"All human life, we may say, consists solely of these two activities: (1) bringing one’s activities into harmony with conscience, or (2) hiding from oneself the indications of conscience in order to be able to continue to live as before."
Note that he has defined all of life as two points about "one" and "oneself". This is why I and I assume many others roll their eyes.
Because Tolstoy, and most essays about alcohol, don't even mention what I think is the point of alcohol. It's a drug that makes it easier to socialize, and socializing is very, very good for people. So good that I will risk it, even though alcohol is bad in many ways: bad for physical and mental health, risky for abuse, etc.
If you are anti alcohol, that is reasonable, but it seems no one will ever admit what it's really for.
This is important, because alcohol is unhealthy and if you want to discourage it, give people other low effort ways to connect.
That's one big reason, but the other is numbing bad feelings, which I think is a more interesting field, especially since it often blurs into the social bit.
Indeed, for the social aspect, everyone is already fully aware it's not needed, and that they can have fun socialization without it, because of their childhoods.
I think the biggest reason alcohol is used is, to put it bluntly, how painful life is.
As the child grows into an adult, and realizes the real nature of life and the world, baseline pain increases. And it's hard to be social when you're worried about things or down about things.
But alcohol is a cheap, readily available blunt instrument against this pain. No matter how bad you feel, if you down a litre of booze, that pain will definitely, and quickly, stop.
>Indeed, for the social aspect, everyone is already fully aware it's not needed, and that they can have fun socializations without it, because of their childhoods.
Sure... you can also learn everything a Stanford class teaches online. You can find alternatives for the networking aspects, etc. Still... universities tend to be how people do this. You can bodybuild without a gym. Indomitable willpower & a DIY ethic are admirable, but "hacks" are still the way 90% of people get the job done.
I think you are downplaying how hard it is to be social, in various contexts. Alcohol can be used to dull pain. This definitely does occur frequently, especially once substance abuse is the pattern.
This does not negate the earlier comment about lubricating social interactions. That's generally the starting point for alcohol use. Flirting in high school. Being socially adventurous in college. Getting intimate with coworkers.
Substance mediated mind alteration is not new. It's not just escapism or "opium for the masses." There are many real reasons people use mind altering substances. Escapism & "opium for the masses," is, however, usually the mode when/once we're talking about addiction.
If you look at why alcoholics drink, and why high schoolers drink.... the reasons are just different.
Are we, arguably a bunch of antisocial nerds posting to an obscure extremely-online forum, really making theses about how hard socialization is for the average person? This is like a plumber talking about art history. We're out of our depth to a hilarious degree.
I hope you're not antisocial if you're designing software for society.
I think you mean you're a little introverted or awkward. Some other people tend like that too though, don't be too hard on yourself. We also need to socialize.
Would an antisocial design software for society in the first place? Obviously, he’s being hyperbolic. You might not be the one to read social cues. But don’t be too hard on yourself. It gets better with practice.
I'm pretty sure Tolstoy isn't talking about a weekly beer, but the Russian type of alcoholism of downing an entire bottle of vodka every five minutes.
See the wiki:
> According to a 2011 report by the World Health Organization, annual per capita consumption of alcohol in Russia was about 15.76 litres of pure alcohol, the fourth-highest volume in Europe.
> Alcoholism has been a problem throughout the country's history because drinking is a pervasive, socially acceptable behaviour in Russian society
I've done the maths on that and it comes out at 39.4 litres of 40% spirits a year, 750ml a week, or 108ml a day. In the UK that is basically two double spirit drinks.
Four UK units a day is above the recommended 14 per week and I'm sure isn't great for your health long term but most people wouldn't notice they are drinking at that level.
I appreciate this is the average so many will be way above that, but interesting to extrapolate it out.
A great point, and I assume this sort of thing might help understand how prohibition came to America in the early 20th century. I heard a world health report once that implied that Russian men die a lot younger than they would without alcohol.
That was my impression when I travelled in Moscow. Every where I looked there was a kiosk selling beer and little bottles of vodka - along with some tasty cold cuts. It was pretty hard not to stop by and get one of these little bottles of vodka.
(On a side note, alcoholism in Moscow was on a different level then what I experienced. Middle aged men and women struggling to "walk" on their hands and legs at 10 in the morning was quite the experience for me.... This was on one of the Muscovite neighborhoods, not in the touristy places like Kremlin, Arbat, Tverskaya, etc..)
> Indeed, for the social aspect, everyone is already fully aware it's not needed, and that they can have fun socialization without it, because of their childhoods.
Huh. I don't think I would have seen OP's point about people being strangely dismissive to the idea of alcohol as a social lubricant until you provided an example.
Saying alcohol is not needed for socializing is like saying everybody is fully aware that alcoholis not needed to numb bad feelings because they were happy when they were children.
It's not just pain, it’s thoughts too (which can also be related of course). I’m someone who will overthink which leads to worries that don’t need to exist and bring no benefit. This is why it helps me socialise, I’m far more likely to talk myself out of it because of the perceived “risk”. Rate limiting my thoughts lets me just act.
> But alcohol is a cheap, readily available blunt instrument against this pain. No matter how bad you feel, if you down a litre of booze, that pain will definitely, and quickly, stop.
Never happened to me. I'm not a drinker but I have of course consumed alcohol. Life is as painful as usual with or without alcohol in my body. If any, life is more miserably with alcohol because I look more pathetic than usual (classic drunk face), my voice is not clear, my mouth smells like shit, and I walk funny (if I can walk at all).
You don't think like that when drunk, in fact very opposite of it. Those few hours are enough for some desperate enough to go for it repeatedly, with real risks of fucking up their lives permanently. Same for all other addictive drugs.
People are not rational, that's just a very thin layer on top of emotions dictating most of our lives. Some almost don't have them, some are more rational (me too). But its important to recognize these aspects of us, and be at peace with them, easier to work with them like that.
I'm with you - my body cannot process alcohol well, I'm hungover aftger couple of beers. As such I do not drink much, parties only, maybe once a year (if that).
It has always scared me what my life would be if I did tolerate alcohol well. Really, really scary thought!
That's one important reason, but there's another one that is even more neglected: it just... tastes good (for those of us who like it, of course).
For example, as a 90 kg man, for me drinking a single 33cl bottle of beer has pretty much the same effect as drinking water, i.e., I don't feel anything at all (note that I don't drive, in that context it would probably still be relevant). So when I have a single beer with dinner, there is zero intention of socializing, stupefying myself or whatever. I just like the taste (and don't order alcohol-free beer, which is healthier, because I hate its taste).
Similarly, having a red wine with a strong sheep milk cheese is an amazing experience, just because the tastes combine so well and enhance each other.
If there were alcohol-free versions of the beverages that tasted the same, I'd probably use them most of the time (except in some social contexts). There is no such thing, though.
I think culture toward drinking is the determining factor. In my culture we are brought up around wine, heavy spirits, and beer. There is no such thing as comming of age by drinking yourself stupid as in UK, US or Australia for example. Intoxication is considered VERY bad form (embarassing). Usually when people feel they are becoming intoxicated they will excuse themselves and go home.
In which part of Southern Europe do people excuse themselves when they are becoming intoxicated? Because that's not true in France, Italy, Spain and Portugal unless you have very prudish acquaintances.
I agree with this totally. For me, the strongest manifestation is cognac. A good cognac is just fantastic. The main thing is the tail, that just goes on and on in different stages of taste and sensation. I'd drink it all day if I could. But if I did... er... that would not be good.
I had a glass of Louis XIII Cognac a few years ago and was really surprised at how much better it was than a VSOP. As you say the tail lasted so long and was so rich and complex, I didn't expect it to be that incredible.
Whoah! Haven't had one yet. Saving that until I make a lot more money! :)
But on a more affordable level I recommend checking out https://www.cognac-expert.com. They do have the incredibly expensive stuff, but at a also a reasonable-price range that goes well beyond the standard Remy, Hennessy, etc. VSOP or even XO. A world to explore!
Looking at that link it's a scary and expensive hobby. Having said that my brother used to get my dad a £200-500 bottle of scotch for Christmas each year so definitely something to explore. Cheers.
Absolutely agree with the taste aspect. I (male) went 0% when my gf went off of birth control and kept it that way throughout pregnancy until now (baby's 9 months) and I certainly miss some of the tastes (beers, wines, liqueur). My luck is that I enjoy drinking Heineken 0.0 and most of the 0.3%/0.5% IPA's they sell now (at least here, Netherlands). As for 0% alternatives for wines and liqueur, they haven't come close to me yet to enjoy them.
For me, there's nothing 'principal' about it btw, it just works, for now. The upside is of course no negative effects (ie hangover) and much less threshold to open one, even on the rare occasion we have a warm meal during lunch time (I work from home).
Alcohol interferes with your liver’s ability to process vitamin A, which in turn has a negative impact on sperm production. That said, moral support is also a pretty good reason.
I tried one a few weeks ago, in my son's end of schoolyear party. I found it so bad that I couldn't even make myself go beyond the second gulp... I had to stealthily leave it somewhere and pick a bottle of water.
It could be that my local beer brand uses old tech, though.
I'll keep trying from time to time, but at the moment nothing comes even remotely close to the real thing for my taste.
Try one from a brand with multiple 0/ish% beers, not just the 0/lite/whatever version of the 'normal' product. Then it's actually designed to be a good drink, with a distinct profile to another one.
Similar to my advice on vegetarian food - you don't want it to be 'the vegetarian version', de-meated from the normal one. You want the vegetables to become the star, so you want an XYZ (what are the vegetables) lasagne, not a 'vegetarian lasagne'.
In australia the 4 pines alcohol free* tastes so realistic (and good) that it is hard to tell the difference other than the lack of sting from the alcohol. It is good stuff. But there are many bad alcohol free beers.
Alcohol by itself is tasteless though. And alcohol-free beer is getting better at very high speed. Keep trying it every now and then, you'll be surprised.
To me, alcoholic beverages have a distinctive taste in common (stronger in spirits and weaker in beer or wine), which I always assumed was the taste of the alcohol itself.
Some sources describe pure ethanol as 'tasteless', albeit strongly odoured; if this is true, then I guess what I interpret as a taste is really the combination of the smell & the burning sensation.
But other sources describe it as having a taste -- e.g. CAMEO Chemicals (via PubChem) says ethanol has a 'pungent taste', and a paper I find when googling says 10% ethanol tastes bitter to everyone and sweet to some (and I know that's not exactly alcohol 'by itself' but they do attribute the taste to the ethanol).
I think if something has a strong smell it by definition has a strong taste? Most of what you taste is the smell. If you close your nose a lot of food becomes quite tasteless.
Coffee contains many alkaloids (including caffeine), which are quite bitter but have little or no odour. Alcohol on the other hand has a very strong odour.
And alcohol free beer is generally made by removing the alcohol after fermentation. The problem is, the process of removing the alcohol can also affect the taste, but they're much better at it these days than they used to be.
Most good low alcohol beers are fully fermented and just remove the ethanol via vacuum evaporation or reverse osmosis. Whilst in practice it is difficult the is no theoretical reasons it would damage the taste.
I am not sure about good taste of alcohol. I can agree about some wines and brandys (although they are universally better to smell than to taste), but beer? Bitter liquid, enriched with CO2. Do you remember first time you tasted beer, probably at the age of 5-7 from the bottle of your father? I can't see anyone liking non-alcoholic beer outside social context.
I love the wide variety of tastes you can get. Beers are getting there, but there is no alcohol free wine or spirit that comes close to the flavour carrying profile of decent drinks.
I make quite a lot of cocktails and have some quite decent alcohol free ones in my repertoire, but compared to the alcoholic ones there are a very poor imitation.
Increasingly, there are! Where I live (Switzerland) there is a roaring trade in non alcoholic or very low alcohol drinks. I admit none are yet as tasty to me as a good IPA, but the market clearly wants what you do. If my beer of choice was more toward lager I might even be happier.
It tastes good because a) you like the carbonation (try drinking sparkling water), and b) your brain wants the alcohol, so it makes beers or anything resembling it taste good.
> don't order alcohol-free beer, which is healthier, because I hate its taste
Bavaria brand non-alcoholic beer, pomegranate flavor. If you can find it, it's delicious. The regular flavor tastes more like beer but also tastes great.
Great points and whereas many may begin drinking to aid in some way with social interactions there are many that drink for what I think is closer to the second part/activity of the quote, to hide, forget, ignore, avoid, etc., and often increase their consumption while isolating themselves. For the alcoholic, it's more about what Tolstoy was saying than about social lubrication
Well, no. Alcoholism can start regardless of the reason you start drinking. There are plenty of "social lubricant" drinkers who became alcoholics because of the pernicious GABA regulation cycle.
You might start drinking to have a better social life, but eventually you drink to cure the hangover, to cure the shakes, to cure the anxiety that alcohol withdrawal gives you. Then it's just a cyclical pattern of poisoning yourself to cure the effects of the last poisoning.
When your addiction becomes physical, it doesn't matter why you started drinking in the first place. Now the only reason you drink is to function.
I was as social as one could be while drunk and am as solitary as a hermit now that I'm sober. I miss the social life at times, but really, as Tolstoy remarks, it was just an escape from my true nature which I hadn't yet figured out. And what a mess that was.
So yes, its a social thing, but is it good? It's something. There are other ways.
This comment really resonates with me. As someone who doesn't drink anymore, I've found how much of a hermit I am and how much I'm okay with that and how it's my true self. I really have few friends, and the ones I do I actually do activities with. My wife is the same way.
When text messaging started to take off in the 90s, adults didn't get it. Typing on a keypad sucks, and the phone already has a great communication app. It's called the phone, and if you call someone you can hear each other talk.
What they didn't understand is that "I think you're cute. Wanna go on a date?" is much easier in text. That's why kids always passed notes in class.
These things lubricate high friction social interactions... the kinds of things that people agonize over, regret, etc. You're right, this is alcohol's primary purpose. Most people stay here.
I mean first off, only a vocal minority of adults didn't get it; this is usually the case with advancements like this.
The same generation you're talking about was also the generation that would write letters and keep diaries, in addition to phone calls. The generations before that didn't have phones would write letters or telegrams. TL;DR, text based communication wasn't a novel concept, but what changed was that it was short and instantaneous.
But is unconscious socialization the same as conscious socialization? IMO all socialization is not equal. If you're "engaging" with people who are intoxicated themselves, while you are intoxicated, does that truly yield the same benefits as a genuine, no-barrier interaction? In my experience, no.
Your fist statement is a rather disingenuous and a contrived, false premise. Further, this very OP links to a prominent drinker arguing the opposite of your other point.
> It's a drug that makes it easier to socialize, and socializing is very, very good for people.
Except (some) people take in more alcohol than is necessary to accomplish that result. He's talking about stupefying, and refers to more than just alcohol:
> What is the explanation of the fact that people use things that stupefy them: vodka, wine, beer, hashish, opium, tobacco, and other things less common: ether, morphia, fly-agaric, etc.?
Does taking hashish and opium allow for easier socializing?
Further:
> The cause of the world-wide consumption of hashish, opium, wine, and tobacco, lies not in the taste, nor in any pleasure, recreation, or mirth they afford, but simply in man’s need to hide from himself the demands of conscience.
I think the response to this from Tolstoy's perspective is that by imbibing a drug which makes socializing easier, you're doing (1) or (2). E.g. your inner voice is telling you that you should be social, you're failing at it, so you drink to fulfill the demand of that voice, which is (1). Or maybe you drink to escape trauma which sounds a lot like (2).
The point is really that all existence is filtered through the lens of the mind. This is related to the idea of solipsism, to which I think Tolstoy subscribed to some degree. I haven't studied any of that stuff since college though, maybe a philosophy PhD is lurking around HN...
I think that is intended by Tolstoy. He gives the following extreme example
> A drunken man is ashamed of none of these things, and therefore if a man wishes to do something his conscience condemns he stupefies himself.
Stupefies is a negative term because he is against alcohol but socialising is easier because of exact same reason. It removes the filter and we could do things which we are "ashamed" of, even if there is nothing to be ashamed of. e.g. I am ashamed of talking to stranger or discussing details of my life when sober.
Maybe as a corollary. But the answer is really simple when you start out. It makes you feel good. Some of these answers feel like people are allergic to straightforward answers.
I think of it more as ‘quieting’ the mind - the internal monologue - this does help with socialising, and numbing bad feelings, but it’s still useful when neither of those things are relevant I.e. winding down after a full-on day.
I socialise (and have bad thoughts) in the mornings too, but I dont want a drink then
> "All human life, we may say, consists solely of these two activities: (1) bringing one’s activities into harmony with conscience, or (2) hiding from oneself the indications of conscience in order to be able to continue to live as before."
I mean, you know what people also use to "hide from oneself the indications of conscience"? Reading long novels, like the ones Tolstoy wrote.
Alcohol doesn't exist for socializing, though it does make socializing easier. Correlation does not equal causation.
No, alcohol exists for a very simple reason: Clean and sanitary beverage.
Lest we forget, alcohol is alcohol. It is by its very nature sanitary and safe to drink, which is why humanity has long consumed it. Safe and clean drinking water in abundance is a fairly modern phenomenon, and it's still only available in a small part of the world at large.
Given that, alcohol satisfies both aforementioned activities.
Producing and consuming alcohol is harmonious with conscience, that is the desire to "do right" both for yourself and your peers, because beverages that are safe to drink is critically important to yourself and everyone.
It is also denying the brutal reality of the world we live in, that is to say we hide from our desire to "do right" because producing and consuming alcohol is easier than ensuring clean and safe drinking water while achieving the same practical goal.
Alcohol obviously has its problems, but they are far better than ones incurred from drinking foul water.
> No, alcohol exists for a very simple reason: Clean and sanitary beverage.
That’s why distillation was developed: to separate alcohol from water via evaporation and condensation and get a super-clean and super-sanitary beverage - with as little water as possible.
To say that alcohol distills down to being able to socialize doesn’t fit. Socializing is not hard. Are you at a party? Approach people you don’t know the way you want to be approached. Wear a sincere smile, give some distance, give your name, ask them who they know at the party, respond with who you know. Most likely you will know the same people so chat about that. Say where you live then ask them where they live. Listen to their response. Ask them what they like about where they live. Ask what you should see if you visit their neighborhood. Ask what they think of the music. Listen to their response. Thank them for sharing their opinion. Be self deprecating. Let them talk and you add the odd comment. Alcohol is not required for that. All that’s required is to be sincerely interested in people.
Responses like this are a great indicator of never having had troubles socializing. Some hints of what might go wrong for people more pathetic than you could ever imagine existing:
* Not having the chance to go to a party. (i.e. never being invited, or being in government-mandated house arrest for years to accomodate for other people who might die of a certain disease. Or both.)
* Having the chance to go to a party, but still refusing because of the dread going to a party induces. (Possibly related to trauma caused by previously going to a party, see below. (Or any trauma caused by other humans, really.))
* Actually going to a party, but not having the communication skills to naturally start a conversation with some random person.
* Starting a conversation nevertheless, only to come to the same conclusion (also traumatizing yourself in the process after you get ignored).
* As an extension: trying to join a conversation, but being ignored by all participants for being uninteresting, annoying, weird, or simply ugly. (Or all of the former.)
* Sitting/standing alone for most of the party because of the aforementioned problems, then after a few occasions deciding that surely this wasn't worth the time and never going to a party again.
Alcohol may or may not help with these problems. (It doesn't for me, so in the end I just gave up.)
I am introverted and I have had to go out of my way to do what I suggested. So, replace party with workplace, or grocery store, or laundromat. The setting doesn't matter. Health issues can't be changed and that's a tragedy but still the person will interact with health care workers and social workers. Use them for socializing. Is not having communication skills really a valid excuse? I assume we have all learned some sort of skill to support our adult selves financially so learn to communicate. I will admit that the point about someone writing you off as ugly, weird, annoying, not interesting is tough as I have felt that. I had to learn to be sincerely interested in the whole person and not the superficial. If the person has a defensive wall up that doesn't let me get to know them then I won't press it.
> To say that alcohol distills down to being able to socialize doesn’t fit. Socializing is not hard. Are you at a party? Approach people you don’t know the way you want to be approached. Wear a sincere smile, give some distance, give your name, ask them who they know at the party, respond with who you know.
YMMV. If you have real social anxiety, the above is just about impossible. People who haven't experienced it just don't know. It's extremely difficult to understand if you haven't been there. Normal shyness is a different animal. It's sort of like depression. Although people may think you should just snap out of it, you can't.
And alcohol definitely can help. Believe me, I know. My life was pretty much dominated by social anxiety in my college years and 20's. Gradually it's gotten much better. I never drank a lot, but in those social situations where my self-consciousness made it pretty much impossible to do as you suggest, having some alcohol really made a positive difference. (This was long ago, I'm 67 now.)
I don't recommend using it that way if you also have any other characteristics that could turn you into an alcoholic, because it's possible you'll stop using it and it will start using you. It's dangerous. It can destroy your life. But for me, in specific situations when I needed some help in order to be less self-conscious and more out there, it did help. (Therapy pretty much didn't, for me, but in recent years, meditation does.)
I think it's better to say a social lubricant for getting sex. Walking up and chatting is not the same as loosening people up for potential hook ups (unless you're really gorgeous to begin with)
I think there is a difference between a community socializing among themselves, and socialing with immigrant/tourists/foreigners. Qatar world cup is one example I think of where the barrier to socializing with *the others* was removed.
I happen to work for a company that has banned alcohol for religious reasons. I would not say the company is particularly social, on the contrary. However, as an alcoholic[0] maybe I am blinded or excluded from the social nirvana of my non-alcoholic colleagues.
edit: [0] I learned that irony not really works on a forum. I occasionally drink, but I am get up early enough to bring my kids to school.
Good point - why is that? How do they acheive it and what are the tradeoffs? An American example that comes to mind is the Mormons. Are they playing a lot of Mafia in the middle east? Hookah bars? Mosques?
The answer is the focus on community. Alcohol brings people together physically, only to isolate them mentally. Alcohol has individual short-term "benefits", for some, but detrimental effects on communities.
Drinking slows down my brain and reduces the number of threads running in parallel. Sometimes very useful to enable normal-passing interaction in social environments. Or just to be able to focus. Lots of people with ADHD drink to achieve a more single threaded experience.
Edit to add: I don't meant to encourage drinking as a tool for managing ADHD. It works but it's a blunt and dangerous tool. If you're at that point, you'll absolutely love the results you get from the healthier strategies: Understanding yourself; developing a suite of tools that don't involve a slippery slope; and curating your social and physical environment carefully.
This is a very common theme in neuro-divergent communities. Used occasionally it can be great, but if you become dependent on it, it is trouble.
In that sense it reminds me of Alan Watts writings on LSD. Get the message and then go away and work on it, don't get fixated on getting the message. As a transient thing some drugs are neat, but to become dependent on them is a dangerous thing.
Interesting analogy. I feel like I talk and think faster when I'm drunk but am also more focused and can hold less in my mind. I'm wondering if it's because I'm switching into single threaded mode instead of multi-threaded mode, and that single thread is actually faster, but more limited.
Interesting. Ever tried coding when drunk? So far, we’ve got programming languages named after caffeinating drinks, but none named after alcoholic ones.
>Alcohol has played a central role in the creative lives of some of the most famous authors of the last few centuries. Lewis Hyde notes in his essay Alcohol and Poetry that four of the six Americans who have won the Nobel Prize for Literature were alcoholics, namely William Faulkner, Eugene O'Neill, Ernest Hemingway and John Steinbeck.
No, I'm not sure, but it could go either way. It could very well be that those authors had no other choice than drown their overflowing creativity in alcohol in order to survive / tolerate themselves.
In "Hunter: The Strange and Savage Life of Hunter S. Thompson", it's made very clear that Hunter did _not_ write while he was sober. An excerpt of his daily schedule -
9:00(pm) starts snorting cocaine seriously
10:00 drops acid
11:00 Chartreuse, cocaine, grass
11:30 cocaine, etc, etc.
12:00 midnight, Hunter S. Thompson is ready to write
The OP was talking about "William Faulkner, Eugene O'Neill, Ernest Hemingway and John Steinbeck"... "what about Hunter S. Thompson?" isn't really a good argument. He's not considered a great writer in the grand scheme of things, I think he's better known for being a drug addict.
The idea, since it appears to have been lost on you, is that there's a long history of great writers (like Thompson) using drugs while they created. The Thompson quote is one of many, I think that's the part you may be misunderstanding. Truthfully, I'm surprised that a single Forbes article which quotes a "Michelle Stansbury, PR expert and founder of Little Penguin PR" is enough to have convinced you otherwise.
Untreated or late diagnosed ADHD people are ridiculously overrepresented in drug & alcohol recovery programs. It's honestly chilling and it prevents me from taking this in the probably more lighthearted spirit that was intended.
Current thinking is ADHD is caused (at least in significant part) by a lack of dopamine or an insensitivity to dopamine. They’ve found links between genes that cause dopamine resistance and ADHD.
Many current ADHD medications cause increased levels of dopamine. This is a leading theory on why they work.
Wanna guess what a lot of other drugs, including alcohol, do in your brain?
It’s been amazing since I got diagnosed relatively late in life exactly how many other things suddenly made so much more sense and clicked into place. And amazing how quickly decades old substance abuse habits started to taper off once my brain chemistry was less fucked.
It wasn't meant to be lighthearted at all. It was just meant to be honest. I've been to the depths of the things, and I wish I knew how to help others not go there.
Adhd is a particular personality configuration, mostly being high in Big Five trait Openness and low in Conscientiousness. High openness is correlated with impulsivity
This rings true. I went to a reasonably well known engineering school, so...some selection for ADHD folks. As someone diagnosed with ADHD young, it was frightening to see how many of my fellows were 1) clearly struggling with ADHD, and 2) were destructively self-medicating with alcohol (or worse). And it hasn't stopped. Decades later there's still those folks who are hammered at every social function and a good percentage of them I think "yeah...self medicating the noise in their head". I certainly understand the appeal (I'm no tea-totaller), but long-term, booze is a work-around, not a solution.
The hyperfocus which is a symptom of ADHD helps give the tenacity needed to make progress when faced with frustrating challenges.
In engineering, tenacity is absolutely required to make any progress at all, but there are also seemingly infinite threads to pull on.
If you’re in hyperfocus mode and you’re working on something, you don’t run out of interesting side tracks or ways to keep digging down through the foundations under what you’re working on.
i do know the difference but i think i get your point. you use it as an analogy for context switching. the classic adhd "i can't do anything productive when waiting for something".
Tolstoy was an aristocrat and most people commenting here are functionally in the same position; that is, largely able to choose which substances they consume - or choose not to consume them at all.
This is not the case for the vast majority of alcohol use throughout history. Historically, for lower class professions like farmers or factory workers, drinking was just something you did. It was something your father did, and his father did, etc. It was an inherited cultural trait, not a decision that an individual ruminated over.
Adding to that were exploitative practices against these workers by the providers of alcohol, in a way not dissimilar to the recent opioid crisis.
Peasants in Russia (and in Poland-Lithuania before it got conquered) were effectively slaves. They had to do free work, couldn't leave without permission of the landlord. Landlords were also acting as judges.
Landlords had monopoly on producing and selling alcohol, and they extracted as much additional income from that as they could. Which meant each of them had an inn which he rented out to someone. The inn was buying landlord's alcohol and encouraging or forcing peasants to buy it.
It was a common trick to have "all you can drink" passes for farmers. There were even attempts to force peasants to buy if they didn't wanted to - by introducing quotas and they had to pay for the whole amount even if they drank less.
When it comes to Slavic countries before 20th century - think American South before civil war, just both slaves and slave owners are white.
What you're describing is serfdom, and it was in some aspects similar to slavery, but still distinct. Serfs could not be sold to another landlord, they had obligations towards the landlord, but were not a simple commodity.
Serfdom was also widely present in Europe, not unique to Slavic countries at all.
There were great differences between the legal status of serf in western europe versus eastern, at least after the black death. This is due to the fact that western europe experienced a serious labor shortage after the black death wiped out a good part of society. This paradoxically put serfs in position where their labor was desperately needed and they could leverage this to gain legal recognition This difference is said to be one of the reasons why the industrial revolution started in western europe and why it took much longer for eastern europe and russia to industrialize.
Wow, this is a hugely reductionist and patronizing take. You really think there weren’t lower class people choosing not to drink, or to drink less?
I’m hoping you might simply be biased by the fact that most of what we know about history, and even in more recent times most of what gets mindshare, comes from the upper class.
For one, many religious movements across the world preached against alcohol use - and while you can argue in some cases the doctrine was set by the upper classes, that doesn’t hold as much water when looking at the many popular Protestant movements which were pretty grassroots. Temperance in the US was hugely driven by middle and working class women, not just elites. And alcohol use was highly controlled by such elitist movements as Leninist Russia.
The temperance movement was limited to a fairly small percentage of Christians and only began in the 19th century.
> Throughout the first 1,800 years of Church history, Christians generally consumed alcoholic beverages as a common part of everyday life and used "the fruit of the vine" in their central rite—the Eucharist or Lord's Supper. They held that both the Bible and Christian tradition taught that alcohol is a gift from God that makes life more joyous, but that over-indulgence leading to drunkenness is sinful.
Samuel Johnson had a more pithy quote on the same subject.
"I called on Dr. Johnson one morning, when Mrs. Williams, the blind lady, was conversing with him. She was telling him where she had dined the day before. "There were several gentlemen there," said she, "and when some of them came to the tea-table, I found that there had been a good deal of hard drinking." She closed this observation with a common and trite moral reflection; which, indeed, is very ill-founded, and does great injustice to animals—"I wonder what pleasure men can take in making beasts of themselves." "I wonder, Madam," replied the Doctor, "that you have not penetration to see the strong inducement to this excess; for he who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man."
He was more enthusiastic about drugs for the poor:
'What signifies, says some one, giving halfpence to beggars? they only lay it out in gin or tobacco. "And why should they be denied such sweeteners of their existence (says Johnson)? it is surely very savage to refuse them every possible avenue to pleasure, reckoned too coarse for our own acceptance. Life is a pill which none of us can bear to swallow without gilding; yet for the poor we delight in stripping it still barer, and are not ashamed to shew even visible displeasure, if ever the bitter taste is taken from their mouths."'
If you're a habitual drinker - try not drinking for a month to see if the habit just stops. I stopped to do an experiment on my sleep and biomarkers and haven't found the urge to continue (still drink socially but I used to have a whiskey after dinner pretty reliably). For me it was pretty clearly just to destress and have something to sip on in front of TV. I switched to a non-caffeinated tea+honey+lemon which might event help with sleep rather than disturb it.
Kinda basic psychology but it's helpful to just put the bottles away in an a cabinet - if I don't see them I don't even think, "oh - I could go for a drink". The difference is expending the willpower to not drink vs not to even think to drink.
I find it really interesting that until ten minutes ago, historically speaking, there was an implicit assumption that there exists a moral dimension to drug and alcohol consumption. I mean, referring to such substances as "stupifiers" really drives the point home - Tolstoy says these are things you consume when you wish to act in a way you know is morally questionable, or after the act to dull your conscience.
The overwhelming shift in the social sciences from the political to the personal, and the related shift from the moral to the psychological over the course of the twentieth century, has led us to the point where we are no longer able to even conjure up language necessary to condemn excessive drug and alcohol consumption in terms of moral failure without sounding like a religious lunatic.
It makes one wonder what Tolstoy would have to say about harm reduction.
Everyone warns you about alcohol, but I have only had positive experiences, and in fact, wish I started drinking sooner in life. When I was going through a period of general anxiety and loneliness, I used to drink alone every weekend. It was a lot of fun and led to some of my best decisions, such as applying for a new job. Nowadays, I'm in a more stable place and only drink socially.
I feel like my mind is by default "extra sober", and drinking helps bring it to a normal level of sobriety.
Sun: can I live forever in a cave so I don't get any sunlight? No, you can't (in practical terms). But you can use sunscreen and you can limit the number of hours you get exposed to sun (don't be a dick and lay down on the beach 5h straight during hot summer days). Problem fixed.
Alcohol: can I live forever without drinking any alcohol. Yes, you can. Problem fixed.
Since you completely ignored the parent's valid point (many things that are in fact healthy for you can also cause cancer if overdoing, so the phrase "may cause cancer" by itself is not a valid argument), here's why your own argument has no merit whatsoever:
> Alcohol: can I live forever without drinking any alcohol. Yes, you can. Problem fixed.
I know the sun can increase skin cancer risk, that's why people take precautions.
The risks of alcohol are quite well known (e.g. what drinking & driving often does). It's also addictive, which means some people really struggle to stop or can't. It's not harmless at all.
There is so many behaviors and substances that somewhat increase cancer that we need some kind of scale to define what actually matters.
Personally a theoretical increase of 0.001% is kinda moot, even 1 or 2% would be something I'd see as a small risk given the sheer enjoyment I'd get out of alcohol (for instance, in comparison, moving to a greener city would probably decrease my overall cancer risk by much more)
I find the description of alcohol as something that "stupefies" rather reductive. People are often louder, more expressive and more interesting when they've had a drink. The opposite of catatonic. Now it's true that overdosing on alcohol is poisonous but most people don't drink to the point of stupification regularly.
I am interested in why Tolstoy feels the need to be so reductive. Sounds to me like he might also be "hiding from himself what he doesn't wish to see". Which is a human activity so I don't begrudge him his own chosen blind spots, I just think it's interesting and I'm wondering if he is being fully honest with himself about why he hates alcohol so much.
Tolstoy argues that it is the conscience in particular that is stupefied; he may also have been influenced by behavior he observed. I have anecdotal experience of Russians drinking themselves beyond garrulity into stupor, although I'm certain it can happen in any culture where alcohol is available.
> Sounds to me like he might also be "hiding from himself what he doesn't wish to see".
He tells exactly this. You and him are looking from different sets of axioms, so you come to a different language, but it is just outside appearance.
Tolstoy uses axioms like Freud's: human is an animal inside and human needs to work hard to subside his/her animal nature and to become a Human. So human is inherently bad, but it may become good if tried hard enough.
From other hand you start from different premises (I allow myself a little guessing here, sorry): human is inherently good, but may become bad due to bad experiences. So if one feels the need to become good, they need to dig inside themselves, find out what happens, accept it, and learn how to live with it. Humanistic psychology like that.
But the funny thing, that it doesn't matter much where you begin to think what it means to be a human, the most complicating thing is a communication between people using different sets of axioms about human nature.
Neither set of axioms requires one to be extremely reductive about something like alcohol. Does Tolstoy admit to being reductive (“he tells exactly this”)?
I think in this case it isn’t the axioms but the “style” of philosophical discourse that requires the reader to take the message with a big grain of salt. Like when a YouTuber says, “In the next ten minutes, I’m going to lay out the exact formula for how to write a perfect screenplay,” it’s not literally true. Tolstoy’s musings are a little deeper than your average YouTuber, on par with a good one, similarly overblown and oversimplified, and more moralizing.
Eh, I don’t think it’s that deep. I take drugs because it feels good and I have a good time, so the risks are worth it. I have zero interest maximising my lifespan at the expense of enjoyment. I’ll never understand why the general population is so hell-bent on preventing people from enjoying their own life.
There's an important distinction to be made between recreational drug use and habitual drug use, though the line can be blurry. For individuals who are predisposed to start at recreational and end up at habitual, it can be better to abstain altogether.
Alcohol and other drugs feel good and allow you to have a good time by allowing you to escape negative emotional experiences and just enjoy the moment: fear, social anxiety, trauma. Without those negative feelings, you would already feel good, and the alcohol would lose it's appeal.
You're confusing "drinking as a coping mechanism" and "drinking for recreation". You know what rich college students don't have a lot of? "fear, social anxiety, and trauma". Know what they do a lot of? booze, sex, and drugs. You show me the most content, meditation-and-philosophizing-on-a-Friday-night person, and I'll show you someone who could be having an even better time on MDMA.
Booze, sex, and drugs are just life's cheat codes for giving you more dopamine. The person with fear is the one who is so terrified of judgement by society, too betrothed to the idea that they'd be sinning to actually enjoy themselves, that they deny themselves extremely fun experiences.
I agree there is a difference between abuse that comes from trying to escape negative feelings, and occasional recreation use "for fun" which is mostly self limiting for overuse- once you develop tolerance, health symptoms, hangovers, etc. the appeal wanes.
> You know what rich college students don't have a lot of? "fear, social anxiety, and trauma".
However, I strongly disagree with this. They might even tell you they don't have these issues, but they are unconscious. Hard partying "rich college students" are largely practicing binge drinking, and it is to escape negative emotions. It's not true at all that being rich and privileged protects you from these things. A very common thing is wealthy kids having neglectful or emotionally unavailable parents, and being very afraid of being "unlovable," or being rejected. This is exactly what pushes kids to participate in degrading hazing rituals, binge drinking, drug use, and generally being afraid to enforce boundaries around their own health and well being for fear of being rejected or excluded.
Psychologists are starting to notice that wealthy children often have behavioral issues that look a lot like PTSD, despite being privileged [1]. These symptoms can look like those in refugee children, or war torn areas, and were previously seen as totally impossible with wealthy and privileged children [2]. But kids don't care how much is in their parents bank account: emotional abuse and trauma is what causes this, and wealth doesn't protect you from abuse.
A higher peak perhaps - but you can't be on MDMA 100% of the time, and taking MDMA effects that other time. Whether taking MDMA works out over the entirety of your life is a personal question - many find the high not worth it.
No, you're overthinking it. I'm perfectly happy when I'm sober - I have a nice house, a great relationship, a happy family and tons of hobbies. I am in no way crippled by fear, social anxiety or trauma.
Drinking with my friends makes me happy in different ways. Alcohol doesn't lose its appeal just because I'm happy while I'm sober.
I agree an occasional drink with friends is fun, and different from abusing alcohol to escape negative emotions.
However, I think your description of external circumstances to argue that you are happy is concerning to me. People are good at ignoring negative things and deluding themselves, and happiness is mostly an internal thing and can't be measured by external success. I don't know you, but people with low self esteem in a narcissist/co-dependent marriage, with "tons of hobbies" to help them escape would still say exactly what you are saying.
No, it’s not so simple. Alcohol changes the brain in ways that affect dopamine and endorphins. You literally feel pleasure and happiness… unless and until you’ve had too much of course
Because support costs for drug addicts have tremendous support costs for society. Prohibition was a genuine attempt at solving the problem once and for all, but for reasons that are clear now, didn't work.
That doesn’t make sense because safe, legal, educated, and controlled access to drugs reduces the burden on society. If someone’s priority is burden on society then they should be in favour of legalisation.
So it seems the opposite is in effect. People are so vehemently against drugs that they are willing to accept a higher societal burden just to push their ideology.
> legal, educated, and controlled access to drugs reduces the burden on society.
I think it does make sense from an anti-drugs point of view. Imagine a parent whose child wants to take football as a sport. You have three choices:
1. "Sure, whatever, have fun". Cheap in the short run, but expensive in the long run due to medical bills and likelihood of traumatic head injury.
2. "Okay, but only with protective equipment". Cheaper in the long run, but still requires an investment in protective measures.
3. "No, too dangerous. Do something else". Even cheaper, no investment required.
Of course this is a simplification, but I think it illustrates the point: that society would rather have no drugs at all than investing in safe and controlled access.
> society would rather have no drugs at all than investing in safe and controlled access.
But this isn’t what happens, which is my entire point. Banning drugs doesn’t result in no drugs. It results in drugs going underground where they cause greater harm to society. Prohibition doesn’t work - we figured that out almost 100 years ago. Continuing to push illegality is purely ideological at this point.
In the sense that there are certainly people who could drive safely at 120 mph but we make the speed limit 70 mph because handling outliers isn't possible in a democracy with time being zero sum.
I can't fathom why I had to scroll so far down to find a response like this.
Congratulations on your success.
The amount of posters in this thread who seem to mistake a superficial physical co-existence in a social setting for genuine connection is staggering. The Mate quote you've shared seems to address it directly, and better than I could have hoped (and tried) to articulate myself.
Maté's book "In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts" helped me better understand my changed life — definitely fit more with my own struggles than Hari's also-good "Chasing the Scream" [which deals more with societal legalities].
Thanks man! I just got my teeth fully-restored (implants) from all the teeth-grinding that having-been such-a-fool was. I've cried for days (teefs are so important!)... I can chew food again.
> Some those who have never once taken the trouble to consider whether they do well or ill to drink wine may add that wine is good for the health and adds to one’s strength; that is to say, will make a statement long since proved baseless.
Wait how did Tolstoy know this? The studies proving it baseless only came out like a year ago!
Related talk at the Long Now: "Drinking for 10,000 Years: Intoxication and Civilization" [1]
Edward Slingerland’s latest research is a deep dive into the alcohol-soaked origins of civilization — and the evolutionary roots of humanity’s appetite for intoxication. “Drunk: How We Sipped, Danced and Stumbled Our Way to Civilization” elegantly cuts through the tangle of urban legends that surround our notions of intoxication to provide a rigorous, scientifically-grounded explanation for our love of alcohol. Drawing on evidence from archaeology, history, cognitive neuroscience, psychopharmacology, social psychology, literature, and genetics, Slingerland shows that our taste for chemical intoxicants is not an evolutionary mistake, as we are so often told. In fact, intoxication helps solve a number of distinctively human challenges: enhancing creativity, alleviating stress, building trust, and pulling off the miracle of getting fiercely tribal primates to cooperate with strangers.
Call me crazy, but as a highly analytical person that has spent 70% of my waking hours in the last five years working on something technical, my social skills are best when I'm hungover. The logical analytical side of me is diminished and I am much more "normal". I have a much higher rate of success on dates with women when I have a really bad hang over and then a few drinks. It does feel like a lobotomy, and that's fine.
If I am in my normal raw intellect, I will begin going deep on some topic thats outside the range of normal human discourse. It will be hard for me to stop, because of my interest. Alcohol removes that to a large degree.
Edit:
A funny meta observation, the "Peak HN" comment below, and the following conversation, might not have been necessary if I wrote this post very hungover.
I prefer my husband's company when he's a bit tired because when he's well rested he can be "too much" -- his energy level, his anxiousness, his sense of humor, are all amplified, sometimes to an annoying degree.
I've noticed this with other guys that just need to chill out a bit when socializing -- especially tech folks.
It's more about energy level than smartness.
No need to be hungover -- maybe just relax a bit, take things slower, talk less, go on fewer (or no) tangents, etc., and you might achieve the same result.
I agree with what you are saying about energy levels but take issue with these suggestions. How does an inherently anxious and energetic person "just relax" and "take things slowly"? I mean, the phrase "just relax" generates (for a younger version of me) a thought bubble that would read: I thought I was relaxed!!
> talk less, go on fewer (or no) tangents
What's worse, someone babbling about something they're excited about? Or sitting in awkward silence because they're mentally keeping score of who's saying more words in the conversation?
Again, I am 100% with you on the excess energy levels making someone annoying. I am just looking for actionable, less generic suggestions. To bring it back to the start of your post:
> I prefer my husband's company when he's tired
How does your husband get tired enough to be tolerable?
It might be energy level, I have wondered whether I am overly caffeinated and thats where its coming from. But youre right, theres a "jumpiness". I do think my general lifestyle (many hours of programming) primes my brain for a certain way of working. If I stop coding, and for instance hike all the time, my suspicion is this would go away to some degree.
You see, -burp- Morty, grandpa is wayyy too smart. I am the smartest man in the universe, Morty, and that sucks, because of the loneliness of nobody ever being able to understand my thoughts. Do you know how -burp- lucky you are, Mor-Morty, that you're as dumb as a rock? Do you how luck you are to be surrounded by people who have the same IQ as you, Morty? Yeah, you're lucky, because to you that is an advantage. You can lead some stupid conversation with some stupid girls and enjoy yourself. Grandpa cannot have that, Morty. That-that is -burp- not a luxury the smartest man in the universe can have. So I drink, to make myself stupid, so I can endure this psychological torture called a conversation with _you_.
I had zero social circle and no significant other in my life, until I started drinking. World opened up for me after I started consuming alcohol.
Edit: However, you need to be responsible. Alcohol badly derailed my life once.
no significant other in my life, until I started drinking
I have heard this from other men. I don't know what to make of it. Please do not read that as me judging you. Thank you to share. That is a tough thing to "say out loud" (on the InnerWebs).
My best friend from uni did not start drinking until his 30s. He never had a girlfriend before he drank. Something bothers me so much when I think about it. He is married now and a very decent husband -- really cares about his wife. What if he never started drinking and never met anyone? Sheesh.
Assuming hetero-normative for a moment, what do women think about this?
Check out the movie "Another Round" with Mads Mikkelsen [1]. Summary: Four high-school teachers consume alcohol on a daily basis to see how it affects their social and professional lives.
Sounds like a crutch. What you describe here is a fairly common response by people suffering from social anxiety.
I’m not implying that’s you, but it seems like you have the capacity to act the same way without booze so it might be worth to observe how and what you feel when that happens.
Same. A mild buzz doesn't make me significantly stupider, and in some ways increases my social competency. But hungover it's a different story and especially verbal communication is a struggle. These side effects are the main reason I've largely gave up on alcohol.
This is exacerbated by the fact that in my 30s, the amount of alcohol needed for a hangover is quite low.
If you mean at the current moment in time, I'm sober. And it's easier when I'm typing and can edit my sentences as I go. But in day-to-day, trying to explain things or convey my thoughts coherently, I'm pretty bad. I think it's gotten worse in the past few years with how isolated I've been starting with the pandemic.
> If you mean at the current moment in time, I'm sober. And it's easier when I'm typing and can edit my sentences as I go. But in day-to-day, trying to explain things or convey my thoughts coherently, I'm pretty bad. I think it's gotten worse in the past few years with how isolated I've been starting with the pandemic.
Talking is a skill like any other.
So, a comparison.
You know how you can picture a car in your head but you can't make draw a car unless you've spent time practicing as an artist? That is because connecting our mental representation of "a car" and making our hand draw a car is a skill that requires a lot of training. This is why artists practice drawing still lives, looking at an orange and copying it down to paper with a pencil trains your brain on how to translate the thing that is visually inside your head to what your hand needs to do to re-create it.
Well, the same for mental dialogue. Going from "idea in head" to "words coming out of mouth" is a skill that takes practice.
There are ways to practice this! Toastmasters is a famous group whose goal is improving this skill, but there are many other routes. I had good luck with table top RPGs, I spent years playing a character who is supposed to be charismatic, and accordingly I had lots of chances to practices being outgoing!
I feel far more peaceful and centered when I am hungover. I don't have a thousand things flying around the edges of my brain, nipping at my consciousness. I just _am_.
Drinking can do that for me too, but it shuts off so much of my brain that eventually, it's like being what I imagine a dog is. Completely reactive, with almost no higher thinking. Not that that is bad. I enjoy it.
If not for how bad it makes me feel physically, I'd probably spend most of my waking hours either drunk or hungover. What that says about me, I hesitate to think about, hah.
I also found that in my limited experience with meditation, I could sometimes find that place of tranquility and "simply being". But it was so rare, and the experience of meditation so frustrating and seemingly impossible to progress in, that I gave up. But I still hold that what I am after in meditating is the same thing that I am after in a night of drinking. Single-threadedness, peace, acceptance.
Yeah the issue is its really unhealthy to drink enough to be hungover multiple times a week. But then the question is, what are we saving ourselves for? Life is happening.
I've tried meditation, could never reach a high enough level with it to feel sustained peace/calmness. I should put more effort into it though
I didn't read your post as arrogant. You said that, when sober, you tend towards being analytical, technical, and logical. This is your natural tendency in addition to the inertial effect of technical work which you spend most of your time on. To me this all seems like neutral observation.
"Alex, 30, lives in New York City. He says he has depression, anxiety and undiagnosed ADHD. His experiences sound similar to Dylan’s, with a heavy night of drinking making way for a newfound sense of self. “I was calm, empathetic, emotional, not anxious,” he says. "
Is similar to me, even live in nyc and a similar age
I have what gets called ADD, and found at 17 that I was a much better programmer when hungover, keeping focus all day long and finishing a project. It is somewhat sad that when I excitedly told people about this the next day, that no-one spotted that this was a clear sign of ADD. The ensuing 28 years would probably have been simpler.
Not sure what to make of a statement like this. But what seems missing in this analysis is that by this point (and it sounds like it's taken you years to get here) you've probably completely forgotten what it's like to just be completely sober and to completely forget about drinking altogether.
Which is very different from the low-functioning refactory state (that is -- post-hangover, pre-next-drink) within the cycle of long-term regular alcohol use.
There was a whole subreddit trying to explore why the people in it felt more comfortable and effective when hungover. Someone else may have the link -- with the API locked down, my usual app, Apollo, to find things like this on Reddit no longer works, and Google assumes I want a hangover cure for the search terms I tried.
> If I am in my normal raw intellect, I will begin going deep on some topic thats outside the range of normal human discourse. It will be hard for me to stop, because of my interest. Alcohol removes that to a large degree.
The description might be a bit indulgent, but the experience resonates. Having a conversation about flowers and your mind wants to talk about why there seems to be an innate attraction towards the scent of certain flowers. Like what is the electrochemical process that creates sensation in your mind of attraction and beauty and a pleasant experience when a certain set of chemicals bind to receptors in your head.
But then you don’t because the last time you did something like that you just got a blank stare, and ‘hmmm!’ and a change in topics.
Note though that it was a conversation about flowers, possibly at a party with no flowers in sight. Imagine it went like this:
jcims: So what kind of hobbies are you into?
Bob: I love my garden, I planted several new flowers last weekend in fact.
jcims: Oh? What kind of flowers are you growing?
Bob: These latest are Lenten roses, I know a lot of people find the smell a bit unpleasant, but I actually prefer it to the zinnias.
jcims (sober): Isn't it interesting how there seems to be an innate attraction towards the scent of certain flowers. Like what is the electrochemical process that creates sensation in your mind of attraction and beauty and a pleasant experience when a certain set of chemicals bind to receptors in your head.
Bob: I don't know about chemistry, I'm just a gardener.
---
Alternately:
jcims (tipsy): That's cool! I've never heard of Lentil roses. Do they smell different than real roses?
Bob: chuckle Finally, a pleasant party conversation! The last person I talked with must have had a Ph.D. in neurochemistry or something, they started talking about electroreceptors and I just couldn't think of anything smart enough to say.
Is there something wrong with talking about the problems associated with intelligence? They certainly exist and I think most intelligent people are familiar with them - but whenever I see them brought up they get casually brushed off with comments such as yours. I can't see how they're categorically different than any other set of problems.
Those aren't problems with intelligence, they're "problems" (insofar as they are problems, debatable) with things like social anxiety, inability or unwillingness to read social cues, superiority complexes (or inferiority complexes) etc. None of these are intrinsic to having an enormous capacity to learn, as multitudes of smart and charismatic people will attest. Part of this is also a matter of self-perception. Hey, lots of not very smart people also like to talk about their topics of interest beyond the appropriate span of patience. Plenty of them worry about that tendency as much as those burdened with Promethean intellect as well; plenty of them don't.
You really don't think there's a single problem that might arise when someone were to have a large capacity for learning? I mean, sure, perhaps these problems aren't unique to people with higher intelligence. And perhaps they're correlated with other parameters, like social anxiety, etc. But surely becoming more intelligent can exacerbate these types of problems, no?
I still find the behavior odd. If someone says "I feel awkward around people because I'm short" no one responds with "that's not a problem with being short, that's just social anxiety". But when someone says "I feel awkward around people because I'm smart" suddenly everyone has an issue.
It comes across as obnoxious because it means "I feel uncomfortable around people I consider unintelligent compared to me". The discomfort may be true but it demonstrates an absence of self-reflection.
There are many varieties of intelligence in many domains. If you find yourself in the company of someone you feel is less intelligent than you, try finding what they know about or care about. What have they experienced that you haven't? Or perhaps try finding a shared area of ignorance. Who knows, you might find they consider you dumb or naive in some way.
It is indeed very hard for some people to feel comfortable in social situations that are outside their prior experience or interests. But I'm inclined to agree with grandparent comment that this has little to do with 'intelligence'.
How could intellect, or the ability to reason and understand things ever be a problem connecting socially? If it's a problem, then it's not intellect but rather a lack of something. I would suggest it's a lack of intellect, or the lack of understanding the people around you and being able to find common threads of interest. This isn't a problem of high intellect. Everyone has absolute loads of things in common with every other human on this planet. If you can't connect with another human, it's not because of high intellect.
> How could intellect, or the ability to reason and understand things ever be a problem connecting socially?
Really? You don't think that intelligence has multiple components - raw intelligence, social intelligence, etc? And that you could in theory be good at one but not at the other?
Sure, but analytical intelligence surely doesn't get in the way of social intelligence I wouldn't think. So my statement holds in that case where you lack some type of intelligence.
I can't see any reason that someone who is really intelligent at technical things couldn't be just as socially intelligent. They probably just don't have as much practice with social environments when compared to technical problems.
It's received wisdom from 80s American movies and media that sprung from that: if you're smart, then you're a nerd and therefore bad at being social. And the converse fallacy comes into play too: if you're bad at being social, then you're a nerd and smart.
Many intelligent people like having intelligent conversations. The kind of conversations where they learn new perspectives and where ideas can be challenged. If those conversations are not possible you get stuck making small talk, which is not all that satisfying.
Ever notice how SAHPs get starved for adult conversation? Parents have many things in common with their children and they care about their lives. They can certainly connect to their children. And yet, interaction with kids is not a substitute for adult conversation.
"When a man is sober he is ashamed of what seems all right when he is drunk. In these words we have the essential underlying cause prompting men to resort to stupefiers. People resort to them either to escape feeling ashamed after having done something contrary to their consciences, or to bring themselves beforehand into a state in which they can commit actions contrary to conscience, but to which their animal nature prompts them.
A man when sober is ashamed to go after a prostitute, ashamed to steal, ashamed to kill. A drunken man is ashamed of none of these things, and therefore if a man wishes to do something his conscience condemns he stupefies himself."
This is the core of the issue. The thing is that in modern western societies shame is placed upon many activities that are normal and necessary for a human to enjoy a good life. It is shameful in many places for a person to sing, dance, and to express their true emotions. So we intoxicate ourselves, in order to escape from the overly rigid social conditioning we have all internalised.
"All human life, we may say, consists solely of these two activities: (1) bringing one’s activities into harmony with conscience, or (2) hiding from oneself the indications of conscience in order to be able to continue to live as before."
Note that he has defined all of life as two points about "one" and "oneself". This is why I and I assume many others roll their eyes.
Because Tolstoy, and most essays about alcohol, don't even mention what I think is the point of alcohol. It's a drug that makes it easier to socialize, and socializing is very, very good for people. So good that I will risk it, even though alcohol is bad in many ways: bad for physical and mental health, risky for abuse, etc.
If you are anti alcohol, that is reasonable, but it seems no one will ever admit what it's really for.
This is important, because alcohol is unhealthy and if you want to discourage it, give people other low effort ways to connect.