思凝
2 weeks ago
最近追蹤了臉書專頁《志願單親故事集》(什麼文章都有,大多不是關於小孩),上面很多無私分享和資料整合都很有用。最近看到這篇蠻有感的:Facebook//但為什麽人要知足呢?為什麼不要「好還要更好」?明明有錢人也不斷追求更有錢啊。
因為所有的事情都有代價與取捨,更富有也代表要有更多的「犧牲」。
// 每個人都嫉妒你擁有的東西,但沒有人嫉妒你為此付出的代價。人生是一整組的,我們不能只挑自己要的部分。
我們想要有錢的目的,是為了要買到「獨立性」,讓自己不會在未來的不確定性中,陷入「沒有選擇」的窘境。
但一旦達到了穩當的獨立性之後,繼續「犧牲」的邊際效益會越來越低,此時要學會調整目標,要找到適合自己的sweet spot,也就是該「知足」的時間點。
latest #19
思凝
2 weeks ago @Edit 2 weeks ago
思凝
2 weeks ago
有另一段關於"The Charlie Kirk Shooting"想記下的:
思凝
2 weeks ago @Edit 2 weeks ago
Housel: You and I are recording this a day after Charlie Kirk was assassinated yesterday. And there were who knows what number percentage it was. But I think it was not hard on social media to find people who were celebrating it yesterday. Now when Martin Luther King was assassinated, did those people exist too who celebrated assassination?
立即下載
思凝
2 weeks ago
Of course. But because of social media, by and large, you did not hear from them unless you were part of that group. Whereas today, virtually everybody yesterday saw people celebrating Charlie Kirk's assassination. And so even if those feelings existed in the past, they're much more apparent today.
思凝
2 weeks ago
You see them today in a way that you did not before. So because of that, it's easy to say we're more divided today. We're more extreme today. We're more pessimistic than they today. I think the nuance is that's not actually true. You're just more aware of it that those feelings always existed. They existed in the 1990s.
思凝
2 weeks ago
They existed in the 1950s. It was just much easier to contain those and for the average citizen who got their information from one newspaper, one evening news program to feel like things were much more stable and in control and that people were much more uniform in their opinions than they actually were.
思凝
2 weeks ago
Bartlett: Before we start recording, we were talking about the Charlie Kirk shooting and how social media's ability to dehumanize other people at a probably a faster rate than history would have done it is pretty remarkable. And you see a lot of that. You see a lot of it taking place on both sides.
思凝
2 weeks ago
Bartlett: I think both sides describe each other as being like animals and inhumane. One side's calling the other side Nazis and then the other side is calling the other side referring to them in in animal terms because of maybe the color of their skin or their behavior.
思凝
2 weeks ago
Barlett: We saw a lot of that when the that heinous individual killed the young lady on the on the the train in in America and the way look this person is the XXXXXXX worst thing on planet earth. Um but the language was very... it was putting that person in a group of other people. Yes. And then making the whole group a pack of animals.
思凝
2 weeks ago @Edit 2 weeks ago
Housel: Right. Because in that situation too, we talked about this earlier. I I don't know that individual's name doesn't matter, but no one refers to him by his name. It's them. It's they.
思凝
2 weeks ago
Housel: And that once you dehumanize any group of people like that, and this has been the case for all of human history, that 99.9% of people cannot kill another human, but they're perfectly fine killing them. They. That group. Once you dehumanize, you can do anything. And at the at a much lower level, everyone realizes this with road rage.
思凝
2 weeks ago
Housel: I've had road rage. The person cut me off. That son of a XX honked my horn, flip I I don't I don't get too extreme with it. But in things I would never do eye to eye. But once I'm looking at a car, then it's it's there's no human there. And my ability to have a level of anger is so much higher than it would be if we were just looking eye to eye.
思凝
2 weeks ago
Housel: I had this experience a couple years ago where I was pulling into a gas station and I inadvertently cut somebody off. It was an accident, but I totally cut them off and he honked and threw up his middle finger at me.
思凝
2 weeks ago
Housel: And um we since we pulled into the same gas station, we were now like eye to eye and I walked over to him and I think he thought I was like coming to like confront him and I put up my hands and said, "I just want to apologize. I didn't I didn't mean to cut you off. I'm so sorry.
思凝
2 weeks ago
Housel: I did. It was not on purpose."" And he I think he was so surprised and he was like, "Wow, thank you." Thanks for like and we had this moment of like almost hugging of just like I'm so like I hope hope you have a great day.
思凝
2 weeks ago
Housel: It was one of those of like once in the moment when it was you strip the humanity off it when it was two cars each other both of us were like [ __ ] you once we looked eye to eye it was like oh brother like it's okay. It's okay.
思凝
2 weeks ago
Housel: I think that was just like for me that was an individual example of what happens at society when you strip the humanity off it we're capable of so much anger and hate eye to eye we're like oh that's all good and I think all of us know somebody who we disagree with politically regardless of what it might be.
思凝
2 weeks ago
Housel: And it's easy to be like oh that person's an idiot. They're stupid. They're illinformed. And actually, if you sit down and talk to them, you're like, "Ah, look, we might have some disagreements here, but it's all good. Cheers. Let's have a good night."
思凝
2 weeks ago
Housel: Like, eye to eye, like the vast majority of people get along and get together. But social media has turned all of life into road rage.
back to top