Self-compassion is not self-indulgence | Hacker News Reader

Self-compassion is not self-indulgence

psyche.co

156 pointsnreece46 comments

(Prior art from 2000+ years ago.)

The first 29 letters (out of 124) that Seneca wrote, to his friend Lucilius, end with a quotation—the "daily dole" referenced below—from writings that have impressed Seneca. He ends his letter 6 this way:

<quote>

Meanwhile, as I owe you the daily dole, I will tell you what pleased me today in the writings of Hecaton:

"Do you ask what progress I have made? I have begun to be a friend to myself."

Valuable progress indeed: he will never be alone. Believe me, such a person will be a friend to everyone.

Farewell.

</quote>

And the key is that being a good friend is being compassionate, loving, but also honest.

I recognize that pattern of self-beratement, and it becomes reflexive like a tic or scratching an itch, but then it happens so much that eventually it can become like a sore, with all the consequences. It can also mean the cruelty you have for yourself sets a threshold where the accidental cruelty you have towards others doesn't even register because it's not nearly as bad as what you do to yourself. If you can recognize that the self-berating pattern can have collateral damage on people it would break your heart to be cruel to, it can make exercising compassion a priority.

One of my favourite discussions of this was in the animated series Midnight Gospel, where the fellow being interviewed talked about the Buddhist perspective on what was essentially people's lack of self-compassion as recognizing that, "you're grinding in Minecraft." Man, Buddhists are assholes. But well worth listening to.

You make an interesting point. I suspect the post is downvoted only because of the second-to-last sentence.

As a Buddhist it seems like a good natured joke, any form of spiritually can be confronting.

And if it wasn't meant to be humorous, I don't think it would be very Buddhist of me to take it personally!

Thank you, this was the "joke." :)

I’ve done more than a lot of self reflection on how I treat myself differently from anyone else. And in a lot of ways it’s given me permission to give myself grace I wouldn’t have in the past. I very much agree with the author on how important it is, and I hope anyone reading benefits from that message, and carries it with them to share it with the people they care about who may also be too hard on themselves.

I also hope this next part won’t undermine all of that.

In all of my reflection on the subject, the thing that always comes back to my focus is that a core part of how I forgive or excuse others’ faults and mistakes is that I have limited insight into their whole picture. If someone is failing me or themselves or others, I can imagine countless complicating factors that might be making it harder for them to do better, even if it’s not out in the open.

When I’m failing myself or others, I don’t have total insight into the contributing factors but I have a much fuller view. I have the ability to scrutinize every single thing that happens in my waking hours that didn’t escape my attention, and to revisit much of what did. And so I have much more detail to scrutinize.

Gratefully I’ve learned a lot in the process about how to scrutinize myself more kindly (and that’s helped when I choose or need to scrutinize others too). But it’s unavoidable to me that I will hold myself to a higher standard than anyone else, because I have far fewer unknowns to mitigate my own judgment.

Feels like we live in a society where self-compassion is not tolerated. How can we be kind to ourselves if there are mechanisms in society that keep us distracted from ourselves?

You can be normal, or you can live well.

Reminds me of a documentary called "Medicating Normal". Try being self-compassionate when you have unholy side effects of benzos, anti-depressants, and anti-psychotics prescribed to you.

Normal by "western" standards is unhealthy. We need a renaissance of self-compassion but it has to be protected from the systems that be.

I am recognise that here we have no problem for to simpley solve. But, however, are you haveing idea on how protected from the systems that be means and ought to be enactment? We have jobs if are demanding normal; how ought one to holding down job without normal?

Jobs are just one way of living. I feel like there are more efficient ways to implement prosperity. Or have less suffering keeping the level of prosperity the same.

What is a job? Is it really beneficial? This reminds me of David Graeber's Bullshit Jobs lecture. Too many people are suffering because of their trust in systemic inefficiency.

well we are having to support the self in some how. i am not sure if there are diferent way. only other option appear to be take some money from a person and give to other person with state force. this behavior is not ethical

Learn to reject some of the distractions. You don't even have to reject them entirely, you mostly just need moderation. I used to play video games essentially any time I wasn't at work or eating (which was not a healthy way to deal with my anxiety and depression and chronic pain, but it was an effective distraction). I cut back on that to let myself focus on healthier or more productive activities. I still play games, not nearly as much as before obviously, but it's no longer at that former extreme, self-indulgent and destructive level.

I'm glad you cut back and realized that your health is more important. I haven't had a TV since I was in high school. I don't really play video games. It's the notion of "work" in western society that is a distraction from self-compassion. Some of it is fulfilling, some of it is soul-sucking.

I think to implement self-compassion more effectively, we need less of these soul-sucking jobs. Everyone is different though. To some, chopping wood may be fulfilling, to others not so much. So perhaps, we need more fulfilling notions of "work" and making a living.

I think that in your case, allow yourself some time for unproductive rest and relaxation. I don't mean this as a joke. I means this as a "it is ok and beneficial to just chill for some time" and "it is ok to spend time in an unproductive way". Because I noticed that your fulfilling hobby is also basically work.

I am percieveing that your statment is twenty and forty and even fifty years out from date. This have been the case in past times but we have now had pendulem swing in to far the other direction. There exists in today to much "if you are feel depresed that is normal." It, is not a normal thing and shold be pitied not be calling normal. Calling a thing a normal makes it more encouraging to a person and so it is not a good thing.

That's like asking how one can be in shape if there is so much sugar in the world.

Here's a paper that introduced me to self-compassion. It explains what self-compassion is and how it is different from self-esteem:

https://academic.udayton.edu/jackbauer/PGSG/Neff%2003%20self...

I can also recommend https://www.tarabrach.com/radical-compassion/ as a great introduction to the idea of self compassion and some very practical ways to practice it.

I'm halfway through This Difficult Thing of Being Human, which advocates for self compassion and tries to create a framework for the reader to practice it.

Admittedly I'm not great at remembering to break the mental "downward spiral", but it's pretty good at establishing why this isn't just self-coddling, so I'd suggest it.

"Your time is limited, so don't waste it living someone else's life. Don't be trapped by dogma - which is living with the results of other people's thinking. Don't let the noise of others' opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition."

-- Steve Jobs

And go thermonuclear if you have to.

Clearly some peoples inner voices are different from others.

Steve Jobs followed his heart on the best way to treat his cancer. He is dead. He should have listened to the noise of the opinions of doctors.

I advise against the advice of famous people. Jobs followed his heart and got rich. Ten thousand other people in Silicon Valley followed theirs and went broke. You hear from him and you don't hear from them. Tell your heart and your intuition about survivorship bias and see how they feel about it.

> Steve Jobs followed his heart on the best way to treat his cancer. He is dead.

Everybody dies. It's part of life.

Not everybody lives while they get the chance. Jobs lived his life in a way that ensure people like us will still be talking about him for a long time to come.

Erm ... what's wrong with self-indulgence?

The excessiveness of it.

Not necessarily anything until it gets to an extreme, but it's not self-compassion and that's the point of the article (or a chunk of it, most of the article is about what self-compassion actually is but doesn't spend too much time contrasting it with other things). Many people conflate the two concepts and self-indulgence (being generally egocentric) is often considered "bad". If the two ideas get mixed together then this leads to a rejection of self-compassion as well.

We wouldn't want to end up like the Aeldaris now would we?

https://warhammer40k.fandom.com/wiki/Aeldari

There is no wrong in a simple indulginces. I have completed big project in recent week past and went for purchase my self ice-cream-cone. This indulgence, not necesity. There is however existing today in West large cultures of "poor me"/of pitying self. One is never failing, simply try ones best. The pendulem has swung to far in the oposite direction from fifty years in past time.

They're vapid, meaningless. They don't give you any fulfillment, they only act as a distraction from your problems.

This thing used to be called self pity.

This article is unactionable fluff.

I shouldn't be too hard on myself? gee thanks, a fortune cookie can tell me that. And it's a shorter read too.

Why does the obvious question go unacknowledged by this article? The question is roughly "How does someone calibrate how they reflect on their actions and effectively guide themselves through life?" People are not tough on themselves for no reason, it's a (possibly misguided) attempt to push themselves towards their goals. If you tell them to be self-compassionate without answering that you're setting them up to resist your advice.

What deduction am I to make other than: the article doesn't address the question because it doesn't have an answer.

NB: I have an answer that works for me; I'm talking about how good this piece of persuasive writing is at providing one for people that don't. But thanks for the advice.

The article includes a definition of self-compassion, comparison/contrasts with other things people do (self-beratement and self-indulgence), links to studies on the topic, as well as resources on how to practice/develop it. How is that "unactionable fluff"? The article itself is not a tutorial, but it gives you access to deeper materials if you're interested.

Do you also expect chapter 1 for a text or the abstract for a paper to explain everything or to establish the motivation and definitions for what follows?

Each article has its own audience. Maybe this article isn't for you, that's cool. Others may find it helpful. Even if you know something, it is helpful to be reminded of it from time to time.

The author outlines Neff's work, but you might find a more concrete gameplan in Neff's book. [1] It's based on an eight-week program.

1. https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/the-mindful-self-compassion-wo...

> it's a (possibly misguided) attempt to push themselves towards their goals.

Ist that really so? I think the article is trying to distinguish between three types of self-reflection and only one of them is actually pushing you towards your goal.

1) Punishing yourself and calling into question whether you can reach your goal at all. ("I failed that math test! How could I?! What kind of idiot am I?! What is wrong with me?!")

2) Self-indulgence, which I understand as distracting yourself from negative feelings with activities that bring immediate satisfaction - but neither advance your progress nor give you more insight into what went wrong. ("I failed that math test! I feel like shit! Let's go shopping!")

3) Self-compassion which is more about accepting something happened and trying to find out what went wrong without becoming degrading or punishing.

Only 3) is actually pushing you towards your goal. In fact, the others may be pushing you away from it - 1) through negative and 2) through positive reinforcement.

I think the article's intention is to make people better at spotting the differences and steer their thinking patterns away from 1) and 2) and towards 3). At least that was my impression.

Can you please stay within the site guidelines when posting to HN? You're arguably on the wrong side of at least 4 here:

"Don't be snarky."

"When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. 'That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3' can be shortened to '1 + 1 is 2, not 3.'"

"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."

"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Thoughtful critique is welcome, of course, and you've got the kernel of that here. But it's important to avoid the putdown aspects and to remember how easy it is to misread others and misassess intentions. That leads to gaps in our perceptions, and we tend to fill in the blanks with crap that's actually drawn from our own imaginations (and sometimes is looking for an excuse to vent itself), which typically makes for less interesting discussion.

Don't really agree, bud. The tone was a bit harsh, but it seems like a totally valid reaction to this kind of writing. Certainly not the most popular one in this forum but still valid. I don't share their viewpoint but it feels appropriate to defend it in this case. It seems a bit off to drag out the site guidelines here.

You may find this paper by Kristin Neff more palatable:

https://academic.udayton.edu/jackbauer/PGSG/Neff%2003%20self...

From the paper:

"Some may fear that having too much self-compassion leads to passivity, but this should not be the case when feelings of self-compassion are genuine. While having self-compassion requires that one does not harshly criticize the self for failing to meet ideal standards, it does not mean that one’s failings go unnoticed or unrectified. Rather, it means that the actions needed for optimal functioning and health (and having compassion for oneself means that one desires well-being for oneself) are encouraged with gentleness and patience. Thus, self-compassion should not imply passivity or inaction with regard to weaknesses observed in the self."

Abrasive people are often abrasive with themselves first, and then rationalize that they aren’t expecting anything from others that they don’t already expect from themselves, and then some. They are just being “fair”.

Lighten up.

Management by aggression, punishment, belittling, and disrespect is generally seen as a terrible fit for creative or knowledge professionals. Manage yourself how you would wish to be managed by a wonderful manager.

> People are not tough on themselves for no reason, it's a (possibly misguided) attempt to push themselves towards their goals.

Maybe that's your reason. It's one I've worked hard to get closer to. For the fist 2/3 of my life it was just amplifying the horrible, misplaced, and often completely unthinking judgment and abuse I received from others.

Consider that some people are actually in a cycle where they reproduce pain for themselves that has been caused by others.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com