| ▲ | stillpointlab a day ago |
| One thing people go through as they age is an elevation of cynicism and general misanthropy. After decades of being disappointed when naive idealism and speculative optimism fail, one can just get down on it all. It is really hard not to succumb to this. It requires active effort and sometimes even a willful ignorance. "turn a blind eye" is the idiom here. Monty Python's "Always look on the bright side of life" kind of thing. Mr Rogers said it: look for the helpers. They may be few, but they are there. Find them and focus on them. |
|
| ▲ | j13k 17 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Source for Mr Rogers quote: https://web.archive.org/web/20100125201022/https://www.pbs.o... ‘Fred Rogers often told this story about when he was a boy and would see scary things on the news: "My mother would say to me, 'Look for the helpers. You will always find people who are helping.' To this day, especially in times of 'disaster,' I remember my mother's words, and I am always comforted by realizing that there are still so many helpers-so many caring people in this world."’ |
|
| ▲ | noir_lord a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I think that's why historical education is so important (or just liking history as in my case), looked through the lens of history all of the current shit as bad as it is, is really nothing all that new either, the only constant is change after all. As the aphorism goes: History may not repeat but it sure does rhyme. |
| |
| ▲ | suttontom 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | If you're able to, find a random NPR broadcast from 20 to 30 years ago and marvel at how it could be replayed nearly verbatim today. "Inflation", "war in the Middle East", "Congress stalled on xyz." Even the "unprecedented" political correctness and racial reckonings in the US observed around 2020 were not uncommon in the 1970s and 1980s (see the Stanford Beethoven poster incident which also left students literally fainting and crying in hysterics). | |
| ▲ | AlexB138 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You're absolutely correct that history helps you see that none of this is new. However, is it better to be the person who sees the waterfall their boat is inevitably going to go over, or the person completely ignorant of it until it happens? | | |
| ▲ | mindwok a day ago | parent | next [-] | | If we look at history, humanity has been through some pretty crazy shit and we haven't gone over the waterfall yet. | | |
| ▲ | watwut 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I dont want to go through ANY of that crazy shit. And I dont want my kids to go through it either. And based on hostory, violent, cruel, oppressive shit can take looong time a hit huge amounts of people. | | |
| ▲ | mindwok 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | Nobody in history wanted to either. Unfortunately we don’t get a choice. |
| |
| ▲ | johnnyanmac 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | On the contrary: we've fall off waterfalls every few decades or so. Humanity simply survives and moves on, taking maybe 2% more caution for the next waterfalll |
| |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > see that none of this is new But this is. This sort of violent partisanship that self ensconces around identity versus issues is exactly what tears apart democracies and republics. | | |
| ▲ | suttontom 15 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | "B-b-but this really is new!" The USA did have a Civil War. It was so violent that it killed more Americans than all other wars combined. | | |
| ▲ | card_zero 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | Message unclear. You're saying the USA is an old hand at civil wars now and could do another one any time, no problem? Or perhaps I shouldn't look for a message. | | |
| |
| ▲ | johnnyanmac 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | This isn't new either. The tools and technology are new. The strategies and psychologies aren't. Even the identity part isn't new; even among Caucasian males only, see how many times society's woes will be blamed on whatever convinient immigrant there is in that period. |
| |
| ▲ | ChickeNES a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > However, is it better to be the person who sees the waterfall their boat is inevitably going to go over, or the person completely ignorant of it until it happens? Neither, it's better to be the person who realizes we're in for a bright future no matter what doomers think. | |
| ▲ | II2II a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's more like, is it better to be the person who: - sees a waterfall in every river, even when one is not there? - sees the waterfall, and is resigned about their fate? - sees the waterfall, then struggles for survival no matter how hopeless the situation seems to be? - is completely ignorant of the waterfall? | | |
| ▲ | rightbyte 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | "sees the waterfall, then struggles for survival no matter how hopeless the situation seems to be?" You could consider that a variant of the voter's dilemma. |
|
| |
| ▲ | pojzon 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Funny analogy. “The only constant is change”. Thats why humans constantly repeat the same mistakes we covered and wrote about in last 3000 years. The pace of learning for our spieces is devastatingly slow. We rather regress faster than learn. We are closer to idiocracy, due to knowledge and skills atrophy (not only due to AI). | |
| ▲ | s1artibartfast 19 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | And I think history provides some prophylactic counterbalance to the cynical narrative. To hear some people talk, people are inherently evil, and the US has been a downhill project to oppress since the days of the founding. History shows that things can and do improve when people try. The overall trajectory has been positive, even if bumpy. | | |
| ▲ | johnnyanmac 16 hours ago | parent [-] | | I've heard it described as a growing but fluctuating graph (think something like a logarithmic graph, with some noise added in). Progress is positive overall, but there are times of radical progress and decline. And people will feel both aspects. We're definitely in a decline as of now, where we arguably had progress from 80 to 50 years ago. | | |
| ▲ | senordevnyc 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | Are you saying we’ve been in a decline for the last fifty years? If so, I would agree, but for fairly narrow definitions of “we”. Globally, the median human is wildly better off than 50 years ago. Even in the US, I see your point for straight white men (of which I’m one), but would the median woman be better off fifty years ago? What about if you’re gay, disabled, black, etc? That’s not even getting into things like medical conditions, life expectancy, violent crime rates, etc. Infant mortality was more than 3x higher fifty years ago than it is now. | | |
| ▲ | johnnyanmac 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | In terms of US macroeconomics, yes. End of the gold standard and the Vietnam War put the US in a position 9f slumping it's post WW2 command of the world, and the 80's accelerated the breakdown of all the structures that gave the US prosperous times. Socially speaking, it's been a much better curve, albeit not without its own share of slumps. Especially recent updates on Roe v.Wade. There's certainly a conversation for that as well, but economics makes sure those marginalized classes remain marginalized. | | |
| ▲ | senordevnyc 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | I totally agree with your second paragraph. I don’t know enough about macroeconomics in the global sense to say about the first one though. My sense is that we’ve gotten much richer, more innovative, more technologically advanced, etc as a nation over the last half century. More so than basically anyone else. And no one is really catching up to us in those areas, with the possible exception of China. Is that wrong? I agree that we seem to have destroyed a lot of institutions and safeguards that might precipitate our decline, but those things seem very subjective and qualitative. If we look at it quantitatively and holistically, we see pockets of decline all over, but the overall picture of the metrics doesn’t look like decline, does it? But I suppose that depends on how you weigh the pockets of decline against the pockets of advancement. I guess maybe a better way to frame the question would be: what would you expect to see from the US economically over the last 50 years if we had not been in the decline you’re claiming? |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | watwut a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The knowledge that 1932 was kinda similar is not comforting at all. Or whatever run up to historical horrible events we talk about. I genuinely dont like what history sais follows after times like this. | |
| ▲ | queenkjuul a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | I would kinda be with you, except, climate change. And like, we didn't have nukes when the last world war started. This time we will. |
|
|
| ▲ | II2II a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > One thing people go through as they age is an elevation of cynicism and general misanthropy. After decades of being disappointed when naive idealism and speculative optimism fail, one can just get down on it all. It's even sadder when one realizes the world was always that way. The author more-or-less says as much, though they seem to suggest it is amplified. I'm not entirely sure the part about it being more amplified today true. Most of the ills mentioned existed when I was a youth, it simply took different forms and (of course) was spread by means other than the Internet. There never was a chance to get ahead because the cards were always stacked against us. Apologies for the cynicism. |
|
| ▲ | rdiddly a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I'm not sure why we're talking about cynicism all of a sudden. I hope it's not because we're framing this blogger's recognition of existing cynicism, as constituting cynicism in and of itself. Because if so, I would have to disagree, just as I would disagree that talking about racism makes one racist for example. |
|
| ▲ | 99954bb63ccc 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > One thing people go through as they age is an elevation of cynicism and general misanthropy. After decades of being disappointed when naive idealism and speculative optimism fail, one can just get down on it all.
> It is really hard not to succumb to this. It requires active effort and sometimes even a willful ignorance. I feel this very strongly over the past couple of years. As always, hackernews is full of extremely smart, well read people so I'd really appreciate any good reading material on this so I can better understand it. Tips are appreciated as well (healthy diet and regular exercise, good extended blood labs (think like Function health), good consistent sleeep habits). |
|
| ▲ | econ 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I thought it was, become the helper. |
|
| ▲ | api a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| If you can’t help, it’s okay to look away. People sometimes get mad at this, like it’s callous or privileged, but what’s the difference between focusing on problems you can’t help and slowing down to stare at a car wreck? If you don’t slow down are you being insensitive? Obviously if you can help it’s different. |
| |
|
| ▲ | eventualcomp a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Thanks for commenting and acknowledging that it's challenging. My mates and myself have definitely fallen into this. Reminds me of that hackernews post about how doomerism is a siren's song for genZ, forget where it is. |
|
| ▲ | s1artibartfast a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I think this growth in cynicism really depends on where people start from. A lot of people were taught and reinforced a inaccurate model of the world. When confronted with reality, it can't stand up and the individuals become angry and disengage rather than working with the system as it is. I know this is painting with a broad brush but I see it basically everywhere I look. One example would be the expectation of a benevolent Authority that manages political and social life. Reality is that it is just messy humans all the way down. Some people assume that from the beginning and can work with it. Other people just break down with frustration and broken expectations. |
|
| ▲ | hypfer a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I (self-servingly) don't think that cynicism is bad, nor that it would be a good idea to pathologize what is simply a healthy defense to a hostile reality. It depends on how you wield it. Cynicism shouldn't cloud your judgement. That's the actually correct point you wanted to make, I think. |
| |
| ▲ | stillpointlab a day ago | parent | next [-] | | I try not to think in black/white, good/evil kinds of terms. I think of forces and dynamic systems. There appears to be some force that promotes one particular way of thinking, perhaps the inevitable consequence of accumulated experiences. In the case of cynicism, the balance tends to shift towards one side of a scale over time. Without a countervailing force on the other side it can tip a normally balanced system out of stable equilibrium. My point is explicitly: the world provides the force in one direction, and the individual must provide the force in the other. | | |
| ▲ | airstrike a day ago | parent [-] | | I think we shouldn't be quick to label criticism of such current systems as cynicism |
| |
| ▲ | AlexB138 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I tend to agree. The quote "It is no measure of health to be well-adjusted to a profoundly sick society" embodies it well. I don't think cynicism is the correct approach though. It's possible to accept that circumstances are unhealthy without internalizing general negativity. It's just hard. I suspect you and I, and OP, are all agreeing with each other on this point. | |
| ▲ | s1artibartfast a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Cynicism is a negatively biased view of the world. People should strive for accuracy. Sometimes accurate is also harsh, but that is different. Maybe this is the same thing you intended by saying it shouldn't Cloud your judgment. | | |
| ▲ | a day ago | parent | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | hypfer a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yeah, probably. It doesn't help that the clinical meaning and the colloquial meaning of the word are different, with the latter being used by people to hit you over the head with, pretending that it would be the former. | | |
| ▲ | s1artibartfast a day ago | parent [-] | | What are the two? | | |
| ▲ | hypfer a day ago | parent [-] | | > Cynicism is a negatively biased view of the world Is what you said. The clinical thing. > You're just being cynical Is cognitive dissonance forcing its way out of the mouths of people to shoot the messenger. | | |
| ▲ | s1artibartfast a day ago | parent [-] | | Maybe I'm being slow, but I still dont get the difference. Isn't the 2nd the same as the first? Isn't the first a product of generator of cognative dissonance? Doubling down on beliefs that pay rent, even when it doesn't fit? | | |
| ▲ | hypfer a day ago | parent [-] | | Yeah tbh my sea lion warning light turned on on the first reply. Right now it is flashing, so I will pull over and call AAA | | |
| ▲ | s1artibartfast a day ago | parent [-] | | Too bad, I was genuinely curious about how you viewed cynicism, and thought I was being clear and polite in my questions. Self-deprecating even. I think your reaction is rather ironic given the context. An example of how people can't even talk to each other anymore. | | |
| ▲ | card_zero 19 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | There's Diogenes, the original cynic with a dog's lifestyle, and there's the Diogenes Club in Sherlock Holmes. In this classical context it's about being unconventional and challenging (challengingly silent, even). You can say "that's just skepticism" but it comes with a certain sulky refusenik flavor, and yet it's defensible as a form of individualism, and presumably positive, at least because it's one form of diversity and critical thought. | | | |
| ▲ | hypfer a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yes, yes. Truly a shame. Any other interesting thoughts worth sharing from your side? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | dweekly a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The last thing my father said to me before he passed was to keep people looking forward to the future. It's easy to romanticize the past and it can seem intellectually sophisticated to despair about the future, when in fact the overwhelming evidence is that things have gotten much much better for nearly everyone on just about any objective axis you can pick. |
| |
| ▲ | inigyou a day ago | parent [-] | | Except they haven't. | | |
| ▲ | wseqyrku 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Tech has gotten better, but people yeah, downward spiral to the bottom of hell, sadly. Hard to be not a cynic these days. | |
| ▲ | orand 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Good one. Refute an unsubstantiated claim with an unsubstantiated rebuttal. I'm sure we can all learn from that. /s | | |
|
|
|
| ▲ | a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | lofaszvanitt a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Good luck nurturing a garden, when every day someone tears down a tree inside or robs you of the fruits. |
| |