> 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?
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.
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.