A psychological gem was dropped in the middle of the article:
People in her circumstances have their world suddenly inverted, and there is nothing in the manner of their taking – no narrative of sacrifice, or enduring for a greater good – to help them derive meaning from it. They must somehow find meaning in their predicament – or mentally detach themselves from their day-to-day reality, which is a monumental task when alone.
This is the same conclusion drawn by Dr. Victor Frankl in his excellent Man's Search for Meaning. His experience in Nazi concentration camps led him to conclude that the only way to fend off complete apathy was to try to find a personal meaning in your experience. Even apparently meaningless suffering, he said, can be made meaningful depending on your response: you can maintain your human dignity in the face of overwhelming suffering, and by not forgetting yourself, you can be an affirmation of the strength of humankind.
> They must somehow find meaning in their predicament
This helps you keep your sanity, but when the same thing happens on a large scale, it can also cause all sorts of social problems.
There are many cultures that valorize unnecessary suffering for the sake of suffering, just because it has always been a part of life. Often this takes the form of a rite of passage, such as genital mutilation, mandatory military service, and ridiculous amount of cramming in high school (especially in East Asia). Work that serves absolutely no purpose other than putting food on your table might fall into this category.
People often romanticize such activities, they think there's some profound meaning and honor in enduring them, and they even feel ashamed if they fall short of the societal norm. But in many cases, the illusion of honor is just a collective coping strategy. Koreans valorize studying 18 hours a day because they know of no other way to learn. Americans valorize full-time employment because most of them are stuck doing it. Soldiers everywhere brag about how brutal their training was because it makes them feel like their dick is bigger. In every instance, the valorization and romanticization gets in the way of progress.
If you as an individual discover meaning in something that everyone else ignores or takes for granted, that's great, you've become a better person through that experience. But if you see a bunch of people doing it together, it's usually a recipe for conservatism. The ultimate strength of humankind does not lie in our ability to endure pain. It lies in our ability to change the world so that nobody needs to endure the same kind of pain anymore.
By one side, simply the best way of achieving any measure of success requires a lot of work, that's easily seen rationally; many other sacrifices we make though don't generate meaningful results. But we associate the effort required to perform all those, so to have enough morale to perform hard work by accepting sacrifice, some may need (irrationally) to perform other kinds of sacrifice.
Let me clarify this in the east asian setting: sometimes just prizing the result (good grades, acceptance at university) will not actually provide good results because kids (and people in general) are not perfectly rational and can't clearly make a best strategy to their goal. So people start prizing the necessary (but not sufficient) steps to reach the goals, namely sacrifice -- which leads to the stupid biases of putting unproductively much study, working an unproductive number of hours, and so on. Another reason there may be a bias toward sacrifice is that the other side is usually much worse (i.e. major unwillingness to put up work), so society overcompensates.
So even if you look at it rationally, it may make sense when you take into account our psychological quirks. Of course, it's all the best that we don't have those to begin with, and I figure a great part of our learning is simply bypassing those natural barriers, optimizing for results.
What I can't stand is the amount of brainwashing that goes on in every instance to make those sacrifices, overcompensations and necessary evils look like some sort of sacred duty. Please, call a spade a spade.
Humans may have psychological quirks, but they're not stupid. If you keep pretending that something is even more important than it already is, sooner or later people will realize what you've been doing and take it as an insult to their intelligence. What usually follows is cynicism, which is essentially overcompensating for romanticism.
> Work that serves absolutely no purpose other than putting food on your table might fall into this category.
Have you read 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance'[1]? The discussion on the concept of Value may challenge this idea that you have put forward.
I don't have any problem with individuals finding value wherever they want to. I might disagree with them, but that's OK.
I only have a problem when a certain interpretation of value becomes an oppressive social norm, i.e. when people force once another to adopt their interpretation and no other.
I've read ZATAOMM, but remember it as a discussion about Quality as the alignment/connection between objective and subjective worlds. Did I miss something?
Here is a bit from Robert Antelme's "L'Espèce humaine", badly translated by me from the German version ("Das Menschengeschlecht") into English:
"On Sunday we have to do something, it cannot go on like this. We have to get out of the hunger. We have to talk to the people. There are some among them who are rapidly deteriorating, they are letting themselves go, they let themselves get destroyed. There are even some among them who forgot why they are here. We have to talk with each other."
This happened in the tunnel, and was carried on from mule to mule. In this way a language started to exist, which was no longer the language of cursing or something thrown up from the stomach, and also not the barking for a cup of food. This language here created a distance between the human and the muddy, yellow earth, so that he was no longer dug into it, but its master, master even over the empty pocket of his stomach. In the pit, in the bent body, in the deformed head, the world opened."
I've had several members of my family go through addiction and have dealt with clinical depression. I gave Frankl's book to one of my older sisters and it had a profound impact on her. It was no silver bullet to her recovery, but it made her look at life completely differently.
Also, in the movie, "I Am Legend" you can see what happens when we're deprived of interaction with other human beings. Will Smith's character goes through seemingly humorous interactions with mannequins in the video store at the beginning of the movie. Although people were snickering in the movie theater, it occurred to me that he was simply trying to create meaning for his own life, even if in some nonsensical way, to avoid going crazy because there were no more "humans" to interact with. It was a constant theme throughout the movie and I'm not sure too many people got that.
As a counterpoint, in "If This is a Man", Auschwitz survivor Primo Levi describes his inability to find meaning in his experiences, and a lack of triumph of the human spirit, in himself and other inmates.
As the title implies, the book claims that not only did the Nazi's attempt to dehumanize the concentration camp inmates, but that the succeeded. This was sufficiently confronting that the US title was changed to "Survival in Auschwitz"
I cannot understand why people still decide to base their motivations on slippery concepts like the meaning of life or on some romantized, conjectured intrinsic values of our species. It seems to me that there are much better mental models of our existence that can help us to organize our thoughts and lifes, most notably things that are derived from the theory of evolution, neuroscience and from behavioral biology.
"The very meaninglessness of life forces man to create his own meaning."
"The most terrifying fact about the universe is not that it is hostile but that it is indifferent; but if we can come to terms with this indifference and accept the challenges of life within the boundaries of death — however mutable man may be able to make them — our existence as a species can have genuine meaning and fulfillment. However vast the darkness, we must supply our own light."
I choose to use nonrational (not irrational or rational, necessarily, but indeterminate) thoughts like "My life has purpose" as sources of motivation since it shortcuts the process of extracting meaning from theories that take a great deal of time to research and internalize.
I am not a rigorous accountant of truth in my worldview. I choose a worldview that works for me since I don't have the time or energy to truly consider all options.
In this case, probably because when you're being tortured, it's small comfort to know how the synapses of your tormentors' brains are firing. Things like defiance in the face of adversity or finding meaning in life seem to be universal across cultures, and a lot more fundamental to the way our brains work than something like scientific understanding.
If scientific validity were our lone motivation, than yes, it would make sense to ignore these "slippery concepts," as you describe. But this is not the case. I, for one, dread the mechanization of human behavior, even if it may seem accurate. The same goes for others, too. In general, people will not reduced themselves to mere cause and effect; they want to exist as more than than.
Having verifiable evidence against my beliefs means nothing, because my intention is not factuality. That's why creationism and evolution may coexist in the theologians mind. And that's why the utilitarian ideology will never become widespread.
The sciences are valuable in all tangible senses, but these "models," as you describe, are just that - models. And I feel no obligation to model my existence. Honestly, I prefer not to understand myself. Life's more amusing while unpredictable.
Because such slippery concepts make it more possible to survive adversity. It's almost as if it was a trait selected by evolutionary pressure because those were the mental models that helped their users survive.
My guess is that those mental models don't provide much comfort to people suffering from depression. Our brains evolved over many years and they require certains things to be present to be able to work at a normal mood elevation. Research suggests that the ability to find meaning or living according to "core values" is a necessity for most of us to escape depression. Whether or not it's logical or rational is irrelevant, it's how our brains work and it's just as important as sunlight, physical movement, and normal Vitamin D levels.
In all seriousness, I had the same response when I read Man's Search for Meaning the first time. The first half of the book describes, in clinical detail (Frankl was a psychiatrist) the details of daily life in Auschwitz and other Nazi camps. I don't need to say that they are disturbing, but you might be surprised to hear that they're also uplifting.
The book will make you cry. Not because it's sad but because it's a reminder that although humans are capable of causing great evil, we're also capable of looking that evil in the face, even through our own powerlessness, without turning away. We dish it out but we can take it, too.
It is scary to think that while this article start out with an example of "almost 10,000 hours" in isolation as something horrific, here is a prisoner in the US who has been in isolation more than 20 times longer than that, and the courts have upheld this treatment as legal.
Fast facts: Silverstein was imprisoned for bank robbery. While in prison he was convicted for murder of another inmate, albeit on questionable evidence. Silverstein kiled and was convicted of murder for killing another inmate who was seeking revenge for the first killing he was convicted of. He led the Aryan Nation prison gang for a time. In 1983, he was convicted for a particularly brutal murder of a prison guard. Since then he has been kept in ADX (aka Supermax) custody and had no visitors. He is seen by a prison psychiatrist once a month and otherwise only sees his guards when they deliver food. Like other supermax prisoners he occupies a cell within a containment suite, so there's no chance of him communicating with other prisoners by shouting or suchlike.
Now, obviously Silverstein is all kinds of bad, but I don't buy the argument that the risk profile he presents has not changed at all in the last 31 years. It's worth bearing in mind that male criminality peaks in the late teens and then the decline steepens after age 40. Yeah, of course it's risky to grant him additional privileges, but there's a big gap between the risk that he'll attack someone in a controlled environment, and the (unacceptable) outcome of him escaping and inflicting a danger on society at large.
Even just allowing visitors without allowing physical interaction would have to be a vast improvement from total isolation. They've already got a visitor room set up but don't allow it to be used.
Is that really that difficult? The alternative is, of course, not having him in solitary confinement for 27 years. It's not that difficult to allow some level of social interaction while still preventing violence.
Well, they could probably turn off the lights from time to time. Night vision cameras aren't expensive compared to all of the other costs here...
"Thomas Silverstein has been locked under the tightest conditions in the federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) in total isolation since he murdered a correctional officer in 1983. The lights are kept on 24 hours a day in his cell."
"Since then, researchers have found that in darkness most people eventually adjust to a 48-hour cycle: 36 hours of activity followed by 12 hours of sleep. The reasons are still unclear"
This statement was interesting to me. I wonder if it resonates with anyone else on HN. My BF who works from home a lot can spend days/hours at home splitting his time between working (programming) and playing video games. He has said a lot of times that the normal 24 hour cycle does not work from him. That he feels his body needs a 36 hour day followed by some hours of sleep.
After reading the aforementioned statement in the article, I wonder if it is because of he spends so much time indoors.
I did something similar for a couple years, I used to sleep 8-10 hours but only 6 times a week. People kept telling me that my rotating hours were bad for my body, but I was in perfect shape, ate well, exercised, etc. Eventually I came back to "normal" because of certain obligations and human interactions, but I think I'll return to my rotating hours once I'm done with that.
Yeah, what you described wasn't exactly a problem of yours. You seem fine with your sleeping habits. The silly point I was trying to make was that you have a sleep cycle issue parents to small kids rarely experience.
36 hours of activity sounds very long, especially as a "natural" tendency, and in the dark. I remember seeing some references to a roughly 30 hour cycle, but I can't seem to find any references. Apparently there's also been some recent studies that suggest "most" have a pretty strong circadian rhythm around 24 hours. [1] quotes some summary text from wikipedia and provides a few links.
Having grown up in the Arctic, with polar night in winter, and polar day in summer, I've always been somewhat sceptical that we supposedly can't adapt to different cycles than what is common further south. But even if I frequently shift my days by having an extended cycle, and compared to many of my friends function longer and better on less sleep, if I am active I usually get quite tired after about 20 hours. If I do stay awake through that period, I can hit 36 or even 48 hours without making much of an effort -- but I have a hard time believing that that would be a "natural" cycle (36+12) for me -- or most people.
Now, if you're forced to be physically passive, and given some other stimuli, be that books, computer games -- what have you -- I could perhaps see a longer cycle as "normal".
One alternative take on it is that being continually engrossed with what you're doing can often stave off biological needs like food and sleep.
When I was younger and would indulge in quite a lot of video games, there were nights where it would approach sunrise without feeling tired or hungry all night. Once I stopped to walk around I would feel myself get incredibly tired/hungry, but in the moment of being engrossed by an experience, it seemed to block everything out.
As for darkness specifically, I wonder how active the subjects in complete darkness were, and what kind of reduction of mental activity occurs when you are not constantly processing optical information. Both would seem to me to reduce metabolism and presumably the need for sleep to some degree.
I very quickly lose track of time when engrossed in something, especially if it's a game. Nice how that's a consistent opposite with time slowing with sensory deprivation.
I was used to a similar cycle while preparing for exams at university. It might have been less than 36h of activity, but definitely more than 24h + >10h of sleep. If not a daily job, I would be on a similar cycle now as well -- I just felt more productive and rested that way.
Btw, I'm a "night person" and I have noticed that such people are prone to long sleep times but also can sustain longer activity periods.
A little off topic, but are you a night person, or have you just never tried the alternate?
I ask because I was a self-defined 'night person' for my early and mid 20's. Once I got married and got a straight job, with early rising and what-not, I found that I'm actually a lot more functional and a lot better feeling going to sleep early (9pm) and waking up early (4am). Genuinely I am healthier and happier; it's strange.
The few times when I've been able to live with virtually no externally imposed time schedule, I found that the length of my sleep-wake cycle lengthened by about an hour every sleep-wake cycle.
This is more "extreme sensory deprivation is bad" rather than "extreme isolation is bad".
There is lots of evidence of extreme social isolation having minimal impact on people's mental stability over long periods. It's not that we need people, it's that we need to be able to form our own narrative. We need to know what we're doing, why and what it's getting us.
Extreme isolation of small groups seems much worse, especially long term where increased rates of social deviance becomes evidenced.
Yes, that makes the story more fascinating. They left home during revolution and actually, youngest daughter was still living there alone up until recently (2010-2011 I think).
I think you're reading the story wrong, they even talk about the Bolsheviks killing the guys brother. They would have gone into the wilderness just before WW2, years after the revolution(Based on them being there for 40 years, and being found in 78).
The Pitcairn Islands are the one example I can think of right now. There was a large sex assault trail against numerous inhabitants, meaning the island now has the highest rate of sex offenders per capita in the world. They also used to have a strict moral code forbidding dancing, drinking or smoking.
This article unfortunately elides "sensory deprivation" and "social deprivation." Which I suspect are two very different things. They may bot be difficult for most people but I suspect there are very different mechanisms in play.
They're probably related, though. Part of the reason social deprivation is harmful is probably because there are types of sensory deprivation that come with it; similarly in reverse.
To really start understanding it, you'd have to break down different types and intensities of deprivation. How different is it to bed fed by a robot as opposed to being fed by a hostile guard, for instance?
our legal system and much of our social culture are based upon the idea that a person is entirely responsible for the contents, structure and acuity of their own mind. this goes back to descartes, and is a prevailing theme throughout western thought. given what we now know about people and the way their minds work, i'm hoping we revisit these false beliefs. criminal recidisivm is a huge problem, and my guess is because the penitentiary model was based upon the idea that isolating someone and giving them time to think would cause them to reflect on the error of their ways. we can see now that it just warps a person's mind.
i went through a long period of social isolation where my friends and even family pulled away from me because i was acting erratically. this erratic, bizzare behavior was _caused_ by feeling lonely and isolated, and further isolation made the problem worse. my guess is this is what happens to most drug addicts. they feel lonely or hurt, and find temporary comfort in drugs. their friends and family worry about them and stay away, for fear of making the problem worse and because being around unhappy people can make you unhappy. they sufferers find the drug using community accepting and welcoming - but only on a superficial level. you can light up a joint outside a bar in SF and instantly find yourself having 'new friends' who will disappear when the joint is gone. the desire for solace from pain and the longing for intimacy worsens the dependence on the drug and pushes loved ones further away.
i understand why people pull away - they are afraid. i get that. but we used to fear anyone who was sick and put them in special colonies becuase we didn't understand sickness and thought it was demonic possession or evil at work. i'd suggest that the modern understanding of "psychosis as illness" is just as misinformed. we're using the best model we have of the day - when people don't work properly, they are ill - but that categorization implies that the problem lies in the person themselves, and not in the environmental conditions they find themselves in. if EVERYONE goes crazy when they're totally alone for too long, then it's not accurate to say that 'crazy' symptoms are signs of 'mental illness.'
it'd be as if we diagnosed people with 'runny nose' syndrome.
Homelessness as well. I wonder if much of the mental illness that characterizes chronic homelessness is as much an effect as a cause of it, creating a vicious cycle that's really hard to escape.
markpneyer.me is a blog i've been updating. i wrote that thing years ago during the "feeling alienated and alone" phase; here's a link to some of the good stuff:
You have a gift. I see you edited your post, but honestly your autobiography piece was enchanting, I've rarely read prose I've connected with more. Thank you.
I do not know you, but I can recognise some of your struggles as similar to those I've encountered. I can't summarise both accurately and succinctly but perhaps if I say that purposelessness is both disheartening and liberating you will recognise what I mean.
Aside from the content, I also thought the low key plain text presentation added to it, though that's a minor thing.
Any individual downvote, that's a possible explanation for sure. It doesn't very well explain a shift in downvotes vs. upvotes... but then, of course, 1) I don't have more than a vague impression that there has been a shift, and 2) upvotes are less visible than downvotes.
I agree. I see absolutely no benefit or reason for solitary confinement for anyone, except in extreme cases where someone is very violent or completely psychotic. And even then, facility staff or other (supervised) inmates can still communicate with them remotely via telephone or radio.
Most people will live their entire lives never having ever been truly alone. Even when you are in your house or apartment alone, you still know there are people in the neighborhood or walking down the street and we don't really appreciate how much of a comforting effect this has on us.
I have only felt truly alone twice in my life. The first time was on a platform installation in the North Sea. Imagine being surrounded by all these huge machines and pipes running autonomously without a human being in sight. The second time was at the bottom of ocean in Monterrey bay when my diving team had all disappeared to go back to the boat and I found myself with just 3 feet of visibility and no one else around.
Both times, I felt an impending sense of dread and panic creeping up on me. It was like being in room 101.
I go hiking alone. Most people think I'm crazy (for some reason I don't understand).
There have been times when there was absolutely nobody. Actually, I enjoy going hiking really early (say, around 6am), because there is nobody.
But I find pleasure in it. As the article says, the environment and landscape help me transcend my feeling of loneliness.
On a side note, I may be a slightly different case, because I suffered some traumatic/dark experiences when I was a child. The feeling of anxiety and fear was crippling, until I found I could cope with it if I voluntarily search it out when I am feeling well.
So, this feeling of hiking in the dark, being alone, and isolated helps me control and overcome my fear and traumatic experience.
The only drawback is that if I don't do this every so often, including exercising, I can slip back to some depression.
From a interview with Lama Lodru Rinpoche about the challenge of three year silent retreat:
"The physical obstacles are not so difficult for people. After one week people have no problem with fewer hours of sleep. After several weeks the pain of sitting cross legged is overcome. The physical obstacles are not the problem; physical problems we can control. Mental problems are more difficult to control. It is very difficult to discipline the mind. No matter how much discipline you have, when a thought comes you have no power to stop it, unless you can employ very powerful effective techniques to cut off those thoughts.
Q: Are these techniques only available to people on 3-year retreat?
LLR: People outside 3-year retreat have no time to employ these techniques. First of all you have to tame your mind, make your mind soft and gentle, and then you can utilize more active techniques. Without this taming of the mind the techniques are not useful, and could even bring lots of difficulties. It is not so much that people outside 3-year retreat cannot learn or be given these techniques it is just they have no time to apply them. They have to make a living, there are lots of distractions, and this type of distracted mind is not good for the pr ofound teachings you learn in 3-year retreat. Also during 3-year retreat the teachings are given in sequence, not all at once. When one teaching is complete another is introduced."
This is highly tangential, but this bit in the beginning stood out to me:
> That summer, the 32-year-old had been hiking with two friends in the mountains of Iraqi Kurdistan when they were arrested by Iranian troops after straying onto the border with Iran.
I'd put "going hiking to the Iraq-Iran border-zone" to the bucket of bad ideas even in better times, and 2009 (when this seemed to happen) certainly wasn't a good time.
It is just common sense to keep away from borders, especially if behind that border is Iran which is not the friendliest of nations. Double-especially if you are an American, towards which Iran is openly hostile (for good reasons I believe).
You wouldn't go canoing Yalu River either, would you?
>At the time of their detention by Iranian troops, the three Americans were on vacation from their jobs in the region in a relatively stable, autonomous region of Iraq known as Iraqi Kurdistan. On the recommendations of locals, they hiked to see a popular local Iraqi tourist destination near the Iraq-Iran border, the Ahmed Awa waterfall.
>The three American detainees have stated they were simply hikers who did not realize that they were in Iran and that they actually have lengthy backgrounds as social justice activists
>They had been living and active in the Middle East, and were on holiday in Iraqi Kurdistan, an autonomous region of Iraq free from the sectarian struggle that dominates much of Iraq.[16][17][18] They had been advised of the suitability of the region for a holiday by friends who had been there and through Internet research; and were recommended the Ahmed Awa waterfall, a popular Kurdish tourist destination, by a number of local people whilst they were in Sulaymaniyah.
>after straying onto the border with Iran.
There is some contention that they might not have actually crossed the border.
I've spent >6 months with my only human contact being over the Internet (yay, Sealand), and weeks-up-to-6 in similar settings (boats, hiding out in a villa in a foreign country, etc.). IRC-as-primary-social-contact was...interesting. But I don't think it was actually that unhealthy.
It seems like the author's confusing two concepts here. He postulates about isolation from human contact, but all his examples are for isolation from sunlight or sensory deprivation. I don't disagree that there are connections between the two, but it doesn't feel like he jumped that gap.
Edit: Seems like the whole article is based on the author's book. So maybe it was taken a little out of context?
True, but then he also gives examples of people that cope with social isolation just fine, suggesting that they substitute the environment instead. That sounds more like support for sensory deprivation being the cause of his claims.
For some reason people separate mind matters from body matters but this separation is artificial. Just like your internal organs operate within a biological ecosystem shaped by millions of years of evolution so does the mind. The mind has both an internal and external ecosystem that it was shaped by and operates in. So just like all biological systems it goes awry when equilibria that shaped it suddenly go away.
"researchers have found that in darkness most people eventually adjust to a 48-hour cycle: 36 hours of activity followed by 12 hours of sleep. The reasons are still unclear."
I'm not well-versed in modern sleep research, but our habits today are shifting drastically for the first time. Because of electricity, we're no longer bound to the sun cycle, as species of past millennia have been, and the typical day-night sleep schedule is no longer required.
With alternative sleep cycles popularizing (i.e. biphasic, dymaxion, everyman), I wonder if we'll find that more efficient/healthy systems exist. It's very possible that our modern habits evolved in spite of best health, reacting to more immediate issues instead. But now, with a counter to the danger of darkness, we have an opportunity to experiment with otherwise-unrealistic cycles.
But then again, the 6-10 hour blocks we're acclimated to may be so deeply engrained that our health would face consequences in any other situation.
I suppose my statement was a bit unfounded. Having just graduated, many of my friends have begun experimenting now that school's out (and schedules are less strict).
I can't help but wonder why we come to such broad conclusions of fact about the mind, when there are plenty of data points that show there's quite a lot more to the story than "isolation is bad". If I were a serious scientist of the mind for example, I would need to include data points from India and Tibet masters in to my research, who are well known for having studied the mind and have data points showing the opposite. It strikes me as a cultural basis at best to not include those data points, how do we even considered this science really?
I have a deep and lingering suspicion that humans are a "weak hive mind" species. If we use the metaphor that the human brain is a computer, and that human communication is networking... this means that the "you" is software.
In such circumstances, why would we expect that software to run on one and only one computer node in the network? Do you know of many software applications that do that?
If this were true though, what would happen when all the other nodes become disconnected? The remaining node is probably going to malfunction...
Humans are mammals. I do not think OP implied those emotions are unique to humans, rather the opposite is true. All species of (vertebrate) social animals evolved a similar set of emotions, in part due to shared ancestry but in part on the basis of being subject to the same environmental pressures.
nice point! mammal territorial anger is cooperative - go away or else. it can avoid an expensive fight. fear is backing down - i'll go. this communication is a kind of cooperation.
this explains the exhibition of some emotion, and argues that that's all it is. though, there are non-social emotions that are useful, eg hunger, fear of high places, enjoyment of warmth in cold weather.
See, this is why you should have been using emacs all along. Theological and ergonomic considerations aside, for your sanity's sake, GNU emacs comes with two IRC clients, a web browser, an email reader and a usenet reader to stave off isolation-induced hacker-madness. And in extremis, with no network connection, there's always M-x doctor.
Truly, RMS thought of everything, and then put it in emacs twice, just in case.
insistence on being "serious" and "meaningful" is something a lot of people - myself included - find to be isolating and can induce the same problems as actually being alone. if i'm not free to express myself in a lighthearted and playful manner, if everything is filtered through the emotionally sterile mask of 'professionalism', i feel lonely. i'd suggest GP's comment is in keeping with the spirit of the findings. humor draws us together.
There were a few times in the past year where I was working odd hours and not seeing many people outside of what I was crunching on. HN was a helpful reminder that there were still other people out there.
Some of these symptoms might appear in people who are isolated and working remotely or people who spend long stretches of time locked away and working on projects. In fact, I'll go so far as to say I am sure less severe version of these symptoms appear.
I'm surprised you don't see the connection and can only assume you have not been in one of these situations or are not a programmer.
This is the comment you should have made originally. Your initial comment comes across as little more than an unsuccessful attempt at a funny one-liner. Here's what pg has to say[0] about those kinds of comments:
"The most dangerous form of stupid comment is not the long but
mistaken argument, but the dumb joke. [...] Whatever the cause,
stupid comments tend to be short. And since it's hard to write a
short comment that's distinguished for the amount of information it
conveys, people try to distinguish them instead by being funny."
Or did you intend your initial comment to be serious? If so, perhaps you can explain how you believe that working in vim is tantamount to solitary confinement. Is someone forcing you to be alone while you use a text editor? In other words, are you being actively prevented from working alongside other people? Does using vim isolate you from other sensory input?
> Sometimes it is possible to say much with humor in very few words.
I completely agree with that, though I disagree that you said much in your original comment (or that it was funny) which is why I think that your subsequent comment explaining what you meant would have been better to start with. Your original comment mentioned nothing about working remotely in isolation or less severe version of the symptoms, and "the solitary confinement of VIM" is a pretty absurd statement to make unless you explain what you mean.
It's been interesting to watch the votes on the original comment over the past couple of hours.
It has received no less than 10 votes with a fairly even split and a slight favor towards the positive. Some people apparently feel exactly what I'm talking about. Some don't.
I think maybe we are seeing breakdown of people who have put in serious alone time with an editor VS those who have not. I could be wrong about this. But I don't feel the need to explain. You understand or you don't.
I'm sorry if the comment caused you consternation. Please be assured this was not my intention.
No consternation felt here; my intent is to encourage higher quality comments. Your follow-up comment was quality as it contained relevant details your initial comment lacked.
People in her circumstances have their world suddenly inverted, and there is nothing in the manner of their taking – no narrative of sacrifice, or enduring for a greater good – to help them derive meaning from it. They must somehow find meaning in their predicament – or mentally detach themselves from their day-to-day reality, which is a monumental task when alone.
This is the same conclusion drawn by Dr. Victor Frankl in his excellent Man's Search for Meaning. His experience in Nazi concentration camps led him to conclude that the only way to fend off complete apathy was to try to find a personal meaning in your experience. Even apparently meaningless suffering, he said, can be made meaningful depending on your response: you can maintain your human dignity in the face of overwhelming suffering, and by not forgetting yourself, you can be an affirmation of the strength of humankind.