I've seen several posts like this recently. The title is something that seems very insightful into something that I've recently been dealing with, and I'm intrigued. I open the web page, read the opening paragraph, and realize that there are only two or three paragraphs. It is the highest of high level content, with more content in the title than in the blog post.
There's nothing inherently wrong with short blog posts. This particular post might even say that it's virtue, except it doesn't bother to expand upon its points at all. What did the OP want out of such a post?
As someone who deals with ADHD, I have read a lot of advice on the internet about how to be more productive. A lot of times, people point out things that seem like very efficient and successful solutions to problems that I have. A common one I see is to become more disciplined, or create a schedule, and you will find a productivity follows. I love this magical thinking because it does not take into account how different individuals deal with modern life. Of course, if I was able to have the discipline to do tasks, I would be more productive. The point is that I have an issue with creating habits or breaking bad ones, and I have found it difficult to find advice specific to my need to get better at sticking to habits with my ADHD brain.
Everyone is very willing to engage at a very high level, giving helpful sound and advice that works for the broadest possible audience; but when you actually examine what they say, you see it is full of holes. Any real person you give this advice to is quickly going to fall through because of their own individual situation and issues. Reading blog posts like this feels more like a way to give our minds a dopamine hit for "successfully accomplishing" something when it has accomplished nothing, and the shorter the blog post and the more general the topic, the sooner you get that hit.
This isn't to denigrate the post itself, I just felt a familiar sense of disappointment when I was able to grasp the entirety of the post in 15 seconds. I guess this is why people like Twitter.
It feels like a clickbait. I felt exactly the same as you: very catching and interesting premise, then barely any content. As you said, there is nothing wrong with short blog posts, but this one in particular feels unfinished.
>Everyone is very willing to engage at a very high level, giving helpful sound and advice that works for the broadest possible audience; but when you actually examine what they say, you see it is full of holes.
Completely agree. I spent the better part of a decade going through all the self help nonsense. Its usually more harmful than useful.
I agree with the sentiment of the article but I don’t understand the point they were trying to make here:
“Before, you had to go socialize with friends; now, you can just get drunk with a bunch of strangers. Before, you had to go find a mate, create children and raise a family; now, you can just watch a lot of porn.”
I’d think more of Facebook, Instagram and Netflix or the advertising industry in general like weaponized additions than what I do of alcohol.
I think it means before the author had access to alcohol. To expand it, before the author had access to alcohol [an addictive substance[0]], he had to socialise with friends, and now that he has access to alcohol, he can instead get drunk with people, which is (for some unexplained reason) a lesser activity.
Doesn't make much sense to me, but makes more sense than any other interpretation I can think of given that alcohol production is pre-historic.
[0] Personally I disagree. I think alcohol is a nice social lubricant and that also beer and wine are nice drinks. The demand for non-alcoholic/low-alcoholic beer and wine proves wrong the people that have claimed that beer and wine aren't really enjoyed by people that drink, and that people mostly just drink to get drunk.
There are people that ruin their lives in part through abusing alcohol but I don't think alcohol is to blame. Personal responsibility. If you can't handle it, don't drink. Don't ruin it for everyone else by imposing endless additional rules because some people can't handle themselves. eg. https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/557549/christchurch-city...
Yeah "before" - before when? Before Sumer and Ur? If anything getting drunk with strangers is way less common now than it ever was in the past. A hundred years ago it was all about spending the rest of the day at the pub when you knock off your job at the steelworks. Alcohol consumption has dropped heavily in most developed countries.
Coincidentally was just chatting about this to my wife.
All of my productivity pretty much stems from blocking distraction.
Rarely has the work been hard in itself. Sure I’ve been lost a few times, but imo you can almost always break it down into some manageable chunk.
But fighting the boredom when dopamine hits are clicks away is a savage battle.
Phone in another room, headphones on with just-loud-enough no-lyrics techno, distracting websites blocked, or ones I need have their newsfeeds removed (using extensions I’ve written myself in some cases).
Yet the danger comes from tools I can’t block because I need them, ChatGPT, Google, Wikipedia. Pursuing any interesting curiosity that arises during work can lead to a dangerous rabbit hole.
I disagree violently with this bleek kind of attitude towards almost everything. Moderation is a skill that humans had to learn eons ago. Drugs (I think people that spretend alcohol is not a drug can not be trusted at all) are not particularily new either. Yes, there have always been a certain amount of people that fail big time when it comes to moderating whatever they do, but this is not a new phenomenon either. Lots of people can use the Internet and Social Media without going nuts on it. Pretending everything is bad just because you cant get your shit together is holding the rest of the world hostage.
Yes unless we talk about kids. They have no life experience, defenses, and are very vulnerable to skilled manipulative attacks. They form various addictive behavioral patterns pretty quickly.
Just look around how many kids are properly addicted to screens in some form. It used to be just passive TV, now its extremely interactive, bombastic, supplanting real social interactions. If you don't see a problem and its long term consequences, child psychologists and good parents (and even well-meaning countries) do.
Thats a bit naive take to respond politely, I presume you don't have kids. You can't guard them till 18 100% of the time. Parenting adds value when parent is around and that time you can safeguard, which in school they're not.
Ever tried to discuss not having a phone with 16 year old teenager? That's a sure way to to make him/her a target for school bullies. They are still extremely vulnerable to addictive things I've mentioned.
Companies are amoral and are driven by profits and nothing else, some long term considerations are up to society to enforce via regulations down companies' throats. Also seemingly foreign concept to you.
Protecting children from real or perceived threats, temptations, evil things, etc was much easier in the physical world. In the virtual world it's much harder to put up fences.
I've seen several posts like this recently. The title is something that seems very insightful into something that I've recently been dealing with, and I'm intrigued. I open the web page, read the opening paragraph, and realize that there are only two or three paragraphs. It is the highest of high level content, with more content in the title than in the blog post.
There's nothing inherently wrong with short blog posts. This particular post might even say that it's virtue, except it doesn't bother to expand upon its points at all. What did the OP want out of such a post?
As someone who deals with ADHD, I have read a lot of advice on the internet about how to be more productive. A lot of times, people point out things that seem like very efficient and successful solutions to problems that I have. A common one I see is to become more disciplined, or create a schedule, and you will find a productivity follows. I love this magical thinking because it does not take into account how different individuals deal with modern life. Of course, if I was able to have the discipline to do tasks, I would be more productive. The point is that I have an issue with creating habits or breaking bad ones, and I have found it difficult to find advice specific to my need to get better at sticking to habits with my ADHD brain.
Everyone is very willing to engage at a very high level, giving helpful sound and advice that works for the broadest possible audience; but when you actually examine what they say, you see it is full of holes. Any real person you give this advice to is quickly going to fall through because of their own individual situation and issues. Reading blog posts like this feels more like a way to give our minds a dopamine hit for "successfully accomplishing" something when it has accomplished nothing, and the shorter the blog post and the more general the topic, the sooner you get that hit.
This isn't to denigrate the post itself, I just felt a familiar sense of disappointment when I was able to grasp the entirety of the post in 15 seconds. I guess this is why people like Twitter.
It feels like a clickbait. I felt exactly the same as you: very catching and interesting premise, then barely any content. As you said, there is nothing wrong with short blog posts, but this one in particular feels unfinished.
>Everyone is very willing to engage at a very high level, giving helpful sound and advice that works for the broadest possible audience; but when you actually examine what they say, you see it is full of holes.
Completely agree. I spent the better part of a decade going through all the self help nonsense. Its usually more harmful than useful.
I agree with the sentiment of the article but I don’t understand the point they were trying to make here:
“Before, you had to go socialize with friends; now, you can just get drunk with a bunch of strangers. Before, you had to go find a mate, create children and raise a family; now, you can just watch a lot of porn.”
I’d think more of Facebook, Instagram and Netflix or the advertising industry in general like weaponized additions than what I do of alcohol.
That line threw me too,
> Before, you had to go socialize with friends; now, you can just get drunk with a bunch of strangers.
"Before" what? I think being antisocial and/or drinking are as old as humanity.
I think it means before the author had access to alcohol. To expand it, before the author had access to alcohol [an addictive substance[0]], he had to socialise with friends, and now that he has access to alcohol, he can instead get drunk with people, which is (for some unexplained reason) a lesser activity.
Doesn't make much sense to me, but makes more sense than any other interpretation I can think of given that alcohol production is pre-historic.
[0] Personally I disagree. I think alcohol is a nice social lubricant and that also beer and wine are nice drinks. The demand for non-alcoholic/low-alcoholic beer and wine proves wrong the people that have claimed that beer and wine aren't really enjoyed by people that drink, and that people mostly just drink to get drunk.
There are people that ruin their lives in part through abusing alcohol but I don't think alcohol is to blame. Personal responsibility. If you can't handle it, don't drink. Don't ruin it for everyone else by imposing endless additional rules because some people can't handle themselves. eg. https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/557549/christchurch-city...
Yeah "before" - before when? Before Sumer and Ur? If anything getting drunk with strangers is way less common now than it ever was in the past. A hundred years ago it was all about spending the rest of the day at the pub when you knock off your job at the steelworks. Alcohol consumption has dropped heavily in most developed countries.
Coincidentally was just chatting about this to my wife.
All of my productivity pretty much stems from blocking distraction.
Rarely has the work been hard in itself. Sure I’ve been lost a few times, but imo you can almost always break it down into some manageable chunk.
But fighting the boredom when dopamine hits are clicks away is a savage battle.
Phone in another room, headphones on with just-loud-enough no-lyrics techno, distracting websites blocked, or ones I need have their newsfeeds removed (using extensions I’ve written myself in some cases).
Yet the danger comes from tools I can’t block because I need them, ChatGPT, Google, Wikipedia. Pursuing any interesting curiosity that arises during work can lead to a dangerous rabbit hole.
I disagree violently with this bleek kind of attitude towards almost everything. Moderation is a skill that humans had to learn eons ago. Drugs (I think people that spretend alcohol is not a drug can not be trusted at all) are not particularily new either. Yes, there have always been a certain amount of people that fail big time when it comes to moderating whatever they do, but this is not a new phenomenon either. Lots of people can use the Internet and Social Media without going nuts on it. Pretending everything is bad just because you cant get your shit together is holding the rest of the world hostage.
Yes unless we talk about kids. They have no life experience, defenses, and are very vulnerable to skilled manipulative attacks. They form various addictive behavioral patterns pretty quickly.
Just look around how many kids are properly addicted to screens in some form. It used to be just passive TV, now its extremely interactive, bombastic, supplanting real social interactions. If you don't see a problem and its long term consequences, child psychologists and good parents (and even well-meaning countries) do.
Those kids have parents. Maybe those parents should do some ... parenting?
Besides, the "somebody needs to think about the children" meme is getting old.
Thats a bit naive take to respond politely, I presume you don't have kids. You can't guard them till 18 100% of the time. Parenting adds value when parent is around and that time you can safeguard, which in school they're not.
Ever tried to discuss not having a phone with 16 year old teenager? That's a sure way to to make him/her a target for school bullies. They are still extremely vulnerable to addictive things I've mentioned.
Companies are amoral and are driven by profits and nothing else, some long term considerations are up to society to enforce via regulations down companies' throats. Also seemingly foreign concept to you.
Protecting children from real or perceived threats, temptations, evil things, etc was much easier in the physical world. In the virtual world it's much harder to put up fences.
(2020)
thank you
parent post：https://nav.al/happiness