How do people stay sane and happy in a world of misery?

[an anarchist]

Ever watch the news? I have the bad habit of watching the news.

I turn it on -

War. Random acts of violence. Calculated acts of violence. Poverty. Disease. Political intrigue. Natural disasters. Death. Misery.

Then of course the news ends with a feel good story about the local firefighter dog getting a promotion. It’s supposed to be a palate cleanser I suppose, but it doesn’t work.

Am I supposed to be like the Buddha and forsake my privilege and wander around until I figure a way out of this situation for all of us? Well, I’ve given up on doing that. When I was doing that, everything made sense. Now that I am not doing that, I wonder how in the heck does the average person stay sane and happy when the world around them is on hellfire?

How do you stay sane in a world of misery? How does the suffering of the world not shake you up and ruin your day?

I was talking to my brother about this, and he shrugged and said his perspective was that there was nothing he could do to help the world at large, so it wasn’t bothersome for him. I can’t just shrug it off though. Should I be able to?

I am curious about how people don’t let the suffering of the world negatively affect their mental. Because obviously we gotta take care of our mental and many are mentally healthy and I assume may not have the problem of being overly empathetic to the point it affects their mental.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I don’t really watch the news, precisely because doing so is not good for my mental health. I do keep abreast of the news, by reading one or two trusted papers and journals, but I avoid the relentless wall to wall horror show on TV news; and I deleted AppleNews from my phone, to avoid doom scrolling the headlines.

It’s also worth remembering that while much of the world is unstable and violent, for every grim and bloody headline, there are a thousand tiny acts of kindness that go unreported.

 

[ChristineM]

Im no expert here but i think i have a little understanding because of my Brother In Law.
He and i think perhaps, some schizophrenics have trouble compartmentalising their thoughts.
For example BIL worries all the time about any "bad" thing he hears on the the news, a cartel killing someone in south America is his fault, he should have told Putin to back off before he invaded Ukraine, why didn't he know before hand about the Madeleine McCann thing so he could have warned the police.
And these worries/concerns don't diminish over time, he will still talk about them with me, they remain fresh in his memory. Whereas i and others are, after a while, able to put these things in a box and only bring them out when necessary.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I am curious about how people don’t let the suffering of the world negatively affect their mental. Because obviously we gotta take care of our mental and many are mentally healthy and I assume may not have the problem of being overly empathetic to the point it affects their mental.

I used to struggle a lot with burnout and mental exhaustion when looking at the news and seeing how much awful stuff was happening, especially nearer to where I live. I have since adopted three main principles that have largely helped me avoid the exhaustion:

• Recognizing what I can and cannot control, and what I can and cannot do anything about. Focus on what you can do and remind yourself that it is of no help to yourself or anyone else to be brought down by what you cannot. Empathy accompanied by a feeling of helplessness can be exhausting; empathy with action is compassion.

• Reminding myself that the world has always been this way and that humanity has always been tribalistic, violent, and irrational. On a historical scale, "progress" is fleeting, limited, and often reliant on prosperity. Human nature is still the same as it has always been. This doesn't make the horrible things in the world any more acceptable, but it puts them into perspective and makes it less shocking to know that they exist now. This is the only world we have always had; we're just more aware of events beyond our immediate vicinity than we were in past eras.

• Limiting exposure to news when being exposed to it doesn't help you or anyone else. I think it's sometimes crucial to stay updated on certain things, but "doomscrolling" and overload help no one. Only you can determine where that balance point exists for you between reading news and getting overwhelmed.

I occasionally still feel exhausted, but I'll take occasional exhaustion over having no idea at all about what is happening. I have already limited my exposure to news compared to past years, and I'm now at a level of exposure that I find healthy and not at the point of overloading me or bringing my mental health down.

 

[SalixIncendium]

The only time I intentionally see the news is when I say, "Hey Google...start my day." NPR News then tells me the headlines.

I find the serenity prayer helpful in a "world of misery": "Grant me the serenity to accept things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference."

I also make it a point to remember, "It is what it isn't."

 

[Augustus]

Ever watch the news? I have the bad habit of watching the news.

Just stop watching it.

Then you can stop caring about things that have no impact on your life unless you choose to let them
Impact you.

There are all kinds of conflicts going on that we know nothing about and this don’t care about.

We generally only care about the 1% of bad things that get covered, and so it makes sense to try to cut that 1% as much as possible.

Why waste emotional energy on stuff you can’t control or influence in any way?

We didn’t evolve cognition for such an information saturated media environment. Practicing media hygiene is good.

Unless they have a personal connection, what benefits folk to be emotionally involved in choosing a side in the Israel/Palestine conflict?

I wish bad things didn’t happen, but they do and so best to ignore that which I can’t influence in any way.

I cut my news media consumption by 95% and so have more time for things that are enjoyable.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Unless they have a personal connection, what benefits folk to be emotionally involved in choosing a side in the Israel/Palestine conflict?

One reason I have seen many people give for trying to decide where they stand on a given conflict or war, whether the above or another one, is that their tax money and some of their purchasing decisions (e.g., which companies they give their money to) have some degree of influence whether they like or want that or not. They can then take that into account in their voting, political participation or lack thereof (e.g., protesting or not), how they spend their money, etc.

Ultimately, I think a small percentage of humanity—that is, people in positions of power, like presidents—decide much of how those bigger events play out and make the major decisions, but I can see why someone would find it responsible to work out a stance on a conflict in which their money, including that from taxes, was being directly involved.

 

[Stevicus]

Ever watch the news? I have the bad habit of watching the news.

I turn it on -

War. Random acts of violence. Calculated acts of violence. Poverty. Disease. Political intrigue. Natural disasters. Death. Misery.

Then of course the news ends with a feel good story about the local firefighter dog getting a promotion. It’s supposed to be a palate cleanser I suppose, but it doesn’t work.

Am I supposed to be like the Buddha and forsake my privilege and wander around until I figure a way out of this situation for all of us? Well, I’ve given up on doing that. When I was doing that, everything made sense. Now that I am not doing that, I wonder how in the heck does the average person stay sane and happy when the world around them is on hellfire?

How do you stay sane in a world of misery? How does the suffering of the world not shake you up and ruin your day?

I was talking to my brother about this, and he shrugged and said his perspective was that there was nothing he could do to help the world at large, so it wasn’t bothersome for him. I can’t just shrug it off though. Should I be able to?

I am curious about how people don’t let the suffering of the world negatively affect their mental. Because obviously we gotta take care of our mental and many are mentally healthy and I assume may not have the problem of being overly empathetic to the point it affects their mental.

I tend to read the news rather than watching it. I also try to filter news stories so that I can discern what actual facts and events are being reported, while tending to avoid opinionated commentary and spin.

One frustration I find with journalism in recent years is that they've ostensibly abandoned the old "pyramid style" where all the basic facts of a story are mentioned at the outset, while quotes and minor details occur later in the story. Nowadays, they seem to want to entice and hook the reader with some teaser, while burying the lead somewhere in the middle.

News stories also seem to rely more on drama and emotion, rather than the exposition of facts, events, or ideas.

My advice is to not take it so seriously, since rest assured, the people writing and producing the news surely do not. Anyone who considers celebrity gossip and other mindless fluff as "news" should have no expectation of ever being taken seriously.

Here, have a listen to this song from the 80s which pokes fun at journalism. I believe that this is a fair and accurate representation of the journalism profession as it was back then, and if anything, it's only gotten worse since then.

"I make my living off the Evening News
Just give me something-something I can use
People love it when you lose,
They love dirty laundry

Well, I coulda been an actor, but I wound up here
I just have to look good, I don't have to be clear
Come and whisper in my ear
Give us dirty laundry

Kick 'em when they're up
Kick 'em when they're down
Kick 'em when they're up
Kick 'em when they're down
Kick 'em when they're up
Kick 'em when they're down
Kick 'em when they're up
Kick 'em all around

We got the bubble-headed-bleach-blonde who
comes on at five
She can tell you 'bout the plane crash with a gleam
in her eye
It's interesting when people die-
Give us dirty laundry

Can we film the operation?
Is the head dead yet?
You know, the boys in the newsroom got a
running bet
Get the widow on the set!
We need dirty laundry

You don't really need to find out what's going on
You don't really want to know just how far it's gone
Just leave well enough love
Eat your dirty laundry

Kick 'em when they're up
Kick 'em when they're down
Kick 'em when they're up
Kick 'em when they're down

Kick 'em when they're up
Kick 'em when they're down
Kick 'em when they're stiff
Kick 'em all around

Dirty little secrets
Dirty little lies
We got our dirty little fingers in everybody's pie
We love to cut you down to size
We love dirty laundry

We can do "The Innuendo"
We can dance and sing
When it's said and done we haven't told you a thing
We all know that Crap is King
Give us dirty laundry!

 

[Arnaud1221]

Strong moral lead to victory!

 

[Augustus]

One reason I have seen many people give for trying to decide where they stand on a given conflict or war, whether the above or another one, is that their tax money and some of their purchasing decisions (e.g., which companies they give their money to) have some degree of influence whether they like or want that or not. They can then take that into account in their voting, political participation or lack thereof (e.g., protesting or not), how they spend their money, etc.

Ultimately, I think a small percentage of humanity—that is, people in positions of power, like presidents—decide much of how those bigger events play out and make the major decisions, but I can see why someone would find it responsible to work out a stance on a conflict in which their money, including that from taxes, was being directly involved.

People can choose to care about whatever they want, and I understand why people may want to do as you say.

People want to feel empowered and in control in a turbulent world after all. Some choose political protest or advocacy, others superstitions or astrology, others still by purposely avoiding that which does not benefit them.

They are all coping mechanisms and what works for one will not work for another. None are intrinsically better or worse than the others.

If news media is a source of anguish, I’d say best to avoid it though.

 

[Debater Slayer]

People can choose to care about whatever they want, and I understand why people may want to do as you say.

People want to feel empowered and in control in a turbulent world after all. Some choose political protest or advocacy, others superstitions or astrology, others still by purposely avoiding that which does not benefit them.

They are all coping mechanisms and what works for one will not work for another. None are intrinsically better or worse than the others.

I agree that what works for someone may not work for another. While I also don't believe that whether one approach is "better" or "worse" can be determined without subjective judgment, I do think it is more responsible to do one's best, if they can, to make sure whatever influence they have (e.g., money) is not being used to abuse or otherwise harm someone else... or at least to reduce the extent to which the influence is used in that manner—since it seems to me that often, the only alternative would be either apathy to that or approval of it.

If you knew your money was being used to abuse people elsewhere, wouldn't you at least want to know about that in case you could, say, vote for or buy from someone else who used it in ways more aligned with what you wanted? I think that kind of situation is where reliable news reporting is often most useful.

If news media is a source of anguish, I’d say best to avoid it though.

I tend to agree, if the anguish disrupts one's life or just doesn't help anyone. I think social media has especially amplified the effects of unproductive "doomscrolling."

 

[Kathryn]

I don't worry about things I cannot control. And I don't fixate on how I might control things. I also skim the news but don't watch it much. I mean, I stay abreast of it but don't immerse myself in it. And finally, I do know that if it bleeds, it leads. There are tons of great stories out there that never get covered, and if a person watches the news much, they lose perspective on things.

 

[osgart]

I get exhausted from empathy overload. So learning that I can't control and am not directly responsible for the world's problems helps me remember only to focus on what's relevant, applicable, interesting and worthwhile to life in general, and my life in particular.

I pick and choose the news I want to follow. I don't take it all in from one long program. If I can index it according to necessity, priority, and interest I wouldn't waste my time exposing myself to every event of one long program.

People use their relaxation time taking in large sums of news which defeats the purpose of relaxation.

First question I ask when taking in news is: What can I do about it? ; then, How is this relevant to life in general? ; and finally, What's applicable to me?

 

[JustGeorge]

I don't take any news. I can't.

It puts me in a bad spot, and I need to be as functional as I possibly can. I have too many people relying on me not to be.

If I were to take any news, however, it would be local news. I may be able to help there(well, I might if my personal situation was different). There are problems I may be able to help solve.

I don't know why so many worry about the 'trends' in news articles, but forget their own backyards.

I can't shrug it all off, either, though. So I don't look, unless I think I can help it. Sometimes I don't think it matters on what someone says we "should" be able to do. We're not all the same person.

 

[Stevicus]

One reason I have seen many people give for trying to decide where they stand on a given conflict or war, whether the above or another one, is that their tax money and some of their purchasing decisions (e.g., which companies they give their money to) have some degree of influence whether they like or want that or not. They can then take that into account in their voting, political participation or lack thereof (e.g., protesting or not), how they spend their money, etc.

Ultimately, I think a small percentage of humanity—that is, people in positions of power, like presidents—decide much of how those bigger events play out and make the major decisions, but I can see why someone would find it responsible to work out a stance on a conflict in which their money, including that from taxes, was being directly involved.

I think the news should, at the very least, be available, especially if it's in a country which purports to be a liberal democracy with a free press. If we are truly a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, then the people have a right to know. But it doesn't mean they're required to know. They can always tune out if they're not interested.

As for me, I like to be aware of what's happening in the world, but a large part of the problem is when the media focus more on evoking emotional responses rather than actually informing people. They want to entertain people with drama, suspense, sex, violence, blood, guts, and feathers. They want news to be exciting, not boring. And an emotional response is often what they get, as there are some who can find the news too upsetting and difficult to watch - which is ostensibly what the producers and publishers of news actually want.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I think the news should, at the very least, be available, especially if it's in a country which purports to be a liberal democracy with a free press. If we are truly a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, then the people have a right to know. But it doesn't mean they're required to know. They can always tune out if they're not interested.

As for me, I like to be aware of what's happening in the world, but a large part of the problem is when the media focus more on evoking emotional responses rather than actually informing people. They want to entertain people with drama, suspense, sex, violence, blood, guts, and feathers. They want news to be exciting, not boring. And an emotional response is often what they get, as there are some who can find the news too upsetting and difficult to watch - which is ostensibly what the producers and publishers of news actually want.

Maximizing reactions at the expense of nuance and content seems to me one of the most destructive aspects of a lot of news reporting, especially online, but I also think it's true that pathos is an essential part of effectively relaying certain types of messages, and I don't think its usage in speech and rhetoric has to be abused like it is in many news media. Pathos can enhance the delivery of a reasonable and factually accurate message and, in my opinion, is sometimes even practically necessary to that end, unless it is misused and exaggerated.

As much as some people claim to be purely "rational," moved by nothing except facts, and not swayed by emotions, as if they were the Homo sapiens versions of Spock, there's no human on Earth whose thought patterns don't include cognitive biases and emotional heuristics to one extent or another, and this means that they will inevitably dismiss a lot of emotionally flat speech even when it has a sound message. I think examining the success of different orators and leaders shows that the idea of not using emotion at all in messaging is as unrealistic as it is idealistic (and it also ignores many psychological facts), although I definitely agree that it is often overused and exploited in different media to cover up scarcity of factual accuracy and logic.

 

[Stevicus]

Maximizing reactions at the expense of nuance and content seems to me one of the most destructive aspects of a lot of news reporting, especially online, but I also think it's true that pathos is an essential part of effectively relaying certain types of messages, and I don't think its usage in speech and rhetoric has to be abused like it is in many news media. Pathos can enhance the delivery of a reasonable and factually accurate message and, in my opinion, is sometimes even practically necessary to that end, unless it is misused and exaggerated.

As much as some people claim to be purely "rational," moved by nothing except facts, and not swayed by emotions, as if they were the Homo sapiens versions of Spock, there's no human on Earth whose thought patterns don't include cognitive biases and emotional heuristics to one extent or another, and this means that they will inevitably dismiss a lot of emotionally flat speech even when it has a sound message. I think examining the success of different orators and leaders shows that the idea of not using emotion at all in messaging is as unrealistic as it is idealistic (and it also ignores many psychological facts), although I definitely agree that it is often overused and exploited in different media to cover up scarcity of factual accuracy and logic.

I think there are quite a few people who are still rational and not necessarily taken in by the BS, whether in politics, media, advertising, or wherever one might see it. My grandfather was a salesman for 50 years, and every time a commercial would come on TV, he would often mock their sales pitches and tell everyone what they were really saying between the lines.

Ultimately, it comes down to language and how it is used, whether to inspire, deceive, inform, manipulate, educate, entertain, disdain, or whatever it may be. Tone of voice is important, as is word choice. They're mostly just actors, playing a role and following a script, while their real persona is suppressed or modified.

To find actual sincerity in media and politics is like finding water in the desert. That's why when someone does come across as sincere - even if they're a raving madman - a certain percentage of the public might still find it strangely refreshing.

Maybe we should have more newscasters like this:

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I am curious about how people don’t let the suffering of the world negatively affect their mental.

I endorse empathy.

 

[bobhikes]

Ever watch the news? I have the bad habit of watching the news.

I turn it on -

War. Random acts of violence. Calculated acts of violence. Poverty. Disease. Political intrigue. Natural disasters. Death. Misery.

Then of course the news ends with a feel good story about the local firefighter dog getting a promotion. It’s supposed to be a palate cleanser I suppose, but it doesn’t work.

Am I supposed to be like the Buddha and forsake my privilege and wander around until I figure a way out of this situation for all of us? Well, I’ve given up on doing that. When I was doing that, everything made sense. Now that I am not doing that, I wonder how in the heck does the average person stay sane and happy when the world around them is on hellfire?

How do you stay sane in a world of misery? How does the suffering of the world not shake you up and ruin your day?

I was talking to my brother about this, and he shrugged and said his perspective was that there was nothing he could do to help the world at large, so it wasn’t bothersome for him. I can’t just shrug it off though. Should I be able to?

I am curious about how people don’t let the suffering of the world negatively affect their mental. Because obviously we gotta take care of our mental and many are mentally healthy and I assume may not have the problem of being overly empathetic to the point it affects their mental.

The issue is that what you see as suffering the people who supposedly are don't see it that way. I am 60 so I have some experience and have been told many times in the past to mind my own business(polite version) that they don't need my help or pity. People are hardy, find happiness in small gestures, adapt to their environment plus are resistant to change. If they don't ask for your help don't assume they want it or will accept it and may fight for their way of life that you consider suffering.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

How do you stay sane in a world of misery? How does the suffering of the world not shake you up and ruin your day?

I remain detached apart from gratitude for being spared. It's a learned reaction. My world is a Mexican village. Our biggest problems are traffic in when the snowbirds return (coming soon!), markets not being aware of and maintaining inventory of what's selling, potholes after heavy rains, and yesterday, one of my dogs escaping our property, which hasn't happened before in her eight years living here (we were careless). Losing her to a vehicle collision or somebody keeping her would be devastating.

But the news? I don't see the point in being dragged down by problems like extreme weather, foreign wars, and Trump's threatening return to power. My concerns are all local. I intend to live a simple and carefree life from here to the finish line to the extent that is possible.

Some might consider that selfish or struthious, but I find it to be a rational adaptation. The goal is ataraxia / equanimity, and to use as many fifty-dollar words as I can.

May I have the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.