Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwaway715875 | Hacker News Reader

I'm Jewish but not religious anymore, and I know a lot of people that keep Shabbat that talk like this.

Frankly, I don't buy it. If we have a problem with detaching from technology, then, stopping all usage of it only one day a week is maybe 90% as unhealthy.

It would be like saying you have a healthy relationship with smoking because you don't smoke at all for one day a week, but after that you can chain smoke 24/6.

Now, I definitely don't think that social media/technology/<modern_thing> is nearly as bad as smoking. But if we accept the premise that maybe we're using it too much, then I think it's delusional to believe that stopping it for just one day a week is going to do anything substantial.

View on HN

> If we have a problem with detaching from technology, then, stopping all usage of it only one day a week is maybe 90% as unhealthy.

> It would be like saying you have a healthy relationship with smoking because you don't smoke at all for one day a week, but after that you can chain smoke 24/6.

I don't buy this at all (sidenote: interesting that you decided to use a throwaway for this comment?) - taking a vacation from distractions and a smartphone even for a week helps me for months afterwards because it allows me to realize that the pull isn't important - daily use builds up the idea, being able to not use it without consequences stops the FOMO.

And you want to stop the pull of a light switch? Or carrying things outside the house?

However if there's a magic rope round the town you can carry things outside?

As someone else with a throwaway account, some of us come here for the ideas rather than to build a social profile.

And your point about taking breaks is valid.

But I agree with the parent's about not using a break as a magic elixir. You need to detach once in a while AND put reasonable regular limitations.

Simplifying this to a dichotomy basically only functions inside of arguments. It's like saying "if laughter is so great, why not do it constantly?"

It's possible that both being connected and disconnected are happy, functional states for humans, and finding the right balance is the topic under discussion.

> Frankly, I don't buy it. If we have a problem with detaching from technology, then, stopping all usage of it only one day a week is maybe 90% as unhealthy.

I think you're letting the perfect become the enemy of the good.

Also, very intentionally keeping a day per week free of technology may help cultivate the skills necessary to keep it under control for the other six days. It would certainly keep it from becoming an all-consuming habit by providing regular opportunities to re-evaluate.

I'm reminded of a story a landlord told me: he didn't typically offer his tenants yearly leases. Instead he'd provide a six-month lease that would allow them to continue month-to-month without any extra fees. Why did he do this? Because the ritual of regularly renewing a lease prompted his tenants to reflect on if they wanted to continue to live in his building at all, and many would leave for places that suited them better. Removing that ritual encouraged his tenants to coast and stagnate, so he had to do much less work less to keep is building full and the rent checks flowing.

Unlike smoking, which all humans can survive without, society hasn't yet been configured in a way where we can survive and improve our lot without work.

So, even if your point -- that disconnecting one day a week is still 90% as bad as disconnecting all the time -- were to be true, it's also moot because that's not an option.

If your point is conditioned upon technology, rather than work, I would ask you to determine how to disentangle the two. It's not like working into the weekend is a new phenomenon (since, as we know, the concept of a weekend was only recently won).

Isn't the concept of a weekend at least as old as Sabbath, ie thousands of years?

Yes, but it was only recently “won”: that is, most of western society has had two days off per week (to varying degrees) for just over 100 years if my recollection is right.

And we will probably never get to three days off (for the majority of population) despite all the productivity growth etc.

>Frankly, I don't buy it.

I'm Jewish too, and was never religious.

The parent is not selling anything, simply describing a recurring experience in a lovely way. It's not an argument or a pitch. To each his or her own.

I am sorry, could you kindly explain what you mean when you say that you’re Jewish, but not religious?

I thought that if one did not observe certain tenants of Judaism that they were longer Jewish?

It's perfectly acceptable to be secular and still consider yourself to be Jewish.

http://www.jewfaq.org/judaism.htm

Based on your understanding Christianity is also an ethnicity?

Many people treat it that way.

If you're "Christianed" or "Baptised" CofE and Catholics will both mostly consider you Christian even if you're an atheist by confession.

The issue is that religious actions become cultural actions. And that religious leaders claim people as their own.

People who live in Thisistan are Chrewslims; or people whose parents were Chrewslims are also that. Silly.

Overall silly, but that history and location are important to understanding the ground in which a person grew, so to speak. There are some quips about "the God an atheist doesn't believe in" that have a point -- a person's worldview is shaped by ambient society and the philosophy they were exposed to as a child.

It is weird how culture and religion become decoupled and religious actions become cultural markers.

This is a common misconception. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_ethnic_divisions

I’ve heard about converting to Judaism. If it is an ethnicity how can that be possible?

>I’ve heard about converting to Judaism. If it is an ethnicity how can that be possible?

I am not qualified to offer an opinion on Judaism specifically, but people have been "converting" to different ethnicities for all of recorded history.

I personally have a Scottish last name; but that branch of my family is catholic, which is a little unusual, but not impossible. Tracing back the paperwork, my "Scottish' ancestor arrived in America on a boat that came from Ireland during the famous famine in the mid 1800s. Now... maybe it was a Scottish person who just happened to be living in Ireland... but it seems a lot more likely to me that it was an irish dude who looked around, saw the difference in how people were treated, and gave his landlord's name to the immigration agent. I'm imagining the guy running around new york hamming up a brogue James Doohan style. But, I mean, today? I get to claim I'm as Scottish-American as anyone else, and there's not a lot you can say otherwise.

But there are countless stories like that where a person integrates themselves into another ethnicity to the point where they are accepted and they (or their children) become indistinguishable from other members of that ethnicity.

This is one of those major problems of racialism; most people define ethnicity by "looks like X" which often doesn't really line up with, well, anything.

Scots are a people group, Irish Scots are a thing. Indeed, my understanding is that Irish Scots invaded Gwynedd in N.Wales after the Roman departure. The Tudors -- the English Royal family, Henry VII & VIII -- hail from Gwynedd, so they're Welsh English Irish Scots (from Scandinavia before that I imagine?).

Anyway, lying and converting seem different. Assuming an identity as a Jew and being a Jew are surely different.

sure, but my point is, who decides what ethnicity you are? I mean, your average man on the street, when asked to identify ethnicity is still pretty much with Blumenbach; "what do you look like?"

Functionally, there is what ethnicity you say you are, and what ethnicity other people see you as.

I don't have a complete picture of my genealogy, and even if I did, even if I could say I was descended from some ur-scott and you could say the same of all of my other ancestors, you're still just pushing the problem back in time. People migrate. People have been migrating for as long as people have been people; You could, with enough work, figure out that some of my ancestors were in country X at time Y... but I don't think that is going to line up with your common definition of ethnicity.

If I think I'm ethnicity X and if most people perceive me as ethnicity X... well, then I very clearly am ethnicity X... regardless of what my great great grandparents may or may not have been.

It's more complex if I think I'm X but others perceive me as Y... but it's still all about perception, as far as I can tell.

Uh. It's both, man.

EDIT: Downvotes? For stating a fact about Jewish ethnicity and religion? OK, I guess.

I was down-voted until I’ve lost all karma points! I wonder what harm or disconvert I may have caused by asking a simple question about a users comments.

Not possible.

...

Alright man. It is, though. I am not sure how this is confusing to you. You're the first person I've ever met who has this problem.

https://nypost.com/2010/06/13/genetic-testing-raises-an-age-...

You are making it difficult for us to assume good faith. What is wrong with the explanations that have been provided to you?

"It would be like saying you have a healthy relationship with smoking because you don't smoke at all for one day a week, but after that you can chain smoke 24/6."

What?

No.

You need food, but you can overeat.

You need exercise, but you can do too much.

It's not an irrational argument to indicate we need a day off, moreover, it's not irrational to suggest we do it at the same time.

FYI - have a look at your activity logs. Whatever business you're in, I'll bet a lot that it's down on Sunday. All our charts show a huge drop them. So we already are a little bit conditioned for this behaviour. It's worth considering nudging in a given direction.

That's completely absolutist thinking, and more likely to be wrong.

Exercise is good, if we get our rest in between rather than do it to excess in which case we burn out and grow weaker.

Eating is good, if it supplies us nutrients and we don't overdo it in which case we become obese and suffer health problems.

Sleep is good, if we use it to function in the world well rested and don't spend all our time in bed or it can develop into slothfulness and depression.

Leisure can be good, if we don't do it all the time otherwise we likely become parasites on others doing all the work.

Stress can be good, if its in healthy amounts that stimulate rather than destroy us.

Even using smoking as in your example. Lets accept it as bad.

Lets pretend we have a friend and he's managed to cut back to smoking less than he use to.

We have two attitudes we can take:

- Berrate him as a failure because he hasn't managed to quit (saracasm: I'm sure that will be very productive and helpful)

- Congratulate him on making an improvement and support him in his decision and effort.

I think it's ore to do with how our brains work. Constant distraction is not what we evolved for, so to take a break from it on a regular basis might well be "recharging" your brain's limited attention management resources. I know I always feel refreshed after time away from things.

>stopping all usage of it only one day a week is maybe 90% as unhealthy.

No, a recovery period can make a bigger difference. By the same token the recent advice on alcohol is to avoid it at least 2 days out of 7.

Recent advice on alcohol is to avoid it completely: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...

That is a recommendation on public health initiatives, not individual consumption.

"When it comes to policy recommendations, it is notable that the authors recommend public health measures to reduce total consumption at a population level, such as “excise taxes on alcohol, controlling the physical availability of alcohol and the hours of sale, and controlling alcohol advertising”. There is no mention of information campaigns or targeting heavy drinkers, which may be less effective ways of reducing average consumption."

The risks they found are actually very small.

"Let’s consider one drink a day (10g, 1.25 UK units) compared to none, for which the authors estimated an extra 4 (918–914) in 100,000 people would experience a (serious) alcohol-related condition. That means, to experience one extra problem, 25,000 people need to drink 10g alcohol a day for a year, that’s 3,650g a year each. To put this in perspective, a standard 70cl bottle of gin contains 224 g of alcohol, so 3,650g a year is equivalent to around 16 bottles of gin per person. That’s a total of 400,000 bottles of gin among 25,000 people, being associated with one extra health problem. Which indicates a rather low level of harm in these occasional drinkers."

https://medium.com/wintoncentre/the-risks-of-alcohol-again-2...

Surely chain smoking for 6 days is healthier than chain smoking for 7

Specifically with regard to smoking, I imagine if you can go one day without smoking, you're probably not chain-smoking the other six days. You have to adjust your habit so that it's not onerous to go without for a 24-hour period. That's going to put the brakes on a bit.

Disclaimer: Not a smoker, dated smokers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com