>The people in the self-help section need something else. Those things (philosophy, literature, history and science) are the luxury of folks who aren't struggling with e.g. depression, abuse, drugs & alcohol, co-dependency, etc.

Actually it's the inverse. A healthy dose of philosophy, literature, history and science are what people suffering from "depression, abuse, drugs & alcohol, co-dependency" can use to liberate themselves, understand their situation, and get above it.

The rest (99% of the self help shelves) is snake oil sold by marketeers to the gullible...

Hardly. High culture takes a level of attention that someone who is struggling in life hardly will be able to attain. Moreover, philosophy is concerned with truth, and truth can sometimes be brutal. It would be almost criminal to recommend reading Nietzsche for someone who lost their job, got cheated and divorced and has some serious disease.

Well obviously you wouldn't do Nietzche (though I think you probably could). Meditations is probably the book to read in those cases.

Look I'm not shitting on high culture.

And yes, there's a lot of snake oil out there. (Personally I hate the medallions that are supposed to protect against stray EM! And don't get me started on audiophiles.)

> The rest (99% of the self help shelves) is snake oil sold by marketeers to the gullible...

You haven't read "99% of the self help shelves" have you?

>You haven't read "99% of the self help shelves" have you?

No, but I've fully read over 30 over the years, and skimmed over 100s.

Technically speaking, you don't need to "read 99%" you just need to read a decent number, and assume a normal distribution of quality. In fact if you find out that the most celebrated/succesful are already crap, this makes it even easier.

And unlike literature, science, or deep non-fiction, actually skimming self-help books to distill the 5 solid paragraphs that they've turned into a 200+ page book is the best way of reading it. And for most books, even those 5 paragraphs are mostly platitudes.

Cheers! Well met.

Here's the thing: those cheesy books of fluffy platitudes help people.

Take Berg's "The Secret". Its exactly the kind of book you're talking about IMO: the "secret" is literally one sentence just sixteen words long. And yet thousands (millions?) of people got something from it.

Who are we to say that's so wrong?

Frankly, it's weird to me that the "self-help" genre seems to attract opprobrium.

- - - -

Did you get anything out of any of those books you read? Were any of them any good? I'm just curious.

> cured in a single session of hypnotherapy by a guy

If you were cured by attending a hypnotherapy session by the guy who wrote the book rather than by reading the book I don't see how it supports your assertion (or what I think is your assertion: that self help books at least sometimes are better than the philosophy, etc., books). I'm not saying you are necessarily wrong, just that it doesn't follow.

Ah, the missing piece is that this guy only publishes self-help books. If you omit them from your search for knowledge you might miss it entirely. (E.g. the wikipedia entry for this school of psychology is all about how it's a pseudoscience, etc.)

Jungian, by chance?

Much of psychology (at least in the non-behaviorist arena) and self-help deal with ideas that are really grounded in philosophy proper. Philosophy is the original psychology and the original self-help.

Philosophy is no luxury. It saves lives. It's a deep failure of culture that it isn't a core area of primary and secondary curriculum.

> Jungian, by chance?

Nah, Neurolinguistic Programming. The "guy" is Dr. Bandler.

> Much of psychology (at least in the non-behaviorist arena) and self-help deal with ideas that are really grounded in philosophy proper. Philosophy is the original psychology and the original self-help.

FWIW the origins of NLP are grounded in Chomsky's Transformational Grammar. That's not philosophy, of course, but it's something. (Computer language hierarchy stems from the same linguistic modeling.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformational_grammar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky_hierarchy

> Philosophy is no luxury. It saves lives. It's a deep failure of culture that it isn't a core area of primary and secondary curriculum.

Oh I agree wholeheartedly!

I meant it's a luxury only in the sense that "Even God hesitates to offer anything but bread to the starving man."

Even then I don't deny that many a book of philosophy has seen more than one person safely through their long dark tea-time of the soul.

There’s a lot of science-based books in the self help section on things like:

- Scientifically tested methods for behavior change (quitting smoking, alcohol/drug use, changing your diet, etc)

- Information and guidance for medically recognized conditions (major depression, ADHD, bipolar disorder, etc)

- Books on interpersonal skills in various contexts (relationships, work, etc). And ones better and more factually-based than “Power Laws”, etc.

- Books meant as support or guides for working through various forms of past trauma or abuse, which have been written by trained professionals with clinical experience (ie psychologists with Phds).

Obviously the quality of the material varies and there is a lot of suspect work. Most is the good books also make clear that they do not replace working with a qualified professional. But everything requires judgement and context in life, not just the self-help section.

And I too am a fan of philosophy.

> The people in the self-help section need something else

The people in the self-help section don't know what they need or they wouldn't be looking for someone to tell them what they need.

> Those things (philosophy, literature, history and science) are the luxury of folks who aren't struggling with e.g. depression, abuse, drugs & alcohol, co-dependency, etc.

Excluding paid testimonials, one can find at least as many anecdotes of people with those problems saying they were resolved by their own consumption of works in those sections (particularly philosophy and literature) as self-help works, and a lot more who resolved their issues with direct support by someone relying mostly on science works.

> The people in the self-help section don't know what they need or they wouldn't be looking for someone to tell them what they need.

With respect, how do you know? Are you a priest or psychologist or psychic?

> one can find at least as many anecdotes of ... and a lot more who ...

I'm dubious but let's grant it for the sake of discussion.

So what? I mean that's terrific if reading Marcus Aurelius' "Meditations" straightens one out or whatever but that doesn't invalidate the benefits some other person gets from, say, "The Secret", does it?

> With respect, how do you know?

Basic logic: if you know what you need, you don't look for someone to tell you what you need.

> Are you a priest or psychologist or psychic?

Would the answer to that question have any relevance to anything no matter what it was?

> So what?

I agree that that's generally the appropriate response to (especially unverifiable) anecdotes offered as evidence but...that's kind of the point, given the anecdote I was responding to.

> Basic logic: if you know what you need, you don't look for someone to tell you what you need.

What if you know you need someone to tell you what you need?

> Would the answer to that question have any relevance to anything no matter what it was?

It might give some background as to why you make sweeping statements about an unbounded class like "people in the self-help sections". I mean, I did it, but it was a rhetorical flourish. If you challenged me on it I would give ground.

I think neither of us knows what ALL the people in ALL the self-help sections of ALL the world need, do we?

> I agree that that's generally the appropriate response to (especially unverifiable) anecdotes offered as evidence but...that's kind of the point, given the anecdote I was responding to.

What's the point? Are we trolling each other here or what?

I say these cheesy self-help books help some people. You say philosophy and literature have also helped some people. I agree with you.

Is there anything more to say? I've been beating this horse for three days now, I think it's dead, and anyway my arms are tired.

>Honestly, you're lucky if the only personal problems you have can be solved by philosophy, literature, history and science.

most problems in your life can't be solved by reading a book, period. Self-help or otherwise. The first lie of self-help books is that they're actually 'helping' you in any meaningful sense of the word.

Digging yourself out of bad situations takes time and there is very little magic involved, and sometimes it's not possible at all. What philosophy or literature or history or science can however provide for anyone, is to understand the world a little bit better, which even if it doesn't solve your personal problems still gives you some perspective and solace.

If you're reading philosophy or literature, or just pulpy fiction at least you're reading for reading itself instead of just buying into some racket of "i'll spend ten minutes of reading self-help books and then I'll have 20% more energy and make a thousand dollars!"

And not to doubt your personal story but actual clinical depression is typically not solved by one off hypnotherapy sessions with self-help gurus.

> most problems in your life can't be solved by reading a book, period.

How do you know? Not to be rude but why should I trust you more than some author of a "self-help" book?

I mean, a religious person might tell you that you can solve all your problems reading Scripture.

Heck, I openly maintain that most people could solve most of their problems by reading (and applying) the "Core Transformation Process" book.

Do you mind if I ask what your own personal experiences are that have led you to form your opinion?

> And not to doubt your personal story

Thank you! :-)

> but actual clinical depression is typically not solved by one off hypnotherapy sessions with self-help gurus.

Oh I know! (This wasn't the first thing I tried. I was miserable and desperate enough to shell out ~$4000 to attend a week-long seminar in hope of meeting this guy and getting help. At one point I volunteered for a demonstration on stage, ten minutes later (subjectively it was ten seconds) I was cured. I've written about it on HN a little, if you're interested you can search my comments. A few years later there was a relapse. It lasted three days and then I went back to normal. Those three days are the single most frightening thing that has ever happened to me. Only time in my life I've ever contemplated suicide. Thank God, after the third day I woke up normal again.)

My basic point is that, whatever this guy is doing, that's what we should be paying attention to. Now, you might say it's unfortunate that the ways he's chosen to bring the information to people is unscientific, and people do say that and worse, but it would be foolish IMO to throw that baby out with the bathwater of self-help.

>How do you know? Not to be rude but why should I trust you more than some author of a "self-help" book?

For one, because he doesn't try to sell you anything.

Second, you don't get to "know" because you are hand-fed some hard proofs or figures.

You either know it already (and agree) or can see the point the parent is making, correlate it with your experiences and observations, and recognise it's true -- or, of course, you don't (and e.g. you have a different experience).

> For one, because he doesn't try to sell you anything.

Publishers of philosophy, literature, history and science books are also trying to make a buck, eh?

> Second, you don't get to "know" because you are hand-fed some hard proofs or figures.

I don't understand this sentence.

> You either know it already (and agree) or can see the point the parent is making, correlate it with your experiences and observations, and recognise it's true -- or, of course, you don't (and e.g. you have a different experience).

Right, and it seems to me that the way forward is to share our experiences in good faith to try to find the mutually true union of our worldviews, eh?

If I understood GP's experiences better I might be better able to understand where a statement that looks to me to be so bizarre ("most problems in your life can't be solved by reading a book, period. Self-help or otherwise.") might make sense. I mean, think about it: books are where we store our knowledge, eh? Is GP including textbooks?

FFS, If you can't solve your problems by reading books we should just burn the libraries?

>Publishers of philosophy, literature, history and science books are also trying to make a buck, eh?

The parent however, we can presume, is neither of those things. And even if they were, they don't suggest you buy any particular work they sell in their comment, so the point still stands.

>I don't understand this sentence.

You asked the parent "How do you know?". This to be implies "where is your hard proof" - so I read it that way.

So, my point is, in this, and other cases, one does not "know" because they have some hard irrefutable hard proofs or statistics.

What would those be? Some official study cited as saying "94.2% of self-help books are inaccurate and bogus"? There can't be such a thing.

So, there's no point in asking how the parent knows, if by that you mean what's their objective, measurable basis of knowing that.

It's one of the many cases where people can only think and decide for themselves whether what the other says is valid, matches their own observations, makes sense, has some hidden intention/profit motive behind it or not, and so on.

>Right, and it seems to me that the way forward is to share our experiences in good faith to try to find the mutually true union of our worldviews, eh?

Yes.

>FFS, If you can't solve your problems by reading books we should just burn the libraries?

I don't think anybody said that we can't solve problems by reading books. E.g. we can certainly solve math problems, or a medical student learn how to fix diseases through books.

What's said is that self-helf books (and we could qualify it by saying most self-helf books), are mostly profit-driven, platitudes, silver-bullet formulas, that don't work, and don't solve problems for the majority of people who cling to them (which tend to accumulate such books, and run from guru to guru, and method to method over the years).

Of course there's also solid advice in some of those books. Usually of the kind that everybody knows already -- but have trouble following. Much akin the Christian "be kind" etc.

> The parent however, we can presume, is neither of those things. And even if they were, they don't suggest you buy any particular work they sell in their comment, so the point still stands.

Yeah, you're right. I went for a rhetorical rather than reasonable point there and flopped. Sorry.

> So, there's no point in asking how the parent knows, if by that you mean what's their objective, measurable basis of knowing that.

That's really all I was trying to challenge, that GP was stating their opinion as objective fact.

> I don't think anybody said that we can't solve problems by reading books.

Not to be petty but that is what GP said.

> most problems in your life can't be solved by reading a book, period. Self-help or otherwise.

Eh?

> What's said is that some self-help books are merely profit-driven, platitudes, silver-bullet formulas, that don't work, and don't solve problems for the majority of people who cling to them (which tend to accumulate such books, and run from guru to guru, and method to method over the years).

With qualifications I can agree with that. I know a few people like that, and there are definitely charlatans in the self-help field.

> Of course there's also solid advice in some of those books. Usually of the kind that everybody knows already -- but have trouble following. Much akin the Christian "be kind" etc.

Other people do get a lot of help from those kinds of books. YMMV, eh?

Cheers, well met.

Your last sentence is distasteful on so many levels. If you think a person is lying or can't be trusted to use the term "crippling depression" accurately, just say so.

To paraphrase a sibling comment, you sound like a self-help guru yourself, albeit a spiteful one. You deride others' solutions and offer up your own: hard magic-less work. Hard work is as much of a racket as easy magic.

If you read my post carefully again you'll notice that I stress that sometimes there is no solution at all. I'm not a guru of any kind, because my entire point was that some sort of messianic figure helping you with your problems does not exist and that people should not put their trust into some sort of spiritual self-help authority figure, including me.

And I'm not saying that hard work is a silver bullet because it's not a guarantee for anything, but dedicating yourself to something is good in and of itself, and doesn't rely on seminars, books, arcane knowledge or anything else. It's the opposite of a racket because there is no racketeer.

And my last sentence was not distasteful at all. Depression is generally not solved by one-off sessions with life-coaches. It might for some peculiar reason be the experience of one individual, but that is not how depression works, you're free to consult the literature or talk to a bunch of people who suffer from it.

> some sort of messianic figure helping you with your problems does not exist

FWIW, that's not what I was talking about, the guy I went to see is a hypnotherapist not a messiah.

> And my last sentence was not distasteful at all.

FWIW I wasn't offended. (I've had friends insult me to my face when bringing up personal history that is outside their worldview.)

> Depression is generally not solved by one-off sessions with life-coaches.

Right, and that is not what happened to me. The person who helped me is arguably the greatest living hypnotherapist on the planet.

Anyway, IMO you're right about the value and importance of hard work but wrong about books not being helpful.

Cheers!

>Hard work is as much of a racket as easy magic.

Really? Perhaps you need to think long and hard about what you wrote above.

We got to the moon and in 2020 style civilization, from the technology involved to the social issues and personal problems we overcame, with hard work, not with "easy magic".

Check out my answers to the other sibling comments.

Would you settle for quit smoking by a self-help book? ;-D

Here's something that blew me away...

My sister just quit smoking. From ten cigarettes a day to zero. We (her family and friends) are all so overjoyed. How did she do it?

https://www.allencarr.com/

She read that book. That's all. When she was done, she was no longer smoking. Within a few days her sense of smell came back and now cigs smell disgusting to her.

Go ahead and be skeptical. If it hadn't happened to my own sister I would be too.

And then get the book for the smokers you love in your life, eh? I mean, you can return it if it doesn't work for them, but if it does... My sister just got back years of her life!

I don't mean to be pushy or saleman-ish, and I'm not affiliated with Carr in the slightest. I only remembered that a book cured my sister of smoking addiction in the time it took to read it after reading your comment goto11, cheers!

I had a friend who also read that book. I don't know if he picked up smoking again but I remember him telling that the book basically hammers it into you that smoking is bad for 150 pages and that you just have to give up smoking because it's so annoying to read about how bad it is.

The core idea of the book is that you're not giving up smoking. You're just deciding not to smoke this cigarette. You can still smoke if you want to. You just don't want to because $HUGE_LIST_OF_BAD_STUFF.

I don't know if that's an evidence based approach, but some people find it useful.

My dad, who was smoking at least 40 a day (and really smoking -- down to the filter, deep inhalations, carried on when he knew it was doing him harm) read it and cut down for a week or so, but then started smoking cigars (in the same way as he smoked cigs), and then switched back to cigarettes.

I think the current evidence strongly recommended a combination of psychological work and nicotine replacement. https://cks.nice.org.uk/smoking-cessation

Isn't that most self-help books? State your core idea in the first 5 pages, then fill the next 150+ pages with restatements of the same idea in slightly different ways.

No, pick one up and notice how it comes with exercises and how there are always more than a single core idea and it's more like 4-7 concepts layered out in chapters. It's more structured than just restating.

That's more-or-less what my sister said.

Whatever works.

I mentioned this thread to her and she wanted me to add that there was no withdrawal and her behavior didn't change. When she has tried to quit previously it had significant effects on her mood. This time we (her friends and family) didn't notice she had quit until she told us! It was the best Christmas present.

It is not uncommon for people to just make a decision to stop smoking. It is indeed possible to not light a cigarette if the motivation is there. That is completely different than "trying not to have a broken leg".

> It is not uncommon for people to just make a decision to stop smoking.

I don't think that true, but even if it is, so what? That's not what happened to my sister.

The “Have you tried not having a broken leg?” line is from e.g. https://sunflowerssunshine.wordpress.com/2017/02/07/breaking... I don't know if that's the original source.