Hacker News Reader

Comment by ionyun | Hacker News Reader

The thinking that goes into things like new years resolutions is also part of a greater ideology though. That in itself dismisses fundamental changes for unrealistic scenarios. That you don't need good housing, working conditions or health care because with this one business, diet or lifestyle trick you will beat the odds. In many countries the majority now are overweight or obese in their sixties. Despite more knowledge, method and products than ever. And that is counting all the outliers who just don't eat much or are very active.

There is nothing wrong with a new years resolution but you have to take it for what it is. Actually getting fitter, eating better and losing weight is a multiple year commitment at least. If it is hard for any extended period of time the likelihood of success is low.

View on HN

The stereotypical buy-a-gym-membership-use-it-once resolution doesn't encompass the whole of the thing.

Another line of thinking that goes into things like New Years' resolutions is the idea that significant change can only be intentionally and effectively made in a long series of tiny steps. The OP discusses the dual of this idea but misses the main thing:

> The reality is that if you are going to do something that's really difficult, like changing your whole approach to eating, you are likely to either fail, or to accumulate the kind of micro-failures over time that erode your motivation, death by a thousand cuts.

The flip side here is that overall progress is composed of micro-successes over time that build your motivation.

>buy-a-gym-membership-use-it-once resolution d

I've kinda got a hypothesis on this... see in the cold of winter, going to the gym is a great idea. But as spring comes around, you want to be outside - maybe even hiking, biking, etc, IE: being physically active. Then the kids are home all summer and you get distracted with family activities. Then the kids go back to school but you are out of routine going to the gym and it takes a while to get back into the pattern.

My point is, I think we all jump to this idea that the person who stops going to the gym is being lazy, whereas I think a lot of it has to do with patterns of behavior and "externalities."

And yet, success is higher when others support and reinforce.

So don't use statistics as an excuse to be a dick.

And obviously, success is higher when selecting a strategy more likely to succeed.

For my money I'm going to expose the person to a better strategy rather than supporting and reinforcing a clearly bad one.

But it's not clear at all. So maybe back off the take downs until you have better data.

+1. Using statistics about a population to make determinations about a specific outcome is often fallacious anyway. “70% of businesses fail” might sound like it is a bad idea to start one, but of course every business succeeds or fails on its own specific merits.

"because with this one business, diet, or lifestyle trick you will beat the odds."

stares awkwardly at the Bottle of Ozempic in the corner

I don't really know about Ozempic in detail, but from my viewpoint it is two-sided. On the one hand it doesn't solve the fundamental problem. On the other it does, presumably, make it easier. Therefor you don't have to beat the odds. Compared to most other ways of losing weight which makes things harder while not addressing gaining weight in the long run.

With all due respect, your opinion is misinformed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com