
Life Advice for Young Men That Went Viral in the 1850's - MarlonPro
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_vault/2013/12/04/advice_for_men_list_of_maxims_that_went_viral_in_the_nineteenth_century.html
======
JasonFruit
There are a lot of comments here asserting that this advice is outdated. That
is exactly why it is important. The present is a vast echo chamber, which
constantly repeats what we now believe, what is consistent with our values; it
is critical that we listen to voices from the past that can make us question
our beliefs and values. Many — even most — of these seem to me excellent
guides to an upright and moral life.

~~~
dmazin
Er, yeah, I feel like a lot of the outdated comments are regarding the
sexually negative or blatantly sexist maxims. And honestly, I don't mind an
echo chamber of treating ourselves and others right.

~~~
FellowTraveler
Which maxims, specifically, did you think were sexist?

~~~
tommorris
"Do not marry till you are able to support a wife."

It's not so much sexist as just outdated.

Sometimes the wife will be supporting the husband. Sometimes the "wife" will
actually be a husband. Sometimes there will be something close to parity
between partners. At some points in a person's life they'll be economically on
the up-and-up while the other isn't, and the situation might reverse, in which
case the direction of support ought to change.

~~~
FellowTraveler
Don't you think it becomes a lot more difficult to make your fortune, once you
are tied down in a relationship? Suddenly the concern becomes about stability
instead of success? Would you want your own son getting married before he had
made a success of himself?

~~~
tommorris
I reject the premise that stability is the opposite of success. For some
people, having a stable home life might be a condition of their success.

Again, it rests on a gendered notion of support and a traditional model of
marriage/relationships, which a lot more people reject these days. I'm
currently single, but let's say I were to get into a fairly serious
relationship in the next few weeks such that new partner moved in with me:
would that mean that my work life would now change to be less concerned about
success? No. They'd presumably have a job too. Difference is when I got home
at the end of the day, there'd be a friendly, kind, loving companion to care
for me.

Having a dual income supporting the household means that in that particular
case, I can be less concerned about stability - because making rent and paying
bills and so on is a lot less of a struggle.

In the long-term, it might change if one were to have kids, but having kids
and getting married are not the same thing. I certainly wouldn't want to have
kids until I reached a certain level of success and financial independence
(and, hey, one of the benefits of being gay: no unplanned pregnancies!) but
that's separate from the question of having a relationship or not, or even
getting married or not.

This is why I'm saying it's outdated advice rather than sexist advice: it
presumes a model of marriage and relationships that has changed (incidentally,
contrary to the views of anti-gay social conservatives, it was mostly changed
by straight people unhappy with the previous arrangements). Most of the people
I know - straight or gay - spend a lot longer living together before getting
married. And they tend to delay having children or opt-out of childbearing
altogether. How are people in long-term childless unmarried relationships
"tied down" exactly? How does whether I go home to an empty apartment or an
apartment with a boyfriend in it change whether or not I can be successful at
work?

Think of it like a partnership in business: a successful partnership means the
partners can do more together than they could do apart (provide services to
bigger clients, say, or have more capital to invest). But there might be a
partnership where one partner works very hard, produces a lot of value and the
other mooches off their success without doing much. Saying that a romantic
relationship leads to people being tied down and stepping away from risk in
business is a bit like saying all business partnerships are of the latter
rather than the former kind. Some relationships enable both parties to
flourish more than they would separately.

~~~
FellowTraveler
Fair enough if you are gay. However, having been in relationships with various
women, I can say my experience has been quite different. There is constant
pressure against risk-taking and business-starting, in favor of "finding a
normal stable job" as a wage-slave and spending more time away from work, so
as not to make her feel neglected.

Her concerns are legitimate, of course, and rooted in her own evolutionary
strategy, but I would certainly recommend to my sons that they make their
fortune _before_ getting tied down, and that they not get married too early,
for this reason. Because they are less likely to take the necessary risks.
Women, like it or not, tend to be much more risk-averse than men, and in a
committed relationship, they will apply pressure toward this end. (And no
risk, no reward.)

This is probably the same reason why many trust-funds are designed to give
payouts to those who remain unmarried until at least the age of 25. There are
many benefits to having a wife, including their perceptiveness and
sensibility, which can be very valuable especially while climbing the social
ladder, but given what I know now, I would want to make a success of myself
first, before taking one on, and I would advise the same to my sons. (Just as
I would advise my daughters to find a man who is already a success, versus
getting tied down early on with Johnny Football Hero.)

One piece of advice I was given a few years back, is to "be your own inner
parent." Which is to say, whenever you find yourself making a decision, to ask
yourself what you would advise your own children to do, if they were to find
themselves in the exact same situation you are facing. Then do precisely that.

> This is why I'm saying it's outdated advice rather than sexist advice: it
> presumes a model of marriage and relationships that has changed...

It very well could be that society has evolved, as you say. But it might
instead be that the sexes are living in a bubble of wealth that was created by
those who came before, enabling them to afford the luxury of a society that is
able to constantly subsidize the "new reality" through educational
programming, entertainment programming, social programming, glass ceiling
legislation, welfare spending, etc which poorer societies are simply unable to
afford.

What we see in Kazakhstan, for example, is a society returning to polygamy as
the realities of poverty leave them unable to afford such luxuries as we
enjoy. Perhaps, as you say, our culture has progressed. But maybe, just maybe,
our culture is currently in a bubble, and as our economic freedoms decline, so
will our wealth, causing gender relations to resolve back to equilibrium again
-- the same mean we see in many other nations in the world.

Dual incomes may actually be a harbinger of this. For we know from the
research that many women in our society do not work because they want to, but
because they have no choice. A "modern" household cannot sustain itself
without those dual incomes, can it? Yet in decades past, households were
easily supported on a single income. Our society is becoming poorer.

------
dmazin
Some of these are outdated, some are flawed, and some are plain Victorian
silliness.

But this maxim is one of the most important that I guide myself by, and the
way it's stated really resonates with me:

"Your character can never be essentially injured except by your own acts."

And if it spoke to you too, you should read Marcus Aurelius.

~~~
brc
Mine is 'never start lying to yourself'

Convincing yourself of BS is the first step along any path leading to bad
outcomes. Whether it is 'another donut doesn't matter' or 'customers won't
care about this bug' or any other number of self-delusions, constantly failing
to reject your own BS will erode your character.

~~~
purringmeow
But that's hard to do, considering our minds are natural born lawyers. There
is a fine line between confidence and believing BS, one that I can't always
find.

~~~
brc
Well, going to the gym or learning a new programming language are also hard.
Most things that matter in the long run are.

Being honest with yourself is not the same S confidence building. BSing
yourself is saying 'my new app will sell a million units'. Being honest with
yourself is saying 'if I do x and y, then I can see a market size for my app
of a million units. There is risk that this won't happen becaue of z, but I am
going to proceed'. If it then fails, the person prone to lying to themsleves
will blame everything and anyone else. The person who is honest with
themselves will look at the hard lessons and take them on board, and benefit
from the experience.

To me, there is no line at all.

------
Tycho
I like the one about how if you cannot be employed, rather than being idle you
should cultivate your mind. True now more than ever with all our access to
online university education etc.

------
gaius
"Have no very intimate friends"?

~~~
brc
I take it as don't really, deeply trust anyone. It's hard to unpack given the
drift in meanings of things like 'intimate'. It could mean don't have affairs
with women, or it could mean don't go sharing your secrets. Given the very
next line is about keeping secrets to yourself, that's how I take it.

------
cup
Reminds me of some of the advice early Islamic scholars would give people,
particularly contemplating over God and death regularly.

~~~
humanrebar
Considering that America was overwhelmingly Christian and that many of the
maxims borrow ideas from Ecclesiastes, Proverbs, and Psalms, it isn't
surprising.

------
swombat
"Never play at any kind of game."???

Right... This may have been of interest and gone "viral" 150 years ago, but I
fail to see how it's of much interest today...

That some of the advice is still relevant is hardly surprising. After all,
human nature has changed very little over the last few thousand years...

~~~
humanrebar
I'm guessing that's either a reference to gambling or a caution against
unproductive fun in general.

~~~
nikz
Are you sure it's not more along the lines of "don't 'play' at it, do it
properly?"

Perhaps I'm reading too much into it. I guess that's the problem with this
sort of vague generalised advice :)

~~~
im3w1l
If you read the second version, it is modified into "never play at any game of
chance", so I think they meant gambling.

------
thenerdfiles
"Never question a qoat by the horns."

And nebulously:

"You might put a kitten in the oven, but that won't make you biscuits."

Anyway. All of these lines given describe natural behavior ("Mull over your
day's work before bed"), are practically useless ("Always speak the truth"),
or are outright naive, for any time period ("Your reputation cannot
essentially..." — "Essentially"? Essentialism, really?)

Victorian existentialist hubris embodies men's egalitarian negligence
thoroughly (VEHEMENT).

