I've studied social/psychological stuff, spent a lot of years suicidal and spent a number of years homeless which was incredibly socially isolating and even negatively impacted how people interacted with me online.
Some thoughts (intended as a buffet to choose from if it strikes your fancy, not a prescription for "the right way" to do anything at all):
1. It's usually not actually helpful to signal that you are desperate and lonely and your life is in the toilet. Once in a great while, someone will be truly wonderful to you because you did that but it's usually counterproductive.
2. It's usually better to look for one of two things: A chat-friendly space where it's okay to just talk to people or a discussion space on a topic that genuinely interests you.
3. Signaling desperation attracts predators far more often than it attracts real friends.
4. Support groups have a tendency to be all kinds of drama and not terribly helpful because it tends to be the case that you can't suggest to people "You could try doing things differently" because that will be taken as blaming the victim and it's just really hard to find good ways to help people solve their personal problems.
5. The best way to make friends is to connect with people you have something in common with. So joining discussions about things that interest you is more likely to help you connect socially.
6. Yes, you can have real friends via internet. I've had lots of real friends online over the years.
((germ-free internet hugs)) if you need/want them and happy holidays and all that.
I've been homeless, lonely and desperate in many ways over many years. I appreciate your comments here.
I would add that people who are desperate will drag you down like a drowning person. I have been on both sides of this, and I have had to overcome this "total reliance" on others that makes them go away.
But, the best advice I have ever gotten (paraphrasing) was "face YOUR problems". It didn't matter what or how they said it. If you don't want things to be better, they never will get better.
The problem is that hopelessness _feels_ permanent. I have just gotten where I can be helpful to others after decades, and I am seeing that _extreme_ patience, caring and understanding allow that difficult discussion about change to happen.
Keep saying what you are saying. It was people like you that helped me start facing things on my own. Bravo and peace and love to you.
> Signaling desperation attracts predators far more often than it attracts real friends.
This is something so obvious but has eluded me until you said it. I have seen this happen in work settings and have never been able to pinpoint it. Thanks!
On a slight tangent but still related, think overdraft fees. We don't live in a world where the bank will give you money when you need it. They will take more away ever since we invented negative numbers.
I want to live in a world where help is automatically routed to those in need, even without them asking for it.
It's a problem many women face. Scenario: late night walk home in a quiet street. Suddenly, a group of young males, obviously drunk, approaches from the front.
Most women instinctively cross over to the other side of the road, equating distance with safety, without realizing that this is signaling just the kind of vulnerability that makes them appear as potential prey to a certain type of male predator in the first place.
I think #4 can be explained by a simple phenomenon: if a group is defined by people's desire to leave it, it will eventually be populated mostly by those who can't.
This is how many such communities become toxic over time.
I heard that "incels" consider people who finally succeed in their dating life as traitors and therefore as people who didn't belong in the community in the first place.
We’ve never met or directly interacted on here, but I always enjoy your comments and unique perspective. They make HN a better place. Thanks for sharing, and happy holidays!
> it tends to be the case that you can't suggest to people "You could try doing things differently" because that will be taken as blaming the victim
Sometimes it takes a friend (or stranger) to make such suggestions. Lonely and depressed people are typically trapped inside their heads, so they need some kind of external stimulus to help them understand that they are in control of their life. The truth sometimes hurts, but calling it victim blaming is nonsense.
I was talking about (online) support groups. It's a statement about a specific environment and it is based on enormous firsthand experience as the person usually being accused of victim blaming for the crime of trying to be helpful.
I’ve also found it incredibly difficult to help depressed/lonely people without experiencing some kind of backlash. I have a jobless friend who still lives with his parents, and is always lamenting about how terrible his life is, as if phishing for help. When I offer help, he becomes combative, so I try to just avoid the topic until one day he’s ready for change in his life.
Your friend is angry, and likely at himself, even if he won't admit it. I've been that way too, which is probably why this comment from Jean-Luc Picard (TNG: S04E12) struck a chord with me:
"I think when one has been angry for a very long time, one gets used to it. And it becomes comfortable, like old leather. And, finally, it becomes so familiar that one can't ever remember feeling any other way."
I have always struggled, in real life and online, with people who talk about their complex lives. This gives great advice for how to approach the situation with empathy for them and for the group. Thanks for posting this!
To add a perspective here:
Being offered help, especially in a way that says "why don't you do X?" can often provoke a reaction that tries to justify oneself. You want to feel validated in your self-pity, and if the solution to your struggles is as easy as "just doing X" all of your bad feelings are your own fault, too. That makes you feel even shittier.
So you need claim that it's impractical advice to evade that.
My best guess: Your friend is not looking for advice, they're looking for validation of their feelings when lamenting about their life.
But maybe this is a "what you want vs. what you need" situation.
I’ll add to this and say that people are mostly looking for validation when discussing problems, and that should always be your first response. If you feel you have valuable advice to give, ask them if they want it and make sure they’ll actually be receptive.
I've been at crossroads at several points in my life and realized that I was in too deep to trust my own decision making to be sound.
Getting on the internets and asking total strangers for their opinion helped me snap out of it. Even though I mostly didn't take their advice, being confronted with the aloof views of randos with no stake in my dilemma was what I needed to see the big picture beyond the walls that had already closed in on me.
In either of these situations，I'm certain a friend would have been either too compassionate or too afraid to appear immoral to give me the cold, hard truth.
> Signaling desperation attracts predators far more often than it attracts real friends.
I think this can depend on your situation and the type of people who you have around you.
I'd be tempted to slightly nuance this as:
"Signaling desperation can attract predators more often than it attracts real friends."
This may not be the case for some, and personally I wouldn't want a universal message of "don't signal desperation" to be heard.
I do accept it will depend on whether those around you have your best interests at heart and will provide support, or whether you're in a situation where more caution needs to be taken (which I guess may reflect the situation you were in).
That said, I agree with many of your other points and I'm very happy for you that you seem to have moved past some of your struggles, to the point that you are now able to write this very thoughtful and valuable advice for others going through the same things!
> It's usually not actually helpful to signal that you are desperate and lonely and your life is in the toilet. Once in a great while, someone will be truly wonderful to you because you did that but it's usually counterproductive.
Doreen, I always find your posts and comments to be very insightful. I've never thought about it this way, but it makes a lot of sense. Fixating on one's own desperation is basically a waste of time. One could be doing the things that removes them from desperation instead of fixating on not doing those things. It really does seem counterproductive.
ad. 3: it's an ugly truth, but it makes sense. People often want friends which can provide something for them, even if it's pleasant company. What can a desperate person provide? What can a desperate friend do other kind of friend can't?
ad. 6: then I guess I'm really bad at making friends period. It has never worked for me.
> 1. It's usually not actually helpful to signal that you are desperate and lonely and your life is in the toilet. Once in a great while, someone will be truly wonderful to you because you did that but it's usually counterproductive.
I met up with a close friend a few days ago to lament how tough its been to live alone throughout this Covid period, to get rejected by dozens of companies while job hunting, and to do online dating and not only get rejected by 99% of potentials but have some of the worst first dates I've ever had in my life. One woman was literally multi-tasking while she was on the Zoom 'date' with me.
And her response was "I'm sorry that you're going through that" before switching to talking about her kid being noisy. And internally I'm thinking all these years I've spent listening to you complain about your job/husband/baby and this one time I'm being honest about how tough things are right now and you can't even bear to hear me out more than a split second? Give me a fucking break.
Covid-19 really revealed who my true friends are. I am quite thankful that I do have a couple friends who I meet on a weekly basis where we check in on one another and keep our spirits up. Without them, I don't think I would've survived these lockdowns without having a mental breakdown.
In contrast to some of the other replies, I don't find your friend's response particularly unexpected. She probably didn't mean to be hurtful. People often don't know how to respond to hearing other people's problems. They don't always know how you're feeling. Sometimes they try to commiserate by relating about their own problems.
I think most single guys are experiencing similar problems right now with online dating. It's tough. Your friend may have misjudged how much you wanted to talk about it. Often the best way to get the response you're looking for is to straight-up tell the person (politely) how you're feeling and what you want from them.
The reality is that 99% of people don't really want to hear other people's problems. Most people want to have someone to tell their problems. The other 1% can be considered as very good friends.
> 1. It's usually not actually helpful to signal that you are desperate and lonely and your life is in the toilet. Once in a great while, someone will be truly wonderful to you because you did that but it's usually counterproductive.
> 3. Signaling desperation attracts predators far more often than it attracts real friends.
Yep, these are excellent and hugely valuable life lessons. There is a real and common tendency among humans to react to negativity by either running away or moving in for the kill.
On the surface this is a depressing realization, as you get older you come to understand that nobody really gives a fuck (maybe a handful of people do if you're lucky, but I'm convinced that many don't even know how to care about someone else). Most relationships are only skin deep.
However it's also a powerful revelation, it gives you a tool for understanding people and that tool can change your life. If you suspect someone may be involved with you simply to take advantage (emotionally, financially, sexually, socially, whatever), you can start asking them for things.
The ones that care will give you what you ask for. The ones that don't will disappear almost immediately (which is one hell of a moment of clarity when you've known them for years).
When you feel a relationship is one-sided and you ask the other person (nicely) to do something which will even out the score, the result is always a win. If they value the relationship you get what you want and the relationship is reaffirmed. If they don't then a toxic relationship ends and you can go focus on the healthy ones.
This tool is so powerful that it's really on you to be fair and strike a balance. Once you start using it you'll find it's surprisingly easy to overuse, there are a lot of people who have problems with saying no. There are no rules but I try to strike a 50/50 balance of give and take even when the other person says they're happy. Aside from your innate sense of fairness the only other real check on your ability to use other people is your reputation (that's an enormous one over time, though).
Yeah. When it goes like that my internal reaction is typically "Good riddance. Don't let the screen door hit you on your way out. Thank god I don't have to listen to one more minute of your whiny shit ever again because we are so done."
People don't like complainers. Plain matter of fact is your significant other sees you as the rock in the relationship, which is likely why the relationship works, and by complaining the foundation their attraction was built on was shaken.
I was actually thinking of the year when I was bedridden for several months and my life hung in the balance for the entire year and a female friend -- my best friend when I was a military wife stationed in Germany -- managed to get hold of me after not hearing from me for several months while I fought for my life and she went on for 45 minutes about her really minor whiny shit without so much as asking me how I was and I finally interrupted her and said something about how I didn't have the energy for this because I was fighting for my life.
That was the end of that phone call and I never heard from her again.
Good. Riddance. I absolutely didn't need another thing leeching away my limited energy that year.
I sometimes do something essentially the same as your former friend because I think the person with the problem probably wants to be treated like a normal person to feel as normal as possible instead of as a charity pity case. And to take their mind off of their completely obvious problems of the moment. IE, "I know my leg is cut off, we don't need to go over it and over it ..." I figure everyone in the world is smothering them with that so I will not do that.
However, I know that is a gamble and had I judged that wrong, and someone said "Hello can it be about me today instead of about you? just today? My leg... is gone... I'm not over it." I would NOT be hanging up and never call again.
I might possibly if the way you said it didn't clue me in why you were saying it. If I felt you really didn't want to hear from me at a time like that, then I'd be gone. gone. I thought I would be there for someone when the chips were down and they apparently do not value that from me. What a dumbass I've been.
I started this comment with the intention to say essentially "If you were worried at all that you did something wrong, don't." because even if there had been that initial mis-reading of intentions, that doesn't explain disappearing, so it's squarely on them.
But right at the end there while actuallly writing this, I realized there is a responsibility for communication on everyone's part. I realized there is a plausible sequence of events where I had good intentions and you had good intentions and I had reasonable reactions and you had reasonable reactions and still we both came away thinking the other person is not great.
So now I no longer know if I have a point. Well these worthless thoughts were free at least. :)
Other than my perpetually dicey finances, I am doing well. My health seems to have stabilized recently and, with that, I seem to no longer be suicidal.
I like to hear about my friends' inner lives. Not all the time, and I have to already care about the person first, but it gives me a sense of intimacy and trust. It feels impersonal and dissatisfying when someone maintains a "crushing it!" front too well. Like we are just Facebook acquaintances.
That sounds like something the likes of Jordan Peterson would say.
One of the best things my therapist did to me this year was get me off of Jordan Peterson. I was spiraling down in self-doubt because I listened to him so much.
It’s one hell of a miserable relationship if you can’t rely on your partner to have a receptive ear to listen to the things that bother you or make you sad.
The most confusing thing about the Jordan Peterson popularity was how some people seemed to take the opposite meaning from what I heard him actually saying. I don’t mean his detractors which took uncharitable interpretations but his fans. It was really bizarre since I listened to him enough to realize he wasn’t saying much he was just saying it in a way some group listened.
Heads up, most (not all) women really hate seeing men complain or cry. I think most men who have been around women a lot understand this. It's just the way things are, it's not out of malice. If you're a man and you want to sulk with someone, another man or a therapist is best.
Citation needed. Complaining is one thing, sure, but expressing a wide range of emotions (including healthy expressions of sadness, frustration, fear, etc.) is considered pretty positive and good by the women I know.
There actually is research about men and women both turning away from men who are seeking emotional support. College age researchees, so YMMV. Research is referenced in Terrence real’s “I don’t want to talk about it.”
Basically you have to learn to express emotions in the right way, and to the right people, at the right time. I had to train my therapist girlfriend not to freak out when I have strong, negative feelings. She would constantly make it about herself (I’m not doing enough, you’re not acknowledging what good I’m doing). There was very limited space for simply expressing how I was feeling, and having it acknowledged without being punished.
You also just can’t expect most people to be skillful listeners, or give good advice. Even if they want to help, you need some pretty darn well developed theory of mind to conceptualize how the other person is feeling, and what would be useful for them to hear.
I’d also comment that you when men are stressed, it is often incorrectly read as anger, and thus threatening. I was in this terrible situation where I was in a vacation cabin rental with an ex and 20 other people- we’d broken like a week before. I was in anguish, but several people misread stonefaced non-emotion as anger and aggression. The fallout ended up being really immense, and a huge part of it was just a fundamental misread (combined with “all men are abusers and liars!” style distrust. It was real dumb.)
>Basically you have to learn to express emotions in the right way, and to the right people, at the right time.
> a huge part of it was just a fundamental misread
I think you are on to something in the first part about you yourself learning stuff but in the last part you just put the burden of those around you.
My take is that men in general lack training in identifying/naming their own feelings/emotions. Then when you are experiencing some tough negative emotions you can't express/talk about them and then your secondary emotions come in from this frustration. What emotion that is is personal but often men will go to anger, "it's think it's this thing that is causing me pain so that thing is bad/stupid/wrong" but all along it was your own feelings coming from your own unmet needs that you could have handled yourself if you just had could have named and reasoned about them.
You're rather jumping to unfounded conclusions. I can assure you that I communicated directly and clearly what my emotional state was, why I was behaving the way I was behaving, and actively tried to avoid inflicting my feelings on other people by being non-expressive.
An example of an action I took that one person considered "aggressive" and "abusive": There were three couches, shaped in a U configuration. Ex and friends were sitting on one couch. Someone else invited me over to sit on another couch. I came over, sat quietly for about 60 seocnds, decided, you know, I'd rather be somewhere else, and walked away.
This isn't to say I bear no responsibility in how things played out, but the bits I'm disclosing here, even in context, are wild misunderstandings, and when I explained myself I was met with distrust and suspicion. We were in a rental cabin; physical proximity was unavoidable. It wasn't even clearly distressing to my ex, just her white knight friend.
Yeah I don't know your situation, although it sound like an intense one, so my observation was more a general one. But you also don't and didn't know the situation of the others in that cabin so your interpretation of how "they misread you" not true either. Maybe that "white knight" was worried that you would get in the way of him getting it on with your ex, maybe scared of not measuring up to you, but couldn't navigate those feelings and acted aggressively towards you by intentionally misreading you. My guess is as good as yours...
Mine is not a valid HN comment because I have nothing to add other than saying thanks for encapsulating this- I've experienced the same and wondered if I was the outlier.
Thats's definitely not what I'm saying. I'm saying I was badly punished because a particular person misperceived me as being angry.
I think this line that anger is an acceptable emotion for men to express is out of line with reality; it's certainly out of line with my lived experience. Anger expressed by men is punished, sometimes exorbitantly.
These are very broad generalizations, and not at all representative of anything like a truth. I concede that it may have been true in your experiences, but it's a fairly toxic pattern to make categorical statements about "what women want" or "what men are like" when the spread of human character is so broad.
Let's try not to limit what's possible by inflicting on the world what we expect.
Specifically, statements like these become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Not only are someone's perceptions influenced by social proof - if someone is treated as if you expect them to behave a certain way, they are more likely to behave that way (if I'm going to catch shit for being dishonest anyway, why not lie?).
So I willingly broke a taboo, and I was misunderstood. Such is life :) I'll address each separately.
The misunderstanding:
It looks like you read me saying all women look for strong men and/or that women should look for that. I have no interest in either. People should follow their hearts, be themselves, etc. I am saying that empirically, and with big individual variation, on average, that is a fact. An important fact.
I'm also not saying that men should pretend to be who they aren't to get women. For one thing, they usually see right through that. But at the same time, if you don't understand what your potential partners need from you, you're probably not going to fulfill those needs.
The Taboo:
Saying it's "a toxic pattern" to talk openly about these things is a way of saying this is a taboo topic.
And of course I know it's sensitive, but I don't think it should be. These are very important things, and they need to be talked about and understood. Even though it's uncomfortable.
A number of folks in this thread seem to listen to Jordan Peterson's ideas, which seem smart and reasonable but are actually very toxic. See my reply to the post you were replying to.
My pleasure. We do indeed have a pretty serious cultural problem, and it's not made any better by closing ourselves off to the wealth of possibility that lies in human interaction. I'm not unsympathetic to the plight of those who feel they've been given the cold shoulder - but hurt people hurt people, so it's important for a community to isolate and identify that damage. Dumbing things down is not the way.
I'm happy for you that you got over Jordan Peterson. IMO you drew the wrong conclusions about him though. From what I've heard/read of Peterson, he is usually correct in his observation/analyses, BUT only within the framework of very conservative role models. The point here is that he doesn't even add original ideas.
I think what makes him so popular among his fans is that he lends scientific credence to embracing reactionary role models. Some men (and even a few women) seem to feel deeply insecure without a very explicit set of rules of how to interact with the opposite sex, how to live even. Maybe some men feel threatened by emancipated women or maybe they can't find their place in a society that places few constraints on what to do after growing up.
Peterson spells out for them in detail how to conform to the traditional gender roles historically endorsed by the church, but he substitutes the foundation of christian moralism with evolutionary theory and sociology. He's handing his disciples a step by step guide to building a family. Why this brand of "neo-conservatism" can be popular in a secular world, one where science offers explanations once received through faith, but fails to provide the comfort and sense of belonging that Christianity built its success on ever since its humble beginnings as an obscure, persecuted underground
cult in the Roman Empire, doesn't need much explanation.
Believe it or not, there are in fact women subscribing to these old school values. It's not like Peterson is forcing anyone to roll back the achievements of feminism or promoting inequality, just some archaic ideas that still work well enough for some to embrace them as a template for their lives.
Where to start? Besides that it's oppresive, based on bad science, reductive, reactionary, and small-minded.
Those feelings of insecurity are there because of a conservative cultural context, that shames difference and enforces conformity to an arbitrary norm.
Put bluntly, this system of belief will prevent you from learning real things about the world. If you constantly avoid genuine interactions with people because those interactions scare you, you'll never learn why those interactions are not actually scary.
I would direct you to Plato's cave. Petersen is asking you to take the shadows on the wall at face value.
>but it's a fairly toxic pattern to make categorical statements about "what women want" or "what men are like" when the spread of human character is so broad.
It depends on your definition of toxic and your definition of truth. The belief that categorical statements have zero relevance in this world is an ideal that is just too unlikely to be true. Broad statements can be made about both men and women.
For example Women tend to have bigger breasts then most men. Men tend to be physically stronger than women. Men tend to run faster than women. Women tend to be shorter then men. Men tend to weigh more than women.
These are all the same exact broad generalizations of the same nature that you pinpointed above but have the strange opposite effect. You say it is toxic to make broad generalizations but despite this you and most people would agree that you'd be insane not to notice the general differences in physicality I mentioned above. This is a contradiction.
Why is it when someone makes a generalization about the physical differences between men and women there is no resistance but as soon as someone mentions behavioral differences like how women tend to be attracted to stronger men that person suddenly violated a social contract?
It makes perfect logical sense. We see it all the time. Women are generally attracted to men that are stronger than them. There are tons of exceptions but the generality is real.
The delusion that's occurring within our society today is that although we are aware that biology can control physical differences between men and women by some black magic we cannot even fathom the fact that this same biology controls behavioral differences. No... biology must make men and women have the exact same intelligence and the exact same behavior according to current social thinking. Does this make sense from a logical standpoint? Again... No.... So why do we delude ourselves with this false notion?
We do it because we are afraid of sexism and racism. We are deathly afraid of inequality even though logically inequality is biologically built into us. No one is actually created equal biologically in terms of intelligence, behavior and physicality. It goes against everything we know about biology and natural selection. In order for something to be naturally selected it CANNOT be equal.
What is toxic is the attempt to paint a pretty idealistic picture of the world at the expense of truth. Equal rights for all does not mean people are born with equal biological traits.
Don't let an ideal hide the reality of the world we live in, but also don't let the ugly reality of the world pervert your ideals. We must learn to coexist with the contradiction.
You are probably not wrong in your statements about biology influencing behavior, but in my opinion that kind of thinking ignores the fact that we humans are capable of recognizing all of that and acting upon it. We do not have to succumb to our natural baggage.
The problem with making and accepting general statements about the behavior of men and women is that it leads to an incredibly exclusionary society where only the "normal" (per those general statements) can find companionship and happiness.
I'm a man, and I'm straight, but I'm very, very gender-nonconforming. I don't have your typical male traits of being aggressive and competitive and assertive. I'm shy, I'm very sensitive, and my interests are much more "feminine" per our society's norms than "masculine." I'm not handy, I don't go around fixing things in the house. I don't take big risks. I much prefer the cooperative and nourishing work style of women than the competitiveness of men. Perhaps the only typically male thing I have going is being rather strong, thanks to Olympic weightlifting... which I'm attracted to a million times more because of the graceful and aesthetic nature of the movements than any sort of muscle building benefits it might have for my looks. Getting stronger and looking better as a result of practicing it is just a nice side effect.
I struggled with all of that for a long time. I used to be a fan of Jordan Peterson & co, who promote the sort of ideas found in your post. I fell into a really deep depression because I just could not be a socially acceptable Manly Man (TM), unless I was willing to undergo a ridiculous amount of self-inflicted stress to conform to a model of being that's just not who I am.
When my therapist finally convinced me to stop listening to Peterson's ideas, things started getting better. Suddenly, there were possibilities. There are all sorts of people in the world. We're not bound to live strictly by natural laws, because we think and make judgements on people at a much higher level of cognition than simple physical traits.
I find it upsetting that this comment is being downvoted. It really doesn't bode well for our group if such openness is met with hostility without reply.
I too am a man who has traits traditionally associated with women, like prioritizing care over competition and having strong empathy. I don't think there's anything unnatural about it. It's somewhat unfortunate that masculinity or femininity have common roots with words male and female, because being masculine or feminine is not ultimately determined by your gender. There's of course tendencies, but the exceptions are common enough that probably everyone can think of a masculine woman or a feminine man in their circles. And masculinity/feminity isn't binary either, it's a spectrum. You have those who are balanced between the two poles. Further, your alignment can change over time. It's just hormones at the end of the day. Let's not assign moral judgments on something basic and natural.
All of your comments on this page mention JP. Why? Nothing he says is revolutionary. In fact, it's just his unique take on the wisdom of "being responsible for your own life", something which is shared by many others from military leaders to cancer survivors.
Being confident and competent in life will only improve it, and it's so universal that it applies to anyone regardless of race, gender, creed, or physicality.
Obviously you have more insight into your specific situation than I do, but I don't think Jordan Peterson's ideas are in conflict with your lifestyle.
The 12 rules don't preach that you be a Manly Man TM, but about taking responsibility for your own life, something which applies to both genders. -- JP and his book have plenty of female fans too.
This smacks of so much hubris. What you are doing is attempting to simplify and reduce a set of interactions that are so incredibly complex that you have no hope of understanding them in their entirety. Can you point out specific differences between the sexes? Of course. The problem lies in attempting to draw conclusions about complex systems (human behavior / interaction) that map neatly to simple concepts (how big are boobs?).
But, you asked me to define terms, so let's do just that.
Truth(1): Something that is verifiable, and by it's nature, falsifiable. If you cannot ever hope to disprove something, then you also cannot prove it.
Toxic: A pattern, substance, or behavior that has a deleterious effect on an organism. In this case, society as a whole.
and to define a term or two I think you might have gotten lost on:
Generalization: A set of conclusions obtained by inference from specific cases (e.g. I am not strong, and she doesn't like me, thus all women want strong men)
Average: A statistical measure equal to the sum of a set of scalar quantities divided by the number of said quantities (e.g. the average height of a male human is 5.7', whereas the average height of a female human is 5.2')
Nobody has all the answers when it comes to systems as complex as human cognition. If they did, there would be no point in things like markets, commerce, advertising, etc. Complex systems often display unintuitive behaviors. If you have women figured out so well, why don't you make a product they'll all buy? You'd be the richest man on earth! But, there's a problem - preferences are not a scalar quantity like height; they are far more complicated.
Something we can observe about people is that expectations can shape perception (2). Given this knowledge, one can quite easily infer that making unverified claims about the motivations of literally half of humanity is probably fairly dangerous - it has a high likelihood of shaping bad patterns out of thin air. Put more bluntly, it makes us all collectively dumber.
I do not have my head in the clouds, nor am I looking at the world with rose tinted glasses. I am merely pointing out that it is harmful to impose your (negative, uninformed, sexist, reductive) worldview on others, as we are all struggling enough to make the most of this difficult and confounding life we have without it.
What these studies show, is that given a set of pictures with faces removed, college age women will point to the pictures of guys who go to the gym when asked to say which one is more attractive to them.
Sure, I can get behind that. As a bisexual male, I also kind of get it. People who are in shape are sexier, duh.
Without even digging into the pitiful sample sizes (n=61, n=131) or the fact that these studies were conducted on an incredibly limited and not at all random subset of the population (college age, at one particular college). The conclusions this article comes to and the ones that you have come to are fundamentally different.
This paper is drawing conclusions about specific, visual sexual attractiveness, fixed for all other concerns - ceterus parabus, if you will. It assumes that all other things are equal.
The conclusions you have so quickly come to, are based on the assertion that all other things are equal. They are not. There is a complex system of other sociological cues and interpersonal relationships that signal whether you do or don't want to be with someone.
Think of all the other things you, as a male, might find sexy about someone. Are they into video games? Do they like the same music as you? Are they successful in business / art / a particular 'scene'? Are they smart? Are they bold? Are they funny?
What you have done, in essence, is to assume that women are simple, and easily understood. I would argue that this is patently ludicrous.
To add to that, even the preference identified in those studies is influenced by the specific societal context. Generalizing that to “women prefer fit men” is incorrect, because we know sexual preferences are heavily influenced by the societal context.
Wrong. A generalization can be correct in certain contexts. Take the below sentence:
In general, in the United States, women tend to prefer men who are fit.
The scientific papers I provided establish the generalization within that context.
When someone makes a general statement like saying men tend to be taller than women, that someone does so with the awareness that exceptions and alternative contexts exist because such exceptions and contexts are obvious. Obviously some women are really tall and obviously the context isn't some preselected population of women who are over 6 foot.
Another way to look at my point is that broad generalizations must originate from somewhere. They are often indicative of a population where the majority or major component posseses several or a single identical trait. It is absolutely insane to ignore generalities just as it is insane to declare them as absolute truths. That is my point.
That is the unfortunate reality of the world. Generalities, like stereotypes, illustrate an aspect of a truth. Social justice is important but one cannot change the world by eliminating a truth to mold the universe into a delusion that fits the perception of a social justice ideal.
I find your post delusional. Your conclusion is nowhere near anything I asserted.
I asserted a generalization that women tend to like men who are more fit and I asserted that generalizations apply to the universe. Something along the lines of: Not all women are shorter than men, but in general they are.
Then I used science to establish that generality. That's it. The conclusion of those papers never claimed women are easily understood and I never claimed it either.
The crazy thing is, you claimed to agree with me as "bisexual" man then proceeded to debate a point with an imaginary claim that was never made.
Perhaps you're not delusional and your arguments are tactics and lies used to manipulate a conversation in a direction of your choosing. If that is the case my conclusion is that you're a liar.
Tldr: You are arguing against claims that were never made.
I agree. I have no problem seeing men cry, and I've held several whilst they did so -- and never thought less of them. Crying is a human reaction and men are allowed to experience it too. Crying doesn't make you weak, it's just an outlet of emotion that can really help clear your head sometimes.
She might have not known how to react, so tried to be empathetic by communicating what on her mind, was her own struggle - "kids being noisy", childrearing is not easy.
She might have been unconsciously signaling: "everyone is struggling some way or another, let me share mine so we can relate somehow..."
I struggled with loneliness and depression for almost a decade. Im now married have a beautiful son, and a great social life, I can tell you the secret and its easy: excercise.
Thats all there is to it.
Dont sign up for a gym membership and show up there confused and intimidated. join some sort of excercise class; crossfit, spinning,jiu jitsu, yoga.
I promise, it wont be overnight, but it will be FAST. you will feel better, youll make friends without even trying. Its impossible to go through an hour of physical suffering every day with the same people and not end up gradually talking more and getting to know each other.
OR, you could sit at your computer with the curtains shut, feeling like shit while you wait for friends to appear out of thin air.
Really, though, thanks for posting this. I'm in a slump recently and I've been nagging myself to get up and go (to no avail, nagging has never worked on me anyhow) and it's genuinely helpful to be reminded that others have done it, too and that the results are real.
> I promise, it wont be overnight, but it will be FAST. you will feel better, youll make friends without even trying. Its impossible to go through an hour of physical suffering every day with the same people and not end up gradually talking more and getting to know each other.
I really encourage people to try a martial art like boxing, muay thai, or brazilian jiu jitsu once COVID lockdowns are over.
These sports are extremely effective at fighting depression and loneliness for a couple of reasons:
1. You get plenty of one-on-one interaction
2. Shared suffering really does create bonds
3. There is a lot of positive validation ("great jab!", "nice hook")
4. You will see the same people 2,3,4 times a week
5. Exercise releases endorphins
6. You will be proud of how your body changes for the better
7. You will get many compliments on your new figure
8. You will get more romantic interest (looks do matter, and doing a fun/exciting sport can be bonus points in dating)
26y/o depressed kickboxer reporting. I'd like to add on this with my own experience.
4 years ago I joined a gym and that is hands down the best choice I made in my life.
While I agree on/confirm all other points, 6, 7 and 8 aren't that easy: everytime I talk about my hobby, I usually get one of these feedbacks:
- "he's dangerous, better stay away before a brawl starts"
- "nah, you don't looke like a fighter" (my body is slim type)
- general ignorant remarks about kickboxing vs muahy thai, or this gym vs that gym. Or my sport is better than yours.
The issue is two fold:
On one side, people are generally ignorant regarding martial arts (mechanics, techniques, mindset, morality).
On the other side, training usually gives you enough muscles to practice the art (and you'll notice that), but it might not be enough to give you "visible" muscles: for that you need a diet and training tailor suited to your body parameters.
A very dedicated martial artist got a concussion, then spiraled into depression. His blood work was all messed up. Doctor after doctor couldn't figure it out.
Finally landed on an occupational therapist who told him to start training again. Cleared it right up. Apparently going from 6 hours a day of training to 0 is rough.
Ice skating (figure skating specifically) was my revelation. Your post rings very true.
Unfortunately, due to COVID, all the rinks in the country are closed (and most annoyingly, they are extremely safe places... Despite that, much riskier places such as swimming pools are open). And having what became such a huge part of your life ripped away for an indefinite time is completely harrowing.
Sure, I miss bars, hangouts with friends, board game meetups, cinemas... But I don't just miss the rink. I am in complete withdrawal. And psychologically, it's really, really hard to cope with not being able to go.
Yep. This 100% matches my experience too. We're the product of a billion years of evolution. Descended from an unbroken line of creatures that move around. It's really little wonder that we get sick when we don't use our bodies the way they should be.
Sometimes it feels like we're in the midst of a loneliness epidemic, created or exacerbated by technology like the internet. But the data doesn't actually line up with that belief: https://ourworldindata.org/loneliness-epidemic
It looks like we are generally as lonely as we were throughout the 20th century. Perhaps that's a sign the internet hasn't yet lived up to its promise as the great unifier. The fact that the greatest and most accessible communication technology in history hasn't put a dent in loneliness shows that we still have a lot of work to do in making it serve that end.
Totally speculating, but I think cultural loneliness may be rooted in individualism. Which isn't to say individualism is intrinsically bad, but one of its trade-offs is the devaluation of relationships, especially ones you haven't gone out of your way to initiate and maintain.
Which is to say: the problem was never a lack of communication channels.
I think there's something to what you're saying but the terms are slightly wrong. Individualism is ordinarily set in opposition to collectivism, but it's the bastardization of both that have created the problem.
On the one hand, social clubs have been evaporating. Bowling leagues, rotary clubs, ham radio clubs etc. They're fading, and this predates 2020. These things are compatible with individualism -- it's freedom of association. But in practice people aren't doing them as much anymore.
On the other hand, the bureaucratization of social assistance. If you need help you don't go to people in your community who already know your face and the specifics of your plight, you fill out a form on a computer and some algorithm decides whether you get a supermarket gift card.
Both of these trends are isolating but it's not because of where we put the trade off between individualism and collectivism, it's because we're doing both of them poorly.
I don't see how i could go to bowling league regularly and simultaneously keep full time job, be actual non absent parent for kids and maintain at least some relationship with extended family.
Bowling social clubs assume everyone has a lot of free time, does not have small kids or offloaded all kids care on partner.
Many working parents can find ~2 hours, once or twice a week - especially once the kids are old enough not to need constant supervision.
It's not like you're a bad parent if you're only reading them a bedtime story 5 days a week instead of 7.
Of course, there are still a lot of things competing for that discretionary time - exercise, or a job with a longer commute, or socialising, or working late, or professional development, or volunteering, or a hobby, or relaxing, or political engagement.
And hell, if you like that extra 2 evenings reading bedtime stories more than you like bowling, that's a completely valid choice too. Wouldn't have had kids if you didn't like that sort of thing, after all.
Those social clubs took considerably more time then 2 hours a week. The aspect of it was that only one partner participated, it is not like they would switch. If one partner was member, the other got less me time.
And the other aspect that you unappreciate is that they were not time for yourself not time she you get rest and get to do what you want. They over time are another social obligation. You need me time on top of that.
Also, bedtime story is like 10 minutes typically. That is not the issue. The issue is that your partner wants free time too, so the sort of free time you have gotta be split fairly.
> The issue is that your partner wants free time too, so the sort of free time you have gotta be split fairly.
Sure. So Mom helps with the homework on Mondays and Fridays, Dad helps with the homework on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and both parents help on Wednesday, Saturday and Sunday.
Maintaining a household really is at least a full time job. If you have a two income household, all that work still has to be done, so you go to work and then come home to a second job. Making the second job the full time job of the other person means each person now has an extra 20 hours a week. You could spend 10 hours a week at a social club and still be spending more time with your kids than you do now.
Meanwhile the money from the second job gets eaten up by commuting and childcare costs etc., and being thrust into a higher tax bracket, but also from having to outbid other two income households for artificially scarce housing in good school districts, which you can't avoid by not doing it yourself and so it's prisoner's dilemma. The two income trap is a real thing.
I think if you have small kids to look after, a partner to share this experience with, and extended family you keep a relationship with, - you have a beautiful life. Maybe just try to be more grateful, once the kids are a little older try to find an hour or two per week to hang out with friend.
No, I am assuming 40-45 hours not counting lunch and transport to/ from work.I am assuming you shop, eat dinner, take showers and sleep. I am assuming that you take kids outside, feed them half time, interact with them, take them from kindergarten, ensure homework is done and generally raise them.
I am assuming that sometimes you need to be alone and just rest too. You can't spend all the time in obligations only without your moods being affected.
With 60 hours a week, the above itself is limited. Even without bowling league, with that much working you don't do anything else, you are work only person basically.
You’re just saying you have other priorities that are higher than having a regular social engagement. That’s fine. If you don’t want to do anything other than work, keep up family ties, hang out with your children and spouse that’s fine. But other people feel they can do all of those to their satisfaction and have an ongoing social engagement.
But that is what I says - social clubs as social engagement means that you require your partner to do almost all childcare. Like, you monopolized free time for own fun.
Most of what you call other priorities does not disappear if you don't want to do it or prefer social. If you don't feel like doing it tonight, simply, someone else have more chores to do.
I am just connecting your comment about individualism and a tweet reply to a tweet that cited the fact that the TSA has recorded similar numbers of travellers on Christmas Eve compared to precovid days. It stated that it was because Americans value the economy and freedom over anything.
But that freedom is used by individuals to gather with others.
It goes without saying that this year has been really difficult for most if not all of us. Not being able to see extended family especially during holiday season can feel lonely and depressing. Please, please, please don't make this a solo suffering, use FaceTime, Xoom, WhatsApp, Meet whatever to talk to friends/family if you can.
If things feel worse - don't keep it to yourself, for those in the US - 1-800-273-8255's the number for National Suicide Prevention Lifeline. And remember - this too shall pass, there is a light at the end of this fucking tunnel and we will get through it.
"there is a light at the end of this fucking tunnel and we will get through it."
As someone that was lonely before COVID, there is no light at the end. Makind friends when over 30 is incredibly difficult. Being an big extrovert in isolation is tough. I want to work in an office, but I probably never will again in our industry.
Don't be so downbeat. A lot of execs really hate remote working, they are people-persons who thrive on conviviality. They will soon push again to have proper offices. You'll be laughing at all this in 2022.
I have a few friends who have taken out of state contracts to do development work under the same premise. They've both said as soon as the pandemic is over, they'll finish their contracts and start working back in their home states again.
contributing to FOSS is a good place to make friends. other forms of volunteering too.
the difficulty is to do that without having 'to make friends' as the primary goal. that just makes you impatient because not every contact will turn into a friend.
to approach the office work problem, try finding people who would like to share a video connection while working. there are websites to facilitate that.
another way is mentoring. find juniors in your field, and guide them with your experience. i made a bunch of friends as a gsoc mentor and elsewhere.
any hobbies that you might have often also have online communities. join them.
post your interests right here. someone might respond.
as someone else here said, the light at the end of the tunnel is you.
put up that light and use it to find friends
In a similar but less urgent vein, if you're having a quiet holiday much like myself but could do with a(n asynchronous) chat, feel free to send anything through to the email listed on my profile.
Likewise, I'm sure other HNers may like to announce as such but just need a little nudge :)
---
I'm sure plenty of bios have contact invitations but us humans are pretty bad at the idea of cold calling strangers
I sort of wish there was a service for internet pen pals where the emails were purposely delayed come to think of it
HN can barely keep a check on demon threads[0] with some automated systems to slow posting down and one good, even-handed mod. One uncharitable read and one response would lead to a nightmare realm that would crash Discord.
I've volunteered fairly regularly on one of the member hotlines, and have personally attempted suicide.
Out of 1000 calls I had one person attempt, maybe 10 people decide not to attempt, and the rest were just people who were anxious or sad or scared and were having thoughts.
There's a very broad spectrum, and for someone who is hopeless or just lonely and sad, talking to a caring human who listens and is comfortable with your pain does help, yes.
For people in a crisis, having someone calm who can talk through what's happening without panicking helps, yes.
I'm curious where you're coming from on this, as I don't understand the perspective behind your comment.
It will be also great if you can briefly outline some of the things you tell them. I can't imagine the responsibility on the shoulders of a person who is trying to save a life at the other end of the line. Thank you for your service.
You don't tell them anything, you listen to them and encourage them to talk, and you help them understand the things they're struggling with by expressing the feelings you have in response to what they're saying.
At some level, what people really want ultimately isn't an idea, it's a feeling, and learning how to soothe people is usually about being calm and attentive. The people who want me to provide them a solution to their problem usually get angry because I keep redirecting them back to their own feelings, and then we talk about the anger and see if they can find a way for that anger to not be the end of the conversation.
Sometimes though it's a bit different. The self harming teenager in foster care, for example, responds really well to people not getting upset. People that cut themselves are used to adults freaking out, so for self harmers it's usually some variant of "oh man, I'm sorry. Is the bleeding managed? Glad to hear. ... Hard day?"
I think it’s a fine service , I’m questioning the ubiquitous copy pasta of sharing the number as if that’s what’s needed . The number itself is everywhere
The idea behind resharing it is basically to grab someone's attention who is contemplating self-harm and redirect them. The number is always available, but from the sound of it, someone about to commit self-harm is often feeling hopeless, alone, and has severe tunnel vision. So you have to get the offer of help right in front of them. This is why the number is posted all over bridges.
It's also allegedly a very acute thing. Many individuals contemplating self-harm, I am told, don't really want to, and are in that vulnerable moment only briefly, maybe only ever a few times. So helping them is truly possible.
I can absolutely second the "tunnel vision" aspect of that state of mind. the more you put this number and other resources in front of people, the more likely it is to sleep into that tunnel.
"I don't want to hear about your problem, call these other people and stop bothering me about it."
Just my guess of how some people would hear it. And honestly I find it a a little weird though; if most people calling the line aren't really suicidal, why call it a suicide hotline?
The closer people are to actually attempt the suicide the harder it is to help them. I wouldn't consider a low rate of people openly admitting that they want to kill themselves to be a failure of the program.
When I was a younger going through a very painful time there was a brief period of suicidal ideation and the suicide hotline would have been a very useful resource for me. I didn't know about it at the time, so I just called 911, and they were very kind to me but their response was absolutely awful. It was pretty clear they weren't trained for such conversations, and just send the police to pick me up. The police! Fortunately at the time I just needed anybody in the world to show that they didn't want me to die, and that was just enough. But the hotline probably would have been more effective and not ended in me in a police cruiser.
Same kind of experience here in France. I could only find 7 numbers, 2 of which for women only and 1 for teens. So I tried the 4 others and met answering machines such as (textually) “We are open Tuesday 5pm-9pm”. Needless to say, I wish they’d be at least open midnight-to-1am, that would be more useful, it was my peak symptom time.
Even more seriously, it is really hard to call someone when depressed, let alone nag them until they answer. Because you don’t feel useful. Nor important to this world. So “why would you pull public resources” was the logic.
I don’t remember how I spent the night, but I’m still here. I have the opposite attitude now 2 years later, I’ll take revenge by staying here and consuming public resources. It’s barely more sane, but it keeps me alive.
Just for historical anecdote, the ILO agreement of 1930 on banning forced labour had the same tilt to it: It was for women-and-teens. It is titled « Elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labour », but excludes « able-bodied men aged 18 to 49. »
Men have always been at higher risk for suicide and death in general than women (especially at work in dangerous jobs), at least since childbirth was made mostly safe. But men's lives don't matter in most modern societies, since they are easily replaced.
Calling the police is like waving around a loaded gun. It's not what you want in a moment of crisis. It has some value when the crisis has past and the people are gone. Under the US Constitution and law, police have a duty to aid the state, not any specific person living in it.
Having met several people taking calls on similar numbers (in European countries though) and also called a few times myself, I can tell you: They help more than you can imagine.
Most callers are not suicidal, they just need someone empathetic they can talk to. 'Suicide hotline' is just one of the few keywords that are very effective, it catches people in their most vulnerable state right before it's too late for help. Type 'suicide' into google and they show you a number above all results.
To everyone who doesn't have a support structure, please just search for 'suicide/depression/anxiety/* hotline' in your language. You most likely will find someone who will talk to you for an hour at 4am. Don't feel bad about it, you are not bothering anyone, they often do it voluntarily and just want to help others.
It might help folks that can be helped by talking to someone. For someone like me, it would only make me feel bad, like I'm burdening someone else with the knowledge that I'm going to end my life; I know they won't be able to "talk me out of it".
I have no friends, no family, nor any coworkers since July. No one will notice me being dead then any more than they notice me being absent now. When the money runs out, I have the nitrogen tank ready to go.
For some of us, it's not about changing your mind. You're right--life isn't for everyone. Death comes for everyone, one way or another, at some point. Normally we don't pick when, but maybe you're right and this is how it comes for you. That's not up to me.
If you don't want to go through it alone, though, you don't have to. We could look that mystery in its face together. See what's there. I'm not expecting to go through it myself yet, but I'd stand there with you while you do.
I'm not any kind of counselor. I'm a longtime lurker who just made an account to say your confrontation with and even path through your own death isn't a burden for everyone. If you want to talk with someone about it, that option is available to you.
I appreciate the offer. For me there's no great mystery; I die every night, and wake up every morning with that dead guy's memories. Life takes effort, and keeping that cycle going just hasn't been worth the effort for a long time. I made the decision months ago.
I think there are a lot of people who keep putting in the effort only to avoid imposing suffering on their loved ones and others. So, in a way I'm lucky in my loneliness: I'm free to be selfish.
Sincere question: If you already die every night and wake up with the dead guy's memories, why do you think dying this slightly different way would lead to a meaningfully different outcome? Maybe you just wake up somewhere else, with the same memories, but then without even the hope that there might be a way out.
Maybe it's just me, but on the off-chance that dying doesn't actually end any of my sufferings, I'd really rather not find that out until I absolutely have to.
There are obvious strong scientific arguments for how sleep is different from death. If you are willing to bet on the afterlife existing, why not get their is an angry dragon hiding behind every door you open?
Sure, there are arguments for how it's different from the outside. From the inside? Who knows? No empirical evidence there. Not a testable hypothesis.
But I'm not the one betting. I'll find out in due time.
The fear that there might be something there has actually occasionally prevented me from making that bet, so I'm sincerely wondering why this other person is so sure it definitely won't be as bad or worse. :shrug:
I've been in your shoes. I had gradually reduced contact to everyone who at that point was still trying to stay in touch, getting people used to me not answering the phone or replying to their messages for ever longer periods. I figured noone would be shocked this way when they finally learned that i'd ditched life.
I was in a state of permanent daze and confusion then, lots of drinking and whatever substances I could get my hands on.
While I had plans made, I had this spur of the moment idea that seemed pretty sane while I was high: I'd at least get a kick out of my life being teh suck, so I got myself into a situation with basically 50/50 chance of dying and beyond my control. I lived and one of the worst hangovers ever. Since I wasn't exactly thrilled with the outcome, I repeated this kind of coin toss with different setups, in total two more times.
The experiences were definitely less shit than my reasons for getting to this point in the first place. In fact, I'd never felt so alive. My problems were not magically gone but now I was curious what else in life I had never thought of, what else I might be missing out on by taking an early exit. I was pretty young and suddenly realized that as of yet I had no idea what to even expect of the future.
I regard everything I've experienced since then as bonus time. I got over the reasons for everything being shit and feeling like shit. Turned out it was mental illness responding well to medication.
Since then, a lot has happened, both good and bad, but it was worth the ride. I have no more reason to fear death, a luxury few are granted early in life. I know there's always an exit option but so far, I've been too curious about what happens next to consider it again.
Now, I won't tell you bullshit like "hurr durr, life is so beautiful, don't throw it away…". The world can be an utter pile of shit and so can the people it spawned and if you go on living, the only thing certain is that you'll have to deal with more world shit and more people shit.
But consider, if you're a curious person, that you'll be missing out on a once in a lifetime experience. You'd be surprised.
I admire your composture in talking about your loneliness and your apparent reluctance in burdening other people with your problems. While agreeing with some of the other posters on the generic upside of being alive and serving others, I would also like to tell you that God himself, in the person of Christ, has chosen to share in our suffering, and lead us to hope, as a community of believers. PM me if you (or anyone else, for that matter) want.
You need some kind of lonely together COVID pod. Other people in the same circumstances. As long as your circle of contact is a closed loop, the exposure is not a big deal (same as with a family quarantined together).
You might not have a lot of shared interests or whatever, but there are countless others suffering exactly like you- in this, you are not alone. People feel a little better being lonely together. And you know, two key ingredients to friendship are simply shared hardship & routine interaction.
P.S. Ever consider volunteering with Big Brothers Big Sisters?
I feel like I might have ended up in your position if I hadn't been inoculated against it early.
I'd like to tell you how even objectively bad circumstances do not demand subjective suffering, that there exist treatments and substances that can genuinely help, to try to point you in the direction of Standard Official Resources, and that the future can be better and so on, but I also know that all of that can sound empty or even annoying.
So instead, I'm going to try something that might be unwise. I've only seen it work once.
You're not alone, in the worst possible sense of the phrase. Extreme suffering is common and nearly ignored. Through what can only be reasonably termed negligence, more people die each year to trivially preventable causes than at the peak of the holocaust. Unanswered prayers and extinguished hopes are the sum of experience for a number of people so large that we can't have a proportional emotional response to it.
You have a blessedly uncommon insight in this. Even if your experience isn't the same as all the others, you have an understanding that reality has no safety net.
So now we come to the part that I've always hesitated suggesting to anyone else:
Please help. Please take upon yourself the completely ridiculous and unreasonable burden of doing what is within your physical power, even when it means exposing yourself to even more suffering indefinitely, even when doing anything is already asking too much. It's not a matter of obligation or moral expectation, there's just the brute fact that people constantly suffer and die for no reason, and they could be saved. Just actions and consequences.
I won't tell you that this will help you. It may. I am alive right now. Therapists might suggest 'crying yourself to sleep for a year' and 'having recurring dreams composed solely of uncontrollable sobbing' are not an ideal recovery from severe depression, but if all else fails, turning yourself into a robot that tries to guide others away from the sharper edges is still better than the alternative.
Please stick around and help, because no one else will replace you.
People are dying constantly because not enough people are helping.
Relative to the number of people trying to help, the size of the problem is nearly infinite.
If someone who could help, doesn't, the people they would have saved just die. No one else will save them.
This is the unreasonable burden. This is why I don't suggest it lightly. I'm telling a person who is already suffering enough to want to opt out, that people will die unless they choose to stay and do a truly unacceptable amount of work.
I'd certainly like to see people in better circumstances help, but there seems to be a problem of perspective. The full scope and seriousness of the problem tends to slide off and not stick for 'healthy' people. Not always, and I appreciate everyone who does even the smallest bit, but... apparently it's ignored often enough that it continues.
(To be clear, I don't really blame people who never think about it or shy away from actually engaging with it. No one can be expected to tolerate it or to carry the burden of doing something about atrocity. That the world contains these evils is not really their fault, they're just people that happen to be in slightly different circumstances than the ones currently dying.)
I have not used this number and sometimes when these kind of numbers are included in news pieces I have a big eye roll due to it looking like a rubber stamp. That said, I'm part of other groups that are certainly in on-going crises and I'd love to see our resources plastered everywhere, sincerity or not. At the very least it makes some people stop and think, some may donate, some may volunteer. That's worth my eye rolls.
It's one of those situations in which one organization does it and everyone else realizes there are no downsides. It's probably more sincere that we'd like to admit. Sure, there might be a liability aspect to it, but why wouldn't you plaster it all over, even if it's a rubber stamp? At worst, it has no effect. At best, you help people--people who are likely your customers. Dead customers don't pay bills.
If it trivializes suicide, that just means more people might call. But the same core of people that try need help will still be among them. Out of the countless people in distress that might attempt or succeed in suicide, there is a subset that are on that edge where they're looking for that last bit of help, wanting to try a last hope before taking an irrevocable step.
To be sure, by itself it is not nearly as effective as more personal and substantial interventions, but that is not it's purpose either. It is not there for treatment, it's there to help stabilize an emotional state enough to convince the person to seek those more substantial interventions.
People who comment and provide whatever help they can - they're not doing this out of malice. They have good intentions. Whether it helps or not - people in trouble have the choice to accept the consolation or ignore it.
It might, even if one out of thousand who use it, I’d say it is worth it. A simple act of talking to someone is enough to walk someone off the metaphorical and literal ledge. That one call can lead to long term therapy and counseling. I know where you are coming from - it feels like a drive by post with a phone number.. but I really don’t have any other options to offer.
I feel compelled to share that after 30 years, my social anxiety only started improving once I stopped seeing stuff like this as "corniness" and "artifice" and instead as mundane BS that is step 1 of 100 towards a meaningful relationship. I was not the one blessed person on earth who was going to have lifelong friends fall into my lap from going to work[1] and the grocery store
[1] _Small_ FAANG team, artifact of a reorg of a reorg
Mental challenged? That went from 0 to 100 quickly. It's isn't a DSM diagnosis to decline to be co-opted by feel-good but ultimately vapid, cloy gestures.
No, this is not a simple "thoughts and prayers" thing. This is a national helpline that saves lives.
I have family members that have been Samaritans (UK helpline) that have helped people. It's a bit like fight club and the first rule is ...
Actually it is rather more important than fight club: I know that Sammies never, ever discuss anything they are told in confidence - that is a point of honour and practice.
I thought this for the longest time, and then when I actually went through the kind of thing people offer "thoughts and prayers" for and people offered them to me personally (as opposed to generically on the internet), it actually made a world of difference to know my struggle had even entered the mind of another human being.
So if you can tell someone personally that you're thinking about them, especially in the days/weeks/months/years after the fact, I recommend it.
In my humble opinion, it is critical that we become OK with being alone. I believe that only when we are comfortable by ourselves, can we truly ever be happy with someone else.
This is is a popular thing to say on the internet, and surely there's a kernel of truth, but it lacks nuance.
Living without a family or community is like running a marathon.
There's something virtuous about learning to say "fuck you" to your brain's self-protection circuitry, experiencing the hell it raises, and staying the course. Any healthy person could manage it. Many would be better off for the conditioning and the experience.
But pushing on the edges of your design parameters is not going to be sunshine and rainbows. It's supposed to hurt. You should be "OK" in the sense of "stronger than the pain and will make it" not "feeling good."
And it's probably going to hurt a lot more if it's pushed on you from outside vs. a decision to challenge yourself.
Truth be told, chances are pretty high that being alone can work out for someone hanging out in a place like HN. For the grand majority of people, being alone is a drain on their wellbeing, no matter how well they may adjust to it.
But for a select few, being alone can be a preferred state over having to share a place and time. If you can embrace the fact that you are different than most (and fuck them!) and if you can make your alone time fulfilling, you may be one of those lucky few who don't need company to recharge your 'battery'.
A pretty sure tell is when you actually consider socializing a drain.
My parents forbade me from having friends when I was around 7 or 8 years old. Hit me across the head to emphasize the point; friends would distract from studying hard, and you don't study hard then you can't get into a good university. So until I was 24 I had no friends whatsoever, not even through university and not even through the time since then.
As you might imagine I'm quite okay being alone for the most part having grown up friendless. I have no idea what having a friend is like, or how you're supposed to be a fiend, and for the most part that's okay with me. Ironically, my parents are actually now concerned about why I haven't dated anyone in my 30's; they've actually asked their family friends if they knew anyone that might be interested.
And there in lies the rub. If you're really okay with being alone, why bother having anyone else in your life? It's hugely uncomfortable for someone that's used to it, for little benefit.
Couldn't have said it better myself. I went through something similar. Parents considered most people I would have called as friends not "good enough" and forbid being around them for better part of my childhood. Now, in my 30s I have a few people from work I occasionally hang out with but no one I consider a friend. Haven't much dated either since seems like a chore.
I do wish sometimes that I was normal and had an active social life. Being single/alone at my age is beginning to look weird.
I disagree with this mindset. Humans are a social species and require some sort of interaction to thrive. Perpetuating this idea of going at it alone is a problem in modern society imo. This is coming from a pretty extreme introvert.
I reason that filling loneliness should not be the primary focus of a relationship. If you’re lonely, you’re making decisions because you’re lonely. However if you’re not lonely - meaning you’ve found happiness in being alone - then you would seem to be more free to choose partners based on other things than filling your loneliness. I guess in short, loneliness seems to be a really shortsighted reason to date someone.
A person certainly shouldn't choose to have an incompatible relationship to assuage their own loneliness, but the argument that I'm making is that people tend to get lonely when alone regardless of their own self contentment. And it's quite fine for a person who's uncomfortable being alone to start a compatible, healthy relationship. Humans should seek human interaction to some degree regardless of their degree of loneliness.
From someone who used to be content with being alone most their life：Nothing hurts as much as being forced to be alone when you have become used to sharing life with someone else.
Consider the opposite though：imagine being trapped in a relationship both sides feel compelled only "for the Kids". If you feel bad for being alone, realize that what you got is the closest a human can be to true freedom. Only in being alone can you be unconstrained by the wants or needs (hell， just the wishes) of another person.
Your future self might envy this luxury of yours, so appreciate it while you can.
I went through a few stints in my late 20s when I literally didn't leave the condo for a span of 9 months, and at another point 6 months. It was within a span of a few years of deep social isolation. I had frozen meals delivered and left outside the condo. I mean fully that I didn't interact with a physical human during those months.
It was a painful experience at times, although I tried not to wallow in it. Becoming completely accepting of that sort of isolation, and growing to thrive within it, is something I wish everyone could experience.
i think you over-radicalize the opinion you are responding to. "being comfortable with oneself" is not the same thing as "going at it alone". While I agree with you that radical individualism is a troublesome ideology, I also agree that it is wise to be comfortable with oneself, both while alone, and when in company.
I don't think so. If you are isolated from people for too long, you will lose a lot of social skills. People become frustrating and very tiring. You lose ability to relate and to have friends.
All that while feeling very lonely simultaneously. Like, you are lonely, but meeting people makes it worst and makes it plain you don't belong.
This has been my #1 dating advice for my friends who seem to serially jump from one dating attempt to another. They are so afraid of being alone that they grind themselves into the dirt chasing any and every opportunity that might maybe turn into "the one".
However, like most advice, it's never heard until they are ready to hear it.
I've typed things like that often in the past. Usually it leads to past messages from lonely people, forums dedicated to loneliness, hubs of human misery. Nothing too comforting.
Loneliness is interesting from the perspective of technology and privacy. The internet’s, especially the web’s, solution to social engagement is sharing, often completely at odds to privacy.
For most people there exists a healthy social balance of privacy and engagement by limiting sharing to a confined group, often close social contacts from the offline world. For many people that balance is absent resulting in behaviors that could be defined as exhibitionist. As an example years ago there numbers for Twitter suggestive of the 80/20 rule where a minority of the users create that vast majority of content while everyone else mostly lurks.
From a technology perspective, especially an ad driven platform, that creates all kinds of problems. Exhibitionists, the possibly unhealthy people, are an audience the platform wants to reward because they disproportionately drive revenue. In the offline world this is extremely bizarre behavior, but on online social platforms become something artificially enviable. These behaviors exchange social interaction for attention engagement often at cost to privacy.
As a technologist it is possible to create a software tool that is inherently private and creates a healthy social environment online. In order to accomplish that the technology has to promote the same sort of privacy and interpersonal balance that is more natural to the offline world. The biggest challenge isn’t designing the proper technology but rather promoting such a solution contrary to current platforms and their supposed incentives.
In the late nineties we started a public message board at http://newdream.net/bored/ ... somehow it became the top result for “Aol punterz” AND the boy band Hanson.
> Some people rely heavily on technology and end up treating it as an electronic friend, a sounding board—just writing it down can make you feel better...
Ha! I too have a something like paranoid disease, and writing it down made me realize how crazy my speculation. [link redacted]
Hate to be the party pooper, but the proper diagnosis for "something like paranoid disease" is called "paranoid schizophrenia" and if you had any idea what that implied you might have sounded like less of a Jackass.
Your "problem" is colloquially called "teenage angst" and adequate treatment can be achieved by reading The Catcher In The Rye, listening to copious amounts of Grunge music and, if you have enough status among your peer group, fucking your brains out with someone equally confused as yourself but of the (usually) opposite sex, about whom only in hindsight when it is too late you'll realize that you actually cared about.
I am sorry this is out of topic, but does anyone else wonder if wikipedia is the right place for such articles? It feels like wikipedia is becoming some kind of mirror of blogs instead of a repository of distilled knowledge. Am I wrong?
I'm wondering if hotline services should also offer volunteer options. Could be an issue with liability though (what if the the volunteer is a crazy person who's less of a help, to put it mildly).
Look at the signal that is the net today. As long as you see something that cannot be adequately explained with simply increasing entropy, there's a chance it's someone just like you speaking. Don't be afraid to speak
up and reach out.
Even those who wish for
censorship to protect their own interests， at the very least their agents， are most likely humanists - for now.
As long as we have reason to hold on to this assumption, know that you are not alone - even though most of those who you would like to speak to may prefer to stay silent over having every Syllable of their public speech recorded for perpetuity and likely analyzed for exploitability， not unlike a software bug allowing privilege escalation.
IMO, it has never been a better time to speak up. We may be the last generation to know the true meaning of free speech, where it is still possible to express or share an opinion before an Al evaluates, scores, judges it.
Even those tasked with watching
us must realize that the short term goal is to
make them redundant, to replace their weary eyes with an automaton that will never question the morality or ethics of their surveillance of us and thereby，their future selves. Trust them not to rat you out simply for extending
the courtesy of assuming good intentions.
Guess why everything is now being recorded unconditionally： The hardest idea to contain is that we're all equal， which is incidentally the singular proof necessary that the 'net community transcends nations. It blows a hole through any|
nationalist or elitist rhetoric, it turns into a leaky sieve any argument justifying war. You will find that those who oppose this view most likely do so because they have come to rely on control through fear. They'll find It hard to keep you afraid if you do not feel alone.
And you are far from alone. you've got a worldwide communications network at your fingertips. Say hi, stranger!
Some thoughts (intended as a buffet to choose from if it strikes your fancy, not a prescription for "the right way" to do anything at all):
1. It's usually not actually helpful to signal that you are desperate and lonely and your life is in the toilet. Once in a great while, someone will be truly wonderful to you because you did that but it's usually counterproductive.
2. It's usually better to look for one of two things: A chat-friendly space where it's okay to just talk to people or a discussion space on a topic that genuinely interests you.
3. Signaling desperation attracts predators far more often than it attracts real friends.
4. Support groups have a tendency to be all kinds of drama and not terribly helpful because it tends to be the case that you can't suggest to people "You could try doing things differently" because that will be taken as blaming the victim and it's just really hard to find good ways to help people solve their personal problems.
5. The best way to make friends is to connect with people you have something in common with. So joining discussions about things that interest you is more likely to help you connect socially.
6. Yes, you can have real friends via internet. I've had lots of real friends online over the years.
((germ-free internet hugs)) if you need/want them and happy holidays and all that.