4 ms·

Many people say that overthinking, anxiety, and stress are moral imperatives as a response to something they don't like: content, political ideas, celebrities,

by caseyy 2y ago

Many people say that overthinking, anxiety, and stress are moral imperatives as a response to something they don't like: content, political ideas, celebrities, technology companies, and many other things. It is a completely ineffective method of making a change. I wish they'd stop spreading their anxieties online. I know it makes them feel like they're doing something, but one phone call to a relevant decision-maker is 100x more effective and 100x less destructive to those around them.

lukan 2y ago
"but one phone call to a relevant decision-maker is 100x more effective and 100x less destructive to those around them." I don't think, the relevant decision makers are open for incoming calls from the internet, but I agree that panic and anxiety solves nothing, but creates just more problems.
- caseyy 2y ago
  You'd be surprised. Almost all government organizations have receptions you can call, and many private companies (who are not using client support to insulate themselves from feedback) will have executives you can speak to if you ask. There are also many activists you can talk to. The change might not come from them doing something for you, too. They may teach you something you don't know, which can reduce your friction in some situations, too. For example, people commonly complain about poor consumer protection around the world. But usually, there are already laws against mistreating consumers, and if they were to report the incident to the right organization/inspector, they would get the remedy they want. The solution is often the two right people getting on a call or talking in a room. In the EU, there are even some summer camps for teens aged 14-18 to learn how to approach government decision-makers. It is doable. I think you may have some learned helplessness everyone here talks about. But if you give it an earnest try and approach a problem you see from various angles, you'll make some progress on it. Usually, this will be done by talking to a decision-maker.
  - conartist6 2y ago
    Ah, yeah. I live in the US so it's a bit of a different situation here. Political polarization in a two-party system means that the decision makers are rarely actually listening. We rely on the EU to regulate our technology, so generally the same situation makes us feel disempowered because, well, we are. The people who make the rules don't represent us.
    - caseyy 2y ago
      I hope you don't take it as an offense, but this seems like learned hopelessness. Have you earnestly tried to speak to a decision-maker? Not everyone in the EU will listen to you, either. There is a bit of a learning curve. Sometimes, you have to apply pressure through specific channels in specific ways, such as influencing stakeholders. Sometimes, you even have to form an organization for your cause. But not always. Sometimes, it just takes time to find someone who will listen. But effort it does take.
    - ericd 2y ago
      I’m part of a volunteer group that lobbies congresspeople about climate change, and there’re at least a few examples of it making a very obvious difference (for example, one republican member of congress started the conservative climate caucus after going on a nature walk with some members of this group, it now counts over half of all republican members of congress as members). So I’d caution from adopting this idea that it’s all useless, it’s not. A lot of times, they’re just not hearing that their constituents really care about these things. They’re only human.
nine_k 2y ago
It's sort of logical: if a "bad thing" is observed, a "good" observer must feel bad as a negative reinforcement against the "bad thing". Ideally the pressure of the negative emotions must force the "good" observer to stop just watching and go fix things, and afterwards prevent the "bad thing" from occurring again. This works in simple cases, like spilling your drink: it: it feels bad, the feeling makes you clean it up, and be more careful. It fails in cases where the immediate effectual action is impossible, or not known. The only reasonable course of action then is to spread the word, because you can't actually fix anything. And here ingroup / outgroup signaling jumps in! Feeling bad about some issues becomes a signal of group belonging, a kind of virtue signaling. Not feeling bad and not expressing outrage becomes suspicious, if not defiant. This is one of the streams that feeds the outrage machine.
- z33k 2y ago
  This idea you’ve presented is immediately visible all around when you know to look for it. The failure case I see most often is when this thinking is applied to some kind of a wicked problem. 1. The problem is not understood until after the formulation of a solution. 2.Wicked problems have no stopping rule. 3. Solutions to wicked problems are not right or wrong. 4. Every wicked problem is essentially novel and unique. 5. Every solution to a wicked problem is a "one shot operation". 6. Wicked problems have no given alternative solutions. Source: Dialogue Mapping: Building Shared Understanding of Wicked Problems 2006 Jeffrey Conklin ISBN: 978-0-470-01768-5
- davidcalloway 2y ago
  I know this is nitpicking and perhaps a dumb thing to say, but in my view the simple case of drink spilling does not apply. Have you been around children who spill a drink? The ones who experience high levels of stress bury their heads and treat it as a catastrophe, waiting for someone else to clean it up and soothe them. Those who treat it as no big deal are more likely to clean it up. And being more careful only grows slowly with age. Oh, and using heavier glasses btw. It's way better to give kids real glass for drinks and tolerate the occasional breakage than to have constant spilling with light plastic cups.
  - 2y ago
_cenw 2y ago
Is my anxiety warranted yet if I'm a trans person? Because I wish people would at least acknowledge reality, that there is a tangible threat of genocide around, that we're being targeted for easy rhetorical wins, that trans women are currently put in men's prison despite court orders prohibiting it - not despite but because they'll be raped and "v-coded". What I mostly get is indifference or "didoing" ("it's not so bad") - and yes, that indifference spikes my anxiety. Because it feels like this is the same indifference that ultimately lead to "Didn't the Germans know what was happening?". The answer is, they didn't care to look.
- viiviiv 2y ago
  There's no tangible threat of genocide though. Perhaps you've been overexposed to a social media bubble that's steeped in anxiety about this, despite there being no plausible prospect of such a horror occurring?
  - pjc50 2y ago
    There's a very real prospect of criminalization and forced de transition, though.
    - _cenw 2y ago
      Eradication doesn't need to happen though death, though these actions of course also raise the suicide rate. Displacement, cultural eradication, making it impossible to exist in public, stochastic terrorism though constant demonization - these are all already here. If you all feel more comfortable with those words, feel free to replace genocide with all of the above. Does not help with my anxiety being rooted more in indifference to the actions than the actions themselves.
    - viiviiv 2y ago
      How do you mean? As in, what activities do you anticipate being criminalized?
      - 2y ago
andrepd 2y ago
> Many people say that overthinking, anxiety, and stress Man it's as if billions of people were being peddled algorithmic content platforms whose "engagement" metrics benefit from showing you content that promotes overthinking, anxiety, and stress. Algorithmic social media is severely fucked up.
ljm 2y ago
It’s the classic politician’s syllogism: we must do something, this [the anxiety, stress, victimisation, activated fear response, overthinking, catastrophising, etc.] is something, therefore we must do it. The worst thing about it is how it will actually make you less resilient, and a lack of resilience just makes it harder for you to function day to day as each adverse encounter, no matter how trivial, becomes increasingly overwhelming. To me that feels like a night terror: screaming and shouting about a frightening thing at the end of the bed, but frozen in place and unable to act, unable to fight back. Has to be someone else. I won’t lie, I think I’ve suffered from this and it’s held me back over the past couple of years as I’d choose flight or avoidance over fight, essentially repeating the cycle until I managed to deal with it and move forward. Only thing you can do is step back and get out of your head. Separate all the stuff you can’t action from the stuff you can.
conartist6 2y ago
"A phone call to the relevant decision maker" LOL. I'm with you: outrage alone is useless, but I wouldn't expect to be a "call to a decision maker" to be anything other than the same banner of "more to make yourself feel good". If you want to change the world, do ANYTHING to make your voice heard. Shout your message to everyone. Sing, blog, go outside with a poster. Start a substack. Write a web browser. Heck, if someone wants to make a better version of Honey I hear there's a lot of people who want to support creators through affiliates but are evidently having a hard time finding a company who sees them as anything but patsies.
- caseyy 2y ago
  Let's think about what shouting a message to the world does. First, you affect the stakeholders of the decision-maker (person or organization). When talking about a politician in a democracy, the public often determines whether they get elected. So, you are applying pressure to them through a stakeholder — “fall in line or risk your career.” You are also slowly changing the culture and applying pressure to the societal outlook. This also applies to your decision-makers (whose friends, family, co-workers, and political or corporate partners partake in the broader culture) and future decision-makers raised in the culture you are shaping. These are all tactics you can use, but some decision-makers are very resistant to societal and stakeholder pressure. They either have a strong negotiating position (like Donald Trump, who offered Americans many things other candidates were not offering for moral reasons), or they may have a model of functioning in the politico-organizational system that insulates them from the ideas of others (they may simply be narcissists or zealots). But if you speak with them and you negotiate in terms relevant to them, they will listen. To that end, you first have to make the call or get in a room with them.
elicksaur 2y ago
Calling your representative is as effective as my comment here.
- caseyy 2y ago
  Will your representative or the government agencies they may put you in touch with read your comment?
  - elicksaur 2y ago
    No, they don’t read your mail either. It gets collected and tallied by an intern who probably isn’t even paid. The tally is then reported for the day to an actual staffer who may or may not bother mentioning it to the rep that day.

by caseyy 2y ago

lukan 2y ago

"but one phone call to a relevant decision-maker is 100x more effective and 100x less destructive to those around them." I don't think, the relevant decision makers are open for incoming calls from the internet, but I agree that panic and anxiety solves nothing, but creates just more problems.

caseyy 2y ago
You'd be surprised. Almost all government organizations have receptions you can call, and many private companies (who are not using client support to insulate themselves from feedback) will have executives you can speak to if you ask. There are also many activists you can talk to. The change might not come from them doing something for you, too. They may teach you something you don't know, which can reduce your friction in some situations, too. For example, people commonly complain about poor consumer protection around the world. But usually, there are already laws against mistreating consumers, and if they were to report the incident to the right organization/inspector, they would get the remedy they want. The solution is often the two right people getting on a call or talking in a room. In the EU, there are even some summer camps for teens aged 14-18 to learn how to approach government decision-makers. It is doable. I think you may have some learned helplessness everyone here talks about. But if you give it an earnest try and approach a problem you see from various angles, you'll make some progress on it. Usually, this will be done by talking to a decision-maker.
- conartist6 2y ago
  Ah, yeah. I live in the US so it's a bit of a different situation here. Political polarization in a two-party system means that the decision makers are rarely actually listening. We rely on the EU to regulate our technology, so generally the same situation makes us feel disempowered because, well, we are. The people who make the rules don't represent us.
  - caseyy 2y ago
    I hope you don't take it as an offense, but this seems like learned hopelessness. Have you earnestly tried to speak to a decision-maker? Not everyone in the EU will listen to you, either. There is a bit of a learning curve. Sometimes, you have to apply pressure through specific channels in specific ways, such as influencing stakeholders. Sometimes, you even have to form an organization for your cause. But not always. Sometimes, it just takes time to find someone who will listen. But effort it does take.
  - ericd 2y ago
    I’m part of a volunteer group that lobbies congresspeople about climate change, and there’re at least a few examples of it making a very obvious difference (for example, one republican member of congress started the conservative climate caucus after going on a nature walk with some members of this group, it now counts over half of all republican members of congress as members). So I’d caution from adopting this idea that it’s all useless, it’s not. A lot of times, they’re just not hearing that their constituents really care about these things. They’re only human.

nine_k 2y ago

It's sort of logical: if a "bad thing" is observed, a "good" observer must feel bad as a negative reinforcement against the "bad thing". Ideally the pressure of the negative emotions must force the "good" observer to stop just watching and go fix things, and afterwards prevent the "bad thing" from occurring again. This works in simple cases, like spilling your drink: it: it feels bad, the feeling makes you clean it up, and be more careful. It fails in cases where the immediate effectual action is impossible, or not known. The only reasonable course of action then is to spread the word, because you can't actually fix anything. And here ingroup / outgroup signaling jumps in! Feeling bad about some issues becomes a signal of group belonging, a kind of virtue signaling. Not feeling bad and not expressing outrage becomes suspicious, if not defiant. This is one of the streams that feeds the outrage machine.

z33k 2y ago
This idea you’ve presented is immediately visible all around when you know to look for it. The failure case I see most often is when this thinking is applied to some kind of a wicked problem. 1. The problem is not understood until after the formulation of a solution. 2.Wicked problems have no stopping rule. 3. Solutions to wicked problems are not right or wrong. 4. Every wicked problem is essentially novel and unique. 5. Every solution to a wicked problem is a "one shot operation". 6. Wicked problems have no given alternative solutions. Source: Dialogue Mapping: Building Shared Understanding of Wicked Problems 2006 Jeffrey Conklin ISBN: 978-0-470-01768-5
davidcalloway 2y ago
I know this is nitpicking and perhaps a dumb thing to say, but in my view the simple case of drink spilling does not apply. Have you been around children who spill a drink? The ones who experience high levels of stress bury their heads and treat it as a catastrophe, waiting for someone else to clean it up and soothe them. Those who treat it as no big deal are more likely to clean it up. And being more careful only grows slowly with age. Oh, and using heavier glasses btw. It's way better to give kids real glass for drinks and tolerate the occasional breakage than to have constant spilling with light plastic cups.
- 2y ago

_cenw 2y ago

Is my anxiety warranted yet if I'm a trans person? Because I wish people would at least acknowledge reality, that there is a tangible threat of genocide around, that we're being targeted for easy rhetorical wins, that trans women are currently put in men's prison despite court orders prohibiting it - not despite but because they'll be raped and "v-coded". What I mostly get is indifference or "didoing" ("it's not so bad") - and yes, that indifference spikes my anxiety. Because it feels like this is the same indifference that ultimately lead to "Didn't the Germans know what was happening?". The answer is, they didn't care to look.

viiviiv 2y ago
There's no tangible threat of genocide though. Perhaps you've been overexposed to a social media bubble that's steeped in anxiety about this, despite there being no plausible prospect of such a horror occurring?
- pjc50 2y ago
  There's a very real prospect of criminalization and forced de transition, though.
  - _cenw 2y ago
    Eradication doesn't need to happen though death, though these actions of course also raise the suicide rate. Displacement, cultural eradication, making it impossible to exist in public, stochastic terrorism though constant demonization - these are all already here. If you all feel more comfortable with those words, feel free to replace genocide with all of the above. Does not help with my anxiety being rooted more in indifference to the actions than the actions themselves.
  - viiviiv 2y ago
    How do you mean? As in, what activities do you anticipate being criminalized?
    - 2y ago

andrepd 2y ago

> Many people say that overthinking, anxiety, and stress Man it's as if billions of people were being peddled algorithmic content platforms whose "engagement" metrics benefit from showing you content that promotes overthinking, anxiety, and stress. Algorithmic social media is severely fucked up.

ljm 2y ago

It’s the classic politician’s syllogism: we must do something, this [the anxiety, stress, victimisation, activated fear response, overthinking, catastrophising, etc.] is something, therefore we must do it. The worst thing about it is how it will actually make you less resilient, and a lack of resilience just makes it harder for you to function day to day as each adverse encounter, no matter how trivial, becomes increasingly overwhelming. To me that feels like a night terror: screaming and shouting about a frightening thing at the end of the bed, but frozen in place and unable to act, unable to fight back. Has to be someone else. I won’t lie, I think I’ve suffered from this and it’s held me back over the past couple of years as I’d choose flight or avoidance over fight, essentially repeating the cycle until I managed to deal with it and move forward. Only thing you can do is step back and get out of your head. Separate all the stuff you can’t action from the stuff you can.

conartist6 2y ago

"A phone call to the relevant decision maker" LOL. I'm with you: outrage alone is useless, but I wouldn't expect to be a "call to a decision maker" to be anything other than the same banner of "more to make yourself feel good". If you want to change the world, do ANYTHING to make your voice heard. Shout your message to everyone. Sing, blog, go outside with a poster. Start a substack. Write a web browser. Heck, if someone wants to make a better version of Honey I hear there's a lot of people who want to support creators through affiliates but are evidently having a hard time finding a company who sees them as anything but patsies.

caseyy 2y ago
Let's think about what shouting a message to the world does. First, you affect the stakeholders of the decision-maker (person or organization). When talking about a politician in a democracy, the public often determines whether they get elected. So, you are applying pressure to them through a stakeholder — “fall in line or risk your career.” You are also slowly changing the culture and applying pressure to the societal outlook. This also applies to your decision-makers (whose friends, family, co-workers, and political or corporate partners partake in the broader culture) and future decision-makers raised in the culture you are shaping. These are all tactics you can use, but some decision-makers are very resistant to societal and stakeholder pressure. They either have a strong negotiating position (like Donald Trump, who offered Americans many things other candidates were not offering for moral reasons), or they may have a model of functioning in the politico-organizational system that insulates them from the ideas of others (they may simply be narcissists or zealots). But if you speak with them and you negotiate in terms relevant to them, they will listen. To that end, you first have to make the call or get in a room with them.

elicksaur 2y ago

Calling your representative is as effective as my comment here.

caseyy 2y ago
Will your representative or the government agencies they may put you in touch with read your comment?
- elicksaur 2y ago
  No, they don’t read your mail either. It gets collected and tallied by an intern who probably isn’t even paid. The tally is then reported for the day to an actual staffer who may or may not bother mentioning it to the rep that day.