I'm sorry, but this whole tirade is just so stupid. I cannot imagine people being so weak-willed they will choose the easier path over what they know will make them happy. Convenience is not your...
I'm sorry, but this whole tirade is just so stupid. I cannot imagine people being so weak-willed they will choose the easier path over what they know will make them happy. Convenience is not your enemy. Complacency is, but the author never seems to be willing to admit it.
The biggest problem I have with it is how he presents convenience as limiting choice while later on actually admitting convenience leads to more choice. He says that convenience leads to a lack of individualization and characterization, but to use his own example, isn't there value of chosing to watch a show on your own time greater than if you were to wait for it to air on television?
I honestly got the feeling that the basis behind all of the author's ideas is that he believes that most people are childlike, unwilling to do things simply because they are too hard. It's extremely condescending. The author might as well just wear a hat with the words "I'm out of touch with today's youth" written on it.
The real problem with this piece is that there is no world that would satisfy what the author wants. Since technology is convenience, we would have to get rid of it all. Better get rid of knives, too, since that is so much more convenient than tearing things apart with your hands. Don't forget our enemy, fire - the ultimate convienient heat source!
If you've never seen people choose short-term convenience over long-term gains which would lead to more happiness, you must live in a truly extraordinary environment. And it would stand to reason...
I cannot imagine people being so weak-willed they will choose the easier path over what they know will make them happy.
If you've never seen people choose short-term convenience over long-term gains which would lead to more happiness, you must live in a truly extraordinary environment. And it would stand to reason that the more seductive and ubiquitous various temptations of short-term convenience become in all walks of life, the more often people succumb to those easy 'quick fixes'.
I honestly got the feeling that the basis behind all of the author's ideas is that he believes that most people are childlike, unwilling to do things simply because they are too hard. It's extremely condescending.
I don't think there's anything contemptuous or misanthropic about the observation that humans prefer convenience and have a general tendency to avoid spending time and energy on hard things if possible (and convenient).
The rest of your complain strikes me as basically reductio ad absurdum. Your experience may differ wildly, but I agree with the observations and assessments of the article to a large extent.
You're misrepresenting what I am trying to say. I am well aware that people will often choose short-term rewards over long-term rewards. What I am arguing is that people are not so simple that...
You're misrepresenting what I am trying to say. I am well aware that people will often choose short-term rewards over long-term rewards. What I am arguing is that people are not so simple that they will consistently choose the convenient over all other options. The author's first example is actually the perfect way to illustrate what I am talking about:
I prefer to brew my coffee, but Starbucks instant is so convenient I hardly ever do what I “prefer.”
Of all the people I know who drink coffee, I don't know anyone who is so enamored with convenience that they regularly choose instant coffee versus coffee brewed by hand, by keurig, or by a coffeeshop employee.
The author uses many such absurd examples. He talks about how it would save money to do laundry by hand, but does not consider that the pennies saved by doing so would cost many dollars in labor-time. His major flaw is that he doesn't appear to consider time to have any value, when in reality it's the the greatest source of economic capitol for most people.
Of course I am reducing his argument into absurdity - the argument is absurd! He distorts history and science to support his crazy and reductive viewpoint. Just look at how he describes music piracy for an example. I feel like you are sending me that link because you think I used a logical fallacy, but if you were to check the link you would see that it is not.
If you want to understand why I find this insulting, here is the sentence I think best describes his thesis:
You need not churn your own butter or hunt your own meat, but if you want to be someone, you cannot allow convenience to be the value that transcends all others.
I'm sure you can see what the problem with this statement is. He is positing that people consider their laziness to be a virtue. If that doesn't sound misanthropic to you, I don't know what will.
I didn't sent it as a logical fallacy but reductio ad absurdum is often used as a cheap trick to make an argument seem more extreme than intended by its author, and then refuting that - similarly...
I feel like you are sending me that link because you think I used a logical fallacy, but if you were to check the link you would see that it is not.
I didn't sent it as a logical fallacy but reductio ad absurdum is often used as a cheap trick to make an argument seem more extreme than intended by its author, and then refuting that - similarly to a straw man.
If you want to understand why I find this insulting, here is the sentence I think best describes his thesis:
You need not churn your own butter or hunt your own meat, but if you want to be someone, you cannot allow convenience to be the value that transcends all others.
I'm sure you can see what the problem with this statement is. He is positing that people consider their laziness to be a virtue.
He is positing that many people optimise their lives for (short-term) convenience because advertising and popular culture has elevated it to something akin to a virtue. Do you think that's wrong?
Honestly I'm not sure I would agree with you in saying that was one of his arguements. He kind of rambles along and doesn't make very specific statements. But I do think the statement you made was...
Honestly I'm not sure I would agree with you in saying that was one of his arguements. He kind of rambles along and doesn't make very specific statements.
But I do think the statement you made was wrong. There are people who value convenience more than anything else, and those are children and teenagers. They aren't like that because of pop culture or advertising, but because people are naturally lazy. It is by teaching them about patience and the value of work that they grow out of it.
Both are true. I of course agree with you that people are naturally lazy but cultural influences also play a big role to what extent one will succumb to one's natural impulses versus to what...
They aren't like that because of pop culture or advertising, but because people are naturally lazy.
Both are true. I of course agree with you that people are naturally lazy but cultural influences also play a big role to what extent one will succumb to one's natural impulses versus to what extent one will engage in impulse control. People also naturally crave sugar and high calory foods, yet in cultures that encourage healthier diets and more active lifestyles you see considerably less obesity than in cultures where one gets overwhelmed by an overabundance of cheap and easily accessible amount of sugary, fatty fast food at every corner.
To provide a mirror to your own rant, I'd argue that convenience and complacency are two sides of the same coin, and that overabundant convenience has led to our society's overarching complacency...
To provide a mirror to your own rant, I'd argue that convenience and complacency are two sides of the same coin, and that overabundant convenience has led to our society's overarching complacency with things that a decade ago wouldve been intolerable. The amazon example the author provides is a perfect exemplar in this respect.
The only area where the author falls flat is victimizing those who choose convenience, including themselves. Also the armchair philophisizing is annoying.
Everyone defaults to the convenient thing in areas they haven't thought too hard about. How many of us open Netflix and let it autoplay whatever show was on last that we don't really care about,...
I honestly got the feeling that the basis behind all of the author's ideas is that he believes that most people are childlike, unwilling to do things simply because they are too hard. It's extremely condescending. The author might as well just wear a hat with the words "I'm out of touch with today's youth" written on it.
Everyone defaults to the convenient thing in areas they haven't thought too hard about.
How many of us open Netflix and let it autoplay whatever show was on last that we don't really care about, even when we have a backlog of interesting movies and dvds we've been meaning to watch? How many of us pay lip service to privacy concerns about Facebook, but then open it everyday, leave it on its defaults, and talk to people there? How many of us often stop for some fast food or microwave a meal when we've been imagining cooking a nice meal sometime soon? How many of us sit down at home and open our favorite link aggregator instead of reading through already-open tabs or purchased books we've wanted to go through? How many of us when deciding to play a game pick an already-downloaded game in our Steam collection rather than pick a game we prefer just because that game requires finding a disk and putting it in?
Sure, most of us try to fight this here and there, but usually only in a few facets of life at a time.
I think that's badly misunderstanding the author to suggest they want us to get rid of technology. The author just wants us to acknowledge what convenience does to us. If an otherwise "worse" option has more convenience, then that convenience will make us pick it most of the time if we don't correct for that. People underestimate convenience's effect and often don't notice that. Realizing that is just one step to getting better.
Related: I love the article Beware Trivial Inconveniences. Consider China's Great Firewall: Its purpose is not to make it impossible to access certain banned content. People who say "The Great Firewall doesn't matter because VPNs are easy" are entirely missing the point (in a way that's very useful for China). It makes certain content inconvenient, which causes most people to naturally avoid it.
Your examples are not from defaulting to convenience, though. You watch stupid shows on netflix specifically because you want to relax with a nothing show, not because your DVD collection is...
Your examples are not from defaulting to convenience, though. You watch stupid shows on netflix specifically because you want to relax with a nothing show, not because your DVD collection is inconvenient. You're still on Facebook because it's addictive and the average person still doesn't understand the depth of their wrongdoings. You eat garbage food because you are too tired to make a more complicated meal. People's motivations are much more complicated than mere convenience.
That's why I specifically mentioned complacency. Having convenient solutions is perfectly fine as long as you know what, if anything, you may be giving up by using them versus others. The author paints people as sloths who aren't capable of seeing the impact of their decisions, but that completely flies in the face of every single one of my experiences. People make informed decisions every day.
I see this as a major difference in my interactions with with people that identify in various ways on the extreme edges of the political spectrum. It's a lack of awareness over the decisions being...
Everyone defaults to the convenient thing in areas they haven't thought too hard about.
I see this as a major difference in my interactions with with people that identify in various ways on the extreme edges of the political spectrum. It's a lack of awareness over the decisions being made. Strong ego identification (something that presents strongly in extreme ideologies) is, from my perspective, the foundation of all of the conflict we are experiencing today.
One's concept of ones-self by default is all-consuming. Most people live as if the patterns they are living out in their lives are realty. Rather than most probably just an effective evolutionary strategy for survival.
The fascinating thing I've been experiencing over and over through the last two years of American politics is how much certain humans value stability above all else. While I understand the argument that humans put convenience above all else, isn't this just a consequence of maximizing our competitiveness by taking advantages presented to us?
I'm sorry, but this whole tirade is just so stupid. I cannot imagine people being so weak-willed they will choose the easier path over what they know will make them happy. Convenience is not your enemy. Complacency is, but the author never seems to be willing to admit it.
The biggest problem I have with it is how he presents convenience as limiting choice while later on actually admitting convenience leads to more choice. He says that convenience leads to a lack of individualization and characterization, but to use his own example, isn't there value of chosing to watch a show on your own time greater than if you were to wait for it to air on television?
I honestly got the feeling that the basis behind all of the author's ideas is that he believes that most people are childlike, unwilling to do things simply because they are too hard. It's extremely condescending. The author might as well just wear a hat with the words "I'm out of touch with today's youth" written on it.
The real problem with this piece is that there is no world that would satisfy what the author wants. Since technology is convenience, we would have to get rid of it all. Better get rid of knives, too, since that is so much more convenient than tearing things apart with your hands. Don't forget our enemy, fire - the ultimate convienient heat source!
If you've never seen people choose short-term convenience over long-term gains which would lead to more happiness, you must live in a truly extraordinary environment. And it would stand to reason that the more seductive and ubiquitous various temptations of short-term convenience become in all walks of life, the more often people succumb to those easy 'quick fixes'.
I don't think there's anything contemptuous or misanthropic about the observation that humans prefer convenience and have a general tendency to avoid spending time and energy on hard things if possible (and convenient).
The rest of your complain strikes me as basically reductio ad absurdum. Your experience may differ wildly, but I agree with the observations and assessments of the article to a large extent.
You're misrepresenting what I am trying to say. I am well aware that people will often choose short-term rewards over long-term rewards. What I am arguing is that people are not so simple that they will consistently choose the convenient over all other options. The author's first example is actually the perfect way to illustrate what I am talking about:
Of all the people I know who drink coffee, I don't know anyone who is so enamored with convenience that they regularly choose instant coffee versus coffee brewed by hand, by keurig, or by a coffeeshop employee.
The author uses many such absurd examples. He talks about how it would save money to do laundry by hand, but does not consider that the pennies saved by doing so would cost many dollars in labor-time. His major flaw is that he doesn't appear to consider time to have any value, when in reality it's the the greatest source of economic capitol for most people.
Of course I am reducing his argument into absurdity - the argument is absurd! He distorts history and science to support his crazy and reductive viewpoint. Just look at how he describes music piracy for an example. I feel like you are sending me that link because you think I used a logical fallacy, but if you were to check the link you would see that it is not.
If you want to understand why I find this insulting, here is the sentence I think best describes his thesis:
I'm sure you can see what the problem with this statement is. He is positing that people consider their laziness to be a virtue. If that doesn't sound misanthropic to you, I don't know what will.
I didn't sent it as a logical fallacy but reductio ad absurdum is often used as a cheap trick to make an argument seem more extreme than intended by its author, and then refuting that - similarly to a straw man.
He is positing that many people optimise their lives for (short-term) convenience because advertising and popular culture has elevated it to something akin to a virtue. Do you think that's wrong?
Honestly I'm not sure I would agree with you in saying that was one of his arguements. He kind of rambles along and doesn't make very specific statements.
But I do think the statement you made was wrong. There are people who value convenience more than anything else, and those are children and teenagers. They aren't like that because of pop culture or advertising, but because people are naturally lazy. It is by teaching them about patience and the value of work that they grow out of it.
Both are true. I of course agree with you that people are naturally lazy but cultural influences also play a big role to what extent one will succumb to one's natural impulses versus to what extent one will engage in impulse control. People also naturally crave sugar and high calory foods, yet in cultures that encourage healthier diets and more active lifestyles you see considerably less obesity than in cultures where one gets overwhelmed by an overabundance of cheap and easily accessible amount of sugary, fatty fast food at every corner.
To provide a mirror to your own rant, I'd argue that convenience and complacency are two sides of the same coin, and that overabundant convenience has led to our society's overarching complacency with things that a decade ago wouldve been intolerable. The amazon example the author provides is a perfect exemplar in this respect.
The only area where the author falls flat is victimizing those who choose convenience, including themselves. Also the armchair philophisizing is annoying.
Everyone defaults to the convenient thing in areas they haven't thought too hard about.
How many of us open Netflix and let it autoplay whatever show was on last that we don't really care about, even when we have a backlog of interesting movies and dvds we've been meaning to watch? How many of us pay lip service to privacy concerns about Facebook, but then open it everyday, leave it on its defaults, and talk to people there? How many of us often stop for some fast food or microwave a meal when we've been imagining cooking a nice meal sometime soon? How many of us sit down at home and open our favorite link aggregator instead of reading through already-open tabs or purchased books we've wanted to go through? How many of us when deciding to play a game pick an already-downloaded game in our Steam collection rather than pick a game we prefer just because that game requires finding a disk and putting it in?
Sure, most of us try to fight this here and there, but usually only in a few facets of life at a time.
I think that's badly misunderstanding the author to suggest they want us to get rid of technology. The author just wants us to acknowledge what convenience does to us. If an otherwise "worse" option has more convenience, then that convenience will make us pick it most of the time if we don't correct for that. People underestimate convenience's effect and often don't notice that. Realizing that is just one step to getting better.
Related: I love the article Beware Trivial Inconveniences. Consider China's Great Firewall: Its purpose is not to make it impossible to access certain banned content. People who say "The Great Firewall doesn't matter because VPNs are easy" are entirely missing the point (in a way that's very useful for China). It makes certain content inconvenient, which causes most people to naturally avoid it.
Your examples are not from defaulting to convenience, though. You watch stupid shows on netflix specifically because you want to relax with a nothing show, not because your DVD collection is inconvenient. You're still on Facebook because it's addictive and the average person still doesn't understand the depth of their wrongdoings. You eat garbage food because you are too tired to make a more complicated meal. People's motivations are much more complicated than mere convenience.
That's why I specifically mentioned complacency. Having convenient solutions is perfectly fine as long as you know what, if anything, you may be giving up by using them versus others. The author paints people as sloths who aren't capable of seeing the impact of their decisions, but that completely flies in the face of every single one of my experiences. People make informed decisions every day.
I see this as a major difference in my interactions with with people that identify in various ways on the extreme edges of the political spectrum. It's a lack of awareness over the decisions being made. Strong ego identification (something that presents strongly in extreme ideologies) is, from my perspective, the foundation of all of the conflict we are experiencing today.
One's concept of ones-self by default is all-consuming. Most people live as if the patterns they are living out in their lives are realty. Rather than most probably just an effective evolutionary strategy for survival.
The fascinating thing I've been experiencing over and over through the last two years of American politics is how much certain humans value stability above all else. While I understand the argument that humans put convenience above all else, isn't this just a consequence of maximizing our competitiveness by taking advantages presented to us?