wubrr 2y ago
    Self control is not 'simple', nor did I say anything about a 'moral failing'. 'Deluding yourself' by arguing against a position you imagined does yourself a disservice and just seems like a simple straw-man.
  - try_the_bass 2y ago
    And it's not lazy or delusional to claim addiction is as simple as being a disease? If anything, that's a more lazy approach than saying it's a failing of self-control, which is itself a complicated and complex issue (hence my paragraphs and qualifications and whatnot above). Writing it off as "a disease" removes all agency from the individual involved, whose lack of self-control is probably why they're addicted in the first place. That's true regardless of whether or not the addiction itself is a disease or a lack of self-control. Saying "it's a disease" is also hugely insulting to the many people who have broken addictions by improving their self control. Even if you consider it a "disease", every person who has accomplished this has proven that the cure sometimes really is "improve your self-control". And if that works in some cases, how can you prove whether or not it will work in another case without trying it first?