[katmannthree]

I disagree strongly with the article's central thesis, but it is still worth critically examining the source and utility of advice. Even honest and sincerely given advice is often more a form of nostalgia on the part of the giver than a lucid examining of your specific situation and the nuances therein.

It's most often a form of "well this is what I wish I'd done when I was in a similar situation years ago" or "here's what I did when I was in your position and let me tell you how great a choice it was." That is meaningfully distinct from and a lot more common than the much more useful version "I once had something similar happen and afterwards concluded that I should have done X, but the world has changed over the decades and now it seems like kX would yield better outcomes based on Y."

[ninkendo]

I’m reminded of a quote from the “Wear Sunscreen” song/speech from back in the 90s:

> Be careful whose advice you buy, but, be patient with those who supply it. Advice is a form of nostalgia, dispensing it is a way of fishing the past from the disposal, wiping it off, painting over the ugly parts and recycling it for more than it's worth.

[butwhywhyoh]

Changed over the decades? Your issue with advice is that the giver must have had something happen so long ago that they can tell you about how the world has changed in the meantime?

By your reasoning, you would have rejected that person's advice if they had given it to you earlier because it would have looked a lot like the form of advice you have an issue with.

[katmannthree]

The majority of advice I've received was founded in experiences 10+ years in the past, yes, and did not account for the substantial societal changes that have occurred since. My issue is not that the giver hasn't noticed changes in the world, it's that most often the underlying reason they give advice seems to be as a form of nostalgia rather than a careful consideration of what my best options are.

> By your reasoning, you would have rejected that person's advice if they had given it to you earlier because it would have looked a lot like the form of advice you have an issue with.

No, I am not saying that any advice should be immediately rejected. It should be appreciated, always, when given in good faith. It should also be silently examined, always, before application.

[zerocount]

I understood it along the same lines as you and don't understand the down-voting.

[JacobThreeThree]

It was an example of how someone could give advice while trying to take into consideration the nuances and circumstances of the person's context.

[superposeur]

Agreed — when I’m on the receiving end of advice, I try to suss out the distinction you describe. Is the advice-giver just lazily ruminating (usually the case) or are they actually thinking through my particular circumstances and reflecting on the optimal path given these constraints and/or plugging a particular blind spot holding me back? You can often feel, viscerally, the difference between the two types of advice-giving.