Comparisons really are everything. I often think about how much I have in life—many things I once dreamed of—yet I constantly feel stressed and anxious about small, everyday problems. Yesterday, I reminded myself that many people have far less than I do. Instead of making me feel grateful, it made me feel worse.
Then I thought: people who have much more than I do probably aren’t any less stressed in their huge mansions—if anything, they might be more stressed. What are they stressed about? I can imagine plenty of things. Strangely enough, that thought made me feel much better.
It is rare that I read something novel and insightful. What a lovely surprise this article was! I subscribed immediately. I look forward to both the next installment of this article and all of the back catalogue!
Regarding your question: I don't see why you need a 'relative' vs. 'absolute' distinction for problems. Also, prima facie, the very idea of an 'absolute problem' seems nonsensical: all problems are going to be relative to the needs, constraints, and social dynamics of the organism in question. Take starvation. What is 'absolute' about this problem? Suppose that you and I were both raising children in horrible conditions; in that situation, my ability to starve myself more ruthlessly than you can yourself may confer a comparative advantage -- my children may have more food as a result and so more likely to grow up and have children of their own. I can outcompete you *with* starvation. It is in this context a *solution*.
So there seem to be basic issues with the very idea, but I also don't see how your argument really depends on the idea of an 'absolute problem' anyway. It seems that you want to appeal to that to make most or even all of the 'relative' problems problems of (intraspecific) competition, where comparative advantage rules the evolutionary roost and so might explain why people tend to return to a baseline of (un)happiness no matter the solutions on hand. So you want to set aside one set of problems where, presumably, this explanation is less persuasive. But I think you mostly just need the claim you outlined toward the beginning of the post: the human mind functions to identify problems and opportunities and ways to solve/exploit each, not to be happy. Affect, positive or negative, tracks how we're doing at that more fundamental task (and motivates us accordingly), and is not the task itself. With this picture, it is actually hard to see the point in evaluating a solution in terms of how *happy* it makes people, rather than in terms of how *effective* it is *as a solution*, not only to the present problem but to other problems besides, and, perhaps, what other opportunities it opens up for us or how it enables us to newly exploit new opportunities.
PS the SnotSucker looks like it results in snot in your (the parent's) mouth. I was disgusted until I looked further into it. PSA for other non-parents: there is a filter that catches the snot. It is still a little gross, but I can now at least understand why parents are so univocally positive about it.
Ok, following up again after I've had time to mull. You're absolutely right that the idea of an absolute problem is nonsense. I suppose I want to make the distinction between starvation and an abundance of boogers for two reasons. First, starvation is something our ancestors faced throughout evolutionary history, which is not true of many of the problems modern affluent people confront today. Does that matter? I can think of a few reasons why it might. The main one is just that if a problem has been longstanding over human history, we might have evolved defenses for it.
Second, the amount of food I require to be full does not depend all that much on how much my neighbor eats. But the amount of boogers I find tolerable in my kid's nose does. (Or, for a better example, how big my house needs to be.) This difference is what I was trying to get at in the absolute vs relative distinction, although I agree with you that that's not quite right. But while (let's say) 2,000 calories per day has been what an adult human needs to satisfy their hunger for thousands of years, what they "need" in terms of shelter, transportation, clothing, and so on has changed drastically. Is there something to be said about that?
Thanks again for your comment, and let me know. I want to get this part of the argument right.
Haha yes there is a filter. And good point about the distinction between relative and absolute perhaps not being the correct or even a necessary distinction to make. I'll mull on that some more. Appreciate your thoughts.
Comparisons really are everything. I often think about how much I have in life—many things I once dreamed of—yet I constantly feel stressed and anxious about small, everyday problems. Yesterday, I reminded myself that many people have far less than I do. Instead of making me feel grateful, it made me feel worse.
Then I thought: people who have much more than I do probably aren’t any less stressed in their huge mansions—if anything, they might be more stressed. What are they stressed about? I can imagine plenty of things. Strangely enough, that thought made me feel much better.
Well said and totally agree.
It is rare that I read something novel and insightful. What a lovely surprise this article was! I subscribed immediately. I look forward to both the next installment of this article and all of the back catalogue!
Thanks for saying so, I very much appreciate it.
Regarding your question: I don't see why you need a 'relative' vs. 'absolute' distinction for problems. Also, prima facie, the very idea of an 'absolute problem' seems nonsensical: all problems are going to be relative to the needs, constraints, and social dynamics of the organism in question. Take starvation. What is 'absolute' about this problem? Suppose that you and I were both raising children in horrible conditions; in that situation, my ability to starve myself more ruthlessly than you can yourself may confer a comparative advantage -- my children may have more food as a result and so more likely to grow up and have children of their own. I can outcompete you *with* starvation. It is in this context a *solution*.
So there seem to be basic issues with the very idea, but I also don't see how your argument really depends on the idea of an 'absolute problem' anyway. It seems that you want to appeal to that to make most or even all of the 'relative' problems problems of (intraspecific) competition, where comparative advantage rules the evolutionary roost and so might explain why people tend to return to a baseline of (un)happiness no matter the solutions on hand. So you want to set aside one set of problems where, presumably, this explanation is less persuasive. But I think you mostly just need the claim you outlined toward the beginning of the post: the human mind functions to identify problems and opportunities and ways to solve/exploit each, not to be happy. Affect, positive or negative, tracks how we're doing at that more fundamental task (and motivates us accordingly), and is not the task itself. With this picture, it is actually hard to see the point in evaluating a solution in terms of how *happy* it makes people, rather than in terms of how *effective* it is *as a solution*, not only to the present problem but to other problems besides, and, perhaps, what other opportunities it opens up for us or how it enables us to newly exploit new opportunities.
PS the SnotSucker looks like it results in snot in your (the parent's) mouth. I was disgusted until I looked further into it. PSA for other non-parents: there is a filter that catches the snot. It is still a little gross, but I can now at least understand why parents are so univocally positive about it.
Ok, following up again after I've had time to mull. You're absolutely right that the idea of an absolute problem is nonsense. I suppose I want to make the distinction between starvation and an abundance of boogers for two reasons. First, starvation is something our ancestors faced throughout evolutionary history, which is not true of many of the problems modern affluent people confront today. Does that matter? I can think of a few reasons why it might. The main one is just that if a problem has been longstanding over human history, we might have evolved defenses for it.
Second, the amount of food I require to be full does not depend all that much on how much my neighbor eats. But the amount of boogers I find tolerable in my kid's nose does. (Or, for a better example, how big my house needs to be.) This difference is what I was trying to get at in the absolute vs relative distinction, although I agree with you that that's not quite right. But while (let's say) 2,000 calories per day has been what an adult human needs to satisfy their hunger for thousands of years, what they "need" in terms of shelter, transportation, clothing, and so on has changed drastically. Is there something to be said about that?
Thanks again for your comment, and let me know. I want to get this part of the argument right.
Haha yes there is a filter. And good point about the distinction between relative and absolute perhaps not being the correct or even a necessary distinction to make. I'll mull on that some more. Appreciate your thoughts.
it was dickens
What was?