6 ms·

> Why are we all so anxious all the time? Marx had a diagnosis. Because capitalism makes the human being utterly expendable... I'm sorry, but that's just nuts

by glenra 13y ago

> Why are we all so anxious all the time? Marx had a diagnosis. Because capitalism makes the human being utterly expendable... I'm sorry, but that's just nuts unless you can point to a society - of any sort anywhere - that contains no anxious people. People are (sometimes) anxious for the same reason deer and mice and all other animals on the planet are anxious: being anxious has survival value. Suppose we completely solved the need to pay for food and housing; people would be anxious about health care. Suppose we solved that too? People would be anxious about the need for pet health care. Or better housing. Or social validation. Or we'd start inventing brand new threats to be anxious about, like catastrophic global warming or nuclear meltdowns or economic collapse or being hit by a meteor. We worry because worrying is part of being human.

pkinsky 13y ago
>We worry because worrying is part of being human. Worry isn't a binary state. Not being able to pay for your child's health care is more anxiety-inducing than not being able to pay for your gerbil's health care, for the vast majority of people.
- humanrebar 13y ago
  Regardless of being able to pay, waiting for lab results of a tumor biopsy is stressful, which is the point.
MarkTee 13y ago
> unless you can point to a society - of any sort anywhere - that contains no anxious people Ok, the Pirahã people of Brazil.
atmosx 13y ago
> I'm sorry, but that's just nuts unless you can point to a society - of any sort anywhere - that contains no anxious people. Tibet. That said, the level of anxiety in western society if the no-1 reason of aging. > Suppose we completely solved the need to pay for food and housing; people would be anxious about health care. Suppose we solved that too? People would be anxious about the need for pet health care. Hm, you have too many assumptions there. Not that I'm very fond of social sciences but do you have at least one study to support your claim? Otherwise, Newton might get displeased[2]. What you're saying that Maslow[1] was wrong? Maybe his hierarchy should be a square since physiological and self-actualization is one and the same according to your approach. > We worry because worrying is part of being human. Of course if my parent is not at home at 23:00 o'clock, I worry. When my parent comes back I stop being worried. It's transitory. I think that in Ethiopia, in Ukraine and large parts of 21'st century world, most people are worried 24/7 though. It's NOT the same. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypotheses_non_fingo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypotheses_non_fingo
- sigzero 13y ago
  > Tibet Wrong. Everyone has been anxious about something sometime. Everyone.
  - atmosx 13y ago
    I'm positive that I didn't read at least once. As I get it, he means anxious of the time not twice in a lifetime.
    - glenra 13y ago
      Of course, the other answer is that we're not anxious all the time. Maybe Marx was. Maybe the people who find Marx insightful are too. I'm not. Most people are anxious some of the time. And they should be, because being anxious some of the time can prompt you to improve your life situation or avoid immediate danger.
- notahacker 13y ago
  Tibet has people so anxious about the state of their society and distance from their spiritual leader they're prepared to pay a middleman several months' income to help smuggle them through mountain passes out of the country, or set themselves alight, not to mention everyday concerns about poverty or the nice girl from the village not paying them much attention.
- glenra 13y ago
  > Not that I'm very fond of social sciences but do you have at least one study to support your claim I'm basing my claim on the standard findings of happiness research as I understand them - look up "hedonic treadmill" or "happiness set point". People have a core level of happiness. Being anxious from time to time has the value that it makes us act to try to better our condition. We make and do stuff in large part because we are chasing the illusion that if we overcome this one next obstacle we'll then be happy, but whether we succeed or fail, we eventually return to our default level. Marx's claim is based on the false idea that if we just fixed society in various ways then people could be happy all the time. But he's wrong; they can't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill Quote: "The results of this study suggest that regardless of whether the life event is significantly negative or positive, people will generally always return to their happiness baseline". Source: Silver (1982). Coping with an undesirable life event: A study of early reactions to physical disability. Northwestern University.
badman_ting 13y ago
Be careful - it's extremely common for people to generalize their experiences onto the rest of humanity.
algorias 13y ago
It's clear that being anxious had survival value at some point of our evolutionary history. This is not necessarily the case anymore. In fact, I predict that the drawbacks of anxiety will put negative selective pressure on it, completely eliminating it from our genepool in a mere 300'000 years or thereabouts, if we're still around so long, of course ;)
coldtea 13y ago
>I'm sorry, but that's just nuts unless you can point to a society - of any sort anywhere - that contains no anxious people. Lots of them. Of course not all anxiety can be eliminated (e.g "I'm sick, what will happen to me?" etc), but there are societies with much lower levels of anxiety than others. That's true both in the present (for example in studies were societies self-access their anxiety levels) and in the past (e.g in societies studies by ethnologists). Some tribal societies ethnologists studied could not give less fucks about anything.
theothermkn 13y ago
> I'm sorry, but that's just nuts unless you can point to a society - of any sort anywhere - that contains no anxious people. When we analyze the statements of others, we more or less always have to interpret their meanings before we begin the analysis. If we're careless about the interpretive step, as you have been, we can convince ourselves that we're responding to what they've said, when we're actually responding to what we think they've meant. The author has actually asked, "Why are we all so anxious...?" Not just "anxious," but "so anxious." While the author took the extra step to call out the extremity of the anxiety to which s/he was pointing, your analysis would be superficial even if that were omitted. That is to say, you have committed two errors: 1) You have omitted the author's intensifier, and 2) You have equivocated on the term "anxious." This is a very basic error, and one for which you should be personally ashamed to have made; Your entire analysis is predicated on ignoring the Principle of Charity, a rule of thumb which is in place to ensure that we all participate at least minimally well in conversations by ensuring that we at least have a shot at understanding those to whom we respond, and those statements about which we are alleging we have knowledge and something of import to say. In short, you have not done your homework. (Not to mention the compounding error of asserting a false dichotomy.) A final explanation and exhortation to caution: While words have definitions, it is their meanings upon which useful discussion operates. "Anxious," in isolation, might be defined as "nervous about possible adverse outcomes," but the word was not used in isolation. It was contextualized in an utterance about the particular anxiety about the loss of livelihood--predicated on the very real perception of profound expendability--of people in a capitalist system. If you would still care to play, still care to participate in the discussion in a meaningful way, you will take another crack at your analysis that actually addresses whether or not systems that are arranged for the benefit of capital, rather than for human beings, actually create more existential anxiety than systems that are arranged for the benefit of people. I hope this helps. Cheers.
- humanrebar 13y ago
  I disagree with your analysis. The burden of proof lies on those claiming theoretical benefits (less anxiety) from a plan (some untested flavor of Marxism). Perhaps he was making a argumentum ad absurdum, but it is fair to underscore skepticism by rhetorically asking for any evidence of reduced anxiety in any society. Besides that, I find shaming people for their reading comprehension to be a cure worse than the disease.
codyb 13y ago
I think the key part of that statement is not the part where he talks about anxious people but the part where he talks about being anxious all the time which is unnatural. Being concerned about your pet health care is natural. But anxiety shouldn't be a constant state. Maybe worrying is a part of being human. But worrying constantly most certainly is not. I'm sure you can recount people in your personal experiences who seem to exhibit no qualities of constant worry. I know I have. If I had my druthers I might use adjectives like grounded, secure, and content to describe these people.
Turing_Machine 13y ago
Yes. I'd imagine that people in the time of Stalin (or in Pyongyang today) get rather anxious from time to time.

by glenra 13y ago

pkinsky 13y ago

>We worry because worrying is part of being human. Worry isn't a binary state. Not being able to pay for your child's health care is more anxiety-inducing than not being able to pay for your gerbil's health care, for the vast majority of people.

humanrebar 13y ago
Regardless of being able to pay, waiting for lab results of a tumor biopsy is stressful, which is the point.

MarkTee 13y ago

> unless you can point to a society - of any sort anywhere - that contains no anxious people Ok, the Pirahã people of Brazil.

atmosx 13y ago

> I'm sorry, but that's just nuts unless you can point to a society - of any sort anywhere - that contains no anxious people. Tibet. That said, the level of anxiety in western society if the no-1 reason of aging. > Suppose we completely solved the need to pay for food and housing; people would be anxious about health care. Suppose we solved that too? People would be anxious about the need for pet health care. Hm, you have too many assumptions there. Not that I'm very fond of social sciences but do you have at least one study to support your claim? Otherwise, Newton might get displeased[2]. What you're saying that Maslow[1] was wrong? Maybe his hierarchy should be a square since physiological and self-actualization is one and the same according to your approach. > We worry because worrying is part of being human. Of course if my parent is not at home at 23:00 o'clock, I worry. When my parent comes back I stop being worried. It's transitory. I think that in Ethiopia, in Ukraine and large parts of 21'st century world, most people are worried 24/7 though. It's NOT the same. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypotheses_non_fingo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypotheses_non_fingo

sigzero 13y ago
> Tibet Wrong. Everyone has been anxious about something sometime. Everyone.
- atmosx 13y ago
  I'm positive that I didn't read at least once. As I get it, he means anxious of the time not twice in a lifetime.
  - glenra 13y ago
    Of course, the other answer is that we're not anxious all the time. Maybe Marx was. Maybe the people who find Marx insightful are too. I'm not. Most people are anxious some of the time. And they should be, because being anxious some of the time can prompt you to improve your life situation or avoid immediate danger.
notahacker 13y ago
Tibet has people so anxious about the state of their society and distance from their spiritual leader they're prepared to pay a middleman several months' income to help smuggle them through mountain passes out of the country, or set themselves alight, not to mention everyday concerns about poverty or the nice girl from the village not paying them much attention.
glenra 13y ago
> Not that I'm very fond of social sciences but do you have at least one study to support your claim I'm basing my claim on the standard findings of happiness research as I understand them - look up "hedonic treadmill" or "happiness set point". People have a core level of happiness. Being anxious from time to time has the value that it makes us act to try to better our condition. We make and do stuff in large part because we are chasing the illusion that if we overcome this one next obstacle we'll then be happy, but whether we succeed or fail, we eventually return to our default level. Marx's claim is based on the false idea that if we just fixed society in various ways then people could be happy all the time. But he's wrong; they can't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill Quote: "The results of this study suggest that regardless of whether the life event is significantly negative or positive, people will generally always return to their happiness baseline". Source: Silver (1982). Coping with an undesirable life event: A study of early reactions to physical disability. Northwestern University.

badman_ting 13y ago

Be careful - it's extremely common for people to generalize their experiences onto the rest of humanity.

algorias 13y ago

It's clear that being anxious had survival value at some point of our evolutionary history. This is not necessarily the case anymore. In fact, I predict that the drawbacks of anxiety will put negative selective pressure on it, completely eliminating it from our genepool in a mere 300'000 years or thereabouts, if we're still around so long, of course ;)

coldtea 13y ago

>I'm sorry, but that's just nuts unless you can point to a society - of any sort anywhere - that contains no anxious people. Lots of them. Of course not all anxiety can be eliminated (e.g "I'm sick, what will happen to me?" etc), but there are societies with much lower levels of anxiety than others. That's true both in the present (for example in studies were societies self-access their anxiety levels) and in the past (e.g in societies studies by ethnologists). Some tribal societies ethnologists studied could not give less fucks about anything.

theothermkn 13y ago

> I'm sorry, but that's just nuts unless you can point to a society - of any sort anywhere - that contains no anxious people. When we analyze the statements of others, we more or less always have to interpret their meanings before we begin the analysis. If we're careless about the interpretive step, as you have been, we can convince ourselves that we're responding to what they've said, when we're actually responding to what we think they've meant. The author has actually asked, "Why are we all so anxious...?" Not just "anxious," but "so anxious." While the author took the extra step to call out the extremity of the anxiety to which s/he was pointing, your analysis would be superficial even if that were omitted. That is to say, you have committed two errors: 1) You have omitted the author's intensifier, and 2) You have equivocated on the term "anxious." This is a very basic error, and one for which you should be personally ashamed to have made; Your entire analysis is predicated on ignoring the Principle of Charity, a rule of thumb which is in place to ensure that we all participate at least minimally well in conversations by ensuring that we at least have a shot at understanding those to whom we respond, and those statements about which we are alleging we have knowledge and something of import to say. In short, you have not done your homework. (Not to mention the compounding error of asserting a false dichotomy.) A final explanation and exhortation to caution: While words have definitions, it is their meanings upon which useful discussion operates. "Anxious," in isolation, might be defined as "nervous about possible adverse outcomes," but the word was not used in isolation. It was contextualized in an utterance about the particular anxiety about the loss of livelihood--predicated on the very real perception of profound expendability--of people in a capitalist system. If you would still care to play, still care to participate in the discussion in a meaningful way, you will take another crack at your analysis that actually addresses whether or not systems that are arranged for the benefit of capital, rather than for human beings, actually create more existential anxiety than systems that are arranged for the benefit of people. I hope this helps. Cheers.

humanrebar 13y ago
I disagree with your analysis. The burden of proof lies on those claiming theoretical benefits (less anxiety) from a plan (some untested flavor of Marxism). Perhaps he was making a argumentum ad absurdum, but it is fair to underscore skepticism by rhetorically asking for any evidence of reduced anxiety in any society. Besides that, I find shaming people for their reading comprehension to be a cure worse than the disease.

codyb 13y ago

I think the key part of that statement is not the part where he talks about anxious people but the part where he talks about being anxious all the time which is unnatural. Being concerned about your pet health care is natural. But anxiety shouldn't be a constant state. Maybe worrying is a part of being human. But worrying constantly most certainly is not. I'm sure you can recount people in your personal experiences who seem to exhibit no qualities of constant worry. I know I have. If I had my druthers I might use adjectives like grounded, secure, and content to describe these people.

Turing_Machine 13y ago

Yes. I'd imagine that people in the time of Stalin (or in Pyongyang today) get rather anxious from time to time.