Hacker News Reader

Comment by firefoxman1 | Hacker News Reader

1. You as a human have the ability to control your reaction to anything.

2. Any person you deal with is also a human and has the same ability to control their reaction to anything.

Therefore, someone's reaction is 100% their choice, just as it is yours. We all have this ability, few of us exercise it. However, it is not my own fault that someone else doesn't exercise this control.

> "Men are disturbed, not by things, but by the principles and notions which they form concerning things. [...] When therefore we are hindered, or disturbed, or grieved, let us never attribute it to others, but to ourselves; that is, to our own principles. An uninstructed person will lay the fault of his own bad condition upon others."

- Epictetus

View on HN

> 1. You as a human have the ability to control your reaction to anything.

Do you actually have any support for that statement, other than as an article of faith? I am honestly not aware of any scientific evidence for it.

There are a few paradigms I can think of off the top of my head that support it:

-The idea of 'temporary insanity' or 'diminished capacity' in our legal system. When invoked, it normally asserts that a situation was so overwhelming that the subject couldn't react as they normally would. The 'heat of passion' and all that. This implies that generally, we can control our reactions to most things, and uncontrollable reactions are the exception.

-The field of cognitive behavioral therapy, which does has scientific evidence of effectiveness [0], see cites. Perhaps 'control your reaction to anything' is less-than-supported in the case of CBT, but combined with point 1 that should be more than enough to get you started.

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_behavioral_therapy#Ev...

I don't think the law can be submitted as scientific evidence. (One generally hopes the law is informed by scientific evidence, but even that isn't a given.)

Fundamentally, my point was that there's no scientific basis I can imagine for the idea of free-will, in humans or anywhere else. There's simply no physical law that enables it. (It is, of course, an immensely useful fiction, but that's not my point, which was rather that the entire question of "how to behave rationally" seems to rest on an irrational basis.)

That depends greatly on what you mean by free-will.

Leaving aside the conscious choice question, we can certainly say that a person makes a choice about their reaction to stimuli (within the range we're talking about) because the reaction is determined by their makeup - that's not at issue.

However, it is obviously the case that the reaction is based in part on the stimuli, in a fashion that can be somewhat predicted for the individual. The choice of what stimuli to apply, therefore, can give you some measure of control over the reaction even as the ultimate reaction is determined ultimately by the individual.

I can't control having my feelings hurt when people go out of their way to do so. I can't rationalize my way out of it. Sometimes I just have to feel emotions I don't want to feel.

Sure, but the fact that you don't break down crying (or go on a killing spree) when someone goes out of their way to hurt your feelings shows a level of control already.

I think there's a level of practice and analysis that has to happen: someone goes out of their way to make a cutting remark and you can recognize, with practice, that they're manipulating your emotions, or projecting their own feelings, or whatever. And of course some people are more naturally resilient than others.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com