Comment by xyzelement | Hacker News Reader

Comment by xyzelement | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Defaulting to generosity - while operating with healthy boundaries - is by far the most beneficial mindset.

The alternatives are:

Victim. "I am too weak and poor to help anyone but I expect people to help me." This belief corrodes you.

Stoic(can't think of a better word.) "I don't help anyone and therefore I don't expect anyone to help me". Well, better than the victim but ends up passing up many opportunities where others are genuinely ready to help.

Abuser "I don't bother to help others but I take advantage of them" - becomes obvious very quickly and you are ostracized and hated.

Doormat "I help everyone but because I don't have healthy boundaries, I end up attracting abusers and victims." Gross.

The "best people" are clear and confident with their boundaries and generous with their time and resources when people are on the right side of the boundary. I see this a lot with truly successful senior managers and businesspeople, for example.

Even in politics, when a candidate runs for office, they want to tell stories of "X came to me and needed help and I really took the time to hear them and help them (kindness). Then Y came and they sought to rip us off and I told them to go fuck themselves (boundaries)." We seek that as species, we expect that out of the best among us, and therefore we reward those who operate from this place (and it's good for lots of other reasons.)

The variables here are:

* where your boundaries lie along the spectrum from self-serving to doormat

* your propensity to be generous to people on the good side of your boundaries

I myself trend close to what you'd call a stoic. Probably out of fear of being a doormat. My boundaries are healthyish, but I don't quite trust them. So I don't seek out help from others, and in return I hope they don't ask for generosity from me. Being generous without crossing my boundaries is something I have to work on.

I know some narcissists who can actually be quite generous. This fools them into thinking, "There's no way I'm a narcissist!" because they can easily recall past instances of generosity. Yet they're still regarded by others as selfish. Their boundaries are shifted so far in their favor that they feel taxed being generous to others who most would deem worthy of generosity. And they expect sympathy, attention, and generosity in situations where most would not have that expectation.

These abusers often do end up ostracized, but that doesn't always look like solitude. They become victims, upset at their crummy relationships and unable to garner sympathy from others, yet unwilling to ever point the finger at themselves. Some end up alone, yes. Others befriend other victims who they can commiserate with, but those relationships don't last long for obvious reasons. So it's sort of a fleeting, on-again off-again ostracism.

Of course I'm speaking in generalities here. Plenty of victims aren't narcissists, etc. And I do have sympathy. Nobody chooses to be a narcissist. I think some people are just wired that way, or perhaps set on that course by environmental factors early in life. Either way, it's not a choice. So I think it's somewhat of a tragic condition.

My advice would be that if you're consistently getting negative feedback about your personality traits, take it seriously. It'll be tempting to deny and seek disconfirmation, e.g. by changing the subject, blaming your accusers, deflecting to other causes (e.g. race or gender), or running away to find people who will say nice things about you. But for all our follies, human beings are naturally pretty decent judges of character. If you're getting consistent character feedback from lots of different people, it's probably accurate.

I found the clarity of your thinking and writing refreshing, it's rare for someone to observe and recognize these archetypes. I by and large agree with how you see it.

One thing jumped out:

>> I think some people are just wired that way, or perhaps set on that course by environmental factors early in life. Either way, it's not a choice. So I think it's somewhat of a tragic condition.

and

>> My advice would be that if you're consistently getting negative feedback about personality traits from others, take it seriously.

If you think about it these two comments are contradictory. Either you are a victim of your programming, or you have the power to (slowly and painfully) recognize it and change.

I am a firm believer that people ultimately can recognize their problems and change. Recognition is the harder part. For most of us, to recognize the really deep and ugly things about ourselves is really hard and often is only done when someone has hit bottom and are forced to confront that there's something wrong. It's easy to say "listen to feedback" but it's impossible to convince someone they should until they've had some painful experience that forced them to recognize there's something that needs to be heard. But it's possible and important.

The other thought as I was reading your comment - I think you'll enjoy Ray Dalio's Principles book.

I quote that book in my HN profile and so many people on HN have found it grossly offensive.

Edit: Just wanted to add that it’s an incredible book that I recommend to everybody.

>> My advice would be that if you're consistently getting negative feedback about personality traits from others, take it seriously.

This is bland and simple advice at best, that only serves the 'groups' best interest, not the individual.

Half the people you meet are below average intelligence, I'd strongly advise not listening to at least half of what people have to say. The other half could also be giving self-serving advice that isn't in your best interest.

My advice is to ignore everyone.

Since when does"take it seriously" mean follow the group's mainstream?

I read the op to imply that one should seriously think and reflect on why this feedback occurrs and if there is some kernel of truth within.

If I constantly get feedback I evaluate it and reflect on it. But that doesn't mean I need to implement everything.

> where your boundaries lie along the spectrum from self-serving to doormat ...

Healthy boundaries are more consistent and universal than you think, with the massive caveat being different cultures handling boundaries differently.

But it’s more about the fundamental psychological nature of human beings and less about individual personality.

IMHO a lot of what you describe boils down to “people who could develop healthier boundaries through therapy or other forms of personal growth and healing.”

Is that what stoics really taught or a modern misrepresentation, like "cynic"?

It's a modern misrepresentation. In fact, Stoicism encourages to help your neighbor.

From the Meditations by Marcus Aurelius:

> [...] Do not be carried along inconsiderately by the appearance of things, but give help to all according to thy ability and their fitness [...] (Book V)

> [...] Reverence the gods, and help men. Short is life. There is only one fruit of this terrene life, a pious disposition and social acts. [...] ( Book VI )

You can read the full ebook here [1] (I'd link to project Gutenberg but unfortunately they're still blocking German readers). Alas.

[1] https://standardebooks.org/ebooks/marcus-aurelius/meditation...

How about don’t mind helping but don’t really want to start a network effect of mutual back and forth because I don’t want to give up my time doing these things and get caught up in reciprocal network chains.

I think there is a whole lot of anthropological and economic thinking on roles that you haven’t covered. For example gift giving can be a role people use to indicate status, and/or caretaking of a local community. Giving comes with, some people argue, complex social relationships. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy

That's not what stoicism is.

Stoicism has more to do with things that happen to you vs how you treat other people.

It's great that you disclaim it a bit with "can't think of a better word", but it's just inaccurate.

Perhaps "libertarian"? Or "rugged individualist"?

I find it kinda weird that you called the doormat archetype gross, and not the abuser.

I read it as 'a gross position, don't put yourself in it'; not 'anyone in such a position is themselves gross'.

Exactly. It's also unpleasant to witness this happening to someone else. In contrast I used 'hate' for the abuser.

Tip: Don't race to make the most uncharitable, extreme interpretation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com