Multiheaded comments on Rationality Quotes January 2013 - Less Wrong

6 Post author: katydee 02 January 2013 05:23PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (604)
Tags: quotes rationality

Comments (604)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 02 January 2013 06:40:18AM *  9 points [-]

I've taken a crack at what's wrong with that article.

The problem is, there's so much wrong with it from so many different angles that it's rather a large topic.

Comment author: Multiheaded 02 January 2013 08:15:54AM 0 points [-]

Yep :). I was doing a more charitable reading than the article really deserves, to be honest. It carried over from the method of political debate I am attempting these days - accept the opponent's premises (e.g. far-right ideas that they proudly call "thoughtcrime"), then show how either a modus-tollens inference from them is instrumentally/ethically preferrable, or how they just have nothing to do with the opponent being an insufferable jerk.

The basic theme of the article is that you're only well-treated for what you bring to other people's lives. You're worthless otherwise.

This is a half-truth. What you bring to other people's lives matters. However, the reason I'm posting about this is that I believe framing the message that way is actively dangerous for depressed people. The thing is, if you don't believe you're worth something no matter what, you won't do the work of making your life better.

100% true. I often shudder when I think how miserable I could've got if I hadn't watched this at a low point in my life.

Comment author: Omegaile 02 January 2013 03:02:49PM 5 points [-]

I think the only problem with the article is that it tries to otheroptimize. It seems to address a problem that the author had, as some people do. He seems to overestimate the usefulness of his advices though (he writes for anyone except if "your career is going great, you're thrilled with your life and you're happy with your relationships"). As mentioned by NancyLebovitz, the article is not for the clinical depressed, in fact it is only for a small (?) set of people who sits around all day whining, who thinks they deserve better for who they are, without actually trying to improve the situation.

That said, this over generalization is a problem that permeates most self help, and the article is not more guilty than the average.

Comment author: Multiheaded 02 January 2013 04:39:28PM *  5 points [-]

I think I'll just quote the entirety of an angry comment on Nancy's blog. I basically can't help agreeing with the below. Although I don't think the article is entirely bad and worthless - there are a few commonplace yet forcefully asserted life instructions there, if that's your cup of tea - its downsides do outweigh its utility.

What especially pisses me off is how Wong hijacks the ostensibly altruistic intent of it as an excuse to throw a load of aggression and condescending superiority in the intended audience's face, then offers an explanation of how feeling repulsed/hurt by that tone further confirms the reader's lower status. This is, like, a textbook example of self-gratification and cruel status play.

6: not all of the world is made up of selfish bastards. Or for some people 'what they can get from you' equals 'hanging out, having a good time doing nothing much' so maybe it's right - but not in the materialistic, selfish way the article implies.

5: I don't quite get what he wants that's different from his #6 'the world expects you to do stuff'. Also, I don't care how right someone is (he's not), if you have to be an asshole about it and if you don't care about hurting people, not only are you doing it wrong, there's a good chance that your message is manipulative rather than insightful. He's trying to make you believe that all that counts is how he wants to see the world.

4 is the same message again, in a different form - the world (here 'women') expects you to deliver. Don't be nice, get results. (If your goal is being a well-rounded individual with good mental health, maybe that's not the best way forward. Just sayin.)

3 has kind of a point if you don't do anything at all (and if you don't do anything, you're probably severely depressed and need far more help than an internet article) - but what people think 'doing' means differs wildly. And the first half of the article seems to discard a lot of stuff that 'people do' (for instance, caring for family members)- you don't have tangible results, but by gods, have you put work into it. As you point out, there can be a severe dissonance between what a depressed you thinks you do (nothing) and what a non-depressed you or a friend might think of it.
And for some people 'go and do something productive' might be good advice, and for others it's even more pressure - and the kind of person who feels guilty eating more than a salad? Needs help, not to be elevated to a role model.

2 Everything bad you've done was because of a bad impulse? Please. Nobody carries black and white around like that, and plenty of things are done out of habit and out of an impulse to do something good (people might think they are helping you not to go to hell by preventing you from being with someone you love) ...

1 just seems to be a self-congratulatory bit that says 'if you don't accept me as a Great Thinker who Knows Better, something is wrong with you.

Conclusion: a truth that's told with bad intent beats all the lies you can invent. And when you mix in some outright lies...

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 04 January 2013 03:04:02PM 0 points [-]

One of the comments at dreamwidth is by a therapist who said that being extremely vulnerable to shame is a distinct problem-- not everyone who's depressed has it, and not everyone who's shame-prone is depressed.

Also, I didn't say clinically depressed. I'm in the mild-to-moderate category, and that sort of talk is bad for me.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 04 January 2013 03:01:11PM 0 points [-]

Actually the article says enough different and somewhat contradictory things that it supports multiple readings, or to put it less charitably, it's contradictory in a way that leads people to pick the bits which are most emotionally salient to them and then get angry at each other for misreading the article.

The title is "6 Harsh Truths That Will Improve Your Life"-- by implication, anyone's life. Then Wong says, "this will improve your life unless it's awesome in all respects". Then he pulls back to "this is directed at people with a particular false view of the universe".

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit