[wins32767]

It's unfortunate that the article downplays resilience so much. It's entirely true that you can control your level of stress by making different choices, but for a given level of stress you can definitely improve how you handle it. The best way to learn is guided practice under stressful conditions, speaking from personal experience.

Organizing society to minimize harm is an understandable impulse, but it's really harmful to people's ability to cope when difficult to avoid or unavoidable stressors hit.

[spaniard89277]

Stress is neccessary to grow and even to keep going, I'm with you in that. But I think the article is right in pointing out that there's too much focus into some inner force that makes you accomplish everything.

This has been going for a while, and coupled with other factors, I don't think it's paying good dividends. I think that everyone paying attention can see the steep increase in depression and medication. It's not only the US, it's happening in Europe too.

My impression is that we're removing people from their support networks, manufacturing lonely individuals, and eroding their financial float line through housing.

I don't think mental thoughness or resilience can overcome this for too long, and many people is exposed to this stressors for many, many years, if not their entire life.

Even Taleb, who is really tiresome talking about stress, recognizes that stress is only useful if it is more or less bounded.

[prewett]

I think the increase in depression is due more towards the increasing isolation in our (American) society, and not so much stress. I moved to a new city a few years ago, and between living alone, working remotely, the pandemic causing many things like tech meetups online, and people in the groups I have been involved with not appearing to reciprocate my interest in getting to know them, I've had a lot of times where life has felt pretty meaningless. This is despite a fair amount of internal energy, interest in learning things, etc. (personal growth / fulfillment). My conclusion is that relationships are a fundamental human need.

But we have designed ourselves into isolation. Half of marriages (built-in community) end, most people no longer go to church, there are not really civic organizations any more, etc. I can spend an entire, active Saturday without interacting with anyone: drive to the park in the morning and walk in the woods, go to the art museum (electronic tickets, so not even interaction purchasing a ticket), check books out from the library (self-checkout), buy groceries to cook dinner (self-checkout is usually faster), watch a movie on my home theater setup. That's even without mobile phones, or the numbing false sense of community of social networks.

So not only do we not have the normal human difficulty in actually caring about and loving another person, but we do not even have the social structure to find people to care about. As a result it's easy to live a life where you experience little of enjoying others and being enjoyed by others.

[wins32767]

I can't imagine that many people in the rich countries in the modern era are among the most stressed humans in history, even despite the erosion of social support networks. Nearly everyone has adequate shelter, food, security, and access to virtually magical health care from the perspective of everyone before 70 years ago. Children consistently make it into adulthood and famine has been kept at bay for a century or more, interpersonal violence is at an all time low. If in the midst of this unparalleled prosperity and wonder we're just as stressed as a peasant farmer who just lost half their family to disease, war and famine then something is badly wrong with how we handle stress.

[naremu]

Stress seems best for the primordial hunt and battles of my ancestors who needed a powerful drive to see through an ideally short term situation with more response than they might have otherwise been able to muster, I have always found it living hand in hand with adrenaline.

Stoicism seems to also provide plenty examples of people finding stress and emotion to be first reactions muddying the waters of perception necessary for loftier goals and work than simple hunter gatherers.

Stress long term is unusual for the body and a major disadvantage imo.

And stoicism seeing some quantifiable research into aiding in depression leads me to believe the individual in the current cultural hegemony of western culture is simply a victim, a child never truly raised.

"Work, play - at sixty our powers and tastes are what they were at seventeen." - Brave New World

[squidbeak]

You're right, there's a certain point beyond which stress is just wear.

[kiba]

As I find myself often saying: Why not do both?

Improve your friendship network and improve resilience.

[nsagent]

The article does not downplay resilience. It merely says that resilience has both internal and external components. That is, you can only get so far while just focusing on your personal ability to overcome adversity, but you'll do even better if you combine that with external support.

To be honest, I'm not sure how that can be misconstrued on Hacker News, when people frequently focus on the power of groups working together (whether that's open source, corporations, or other organizations). It's clear that some of the most lauded organizations are ones that often support their members, especially in times of hardship.

This comes from someone who is very much a proponent of perseverance. My first tattoo enshrines this Japanese proverb on my forearm where I can always see it:

  七転び八起き
  Fall seven times, stand up eight

[lioeters]

The proverb is associated with a figure called Daruma, with a round physique that always gets up no matter how it's knocked down. It's cute and symbolic, popular in Japanese culture.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daruma_doll

[toomuchtodo]

Resilience is important, grit is important. I say this having been on a very dark path when I was holding my personal world up with very little support (so little we can round down).

With that said, friends and resources are important and necessary. It is important to have someone you can call or text and say "I need help" and the cavalry is coming. Be that person to people in your life if you can be. I'm not able to fix society, but I'll take care of the people around me until death.

[Sai_]

Calvary is the hill on which Jesus was crucified. I think you wanted to use “Cavalry” in context.

https://www.gingersoftware.com/english-online/spelling-book/...

[mschuster91]

> but it's really harmful to people's ability to cope when difficult to avoid or unavoidable stressors hit.

It's one thing that we get the occasional natural disaster, financial crisis, or some war in some remote country. We can handle that, this has been the case throughout human history.

But we just came out of a four-year pandemic (and hell, if you look at sewage monitoring, hospitals or half your colleagues being out sick, it still isn't over), after decades of wage stagnation, multiple crises, seriously escalating wars, exploding rents, masses of people living on the streets in the US, climate change is looming, autocrats are on the rise across the world - it's fucking enough already. Politicians aren't doing a thing to help us, no one is looking out for anybody else any more because no one has the mental/physical/time/financial resources to do so.

We are in unprecedentedly bad times, and I can completely understand anybody saying "screw this, I'm out" and just going mental in one way or another. Some resort to drugs, some just break down completely, some off themselves, some off others - everyone reacts different in response to too much stress.

[coldtea]

Resiliience is good, but it barely pays the bills.

People don't get rich with resilience, but by charisma, family support, genetic lottery, connections, friends, and opportunities.

Resilience and ingenuity are cool too, but there are tons of resilient and ingenius people that never make it. And there are extremely resilient single mothers working 2 jobs and making ends meet without complaining. But that doesn't get them any success.

[JumpCrisscross]

> for a given level of stress you can definitely improve how you handle it

And in that toolbox should be venting to a friend or taking a break for the evening or weekend and splurging on a nice dinner or small holiday. That’s the article’s point: it’s insufficient to insist on managing it all internally.

[KittenInABox]

It's significantly easier to handle stressors when the stakes are lowered by friends and money. For example, it is so much less stressful to handle legal disputes (everything from traffic tickets to rough divorces to criminal cases) if you don't have to worry about how much your lawyer costs or who will cover your shifts at work etc.

It is much less stressful to handle a cancer diagnosis when you can afford private medicine. And not to mention how super, duper, uber less stressful having an illness like diabetes is if you can afford insulin. Imagine how much more resilience a rape victim could have if they could afford therapy.

[QuantumGood]

When I was younger, there were those who were commonly late or no shows, and their futures rarely went in a good direction. For myself I found I had to acquire quite a bit of resilience to reach average reliability. The youngest generations now see things like a non-fixed schedule as a lifestyle perk—and they're right—but I worry about how they can acquire resilience from this and other areas.

[eternityforest]

I'm sure there are a lot of people out there suffering from lack of resilience, especially those who's goals are focused on inherently hard things...

But there are so many graduates of the school of hard knocks giving straight up dangerous advice and people might want to be more careful.

[Paul-Craft]

I don't see how it's downplaying anything, except in comparison to money and friends. Given that it's fairly obvious that almost all problems can be solved or seriously mitigated by money and friends, I think it's a fair conclusion to say that money and friends are strictly superior to (internal) resilience. I also think the example and conclusion they gave was perfect: little problems are much bigger when you don't have the tools available to effectively solve them, and those tools are money and friends, which are sources of external resilience. They're not saying internal resilience is bad; they're simply saying that not having to get to the point of needing to be internally resilient is strictly better.

These all seem like fair statements that sound like they come from the department of "no shit, Sherlock," to me.