Hacker News Reader

Comment by eckza | Hacker News Reader

And why do you think that is? Because nobody takes responsibility for their actions or emotions anymore. Why should they - they don't need to - we've pathologized everything, from behavioral issues to depression (nobody ever says "I am depressed", they say "I have depression", which is another thing entirely and delegates all responsibility to manage oneself to outside forces).

And another pathology: "I acted like an idiot because an Internet Website made me feel things and I couldn't control myself. Now I need Someone Else to make decisions on my behalf".

That's how personal liberty gets extinguished.

View on HN

> Because nobody takes responsibility for their actions or emotions anymore.

In real life there's real consequences for lying and being a shadow manipulator is usually more difficult than not.

On the internet there's real consequences to telling the truth and being a shadow manipulator is way easier than not.

> "I acted like an idiot because an Internet Website made me feel things and I couldn't control myself. Now I need Someone Else to make decisions on my behalf".

I don't think this is crazy. We're products of our environment. Our environment now includes TikTok and Facebook.

This isn't a question of "is this how it should be", rather a statement of how it is.

If you're a man, ask yourself "why don't I wear a dress?". I assume it isn't because you weighed the pros and cons, but rather because of the environment you're born into and inhabit.

Personal responsibility for an individual is great. But if we're designing optimal societies, we should pay attention to how incentives are being used to manipulate us.

If your claim boils down to "I am strong enough to control myself" it reminds me of "ads don't work on me".

_I just don't buy it_. If that were true you wouldn't eat Oreos, or use Bounty paper towels, or own a Song or Samsung tv.

The truth is that we are all heavily influenced by our peers, our environment and now, social media.

"nobody takes responsibility for their actions or emotions anymore"

Why do you think anyone did before? You were allowed to kill your wife if you caught her cheating.

Is a century with two world wars giving you the idea that emotions were kept in check?

> Is a century with two world wars giving you the idea that emotions were kept in check?

Yes. On a grand scale, boys who were utterly terrified put that behind them and fought anyway.

How about the fact that we had decades of war because ambition, greed and anger ruled the day?

That's not a fact.

> nobody takes responsibility for their actions or emotions anymore

Compared to when?

> nobody ever says "I am depressed", they say "I have depression", which is another thing entirely and delegates all responsibility to manage oneself to outside forces

Good. That's exactly what psychologists have been telling people for decades: do not victimize mental illness because self-blaming only pushes the problem further.

> > delegates all responsibility to manage oneself to outside forces

> Good. That's exactly what psychologists have been telling people for decades

No, neither phrase says "I am bad because I'm depressed". But one pushes the person out of the locus of control.

> > nobody takes responsibility for their actions or emotions anymore

> Compared to when?

Compared to when they couldn't broadcast it. Why perform helplessness if nobody is there to see? Ditto rage, etc.

> But one pushes the person out of the locus of control.

Mental illness does that. Also many other things, like going hungry.

> Compared to when they couldn't broadcast it.

In some mythical past or a real point in time? When people where never emotion-driven and completely rational 500 years ago? 1500? 5000?

> > But one pushes the person out of the locus of control.

> Mental illness does that. Also many other things, like going hungry.

No, being hungry doesn't have to make you helpless, and doesn't for most people. Locus of control isn't about actual control, it's about feeling that your actions actually impact things. A prisoner in a dungeon could feel in control in a way that a free and wealthy person may not.

The over-medicalization of problems (even if they are at root, medical) contributes to learned helplessness. And this is one of the biggest things to revert when helping a depressed person, to prove that they can indeed influence events.

> > Compared to when they couldn't broadcast it.

> In some mythical past or a real point in time?

I first saw a sob story followed by a pay-me link on LiveJournal ~20 years ago. This is around when it became practical for people to beg to the world. Before this you either went to friends and family, or were just able to complain (not collect money) so there wasn't the same motive. And twenty years before that people pretty much didn't have any editorial reach unless they owned the media so the weaponized sob story was just employed by panhandlers and family.

> When people where never emotion-driven and completely rational 500 years ago? 1500? 5000?

You're having this argument with yourself because those are words you're trying to shove into my mouth. I'm talking about the ability to be performative effectively, not about emotion. These are actually two totally unrelated things. Many emotional people don't dump this on others, and many performative people aren't feeling what they claim to be suffering.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com