Hacker News Reader

Comment by Aurornis | Hacker News Reader

All of these supposed revelations that companies try to make products that people will use were supposed to empower people to break free from these addictions

Yet anecdotally, these narrative seem to give people more excuses to engage further with their addictions of choice.

I’ve heard so many variations of “It’s not my fault I use so much (Facebook|TikTok|Reddit), don’t you know they have people employed to make them addictive!?”

The people I know who best moderate their usage are the ones who own their own choices, not the ones who blame everything on corporations.

View on HN

In our modern society, everyone is a victim and it's always someone else's fault. My opinion that people in America do have choices and their lives are the sum of those choices inevitably elicits a lot of rather angry responses.

All the people I've gotten to know over the years are all where they are as a result of their choices.

The interesting thing about deciding to own your choices is it's empowering - you can choose to change your life. The victims, however, have unpowered themselves, and thus remain forever hapless victims.

For example:

1. Live in a bad location? Move

2. Uneducated? Education is free over the internet

3. Weak? Exercise

4. Overweight? Eat less

5. Drug addicted? Treatment is available

6. Criminal record? Start your own business

7. Unhappy with your finances? Learn how to invest

8. Your friends drag you down? Discard them

9. Hate your boss? Quit and get another job

And so on. None of this is easy. It will take effort. It's up to you.

I agree to some extent that people can control their situation with choices, but I would like to push back on a few of those examples as I think it's a little disingenuous to say everyone can simply make choices in our society and do better. For example, living in a bad location also often means one would have limited options for work, which limits their income and prevents them from being able to just move out of that situation. Limited free time from working multiple low-paying part- or even full-time jobs to support oneself or others can make paths to gaining more education, whether free or not, just not feasible. Good luck getting a somewhat reasonable SBA loan with a criminal record! I know you are giving very simple examples, but many of them fail to account for the situation one would be in to require improving the situation. In theory, yes, I agree, there are ways out of bad situations simply by taking the correct steps, but those paths out may just not be open for people in the very situations where they might most benefit.

I've seen many truly impoverished areas of the United States (large swathes of West Virginia primarily come to mind, no offense to the West Virginians on here) where these paths are not tenable. Many of these areas straight up don't have regular internet access. These whole regions are lacking in education and options for mobility are severely restricted. I simply do not believe it is because everyone in that area has decided they just don't want to do better for themselves, but that there are systemic problems preventing these people from being able to take these steps.

> move

Allow me to point out the millions of immigrants that walk across a continent to try and slip over the border into America. The ones that make it rarely have more than the clothes on their back.

Yet they moved away from a bad situation to a better one, and have made it to every corner of the country.

> but that there are systemic problems preventing these people from being able to take these steps.

Nobody there has their feet nailed to the ground.

> Allow me to point out the millions of immigrants that walk across a continent to try and slip over the border into America.

Sure, but even when they get to America, unless they already have some degree of monetary means, a large portion of those immigrants will end up stuck in low-paying, high-labor jobs, often in agriculture and heavy industry, without savings or means to move elsewhere for years. Those paths to better work, education, or location once in America are not going to be open to them as they will have no resources to draw upon. Not being a citizen also can be severely restricting. Most mobility is not seen for one or more generations and many immigrants simply remain in deep poverty indefinitely. Immigration is not a silver bullet to a great life, even if an immigrant does everything correctly. Would you say they get stuck here of their own volition after risking their lives and the lives of their families to get to America, or that it is systemically hard for an immigrant to rise out of poverty in America?

> Nobody there has their feet nailed to the ground.

I am trying to highlight that moving, especially to a higher cost of living area, is expensive and people risk being homeless for a non-trivial amount of time at an often slim chance of doing better. That can be very dangerous for a myriad of reasons and I imagine a risk that is simply too great for most, even if they are willing to do difficult things to do better. I would argue that this is not their fault for simply being born in an area with poor wages, education, and support systems, but that the area they originally lived in has a more systemic issue preventing mobility.

I made the acquaintance of an Afghan refugee who got out with nothing but his skin a couple years ago. He was operating a thriving car service. I had little doubt he'd be a millionaire soon.

> this is not their fault for simply being born in an area

I never said it was their fault for where they were born. But once they are legal adults, they can move.

> especially to a higher cost of living area

Seattle being a high cost of living has completely failed at preventing thousands of homeless people from arriving.

> or means to move elsewhere

They had zero means to move here other than their feet. They can move elsewhere.

> or that it is systemically hard for an immigrant to rise out of poverty in America?

If people constantly tell them they cannot, quite a few will believe it. Have you ever done anything that everyone told you you could not do?

> I made the acquaintance of an Afghan refugee who got out with nothing but his skin a couple years ago. He was operating a thriving car service. I had little doubt he'd be a millionaire soon.

A bit too "n = 1" there. What do the statistics of Afghan immigrants in your country in general show? Do they support your overall argument?

I know two others, from two other countries, who came here with nothing but a suitcase and are now millionaires.

So "n = 3". I enquired as to broad geographic statistics, not anecdotal evidence.

You are not wrong. Part of why I’m a huge fan of immigration, is that the numbers show that every major wave of immigration the US has encountered led to massive GDP growth. Immigrants tend to be net savers.

But, I believe it’s important to make immigration a little hard. Why? because it acts as a filter, that ensures that more capable immigrants are more likely to make it through.

I say this, because correlation is not causation. The people who are able to emigrate are more likely to be successful immigrants. So please be a little careful with confirmation bias. I tend to agree that moving out of a bad situation is a very good idea. I also know sometimes a bad situation is something you have to deal with. Some people really do have obligations that keep them tied to a location, often in the form of family (and I say this as a believer in dropping toxic family members).

Everything is easy if you trivialise it enough. This is why self-help books are America's #1 genre and literary export.

Real life, on the other hand, is a tad more complicated. The rule of thumb is don't waste time with people that think they have all the answers. Either they're lying to you, hopelessly naive, or have no real life experience.

> Drug addicted? Treatment is available

> Criminal record? Start your own business

> Unhappy with your finances? Learn how to invest

I mean, seriously? You forgot "poor? Become rich."

I’ve been following the poverty finance subreddit recently. One thing that stood out to me recently was how often people who know they’re poor “waste money” on things that I would never spend money on. And the threads around it all seem to come down to some variant on this is my one luxury without it I might slit my wrists. Not all the sentiments are this extreme but I think it points to something in the human condition. Being poor is hard, and if there is nothing to look forward to, like what’s the point? It’s easy to ignore morale as a need, like sleeping and eating, but it’s there. And sometimes it’s more important to fill this need than to increase your savings rate by a negligible amount.

I specifically wrote it wasn't easy.

The "it isn't easy" is the bloody important part that none of your slogans touch upon, so they're not even worth the memory they're stored in. There is no insight to be gained from any of them.

Or do you truly believe that people with hardship in their lives are so hopelessly stupid that they don't know they will have to put some effort, instead of sitting around crying over themselves? Come on now.

> Or do you truly believe that people with hardship in their lives are so hopelessly stupid that they don't know they will have to put some effort, instead of sitting around crying over themselves? Come on now.

I don't think that's what Bright said. Unless you're the type of person to say never take risks, because chances are you'll fail. If the world was filled to the brim with that type, then what's the point in living?

Don't tell me you actually believe in that.

> that they don't know they will have to put some effort

I wrote that because the usual responses I get are that it isn't easy. Thought I'd deal with that up front.

My dad used to tell me I wasn't afraid of hard work. I could lie down right next to it and go to sleep.

Responsibility does not mutually exclude. I'm a bit disappointed in a compiler engineer not being alive to the logic of that. So many political arguments (in both directions) based on this bogus reasoning, that A can affect an outcome, so therefore B who exerts influence on it has no responsibility. Doesn't work that way.

Since you brought up compiler engineer :-), I'll share that at the outset 100% of my colleagues and friends all said I had zero chance of succeeding writing compilers. They literally laughed, and it was a running joke among among them. The only person who believed in me was my dad, and he had no idea what I was trying to do.

I chose the path. Everyone tried to kick me off that path. I could have easily stayed with my nice, safe, corporate job at Boeing. Lots and lots of people do.

Influence should not be conflated with force. If someone put a gun to my head, I'd probably do whatever they ask. In fact, I have. Twice. That's force. It's a heluva lot different from mere influence.

Humans have a limited amount of willpower. The average person can handle addressing a couple of these issues, but some people (especially the poor and the ill) have so many simultaneous issues that their willpower is too divided for them to make meaningful headway.

> ill

I usually preface my comments on this topic with legal adults of sound mind and body.

> poor

The millions walking over the border have nothing, but they see opportunity in the US.

I think you have a quite limited understanding of the funds and planning that go into crossing the border, and also how effectively people who make that crossing solve other issues in their lives.

My brother-in-law's family crossed the border illegally out of dire necessity. However, they still have many others issues (managing money, working for awful bosses, living in crappy housing, family in-fighting, unhappy marriage, etc.) that they have struggled to fix. Some of these issues are so bad that it has led my brother-in-law to distance himself from some of them.

So yes, they did a really hard thing to solve an extremely pressing problem, but it does not mean they have solved all of their problems. There is only so much one person can do to fix their life when there are many things wrong with it. They can usually only prioritize a couple of things.

> I think you have a quite limited understanding of the funds and planning that go into crossing the border, and also how effectively people who make that crossing solve other issues in their lives.

And yet they managed to do it. They could and did move to where there's more opportunity.

> but it does not mean they have solved all of their problems

Nobody solves all their problems. But they can prioritize, make a plan, and knock them down one at a time. Success isn't instant, either.

Or do nothing and remain a victim.

America was populated by Europeans arriving here with nothing. They worked their way into the middle class and the rich. The American West was populated by people walking across the continent. It's still happening today. People have choices.

Then let me reiterate my original comment, because I don't understand your argument against it:

>Humans have a limited amount of willpower. The average person can handle addressing a couple of these issues, but some people (especially the poor and the ill) have so many simultaneous issues that their willpower is too divided for them to make meaningful headway.

I also want to mention (again) that immigrating long distances or across closed borders is not free. It's actually very expensive, and often more expensive when done illegally (since those helping you are assuming a personal risk). It is not something that poor people can do. Someone might make themselves poor doing it, but that doesn't mean that they started with nothing.

Ah yes, people just stopped taking personal responsibility these last forty years, resulting in an obesity epidemic and mass addiction to phones and social media. Makes total sense. Just have some more willpower!

These are not mutually exclusive choices.

I own my choices, AND I blame the corps for a LOT of the damage done in the world today, especially loss of attention span.

More guns in slack jawed drunk idiot's hands --> more shooting

More eye candy apps in people's hands --> more slack jawed idiots

People can only "choose" among the choices in front of them, and most people choose not based on what's going to be best for them, but on "what's popular".

For discussion's sake, let's just call this phenomenon "monkey brain".

The fact is that 1st world IQ is in decline because an increasing amount of the population can't pay attention.

I personally don't buy the argument that it's genetic. It seems quite clear this phenomenon is being driven by social norms.

In the words of Jack Sparrow, "Me? I'm dishonest, and a dishonest man you can always trust to be dishonest."

You can always trust a corporation to be a corporation. These days I'm frankly more surprised when I'm not screwed over.

I tend to have a view somewhat similar to this IMO.

My way of managing this stuff has been to straight up block the worst offending services on all my devices (Facebook, Twitter), and use tools to restrict the amount of time I can access the others that I know steal my attention, but i've consciously decided I get enough value from to make a small amount of theft worth it (reddit, hacker news, etc).

I get 15 minutes a day on Reddit and HN (each), but all "traditional" social networks are flat out blocked.

It's exactly the same style I would use if I had a traditional addiction I was trying to manage. Use tools to make it impossible to access the things that feed the addiction the worst, and other tools to force moderation with the things that make my life a bit better/more interesting, but could lead to slippery slopes.

> The people I know who best moderate their usage are the ones who own their own choices

Strikes me that this is true of any addiction.

Not just addictions. The kids I have coached that have the worst behavior always blame their mistakes and behavior on anything but themselves. Zero personal responsibily.

Agreed, the words personal responsibility are frowned upon nowadays since our priority is comfort and 0 judgement. You can choose whether to believe you are in control or choose not to. If you choose not to dont be surprised when you fail to achieve your goals.

Ah yes just choose it. Like you can just choose to be rich. Just do X or Y! Easy!

Good god, so many people here are basically being manifestation coaches. “Just believe you are rich and the universe will make sure you are!”.

> Like you can just choose to be rich. Just do X or Y!

The argument is in opposition to “just lie down and take it and whine about it on the internet”.

So you want to be rich but are not, you can either try to do things that will make you rich or just do nothing. One has a non zero chance at success and the other has zero chance at success

Also i get its not easy. Ive struggled with it myself and have been diagnosed with adhd and was only really able to live to my own standard after being medicated.

And im fine with living with cognitive dissonance around free will and such because i know this path will lead to me living a happier more fulfilling life.

Thesis just kids in general. They'll grow out of it or they won't.

The vast majority of heavy social media users don't meet the clinical definition of being addicts. Many of them have other mental conditions such as depression, anxiety, or neuroticism. But it's not particularly helpful to compare Instagram to nicotine or opioids.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com