How people learn to become resilient (2016)(newyorker.com)
newyorker.com
How people learn to become resilient (2016)
https://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/the-secret-formula-for-resilience
84 コメント
I would argue that privilege comes in other forms than wealth, and at a certain point no amount of wealth might make up for a rough childhood, or broken relationships, and those things can drive people too. Some people don’t work 70-hour weeks because of the money, or even because they enjoy it, but because on some level they are broken and it’s an acceptable “addiction” that lets them avoid confronting their inner demons
You make a good point. It's interesting how people seem to automatically equate hard work as automatically being a positive (or even as some kind of morality). In reality, without fully understanding an individual's true motivations, it's hard to make any kind of proper judgement.
Yes. See also a great little book from ages ago called "The Hacker Ethic" by Pekka Himanen, which examines and critiques this "Protestant work ethic".
The greatest privilege is being born in the West in the modern day, to 2 loving parents. Even if poor, you already won the birth lottery compared to 99% of every human that ever lived. Other notable advantages: Intelligence. Attractiveness. Charisma.
Is anyone born into this position happier than 99% of everyone who’s ever lived?
I have many friends coming from wealthy backgrounds, and about half of them are very depressed. I myself am coming from a wealthy background, and have severe psychological and physical problems. I don't think this privilege stuff has much meaning in it.
An interesting, and different aspect of “resilience” you sort of touch on but don’t spell out is resistance to temptation. Avoiding gluttony if you refer to the deadly sins.
Some family environments may “spoil” the child because wealth allows the care-givers to provide a “Brave New World” like environment to grow up in.
This is very different than an environment where food and shelter isn’t being met and the challenge is to acquire the basics.
In an environment where “getting spoiled” might be an issue what is lacking is the fundamental need to develop autonomy and self-efficacy.
This is the environment I grew up in.
While a student—my dad was always trying to cheer me up with fancy dinners, and sumptuous gifts instead of trying to teach me how to create this same environment for myself.
Later, as an adult—they would discourage me from all attempts to overcome struggle.
Once I had a problem with a supplier while trying to launch a business and the first reaction out from my dad was that I should quit. My struggle was too much for my parents to bear. He didn’t believe I could endure the challenge.
Two things further complicate the situation.
1-
The child in question may also be continually told that they are lucky to be provided for. Isolation may ensue.
2 -
If only one parent is the breadwinner—the spouse may also end up being spoiled because they are out of touch with the circumstances that created the financial privilege.
—
Without going too much more into it, I do believe I have developed a much better sense of what to accept and what to reject as gifts. I’m not perfect at it, but here is my thinking right now.
Reject material goods. Reject rent payments. Reject the payment of household expenses.
Accept experiences and time together. This is not as easy as it sounds.
For example, how should I pay for extra activities if my dad has picked out a luxurious resort and is inviting me on his dime? If it was my dollar, I would have opted for a much cheaper backpacking trip where 7 days camping equate to to one night at said resort. Still—I don’t want to have a bad time while I’m on vacation and so I choose to do these activities which he is more than happy to pay for. (Previously I have been on miserable vacations where I did nothing fun because I felt bad about spending his money. Truth is—I can’t afford this place on my own.)
At the end of the day—we are a family and we need to get along and we need to understand each other. We need to spend time together. We actually even like spending time together.
If I’m ever as financially successful as my father I need to make sure that these rules are clear up front for my children.
The more complicated wrinkle is with my mother who divorced my father. She is spoiled and spends her money very poorly. There is nothing I wish for more than to see her run her life with self-efficacy. She should have enough self-restraint so that she can actually enjoy the very exciting things she does do in life. Still—she dosen’t. In fact, she may never develop the capacity to do this for herself.
Money is a powerful creature. If used correctly—it can really enhance life. If used incorrectly, it can destroy you. In my life—I have seen it do both.
Some family environments may “spoil” the child because wealth allows the care-givers to provide a “Brave New World” like environment to grow up in.
This is very different than an environment where food and shelter isn’t being met and the challenge is to acquire the basics.
In an environment where “getting spoiled” might be an issue what is lacking is the fundamental need to develop autonomy and self-efficacy.
This is the environment I grew up in.
While a student—my dad was always trying to cheer me up with fancy dinners, and sumptuous gifts instead of trying to teach me how to create this same environment for myself.
Later, as an adult—they would discourage me from all attempts to overcome struggle.
Once I had a problem with a supplier while trying to launch a business and the first reaction out from my dad was that I should quit. My struggle was too much for my parents to bear. He didn’t believe I could endure the challenge.
Two things further complicate the situation.
1-
The child in question may also be continually told that they are lucky to be provided for. Isolation may ensue.
2 -
If only one parent is the breadwinner—the spouse may also end up being spoiled because they are out of touch with the circumstances that created the financial privilege.
—
Without going too much more into it, I do believe I have developed a much better sense of what to accept and what to reject as gifts. I’m not perfect at it, but here is my thinking right now.
Reject material goods. Reject rent payments. Reject the payment of household expenses.
Accept experiences and time together. This is not as easy as it sounds.
For example, how should I pay for extra activities if my dad has picked out a luxurious resort and is inviting me on his dime? If it was my dollar, I would have opted for a much cheaper backpacking trip where 7 days camping equate to to one night at said resort. Still—I don’t want to have a bad time while I’m on vacation and so I choose to do these activities which he is more than happy to pay for. (Previously I have been on miserable vacations where I did nothing fun because I felt bad about spending his money. Truth is—I can’t afford this place on my own.)
At the end of the day—we are a family and we need to get along and we need to understand each other. We need to spend time together. We actually even like spending time together.
If I’m ever as financially successful as my father I need to make sure that these rules are clear up front for my children.
The more complicated wrinkle is with my mother who divorced my father. She is spoiled and spends her money very poorly. There is nothing I wish for more than to see her run her life with self-efficacy. She should have enough self-restraint so that she can actually enjoy the very exciting things she does do in life. Still—she dosen’t. In fact, she may never develop the capacity to do this for herself.
Money is a powerful creature. If used correctly—it can really enhance life. If used incorrectly, it can destroy you. In my life—I have seen it do both.
As opposed to people experiencing trauma and failing to meet the challenge?
I guess no matter what backgrounds we have, we have our own ways of failing.
I guess no matter what backgrounds we have, we have our own ways of failing.
'Resilience', in this sense, is usually presented as a positive personal trait to be proud of.
However, (after a lot of therapy), I see it more as a simple reflection of the undue trauma I faced and was required to handle.
However, (after a lot of therapy), I see it more as a simple reflection of the undue trauma I faced and was required to handle.
If you are saying you don't think your own resilience is anything to be proud of, I think you are failing to consider those who faced trauma and failed to handle it.
I too know the "what the fuck else am I supposed to do" feeling in response to people saying stuff like "how did you deal with something like that?" or "you're so strong" but I think it does a disservice to yourself to ignore that crumpling under the pressure was a possibility, and one that was avoided if you're still here.
I too know the "what the fuck else am I supposed to do" feeling in response to people saying stuff like "how did you deal with something like that?" or "you're so strong" but I think it does a disservice to yourself to ignore that crumpling under the pressure was a possibility, and one that was avoided if you're still here.
> I think you are failing to consider those who faced trauma and failed to handle it.
I would have previously agreed with you, and I think that is an important viewpoint that is useful to contemplate deeply. But, I now wish to reject the point of view that I should be proud because I faced my individual trauma somehow 'better' than those other people.
Those other people shouldn't have faced that trauma either.
I would have previously agreed with you, and I think that is an important viewpoint that is useful to contemplate deeply. But, I now wish to reject the point of view that I should be proud because I faced my individual trauma somehow 'better' than those other people.
Those other people shouldn't have faced that trauma either.
You reject it, sure. But you are providing no cogent reasons for doing so — merely saying 'I changed my mind' is no argument that will persuade others, unless you're expecting your prior trauma somehow credentials you to authoritatively create truth.
Indeed. I have no reason to argue and no real need to persuade others - I just wish to observe and live my truth.
Then it is meaningless to communicate it to anyone else. But I don't think that's what you think; there's an internal contradiction there. I will leave it at that.
Your claim is that all meaningful communication is arguing?
I can and do recommend therapy to everyone.
I can and do recommend therapy to everyone.
Perhaps this is a difference of trauma types.
"Shouldn't" is an interesting word for e.g. getting cancer. We would all be better off if nobody had to ever face that, but... what would "they shouldn't have gotten cancer" really mean, there? That they should be bitter over being unlucky?
That would be a very different statement to make about a trauma inflicted by another human, though.
"Shouldn't" is an interesting word for e.g. getting cancer. We would all be better off if nobody had to ever face that, but... what would "they shouldn't have gotten cancer" really mean, there? That they should be bitter over being unlucky?
That would be a very different statement to make about a trauma inflicted by another human, though.
hi, made this throwaway (or maybe one to keep?) to agree with you.
i'm not happy or pleased that my therapist calls me resilient. she uses the word as something positive but i'd rather not be "resilient" at all. the experience and effects of trauma are something i could do 1000% without. and i'm sure most people who have survived such an ordeal can attest to that fact.
i'm not happy or pleased that my therapist calls me resilient. she uses the word as something positive but i'd rather not be "resilient" at all. the experience and effects of trauma are something i could do 1000% without. and i'm sure most people who have survived such an ordeal can attest to that fact.
contradiction:
I have a personality type which crumbles on every occurrence of some challenges in life, and I’m havin nearly panic attacks about almost everything. part of that emotion is “why me, I don’t want this problem in my life”. and frequently for short periods of time I’m on the verge of giving up.
what my therapist is trying to teach me that all events in my life are kinda inevitable, and it’s up to me to decide how to handle them, and I thing therapist is trying to develop some resillience in me by explaining that some trauma in my life is just unavoidable. getting older is unavoidable. diseases (albeit preventable) unavoidable. economic crisis inevitable and so on and so on. so having resiliency is a good thing, regardless if you prefer to have that trauma or not. and you should be proud that you handled it well.
I have a personality type which crumbles on every occurrence of some challenges in life, and I’m havin nearly panic attacks about almost everything. part of that emotion is “why me, I don’t want this problem in my life”. and frequently for short periods of time I’m on the verge of giving up.
what my therapist is trying to teach me that all events in my life are kinda inevitable, and it’s up to me to decide how to handle them, and I thing therapist is trying to develop some resillience in me by explaining that some trauma in my life is just unavoidable. getting older is unavoidable. diseases (albeit preventable) unavoidable. economic crisis inevitable and so on and so on. so having resiliency is a good thing, regardless if you prefer to have that trauma or not. and you should be proud that you handled it well.
Not being resilient doesn't mean not having to experience trauma though. If you're saying you'd be happy to not be resilient if it meant not experiencing trauma then I can see your point.
on the other hand: you said you would rather not be resilient at all.. so how would you prefer to react to the exact same trauma you experienced previously? assuming that you cannot choose to not have that trauma at all.
The person you are responding to would prefer to never having to go through trauma and would be fine with never building that additional resilience. That trauma is not good price for the supposed resilience he got.
And I can add that another benefit for him would be time and money saved on therapist. Therapy takes time and a lot of money. Being in situation where you don't need it is better, even if you lose on tiny bit of resilience.
And I can add that another benefit for him would be time and money saved on therapist. Therapy takes time and a lot of money. Being in situation where you don't need it is better, even if you lose on tiny bit of resilience.
yeah, I understand that people prefer to not have trauma in their life but it’s just impossible :)
Trauma is the natural state of the universe. To think life should be free of trauma is a hyper-modern and sheltered view of the world enabled by our extreme comfort provided by modern technology and the invisible labor from less privelidged people and those who lived and died before us.
Trauma is the natural state, and our resilience has and always will be a defining characteristic of successful people... Of whom we are descendents.
Trauma is the natural state, and our resilience has and always will be a defining characteristic of successful people... Of whom we are descendents.
> Trauma is the natural state of the universe.
As a survivor of sexual abuse on a lifelong journey of survival, it’s difficult to communicate just how strongly I disagree with (and am repulsed by) this statement and the sentiment behind it.
It lacks awareness of the many kinds of trauma, and trivializes the experiences of those who’ve been subjected to things that are anything but natural.
Do not mistake the prevalence of something for being “natural”. Trauma, by definition, is the opposite, prevalent though it may be.
And even if you could lump all kinds of trauma into the same category, my conclusion would be very different than yours. If trauma is the natural state, then we should be doing everything to change that state, not throw up our hands and conclude “oh well, that’s just the way things are, and the best survive”.
Imagine taking this stance on slavery, or more broadly: racism.
As a survivor of sexual abuse on a lifelong journey of survival, it’s difficult to communicate just how strongly I disagree with (and am repulsed by) this statement and the sentiment behind it.
It lacks awareness of the many kinds of trauma, and trivializes the experiences of those who’ve been subjected to things that are anything but natural.
Do not mistake the prevalence of something for being “natural”. Trauma, by definition, is the opposite, prevalent though it may be.
And even if you could lump all kinds of trauma into the same category, my conclusion would be very different than yours. If trauma is the natural state, then we should be doing everything to change that state, not throw up our hands and conclude “oh well, that’s just the way things are, and the best survive”.
Imagine taking this stance on slavery, or more broadly: racism.
>Trauma is the natural state of the universe.
I agree with everything you said.
Also: fuck the natural state of the universe. The natural state of the universe is shit and we should seriously fight against it.
There is no fairness or justice or good in the laws of the universe. Nature is a bitch.
But that's not so bad, because we can be fair and good and make the environment better.
I agree with everything you said.
Also: fuck the natural state of the universe. The natural state of the universe is shit and we should seriously fight against it.
There is no fairness or justice or good in the laws of the universe. Nature is a bitch.
But that's not so bad, because we can be fair and good and make the environment better.
I'd recommend checking out a book called "The Body Keeps the Score". It talks about how people's minds and bodies can stop functioning normally due to traumas like sexual abuse, war, etc.
I would have thought that since traumatic experiences have been around forever, humans would have adapted to dealing with those better by now. And yet the medical evidence laid out in this book seems to show that healing from traumas is difficult. To me, that means there is something "unnatural" about trauma (or at least the most awful cases).
I'm probably not doing the book enough justice. Here's the goodreads profile for anyone who wants to explore further: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18693771-the-body-keeps-...
I would have thought that since traumatic experiences have been around forever, humans would have adapted to dealing with those better by now. And yet the medical evidence laid out in this book seems to show that healing from traumas is difficult. To me, that means there is something "unnatural" about trauma (or at least the most awful cases).
I'm probably not doing the book enough justice. Here's the goodreads profile for anyone who wants to explore further: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18693771-the-body-keeps-...
The defining characteristic of successful people IMO is not resilience but that their life has given them the opportunity to be successful in the first place!
There is nothing hyper-modern about condemning war, sexual assault, child abuse, and genocide. These things have been viewed as terrible by various civilizations since civilization existed.
There is nothing hyper-modern about condemning war, sexual assault, child abuse, and genocide. These things have been viewed as terrible by various civilizations since civilization existed.
[deleted]
We either read different articles, or have almost contradictory viewpoints. I have deep background in developmental trauma, developmental psychology, and trauma is in fact what destroys the resilience mentioned in the article.
You don't become resilient due to going through trauma, you are resilient when your body is in a certain physiological state (which is reflected throughout, from brainwaves, to vagal tone, to digestive system functioning, to immune system etc). Trauma is an event that takes the body out of that state into a state of fear/fight-or-flight. This state can become chronic if the perceived state of danger is maintained (even if the actual physical danger may no longer be relevant, the thought patterns developed could continue for the rest of person's life for instance). Some people go their whole lives with the coping behaviors developed in response to that trauma (whether it's workoholism, addiction etc).
Also important to mention is that there's a window of time between birth (and even before) and the very early childhood when the brain structures related to affect regulation are developed. Trauma in that period is likely to affect a person severely for a lifetime.
In other words, trauma is what makes a person less resilient. Lack of stressors does not make a person less resilient, on the contrary. Learned helplessness is an extremely common outcome of severe trauma, which is quite the opposite of resilience.
You don't become resilient due to going through trauma, you are resilient when your body is in a certain physiological state (which is reflected throughout, from brainwaves, to vagal tone, to digestive system functioning, to immune system etc). Trauma is an event that takes the body out of that state into a state of fear/fight-or-flight. This state can become chronic if the perceived state of danger is maintained (even if the actual physical danger may no longer be relevant, the thought patterns developed could continue for the rest of person's life for instance). Some people go their whole lives with the coping behaviors developed in response to that trauma (whether it's workoholism, addiction etc).
Also important to mention is that there's a window of time between birth (and even before) and the very early childhood when the brain structures related to affect regulation are developed. Trauma in that period is likely to affect a person severely for a lifetime.
In other words, trauma is what makes a person less resilient. Lack of stressors does not make a person less resilient, on the contrary. Learned helplessness is an extremely common outcome of severe trauma, which is quite the opposite of resilience.
The impact of trauma is important, monoamine oxidase A is one of the genes that is often shaping the outcome.
https://news.ufl.edu/2019/07/how-genes-resilience-affect-syr...
https://news.ufl.edu/2019/07/how-genes-resilience-affect-syr...
In the article Konnikova (and Seligman) describes resilience as a product of methods that can be taught. The framing is that resilience is an interpretive skill.
The Konnikova article links to a NYTimes article [0] which in turn (in the reader comments) links to a HuffPost article [1] by a medical school specialist on PTSD. Quoting from that: "The American Psychological Association defines resilience as 'the process of adapting well in the face of adversity, trauma, tragedy, threats or even significant sources of threat.' ... Resilience is common and can be witnessed all around us. Even better, we learned that everyone can learn and train to be more resilient. The key involves knowing how to harness stress and use it to our advantage. "
The problem with resilience as a skill is that "resilience" may be a skill you don't have before you need it. How can one be expected to have total control over one's "construal"? Trauma, like grief, is personal and subjective. Emotion is immediate. We feel the way we feel. In a crisis, should one feel worse because you are not yet deploying the resilience? Resilience is not one sure trick but an interpretative mindset set that may or may not be available to you when something that you may or may not be able to understand has happened to you. One could view therapy as a process of developing over time a resilient response to experienced trauma.
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/06/magazine/the-profound-emp... [1] https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trauma-resilience_b_1881666
The Konnikova article links to a NYTimes article [0] which in turn (in the reader comments) links to a HuffPost article [1] by a medical school specialist on PTSD. Quoting from that: "The American Psychological Association defines resilience as 'the process of adapting well in the face of adversity, trauma, tragedy, threats or even significant sources of threat.' ... Resilience is common and can be witnessed all around us. Even better, we learned that everyone can learn and train to be more resilient. The key involves knowing how to harness stress and use it to our advantage. "
The problem with resilience as a skill is that "resilience" may be a skill you don't have before you need it. How can one be expected to have total control over one's "construal"? Trauma, like grief, is personal and subjective. Emotion is immediate. We feel the way we feel. In a crisis, should one feel worse because you are not yet deploying the resilience? Resilience is not one sure trick but an interpretative mindset set that may or may not be available to you when something that you may or may not be able to understand has happened to you. One could view therapy as a process of developing over time a resilient response to experienced trauma.
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/06/magazine/the-profound-emp... [1] https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trauma-resilience_b_1881666
I tend to think of resilience as a psychical equivalent of the calluses on your fingers that you get from playing the guitar.
Developing them is painful, but they give you power to try and do something bigger.
Developing them is painful, but they give you power to try and do something bigger.
For me, resilience is more like bending tree branches. The green ones return to their original shape easily once force is removed, the dry ones keep their form as long as possible, but snap abruptly if too much force is exerted. Repeated bending results in microfractures, then breaking in either type.
IOW "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger."
This is certainly wildly untrue for many sorts of trauma. What doesn't kill you can leave you less capable, weaker, more vulnerable, etc...
You might have to be resilient to deal with the trauma without collapsing, and then find that you still have to be resilient to deal with your new, permanently changed life after the fact too.
You might have to be resilient to deal with the trauma without collapsing, and then find that you still have to be resilient to deal with your new, permanently changed life after the fact too.
No one ever became stronger by getting their legs crushed by a ton of metal. In fact, I'd argue they mostly became weaker.
That is motivational, but inaccurate.
Interesting article.
One place where one needs to build resilience is in how we work and how we learn new things. The key thing is developing skillsets that enable us to go through life. Some key tools are:
1. Understanding how humans work: On why the early stages of work tend to be stressful.
2. Pushing through pain points: On the power of mental reframing.
3. Seeking motivation from within: Especially on large projects where you’re just a cog in the wheel.
This article https://leveragethoughts.substack.com/p/humans-and-work-thre... explores this further.
One place where one needs to build resilience is in how we work and how we learn new things. The key thing is developing skillsets that enable us to go through life. Some key tools are:
1. Understanding how humans work: On why the early stages of work tend to be stressful.
2. Pushing through pain points: On the power of mental reframing.
3. Seeking motivation from within: Especially on large projects where you’re just a cog in the wheel.
This article https://leveragethoughts.substack.com/p/humans-and-work-thre... explores this further.
Discussed at the time:
How People Learn to Become Resilient - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11083526 - Feb 2016 (25 comments)
How People Learn to Become Resilient - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11083526 - Feb 2016 (25 comments)
Off-topic comment: newyorker.com hasn't loaded successfully for me in Chrome for probably a few years now. Literal white page that flickers with the article for a second before going blank.
I figured it was anti-ad-blocker tech, but even disabling ad blocker and going to incognito does nothing. Calls to "https://dolphin.condenastdigital.com/engines/atmo" are the calls that seem to fail with "ERR_NAME_NOT_RESOLVED". I don't see a similar call being made in Firefox, which does load successfully.
Is my Chrome getting fingerprinted and somehow punished for running uBlock, or is newyorker.com just broken for Chrome in certain cases? Either way, it makes using my subscription that much harder...
I figured it was anti-ad-blocker tech, but even disabling ad blocker and going to incognito does nothing. Calls to "https://dolphin.condenastdigital.com/engines/atmo" are the calls that seem to fail with "ERR_NAME_NOT_RESOLVED". I don't see a similar call being made in Firefox, which does load successfully.
Is my Chrome getting fingerprinted and somehow punished for running uBlock, or is newyorker.com just broken for Chrome in certain cases? Either way, it makes using my subscription that much harder...
I am using Brave, which is Chromium based, and I had no problem loading the article.
Sucks to hear you having that issue.
Sucks to hear you having that issue.
I had the same nearly the same situation, like 70% to 80% of the sandwich kid mentioned in the beginning.
Its impossible to read a summary of what have happened with me, because it would be so long that I would never end.
A short summary of the beginning would be something like this: I just never accepted anything coming from adults, teachers. I saw when they said something to me, than the next second do the very opposite. And I realized that when my parents divorced, that everything that I learned from them needs to be erased. They could not tell why they divorced, a specific reason. Because it never really is about one thing from what I can tell now. It was not something I come up with, it was more like a realization, hard truth, something that hit me hard, or something around these lines. And then I just proceeded to build up a mental image about the world from the ground up. I guess we all do that while growing up, but I really just couldn't accept anything anyone told me to do, or think the way they want me to.
Cant say that I 'am a very successful person. Sometimes I can be spot on, even on very large scale questions, using my own version of the world. I was able to make a really good investment choice, when everyone was shitting themselves, and running around like a beheaded chicken that the world was about to end. 2008 financial crisis and Covid. (I was in 7th grade in 2008 with really shitty grades) And sometimes I miss by a mile, usually when around topics where feelings must be involved. That is the part that I am trying to get better since I've realized.
I think its more about some things can make you or brake you. Resilience is understanding the real reasons why something happened. Like someone got angry at work when I asked him to send some documents for me. If the person is rude and got, to some extent angry at me, than I could translate that as that person not liking me, or that the person has some difficulties at home. In the first choice we could grind on about why is that, what have I done wrong, where in the other, you just move on. At least in my experience.
Its impossible to read a summary of what have happened with me, because it would be so long that I would never end.
A short summary of the beginning would be something like this: I just never accepted anything coming from adults, teachers. I saw when they said something to me, than the next second do the very opposite. And I realized that when my parents divorced, that everything that I learned from them needs to be erased. They could not tell why they divorced, a specific reason. Because it never really is about one thing from what I can tell now. It was not something I come up with, it was more like a realization, hard truth, something that hit me hard, or something around these lines. And then I just proceeded to build up a mental image about the world from the ground up. I guess we all do that while growing up, but I really just couldn't accept anything anyone told me to do, or think the way they want me to.
Cant say that I 'am a very successful person. Sometimes I can be spot on, even on very large scale questions, using my own version of the world. I was able to make a really good investment choice, when everyone was shitting themselves, and running around like a beheaded chicken that the world was about to end. 2008 financial crisis and Covid. (I was in 7th grade in 2008 with really shitty grades) And sometimes I miss by a mile, usually when around topics where feelings must be involved. That is the part that I am trying to get better since I've realized.
I think its more about some things can make you or brake you. Resilience is understanding the real reasons why something happened. Like someone got angry at work when I asked him to send some documents for me. If the person is rude and got, to some extent angry at me, than I could translate that as that person not liking me, or that the person has some difficulties at home. In the first choice we could grind on about why is that, what have I done wrong, where in the other, you just move on. At least in my experience.
a major part of 12-step programs is getting people to shift to an external locus of control. they're supposed to accept that they have a permanent problem that it's totally beyond their power to fix.
somehow this helps people make difficult, lasting changes in their lives that were previously beyond them, which is exactly the opposite of what should happen according to the research profiled in this article.
I think it's probably valuable to have an accurate locus of control -- the serenity to accept the things you cannot change, the courage to change the things you can, and the wisdom to know the difference.
Unfortunately this idea that an internal locus of control is always the superior, correct attitude is already floating out into pop psychology in schools and workplaces. I'm sure the actual research is nuanced and interesting but that's not what's reaching people.
somehow this helps people make difficult, lasting changes in their lives that were previously beyond them, which is exactly the opposite of what should happen according to the research profiled in this article.
I think it's probably valuable to have an accurate locus of control -- the serenity to accept the things you cannot change, the courage to change the things you can, and the wisdom to know the difference.
Unfortunately this idea that an internal locus of control is always the superior, correct attitude is already floating out into pop psychology in schools and workplaces. I'm sure the actual research is nuanced and interesting but that's not what's reaching people.
For what it's worth, I don't think the twelve step program should be universally lauded such as it is. Does it help people? Absolutely. Could there be a better way? Probably.
hard to attack something that is already the status quo and free.
It’s not hard to attack it. Cold turkey strategies can be a recipe for disaster.
I'm personally skeptical of AA due to a.) the fact that it is structured in a way that makes it impossible for it to evaluate its own efficacy and b.) the general cult vibe.
it's difficult to attack because, among other things, it is already integrated with the justice system. it fills the role of "okay, you're guilty of {drug-related offense}, but since it's your first time we're gonna cut you a break. we can't just let you get off scot-free, so you gotta go to these meetings and get this slip signed. maybe you'll end up turning your life around in the process." any discussion of a replacement probably has to start with "how much does it cost?" and "who's paying?".
it's difficult to attack because, among other things, it is already integrated with the justice system. it fills the role of "okay, you're guilty of {drug-related offense}, but since it's your first time we're gonna cut you a break. we can't just let you get off scot-free, so you gotta go to these meetings and get this slip signed. maybe you'll end up turning your life around in the process." any discussion of a replacement probably has to start with "how much does it cost?" and "who's paying?".
The only prescription this article appears to make is "Positive Construal" -- thinking of potentially traumatic events as opportunities for growth, learning, and forming tighter social and community bonds seems to prevent them from becoming actually traumatizing.
"In research at Columbia, the neuroscientist Kevin Ochsner has shown that teaching people to think of stimuli in different ways—to reframe them in positive terms when the initial response is negative, or in a less emotional way when the initial response is emotionally “hot”—changes how they experience and react to the stimulus. You can train people to better regulate their emotions, and the training seems to have lasting effects."
For some additional prescriptive details.
For some additional prescriptive details.
People naturally build bonds with others in traumatic circumstances. It is called trauma bonding. One unfortunate side effect is that it makes out harder for abuse victim to leave abuser. Unfortunately, that mechanism works regardless of who caused the initial issue.
No mention of IQ anywhere in the article. I am sure IQ plays a major role in terms of outcomes. Often children from disadvantaged backgrounds and abusive/negligent parents who pull themselves up tend to also be smarter than average.
The article actually says the opposite, that these kids weren’t particularly smart.
“Though not especially gifted, these children used whatever skills they had effectively”
At least that’s how I interpreted the above quote.
“Though not especially gifted, these children used whatever skills they had effectively”
At least that’s how I interpreted the above quote.
Someone smarter than I am should draw parallels from this to modern social justice movements.
>Werner wrote. Perhaps most importantly, the resilient children had what psychologists call an “internal locus of control”: they believed that they, and not their circumstances, affected their achievements. The resilient children saw themselves as the orchestrators of their own fates. In fact, on a scale that measured locus of control, they scored more than two standard deviations away from the standardization group.
This sort of reasoning is exactly why I intentionally moved away from leftist frameworks that (although many of them I would argue are more correct) focus heavily on systemic critiques. This is my main problem with a good amount of leftist philosophy and why I much prefer the frameworks of post-modernists.
Even when the systemic analysis might be correct, if your goal is to improve your life it is far more important to move the locus of control into yourself rather than examine things outside your control that might be working against you.
Edit: e.g. if you want to get a new/better job it's far more productive after receiving a rejection letter to ask questions like "what did I do wrong?" and "what can I do differently next time?" than it is to worry about what systemic factors make you less likely to get the job.
I also want to be explicit that this is not a critique of the validity or importance of systemic critiques, more so just what I found to be practical in my life.
This sort of reasoning is exactly why I intentionally moved away from leftist frameworks that (although many of them I would argue are more correct) focus heavily on systemic critiques. This is my main problem with a good amount of leftist philosophy and why I much prefer the frameworks of post-modernists.
Even when the systemic analysis might be correct, if your goal is to improve your life it is far more important to move the locus of control into yourself rather than examine things outside your control that might be working against you.
Edit: e.g. if you want to get a new/better job it's far more productive after receiving a rejection letter to ask questions like "what did I do wrong?" and "what can I do differently next time?" than it is to worry about what systemic factors make you less likely to get the job.
I also want to be explicit that this is not a critique of the validity or importance of systemic critiques, more so just what I found to be practical in my life.
I think we're all lucky that not everyone's goals are just to improve their own life, but that some people want to improve society too.
If you were ill you'd want the doctor who told you both "here's how to cope" and "here's how we cure this thing," not the one who stopped at the first.
If you were ill you'd want the doctor who told you both "here's how to cope" and "here's how we cure this thing," not the one who stopped at the first.
I think a major gripe I have with said movements is that they exclusively want the latter, to the point of hostility towards the former.
Example: the body-positivity/fat-acceptance movement, which is often hostile to the concept of "unhealthy body weight" and "losing weight".
Example: the body-positivity/fat-acceptance movement, which is often hostile to the concept of "unhealthy body weight" and "losing weight".
To quote from kiba's reply elsewhere in this thread:
>The problem is that systematic problems requiring systematic solution doesn't provide a framework for individual behavior in the meantime.
To twist your analogy around, it's more like having a doctor say "you probably got cancer because you lived next to a coal plant." Incredibly important information to have societally, should absolutely be considered and maybe even an have impact on policy. However, that does nothing for the patient today.
>The problem is that systematic problems requiring systematic solution doesn't provide a framework for individual behavior in the meantime.
To twist your analogy around, it's more like having a doctor say "you probably got cancer because you lived next to a coal plant." Incredibly important information to have societally, should absolutely be considered and maybe even an have impact on policy. However, that does nothing for the patient today.
It does not take away anything from patient either. It may push him into changing place where he lives, so that further harm is prevented both to him and his family.
Also, if that is actual cause, it would be harmful for doctor to speculate about how patient harmed himself.
Also, if that is actual cause, it would be harmful for doctor to speculate about how patient harmed himself.
[deleted]
I don't follow your conclusion here. So... you don't think that there are systemic problems worth correcting? Or you think there are, but you don't want to because the disadvantaged should just be resilient instead?
It's one thing to say that there are alternative therapies to pulling down statues and burning shit in the street. It's rather another to reject the goals of a movement because you don't like their tactics.
It's one thing to say that there are alternative therapies to pulling down statues and burning shit in the street. It's rather another to reject the goals of a movement because you don't like their tactics.
I don't think that's what he's arguing.
Systematic problems are worth correcting and shouldn't be ignored.
The problem is that systematic problems requiring systematic solution doesn't provide a framework for individual behavior in the meantime.
You can't wait for problems to get fixed. Even if you're working hard or contributing money to those that are working to get problems fixed, you're still stuck in whatever circumstances you are in. It may be a long time for these problems to be fixed, in the meantime we're the heroes(or villains) of our own stories.
Systematic problems are worth correcting and shouldn't be ignored.
The problem is that systematic problems requiring systematic solution doesn't provide a framework for individual behavior in the meantime.
You can't wait for problems to get fixed. Even if you're working hard or contributing money to those that are working to get problems fixed, you're still stuck in whatever circumstances you are in. It may be a long time for these problems to be fixed, in the meantime we're the heroes(or villains) of our own stories.
Yup, this is exactly what I was trying to say.
Systemic critiques are absolutely necessary to improve society, but you can't live every day only in a systemic mindset because that will inevitably move your locus of control much farther outside yourself.
Systemic critiques are absolutely necessary to improve society, but you can't live every day only in a systemic mindset because that will inevitably move your locus of control much farther outside yourself.
This is what I was trying to get at with my original post.
[deleted]
The way leftists approach fixing systemic issues is fundamentally incompatible with actually changing anything. The smart leftists work towards positive change by doing disgusting things like engaging in compromise and working with people who aren’t ideologically pure; when they do such things they inadvertently reveal themselves to be something far more horrible, like a liberal or a progressive-but-not-progressive-enough.
Can you explain what exactly you want to see and how burning anything or tearing down statues accomplishes that? As far as I can tell, all it accomplished was status quo, with a lot more people feeling threatened by leftists.
Can you explain what exactly you want to see and how burning anything or tearing down statues accomplishes that? As far as I can tell, all it accomplished was status quo, with a lot more people feeling threatened by leftists.
Taboo on the word "leftists". You're otherizing, I don't think it's helpful.
I don't see the people you're referring to as being in the driver's seat of any meaningful change that's actually being considered in a way that might actually lead to implementation.
I don't see the people you're referring to as being in the driver's seat of any meaningful change that's actually being considered in a way that might actually lead to implementation.
Yes, exactly, they are not in the drivers seat because they systematically choose not to be in the drivers seat.
I don’t know if its necessarily wrong to otherize the people who smash windows in my community, spray paint graffiti on the walls (Land Back! Pigs must die! Kill cops! Rent is theft!). If anything, I think they have chosen to make themselves the enemy of the community they live in by refusing to productively engage with it.
Its really frustrating seeing people who purport to want progress actively destroy community will to make progress on things. They make things a lot harder for the people who are trying to make good changes happen.
I don’t know if its necessarily wrong to otherize the people who smash windows in my community, spray paint graffiti on the walls (Land Back! Pigs must die! Kill cops! Rent is theft!). If anything, I think they have chosen to make themselves the enemy of the community they live in by refusing to productively engage with it.
Its really frustrating seeing people who purport to want progress actively destroy community will to make progress on things. They make things a lot harder for the people who are trying to make good changes happen.
I think it's always wrong to otherize, though I get your frustration.
It's fairly interesting to me to see this relatively small group of people causing fairly limited damage be the focus of so much attention, rather than the ideas and concepts of more influential (and therefore relevant) social justice advocates.
It's noisy and grabs your attention yes, but I think it's a mistake to think of it as representative of anything other than the specific people causing the damage.
It's fairly interesting to me to see this relatively small group of people causing fairly limited damage be the focus of so much attention, rather than the ideas and concepts of more influential (and therefore relevant) social justice advocates.
It's noisy and grabs your attention yes, but I think it's a mistake to think of it as representative of anything other than the specific people causing the damage.
They're doing a damned poor job of being threatening given how popular they've been on a national political level in the US.
If left wing does something wrong, it is left wing fault. If right wrong does something wrong, or is left wing fault because left made them do it.
But, it is never the case that right made left do something bad.
But, it is never the case that right made left do something bad.
To add to this, the article mentions the need to be more specific when facing challenges and stressors.
A big trend, at least in PNW leftist activism, is looking at the entire system while focusing in on flaws. No improvement is acceptable unless it is total and complete, and partial steps are even worse than doing nothing.
Myanmar coup? Time to protest global capitalism. Bad conditions in a jail in Wyoming? Time to protest global capitalism. Trial outcome isn’t exactly what you wanted? Time to protest global capitalism. Frustrated that people aren’t paying attention on the 170th night of increasingly incoherent, demand-free protests about issues over which locals have zero control? Time to protest global capitalism.
Then on Twitter, after every protest, you have to complain when global capitalism wasn’t dismantled. If action was taken in response to protest, you have to tweet that it isn’t enough, because it didn’t abolish all borders, dismantle global capitalism, give all land back, and eliminate all government and corporations.
If people had an internal locus of control, they might think about how they can accomplish things, and that might involve identifying solutions to fix parts of the system, rather than demand the whole thing comes crashing down (with no actual thought on a replacement).
edit to clarify: none of the protest triggers leading to ‘time to protest global capitalism’ is meaningfully connected to or specifically about global capitalism; that’s the point. The folks I’m talking about don’t actually have a solid conception of the world and how they specifically want to change it, they’re just angry and don’t really think they can, so they act out against the entire system (I think in decades past it would have been ‘The Man’). Right now its trendy to hate on global capitalism, and assert that it fundamentally is linked to colonialism and white supremacy, among all other social ills. I’m not defending this thinking, just describing it, since it was so foreign to me and apparently to others.
A big trend, at least in PNW leftist activism, is looking at the entire system while focusing in on flaws. No improvement is acceptable unless it is total and complete, and partial steps are even worse than doing nothing.
Myanmar coup? Time to protest global capitalism. Bad conditions in a jail in Wyoming? Time to protest global capitalism. Trial outcome isn’t exactly what you wanted? Time to protest global capitalism. Frustrated that people aren’t paying attention on the 170th night of increasingly incoherent, demand-free protests about issues over which locals have zero control? Time to protest global capitalism.
Then on Twitter, after every protest, you have to complain when global capitalism wasn’t dismantled. If action was taken in response to protest, you have to tweet that it isn’t enough, because it didn’t abolish all borders, dismantle global capitalism, give all land back, and eliminate all government and corporations.
If people had an internal locus of control, they might think about how they can accomplish things, and that might involve identifying solutions to fix parts of the system, rather than demand the whole thing comes crashing down (with no actual thought on a replacement).
edit to clarify: none of the protest triggers leading to ‘time to protest global capitalism’ is meaningfully connected to or specifically about global capitalism; that’s the point. The folks I’m talking about don’t actually have a solid conception of the world and how they specifically want to change it, they’re just angry and don’t really think they can, so they act out against the entire system (I think in decades past it would have been ‘The Man’). Right now its trendy to hate on global capitalism, and assert that it fundamentally is linked to colonialism and white supremacy, among all other social ills. I’m not defending this thinking, just describing it, since it was so foreign to me and apparently to others.
Your post kind-of reminds me of this: https://youtu.be/ZDTkn6PCbtY
I have seen protests against police violence and against coups, but none of them was framed as protest against global capitalism. They also had demands. If you perceive those as being about global capitalism, you was using odd information sources. Or you lie.
Maybe you socialize only with most hardcore communists, or only with hardcore right wing, but your perception is not based on reality.
Maybe you socialize only with most hardcore communists, or only with hardcore right wing, but your perception is not based on reality.
What are the demands of the Myanmar Coup protests that happened in PNW, and how could they have been met by the local community?
I am specifically referring to the most hardcore leftists, but I don’t tend to socialize with them. I don’t think its right to call them communists, anarchism is popular though.
I don’t know if you can make a broad claim about no protest being framed as against global capitalism; if you had been to one, you’d know that the protestors like to be clear that they are decentralized, so no one person owns the framing. They have many different framings internally, and certainly you know how I frame them. My framing is based on the chants of, and sprayed graffiti saying ‘land back’, ‘rent is theft’, ‘kill all landlords’, and ‘end capitalism’.
I am specifically referring to the most hardcore leftists, but I don’t tend to socialize with them. I don’t think its right to call them communists, anarchism is popular though.
I don’t know if you can make a broad claim about no protest being framed as against global capitalism; if you had been to one, you’d know that the protestors like to be clear that they are decentralized, so no one person owns the framing. They have many different framings internally, and certainly you know how I frame them. My framing is based on the chants of, and sprayed graffiti saying ‘land back’, ‘rent is theft’, ‘kill all landlords’, and ‘end capitalism’.
I don't see what global capitalism has to do with Myanmar coup or jail condition in Wyoming?
What's interesting is that what matters most is the amount of agency you perceive yourself to have, rather than the 'real' amount (which, admittedly, probably doesn't exist, but our brains trick us into thinking it does).
Based on some of the movements that seem to be picking up steam, and my own life, I believe there's something about this current time that promotes a diminished locus of control. There seems to be a real appeal of ideas who that speak to this need.
It's quite a mindvirus. Even if you know you have it, you can't quite shrug it off.
Based on some of the movements that seem to be picking up steam, and my own life, I believe there's something about this current time that promotes a diminished locus of control. There seems to be a real appeal of ideas who that speak to this need.
It's quite a mindvirus. Even if you know you have it, you can't quite shrug it off.
"Unfortunately, the opposite may also be true. “We can become less resilient, or less likely to be resilient,” Bonanno says. “We can create or exaggerate stressors very easily in our own minds. That’s the danger of the human condition.”"
It isn't that difficult to draw parallels lol.
It isn't that difficult to draw parallels lol.
You mean the people who are out there (to use terms from the article) meeting the world on their own terms, believing that they (and not their circumstances) affect their achievements?
You realize that the idea of characterizing a large and active social movement as an idle demand for a handout and government coddling is just spin, right? Have you ever met a serious SJW? Do they seem like apathetic victims to you, or do they have the kind of "resilience" detailed in the article?
You seem to be taking the article to mean that "injustice is OK because <insert disadvantaged group> can just be resilient and endure it"?
You realize that the idea of characterizing a large and active social movement as an idle demand for a handout and government coddling is just spin, right? Have you ever met a serious SJW? Do they seem like apathetic victims to you, or do they have the kind of "resilience" detailed in the article?
You seem to be taking the article to mean that "injustice is OK because <insert disadvantaged group> can just be resilient and endure it"?
[deleted]
That's one of the main findings from the book "The Coddling of the American Mind". Overprotective parents raise children that don't know how to handle conflict, and colleges give in to the student demands for protection from conflict because the colleges care more about collecting tuition than educating.
I guess what I am getting at is there is a blend of self-respect, self-expectation, discipline, morality or something involved. At a certain point a person decides to stop trying to fight and be comfortable with whatever hand they have.