Dave Kinard
Nov 1 · 2 min read

I take issue with these types of generalized prescriptions. It’s not that they couldn’t be of value to some people. It’s that a certain type of experience is projected to be representative of all experiences.

I could see an argument that says “so what, the people who will find this useful will get something out of it and those who have a different situation won’t.”

The practical problem with this is that these type of articles are often forwarded from people who want to help others with their unhappiness. While this may be done out of good intentions, there are many perils here. Particularly, there can be a tendency for people to blame others for their own unhappiness, intentional or not. This is largely a result of the “other minds” fallacy, a pervasive cognitive bias where we assume others minds are fundamentally similar to our own.

Depending on the person, this advice may be worse then useless. Particularly when it comes to mental health issues like clinical depression, others telling people what to do can be a form of victim blaming. For example, with this article, a person may take it to mean that another person is just too self involved, and that there is an easy fix for their problems.

That said, I do think is good advice for some people. However, I think it is the responsibility of authors to offer the caveats that this advice should not be seen as universal, that every situation is different, that this advice shouldn’t be used to blame people, etc.

I understand the incentives of writing, a more nuanced title or a more conservative claim in an article makes the article less likely to get shared.

We always have to balance social responsibility with the economic incentives of the world.

Again, I think this is very good advice… just not for everyone.

I am not attacking or criticizing the author on a personal basis, this is a common trend with these sorts of articles that I am commenting on.

    Dave Kinard

    Written by