Hacker News Reader

Comment by javajosh | Hacker News Reader

My mother told me to not care what other people thought. She also told me that words can't really hurt people ("sticks and stones..."). She also believed its "mean" to have any preference about people, calling it a version of "keeping score". In fact, "keeping score" was one of the worst things you could be accused of in my household.

Her advice fails to accept the reality of social and emotional needs. It also fails to address the (sometimes severe) downside of non-conformance. This advice made me an Outsider whether or not I wanted to be. I now believe that these were tools she formed to get her through her own family and social trauma, which she falsely assumed would be generally useful, and did her best to arm her children with her best tools. I also believe there are upsides to the approach, but the trade-offs are real and cannot and shouldn't be swept under the rug. I imagine others had similar experiences with religious parents.

Advice is dangerous. It has built in moral hazard. Advice is too often given in well-meaning ignorance and pride - but ultimately advice gets someone else to test your hypothesis for you. So if you've not gotten any life-changing advice, be glad!

View on HN

I have some similar stories. The issue of generic advice is it assumes a social context or a specific mistake that may not be relevant.

In a gang of violent ruffians, "be less violent!" is great advice. A gang of extremist pacifists being beaten up by outsiders probably needs "be more violent!" as advice.

Your case particularly hits a nerve with me because "do not care what other people think!" is good advice to someone who makes decisions based on where they think the crowd is going (which is the normal way) but may as well be the kiss of death to the typical engineering mind. Engineers do not need any advice that encourages them towards independent thinking. They already have lots of training in making decisions based on objective or internalised criteria. Engineering types usually need advice on how to read body language and make decisions using social techniques.

When dealing with smart, numerate people it is better to discuss scenarios or statistical frequency of mistakes rather than "give advice". Generic advice is often useless without context.

I wish I'd had some training on how to care what other people think when I was in my teens. Would have done me the power of good.

I had to re-read the post, because I misunderstood the opening statement.

<<Generic advice is often useless without context.

I agree. Some of the advice we are imbued with is in 'not great' category. The more annoying thing is that it does not get better ( I got ridiculously bad generic advice looking back in my 20s, but I only had enough knowledge in my 30s to know how bad it was ).

<<I wish I'd had some training on how to care what other people think when I was in my teens.

Likewise.

> A gang of extremist pacifists

That is: a Jain gang [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism

To be fair to your mother, this particular advice and view was rampant when I grew up in the 80s/90s. My experience was that this is quite backwards. Physical altercations at school didn't hurt that much, but the name calling, social shunning and constant verbal put down was very painful and has affected my whole life.

I’d agree. I was hurt by bullying enough that if I had ever made it big I would have found the most outrageous bullying case I could find and try to sue a school district out of existence? Maybe if teachers thought they could lose their pension maybe they would put a stop to bullying.

Suing to threaten the pensions of underpaid teachers. Makin’ a difference in the world.

Does raise an interesting question, though: Is it the teachers' or the parents' responsibility to teach manners to a child? Isn't this something that you'd pick up at home first, before ever stepping a foot into an institutionalized pedagogical setting?

Perhaps instead of suing the entire school district, GP should rather sue the parents of the offending child? /s

To remove the tongue from the cheek, though, and provide some anecdata in the same breath, let me say that I have a number of close friends who are teachers; their constant complaint is that the children reach school already too spoiled (in the rude and egocentric sense). Which apparently gets worse every year.

It's easier to make a case for a society-wide pandemic of negligent upbringing by parents who - goes without saying - are under-educated in child rearing, lack the traditional support networks ("it takes a village to raise a child") and generally overburdened by life's other demands. The children then get passed over to underpaid and overworked teachers (and overflowing classrooms), where the egos of the little cute monsters clash, occasionally loudly and physically, more frequently in passive-aggressive, bullyish manners.

But yeah, "back in mah day..."

100% the parents… teachers can influence but it’s the parents legal responsibility to not raise a monster.

Legal, ethical, and moral responsibility…

It's schools responsibility to ensure safety.

If you are forcing a person to interact daily with bad people the least you should do is ensure that those bad people won't hurt this person.

An old guy's perspective: It's not this or that lesson or parental intent that matters, it's the sheer amount of one-on-one interaction with the parent(s), that matters most. IIRC, that's about twenty minutes a week for most kids. Nomads (See the book The Old Way by Elizabeth Marshal Thomas) don't have the same behavior problems at all; but the kids are getting an incredibly high amount of one on one interactions with their parents (mother in particular, while gathering, say berries, with them.)

I think you're spot on with this. Contact affects manners, and also gives opportunity for bad manners to be weeded out early.

Definitely not something that twenty minutes a day is enough for. And perhaps such a lack not only allows for bad patterns to emerge and fester, but also traumatizes the child. Modern city life, and its discontents, I guess.

Eh, look at PaulHoule's statement with some empathy.

I got bullied by a teacher, probably more, starting in fourth grade. I've written about it on this website. It can develop authority issues, trust issues, or both. It's a lifetime of work to undo those things.

Similar to people posting their stories with names with the hope for justice in some form or fashion, suing someone puts the details out for bare. He would likely never get the state government to actually repeal pensions, but he would get to tell his story in a media that people would definitely be paying attention to.

There's a valid question of whether any of the approaches above are healthy for a society. I'd venture to say no, but that is the way our society is.

I'm sorry that happened to you - I was bullied early in life too, and it's horrible.

It's frustrating that people downvoted your comment. It's a failure, from a lack of empathy, to understand that the reason you want to make an example of the school district is because you were one of the victims of bullying.

“Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will hurt for life” is how I used to say it.

Never say anything that couldn’t stand as the last thing you say to someone. You’re words matter more than you realize.

Most people have never come anywhere close to being beat sufficiently to have a bone broken. I guarantee you words come nothing close to that experience.

Being beat to that extent can cause both physical and emotional pain for life.

Not dismissing physical abuse at all. That’s not a stick, nor a stone. I’ve had numerous bones broken. Some because of me. Some because of others. Some from my parents. One from my child (technically my fault).

Both forms of abuse hurt. When the abuse goes on for a long time it feels like it takes 10x as long to heal.

The rhyme is about physical abuse though, it's not like accidentally falling into a pile of sticks and stones was a frequent occurrence.

I mean words only hurt if you let them in so that’s why we think of things this way.

It sucks to be in a relationship with someone who can’t forgive or forget. Mean vindictive people who will twist words and who are suppose to love you unconditionally.

Something to consider, as more and more people say things to you, you start to understand the different ways in which people are terrible, which isn't all that bad because nobody is perfect. But then you start to understand the ways in which all people are flawed, that's when you really lose faith in humanity. So words might not hurt, but they offer more and more reasons to disengage, not just from terrible people, but from otherwise "normal, friendly, would-never-commit-a-crime people"

> So words might not hurt, but they offer more and more reasons to disengage, not just from terrible people, but from otherwise "normal, friendly, would-never-commit-a-crime people"

Oof that hit home.

FWIW, meditation (Vipassana after a few years of Samahdi), really helps with this because it shows you your own inconsistencies and faults. You're part of that sometimes nasty group, too. This may well lead to a short depression at times but overall, a much more positive outlook. "Them's just how it is, and good things still sometimes happen."

> words matter more than you realize

I could not disagree more. Words are meaningless. They are sounds. They only matter if you choose to give them meaning.

The proof is incredibly simple. I speak multiple languages, one of them is Spanish. However, it is South American Spanish and not any of the dialects spoken in Spain. A common insult in Spain is "gilipollas". It means absolutely nothing to me, even though I know what it means ant that is an insult. Someone could call me gilipollas all day and I would probably die laughing; frankly, it really sounds funny to me.

What if you are insulted in a language you don't understand? Same thing. Meaningless. At that point it really becomes just sounds. And that's the point. The only process that gives words meaning and can attach them to negative emotions is in your brain.

Put a different way: Nobody can force you to interpret words as an insult or something to get emotional about except for yourself.

I got my kids used to not caring about insults by actually insulting them. Things like "You are a moron!" quickly became the subject of jokes at our home, with them being free to call me anything they want in response. At first I had to do this because one of my kids ran into verbal bullies at school. It is amazing to see just how much power one gains by removing meaning from words used to deliver insults. At the limit they become nothing less than a joke.

Verbal insults, at the end of the day, are signs of weakness. The person who has to resort to diminishing someone else verbally in person or --as is often seen-- online, has to resort to such nonsense because, well, to be kind, they have nothing else to offer. Why give someone like that the power to interpret those words as they wish you would interpret them? The best approach is to turn those words into irrelevant noise. To go from that, to have words affect you for life? No, that's a big mistake.

I'm going to have to disagree with your disagreement.

> I got my kids used to not caring about insults by actually insulting them. Things like "You are a moron!"

I do that too, although just because its fun rather than for any other reason. But your kids know that is friendly banter with you. It's quite different to your boss calling you a moron and insulting you all day.

So you might say, well if my boss did that then I'd leave, fuck them. And I'd be the same. However, not everyone is in a position to be able to just get out and quit.

And that doesn't even address the far more insidious ways people use words to hurt you. Telling other people you're a moron, building up an undeserved contempt. This is what bullies do and it's not so easy to shrug it off. When they get a significant number of people in on it then you can't escape it and feel like a fool. This is the source of my shyness and anxiety about talking to people. Even though I try to push down those feelings I still feel awkward and on guard because for a few of my school years ANYTHING I said unguarded would be pounced on and I'd be laughed at.

Then there's gaslighting and other verbal lead ons where you're sweet talked into believing you're a moron. I don't have any experience with this.

> The best approach is to turn those words into irrelevant noise. To go from that, to have words affect you for life? No, that's a big mistake.

I wish this were the case. Toot toot for you if it is, but for many it's not possible, I think perhaps you could take a more sympathetic view - what has worked for you does not work for everyone and perhaps others had a difficult time when they were more vulnerable to it and that left an unshakable impression on them.

> It's quite different to your boss calling you a moron and insulting you all day.

I can definitely understand that. At the same time, I know, without a doubt, that this approach has worked for at least one of my kids. He told me this much a few times after being bullied and pretty much viewing it as a laughable event rather than taking it seriously. And, in fact, the bullying stopped very quickly because he did not engage at all.

> I think perhaps you could take a more sympathetic view - what has worked for you does not work for everyone and perhaps others had a difficult time when they were more vulnerable to it and that left an unshakable impression on them.

Yes, of course, I understand everyone has different life experiences.

I am simply sharing my, our, experience. The perspective might be useful to some or not one person. At the very least someone might have seen what I had to share and, perhaps, understood they might have the power to change the way they interpret what they are experiencing.

It's like being afraid of heights. All else being equal (circumstances, balance, physical condition, health, age, etc.) the only difference between a person who is afraid and one who is not, is in the way the brain interprets reality. That's it. Nothing else. Train the brain to modify that interpretation and going up a tall skinny ladder goes from a horrific paralyzing event to no problem at all.

Bottom line: I really think we need to understand that these things are only real if we make them real. Easier said than done, of course. I don't see that as a reason not to try to, carefully, slowly, go up that ladder and see things differently.

Fists fights are great. Quick resolution of said problem and emotions. One of my best friends over the last few decades was a person I hated till we physically fought each other in our 20s.

Another example is American parents. Since you can’t spank your kids you have to resort to hurting their feelings with words to discipline them. No wonder teens in this country hate their parents.

Those aren’t the only options.

My mom enforced clear consequences based on what I valued and she valued. Break rules, I lose computer time. Trespass on someone’s property, I write an apology letter and deliver it to them. Etc

It's incredible how common the "it's just words" refrain is on HN. Wars happen over words. Marriages and divorces too.

> Wars happen over words. Marriages and divorces too.

Words are not the cause of these events. They might, in several ways, trigger them, of course. After all, a declaration of war is nothing but words and so is a legal divorce filing.

However, for these and other conflicts, if we dug down to root causes, we always find a lot more than just spoken or written words. Two that come to mind would be, in the case of war, strategic/national interests and, for divorce, infidelity or serious lack of agreement on matters the couple deem to be important.

Not caring what others think doesn’t mean you can’t “fit in.” Of course it sure doesn’t sound like that’s what she meant, but it’s still solid advice, I think.

I do lots of things that basically boil down to “social lubricant.” I really don’t care what most other people think, but I still “play nice” when it’s low-cost and easy because makes everything easier. I won’t go out of my way or expend too much effort to please others though. I’ll make socially acceptable small-talk but I’m not going to bother with designer clothes and fancy cars to fit in.

It was also advice to Feynman from his wife, “What do you care what other people think?” :-)

I think this should also not be seen as free-reign to be an asshole. I live by a similar creed, but it is more nuanced.

I like to tell my children that they should not care about what other people think about who my children are as people, but that they should comport themselves in society with kindness and sincerity because that is the right way to behave.

Like, I literally could not care any less about what people think about who I am. I am just me, and I am fine with that. But I try, for my own sake, to be trustworthy, honorable, kind, and just.

The problem is when people take this mentality and justify it to act like a total dickbag.

Yes, exactly, you behave properly because it's how you would like to be treated and because it is the right thing to do.

And ideally you behave well independently of whether the other party doesn't.

I always interpret the word "think" in the phrase "Why do you care what other people think?” to mean "Feel free to ignore others' conclusions", and never "Feel free to ignore others' knowledge or data." By all means find out why others think X (if you think there is a reason they are capable of enunciating, and that they might be conscious of it, which is not nec the common case.)

"I don't care what others think" always sounds like a coping mechanism, a last resort, an out-of-balance response to past insecurities and people-pleasing, as evidenced in this comment by dated references to designer clothes and fancy cars.

If I have a boss, shouldn't I worry about what they think of me? If I have a spouse, a partner, a child, shouldn't I worry about what they think of me?

Now, I know, the usual clarification is about "not worrying about what people who are not your spouse, your child, your parent, your boss think about you" or "not changing our habits to fit in." Which, of course, is about as unfair as it gets.

Sure, if I'm invited to a fancy restaurant, I can show up in shorts and espadrilles because "I'm not going to change my comfortable clothes anyway, if they don't like them they can go for a hike," or maybe I could change my ways to fit in because I care what they think of me, not that they boss me around like a dog, but I understand that I live in a society, other people occupy the same space as me, we share what ecologists call a "niche." And I have opinions about other people.

Between being a sheep, a formidable animal by the way, and looking like an obnoxious "I don't care what other people think of me" character, there is a huge space in which one can live a life of independent thought and social awareness. It was called elegance.

> as evidenced in this comment by dated references to designer clothes and fancy cars.

I think you ought to reevaluate your ability to read people from such limited comments and remarks. It’s not as honed as you might think, as evidenced by this comment.

I do not care what other people think about me. I can not control what others think, nor can I ever know it. Instead, I care about the things I can control: how I behave with others, what my relationship is with them, what I think of them, what I do.

I don’t waste my time imagining what others might be thinking about me, because I can’t know. All I can do is listen to what they say, watch what they do, and choose my response accordingly.

Caring about what others think is a fool’s errand because you can never know what they think. And you can’t know if what they say is what they think.

> "I don't care what others think" always sounds like a coping mechanism, a last resort, an out-of-balance response to past insecurities and people-pleasing, as evidenced in this comment by dated references to designer clothes and fancy cars.

You are so far off the mark. You don’t know me. You don’t know what I think. Don’t try to guess.

I'm having trouble seeing where the two of you actually disagree. You're both arguing for a middle approach, what the Greeks would call "moderation"; neither of you care about every detail about what others think, but both of you do track their possible responses in order to fit in at least some of the time in "low cost" situations. Both of you go your own way when the stakes seem higher to you. I think it's more the word-tags you tend to prefer when describing boors that divides you, which is to say, semantics (of a kind.)

I think we pretty much agree (and I thank you for your "moderation"), but I go further. There is a fairly strong correlation between the thoughts and actions of others, including ourselves. I care what others think of me, in part, selfishly, because I care what they do with those thoughts. And yes, sometimes being loved and being feared, just as an example, can cause others to give us money or attention, thus two distant feelings can have the same consequences.

> Be careful whose advice you buy, but be patient with those who supply it. Advice is a form of nostalgia: dispensing it is a way of fishing the past from the disposal, wiping it off, painting over the ugly parts, and recycling it for more than it's worth. But trust me on the sunscreen.

I, like you, grew up with religious parents who tried to equip me with the tools that helped them navigate their lives. As an adult, I try to be extremely skeptical of unsolicited advice, but I absolutely seek advice from people who have been in situations similar to mine.

Baz Lurman!

> Advice is dangerous. It has built in moral hazard. Advice is too often given in well-meaning ignorance and pride - but ultimately advice gets someone else to test your hypothesis for you.

I've become somewhat convinced of "it takes a village to raise a child" thinking on the back of similar observations. It seems to me that it's a horrible thing to do to a child to force them to learn and absorb from only one to two people. Variations between people, even between parents and their children, and between social and economic needs, even over single generational spans, are too great, especially in the modern age. Which is to say nothing of when a child's parents just happen to be broken people. It feels like a travesty that children, such as yourself in your story, aren't given the opportunity to get different perspectives on how to live and be and to benefit from multiple guiding hands.

Marx would be proud of you, alienation from village, extended family etc was a very specific, central concern for him when looking at how capitalism had changed life in his time. He wasn't the only one to recognize this change or be appalled by it, of course.

“Sticks and stones may break your bones, but words can break hearts”

Not to nitpick, but the words have no value. The value comes from what you or me assign to them. Certainly there are things in your past (or mine) that we heard and effectively ignored. But if heard again we'd laugh or cry.

The point is, the meaning we attach to the words are literally in our heads. We determine the worlds they create. It's not the other way around.

Completely disagree. The "heaviness" of an insult is determined by various factors: how much you value the person holding that opinion, how much you want to be accepted, how many rejections you got through... We are not robots that can automatically choose to not care: in the past I was in the stoic camp, red Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, Seneca and so on but now I recognize that that philosophy brought me lots of pain: even if I cannot control something, like others opinion, it doesn't mean that I should not try to change it. Humanity get by by dreaming of something better: being through religion, riches, wisdom and so on; stoicism (and in part meditation) destroyed that impulse to improve.

The insult is a signal that something is wrong in the world, and may require effort and attention, even if you aren't suffering because of the insult.

But no this isn't particularly useful to actual humans who are still (easily) overwhelmed to madness with reactive pain, and the stoics compassion feels like that shown by the (non-hysterical) passengers in that one Airplane! scene [0].

(It occurs to me that expressing cruelty toward those suffering from hysterics is more than mere sadism; it may be a legitimate coping mechanism with their own fear. Focusing the mind on something, even hatefully, can save the hater from their own fear that the world is completely out-of-control.)

0 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNkpIDBtC2c

I'm no philosopher but my understanding is the stoics didn't simply choose not to care, they were selective about what they cared about.

When someone insults you are they responsible for how much you value their opinion? Are they responsible for how much you want to be accepted? Are they responsible for how many rejections you have had in the past?

I don’t think stoicism was applied correctly.

Stoicism is about controlling what you have control over. Chief among this… is our thoughts.

Thoughts matter. How one thinks about things, events, situations that happen to us… matter.

Re-framing and interpreting how one thinks about what happened to us. Is important, for peace of mind.

Cognitive Behavior Therapy is an example of how one can apply stoicism.

I would put it differently.

Stoicism is about realising what you have control over and what you do not. It about acknowledging the agency you have no matter how little it may be.

Even if you have a tendency to be very reactive there is always something you can do to nullify or lessen the impact of an insult.

> We are not robots that can automatically choose to not care:

We are not robots. We are human. And while we cannot be automated, we survived due to our ability to adapt. Where we channel your attention, what we choose to focus on, and what we choose to value *is* something we have control over.

The idea that someone saying something to me and those words control me, my mind, and my world...that's silly.

Your comment is very vague. Words cause an involuntary reaction that cannot be turned off. You cannot stop understanding English at will. You cannot stop being hurt if you're rejected at will. In that sense the statement "words don't hurt" is simply false, and contradicts the direct lived experience of every human on earth (except those who train to not let words get to them, such as lawyers and politicians).

But over decades, almost every human being has far more moderated "involuntary responses" to words. Life trains us that most of the time its better to just move on, and choose our company more carefully, if nothing else.

> Not to nitpick, but the words have no value. The value comes from what you or me assign to them.

I don't think this holds, otherwise every libel suit would be thrown out of court on the basis of "that's what you think it means".

Not to mention that we have dictionaries that record the assigned meanings of words :-)

Libel cases aren’t about having your feelings hurt, it’s about reputation damage. Internal vs external.

Libel suit? Are we all going to court in our minds every day? All day? We're talking about personal experience and personal responsibility.

Words can break hearts when they come from a loved one, or someone you look up to.

Why would what some random person says break your heart?

Because you're fourteen, those randos are your peer group, and you're stuck with them all day. Also, you're fourteen so you haven't quite figured out whose opinions should be important to you, and also you're wildly insecure about your position in your world.

Life is not fair and not a bed of roses, never will be.

These experiences make you tougher - in adult life, you will run into toxic bosses, colleagues, brutal job interviewers...

It is important to have a loving family and/or supportive friends who can provide a different point of reference.

I'm frankly not a fan of hyperstitious social pessimism. Everyone needs to understand that this isn't knowledge, it's justification.

It's justification for being an asshole to people under the guise of 'helping' them. The people who end up believing it are rubes who do the same to others. Making someone tougher is survivorship bias by another name. It fails to account for the people who don't have supportive family members and friends. It's solution to this is saying, "it sucks, but they just couldn't take it," which does nothing to make things even slightly better for the next person. We're left with those who survived.

Funny enough I haven’t encountered bigger a-holes than the bullies in my childhood.

Abuse doesn't actually make people stronger. What helps people become stronger is overcoming adversity. You want people to challenge you and to run into obstacles to overcome, but people who are routinely abused just end up far more likely to have mental disorders later. Nobody is better off or "stronger" for having PTSD.

Toxic bosses, colleagues, brutal job interviewers are no where near as violent or persistent or inescapable as childhood bullies and if those toxic people did half the things kids do to each other they'd be quickly arrested and thrown behind bars.

It’s just a funny twist on a well known saying.

I think you are taking “heart” too narrowly.

School and work place bullying can definitely hurt you even if it is “just words”.

Fascinating. I'm finishing up "Art of Possibility" by R and B Zander. They make a case for not keeping score, and for creating - and believing in - a construct beyond traditional bounds. And then walk through examples.

I'm not doing it justice. And yes, it's a bit abstract. But it might be worth your time.

I think your mother's advice was well-meaning, for sure. I would qualify it as follows:

FOR WHAT OTHERS THINK:

You shouldn't care what most people think of you. Ones that matter: your boss, your spouse, (if you are religious) your Maker.

The others don't get the same weight.

FOR "STICKS AND STONES MAY BREAK MY BONES...":

This one doesn't work. Words can (and do) hurt, and we should be careful what we say to others. But having the framework of the previous piece of advice, helps take the sting out of it if someone says something to you that is harmful/hurtful.

> You shouldn't care what most people think of you. Ones that matter: your boss, your spouse, (if you are religious) your Maker.

I agree, but even those can be limited. I care about my boss' opinion when it comes to my work and what I do while paid.

For a spouse, there are limits as well, hard to think of specific examples, but I guess it depends on the couple.

For my creator, he wouldn't care whether I prefer Angular over React, or .Net over Java. As long as the choice is not made out of malice, for example I pick Rust for a greenfield project with a deadline even though I don't know Rust and hoping to learn it.

Not that I disagree with you, but what does "keeping score" actually mean? I don't understand how it's related to being mean or having "preferences" about people...

My own interpretation: this person said something negative about me. I now like them less and don’t want to spend time with them. That is not okay, because I’m keeping score (remembering their past actions and using it to decide future outcomes) and I’m preferring not to spend time with them.

Combined with the other comments, you’re also not allowed to change your own behavior based on what other people say (sticks and stones, outsider).

Sounds like a coping mechanism for dealing with trauma from a family member. Your parent is horrible to you, but you want a parent to love and be loved by, so you decide keeping score is immoral. You also don’t want to feel responsible and lessen the impact, so you decide words don’t hurt.

It’s horrible advice for a kid. You won’t mold yourself to fit into the group (also called socialization, totally normal and healthy) and you won’t cut ties with people that are awful to you. Maybe you’ll be lucky enough to find another kid who accepts you. Much more likely a bully will latch on.

Oh yikes. Yeah I can see how that would be horrible advice...

"Keeping score" was primarily a charge used by my mother against people who questioned her or charged her with wrong-doing. She used it to avoid responsibility and put the focus on the victim. This mixed with her brand of extreme egalitarianism into a general dictum "it is wrong to dislike people".

This is very poor advice. It's not wrong to dislike people! If you believe it is, then other people are wrong to dislike you. If being wrong is bad than you have no basis to like them, and they are not good people, not worthy of being friends with. Furthermore, that they are not being punished reflects on the failed state of authority (the school teachers and admins). Her advice was untested and didn't take into account basic human social or psychological needs.

I've seen a few psychopathic parents and aduts in action and this fits the pattern awfully well. There are books out there for children of narcissists and psycopaths, might be worth a look. It's tough starting the race to full adulthood when others begin that race far out ahead of you due to a more appropriate upbringing.

Also, advice that works perfectly well for one individual can (for various possible reasons) turn out horrifically bad for some other individual person. Some of the best advice I ever got was from my gran'pa; "Take the advice of others with a grain of salt…" ;~)

Interestingly that is also some of the advice from my parents and I think I am much happier for it.

In my experience, being able to just fly by without thinking too much about others is like traveling light, unencumbered.

Context matters. I don't think it's a good idea to treat advice as if it's given as a statement of absolute truth.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com