Charlie Munger – Feeling Like a Victim Is Perfectly Disastrous(butwhatfor.com)
butwhatfor.com
Charlie Munger – Feeling Like a Victim Is Perfectly Disastrous
https://www.butwhatfor.com/p/takeaway-tuesday-facing-adversity-charlie-munger
244 comments
This reminds me of something a friend said that's stuck with me for ~30 years: 'The bad news about taking responsibility is now it's your fault. The good news about taking responsibility is now you can do something about it.'
Taking extreme ownership of things might make you feel very uncomfortable while starting, but its makes things a lot more easier as they go, because you are for better or worse in control.
You either way in control, you just wish to not exercise it if you don't take extreme ownership of things.
Reminded of two things while we are at it. Sam Altman, once told this in a class - Its easier to start a hard company, than to start an easy company. Then something I heard on Joe Rogan- The more you indulge yourself in doing hard uncomfortable things, the more easier and content it gets as it goes. Its the people who do the easy things that end up bad.
“Tom, don't let anybody kid you. It's all personal, every bit of business. Every piece of shit every man has to eat every day of his life is personal. They call it business. OK. But it's personal as hell. You know where I learned that from? The Don. My old man. The Godfather. If a bolt of lightning hit a friend of his the old man would take it personal. He took my going into the Marines personal. That's what makes him great. The Great Don. He takes everything personal Like God. He knows every feather that falls from the tail of a sparrow or however the hell it goes? Right? And you know something? Accidents don't happen to people who take accidents as a personal insult.” ― Mario Puzo, The Godfather
One of the greatest pieces I’ve read on extreme ownership.
You either way in control, you just wish to not exercise it if you don't take extreme ownership of things.
Reminded of two things while we are at it. Sam Altman, once told this in a class - Its easier to start a hard company, than to start an easy company. Then something I heard on Joe Rogan- The more you indulge yourself in doing hard uncomfortable things, the more easier and content it gets as it goes. Its the people who do the easy things that end up bad.
“Tom, don't let anybody kid you. It's all personal, every bit of business. Every piece of shit every man has to eat every day of his life is personal. They call it business. OK. But it's personal as hell. You know where I learned that from? The Don. My old man. The Godfather. If a bolt of lightning hit a friend of his the old man would take it personal. He took my going into the Marines personal. That's what makes him great. The Great Don. He takes everything personal Like God. He knows every feather that falls from the tail of a sparrow or however the hell it goes? Right? And you know something? Accidents don't happen to people who take accidents as a personal insult.” ― Mario Puzo, The Godfather
One of the greatest pieces I’ve read on extreme ownership.
Similar things I've heard:
Just because something isn't your fault doesn't mean it's not your responsibility.
Hardship is a guarantee; victimhood is a choice.
If you see a piece of trash, you can think that people are terrible for littering, or you can pick it up. It only takes a small percentage of people littering to destroy an environment but it also only takes a small percentage of people to clean it up.
Just because something isn't your fault doesn't mean it's not your responsibility.
Hardship is a guarantee; victimhood is a choice.
If you see a piece of trash, you can think that people are terrible for littering, or you can pick it up. It only takes a small percentage of people littering to destroy an environment but it also only takes a small percentage of people to clean it up.
My mother passed away from cancer when I was 11. Originally when she learned she was terminal, she thought it might be a good idea for me to attend support sessions with the school counselor. Unfortunately in this case, the counselor wasn’t that great at their job, and I came home from school talking about how I was “anxious” and “depressed”—words I had never used before. My mother pulled me out of counseling and told my father, “I didn’t put him in there to feel sorry for himself about the situation.”
She also told my sister and I before she passed to never use her death as an excuse to go through life miserable and sad—there were too many things to be happy about and we should give life purpose.
So I agree with the gist of Charlie’s idea of acting like you aren’t a victim even if you do happen to be one.
That said... I also think that due to either genetic predisposition or extreme environmental factors, there are rare cases where trying to take a positive attitude does not help and can in fact make things worse. Trying to use sheer force of will to “power through” certain situations may lead one to ignore other options (medication for example) and the build-up of a series of continuous failures to “think positively” may result in even worse outcomes where erratic or irreversible decisions are made during an irrational state of mind. I’m not suggesting self-pity, but rather the recognition that there are just some situations you can’t put a positive spin on and it is probably better not to try.
She also told my sister and I before she passed to never use her death as an excuse to go through life miserable and sad—there were too many things to be happy about and we should give life purpose.
So I agree with the gist of Charlie’s idea of acting like you aren’t a victim even if you do happen to be one.
That said... I also think that due to either genetic predisposition or extreme environmental factors, there are rare cases where trying to take a positive attitude does not help and can in fact make things worse. Trying to use sheer force of will to “power through” certain situations may lead one to ignore other options (medication for example) and the build-up of a series of continuous failures to “think positively” may result in even worse outcomes where erratic or irreversible decisions are made during an irrational state of mind. I’m not suggesting self-pity, but rather the recognition that there are just some situations you can’t put a positive spin on and it is probably better not to try.
> other options (medication for example)
I would just add (your 11 y/o experience notwithstanding) that psychotherapy is a viable, and often preferable option for many. The fitness between therapist and client if definitely a key variable; but my experience with therapy vs meds has dramatically favoured the former.
Agree that there are situations with no positive spin in the moment and maybe there will never be a positive spin; but maybe there’s a _growth-oriented_ spin. Eventually.
I would just add (your 11 y/o experience notwithstanding) that psychotherapy is a viable, and often preferable option for many. The fitness between therapist and client if definitely a key variable; but my experience with therapy vs meds has dramatically favoured the former.
Agree that there are situations with no positive spin in the moment and maybe there will never be a positive spin; but maybe there’s a _growth-oriented_ spin. Eventually.
Thanks for sharing this. You’ve articulated a nuanced balance very well.
This is true.
It is also true that dispensing this particular advice is self-serving for people in power.
In a revolution, things get worse before they get better if they get better. Revolutions come at huge negative expected value. However, appeasing powerful forces can also have hugely negative expected value. Sometimes the calculus makes sense, and when it does, you should hope that people are appropriately discounting the self-serving advice from the powerful.
It is also true that dispensing this particular advice is self-serving for people in power.
In a revolution, things get worse before they get better if they get better. Revolutions come at huge negative expected value. However, appeasing powerful forces can also have hugely negative expected value. Sometimes the calculus makes sense, and when it does, you should hope that people are appropriately discounting the self-serving advice from the powerful.
I think it's more self-serving for those in power to encourage a culture of victimhood, where they set themselves up as the saviors.
This is a standard political gambit: create or identify a group of victims, and declare that you will get "payback" for them and make their situation better. Of course you don't, but that's OK, you got their votes and you just recycle and amplify that play next time.
This is a standard political gambit: create or identify a group of victims, and declare that you will get "payback" for them and make their situation better. Of course you don't, but that's OK, you got their votes and you just recycle and amplify that play next time.
those exploiting power have no interest in becoming "saviors". trying to appear as one does not last long as victims as in human nature soon looks for someone to blame- often the most visible
Becoming saviors is not a perfect strategy (is there one). It's still used by a lot of those exploiting power. Not all of them are perfect or know the perfect way to exploit power. They make mistakes and sometimes when their mistakes in strategy accumulate, they end up on pitchforks.
Sure, co-opting a revolution is a common and effective tactic, but so is "fall in line" (or "don't worry about it" or "focus on yourself" -- all identical from a political action perspective). Revolutions can be actually revolutionary. Often they are not, but they can be. "Fall in line" can never be revolutionary.
If this was the universal(or even most common) outcome of people organizing against sources of suffering in their lives, we'd still be living in stone age city states. The process you describe has time and again led to net-positive outcomes. "It has to work 100% of the time or it's not worth doing" isn't a standard we apply anywhere else.
If by "the process you describe" you mean widespread violence and upheaval, then that is pretty much backwards. The Yanomamo are merely one among countless examples of societies that are "stuck in the stone age" due to recurring violence, with tribesfolk fighting to gain control over resources and women. Human development has occurred historically via gradual change, working to subtly shift existing social arrangements over time rather than fighting them outright.
The Nazis and Bolshevik’s both swept into power and cemented their power by expertly portraying themselves and their supporters as victims. Somebody convincing themselves and those around them that they are victims can be utterly and totally disconnected from actual victimhood. Victimhood can even be manufactured to create a Casus Belli.
Throw a rock in any hall of power and you won’t be able to help but hit several victims before it hits the floor. Powerful people who accept responsibility for the bad things that happen in the world and blame themselves? Just about the rarest sight one will ever see.
For this reason, I see victimhood as the friend of power, not the foe, as victimhood is basically a universal all purpose justification to do whatever you wanted to do with your power anyways. Actual victims who are powerless usually get fuck all benefit from portraying themselves as victims because they’re actually victims so they’re socially disadvantaged.
Throw a rock in any hall of power and you won’t be able to help but hit several victims before it hits the floor. Powerful people who accept responsibility for the bad things that happen in the world and blame themselves? Just about the rarest sight one will ever see.
For this reason, I see victimhood as the friend of power, not the foe, as victimhood is basically a universal all purpose justification to do whatever you wanted to do with your power anyways. Actual victims who are powerless usually get fuck all benefit from portraying themselves as victims because they’re actually victims so they’re socially disadvantaged.
Eh, a revolution happens when people take responsibility and do something. Tyranny happens when people behave as and think like victims.
I always interpreted this statement as "Don't feel like a victim", not "Don't feel like a victim." It's not an exhortation to suck it up and ignore everything wrong with your life, it's an exhortation to go do something about it. If you feel like conditions are honestly bad enough that a revolution is necessary, go revolt, don't sit there on Hacker News or Reddit complaining about how bad conditions are. If Coke is making you fat and being fat is making you unhappy, stop drinking Coke.
This framing isn't self-serving at all; if more people took it, there'd be a lot fewer folks that the rich and powerful could take advantage of, and a lot more power centers.
But curiously, I've noticed that many people who are powerful and ruthless also have a certain respect for people who will put up clear boundaries and take action to not be taken advantage of by them. It's like they're reluctant sociopaths. "As long as stupid and helpless people exist, they will be taken advantage of by someone, so that someone might as well but me." But it's almost like many of them wish there weren't so many stupid and helpless people, and respect folks who go after what they want even if what they want isn't aligned with their own vision.
This framing isn't self-serving at all; if more people took it, there'd be a lot fewer folks that the rich and powerful could take advantage of, and a lot more power centers.
But curiously, I've noticed that many people who are powerful and ruthless also have a certain respect for people who will put up clear boundaries and take action to not be taken advantage of by them. It's like they're reluctant sociopaths. "As long as stupid and helpless people exist, they will be taken advantage of by someone, so that someone might as well but me." But it's almost like many of them wish there weren't so many stupid and helpless people, and respect folks who go after what they want even if what they want isn't aligned with their own vision.
Ironically, revolutionaries and unionists would perfectly follow Munger's advice here: Don't wallow in misery, organise to change the circumstances that lead to it.
Though I'm pretty certain the he didn't have that kind of change in mind when giving this advice.
Though I'm pretty certain the he didn't have that kind of change in mind when giving this advice.
So you shouldn’t work hard because it benefits the people in power?
That mentality seems pretty self-destructive. It’s dumb to not at least try to impress the people who pay you. That doesn’t mean you can’t also take it easy and strike a healthy balance, but just outright saying society and work are bullshit seems insane when we have such a wealth of resources readily available to us.
That mentality seems pretty self-destructive. It’s dumb to not at least try to impress the people who pay you. That doesn’t mean you can’t also take it easy and strike a healthy balance, but just outright saying society and work are bullshit seems insane when we have such a wealth of resources readily available to us.
> It is also true that dispensing this particular advice is self-serving for people in power.
Most people in power will go out of power via something other than violent revolution. In fact, the whole notion of "elite overproduction" is basically about pointing out the fact that a lot more people aspire to be in power than are actually in power at any given moment. It's an endless game of musical chairs, and if you can avoid playing that particular game you'll be a lot better off on average.
Most people in power will go out of power via something other than violent revolution. In fact, the whole notion of "elite overproduction" is basically about pointing out the fact that a lot more people aspire to be in power than are actually in power at any given moment. It's an endless game of musical chairs, and if you can avoid playing that particular game you'll be a lot better off on average.
Well I’ve thought about this as a theoretically measurable point after learning about it through sociology texts.
The 'Outrage Factor' is like a measure of how strongly people feel about something and whether they will move into action because of it.
Imagine if you heard news about a big problem – how mad or upset it makes you and others is the 'Outrage Factor.' It's like when you find out someone did something really unfair, and it makes you really angry, especially if it feels unfair, arbitrary or imposed by an unpopular central power, etc.
While it’s certainly true that people in charge generally only say things that keep them in charge, a la the status quo always moves to reinforce its own existence, individuals in power vary a lot in their strategies for staying in power. Some may prioritize transparency and addressing concerns directly, while others may navigate communication or be blatantly manipulating to maintain ‘stability.’
The relationship between power, communication, and outrage factors is complex and influenced by various factors such as societal expectations, political climates, and individual leadership styles. A ‘revolution’ isn’t one thing — it’s all of those things combined and more.
I mean to raise the point that things are frequently much more complicated and simply discounting the advice doesn’t take into account the person saying it, their history of speaking the truth, and what room it was said in.
Obviously the modern world is filled with examples of what you are talking about, so please don’t think I’m trying to counterpoint you — that’s not my intention.
I’m trying to add to the discussion the idea of the ‘outrage factor’ as well as the various styles and politics of who is speaking, because its so very difficult to discern anyone speaking in your best interest (assuming they exist) from the sea of those who most certainly are not and that’s worth considering.
It is also interesting that psychology, sociology and other sciences all have this measurement concept for when people will get pissed off enough to actually take action — with the presumption being that the vast majority of the time, until the tipping point that is an ‘outrage factor,’ they will not. I wonder how well studied and engineered that factor is in modern societies, because I assume it’s very studied, and I also wonder what the impact of broadly deployed AI will be for leadership groups will look like give the obvious benefit of learning to manage this measurement.
The 'Outrage Factor' is like a measure of how strongly people feel about something and whether they will move into action because of it.
Imagine if you heard news about a big problem – how mad or upset it makes you and others is the 'Outrage Factor.' It's like when you find out someone did something really unfair, and it makes you really angry, especially if it feels unfair, arbitrary or imposed by an unpopular central power, etc.
While it’s certainly true that people in charge generally only say things that keep them in charge, a la the status quo always moves to reinforce its own existence, individuals in power vary a lot in their strategies for staying in power. Some may prioritize transparency and addressing concerns directly, while others may navigate communication or be blatantly manipulating to maintain ‘stability.’
The relationship between power, communication, and outrage factors is complex and influenced by various factors such as societal expectations, political climates, and individual leadership styles. A ‘revolution’ isn’t one thing — it’s all of those things combined and more.
I mean to raise the point that things are frequently much more complicated and simply discounting the advice doesn’t take into account the person saying it, their history of speaking the truth, and what room it was said in.
Obviously the modern world is filled with examples of what you are talking about, so please don’t think I’m trying to counterpoint you — that’s not my intention.
I’m trying to add to the discussion the idea of the ‘outrage factor’ as well as the various styles and politics of who is speaking, because its so very difficult to discern anyone speaking in your best interest (assuming they exist) from the sea of those who most certainly are not and that’s worth considering.
It is also interesting that psychology, sociology and other sciences all have this measurement concept for when people will get pissed off enough to actually take action — with the presumption being that the vast majority of the time, until the tipping point that is an ‘outrage factor,’ they will not. I wonder how well studied and engineered that factor is in modern societies, because I assume it’s very studied, and I also wonder what the impact of broadly deployed AI will be for leadership groups will look like give the obvious benefit of learning to manage this measurement.
Personally, thinking "it's always your fault" is as not nearly as important as thinking "I am the only one who can do anything (or cares) to make this better."
Misfortune isn't always our fault. How we respond to it is.
Misfortune isn't always our fault. How we respond to it is.
Yup. I heard once a great way of putting it:
It may or may not be your fault, but it is now your problem to fix.
Whether it's a problem you made so can fix by adjusting your attitude/behavior/skills/etc., or a problem that someone else made, or the universe made, and requires some other fix, focusing not on how things got worse, and actually focusing on how to make things better, is the only way to make things better.
It may or may not be your fault, but it is now your problem to fix.
Whether it's a problem you made so can fix by adjusting your attitude/behavior/skills/etc., or a problem that someone else made, or the universe made, and requires some other fix, focusing not on how things got worse, and actually focusing on how to make things better, is the only way to make things better.
The "your fault" part of the quote isn't something I take literally, just a pithy way of saying what you said in your post - that I'm the only one who's going to take responsibility for making it better. I also often remember a quote from Unsong - "somebody has to, and no one else will".
I will say, though, that often things I don't like in my life _are_ my fault, and being willing to honestly assess those things is an important razor to cut through the bullshit of self pity.
It's a quote best taken with a slight grain of salt, a lens for looking at a problem which you might not always want to wear. But I like it.
I will say, though, that often things I don't like in my life _are_ my fault, and being willing to honestly assess those things is an important razor to cut through the bullshit of self pity.
It's a quote best taken with a slight grain of salt, a lens for looking at a problem which you might not always want to wear. But I like it.
It can also go the other way and something I often have to consciously work against:
You can't always try to make everything better that you become aware of. You can't fix everything. Not everything is your problem to solve. In fact, some (important) people may not like it if you try to solve said problem.
I very much have to make myself stay out of solving everything and just let others take care of it. Especially since I very much don't like other people I see that encounter the slightest problem and they just throw up their hands screaming "I don't know what to do so I'll just stand here and do nothing while someone else solves it". So it's quite the balancing act. Those people need to do more "my fault, I'll solve it" and I need to do more "not my business, let them solve it but secretly keep an eye on it to ensure that it does get done in the end coz it's actually important".
You can't always try to make everything better that you become aware of. You can't fix everything. Not everything is your problem to solve. In fact, some (important) people may not like it if you try to solve said problem.
I very much have to make myself stay out of solving everything and just let others take care of it. Especially since I very much don't like other people I see that encounter the slightest problem and they just throw up their hands screaming "I don't know what to do so I'll just stand here and do nothing while someone else solves it". So it's quite the balancing act. Those people need to do more "my fault, I'll solve it" and I need to do more "not my business, let them solve it but secretly keep an eye on it to ensure that it does get done in the end coz it's actually important".
> Misfortune isn't always our fault. How we respond to it is.
In the motorcycling world we like to say "The cemetery is full of people who had right of way"
In the motorcycling world we like to say "The cemetery is full of people who had right of way"
Somewhat the height of survivorship bias. There are a many number of people that don't adopt a victim mentality, work hard, and try to get ahead and just don't. For every Charlie Munger there are tons of working poor that get up everyday, work hard for minimum wage, then go off to their second job.
My entire childhood I watched both my parents, who both had 2 jobs, work themselves non-stop to try to provide for us. They didn't drink or do drugs or consider themselves victims, and it didn't help one bit.
Asking the man who wins the lottery how to live a good life and be successful often ends up with them telling you to do whatever it is that they did. It might even be good advice, but it's a ridiculous appeal to authority. Charlie Munger got all this success and he did X, ok, did other people do X and not achieve this level of success? How many people did not-X and were perfectly successful?
It's subjective finger wagging dressed up in more appealing clothing for those that already agree with the opinions to point at and be happy about. Because at the end of the day, it allows us to blame people's misfortune on them, they've adopted a victim mentality and that's why their lives aren't working out. It allows the class that has the vast majority of wealth to deflect any critical examination of the power structure that perpetuates this state. You aren't underpaid, you just have adopted a victim mindset. You aren't exploited, you just haven't found a way to turn the challenge of paying your rent into riches yet.
My entire childhood I watched both my parents, who both had 2 jobs, work themselves non-stop to try to provide for us. They didn't drink or do drugs or consider themselves victims, and it didn't help one bit.
Asking the man who wins the lottery how to live a good life and be successful often ends up with them telling you to do whatever it is that they did. It might even be good advice, but it's a ridiculous appeal to authority. Charlie Munger got all this success and he did X, ok, did other people do X and not achieve this level of success? How many people did not-X and were perfectly successful?
It's subjective finger wagging dressed up in more appealing clothing for those that already agree with the opinions to point at and be happy about. Because at the end of the day, it allows us to blame people's misfortune on them, they've adopted a victim mentality and that's why their lives aren't working out. It allows the class that has the vast majority of wealth to deflect any critical examination of the power structure that perpetuates this state. You aren't underpaid, you just have adopted a victim mindset. You aren't exploited, you just haven't found a way to turn the challenge of paying your rent into riches yet.
Sorry, I have to counter you. Because someone close to me has always been about countering survivorship bias. And they have absolutely ruined their life. It's an easy out that people who are sharing their successes with you and the world have a survivorship bias. This is a fairly recent idea and quite a poison in itself.
What it actually preaches is don't look and emulate the successful people in your environment and society as this is all based on luck. Can't disagree more
What it actually preaches is don't look and emulate the successful people in your environment and society as this is all based on luck. Can't disagree more
It's not all luck at all, but luck is critical.
Skill and hard work are what buy you the lottery ticket. Luck is what determines if the ticket pays or not. That's why almost all successful people have a string of failures behind them, and why the truism "you've only really failed when you stop trying" exists.
However, you can have skill and put in hard work and still never have the success you're seeking. It happens all the time.
Although much of this depends on how you define "success". I'm assuming here that it means monetary gain, but most people don't have "get rich" as their measure of success. In reality, success is being able to live a life that provides satisfaction and happiness. That's an easier thing to achieve.
Skill and hard work are what buy you the lottery ticket. Luck is what determines if the ticket pays or not. That's why almost all successful people have a string of failures behind them, and why the truism "you've only really failed when you stop trying" exists.
However, you can have skill and put in hard work and still never have the success you're seeking. It happens all the time.
Although much of this depends on how you define "success". I'm assuming here that it means monetary gain, but most people don't have "get rich" as their measure of success. In reality, success is being able to live a life that provides satisfaction and happiness. That's an easier thing to achieve.
I think the luck factor is over-interpreted in this comment.
The reason most successful people have a string of failures behind them is because they learn from past experience and build networks and profile over the course of their career.
Luck applies most at the starting line - your location, your family and their wealth/status/connections [1], the traits and health you inherit, your education and the people you know who can mentor you, invest in you and work with you.
Over time the role of luck recedes and the role of experience becomes more significant (which is why, a few 20-something tech billionaires notwithstanding, most high-growth companies are founded when the founder is in their mid 40s [2]).
Also, “skill and hard work” are not the most important factors; in my experience the most important factor is the ability to self-improve, which takes humility and patience.
[1] It’s certainly not a given that being born into vast wealth equals luck in this context: plenty of heirs to vast fortunes turn out to be deadbeats. They may still be able to become successful in their own career but in a fairly pathetic, unearned kind of way. The right kind of luck for entrepreneurial success is a moderate degree of privilege (just enough not to spoil you) with a moderate degree of hardship (just enough not to break you). This certainly applied to Steve Jobs. Bill Gates too if you include the bullying at school.
[2] https://hbr.org/2018/07/research-the-average-age-of-a-succes...
The reason most successful people have a string of failures behind them is because they learn from past experience and build networks and profile over the course of their career.
Luck applies most at the starting line - your location, your family and their wealth/status/connections [1], the traits and health you inherit, your education and the people you know who can mentor you, invest in you and work with you.
Over time the role of luck recedes and the role of experience becomes more significant (which is why, a few 20-something tech billionaires notwithstanding, most high-growth companies are founded when the founder is in their mid 40s [2]).
Also, “skill and hard work” are not the most important factors; in my experience the most important factor is the ability to self-improve, which takes humility and patience.
[1] It’s certainly not a given that being born into vast wealth equals luck in this context: plenty of heirs to vast fortunes turn out to be deadbeats. They may still be able to become successful in their own career but in a fairly pathetic, unearned kind of way. The right kind of luck for entrepreneurial success is a moderate degree of privilege (just enough not to spoil you) with a moderate degree of hardship (just enough not to break you). This certainly applied to Steve Jobs. Bill Gates too if you include the bullying at school.
[2] https://hbr.org/2018/07/research-the-average-age-of-a-succes...
There are ways that your comment and the parent are both right.
I’m very much on board with the idea of eschewing victimhood thinking, and I generally see the invocation of survivorship bias as a pretty sad indicator of someone’s attachment to victimhood.
However I also recognize that the world isn’t great at empowering people to get out of difficult situations in life. Once you’re down, the world has all kinds of ways of keeping you down. “Just work hard and save money” seems like simple stuff that anyone can do but it doesn’t get you very far if you’re at the bottom of the heap, especially if you’re dealing with illness, family problems, or other burdens.
I do believe there are things that almost anyone (without irrevocable health problems) can do to go from a bad situation to a very good one over the long term (I’ve done them), but these things are not widely known or accepted by mainstream society.
So I sympathize with the sense of futility that many people hold.
I’m very much on board with the idea of eschewing victimhood thinking, and I generally see the invocation of survivorship bias as a pretty sad indicator of someone’s attachment to victimhood.
However I also recognize that the world isn’t great at empowering people to get out of difficult situations in life. Once you’re down, the world has all kinds of ways of keeping you down. “Just work hard and save money” seems like simple stuff that anyone can do but it doesn’t get you very far if you’re at the bottom of the heap, especially if you’re dealing with illness, family problems, or other burdens.
I do believe there are things that almost anyone (without irrevocable health problems) can do to go from a bad situation to a very good one over the long term (I’ve done them), but these things are not widely known or accepted by mainstream society.
So I sympathize with the sense of futility that many people hold.
>They didn't drink or do drugs or consider themselves victims, and it didn't help one bit.
Are you saying that your family would have been the same had your parents done drugs or considered themselves victims?
If so, why do you think that? Seems like a very bold claim. If not, what are you actually saying?
Are you saying that your family would have been the same had your parents done drugs or considered themselves victims?
If so, why do you think that? Seems like a very bold claim. If not, what are you actually saying?
I think they're saying the interaction effect of doing drugs, drinking and considering oneself a victim is negligible on overall success.
It doesn't seem like a bold claim to me. I've known plenty of poor, struggling working class people. The only impact drinking or claiming they're a victim have is influencing how much fun they have at parties.
I've happen to know plenty of wildly successful people who also drink and/or think they're victims. Again, primary effect I've noticed seems to be how much fun they are at parties.
It doesn't seem like a bold claim to me. I've known plenty of poor, struggling working class people. The only impact drinking or claiming they're a victim have is influencing how much fun they have at parties.
I've happen to know plenty of wildly successful people who also drink and/or think they're victims. Again, primary effect I've noticed seems to be how much fun they are at parties.
I think the end point is that if more people were able to admit when they're a victim, instead of being shamed for it; then change could occur.
> For every Charlie Munger there are tons of working poor that get up everyday
Not tons. Millions. If not hundreds of millions.
Not tons. Millions. If not hundreds of millions.
Billions. It is literally most of us. Wealth concentration is unintuitive in the extreme.
But let’s debate the merits of yet another billionaire lecturing everyone about the merits of pulling yourself up by your bootstraps and not being a victim.
Hard work doesn’t make billionaires. Systems that accelerate privileged positions and concentrate wealth to the top do. And that’s not necessarily bad. But it’s generally bad when it’s this extreme.
That said I wish his family well and am sorry for his passing. He was always a gentleman and kind to the core.
But let’s debate the merits of yet another billionaire lecturing everyone about the merits of pulling yourself up by your bootstraps and not being a victim.
Hard work doesn’t make billionaires. Systems that accelerate privileged positions and concentrate wealth to the top do. And that’s not necessarily bad. But it’s generally bad when it’s this extreme.
That said I wish his family well and am sorry for his passing. He was always a gentleman and kind to the core.
At least some billionaires created something useful. Finance guys don't create anything, they are just leeches who found ways to game the system.
And most of those billion people will never be on HN. The average HNer is just as wealthy when compared to them as a billionare is when compared to us.
> Hard work doesn’t make billionaires. Systems that accelerate privileged positions and concentrate wealth to the top do.
¿Por qué no los dos? Jeff Bezos worked pretty hard to end up where he is now.
> Hard work doesn’t make billionaires. Systems that accelerate privileged positions and concentrate wealth to the top do.
¿Por qué no los dos? Jeff Bezos worked pretty hard to end up where he is now.
I like the theory that Hacker news seems to follow the human development index fairly accurately.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35567986
But of course the truth is it’s a 42 year old (avg) man (91%) that makes $88,716 per year so you’re NOT wrong.
But the idea that Jeff Bezos got where he is because of hard work is inverted. Many work hard, few become billionaires. So what is wrong with the argument of los dos?
This: it may be true that hard work is generally a prerequisite for becoming a billionaire, it is a correlation and not causative effect. The cause of billionaires is wealth concentration itself and a system of overly generous tax advantage for equity owners. That is why the majority of billionaires have sprung from finance and investments — highly leveraged paper wealth from paper products — and not from the likes of Amazon.
I subscribe to the idea that billionaires are a product of the tax system and not the result of some kind of superhuman top-of-heap exceptional personal merit.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35567986
But of course the truth is it’s a 42 year old (avg) man (91%) that makes $88,716 per year so you’re NOT wrong.
But the idea that Jeff Bezos got where he is because of hard work is inverted. Many work hard, few become billionaires. So what is wrong with the argument of los dos?
This: it may be true that hard work is generally a prerequisite for becoming a billionaire, it is a correlation and not causative effect. The cause of billionaires is wealth concentration itself and a system of overly generous tax advantage for equity owners. That is why the majority of billionaires have sprung from finance and investments — highly leveraged paper wealth from paper products — and not from the likes of Amazon.
I subscribe to the idea that billionaires are a product of the tax system and not the result of some kind of superhuman top-of-heap exceptional personal merit.
>”And most of those billion people will never be on HN. The average HNer is just as wealthy when compared to them as a billionare is when compared to us.”
You’re severely underestimating how much a billion dollars is if you really think this is true.
The wealth of an average HNer is much more comparable to the average American than to the wealth of billionaires.
You’re severely underestimating how much a billion dollars is if you really think this is true.
The wealth of an average HNer is much more comparable to the average American than to the wealth of billionaires.
> They didn't drink or do drugs or consider themselves victims, and it didn't help one bit.
Not doing those things didn't enable them to get ahead far enough to not have to both work two jobs. But drinking or doing drugs would have hurt compared to not doing them. So would feeling like a victim.
Not doing those things didn't enable them to get ahead far enough to not have to both work two jobs. But drinking or doing drugs would have hurt compared to not doing them. So would feeling like a victim.
From your bio it appears that they raised a software engineer. That has to count right?
> There are a many number of people that don't adopt a victim mentality, work hard, and try to get ahead and just don't.
Yes, but so what. We're on HN, we're supposed to be well aware that 90% if not 99% of all ventures will fail miserably. (In fact, the main benefits of 'working hard' in startup culture are arguably ancillary ones, such as the chance of networking socially with successful folks. To some extent, success is beside the point.)
Yes, but so what. We're on HN, we're supposed to be well aware that 90% if not 99% of all ventures will fail miserably. (In fact, the main benefits of 'working hard' in startup culture are arguably ancillary ones, such as the chance of networking socially with successful folks. To some extent, success is beside the point.)
Until you’ve actually failed hard for a very long time - over a decade - and then get a solid kick in the teeth for your efforts, and power through that shit with an optimistic attitude to succeed beyond your own expectations, it’s hard to buy into what Charlie is saying, but I can assure you it’s the absolute truth. You can’t change the hand your dealt or what life continues to deal you, but you can keep working smart and hard to solve it and that’s going to give you a pretty damn good shot.
> You can’t change the hand your dealt or what life continues to deal you, but you can keep working smart and hard to solve it and that’s going to give you a pretty damn good shot.
This reads like "pick yourself up by your bootstraps": an impossible task. Could you parrot this line in front of a Walmart checkout clerk?
This reads like "pick yourself up by your bootstraps": an impossible task. Could you parrot this line in front of a Walmart checkout clerk?
[deleted]
So what is the upper limit of how hard someone should work until they can reasonably acknowledge that shit is fucked up and that they're a victim of circumstance? Should I just power through chronic fatigue for 10, 20, 30 years before applying for disability (which forever limits how much wealth I am allowed to accumulate)? Should someone just keep fighting a fatal cancer diagnosis, throwing their family into incalculable medical debt, until they die with a crushed ribcage from a nurse slamming their dead heart through the sternum because they're full code?
The "avoid thinking like you're a victim" is a tool to help motivation and attitude but not sufficient for success. You have to be smart enough to know the meta-model of inputs and outputs in the world to maximize your chance of ending up where you want to be.
You could work as hard as possible flipping burgers, it won't make you a billionaire, and even a very dumb person could see that.
You have to merely understand the paths people take in life that lead to where you want to be, evaluate the stochastic horizons, and act in accordance to your best bet on what would work. Whether or not, in this process, you consider yourself the ultimate master of your circumstances or a helpless victim flailing at the machinery of a cruel system makes no difference. All that matters is what affects how you think and what you do, and all the feedback loops therein.
You could work as hard as possible flipping burgers, it won't make you a billionaire, and even a very dumb person could see that.
You have to merely understand the paths people take in life that lead to where you want to be, evaluate the stochastic horizons, and act in accordance to your best bet on what would work. Whether or not, in this process, you consider yourself the ultimate master of your circumstances or a helpless victim flailing at the machinery of a cruel system makes no difference. All that matters is what affects how you think and what you do, and all the feedback loops therein.
I think he lived his own advice.
"At 31 years old, Charlie Munger was divorced, broke, and burying his 9 year old son, who had died from cancer"
But he persevered to become one of the most successful people on the planet.
No doubt he was a brilliant human and that helped tremendously, but he didn't think of himself as a victim.
"At 31 years old, Charlie Munger was divorced, broke, and burying his 9 year old son, who had died from cancer"
But he persevered to become one of the most successful people on the planet.
No doubt he was a brilliant human and that helped tremendously, but he didn't think of himself as a victim.
You are missing the point. It is not about misfortune. Yes there are millions of people like your parents who worked hard and struggled to provide. But did they choose to be victims ? No. You can have misfortune and still choose not be a victim and blame others. Also, turns out that they did a decent job raising you where you are able to be a software engineer (from your HN profile). So I would say they won. Wouldn't you ?
"My entire childhood I watched both my parents, who both had 2 jobs, work themselves non-stop to try to provide for us. They didn't drink or do drugs or consider themselves victims, and it didn't help one bit."
You're here, are you not? Ironically it's Charlie Munger who is not. The game of life is played to stay in the game. If you're writing this comment, it seems like they succeeded, at least in the main storyline. They may have failed or chose not to start a bunch of the side quests, but it looks like they won the primary game.
You're here, are you not? Ironically it's Charlie Munger who is not. The game of life is played to stay in the game. If you're writing this comment, it seems like they succeeded, at least in the main storyline. They may have failed or chose not to start a bunch of the side quests, but it looks like they won the primary game.
> They didn't drink or do drugs or consider themselves victims, and it didn't help one bit.
I think this highlights the culturally ingrained measures of success that most of us default to reflexively.
In a world where most of the circumstances around us are out of our control, finding a way to live without falling into victimhood is success by some measures.
Here’s how I think about this: falling into a victim mindset is a good way to stay stuck. Finding a way to avoid this mindset doesn’t guarantee someone will get unstuck, but it increases the odds. And if they stay stuck, they’re only dealing with the circumstance they’re in instead of also dealing with the added layer of psychological distress of victimhood.
I think it’s also critical to still call out fallacious ideas, e.g. being underpaid is a real issue that needs to be solved.
The thing about victimhood is that it primarily impacts the person who engages in the thought patterns and doesn’t actually change the situation for the better. In terms of pure utility, it’s not worth the brain cycles.
This does not mean that the circumstances that lead to the mindset are not serious issues that need to be solved.
I think this highlights the culturally ingrained measures of success that most of us default to reflexively.
In a world where most of the circumstances around us are out of our control, finding a way to live without falling into victimhood is success by some measures.
Here’s how I think about this: falling into a victim mindset is a good way to stay stuck. Finding a way to avoid this mindset doesn’t guarantee someone will get unstuck, but it increases the odds. And if they stay stuck, they’re only dealing with the circumstance they’re in instead of also dealing with the added layer of psychological distress of victimhood.
I think it’s also critical to still call out fallacious ideas, e.g. being underpaid is a real issue that needs to be solved.
The thing about victimhood is that it primarily impacts the person who engages in the thought patterns and doesn’t actually change the situation for the better. In terms of pure utility, it’s not worth the brain cycles.
This does not mean that the circumstances that lead to the mindset are not serious issues that need to be solved.
It's really funny reading his "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" lecture and citing himself as an example, and offhandedly mentioning his numerous wealthy relatives.
Coming from a rich family doesn't primarily make things easy; it nearly eliminates the consequences of risk-taking and allows for failing until you stop failing.
People who aren't wealthy can't take the gambles and risks the wealthy do.
Coming from a rich family doesn't primarily make things easy; it nearly eliminates the consequences of risk-taking and allows for failing until you stop failing.
People who aren't wealthy can't take the gambles and risks the wealthy do.
Jim Carey has a quote about his Dad: “My father could have been a great comedian, but he didn’t believe that that was possible for him, and so he made a conservative choice. Instead, he got a safe job as an accountant, and when I was 12 years old, he was let go from that safe job, and our family had to do whatever we could to survive. I learned many great lessons from my father. Not the least of which was that: You can fail at what you don’t want. So you might as well take a chance on doing what you love.”
[deleted]
I think you're missing the point.
The idea is more that avoiding a victim mentality typically leads to better outcomes. This isn't a surefire guarantee, but statistically, it tends to yield more favorable results.
E.g if we plot the range of outcomes for two groups of people, one group embracing a victim mentality and the other not, we'd likely see two power-law curves. However, the curve representing those without a victim mentality would generally trend higher, indicating more positive outcomes.
Applying this to your specific case, if your parents had embraced a victim mentality, there's a likelihood that they would have experienced less success, happiness, etc.
E.g if we plot the range of outcomes for two groups of people, one group embracing a victim mentality and the other not, we'd likely see two power-law curves. However, the curve representing those without a victim mentality would generally trend higher, indicating more positive outcomes.
Applying this to your specific case, if your parents had embraced a victim mentality, there's a likelihood that they would have experienced less success, happiness, etc.
An article that included statistical data to that point would not have received this criticism.
Instead this article is just the assertions of Charlie Munger.
> E.g if we plot the range of outcomes for two groups of people, one group embracing a victim mentality and the other not, we'd likely see two power-law curves. However, the curve representing those without a victim mentality would generally trend higher, indicating more positive outcomes.
What exactly is this based on? Because it _feels_ right? Because it aligns with your own personal beliefs of what makes someone successful?
The article's framing is very clearly "Successful Man has this advice to be successful" but there's no reason given for why this advice is correct in any meaningful way. So, like I said, it might even be good advice, but it's just an appeal to authority. Successful Man said it, and it sounds like common sense, so it must be true.
For all we know, people that feel victimized by a system might be _more_ likely to want to take action to reform the system. There's no data presented, there's just an anecdote about a time when he faced a hardship and didn't adopt victimhood.
How long could Mr. Munger have kept up this belief system had he not met with success. How important was this mindset when compared to the other incredible benefits he received, here's a leg up he had taken from the very beginning of his Wikipedia article.
> Through the GI Bill Munger took a number of advanced courses through several universities.[6] When he applied to his father's alma mater, Harvard Law School, the dean of admissions rejected him because Munger had not completed an undergraduate degree. However, the dean relented after a call from Roscoe Pound, the former dean of Harvard Law and a Munger family friend.
It is quite easy not to adopt a victim mentality when your family friends can reverse a rejection to Harvard Law.
Instead this article is just the assertions of Charlie Munger.
> E.g if we plot the range of outcomes for two groups of people, one group embracing a victim mentality and the other not, we'd likely see two power-law curves. However, the curve representing those without a victim mentality would generally trend higher, indicating more positive outcomes.
What exactly is this based on? Because it _feels_ right? Because it aligns with your own personal beliefs of what makes someone successful?
The article's framing is very clearly "Successful Man has this advice to be successful" but there's no reason given for why this advice is correct in any meaningful way. So, like I said, it might even be good advice, but it's just an appeal to authority. Successful Man said it, and it sounds like common sense, so it must be true.
For all we know, people that feel victimized by a system might be _more_ likely to want to take action to reform the system. There's no data presented, there's just an anecdote about a time when he faced a hardship and didn't adopt victimhood.
How long could Mr. Munger have kept up this belief system had he not met with success. How important was this mindset when compared to the other incredible benefits he received, here's a leg up he had taken from the very beginning of his Wikipedia article.
> Through the GI Bill Munger took a number of advanced courses through several universities.[6] When he applied to his father's alma mater, Harvard Law School, the dean of admissions rejected him because Munger had not completed an undergraduate degree. However, the dean relented after a call from Roscoe Pound, the former dean of Harvard Law and a Munger family friend.
It is quite easy not to adopt a victim mentality when your family friends can reverse a rejection to Harvard Law.
I recently watched a coworker lose a job by embodying this very logic.
I think the problem comes from the conflict between denying/rejecting victimhood, on the one hand, and realizing that one must get the fuck out of a very, very bad situation immediately, by any means on the other. From what I could tell it quickly becomes an inescapable cycle between "it's always my fault and I'll fix it"-- which implies leaving-- and "I've always been a victim and will always be one"-- which implies staying.
There has to be a big enough window when the person admits to themselves and others that they are unable to get out of the conundrum on their own. And, ironically, that's the the moment when they start to accept help and start living without feeling like such a victim. But that window of opportunity is at odds with "it's always your fault and you just fix it," which strongly implies you and only you fix it. That doesn't leave much/any room to realize just how much you must rely on outside help to get out.
Edit: added to the fact that apparently a lot of people also cycle between getting out of and going back to a bad situation. That makes me think it's less like flipping a bit and more like designing a high-pass filter to attenuate the victimhood frequencies.
I think the problem comes from the conflict between denying/rejecting victimhood, on the one hand, and realizing that one must get the fuck out of a very, very bad situation immediately, by any means on the other. From what I could tell it quickly becomes an inescapable cycle between "it's always my fault and I'll fix it"-- which implies leaving-- and "I've always been a victim and will always be one"-- which implies staying.
There has to be a big enough window when the person admits to themselves and others that they are unable to get out of the conundrum on their own. And, ironically, that's the the moment when they start to accept help and start living without feeling like such a victim. But that window of opportunity is at odds with "it's always your fault and you just fix it," which strongly implies you and only you fix it. That doesn't leave much/any room to realize just how much you must rely on outside help to get out.
Edit: added to the fact that apparently a lot of people also cycle between getting out of and going back to a bad situation. That makes me think it's less like flipping a bit and more like designing a high-pass filter to attenuate the victimhood frequencies.
Yes. All communication is miscommunication. "[Y]ou just fix it as best you can" includes you getting help to fix it. Getting help is one of your abilities.
So, for example, it's up to you to oppose discrimination via the legal system - it's your fault you're letting them get away with it. It's up to you to organize a union to counter exploitative practices - it's your fault you haven't done that yet.
It's up to somebody to do something - it's up to you. If you're neglected what you can do, it's your fault.
Munger isn't saying it's literally true, but that it is an effective way to face life (this "attitude... works" in the quote).
So, for example, it's up to you to oppose discrimination via the legal system - it's your fault you're letting them get away with it. It's up to you to organize a union to counter exploitative practices - it's your fault you haven't done that yet.
It's up to somebody to do something - it's up to you. If you're neglected what you can do, it's your fault.
Munger isn't saying it's literally true, but that it is an effective way to face life (this "attitude... works" in the quote).
> which strongly implies you and only you fix it
Asking for help is a perfectly encouraged way of fixing a problem. That's just a modality. You're still taking ownership of the situation and making steps to remedy.
I'd go so far as saying that asking for help is often the quickest and fastest way of fixing an issue. People can't help unless they a) know you need help and b) know what kind of help. Just sitting there fuming in your victimhood won't inspire people to rush over and help.
Asking for help is a perfectly encouraged way of fixing a problem. That's just a modality. You're still taking ownership of the situation and making steps to remedy.
I'd go so far as saying that asking for help is often the quickest and fastest way of fixing an issue. People can't help unless they a) know you need help and b) know what kind of help. Just sitting there fuming in your victimhood won't inspire people to rush over and help.
Charlie Munger had great advice in general. And I've learned a lot of good from him.
But I will never get over the hypocrisy of owning a quarter of Coca Cola and constantly criticizing Americans for being overweight (he used words like "sloth").
But I will never get over the hypocrisy of owning a quarter of Coca Cola and constantly criticizing Americans for being overweight (he used words like "sloth").
He sponsored what essentially was a prison style dorm. He might have great advice, but it will probably make you a worse human.
https://www.fastcompany.com/90740511/heres-what-its-like-liv...
https://www.fastcompany.com/90740511/heres-what-its-like-liv...
For all the posts here about the excessive costs of higher education, people sure seem to be mad that this fellow tried to do something about it. I'd have been fine with a "prison style dorm" if it had reduced my educational costs.
>Munger’s $200 million donation to the university is contingent on the structure being built to his windowless specifications.
Reason being:
>“Our design is clever,” Munger assured skeptics. “Our buildings are going to be efficient.” In addition to cutting costs and foiling potential defenestrations, his design would force students out of their sleeping cubbies and into communal spaces—with real sunlight—where, he said, they would engage with one another.
It seems to me encouraging university students to spend more time alone would be more conducive to getting work done. Overall Munger seemed to have had this notion a lot of old people have that the youth need to suffer because of-course they suffered more.
Reason being:
>“Our design is clever,” Munger assured skeptics. “Our buildings are going to be efficient.” In addition to cutting costs and foiling potential defenestrations, his design would force students out of their sleeping cubbies and into communal spaces—with real sunlight—where, he said, they would engage with one another.
It seems to me encouraging university students to spend more time alone would be more conducive to getting work done. Overall Munger seemed to have had this notion a lot of old people have that the youth need to suffer because of-course they suffered more.
Munger clearly understands the real suffering crippling debt causes and seems to be trying to move the needle on that front.
A private room for a reasonable price in the world’s most desirable climate that a student can just go walk to on a lark. Why don’t we just send them to a super max!
Munger is an awful person for trying to help students get an education without resorting to crippling debt.
Munger is an awful person for trying to help students get an education without resorting to crippling debt.
I had read about this dorm plan, and thought it was very brutal.
Then I found myself in a windowless room for a day (voluntarily) with a PC and no internet. Literally staring at a wall.
The most productive day I've had in a couple of decades.
And I started to have second thoughts about his dorm plan. Maybe he was on to something.
Then I found myself in a windowless room for a day (voluntarily) with a PC and no internet. Literally staring at a wall.
The most productive day I've had in a couple of decades.
And I started to have second thoughts about his dorm plan. Maybe he was on to something.
I want to hear what day 100 of that is like, not day 1.
I’ve worked in such a room/rooms for most of my professional career (20 years now). It seriously makes zero difference. When you need fresh air you simply get up and go for a walk.
People work in submarines for 6 months at a time. Humans are adaptable.
People work in submarines for 6 months at a time. Humans are adaptable.
[deleted]
Did he actually say this? I can't find any reference to this. (google search)
He used words like "sloth".
> But I will never get over the hypocrisy of owning a quarter of Coca Cola and constantly criticizing Americans for being overweight.
That's not hypocrisy, that's savvy.
Hypocrisy is an American drinking Coke while complaining about their weight.
That's not hypocrisy, that's savvy.
Hypocrisy is an American drinking Coke while complaining about their weight.
Hypocrisy is spending billions of dollars to convince people to buy sugar water and then complaining about their weight. I guess you could call it savvy, but I think predatory is a more apt description.
There's a way to avoid (conscious) hypocrisy here: Convincing oneself that marketing (propaganda?) isn't effective and you're just giving the people what they would want anyway.
I don't disagree with the sentiment, only the rhetoric. I'd settle for "unethical."
Predatory would be investing in Coke, diabetes treatment and weight-loss solutions as a package deal.
Predatory would be investing in Coke, diabetes treatment and weight-loss solutions as a package deal.
Why? For the most part, people are overweight by choice, not by some unavoidable draw of Coke. Not to mention that they have a ton of zero or low calorie coke options that people could choose.
Many people are overweight by choice in the same way alcoholics or crack addicts are addicted to substances by choice. There are very powerful chemical and subconscious factors at play that make it incredibly difficult to exercise one's will. That semiglutides are proving to be remarkably effective at helping people both make better dietary decisions as well as reduce substance use, should tell you that the problem isn't as simplistic as you've made it out to be.
Making sugary caffeinated beverages supported by billions in ads sure seems like a method to try to affect peoples choice though.
[deleted]
Perhaps although I really think a lot of food people are eating today will be considered poisonous at some point.
The phenomenon of people from skinnier (but developed) countries spending some time in the US and complaining that they gain a lot of weight suggests a pretty damn strong environmental component. Strong to the point of overwhelming most other factors, to my eye, at least.
Is there some study about this “phenomenon” this or is it all anecdotes?
My very first, naive attempt at DDG’ing this revealed a bunch, yeah. Quantified weight gain in immigrants, studies of gain then loss again once moving back to the original country, all kinds of angles of approaching it.
A second search with a slightly more specific topic of “weight gain in us immigrants” on DDG was mostly studies (or pages collecting multiple studies) on page 1 of the results.
A second search with a slightly more specific topic of “weight gain in us immigrants” on DDG was mostly studies (or pages collecting multiple studies) on page 1 of the results.
This is kind of missing the point. People are in groups that do all kinds of things normatively that add up to obesity, like dualistic thinking leading to depression while be embedded in a culture of dissociation. Yes, it's a choice, and as the cultures that gatekeep people from meeting their needs grows and spreads, making and sustaining that choice becomes harder. Maintaining cultures that harm is also a choice. No one is an island. We're all programming each other and ourselves in every moment while not taking care about how we do it.
Enjoying the occasional Coca Cola but not overindulging is perfectly consistent correct behaviour within those constraints
Define "occasional."
I drink about one soft drink per year, and it's a Coke. (Which reminds me, I don't think I've had my drink for 2023!)
If all world citizens limited themselves to my rate of indulgence, Berkshire Hathaway's KO stake would be worth quite a bit less.
I drink about one soft drink per year, and it's a Coke. (Which reminds me, I don't think I've had my drink for 2023!)
If all world citizens limited themselves to my rate of indulgence, Berkshire Hathaway's KO stake would be worth quite a bit less.
but not if Coca Cola's continuing growth depends on their ensuring that many many people are drinking it to excess
Imagine being an exec at coca cola.
All your product development is done. You already got it right.
Now your only goal is coca cola displacing a greater and greater quantity of the substances humans put in their bodies.
Every quarter you want that percentage to go up. Maybe public water infrastructure should be looked upon as a competitor.
You think about the future and see vague stormclouds- vitamin supplementation can keep our consumers active a bit longer after the product displaces all sources of nutrition, but there is an absolute limit to how much matter a human can ingest over a given 24h period.
Perhaps a campaign to de-stigmatize public urination. Or maybe theres a way to grow the population…
All your product development is done. You already got it right.
Now your only goal is coca cola displacing a greater and greater quantity of the substances humans put in their bodies.
Every quarter you want that percentage to go up. Maybe public water infrastructure should be looked upon as a competitor.
You think about the future and see vague stormclouds- vitamin supplementation can keep our consumers active a bit longer after the product displaces all sources of nutrition, but there is an absolute limit to how much matter a human can ingest over a given 24h period.
Perhaps a campaign to de-stigmatize public urination. Or maybe theres a way to grow the population…
Munger wasn't responsible for Coca Cola's continued growth (and it's worth noting that Berkshire has never owned 25% of Coca Cola as another comment here claimed, they own 9.25% at present).
And there's no reason Coca Cola couldn't diversify away from sugary drinks in the pursuit of growth, exactly as they have been doing for decades. Sugary soda drinks have been a dead-end in terms of growth for a while now. The growth has gone to eg Monster and RedBull et al.
And there's no reason Coca Cola couldn't diversify away from sugary drinks in the pursuit of growth, exactly as they have been doing for decades. Sugary soda drinks have been a dead-end in terms of growth for a while now. The growth has gone to eg Monster and RedBull et al.
Not sure the math even comes out obviously in favour of someone who overindulges but dies an early death, vs someone who lives long and enjoys a coke every so often throughout that long life.
Of course it does. Let's just calculate the revenue of two scenairos:
Person A consumes 2L of Coke every day. Dies an early death at 45 year old. 2L coke is ~$2. From the age of 18 to 45 that person spent $19710.
Person B is good at consuming things with moderation. Drinks one 7.5 oz Coke per week, and lives to the ripe old age of 90. A ten pack of 7.5oz coke is ~$6. That person spent from the age of 18 to 90 about $2252.
You can of course tweak the assumptions, but the thing is sugar doesn't kill anyone that fast. People by and large don't drop dead in years from overconsumption of it.
Person A consumes 2L of Coke every day. Dies an early death at 45 year old. 2L coke is ~$2. From the age of 18 to 45 that person spent $19710.
Person B is good at consuming things with moderation. Drinks one 7.5 oz Coke per week, and lives to the ripe old age of 90. A ten pack of 7.5oz coke is ~$6. That person spent from the age of 18 to 90 about $2252.
You can of course tweak the assumptions, but the thing is sugar doesn't kill anyone that fast. People by and large don't drop dead in years from overconsumption of it.
He didn't make money on you buying the "occasional" Coke. He made money by addicting you (the royal you) to Coke to want it over, and over, and over again.
I used to be that way. I'm glad I gave it up.
I used to be that way. I'm glad I gave it up.
This is weird, I like drinking Coke occasionally and am not obese. Coke isn't responsible for all obesity. This is just another way to victimize yourself which makes it much harder to actually solve any problem.
[deleted]
[deleted]
If Buffett and Munger wanted,they could certainly point out that Coca-Cola and Pepsi both benefit from being on EBT/SNAP lists as acceptable foods to purchase, and ask that soft drinks as a class of foods be removed.
Last I looked, about 9.5% of total EBT/SNAP money for food (that is, money from taxpayers that are supposed to help feed those in need properly) is spent on soft drinks. No person in need, needs soft drinks, especially when we have high rates of diabetes and obesity among the poor.
Last I looked, about 9.5% of total EBT/SNAP money for food (that is, money from taxpayers that are supposed to help feed those in need properly) is spent on soft drinks. No person in need, needs soft drinks, especially when we have high rates of diabetes and obesity among the poor.
Just because someone is in need doesn't mean they can't spend some money on soft drinks. This is classist. It's basically "because you're poor you don't deserve chocolate, because you're more likely to be obese".
9.5% of that money being spent on soft drinks is not the problem. The problem is the amount of processed garbage and sugar in most American food.
Buying healthy food is unfortunately a privilege. To have the time to stay fit/healthy (whether going to the gym or taking walks) in this world of processed garbage is a privilege, because time is a precious resource that some people seriously cannot afford.
9.5% of that money being spent on soft drinks is not the problem. The problem is the amount of processed garbage and sugar in most American food.
Buying healthy food is unfortunately a privilege. To have the time to stay fit/healthy (whether going to the gym or taking walks) in this world of processed garbage is a privilege, because time is a precious resource that some people seriously cannot afford.
He passed away earlier today, which is I guess why this is here.
He's got a point, too. To be a victim is to be helpless, and if you can choose to not see yourself that way, you can at least have some power back.
He's got a point, too. To be a victim is to be helpless, and if you can choose to not see yourself that way, you can at least have some power back.
Trying to convince yourself you're not a victim also leads to weird mental twists, like concluding you're where you are by choice and reframe your situation as some success to not look like a loser.
Accepting you're being fucked is the first step to get out of it.
Accepting you're being fucked is the first step to get out of it.
Munger didn't say that you should deny being a victim. You should just not use that situation as an excuse for your future actions. Anyone can be victim of anything. But what you choose to do after that experience is the key.
The quote is...
"If you just take the attitude that, however bad it is in anyway, it’s always your fault and you just fix it as best you can – the so-called ‘iron prescription’ – I think that really works."
...does not work for e.g. victims of child abuse. Child abuse is never the fault of the child.
"If you just take the attitude that, however bad it is in anyway, it’s always your fault and you just fix it as best you can – the so-called ‘iron prescription’ – I think that really works."
...does not work for e.g. victims of child abuse. Child abuse is never the fault of the child.
Of course, any abuse inflicted on you is not your fault. I wouldn't take that phrase "always your fault" literally. It is about how you react to it afterwards and what you do to get back up. As he also said "you just fix it as best you can". I would focus on that phrase more.
So the child is expected to solve their own sexual assault instead? You must understand how ridiculous this sounds to look at a child being assaulted and expected the child to fix their own abuse.
hackernews really will look for a counter example to any advice, metaphor, or simile in the pursuit of being technically correct.
To me the crux of it is it's not an advice or metaphor.
Telling people to stop feeling the way they feel is good for motivational posters, but not something to tell people expecting them to think long and deep about it.
Telling people to stop feeling the way they feel is good for motivational posters, but not something to tell people expecting them to think long and deep about it.
> To be a victim is to be helpless
This seems overly strong? To me "victimhood" just implies that you are the recipient of the negative consequences of someone else's actions, it has nothing to do with your response to those actions. You can be a helpless victim and you can be a resistant victim. You can recognize that something is not your fault, and still act to fix it. But simply eating the blame for everything that happens to you will just make you miserable. Healthy self-regard comes from understanding both what is and is not your fault, and what is and is not within your control.
This seems overly strong? To me "victimhood" just implies that you are the recipient of the negative consequences of someone else's actions, it has nothing to do with your response to those actions. You can be a helpless victim and you can be a resistant victim. You can recognize that something is not your fault, and still act to fix it. But simply eating the blame for everything that happens to you will just make you miserable. Healthy self-regard comes from understanding both what is and is not your fault, and what is and is not within your control.
Deciding who can and can't be a victim is more about other people than it is for the person harmed.
Specifically it's a reality building mechanism where systems that enable harm to occur are shielded from critique in the sense that it renders action against them impotent. Generally, the mechanism is one of individuation of harms. This is most understandable in that victimhood itself is a collective state of being for victims ie: a shared common experience. Share common experiences naturally lead towards systemic-thinking - something we wish to avoid.
What anti-victimhood advocates are doing, whether they know or not, is participating in the creating of a reality where systems which create victims[1] are shielded from systems-level thinking. ie: every case which results in a victim is between individuals.
As a side note: it's incredible weird to participate in a community that advocates for and understands the importance of systems-level thinking but then only applies this to machines rather than social systems.
1. remember that a systems purposes is its consequences
Specifically it's a reality building mechanism where systems that enable harm to occur are shielded from critique in the sense that it renders action against them impotent. Generally, the mechanism is one of individuation of harms. This is most understandable in that victimhood itself is a collective state of being for victims ie: a shared common experience. Share common experiences naturally lead towards systemic-thinking - something we wish to avoid.
What anti-victimhood advocates are doing, whether they know or not, is participating in the creating of a reality where systems which create victims[1] are shielded from systems-level thinking. ie: every case which results in a victim is between individuals.
As a side note: it's incredible weird to participate in a community that advocates for and understands the importance of systems-level thinking but then only applies this to machines rather than social systems.
1. remember that a systems purposes is its consequences
Okay I mean yeah but I’m trying to meet this comment thread where it’s at hahaha
This only applies to a very small subset of victims who have the means to individually recover what has been taken from them. If you don't actually have the ability to do so, then pretending that you aren't a victim is just refusing to acknowledge reality. Awfully convenient for the person who put you in this situation.
The reason why people 'choose' to be victims is that it allows collective organization against the thing that has victimized them. This is not helplessness, this is taking power back.
The reason why people 'choose' to be victims is that it allows collective organization against the thing that has victimized them. This is not helplessness, this is taking power back.
You are victim when somebody else harmed you. To be victim means that somebody else harmed you.
And when people in that situation blame themselves, it is great for abusers but bad for them.
And when people in that situation blame themselves, it is great for abusers but bad for them.
Note that not being able to acknowledge that you've been harmed while you're vulnerable is actually not recommended for certain situations. For example, it's usually very important that people who experience sexual abuse as a child acknowledge that they were innocent people who did not do anything to deserve harm and that they were harmed. Otherwise we get stuff like people who experience sexual abuse as children either believing its normal to abuse children sexually or that they were uniquely responsible as a child for their own abuse.
Isn't he the guy that tried to build windowless dorms? Anyone who thinks humans should live without natural light is not anyone I am interested in taking advice from.
Ref:
https://www.archpaper.com/2023/08/university-california-aban...
Affordable housing where all I have to give up is a shitty view? Sign me up!
You give up a shitty view and any chance of fire escape. Such a savings!
Buildings like this have sprinklers, automated firewalls, multiple exit routes, redundant alarm systems etc.
Lots of off campus student housing is still knob and tube wiring in shoddy timber construction.
Lots of off campus student housing is still knob and tube wiring in shoddy timber construction.
Obviously (which makes me guess you’re not serious) it’s not about the view but the natural light.
Nothing beats natural light at its best, especially in CA, but gee, all sorts of people default into shitty depressing natural light situations (MA, I'm looking at you) that could be trounced by a mediocre artificial setup. If you listen to the tone of the rhetoric here you'd think Munger was killing babies, when in fact the light situation evidently doesn't even reach everybody's threshold for the simple action of buying a decent lamp. Shrug.
This is such an absurd criticism. People attending UC Santa Barbara live in literally the most desirable climate in the world. When they want natural light all they have to do is _go_out_side_.
This is a good point. Santa Barbara is one of the few places on earth that has sunlight during the day, therefore people there should not have windows
Santa Barbara is one of the most expensive real estate markets in the world. Therefore students should not have housing.
Santa Barbara likely needs no structures at all. UCSB classes should be held on volleyball courts
> While the dorm rooms themselves don’t have windows, the exterior of the building does, which lets natural light into the communal living spaces.
The reasoning was too encourage people to hang out in common areas to create more of a community feeling. Whether you think that's necessary or a good idea (I went to college long ago, but there wasn't any need to have architecture diving our community), it's not the same as a dorm without windows.
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/10/29/business/ucsb-munger-hall...
The reasoning was too encourage people to hang out in common areas to create more of a community feeling. Whether you think that's necessary or a good idea (I went to college long ago, but there wasn't any need to have architecture diving our community), it's not the same as a dorm without windows.
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/10/29/business/ucsb-munger-hall...
"There are no windows except in common areas, thus it's not a dorm without windows" is such a strange hill to try and die on.
> I went to college long ago, but there wasn't any need to have architecture diving our community
Ah, that explains it.
> I went to college long ago, but there wasn't any need to have architecture diving our community
Ah, that explains it.
That sounds more like abusive logic then wish to help anyone. "I do it for your own good".
Ah yes, the horrible living conditions in this dorm ade actually to encourage you to not stay at home, ignore that they make the dorm mote space efficient, that is just a happy coincidence, I'm actually making your living quarters mote unpleasant because I care about communal life.
First, it is no natural light in the room where your bed is. Munger never said humans don't need natural light in general.
I imagine a few cavemen beating up the first person to build a two story house, because anyone who thinks humans should live off of the ground is not anyone they are interested in taking advice from.
Also, consider that Munger already built a mostly windowless dorm for UofM ~10 years ago, and it is one of the highest rated dorms for the university. And that has fewer affordances for simulating natural light than the UCSB design did.
I imagine a few cavemen beating up the first person to build a two story house, because anyone who thinks humans should live off of the ground is not anyone they are interested in taking advice from.
Also, consider that Munger already built a mostly windowless dorm for UofM ~10 years ago, and it is one of the highest rated dorms for the university. And that has fewer affordances for simulating natural light than the UCSB design did.
Don't egress laws require windows in sleeping rooms? How would this building even be built to code?
I try my best to do this. When I find myself blaming person X for thing Y, it's pretty easy to come up with a way to blame myself instead (e.g. I shouldn't have involved person X in thing Y to begin with).
It oddly makes me feel better and move on with a solution instead of stewing over person X's blunders.
It oddly makes me feel better and move on with a solution instead of stewing over person X's blunders.
Predators take advantage of this quality to gaslight/scam people, FYI.
Certainly, but in every aspect of life, bad people try to take advantage through a variety of tactics. Checking inward for responsibility, accountability, and improvement first is a fine tactic, especially in leadership. Over time, and likely through experience, you'll learn how to sniff out the bad actors.
This is of course, harder to achieve when you have significant emotional investment in the conflict at hand. Detaching and analyzing yourself, and the situation can be a super power here.
This is of course, harder to achieve when you have significant emotional investment in the conflict at hand. Detaching and analyzing yourself, and the situation can be a super power here.
Yeah. "He wouldn't have hit me if I had just kept my mouth shut, I know how angry it makes him when I ask about money."
I want to say this position is despicable, but that's not a very charitable reading. But I fail to see how 'making everything your own fault' is in any way a healthy mechanism for dealing with others. Other people DO make mistakes. Other people have loads that they ARE expected to carry. Other people ARE expected to comport themselves a certain way. This not only absolves anyone but yourself of any responsibility to do anything, but it also offers yourself up as a scapegoat to anyone who needs one.
I want to say this position is despicable, but that's not a very charitable reading. But I fail to see how 'making everything your own fault' is in any way a healthy mechanism for dealing with others. Other people DO make mistakes. Other people have loads that they ARE expected to carry. Other people ARE expected to comport themselves a certain way. This not only absolves anyone but yourself of any responsibility to do anything, but it also offers yourself up as a scapegoat to anyone who needs one.
I would read it as "My choices have caused me to be here, and I must rely on my choices not to keep me here"
That obviously has limits; anything taken literally to an extreme does. For instance, Munger lost a nine year old son to cancer; I doubt he thought "This is my fault, I did this, if only I had acted differently".
The central point of the quote is to believe you have agency. That if you are in a situation you do not like, you can act to get out of it. There are times when this isn't true, but if you act as if it is you'll be more likely to get out of such situations.
And then you have to use human common sense to know when something is literally impossible.
So, back to the example of someone abusive, you might think "it is my fault I am dealing with this person/situation" and consider what actions can get you out. I would distinguish this from victim blaming: First, you are doing it, not an outsider. Second, the point is not to feel shame for yourself, but consider positive actions.
That obviously has limits; anything taken literally to an extreme does. For instance, Munger lost a nine year old son to cancer; I doubt he thought "This is my fault, I did this, if only I had acted differently".
The central point of the quote is to believe you have agency. That if you are in a situation you do not like, you can act to get out of it. There are times when this isn't true, but if you act as if it is you'll be more likely to get out of such situations.
And then you have to use human common sense to know when something is literally impossible.
So, back to the example of someone abusive, you might think "it is my fault I am dealing with this person/situation" and consider what actions can get you out. I would distinguish this from victim blaming: First, you are doing it, not an outsider. Second, the point is not to feel shame for yourself, but consider positive actions.
Personally, I don't make bad things my own fault. But I consider them my responsibility to fix.
> "I don't make bad things my own fault. But I consider them my responsibility to fix."
^^^ This! It's only your fault if it's actually your fault - If the blame genuinely lies with someone else, there's nothing left to do but take actions to a) fix it, and b) ensure that it never happens again. Can't rely on others to fix things, because the fact is that most people simply won't even try.
^^^ This! It's only your fault if it's actually your fault - If the blame genuinely lies with someone else, there's nothing left to do but take actions to a) fix it, and b) ensure that it never happens again. Can't rely on others to fix things, because the fact is that most people simply won't even try.
"Can't rely on others to fix things, because the fact is that most people simply won't even try."
That is a much more charitable interpretation of this idea, and when I look at my own life that's pretty much where I am at. The bar for everyone else is zero. There never seem to be any consequences for others' laziness or stupidity, and the expectation is always that I will fix it. It's not fair of me to expect them to know or care what they're doing, or to fix what they've done, and it's unseemly to complain about it.
That is a much more charitable interpretation of this idea, and when I look at my own life that's pretty much where I am at. The bar for everyone else is zero. There never seem to be any consequences for others' laziness or stupidity, and the expectation is always that I will fix it. It's not fair of me to expect them to know or care what they're doing, or to fix what they've done, and it's unseemly to complain about it.
The more charitable reading is that either you do have agency over how you got to where you are and how you can get out of it, in which case it is better to focus on believing what you do matters, or you don't, in which case it doesn't matter either way. That is why it's better to have a mindset of "I can change my situaion for the better" instead of "Life sucks I'm a victim".
If one person on a team consistently does poor quality work, and the others do not, I do not see the utility in blaming the high performing team members for not doing more to prevent the poor performer from making a mess, or in convincing them that the fault is theirs and that they should look inward to better understand what they did wrong. Each person is carrying their own part of the total load. That person has a duty of care, and is not exercising it. It's not about agency or helplessness.
> "I do not see the utility in blaming the high performing team members for not doing more to prevent the poor performer from making a mess"
The non-technical manager isn't able to do more to prevent it. Nor is the busy technical manager. The poor performer either isn't able or willing. There's no Superman coming to rescue you. You are the person on the planet who cares the most about the poor performer's effect on your life, and you know the quote about "doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results". The utility of "blame" is questionable, but the choice is only do you consider yourself a victim of the poor performer with nothing you can do and have the same situation happen again and again, or do you recognise that you are in a position to act and prevent it? (If you want, you can then blame your choice not to act, when the situation predictably recurs, I guess).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4AUY-v1nsE - "We are going to have to act, if we want to live in a different world"
The non-technical manager isn't able to do more to prevent it. Nor is the busy technical manager. The poor performer either isn't able or willing. There's no Superman coming to rescue you. You are the person on the planet who cares the most about the poor performer's effect on your life, and you know the quote about "doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results". The utility of "blame" is questionable, but the choice is only do you consider yourself a victim of the poor performer with nothing you can do and have the same situation happen again and again, or do you recognise that you are in a position to act and prevent it? (If you want, you can then blame your choice not to act, when the situation predictably recurs, I guess).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4AUY-v1nsE - "We are going to have to act, if we want to live in a different world"
I'm talking strictly in a work setting.
I don't absolve people, I just don't let myself stew over how it's their fault.
I don't absolve people, I just don't let myself stew over how it's their fault.
So now you have two workloads, and they have half a workload, and there are differing standards to which you and they are held?
I admit that I come at this question from a very bitter place. I have been woken up many, many, many times at 3 AM to deal with a problem that someone else caused, out of sheer laziness or incompetence. Those people suffered no consequences. Had I applied the same level of due care to my own duties in fixing the problem, however, the consequences would have been different, and significant. It is difficult, in such circumstances, not to stew over things a bit.
I admit that I come at this question from a very bitter place. I have been woken up many, many, many times at 3 AM to deal with a problem that someone else caused, out of sheer laziness or incompetence. Those people suffered no consequences. Had I applied the same level of due care to my own duties in fixing the problem, however, the consequences would have been different, and significant. It is difficult, in such circumstances, not to stew over things a bit.
If you're gonna stew over something then that should be: How can I make sure this shit doesn't happen to me again?
"What can I do about it?" is the focus. No point obsessing over the other person.
I think that's what Munger was trying to say.
"What can I do about it?" is the focus. No point obsessing over the other person.
I think that's what Munger was trying to say.
IMHO, this is a crippling ideology, that crushes people's ability for self-compassion. This, in turn, destroys their ability to trust themselves, since they are so used to hearing themselves reflexively take out their distress on themselves with words like 'in any way, it's always your fault'.
I've just spent the best part of a year in an IOP, unlearning this behaviour, and learning to acknowledge my own pain, trust myself and replacing inner criticism with self-advocacy, and I'm stronger and more effective for it.
I've just spent the best part of a year in an IOP, unlearning this behaviour, and learning to acknowledge my own pain, trust myself and replacing inner criticism with self-advocacy, and I'm stronger and more effective for it.
I have great respect for Charlie (RIP), but there isn't much insight here.
The crux of the article is that self-pity is never useful, but it then presupposes that accepting personal responsibility is always useful. Personal responsibility is not the only way to ameliorate the great problems of our life. In fact, for the majority of human history, the idea of pivoting away from self pity from sheer force of will without the help of family and tribe would seem impossible.
Instead of naivly rejecting self pity, I would like a analytical approach to question like
How do we improve our ability to reject self pity? What is the role of social capital in self pity rates? What sociocultural issues have the greatest impact on endowing a sense of self pity? How has self pity been useful for building political movements?
The crux of the article is that self-pity is never useful, but it then presupposes that accepting personal responsibility is always useful. Personal responsibility is not the only way to ameliorate the great problems of our life. In fact, for the majority of human history, the idea of pivoting away from self pity from sheer force of will without the help of family and tribe would seem impossible.
Instead of naivly rejecting self pity, I would like a analytical approach to question like
How do we improve our ability to reject self pity? What is the role of social capital in self pity rates? What sociocultural issues have the greatest impact on endowing a sense of self pity? How has self pity been useful for building political movements?
I do worry that this sort of attitude can be the sort of attitude that contributes to such a high rate of young male suicide. Extremely high expectations, no sympathy and no support system means exactly this - when you are a victim it's all your own fault and there's one way out. No one wants to hear you whine. Telling someone they should be resilient doesn't necessarily actually make them resilient.
Most philosophies come to this realization. Buddhism and Stoicism kind of center this whole ethos: If you can't do anything about it, you don't have to worry about it.
Same thing is going on here. Munger is saying essentially that the past doesn't matter. The situation is what it is and the only thing that matters is what you can do to change it.
Same thing is going on here. Munger is saying essentially that the past doesn't matter. The situation is what it is and the only thing that matters is what you can do to change it.
“Self-pity doesn’t work, but if you hallucinate the pitiful state of things is your fault, it works.”
Self pity and self blame are just euphemisms for the same emotional context of being down on yourself.
Not really sure he says anything here, leverages swapping one term for another.
It may be consistent within the context of human language but human feelings? How does “self pity” feel different from blaming myself for pitiful state of things as motivation to fix them.
I’m not so sure last century’s rent seeker investors who worm tongued politicians into propping them up are dropping novel nuggets of philosophy.
Self pity and self blame are just euphemisms for the same emotional context of being down on yourself.
Not really sure he says anything here, leverages swapping one term for another.
It may be consistent within the context of human language but human feelings? How does “self pity” feel different from blaming myself for pitiful state of things as motivation to fix them.
I’m not so sure last century’s rent seeker investors who worm tongued politicians into propping them up are dropping novel nuggets of philosophy.
I agree with the advice up to a point, but I'd like it more if I came from a background where people can prop up entire banks by shuffling investment properties around, rather than the advice coming from there.
It's easier to view tragedy as something you can pick yourself up from when massive tragedy aren't mere punctuation points of the constant tragedy that is your own total immiseration.
It's easier to view tragedy as something you can pick yourself up from when massive tragedy aren't mere punctuation points of the constant tragedy that is your own total immiseration.
Munger was born into an elite family with friends born into elite families, which is a winning strategy anywhere in the world.
> He thought that every mischance in life was an opportunity to behave well, every mischance in life was an opportunity to learn something, and your duty was not to be submerged in self-pity but to utilize the terrible blow in a constructive fashion.
Feeling like a victim is not the same as wallowing in self-pity. Recognizing that you have been victimized in some way could easily be the first step towards taking ownership of your own circumstances and pushing for their improvement. Moreover, if you are being actively victimized it's probably not healthy in the long-term to pretend like it's "your fault", you're just going to make yourself crazy that way. Taking a clear view of the causes of your current circumstances is the only way you can act effectively, even if those causes are outside your locus of control. Playing these weird heuristic games to avoid "victim mentality" is just as deluded as drowning in "poor me".
Feeling like a victim is not the same as wallowing in self-pity. Recognizing that you have been victimized in some way could easily be the first step towards taking ownership of your own circumstances and pushing for their improvement. Moreover, if you are being actively victimized it's probably not healthy in the long-term to pretend like it's "your fault", you're just going to make yourself crazy that way. Taking a clear view of the causes of your current circumstances is the only way you can act effectively, even if those causes are outside your locus of control. Playing these weird heuristic games to avoid "victim mentality" is just as deluded as drowning in "poor me".
> it's probably not healthy in the long-term to pretend like it's "your fault" ... Tak[e] a clear view of the causes of your current circumstances
There's always things in your control and things out of your control, but the notion of "victim" does zilch to clarify which is which. It's a pointless distraction, a snare for the mind.
There's always things in your control and things out of your control, but the notion of "victim" does zilch to clarify which is which. It's a pointless distraction, a snare for the mind.
That’s not really what I’m saying. Understanding the causes of your circumstances obviously doesn’t necessarily entail what is in your control or not. However focusing only on the levers you control, while remaining blind to the causes of the problem is just as useless as the other way around. Only by bringing together a clear model of the problem with a rigorous analysis of possible interventions can you really make forward progress in your life.
Heres an example that I think is likely similar to what OP is imagining when they think of “victim mentality”: say I’m a woman in a technical field who is experiencing misogyny in my workplace. I have several levers available to me: I can quit and seek a new job, I can work harder, I can contact HR, I can confront the misogynist directly, I can request a transfer to another team, etc. But if I simply pretend “it’s my fault” I will likely only recognize the first two as viable options, even if they’re not globally optimal (ex. if the misogynist is in charge of promotions simply working harder will likely not result in the rewards I’m seeking). Observe that in this example I am still keeping the control, and I am emphatically not saying “oh well I guess I’ll never get promoted” and accepting mediocrity. But an honest stock-take of the things within my control, and their likely efficacy at addressing the problem I’m facing, 100% requires the realization that I am being victimized by someone.
Heres an example that I think is likely similar to what OP is imagining when they think of “victim mentality”: say I’m a woman in a technical field who is experiencing misogyny in my workplace. I have several levers available to me: I can quit and seek a new job, I can work harder, I can contact HR, I can confront the misogynist directly, I can request a transfer to another team, etc. But if I simply pretend “it’s my fault” I will likely only recognize the first two as viable options, even if they’re not globally optimal (ex. if the misogynist is in charge of promotions simply working harder will likely not result in the rewards I’m seeking). Observe that in this example I am still keeping the control, and I am emphatically not saying “oh well I guess I’ll never get promoted” and accepting mediocrity. But an honest stock-take of the things within my control, and their likely efficacy at addressing the problem I’m facing, 100% requires the realization that I am being victimized by someone.
Heavily disagree. It is very clear when you are a victim of child abuse that no part of your abuse was in your control, because you were a child. It's also super fucked up to say the notion of, say, a rape victim is a pointless distraction. I think a "what was in your control about you being raped" is just about the least productive way to go about the scenario of being victimized.
Even if the child abuse was not in your control, how you react to it might be. For example, there is a nasty cycle of violence where people who have been abused in the past are at severe risk of abusing others in turn. That's the kind of thing that one would very much have control over, even as a victim of such grievous acts.
Yes, it generally always starts with acknowledging one being a victim of abuse first and foremost.
This is a welcomed addition of nuance, but I think it thematically fits with the general narrative. If your current situation is not optimal, and we pose a dichotomy of choosing to take control of your situation or self pity, then taking control is better.
I guess it’s some combination of feeling like a victim with a fatalist attitude that’s the real issue.
I guess it’s some combination of feeling like a victim with a fatalist attitude that’s the real issue.
> I guess it’s some combination of feeling like a victim with a fatalist attitude that’s the real issue.
Yes I 100% think this is the case. Simply creating “awareness” of a social problem, for example, is useless IMO because it leads to fatalism. It needs to be matched with a push to create change. I see this as a major failing of the internet activism of the 2010s, although I support its broad aims. IMO it leaned too hard on classifying and describing various structural inequalities, without really advancing a concrete theory of change. This ultimately squandered the energy it created, leading to this weird situation where much of its sharpest criticisms got swallowed the system and converted into HR platitudes.
Yes I 100% think this is the case. Simply creating “awareness” of a social problem, for example, is useless IMO because it leads to fatalism. It needs to be matched with a push to create change. I see this as a major failing of the internet activism of the 2010s, although I support its broad aims. IMO it leaned too hard on classifying and describing various structural inequalities, without really advancing a concrete theory of change. This ultimately squandered the energy it created, leading to this weird situation where much of its sharpest criticisms got swallowed the system and converted into HR platitudes.
I don't understand the last story about the banking and the mortgages.
did she take the mortgages out of the son's bank or put them in or ... ?
did she take the mortgages out of the son's bank or put them in or ... ?
The bank was insolvent because of bad debts, so the grandfather put the bad debts on his books and some of his good debts on the bank's books so that the bank was solvent.
> poor grandfather
> only judge in a town
> enough money to send all nephews to college
> enough money to literary "save the bank" with nothing but his amateur money lending hobby
checks out the background of everyone who tells others to just "pick themselves up by their bootstraps". Rest in peace.
> only judge in a town
> enough money to send all nephews to college
> enough money to literary "save the bank" with nothing but his amateur money lending hobby
checks out the background of everyone who tells others to just "pick themselves up by their bootstraps". Rest in peace.
Isn't this like the saying "pain may not be your fault but it's your responsibility"?
It's more like focusing on what caused the pain instead of what to do about it.
Lion to Wildebeest Community: Feeling Like Prey Is Counterproductive
Reference:
https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/warren-buffett-americas-f...
Reference:
https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/warren-buffett-americas-f...
I actually watched a short the other day where a wildebeest horns a lioness throwing her high in the air a couple of times. It was fearsome. It saved its friend from being eaten by the lioness even!
We all have a (larger or smaller amount of) power left inside of us. Being a victim means giving up that power. Don’t. Fight!
We all have a (larger or smaller amount of) power left inside of us. Being a victim means giving up that power. Don’t. Fight!
It's disastrous for an individual to feel like a victim but it's beneficial to groups trying to build power by manipulating people into believing they are victims. Grievance studies in particular are designed to do exactly this.
[deleted]
His philosophy was heavily inspired by Benjamin Franklin and other philosophers who believed in the same ideas on self-pity.
From the Wikipedia page: "His father, Alfred Case Munger, was a lawyer.[2] His grandfather was Thomas Charles Munger, a U.S. district court judge and state representative.[3]"
This is not the billionaire white guy who can empathize with most people's situation.
This is not the billionaire white guy who can empathize with most people's situation.
I love it. Without even knowing about this particular quote, this has been my standard for myself for some years now. The “it’s always your fault” concept is scary to some folks—and I understand why—but it’s changed my life since I adopted it years ago.
Generally speaking, my framework is:
1. I’m NOT a victim.
2. I accept that everything that happens in my life is my fault.
3. I control the controllables; I can’t fix what I can’t control.
4. I must be a problem solver rather than a complainer.
5. Whatever happens in life, I give myself a cap of 48 hours to get over it—this includes being sad, grieving, being unproductive, etc.
I have a few more points in my framework, but these are the key ones.
Now, I want to be clear that you can, in fact, be a victim and things can happen in your life that isn’t your fault, which makes #3 seem a bit contradictory. But if you’re thinking like this, you’re missing the point.
The point is to have a framework that allows you to progress in life without allowing room for excuses.
When my wife first started dating me, she was skeptical of my framework—she said it seemed a bit too robotic. As we’ve gone through stuff life has thrown at us and she watches me fight through it all without ever curling up in a ball, she’s fully on board now.
I say all of this to say: Take control of your life. You can do it and it works.
Generally speaking, my framework is:
1. I’m NOT a victim.
2. I accept that everything that happens in my life is my fault.
3. I control the controllables; I can’t fix what I can’t control.
4. I must be a problem solver rather than a complainer.
5. Whatever happens in life, I give myself a cap of 48 hours to get over it—this includes being sad, grieving, being unproductive, etc.
I have a few more points in my framework, but these are the key ones.
Now, I want to be clear that you can, in fact, be a victim and things can happen in your life that isn’t your fault, which makes #3 seem a bit contradictory. But if you’re thinking like this, you’re missing the point.
The point is to have a framework that allows you to progress in life without allowing room for excuses.
When my wife first started dating me, she was skeptical of my framework—she said it seemed a bit too robotic. As we’ve gone through stuff life has thrown at us and she watches me fight through it all without ever curling up in a ball, she’s fully on board now.
I say all of this to say: Take control of your life. You can do it and it works.
> Whatever happens in life, I give myself a cap of 48 hours to get over it—this includes being sad, grieving, being unproductive, etc.
This is, to me, insane. Grief, sadness, anger, etc are not truly within our conscious control. I can't say that I have a study in hand which shows this or anything, but in my own personal experience with them it definitely doesn't seem like a "choice" to feel something. Feeling and actions have mutual influence, but neither fully determines the other. Choosing to be "over it", IMO, is simply denial masquerading as self-control.
To be clear: recognizing the persistence of, say, grief is not at all the same as letting yourself be consumed by it. I think it's appropriate and healthy to set boundaries on the amount of time that you will give energy and attention to an emotion like grief, and making the decision to "move on" is absolutely possible. But to me this must take the form of "I am still feeling X, but choosing not to let my actions be dominated by it", or at the very least the simple "I am still feeling X and that's okay". In my experience people who you instead say "I am no longer allowing myself to feel X" eventually [ex|im]plode. A quote I heard a long time ago that really resonated with me is (something like) "you are not a machine, you are a garden"; my mind doesn't take orders and trying to force it to adopt one state or another will either result in frustration (bad) or deluding myself about my internal emotional state (worse). All I can productively do is provide my mind with the circumstances it needs to develop in a healthy way, and then be patient. In the meantime I can put my best effort into taking healthy and self-caring actions (doesn't have to be sleeping all day, could be taking a class or learning a new skill), without punishing myself for failing these.
This is, to me, insane. Grief, sadness, anger, etc are not truly within our conscious control. I can't say that I have a study in hand which shows this or anything, but in my own personal experience with them it definitely doesn't seem like a "choice" to feel something. Feeling and actions have mutual influence, but neither fully determines the other. Choosing to be "over it", IMO, is simply denial masquerading as self-control.
To be clear: recognizing the persistence of, say, grief is not at all the same as letting yourself be consumed by it. I think it's appropriate and healthy to set boundaries on the amount of time that you will give energy and attention to an emotion like grief, and making the decision to "move on" is absolutely possible. But to me this must take the form of "I am still feeling X, but choosing not to let my actions be dominated by it", or at the very least the simple "I am still feeling X and that's okay". In my experience people who you instead say "I am no longer allowing myself to feel X" eventually [ex|im]plode. A quote I heard a long time ago that really resonated with me is (something like) "you are not a machine, you are a garden"; my mind doesn't take orders and trying to force it to adopt one state or another will either result in frustration (bad) or deluding myself about my internal emotional state (worse). All I can productively do is provide my mind with the circumstances it needs to develop in a healthy way, and then be patient. In the meantime I can put my best effort into taking healthy and self-caring actions (doesn't have to be sleeping all day, could be taking a class or learning a new skill), without punishing myself for failing these.
Oftentimes 3 and 4 can lead to you escaping everything which may make your big picture situation worse.
"It's becoming miserable to work at X because so-and-so is very challenging to work with".
You can't control so-and-so and stewing in this environment while complaining isn't going to help the situation so the only choices are to never bring them up again and be internally miserable or leave. If you leave, the outcome of that might mean you can't pay your bills.
"It's becoming miserable to work at X because so-and-so is very challenging to work with".
You can't control so-and-so and stewing in this environment while complaining isn't going to help the situation so the only choices are to never bring them up again and be internally miserable or leave. If you leave, the outcome of that might mean you can't pay your bills.
>1. I’m NOT a victim.
>Now, I want to be clear that you can, in fact, be a victim and things can happen in your life that isn’t your fault
Going to be honest here, I have no idea what you're talking about. Are you saying that people should go through life never feeling like a victim, even if they are one? I don't see how that would be helpful.
>5. Whatever happens in life, I give myself a cap of 48 hours to get over it—this includes being sad, grieving, being unproductive, etc.
You must seriously loathe yourself or live an incredibly sheltered life if you actually follow this (e.g. not just bottling up your emotions and pretending that you're okay). If your dad died, are you seriously just going to take a weekend to try and power through the grieving process? Actually, if you think spending more than 48 hours being unproductive is something that you have to "get over", do you even let yourself have weekends off from work? This is the kind of mindset that leads to people committing suicide.
>Now, I want to be clear that you can, in fact, be a victim and things can happen in your life that isn’t your fault
Going to be honest here, I have no idea what you're talking about. Are you saying that people should go through life never feeling like a victim, even if they are one? I don't see how that would be helpful.
>5. Whatever happens in life, I give myself a cap of 48 hours to get over it—this includes being sad, grieving, being unproductive, etc.
You must seriously loathe yourself or live an incredibly sheltered life if you actually follow this (e.g. not just bottling up your emotions and pretending that you're okay). If your dad died, are you seriously just going to take a weekend to try and power through the grieving process? Actually, if you think spending more than 48 hours being unproductive is something that you have to "get over", do you even let yourself have weekends off from work? This is the kind of mindset that leads to people committing suicide.
I think they're saying that you can use belief as a tool in your thinking, even if you know intellectually it's not true now and certainly won't be true always.
The belief that you are not a victim is (often) a very useful belief because it prompts change in the only place you're reliably able to produce it: your own decisions. This is true irrespective of whether you're actually a victim today or tomorrow. Obviously if your "I am not a victim" mentality is prompting you not to leave a situation you really should be leaving, then that's a bad application. Note what happened here though: it's not the truthfulness of the belief that changed, it's the usefulness of the belief.
> This is the kind of mindset that leads to people committing suicide.
Citation please? That's an extremely bold claim to be throwing out as established fact.
The belief that you are not a victim is (often) a very useful belief because it prompts change in the only place you're reliably able to produce it: your own decisions. This is true irrespective of whether you're actually a victim today or tomorrow. Obviously if your "I am not a victim" mentality is prompting you not to leave a situation you really should be leaving, then that's a bad application. Note what happened here though: it's not the truthfulness of the belief that changed, it's the usefulness of the belief.
> This is the kind of mindset that leads to people committing suicide.
Citation please? That's an extremely bold claim to be throwing out as established fact.
> > This is the kind of mindset that leads to people committing suicide.
> Citation please? That's an extremely bold claim to be throwing out as established fact.
I know I’ll probably offend some folks by saying this: This is why everyone seems to expect to be coddled nowadays. Concepts like suicide are used so liberally and flippantly, and worse, they’re even weaponized at times. We’ve gone from vets committing suicide due to PTSD after being in literal war to folks considering suicide as an option the moment they feel the slightest bit of discomfort from life. I think this is really bad for society.
If anything, I think learning how to take full control over your emotions—i.e., the point of my “48 hours” system—can likely actually prevent suicide (this is obviously just my hunch, not based on any studies), because it’s usually (not always) a result of someone losing hope in their ability to control their situation/outcomes and letting their emotions take over. It’s easy to see my system as robotic, but the reality is, the end result is putting the power back in my hands and allowing myself to push through. It’s worked extremely well for me.
> Citation please? That's an extremely bold claim to be throwing out as established fact.
I know I’ll probably offend some folks by saying this: This is why everyone seems to expect to be coddled nowadays. Concepts like suicide are used so liberally and flippantly, and worse, they’re even weaponized at times. We’ve gone from vets committing suicide due to PTSD after being in literal war to folks considering suicide as an option the moment they feel the slightest bit of discomfort from life. I think this is really bad for society.
If anything, I think learning how to take full control over your emotions—i.e., the point of my “48 hours” system—can likely actually prevent suicide (this is obviously just my hunch, not based on any studies), because it’s usually (not always) a result of someone losing hope in their ability to control their situation/outcomes and letting their emotions take over. It’s easy to see my system as robotic, but the reality is, the end result is putting the power back in my hands and allowing myself to push through. It’s worked extremely well for me.
>The belief that you are not a victim is (often) a very useful belief because it prompts change in the only place you're reliably able to produce it: your own decisions.
I figured that this is the angle that he was going for, but I still don't believe it. Feeling like a victim can prompt change as well, and like you said, refusing to feel like a victim can prevent change. It's all about the situation, but I think that refusing to have an honest assessment of your situation will usually cause you to make bad decisions.
> Citation please? That's an extremely bold claim to be throwing out as established fact.
Grieving usually takes at least 6 months[0]. Trying to speedrun the process because you refuse to let yourself feel negative emotions is literally the absolute worst way to deal with loss, to the point that I'm actually surprised that somebody actually just suggested that. Same thing with being unproductive for more than 48 hours. That's a recipe for burnout, and trying to just power through burnout for your entire life without accepting that you might need to rest for a bit will make you feel useless and depressed that you can't reach your absurdly strict self-goals. Self-hatred increases the risk of suicide[1], and I can't imagine that anybody would use this framework unless they despise themselves or have never suffered in their life.
[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK66052/
[1] https://www.healthyplace.com/blogs/buildingselfesteem/2018/9...
I figured that this is the angle that he was going for, but I still don't believe it. Feeling like a victim can prompt change as well, and like you said, refusing to feel like a victim can prevent change. It's all about the situation, but I think that refusing to have an honest assessment of your situation will usually cause you to make bad decisions.
> Citation please? That's an extremely bold claim to be throwing out as established fact.
Grieving usually takes at least 6 months[0]. Trying to speedrun the process because you refuse to let yourself feel negative emotions is literally the absolute worst way to deal with loss, to the point that I'm actually surprised that somebody actually just suggested that. Same thing with being unproductive for more than 48 hours. That's a recipe for burnout, and trying to just power through burnout for your entire life without accepting that you might need to rest for a bit will make you feel useless and depressed that you can't reach your absurdly strict self-goals. Self-hatred increases the risk of suicide[1], and I can't imagine that anybody would use this framework unless they despise themselves or have never suffered in their life.
[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK66052/
[1] https://www.healthyplace.com/blogs/buildingselfesteem/2018/9...
> This is the kind of mindset that leads to people committing suicide.
I agree with this, I’ve seen it play out numerous times. This sort of reasoning barely works on a surface level if at all and requires maintaining at least one giant blind spot — in this case it’s likely impossible to “get over” the intense need for constant unwavering control over one’s internal state that lead to the creation of the 48 hour rule.
The sort of terror underlying the thought of who a person might become if they were to slip up and be sad for three days or two weeks etc. can only be ignored, suppressed or (self)medicated — certainly not “overcome” in that window.
I agree with this, I’ve seen it play out numerous times. This sort of reasoning barely works on a surface level if at all and requires maintaining at least one giant blind spot — in this case it’s likely impossible to “get over” the intense need for constant unwavering control over one’s internal state that lead to the creation of the 48 hour rule.
The sort of terror underlying the thought of who a person might become if they were to slip up and be sad for three days or two weeks etc. can only be ignored, suppressed or (self)medicated — certainly not “overcome” in that window.
[deleted]
> You must seriously loathe yourself or live an incredibly sheltered life if you actually follow this (e.g. not just bottling up your emotions and pretending that you're okay).
Nonsense. It’s actually quite the opposite. I’m a black man who’s been told my entire life that I’m a victim. And to an extent, I was a victim; I grew up in some of the worst environments in America, I’ve been through more trauma—including serious physical violence—than most folks, and my skin color was always my victimhood pass. I’ve been blessed to have had both of my parents married and in my life, and they did their best to teach me to be a responsible person, but everyone else always told me that I had excuses for my issues in life. You know what’s actually destructive? Allowing folks to live in a perpetual state of victimhood. It’s debilitating and renders you powerless. Not allowing myself to be a victim is quite literally the most powerful and life-changing thing to ever happen to me.
Also, it’s not about “pretending” that I’m okay … I am. I’m a realist. I accept that life comes the way it does and figure out ways to move forward despite whatever comes at me. In the grand scheme of things, most of the things we tend to stress ourselves about aren’t actually that deep. And when they are, well, you’re still human, so it’s perfectly reasonable to react accordingly. If someone extremely close to me dies, you’re right, it might take slightly longer than a weekend to get through it, but I’m optimizing for the most likely situations; in my experience, most situations that have folks curling up in a ball aren’t “my dad died” situations.
Nonsense. It’s actually quite the opposite. I’m a black man who’s been told my entire life that I’m a victim. And to an extent, I was a victim; I grew up in some of the worst environments in America, I’ve been through more trauma—including serious physical violence—than most folks, and my skin color was always my victimhood pass. I’ve been blessed to have had both of my parents married and in my life, and they did their best to teach me to be a responsible person, but everyone else always told me that I had excuses for my issues in life. You know what’s actually destructive? Allowing folks to live in a perpetual state of victimhood. It’s debilitating and renders you powerless. Not allowing myself to be a victim is quite literally the most powerful and life-changing thing to ever happen to me.
Also, it’s not about “pretending” that I’m okay … I am. I’m a realist. I accept that life comes the way it does and figure out ways to move forward despite whatever comes at me. In the grand scheme of things, most of the things we tend to stress ourselves about aren’t actually that deep. And when they are, well, you’re still human, so it’s perfectly reasonable to react accordingly. If someone extremely close to me dies, you’re right, it might take slightly longer than a weekend to get through it, but I’m optimizing for the most likely situations; in my experience, most situations that have folks curling up in a ball aren’t “my dad died” situations.
It does not have to be binary. sometimes you are the victim, others times you are not
I’ve never been fond of this line of reasoning because some people actually are victims and deluding yourself rarely has great outcomes. I think a truthful and accurate self-perception is loads better than just insisting you are never a victim.
He lost a 9 year old son to cancer, an eye to illness and all his money after a divorce. Seems like a cool guy to still be able to say it.
This has real "dating advice from Brad Pitt" energy
Love so much
(2020)
bmitc(11)
> If you just take the attitude that, however bad it is in any way, it’s always your fault
I like the idea of having an inspirational quote that shares a premise with a suicide note pinned to the wall, it is very motivating
I like the idea of having an inspirational quote that shares a premise with a suicide note pinned to the wall, it is very motivating
Eh, I don't read it like that, but that's the cool thing about words and individuals I guess. You can view it as a fatalistic acceptance of too much responsibility for one's own suffering or a motivating reminder of your agency. Or somewhere in between. I often find it inspirational when I'm stuck in a self pitying mode.
I love the idea of cargo cult-ing myself into major depression by doing reverse cognitive behavioral therapy in order to be more like a nonagenarian billionaire.
“Mimic severe mental illness by refusing the nature of reality” is a piece of advice that only a genius could conjure up
“Mimic severe mental illness by refusing the nature of reality” is a piece of advice that only a genius could conjure up
What CBT protocol did you do that had you systematically putting agency and responsibility outside of yourself?
You make a good point. CBT is about assigning blame to the self. Despite being labeled “cognitive distortions” things like black and white thinking and personalization and blame are things that CBT teaches you to do more often
[deleted]
Hard not to hear this as "I'm afraid that my victims will retaliate, therefore there are no victims."
Did he ever get his university prison camp finished?
Someone tell the Israelis whining about "October 7".
Feeling like a victim all the way.
Feeling like a victim all the way.
A victim has a lot of power though.
A victim suffers. You aren't allowed to question a claim of suffering.
Therefore a claim of suffering is an axiom.
Axioms are the foundation of (a certain kind of) reality.
A victim suffers. You aren't allowed to question a claim of suffering.
Therefore a claim of suffering is an axiom.
Axioms are the foundation of (a certain kind of) reality.
Charlie Munger has died - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38451278