If you assume that people answered honestly, it's very possible that remaining proportion of people who viewed Asian Americans negatively were more likely to express anti-Asian American racism and hate over the past year, instead of keeping quiet about their views.
Furthermore, a lot of people are biased to skew their responses or lie due to social-desirability bias [1]. The responses are self-reported. It's highly plausible that many people said their opinion "stayed the same" while actually worsening.
Most importantly, anti-Asian hate crimes have "increased by 339 percent" from 2020 to 2021 [2]. Even if you doubt the data, comparatively, crime reports are more reliable and objective than self-reports when you ask a population about their views of people of a particular ethnicity.
> It's highly plausible that many people said their opinion "stayed the same" while actually worsening.
This statement crosses the line into absurdity.
The poll (that they designed!) didn’t give the “correct” results so time to do some hand waving and move the goalposts.
I’ll never understand this obsession with imagined grievances and jumping through hoops to paint one’s self as a victim. What is the point? Attention? Pity?
There is no absurdity, as "recall bias" is a recorded effect where people inaccurately remember past experiences to fit their current worldview (source: https://catalogofbias.org/biases/recall-bias/). You also ignored the points on social-desirability bias and crime reports and just asserted there is no increase in racism, and racism is a result of "imagined grievances" and victim culture.
You're asserting that the crime reports are wrong, and we can conclude that racial incidents did not increase because people in a survey said they weren't racist.
Many Asian Americans aren't asking for your "attention" or "pity." If there is more awareness among the Asian American community of racist incidents (e.g. many Asians getting randomly punched or pushed onto the subway tracks), one can have more aware of their surroundings when going outside to avoid random violence.
1. Recall bias is a fancy concept to whip out, but now sure I follow how you think it applies here or helps your point: "I am kinda racist now but I was even MORE racist against Asians in the past" Huh?
2. You can't just ignore a poll because the results don't match your message and then just say: "Oh, well, we can't even trust the results of this poll guys. All the racists will just say they aren't racists... cuz, cmon, we like KNOW there are SOOO many racists!"
3. Hate crime reporting has increased because HOW these incidents are now reported has changed in the past ~18 months at the Federal and local levels. Are there fewer or more of these incidents? Is there some trend? I don't think less than 2 years of data can tell us much of anything.
I find it interesting that when this argument fails to find any actual evidence it reverts to vigorous hand waving and asking us to believe there is some growing contingent of illusive racist boogeymen.
You wrote that we can’t ignore evidence that does not support your worldview in point 2, and then you flipped and said we should ignore the evidence of crime data in point 3, because the results did not match your own message.
At least be consistent and say “we don’t have enough data to conclude either way,” instead of claiming that it’s a bold statement that polling data is less reliable than crime statistics.
> Furthermore, a lot of people are biased to skew their responses or lie due to social-desirability bias [1]. The responses are self-reported. It's highly plausible that many people said their opinion "stayed the same" while actually worsening.
Not just that, people are also just biased to believe their previous opinions are consistent with their current opinions.
Great film, but right after that, Sean (Robin Williams's character) says:
"It's not about the job. I don't care if you work for the government. But you can do anything you want, you are bound by nothing. What are you passionate about. What do you want? I mean there are guys who work their entire lives laying brick so that their kids have a chance at the opportunities you have here."
So, instead of praising Will, Sean questions why Will seems determined to keep drifting while seeming clever. I always thought the implication was that it's better to define yourself as "for" something than "against" something, even if you sound smart in a wicked way by doing so.
I don't get it. Would you be suggesting that truly selfless people don't like to be thanked? If so, I don't understand why that would be a good thing; there's nothing wrong to expect respect or basic appreciation for your help.
In the context of this thread, gratitude stands for expressing what you appreciate about your relationship with another.
Do you see the problem here? If you like a flower, do you feel the need to thank it? No, right? A flower does what flowers do. So what's different about this scenario? The difference is you're using expression of gratitude as a tactic to manipulate.
If you're thinking, yeah, great idea, everyone manipulates, so what, you're a sociopath :)
As for the way you're using the word gratitude, to mean 'thanks' - sure, social norms dictate acknowledging other human beings in various ways - that's not what this thread is about.
I heard about the flower metaphor before, so I actually hear what you're saying now.
The last time I heard this metaphor was in the context of avoiding too much flattery or dependence on praise of others. So, a well-adjusted person does things because they want to, or a have a responsibility to, without relying too much on praise.
I think this framing is useful for a person too reliant on others' opinions for happiness, but even within this framework, you can still feel happy when others appreciate you (while not reliant on the emotion). So, it's still a positive to give and receive gratitude, so long as both people have a stable sense of self and aren't reliant on gratitude for happiness.
that makes a lot more sense, but this is from the perspective of the receiver not depending on gratitude. parent poster however goes much further by rejecting gratitude as manipulative, which is a rather toxic attitude.
Gratitude, the definition of the word, means "a feeling of appreciation (or similar positive response) by a recipient of another's kindness, gifts, help, favours, or other form of generosity to the giver of such gifts". It is a feeling you get when you appreciate something about some one / some thing other than yourself. Expressing gratitude is communicating that feeling, typically out of a desire to share the feeling, because you want others to feel good feelings too. It has nothing to do with narcissism.
If the flower could hear you, it would like to hear that it made you feel good. Flowers can't hear, but people can.
Think through what the opposite of gratitude would be.
Gratitude is when others do things you appreciate, that are generous, for your benefit, roughly speaking.
What about when others do things you appreciate, that are generous, to others, but not you?
What do we call that?
Get it? The key ingredient is who gets the goodies? That's what narcissism is, preoccupation with what I'm getting in relation to others. You can't get feelings of gratitude without being preoccupied with comparing yourself to others or your past self first :)
You can get just feeling warm and fuzzy, sharing a cup of tea in the morning, and I'm all for that. Because it doesn't involve intellectualizing your place in the social dominance hierarchy (comparison to others) or 'the world' (comparison to past self), and getting feelings from the conclusion you reach.
That logic would mean that any good feeling is narcissism. Which would defeat the purpose of the word narcissism. You would just say "I feel narcissistic" instead of "I feel good" or "I am thankful that I feel good". The only way to know what "good" is, is to compare it to "bad". Any feeling at all would be a comparison against the opposite state your past self felt, so literally any feeling at all would be narcissism. But it's...... not.
Narcissism is an excessive interest in one's physical appearance or image, and an excessive preoccupation with one's own needs. It is excessive self-interest, not any self-interest at all.
Example 1: Self-preservation is the interest in preserving the self over others. But it is not narcissism to consider what you need to keep yourself alive and healthy, before you consider others' welfare. It would be narcissism if somebody was drowning and you first needed to look at your reflection in the water before you tried to save them.
Example 2: If you say "I want you to know that I really enjoyed those cookies you gave me," you are considering your own self-interest, but only in the context of trying to communicate a feeling of joy to the other party with the intent of causing them joy (that they gave you joy). In that case your interest was actually in the other party, not yourself, even if the origin of the act came from a reflection of your own pleasure. On the other hand, it would be narcissism to go on a 30 minute rant of how exactly you want cookies to be made that the other party never asked for.
Example 3: Thinking "I am not currently on fire" and being happy about that is a reflection on one's desires, but not an excessive one. On the other hand, sitting for 30 minutes just wallowing in the feeling of your superiority for not being on fire, or telling other people how great it is that you're not on fire [when nobody asked], would probably border on narcissism. It would definitely be narcissism to tell a burn victim that you are happy you are not on fire.
Also:
> What about when others do things you appreciate, that are generous, to others, but not you? What do we call that?
Doing a good deed? Compersion? Joy? Compassion? Sympathy? Mudita? Mitfreude? What were you trying to imply it was?
> Gratitude is when others do things you appreciate, that are generous, for your benefit, roughly speaking.
This is incorrect. You have a definition error.
GRAT'ITUDE, noun [Latin gratitudo, from gratus, pleasing. See Grace.]
An emotion of the heart, excited by a favor or benefit received; a sentiment of kindness or good will towards a benefactor; thankfulness. gratitude is an agreeable emotion, consisting in or accompanied with good will to a benefactor, and a disposition to make a suitable return of benefits or services, or when no return can be made, with a desire to see the benefactor prosperous and happy. gratitude is a virtue of the highest excellence, as it implies a feeling and generous heart, and a proper sense of duty.
KINDNESS, noun [from kind, the adjective.]
1. Good will; benevolence; that temper or disposition which delights in contributing to the happiness of others, which is exercised cheerfully in gratifying their wishes, supplying their wants or alleviating their distresses; benignity of nature. kindness ever accompanies love.
There is no man whose kindness we may not sometime want, or by whose malice we may not sometime suffer.
2. Act of good will; beneficence; any act of benevolence which promotes the happiness or welfare of others. Charity, hospitality, attentions to the wants of others, etc., are deemed acts of kindness or kindnesses
NARCISSISM, noun
An exceptional interest in and admiration for yourself.
----
There's an important word in that definition of narcissism: "exceptional." Showing gratitude cannot constitute narcissism as such.
that's not the point. you can redefine gratitude all you want. but then your use of of the word gratitude no longer applies to the feeling i want to express when someone gives me something.
in other words: your redefinition of the word gratitude to imply narcissism does not make my expression of gratitude narcissistic.
we are talking about observable human behavior here, not about word definitions. if you believe that expressing gratitude is narcissistic then you have a problem. (and if you believe that the definition of a word changes the meaning of an act, then you have two problems)
If you like a flower, do you feel the need to thank it? No, right? A flower does what flowers do. So what's different about this scenario? The difference is you're using expression of gratitude as a tactic to manipulate.
ugh, no, the difference is that your partner is a human being that can't read minds. if you expect them to know that you are grateful without expressing it then that may seriously hurt your relationship.
i'd rather think that if you believe that everyone expressing gratitude is manipulative then that makes you the sociopath.
Someone will consistently be there to care very much about you. Friends are more fickle (people change and move away), and your parents won't be there forever. Siblings can also move away, too. It's nice to have at least one person you can trust in the world.
Viewing the phrase in isolation, this response is logically correct, but it's more interesting to view this in the context of the rest of the author's arguments.
If you're consistent with physical exercise by resisting when you feel like skipping a workout, you'll have more strength, endurance, and freedom of movement when you become much older. And if you're consistent with improving at your career skills, you'll have more career opportunities in the future. Therefore, even if you may seem less free by avoiding unhealthy food or watching too much television, you're setting yourself up for more opportunities in the long-term.
I personally do agree that you can be disciplined toward the wrong goals, though I also think it's more interesting to consider Willink's arguments as a whole, instead of focusing on a phrase in isolation.
> "How do you build discipline if you’re undisciplined?"
Willink's answer is "Just do it." Very charitably, he suggests you should do things you ought to, even if they are painful and you don't want to do it. This actually has some backing in cognitive-behavioral therapy by starting with action first before motivation.
Uncharitably, it's not nuanced if there are deeper reasons why you should actually consider to not work on something you've planned to do (though it's hard to say when this should happen).
> "How do you decide what to be disciplined about?"
Willink talked about how his first motivation was to be very good at his assigned tasks while in the navy. Then, if I remember correctly, he said his mission after retiring was to provide for his family and to help others with his content. For others, he said to focus on physical health; emotional stability; spending money wisely; spending time efficiently; taking care of family and friends; and doing great at your (presumable) current job. This is actually a very good starting point.
My major criticism of his past work is that he seems to assume that leaders/managers work in good faith and won't exploit your hard work. In my experience and several reports by others, following his advice can lead to getting severely overworked for little-to-no reward by managers acting in bad faith.
He also hasn't acknowledged (as far as I can tell) the importance of managing office politics in advancement in many workplaces. He said that outworking someone is the best way to counter someone trying to make you look bad in the workplace, which in my view is insufficient - you also need to talk to your manager about it in a tactful way. Lastly, his current content seems to be increasingly monetized, and he's had more podcast guests who are politicians, when he used to be apolitical.
You need to have discipline in the first place to “just do it” consistently. For those who lack enough motivation, which is the situation the advice is supposed to address, I don’t see how it helps. If they were able to “do it” consistently despite lacking consistent motivation, they wouldn’t have a problem in the first place.
I guess that for some people, being told “there’s no way around just doing the things even when you’re not motivated” by itself creates sufficient motivation long-term to do the things even when they are not otherwise motivated. But for those for which that doesn’t happen, there isn’t much actionable advice.
> "You need to have discipline in the first place to “just do it” consistently. [...] If they were able to “do it” consistently despite lacking consistent motivation, they wouldn’t have a problem in the first place."
From Willink's perspective (interpreted charitably), there are many situations where it's useful to "just do it." For example, say you want to do a task, but you want to get comfortable first because you're anxious. You can watch a funny video or browse the internet to calm down, read a motivational blog post, and do various chores to 'get in the mood.' Then hours pass by, and you still haven't started the task.
A better solution is to start with the action causing anxiety, expecting the shift in mood to follow the action (before trying to change your mood first), which is supported by recommendations in cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT). Actions first, mood follows is a good, actionable insight supported by CBT counselors.
> "For those who lack enough motivation, which is the situation the advice is supposed to address, I don’t see how it helps."
If you're disciplined despite lacking motivation, you can improve your physical health and earn better career opportunities, letting you earn more and have more freedom. Therefore, by focusing on actions more than motivation, you can improve your circumstances. This is a charitable interpretation of Willink's perspective.
However, my personal view is moderate. Motivation does matter, because it reduces the amount of willpower needed for work, and lets you choose the right tasks and goals to work toward. Though in any case, action before changing your mood is perfectly actionable advice.
Plenty of actionable advice. Start small, build habits, work your way up. Jordan Peterson (love him or hate him) talks about making your bed and cleaning your room. Then build off this and tackle something a little bigger. Small personal goal that takes a year or more of regular practice (language, physical fitness, writing, anything you highly value). If you can’t manage to build a habit of this, then maybe being disciplined and getting the benefits of it won’t work for you. Nothing wrong with that.
I was calling out the GP that the mere insight that discipline is usually necessary because you can’t rely on being consistently motivated fits the pattern of an insight that doesn’t by itself makes it easier to solve the problem. The insight can explain lack of success (inconsistent motivation combined with lack of discipline), but it doesn’t tell you how one might engender a lasting change. Also, the difference between discipline and consistent motivation is arguably small, because you somehow have to consistently motivate yourself to build up and maintain a discipline.
From your framing, it sounds like the advice is to start with a person who lacks motivation, and then tell them to be disciplined, and it's sufficient for lasting change. In this framing, the advice is absurd.
But it's far more interesting to consider how the one phrase relates to the rest of Willink's perspective. For example, he argues that that you can frame discipline and hard work as a method to be physically healthier; care for your family better; or help you earn more income or career capital.
The phrase is an introduction to the rest of his arguments, and it isn't quite as interesting to debate its merits in isolation.
I’ve always viewed his content through the lens of being your own boss, so being overworked and taken advantage of by an employer might happen, but if you don’t have the ability to work through things you don’t want to do, you can rarely succeed on your own. A boss is a great way to always have external motivation. That doesn’t exist when you work for yourself.
Great points by the way. I would also add that Jocko Willinck is a master teacher in self promotion. The pioneer of “monetize my navy seal career”, but I do feel it’s mostly genuine and valuable content.
I also think it's unpaid, because the consequences are too significant if it's leaked that there was collusion for Wired to publish a puff piece in exchange for money from Microsoft, and Wired didn't mark it as "sponsored content" or similar.
It's bad for the writer because it shows the writer can be bought, reducing the credibility of previous and future work (though this does happen). It's also bad for Wired as it will be seen as biased for future reports on Microsoft. And it's bad for Microsoft because unpaid positive articles are worth more than positive articles that are suspected to be paid for.
At the most cynical, it's possible the writer wrote this in exchange for building relationships with the sources for future interviews and getting scoops (payment in a different way). More optimistically, the writer was naively passionate as you rote. Still, in any case, the writer could've asked at least some hardball or technically interesting questions for the report.
I'm also curious about vetted professional communities.
I'm not a part of one, but the only community formed online that I've found to last, was one with a weekly video meeting with a few people from the larger community. This actually outlasted the original community.
It's just so easy for any member to become inactive in the community without regular interaction. Free communities on Discord can plausibly be a great option, with the major caveat that the core interactions are over regular scheduled video calls, instead of mostly messages in large group chats.
I get the message, and I strongly disagree with it, as someone who hasn't achieved stability yet.
When you don't have a stable career, or work for long hours for low pay with family to take care of, you wish you had this life. The message can also be taken in a bad way by young people, who then neglect to develop useful skills early on, and ultimately struggle hard to find work. There is so much messaging against good choices in life, that people overlook why they are good choices anyways. I'd rather be at least middle class with the money and freedom to change my circumstances, than struggling with little freedom due to lack of resources.
I don't deny that this is a work of art, and one crafted well, but I just disagree with the sentiment.
It's very rockstar live fast die young mentality. (at least half of it, the other half I agree with) Assuming they value art, I find in my own life that stability gives me more time to work on and finish art. Drinking less, exercising three times a week etc, for me it allows me to be more deeply transgressive or unconventional, not less so.
Note that the article focuses on online dating, and largely on data from Tinder. The bases are not necessarily the same for people who meet through acquaintances/work/church (small minority in the US today, but it still happens)/etc., for users reading the comments before possibly the submission.
If you assume that people answered honestly, it's very possible that remaining proportion of people who viewed Asian Americans negatively were more likely to express anti-Asian American racism and hate over the past year, instead of keeping quiet about their views.
Furthermore, a lot of people are biased to skew their responses or lie due to social-desirability bias [1]. The responses are self-reported. It's highly plausible that many people said their opinion "stayed the same" while actually worsening.
Most importantly, anti-Asian hate crimes have "increased by 339 percent" from 2020 to 2021 [2]. Even if you doubt the data, comparatively, crime reports are more reliable and objective than self-reports when you ask a population about their views of people of a particular ethnicity.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social-desirability_bias
[2] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/anti-asian-hate-c...