I figured he was angling for a buyout with jacking prices up and all but eliminating free stuff. Can't really blame him for wanting to retire from tech if that's his goal once the required "pretend I'm still in it" phase ends. Things are getting weird.
The promotion of "classic" literature is largely about exposing you to depictions of the lived experiences of others through history. You can probably find better sources for that these days. It doesn't have to be unbearable without going into it with a specific goal (like wading into muck to save a puppy), but it often is.
Strong evidence for this: the cottage industry of reusable gadgets in every creative field. Presets and sample packs in music[0], brushes and textures for illustration, models and rigs and so on for 3D. You could go on forever listing it.
I don't think "weak" and "strong" are useful in this discussion without defining them carefully. The way most people seem to get through these things is by becoming more thoughtful and emotionally mature. This is what is generally meant by "weak" in these conversations. "Strong" leads to pills and bottles and painful deaths trying to fight the feelings down.
Consider two approaches: one is to spend hours ruminating on your experiences every day to form insights and approaches to tackle new problems and make new progress. The other is to panic at the slightest sign of anything, compartmentalize everything and get stuck in fruitless thought loops constantly, making very little progress to integrate information or have insights. Say both of those take the same immense amounts of energy, but maybe the former would have a better shot at fighting active abuse, you know? In my experience, calculated thought is far superior to fruitless panic. In this way one could be considered "stronger" than the other even though both are technically undesirable (because constant rumination over everything is actually terrible, for example).
Real example based on real self-doubt across multiple friends I know.
I'm trying to say that the reason it's not defined carefully is because people who worry about this don't usually have concrete objective definitions. "Stronger" sounds better to someone who hates that they're "weak", because the costs are less obvious. (Consider breaking down in front of everyone all the time, embarrassing yourself constantly, never knowing what to do, irritating everyone by being inconsolable, etc. vs always being composed, manipulating situations to avoid embarrassment, always being prepared with plans and never depending on others. Despite the fact that the latter is a constant never-ending source of work that mostly never gets used, on top of being incredibly lonely, the former feels worse because everybody sees it as worse.)
Both examples can be incredibly emotionally mature, they just express it in different ways.
This still sounds like you're trying to justify "weak" and "strong" as useful categories.
>> "Consider breaking down in front of everyone all the time, embarrassing yourself constantly, never knowing what to do, irritating everyone by being inconsolable, etc. vs always being composed, manipulating situations to avoid embarrassment, always being prepared with plans and never depending on others. Despite the fact that the latter is a constant never-ending source of work that mostly never gets used, on top of being incredibly lonely, the former feels worse because everybody sees it as worse."
These are not emotionally mature ways of handling things. These are called maladaptive coping strategies.
I would be very careful dismissing these examples as merely coping strategies. Maladaptive sure, especially once no longer needed, but a coping strategy is only for managing emotions. These are largely survival mechanisms, ways to avoid or reduce the intensity of abuse in the first place. They do tend to come with coping mechanisms, but that's not their whole thing.
reply