Skip to main content

A Manly Response to Disease

Some illnesses have more negative emotional repercussions than others, and some are more amenable to direct action than others.

I am not a traditional male but did grow up in a stoic family, and because of negative dynamics, we didn't discuss feelings. I've overcome many of the negatives of my upbringing, but keep much to myself, and can occasionally surprise my spouse when I do say something negative, or that something bothers me.


That said, I've had Type 1 diabetes for the past 43 years, and the attitude that has most helped me is the hard-nosed stoic that works against the feelings of failure that can accompany illness. One chooses to do better, be better, in the face of threat. Talking about it wouldn't have helped much.


But I realize that isn't the same for everyone, or all illnesses.


When one is young, the disease is controllable, and life is not ideal, a tough attitude can help, but as one ages, there are fewer options for change, and illness can be disruptive to a settled life, giving a rise to fears about our mortality, losing our life along with losing the joy of others. This is when talking is likely most helpful, dealing with a situation where the options are few and the possibilities unsettling.


https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/24/well/live/a-manly-response-to-disease.html#commentsContainer&permid=109323265:109323265



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst by Robert M. Sapolsky My rating: 5 of 5 stars I finished reading this crying. It is a work of neurobiology, social science, anthropology, and history, but ultimately it is a work of great humanity, suggesting ways that humans, our groups, our systems, and our societies can be made better. View all my reviews

A Journey — if You Dare — Into the Minds of Silicon Valley Programmers

My responses in a NY Times comment section for the book, Coders: The Making of a New Tribe and the Remaking of the World by Clive Thompson : #1 - Link Although I've been a software developer for 15 years, and for longer alternating between a project manager, team lead, or analyst, mostly in finance, and now with a cancer center, I found it funny that you blame the people doing the coding for not seeing the harm it could cause. First, most scientific advancement has dark elements, and it is usually not the science but how it is used and sold by business people that is the problem. This leads to the second problem, in that it is not coding that is in itself problematic, but specifically how technology is harnessed to sell. It is normal and desirable to track users, to log actions, to collect telemetry, so as to monitor systems, respond to errors, and to develop new features, but that normal engineering practice has been used to surveil users for the purpose of selling. Blaming

Don't learn to code. Learn to think.

A response to  Don't learn to code. Learn to think. : Below is is my usual response when I see an article stating that everyone should learn to code:  Rather than programming, it is more important to impart the thinking of computer science (CS) than a specific implementation. Programming can be an end point for some students, but it is likely that programming itself will be increasingly automated, so that one needs more the general concepts common in CS. Even then, programming itself is to some degree a grunt task that one progresses beyond:  The following are typical components of a CS degree: algorithms & flowcharting systems thinking logical systems and set theory object-orientation & patterns probability, statistics, mathematics All of the above can be useful in an increasingly automated and data-driven world.