This article greatly annoyed me because of how it tells people to do the correct practical things (Develop skills! Be persistent and grind! Help people!) yet gives atrocious and shallow reasons for it—and then Wong says how if people criticize him they haven’t heard the message. No, David, you can give people correct directions and still be a huge jerk promoting an awful worldview!
He basically shows NO understanding of what makes one attractive to people (especially romantically) and what gives you a feeling of self-worth and self-respect. What you “are” does in fact matter—both to yourself and to others! - outside of your actions; they just reveal and signal your qualities. If you don’t do anything good, it’s a sign of something being broken about you, but just mechanically bartering some product of your labour for friendship, affection and status cannot work—if your life is in a rut, it’s because of some deeper issues and you’ve got to resolve those first and foremost.
This masochistic imperative to “Work harder and quit whining” might sound all serious and mature, but does not in fact has the power to make you a “better person”; rather, you’ll know you’ve changed for the better when you can achieve more stuff and don’t feel miserable.
I wanted to write a short comment illustrating how this article might be the mirror opposite of some unfortunate ideas in the “Seduction community”—it’s “forget all else and GIVE to people, to obtain affection and self-worth” versus “forget all else and TAKE from people, to obtain affection and self-worth”—and how, for a self-actualized person, needs, one’s own and others’, should dictate the taking and giving, not some primitive framework of barter or conquest—but I predictably got too lazy to extend it :)
As with most self-help advice, it is like an eyeglass prescription—only good for one specific pathology. It may correct one person’s vision, while making another’s massively worse.
Also, I remember what it was like to be (mildly!) depressed, and my oh my would that article not have helped.
Yep :). I was doing a more charitable reading than the article really deserves, to be honest. It carried over from the method of political debate I am attempting these days—accept the opponent’s premises (e.g. far-right ideas that they proudly call “thoughtcrime”), then show how either a modus-tollens inference from them is instrumentally/ethically preferrable, or how they just have nothing to do with the opponent being an insufferable jerk.
The basic theme of the article is that you’re only well-treated for what you bring to other people’s lives. You’re worthless otherwise.
This is a half-truth. What you bring to other people’s lives matters. However, the reason I’m posting about this is that I believe framing the message that way is actively dangerous for depressed people. The thing is, if you don’t believe you’re worth something no matter what, you won’t do the work of making your life better.
100% true. I often shudder when I think how miserable I could’ve got if I hadn’t watched this at a low point in my life.
I think the only problem with the article is that it tries to otheroptimize. It seems to address a problem that the author had, as some people do. He seems to overestimate the usefulness of his advices though (he writes for anyone except if “your career is going great, you’re thrilled with your life and you’re happy with your relationships”). As mentioned by NancyLebovitz, the article is not for the clinical depressed, in fact it is only for a small (?) set of people who sits around all day whining, who thinks they deserve better for who they are, without actually trying to improve the situation.
That said, this over generalization is a problem that permeates most self help, and the article is not more guilty than the average.
I think I’ll just quote the entirety of an angry comment on Nancy’s blog. I basically can’t help agreeing with the below. Although I don’t think the article is entirely bad and worthless—there are a few commonplace yet forcefully asserted life instructions there, if that’s your cup of tea—its downsides do outweigh its utility.
What especially pisses me off is how Wong hijacks the ostensibly altruistic intent of it as an excuse to throw a load of aggression and condescending superiority in the intended audience’s face, then offers an explanation of how feeling repulsed/hurt by that tone further confirms the reader’s lower status. This is, like, a textbook example of self-gratification and cruel status play.
6: not all of the world is made up of selfish bastards. Or for some people ‘what they can get from you’ equals ‘hanging out, having a good time doing nothing much’ so maybe it’s right—but not in the materialistic, selfish way the article implies.
5: I don’t quite get what he wants that’s different from his #6 ‘the world expects you to do stuff’. Also, I don’t care how right someone is (he’s not), if you have to be an asshole about it and if you don’t care about hurting people, not only are you doing it wrong, there’s a good chance that your message is manipulative rather than insightful. He’s trying to make you believe that all that counts is how he wants to see the world.
4 is the same message again, in a different form—the world (here ‘women’) expects you to deliver. Don’t be nice, get results. (If your goal is being a well-rounded individual with good mental health, maybe that’s not the best way forward. Just sayin.)
3 has kind of a point if you don’t do anything at all (and if you don’t do anything, you’re probably severely depressed and need far more help than an internet article) - but what people think ‘doing’ means differs wildly. And the first half of the article seems to discard a lot of stuff that ‘people do’ (for instance, caring for family members)- you don’t have tangible results, but by gods, have you put work into it. As you point out, there can be a severe dissonance between what a depressed you thinks you do (nothing) and what a non-depressed you or a friend might think of it. And for some people ‘go and do something productive’ might be good advice, and for others it’s even more pressure—and the kind of person who feels guilty eating more than a salad? Needs help, not to be elevated to a role model.
2 Everything bad you’ve done was because of a bad impulse? Please. Nobody carries black and white around like that, and plenty of things are done out of habit and out of an impulse to do something good (people might think they are helping you not to go to hell by preventing you from being with someone you love) …
1 just seems to be a self-congratulatory bit that says ’if you don’t accept me as a Great Thinker who Knows Better, something is wrong with you.
Conclusion: a truth that’s told with bad intent beats all the lies you can invent. And when you mix in some outright lies...
One of the comments at dreamwidth is by a therapist who said that being extremely vulnerable to shame is a distinct problem—not everyone who’s depressed has it, and not everyone who’s shame-prone is depressed.
Also, I didn’t say clinically depressed. I’m in the mild-to-moderate category, and that sort of talk is bad for me.
Actually the article says enough different and somewhat contradictory things that it supports multiple readings, or to put it less charitably, it’s contradictory in a way that leads people to pick the bits which are most emotionally salient to them and then get angry at each other for misreading the article.
The title is “6 Harsh Truths That Will Improve Your Life”—by implication, anyone’s life. Then Wong says, “this will improve your life unless it’s awesome in all respects”. Then he pulls back to “this is directed at people with a particular false view of the universe”.
My complaint about the article is that it has the same problem as most self-help advice. When you read it, it sounds intelligent, you nod your head, it makes sense. You might even think to yourself “Yeah, I’m going to really change now!”
But as everyone whose tried to improve himself knows, it’s difficult to change your behavior (and thoughts) on a basis consistent enough to really make a long-lasting difference.
It a misleading claim. Studying of how parents influence their kids generally conclude that “being” of the parent is more important than what they specifically do with the kids.
From the article:
“But I’m a great listener!” Are you? Because you’re willing to sit quietly in exchange for the chance to be in the proximity of a pretty girl?
The author of the article doesn’t seem to understand that there such a thing as good listening. If a girl tell you about some problem in her life it can be more effective to empathize with the girl than to go and solve the problem.
If something says “It’s what’s on the inside that matters!” a much better response would be ask: What makes you think that your inside is so much better than the inside of other people?
Studying of how parents influence their kids generally conclude that “being” of the parent is more important than what they specifically do with the kids.
Could you explain this? Or link to info about such studies? (Or both?)
If a parent has a low self esteem their child is also likely to have low self esteem.
The low self esteem parent might a lot to prove try to do for his child to prove to himself that he’s worthy.
There a drastic difference between a child observing: “Mommy hugs me because she read in a book that good mothers hug their children and she wants to prove to herself that she’s a good mother and Mommy hugs me because she loves me”.
On paper the women who spents a lot of energy into doing the stuff that good mothers are supposed to do is doing more for their child then a mother who’s not investing that much energy because she’s more secure in herself.
Being secure in herself increase the chance that she will do the right things at the right time signal her self confidence to the child. A child who sees that her mother is self confident than has also a reason to believe that everything is alright.
As far as studies go, unfortunately I don’t keep good records on what information I read from what sources :( (I would add that hugging is an example I use here to illustrate the point instead of refering to specific study about hugging)
If a parent has a low self esteem their child is also likely to have low self esteem.
Yes… and studies show that this is largely due to genetic similarity, much less so to parenting style.
Being secure in herself increase the chance that she will do the right things at the right time signal her self confidence to the child.
Which still means that it boils down to what the mother does.
The thing is, no one can see what you “are” except by what you do. Your argument seems to be “doing things for the right reason will lead to doing the actual right thing, instead of implementing some standard recommendation of what the right thing is”. Granted. But the thing that matters is still the doing, not the being. “Being” is relevant only to the extent that it makes you do.
Oh, and as for this:
There a drastic difference between a child observing: “Mommy hugs me because she read in a book that good mothers hug their children and she wants to prove to herself that she’s a good mother and Mommy hugs me because she loves me”.
There’s a third possibility: “Mommy doesn’t hug me, but I know she loves me anyway”. Sometimes that’s worse than either of the other two.
But the thing that matters is still the doing, not the being.
What do you exactly mean with “matter”?
If you want to define whether A matters for B, than it’s central to look whether changes in A that you can classify cause changes in B.
But the thing that matters is still the doing, not the being. “Being” is relevant only to the extent that it makes you do.
When one speaks about doing one frequently doesn’t think about actions like raising one heart rate by 5 bpm to signal that something created an emotional impact on yourself.
If an attractive woman walks through the street and a guy sees her and gets attracted, you can say that the woman is doing something because she’s reflecting light in exactly the correct way to get the guy attracted.
If you define “doing” that broadly it’s not a useful word anymore. The cracked article from which I quoted doesn’t seem to define “doing” that broadly. On the other hand it’s no problem to define “being” broadly enough to cover all “doing” as well.
If “what you are” is the only/most effective way to change “what you do” (eg unconscious signalling) then the advice of the original article to focus on “what you do” is poor advice, even if it is technically correct that only what you do matters.
“We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.”
— Aristotle
It goes both ways. And it’s meaningless to speak of changing “what you are” if you do not, as a result, do anything different.
I don’t think the Cracked article, or I, ever said that the only way to change your actions is by changing some mysterious essence of your being. That’s actually a rather silly notion, when it’s stated explicitly, because it’s self-defeating unless you ignore the observable evidence. That is, we can see that changing your actions by choosing to change your actions IS possible; people do it all the time. The conclusion, then, is that by choosing to change your actions, you have thereby changed this ineffable essence of “what you are”, which then proceeds to affect what you do. If that’s how it works, then worrying about whether you’re changing what you are or only changing what you do is pointless; the two cannot be decoupled.
And that’s the point of the article, as I understand it. “What you are” may be a useful notion in your own internal narrative — it’s “how the algorithm feels from the inside” (the algorithm in this case being your decisions to do what you do). But outside of your head, it’s meaningless. Out in the world, there is no “what you are” beyond what you do.
As was pointed out elsewhere in these comments, there are situations where changing “what you are”—for example, increasing your confidence levels—is more effective then trying to change your actions directly.
Let’s say that you don’t do something that you want to do, because you’re not confident enough.
What is the difference between doing that thing, and improving your confidence which causes you to do that thing? What does it even mean to distinguish between those two cases?
And if improving your confidence doesn’t cause you to do the thing in question, then what’s the point?
Edit: On a reread, I might interpret you as saying that one might try (but fail) to change one’s actions “directly”, or one might attack the root cause, and having done so, succeed at changing one’s actions thereby. If that’s what you mean, then you’re right.
However the advice to “change what you do” should not, I think, be interpreted as saying “ignore the root causes of your inaction”; that is not a charitable reading. The author of the Cracked article isn’t railing against people who want to do a thing, but can’t (due to e.g. lack of confidence); rather, his targets are people who just don’t think that they need to be doing anything, because “what they are” is somehow sufficient.
I’m rather curious how parents can “be” something to children without doing, since it’s supposed children don’t know their parents before their first contact (after birth, I mean).
I didn’t said that they aren’t doing anything. I said that identifying specific behaviors doesn’t make a good predictor.
Characteristics like high emotional intelligence are better predictors.
Working on increased emotional intelligence and higher self esteem would be work that changes “who you are”.
Taking steps to raise their own emotional intelligence might have a much higher effect that taking children to the museum to teach them about
I think I have heard of such studies, but the conclusion is different.
Who the parents are matter more than things like which school do the kids go, or in which neighborhood they live, etc.
But in my view, that’s only because being something (let’s say, a sportsman), will makes you do things that influence your kids to pursue a similar path
It’s a copywriting technique. It makes easier for people to read (note how the subjects of newsletters campaings usually come like that). Don’t ask me for the research, I have no idea where I’ve read it.
In this case, I guess he just pasted the title here.
Don’t ask me for the research, I have no idea where I’ve read it.
So, is there any research done about this kind of stuff? All the discussions of this kind of things I’ve seen on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style and places like that appear to be based on people Generalizing From One Example.
David Wong, 6 Harsh Truths That Will Make You a Better Person. Published in Cracked.com
This article greatly annoyed me because of how it tells people to do the correct practical things (Develop skills! Be persistent and grind! Help people!) yet gives atrocious and shallow reasons for it—and then Wong says how if people criticize him they haven’t heard the message. No, David, you can give people correct directions and still be a huge jerk promoting an awful worldview!
He basically shows NO understanding of what makes one attractive to people (especially romantically) and what gives you a feeling of self-worth and self-respect. What you “are” does in fact matter—both to yourself and to others! - outside of your actions; they just reveal and signal your qualities. If you don’t do anything good, it’s a sign of something being broken about you, but just mechanically bartering some product of your labour for friendship, affection and status cannot work—if your life is in a rut, it’s because of some deeper issues and you’ve got to resolve those first and foremost.
This masochistic imperative to “Work harder and quit whining” might sound all serious and mature, but does not in fact has the power to make you a “better person”; rather, you’ll know you’ve changed for the better when you can achieve more stuff and don’t feel miserable.
I wanted to write a short comment illustrating how this article might be the mirror opposite of some unfortunate ideas in the “Seduction community”—it’s “forget all else and GIVE to people, to obtain affection and self-worth” versus “forget all else and TAKE from people, to obtain affection and self-worth”—and how, for a self-actualized person, needs, one’s own and others’, should dictate the taking and giving, not some primitive framework of barter or conquest—but I predictably got too lazy to extend it :)
I’ve taken a crack at what’s wrong with that article.
The problem is, there’s so much wrong with it from so many different angles that it’s rather a large topic.
Yep.
As with most self-help advice, it is like an eyeglass prescription—only good for one specific pathology. It may correct one person’s vision, while making another’s massively worse.
Also, I remember what it was like to be (mildly!) depressed, and my oh my would that article not have helped.
Yep :). I was doing a more charitable reading than the article really deserves, to be honest. It carried over from the method of political debate I am attempting these days—accept the opponent’s premises (e.g. far-right ideas that they proudly call “thoughtcrime”), then show how either a modus-tollens inference from them is instrumentally/ethically preferrable, or how they just have nothing to do with the opponent being an insufferable jerk.
100% true. I often shudder when I think how miserable I could’ve got if I hadn’t watched this at a low point in my life.
I think the only problem with the article is that it tries to otheroptimize. It seems to address a problem that the author had, as some people do. He seems to overestimate the usefulness of his advices though (he writes for anyone except if “your career is going great, you’re thrilled with your life and you’re happy with your relationships”). As mentioned by NancyLebovitz, the article is not for the clinical depressed, in fact it is only for a small (?) set of people who sits around all day whining, who thinks they deserve better for who they are, without actually trying to improve the situation.
That said, this over generalization is a problem that permeates most self help, and the article is not more guilty than the average.
I think I’ll just quote the entirety of an angry comment on Nancy’s blog. I basically can’t help agreeing with the below. Although I don’t think the article is entirely bad and worthless—there are a few commonplace yet forcefully asserted life instructions there, if that’s your cup of tea—its downsides do outweigh its utility.
What especially pisses me off is how Wong hijacks the ostensibly altruistic intent of it as an excuse to throw a load of aggression and condescending superiority in the intended audience’s face, then offers an explanation of how feeling repulsed/hurt by that tone further confirms the reader’s lower status. This is, like, a textbook example of self-gratification and cruel status play.
Conclusion: a truth that’s told with bad intent beats all the lies you can invent. And when you mix in some outright lies...
One of the comments at dreamwidth is by a therapist who said that being extremely vulnerable to shame is a distinct problem—not everyone who’s depressed has it, and not everyone who’s shame-prone is depressed.
Also, I didn’t say clinically depressed. I’m in the mild-to-moderate category, and that sort of talk is bad for me.
Actually the article says enough different and somewhat contradictory things that it supports multiple readings, or to put it less charitably, it’s contradictory in a way that leads people to pick the bits which are most emotionally salient to them and then get angry at each other for misreading the article.
The title is “6 Harsh Truths That Will Improve Your Life”—by implication, anyone’s life. Then Wong says, “this will improve your life unless it’s awesome in all respects”. Then he pulls back to “this is directed at people with a particular false view of the universe”.
My complaint about the article is that it has the same problem as most self-help advice. When you read it, it sounds intelligent, you nod your head, it makes sense. You might even think to yourself “Yeah, I’m going to really change now!”
But as everyone whose tried to improve himself knows, it’s difficult to change your behavior (and thoughts) on a basis consistent enough to really make a long-lasting difference.
It a misleading claim. Studying of how parents influence their kids generally conclude that “being” of the parent is more important than what they specifically do with the kids.
From the article:
The author of the article doesn’t seem to understand that there such a thing as good listening. If a girl tell you about some problem in her life it can be more effective to empathize with the girl than to go and solve the problem.
If something says “It’s what’s on the inside that matters!” a much better response would be ask: What makes you think that your inside is so much better than the inside of other people?
Could you explain this? Or link to info about such studies? (Or both?)
If a parent has a low self esteem their child is also likely to have low self esteem. The low self esteem parent might a lot to prove try to do for his child to prove to himself that he’s worthy.
There a drastic difference between a child observing: “Mommy hugs me because she read in a book that good mothers hug their children and she wants to prove to herself that she’s a good mother and Mommy hugs me because she loves me”.
On paper the women who spents a lot of energy into doing the stuff that good mothers are supposed to do is doing more for their child then a mother who’s not investing that much energy because she’s more secure in herself. Being secure in herself increase the chance that she will do the right things at the right time signal her self confidence to the child. A child who sees that her mother is self confident than has also a reason to believe that everything is alright.
As far as studies go, unfortunately I don’t keep good records on what information I read from what sources :( (I would add that hugging is an example I use here to illustrate the point instead of refering to specific study about hugging)
Yes… and studies show that this is largely due to genetic similarity, much less so to parenting style.
Which still means that it boils down to what the mother does.
The thing is, no one can see what you “are” except by what you do. Your argument seems to be “doing things for the right reason will lead to doing the actual right thing, instead of implementing some standard recommendation of what the right thing is”. Granted. But the thing that matters is still the doing, not the being. “Being” is relevant only to the extent that it makes you do.
Oh, and as for this:
There’s a third possibility: “Mommy doesn’t hug me, but I know she loves me anyway”. Sometimes that’s worse than either of the other two.
What do you exactly mean with “matter”?
If you want to define whether A matters for B, than it’s central to look whether changes in A that you can classify cause changes in B.
When one speaks about doing one frequently doesn’t think about actions like raising one heart rate by 5 bpm to signal that something created an emotional impact on yourself. If an attractive woman walks through the street and a guy sees her and gets attracted, you can say that the woman is doing something because she’s reflecting light in exactly the correct way to get the guy attracted.
If you define “doing” that broadly it’s not a useful word anymore. The cracked article from which I quoted doesn’t seem to define “doing” that broadly. On the other hand it’s no problem to define “being” broadly enough to cover all “doing” as well.
If there is no other method, then advising people to ignore changing what they are in favor of what they do is bad advice.
I am having trouble parsing your comment. Could you elaborate? “no other method” of what?
Also, who is advising people to ignore changing what they are...? And why is advising people to change what they do bad advice?
Please do clarify, as at this point I am not sure whether, and on what, we are disagreeing.
If “what you are” is the only/most effective way to change “what you do” (eg unconscious signalling) then the advice of the original article to focus on “what you do” is poor advice, even if it is technically correct that only what you do matters.
“We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.” — Aristotle
It goes both ways. And it’s meaningless to speak of changing “what you are” if you do not, as a result, do anything different.
I don’t think the Cracked article, or I, ever said that the only way to change your actions is by changing some mysterious essence of your being. That’s actually a rather silly notion, when it’s stated explicitly, because it’s self-defeating unless you ignore the observable evidence. That is, we can see that changing your actions by choosing to change your actions IS possible; people do it all the time. The conclusion, then, is that by choosing to change your actions, you have thereby changed this ineffable essence of “what you are”, which then proceeds to affect what you do. If that’s how it works, then worrying about whether you’re changing what you are or only changing what you do is pointless; the two cannot be decoupled.
And that’s the point of the article, as I understand it. “What you are” may be a useful notion in your own internal narrative — it’s “how the algorithm feels from the inside” (the algorithm in this case being your decisions to do what you do). But outside of your head, it’s meaningless. Out in the world, there is no “what you are” beyond what you do.
As was pointed out elsewhere in these comments, there are situations where changing “what you are”—for example, increasing your confidence levels—is more effective then trying to change your actions directly.
Let’s say that you don’t do something that you want to do, because you’re not confident enough.
What is the difference between doing that thing, and improving your confidence which causes you to do that thing? What does it even mean to distinguish between those two cases?
And if improving your confidence doesn’t cause you to do the thing in question, then what’s the point?
Edit: On a reread, I might interpret you as saying that one might try (but fail) to change one’s actions “directly”, or one might attack the root cause, and having done so, succeed at changing one’s actions thereby. If that’s what you mean, then you’re right.
However the advice to “change what you do” should not, I think, be interpreted as saying “ignore the root causes of your inaction”; that is not a charitable reading. The author of the Cracked article isn’t railing against people who want to do a thing, but can’t (due to e.g. lack of confidence); rather, his targets are people who just don’t think that they need to be doing anything, because “what they are” is somehow sufficient.
Oh, I didn’t realize that. You’re right, that is a much more charitable reading.
Yep.
I’m rather curious how parents can “be” something to children without doing, since it’s supposed children don’t know their parents before their first contact (after birth, I mean).
I didn’t said that they aren’t doing anything. I said that identifying specific behaviors doesn’t make a good predictor. Characteristics like high emotional intelligence are better predictors.
Working on increased emotional intelligence and higher self esteem would be work that changes “who you are”.
Taking steps to raise their own emotional intelligence might have a much higher effect that taking children to the museum to teach them about
I think I have heard of such studies, but the conclusion is different.
Who the parents are matter more than things like which school do the kids go, or in which neighborhood they live, etc.
But in my view, that’s only because being something (let’s say, a sportsman), will makes you do things that influence your kids to pursue a similar path
I wish my 17-year-old self had read that article.
For Instance It Makes You Write With Odd Capitalization.
It’s probably a section title.
It’s a copywriting technique. It makes easier for people to read (note how the subjects of newsletters campaings usually come like that). Don’t ask me for the research, I have no idea where I’ve read it.
In this case, I guess he just pasted the title here.
So, is there any research done about this kind of stuff? All the discussions of this kind of things I’ve seen on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style and places like that appear to be based on people Generalizing From One Example.