Hacker News Reader

Comment by mrxd | Hacker News Reader

The long term implications of "expediting" recovery in this way are troubling to me.

It's natural to feel grief when you lose something in your life that was important, valuable and made you happy. You could shortcut that process by convincing yourself it didn't really make you happy, but that is really nothing more than a form of escapism. The pain of loss is one of the most important signals that something impacted your happiness in an enduring way, and that's necessary for making the right decisions in the future.

View on HN

We're talking about escapism here; the case discussed in the opener was of a woman whose grieving period lasted for half as long as the actual relationship.

The shortcut issue is directly addressed. negative reappraisals are used to balance out the unrealistic filter on the relationship that is causing the unusually long grieving period; not to convince yourself that the relationship was bad, but to make you realize it wasn't all chocolates and roses.

> to make you realize it wasn't all chocolates and roses.

Agreed. I always tell myself this whenever I get pangs of nostalgia.

How do you know that's an unusually long grieving period?

> The pain of loss is one of the most important signals that something impacted your happiness

Ehhhh kind of bullshit? And then also dangerous.

If something that impacted your happiness is no longer around, why must that result in pain? IMO, the lack of a source of happiness should not result in pain (although it often does). Maybe if it's your last one, or otherwise reduces overall happiness to below threshold values, but I'd say that's a signal you need to diversify your portfolio.

AFAIK, I know far to many people who then also equate pain with happiness, for exactly this thinking. You can stab yourself with a pen. Does that make the pen meaningful, because it can cause you pain?

I'd say the pain of loss is a strong and significant signal that something impacted your happiness, but the happiness itself should the (only) significant signal. Everything else is nuance and seasoning.

You're making a logical error. The article isn't saying that pain is an inevitable result of losing a source of happiness, only that this kind of pain is an indication that something impacted your happiness. If you're having difficulty making the distinction, consider that everyone who lives in Ohio lives in the USA, but not everyone in the USA lives in Ohio.

I'm not disagreeing that it is an indicator, I'm disagreeing that it's an important one. Or, rather, I'm saying that many people treat it as an important one and they probably shouldn't, because it has some pretty severe and detrimental side-effects when you use it as such an indicator.

I think it's kind of like using urination as a measure of hydration in drinks. Yes, it is actually related, but you can drink less- (or de-) hydrating things (beer!), and, you're not drinking things in order to urinate (well, usually).

So it correlates, but I would say, is not a good measure of what you actually care about.

It’s also natural to feel bad when you get sick. That does not mean you should avoid going to the doctor to get he best possible healing process.

As for the “convincing yourself it didn’t really matter” that is not at all what the article suggests. It’s about adjusting the idealistic view you have of the person when looking back at it. No one is perfect, so a heartbroken person telling themselves “I’ll never find anyone like him/her again” or “we where perfect for each other” are dilutions, and unhealthy delusions. Keeping a list reminding you that he/she had a habit of chewing with their mouth open and was a sore loser in sports, is not a way of “convincing yourself it didn’t matter”. It’s a way of keeping you perspective of the relationship grounded and combative unhealthy counter productive dillusions.

The sooner we get rid of the emotion, the better, probably. It’s a bit like arguing that chronic back pain is healthy just because it’s natural.

It’s interesting to consider that technology might be able to solve this. How long till an anti love pill hits the market with few side effects?

It's disappointing to see this downvoted just because people disagree with it. I feel these emotions are an absolutely essential aspect of being human, and it seems the downvoters agree, but I'd rather see a discussion of why.

At least in my case, I'm tired of the endless attempts some would make to use tech to eliminate aspects of being human. Heartbreak sucks, but it also tends to be a valuable life lesson in my experience.

It's interesting to apply this argument to those who lost limbs and want to use prosthetics. Does it make sense? Why or why not?

(I'm not sure, but the answer doesn't seem so clear-cut.)

I should clarify that I mean the emotional/existential aspects of being human, rather than the physical aspects - using a prosthetic helps with the very real problems of having a physical disability. I suppose you could argue that everything boils down to physical aspects with brain chemistry and whatnot, but that's getting into the philosophical weeds a bit.

Imagine the situation were reversed -- when people broke up they didn't get heartbroken, but you could take a pill to make yourself probably feel like crap for months or years after.

Imagine how difficult it would be to convince people in that universe to take that pill after a serious breakup -- that it would be a "valuable life lesson". I don't think I could make a compelling case for it, to be honest.

Long time.

"Love", in whatever form or meaning you want to take, (AFAIK/IMO) involves far to many systems for anything other than a systemic approach to have an effect (without sever side effects).

I think we already have it, basically.

I suspect you're not going to fall for that attractive stranger if your sympathetic nervous system is calmed down by beta-blockers.

Yeah, but, what are the side effects of that?

How does one go about getting one's hands on such things?

Given your analogy, perhaps you mean to say, "negative emotion"? Because I think a better match for removing emotion altogether would be arguing that removing the ability to walk is healthy because you might trip and fall.

I should say as well, "negative emotion, for some definition of negative".

Chronic back pain is a signal about your ergonomic habits.

> The sooner we get rid of the emotion, the better, probably.

Let's look at how this plays out in the real world. Someone gets dumped because they were a terrible partner. We hope that the pain of loss motivates them to do better in their next relationship. They briefly feel bad, but start using the technique of "negative reappraisal" (the more common term is "blaming the other person"). This rapidly decreases their distress in the short term, but it also makes them avoid looking at their behavior and making changes, so they make the same mistakes in their next relationship, and the cycle repeats.

Perhaps both of you are right in your own way.

It is important and valuable to take time to reflect on how your behavior may have led to the negative outcome and think about how you could better yourself for the future - but take care not to be too self critical!

Many people spend too much time in self pity and sadness over this kind of loss (I'm certainly guilty of this). Once you've done the necessary self-reflection - please start to move on. Hanging on to idealized memories of "we" takes you down a road of pain and not towards the future. Let it go. If "negative reappraisal" helps you let go - when you are ready - so much the better.

Life is short, and your best "dating years" are an even shorter span of time - use them wisely - find someone worthy of you and enjoy your time together.

Going back to the back pain analogy--maybe it's the difference between taking painkillers to manage the pain rather than attempting to address the cause (posture).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com