The money, job, marriage myth: are you happy yet?(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
The money, job, marriage myth: are you happy yet?
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/jan/06/happiness-index-wellbeing-survey-uk-population-paul-dolan-happy-ever-after
38 comments
Great input.
As a short form :
"I'm not running to the top, I'm running away from the bottom."
As a short form :
"I'm not running to the top, I'm running away from the bottom."
> as the police are mostly paid to watch you
Just yesterday I was talking to someone who's father contributed $10,000 to the reelection campaign for the local sheriff. I asked him why he did that and the response was so that the sheriff would feel obligated to the guy's father.
Just yesterday I was talking to someone who's father contributed $10,000 to the reelection campaign for the local sheriff. I asked him why he did that and the response was so that the sheriff would feel obligated to the guy's father.
Politicisation of the police seems like a terrible idea. We have been trying to do it in the UK, fortunately it seems to be failing and will likely get canned the next time we have a change of government.
Sad but true. Zrue freedom and liberty are hard to find nowadays if they ever were easy that is.
Sorry you’ve had that experience. I can relate to it as well. You don’t need to be rich per se, you just don’t want to be poor. You want to have autonomy rather than having to follow extra archaic rules because society doesn’t trust you.
Privileged people don’t get how much of a trap the world is when you aren’t privileged.
Privileged people don’t get how much of a trap the world is when you aren’t privileged.
There is nothing which will make you happy. You must choose to be happy.
There is no job, no amount of money, no relationship, which will make you feel whole and happy and content and done. The opposite doesn't hold - there are jobs and relationships and financial strains which will certainly keep you from being happy.
The goal isn't for a job or a relationship to make you happy. It's to enable other things which are your goals, which may or may not be happiness related.
There is no job, no amount of money, no relationship, which will make you feel whole and happy and content and done. The opposite doesn't hold - there are jobs and relationships and financial strains which will certainly keep you from being happy.
The goal isn't for a job or a relationship to make you happy. It's to enable other things which are your goals, which may or may not be happiness related.
This reminds me of a quote from Stewart Brand during an interview with Tim Ferris.
".... and being proud is the most reliable source of happiness that I know."[https://tim.blog/2018/02/03/the-tim-ferriss-show-transcripts...]
Teach yourself how to cook, get in shape, draw a picture, write a story, help someone less fortunate, teach someone something you know, learn how to juggle... In the end it doesn't really matter what it is but you will have that proud feeling and be happy in that moment. Rinse and repeat.
".... and being proud is the most reliable source of happiness that I know."[https://tim.blog/2018/02/03/the-tim-ferriss-show-transcripts...]
Teach yourself how to cook, get in shape, draw a picture, write a story, help someone less fortunate, teach someone something you know, learn how to juggle... In the end it doesn't really matter what it is but you will have that proud feeling and be happy in that moment. Rinse and repeat.
Speaking strictly for myself, I have not found this to be true. I do enjoy collecting skills, and learning is fun. But no matter what the skill, eventually you hit the wall of diminishing returns, and I find that pride in that last 1-2% of performance is not worth the cost in time; I would rather improve a weaker skill another 10-20% with the same amount of training. And fundamentally, I find pride a bit too solipsistic to be truly satisfying no matter what the skill.
What I have found permanently effective is practicing gratefulness. Every day I make it a point to think of things that I am genuinely grateful to have, or to have experienced. This (for me), more than anything else, helps put my mind at ease, and allow me to enjoy the life that I have.
What I have found permanently effective is practicing gratefulness. Every day I make it a point to think of things that I am genuinely grateful to have, or to have experienced. This (for me), more than anything else, helps put my mind at ease, and allow me to enjoy the life that I have.
I agree. The challenge for me has been that in practicing gratitude I find myself fearing the loss of the things for which I am grateful even more.
I can't say I am 100% great at following my own advice, here, but I do find that it helps to try and focus on experiences that I am grateful for instead of physical things, and for much the same reason as what you give- you can't have experiences taken away in the same manner as a physical thing.
Pride is also frail, see people who talk about impostor syndrom, they have weak pride, if at all, even when they get a good position. Self-esteem has to be calibrated, then you can have stable pride and, I agree, happiness.
You're touching on something I can relate to. Being proud doesnt make me happy. But the sense of progression that comes along with learning or mastering something does. I enjoy nothing more than taking a skill I am okay at to something that I am great at.
The issue is this is hard and takes a lot of dedicated work to do.
The issue is this is hard and takes a lot of dedicated work to do.
Very true, but once you make the decision, all those other things are multipliers. Just unfortunately, if you make the negative decision, well the negative still multiplies too.... hence the divorces and all the drama at work....
If you took away my marriage and job, I would be markedly more unhappy. I imagine if I ever have a big wad of cash sitting around, I would be a bit less happy if that disappeared too (only because keeping it around certainly would only keep me at the status quo, if not make me more happy).
What's that they say about coming into a lot of money, that it just reveals who your true self is?
And yes, some people get into crappy marriages or crappy jobs where they just get knocked down 24/7. But I've observed that negative people easily self-prophesy into negative situations far more often than positive people.
edit: added points
If you took away my marriage and job, I would be markedly more unhappy. I imagine if I ever have a big wad of cash sitting around, I would be a bit less happy if that disappeared too (only because keeping it around certainly would only keep me at the status quo, if not make me more happy).
What's that they say about coming into a lot of money, that it just reveals who your true self is?
And yes, some people get into crappy marriages or crappy jobs where they just get knocked down 24/7. But I've observed that negative people easily self-prophesy into negative situations far more often than positive people.
edit: added points
"But I've observed that negative people easily self-prophesy into negative situations far more often than positive people." Very much agree with this.
Happiness is an emotion, it comes and goes. Even the premise of "are you happy?" is missing the point.
Are we talking about feeling happiness twice as much as feeling sadness? 4x, 10x? Sadness can come from things outside our control.
I think a better goal is are you present? Are you listening to yourself and to what you really want for your life?
Everyone will want different things but making an emotion the goal is a fools errand.
Are we talking about feeling happiness twice as much as feeling sadness? 4x, 10x? Sadness can come from things outside our control.
I think a better goal is are you present? Are you listening to yourself and to what you really want for your life?
Everyone will want different things but making an emotion the goal is a fools errand.
I don't believe happiness is an emotion. Joy is an emotion, it comes and goes. But happiness is more than this, it can be a perpetual state of consciousness and comes in parallel to emotions.
That reminds me of a Billy Joel (singer) interview. He said he was always asked if he was happy now and he stressed out when he couldn't answer yes. He ended up pursuing happiness at high cost. He eventually realized just because he wasn't happy didn't mean he was sad. Happiness and sadness are extremes. Most of the time you just are. He learned to just be and appreciate the happy times.
The Oatmeal did a great comic on this, which I think illustrates your point perfectly: https://theoatmeal.com/static/unhappy.html
Happiness is not a choice. If you think it is, try learning more about clinical depression.
Some people's brain chemistry makes feeling happiness much more difficult. Some people with clinical depression will physically never experience happiness the same way others do. That's true and valid.
But does that really mean that being happy is not a choice?
A paraplegic is unable to choose to move their legs due to a medical condition - would they assert that 'moving your legs is not a choice'?
But does that really mean that being happy is not a choice?
A paraplegic is unable to choose to move their legs due to a medical condition - would they assert that 'moving your legs is not a choice'?
I'm extremely skeptical of the brain chemistry narrative. It doesn't explain why depression is growing rapidly in the Western world. It doesn't explain why antidepressants vary so widely in their efficacy between persons.
I'm far more apt to believe that people's lives are getting worse and that they're depressed as a result. People are lonelier than ever and society's problems are bigger and more abstract than ever.
We're no longer even cogs in a machine, we're atoms in a cog. Meaning in life has become extremely elusive.
I'm far more apt to believe that people's lives are getting worse and that they're depressed as a result. People are lonelier than ever and society's problems are bigger and more abstract than ever.
We're no longer even cogs in a machine, we're atoms in a cog. Meaning in life has become extremely elusive.
That's like saying there wasn't cancer before cancer was first diagnosed. I don't think clinical depression is becoming more commonplace. I think it's becoming more recognized. I'm old enough to predate modern drug treatments for depression, but as a child, I saw plenty of untreated depression around. I recognize it for what it was now.
I completely agree. As Chamath Palihapitiya (ex-Facebook) eloquently puts it, our technology culture is 'ripping apart the social fabric of how society works' [0]. We're social creatures who thrive on human interaction and sharing genuine moments - social media gives us the exact opposite [1].
The really insidious thing is that many of the big players and driving forces behind these trends saw it coming, knew that what they were building may have far-reaching negative consequences, and then chose to do it anyway for the sake of money. What a time to be alive, right?
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78oMjNCAayQ
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4853817/
The really insidious thing is that many of the big players and driving forces behind these trends saw it coming, knew that what they were building may have far-reaching negative consequences, and then chose to do it anyway for the sake of money. What a time to be alive, right?
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78oMjNCAayQ
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4853817/
Not trying to sound smart here, but if that's your position, why did you go with Some people's brain chemistry...?
I believe that a small percentage of the population is born neurochemically imbalanced (classic clinical depression), but also that the recent rise in anxiety and depression rates is mainly caused by societal and technological factors.
It is easy to explain why antidepressants vary wildly even if all depression is caused by issues in brain chemistry: the constellation of symptoms we define as "depression" is actually several different illnesses that respond to different treatments.
This is why when people start on antidepressants it is a process of trying different ones until they find one that works.
This is why when people start on antidepressants it is a process of trying different ones until they find one that works.
This is so right; Mark Fisher was a prominent author in left-wing/radical circles; he took his life after a long struggle with depression, which he warned and wrote about continuously; an excerpt:
> “Capitalist realism insists on treating mental health as if it were a natural fact, like weather (but, then again, weather is no longer a natural fact so much as a political-economic effect). In the 1960s and 1970s, radical theory and politics (Laing, Foucault, Deleuze and Guattari, etc.) coalesced around extreme mental conditions such as schizophrenia, arguing, for instance, that madness was not a natural, but a political, category. But what is needed now is a politicization of much more common disorders. Indeed, it is their very commonness which is the issue: in Britain, depression is now the condition that is most treated by the NHS. In his book The Selfish Capitalist, Oliver James has convincingly posited a correlation between rising rates of mental distress and the neoliberal mode of capitalism practiced in countries like Britain, the USA and Australia. In line with James’s claims, I want to argue that it is necessary to reframe the growing problem of stress (and distress) in capitalist societies. Instead of treating it as incumbent on individuals to resolve their own psychological distress, instead, that is, of accepting the vast privatization of stress that has taken place over the last thirty years, we need to ask: how has it become acceptable that so many people, and especially so many young people, are ill?”
Some good articles on the political-economic phenomenon of depression, the response of mainstream treatment techniques and mental health in general:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jul/16/mental...
https://www.rs21.org.uk/2014/04/27/kpunk/
> “Capitalist realism insists on treating mental health as if it were a natural fact, like weather (but, then again, weather is no longer a natural fact so much as a political-economic effect). In the 1960s and 1970s, radical theory and politics (Laing, Foucault, Deleuze and Guattari, etc.) coalesced around extreme mental conditions such as schizophrenia, arguing, for instance, that madness was not a natural, but a political, category. But what is needed now is a politicization of much more common disorders. Indeed, it is their very commonness which is the issue: in Britain, depression is now the condition that is most treated by the NHS. In his book The Selfish Capitalist, Oliver James has convincingly posited a correlation between rising rates of mental distress and the neoliberal mode of capitalism practiced in countries like Britain, the USA and Australia. In line with James’s claims, I want to argue that it is necessary to reframe the growing problem of stress (and distress) in capitalist societies. Instead of treating it as incumbent on individuals to resolve their own psychological distress, instead, that is, of accepting the vast privatization of stress that has taken place over the last thirty years, we need to ask: how has it become acceptable that so many people, and especially so many young people, are ill?”
Some good articles on the political-economic phenomenon of depression, the response of mainstream treatment techniques and mental health in general:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jul/16/mental...
https://www.rs21.org.uk/2014/04/27/kpunk/
Depression isn't attributable to any one cause. For some people it is clinical and biological, and these people need medical treatment and therapy; sometimes for their entire lives.
Then there is the depression you get after a bad relationship, or as you said, an increasingly individualistic and adversarial consumer society that goers against our social instincts.
Then there is the depression you get after a bad relationship, or as you said, an increasingly individualistic and adversarial consumer society that goers against our social instincts.
On the brain chemistry idea, there's an interesting quote about how this idea is used (regardless of its theoretical validity) to push a certain narrative:
> “The current ruling ontology denies any possibility of a social causation of mental illness. The chemico-biologization of mental illness is of course strictly commensurate with its depoliticization. Considering mental illness an individual chemico-biological problem has enormous benefits for capitalism. First, it reinforces Capital’s drive towards atomistic individualization (you are sick because of your brain chemistry). Second, it provides an enormously lucrative market in which multinational pharmaceutical companies can peddle their pharmaceuticals (we can cure you with our SSRls). It goes without saying that all mental illnesses are neurologically instantiated, but this says nothing about their causation. If it is true, for instance, that depression is constituted by low serotonin levels, what still needs to be explained is why particular individuals have low levels of serotonin. This requires a social and political explanation; and the task of repoliticizing mental illness is an urgent one if the left wants to challenge capitalist realism.”
> “The current ruling ontology denies any possibility of a social causation of mental illness. The chemico-biologization of mental illness is of course strictly commensurate with its depoliticization. Considering mental illness an individual chemico-biological problem has enormous benefits for capitalism. First, it reinforces Capital’s drive towards atomistic individualization (you are sick because of your brain chemistry). Second, it provides an enormously lucrative market in which multinational pharmaceutical companies can peddle their pharmaceuticals (we can cure you with our SSRls). It goes without saying that all mental illnesses are neurologically instantiated, but this says nothing about their causation. If it is true, for instance, that depression is constituted by low serotonin levels, what still needs to be explained is why particular individuals have low levels of serotonin. This requires a social and political explanation; and the task of repoliticizing mental illness is an urgent one if the left wants to challenge capitalist realism.”
Not OP, but I took the comment in the context of your average healthy person. An illness absolutely affects the equation. I don't think anyone is suggesting depression is a choice.
We can choose to be content, and we can choose to be open to being happy.
Happiness is definitely a choice, although perhaps not for everyone. If I start thinking about some positive memories, I can consciously make myself happy right now.
Is that happiness, or just pleasure? They're different things. Pleasure is transient, fleeting. Happiness is a stable state.
But choosing to deal with your depression is a choice. I know this from experience.
The focus should be on living in the present, that's the only place you will find happiness. And if you pass by those moments without appreciation, you'll only feel regret and anxiously wait for the next bit of happiness to be found.
Right on. It's the difference between temporary joy/contentment and true happiness.
I think "choose" isn't even the right term. Everyone has it in them to be happy, but it's way harder for some people than others.
It's not a choice.
Happiness is not a direct choice but choose to help someone or choose to learn a new skill. Those things will make you happier in the long run.
It's a choice to become happy. It sadly won't happen by itself and if you do nothing to become happy, you'll most likely never be.
The path to become happy isn't instant though, it's much more complex than flipping a light switch, it's definitely harder for some than others (and possibly even impossible for some sadly), but for sure, you need to decide to become happy if you ever want to be.
The path to become happy isn't instant though, it's much more complex than flipping a light switch, it's definitely harder for some than others (and possibly even impossible for some sadly), but for sure, you need to decide to become happy if you ever want to be.
I think that I would say that we can't choose to be happy, but we can choose to be content, and we can choose not to dwell in sadness. We can allow our emotions to fluctuate and not stay fixed in depression. We do this by not fixing our thoughts, and by being open to the present moment.
You can't always make yourself happy but you can always make yourself unhappy.
Then what is it?
Jordan Peterson, who for a long time I wrote off as a crackpot until I actually paid attention to some of his interviews and lectures, talks a lot about this. Happiness is a pretty crappy goal to have. It's a side effect of pursuing actual, worthwhile goals. People need to take some responsibility for their own state of mind and the things they are choosing to do that affect it.
Jordan Peterson, who for a long time I wrote off as a crackpot until I actually paid attention to some of his interviews and lectures, talks a lot about this. Happiness is a pretty crappy goal to have. It's a side effect of pursuing actual, worthwhile goals. People need to take some responsibility for their own state of mind and the things they are choosing to do that affect it.
People take responsibility for their own mind. To the point that they see basic emotions as sins in both themselves and others. To the point where unhappiness is seen as something wrong with you and something you should not talk about.
Also, worthy goals often bring pain. They often require you to forego own hapiness for something you consider more valuable. They often leave you burnout, feeling empty, unsatisfied and tired maybe even ressentfull. In particular, caregiving work is often like that. Soldiers also follow goals worthy to them (whether you personally agree or not with this or that goal) and are not happier in the result - it is called sacrifice for a reason. Those two are just obvious examples, not the only ones.
In addition to all that, your own happy personally worthy goal often brings unhappiness to somebody else, often to familly. It is extremely unfair to then blame that person for his or her own unhappiness since that has a lot to do with mine (or yours) decisions.
Also, worthy goals often bring pain. They often require you to forego own hapiness for something you consider more valuable. They often leave you burnout, feeling empty, unsatisfied and tired maybe even ressentfull. In particular, caregiving work is often like that. Soldiers also follow goals worthy to them (whether you personally agree or not with this or that goal) and are not happier in the result - it is called sacrifice for a reason. Those two are just obvious examples, not the only ones.
In addition to all that, your own happy personally worthy goal often brings unhappiness to somebody else, often to familly. It is extremely unfair to then blame that person for his or her own unhappiness since that has a lot to do with mine (or yours) decisions.
> Then what is it?
It's a response. Internal responses, sure, but also - and more dramatically - to external ones.
> Jordan Peterson, who for a long time I wrote off as a crackpot
Trust your initial instincts ;)
It's a response. Internal responses, sure, but also - and more dramatically - to external ones.
> Jordan Peterson, who for a long time I wrote off as a crackpot
Trust your initial instincts ;)
Some of what he says is a bit disturbing, but he has a lot of statistics and cites a lot of sources that seem very credible, and I've yet to come across any counter-arguments that are anything more than incredulity and ideology. I'd love to see a plausible and knowledgeable counter argument.
Not everything he says is off base and he does present the basics of clinical psychology well. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy is an interesting field one can gain a lot from studying. However many things he talks or just hints at can be questional and neither his expertise nor fairly presented.
It helps his cause that many criticisms of him are terrible and involve many fabrications.
This youtube channel contra points is a much better criticism then mine: https://youtu.be/4LqZdkkBDas
It helps his cause that many criticisms of him are terrible and involve many fabrications.
This youtube channel contra points is a much better criticism then mine: https://youtu.be/4LqZdkkBDas
Well that's very entertaining, but sill doesn't engage with his actual points directly. "You have rules - have a purpose in life, and we have rules - gender pronouns". That's not an equivalence. Peterson's rules are just guidelines, in Canada the gender pronoun thing is a legally compelled requirement under which Peterson's University tried to officially discipline him, not a guideline.
Fobbing that off as "well he's just being mean to us nice people", when they went after his career and means of supporting his family (at the time), doesn't cut it.
Fobbing that off as "well he's just being mean to us nice people", when they went after his career and means of supporting his family (at the time), doesn't cut it.
What is the argument you want to see countered?
Money gave me stability.
Stability allowed me to have time for introspection.
Introspection allowed me to target issues in my life.
Fixing those issues is lowering my discomfort in life.
Money won't fix anything for you but it will provide you an environment where you can.
Stability allowed me to have time for introspection.
Introspection allowed me to target issues in my life.
Fixing those issues is lowering my discomfort in life.
Money won't fix anything for you but it will provide you an environment where you can.
>Money gave me stability.
The lows are very different when you have money and when you don't have money.
When you are struggling financially and a single event (e.g. car breaking down) can spiral into wrecking your entire life, you it's hard to "let go" of that.
When you are financially stable there are a lot of frustrations (e.g. work stress) you can learn to cope with, control, or let go of.
The lows are very different when you have money and when you don't have money.
When you are struggling financially and a single event (e.g. car breaking down) can spiral into wrecking your entire life, you it's hard to "let go" of that.
When you are financially stable there are a lot of frustrations (e.g. work stress) you can learn to cope with, control, or let go of.
So very true. One time my car was damaged while parked outside my home, the culprit did a lot of damage and just drove away. Although the repairs were covered by insurance I still had to find £250 for the excess before I could get the car back. It wiped me out and set me on a spiral of debt and depression.
If the same thing happened today I could just shrug it off and carry on regardless.
I am not rich now but I have spare cash and this makes an immeasurable positive difference in ways one cannot conceive without the benefit of an alternative experience.
If the same thing happened today I could just shrug it off and carry on regardless.
I am not rich now but I have spare cash and this makes an immeasurable positive difference in ways one cannot conceive without the benefit of an alternative experience.
I always liked how Dave Ramsey explained it.
* If you're broke and the car breaks down, it's both a car crisis and an extra financial crisis (need money to fix the car).
* If you have enough money saved and the car breaks down, it's merely a car crisis ... and, given that you're capable of fixing the car, it's less of a crisis, at that.
The whole dynamic changes.
* If you're broke and the car breaks down, it's both a car crisis and an extra financial crisis (need money to fix the car).
* If you have enough money saved and the car breaks down, it's merely a car crisis ... and, given that you're capable of fixing the car, it's less of a crisis, at that.
The whole dynamic changes.
Even better is if you live in a place where you don't need a car, and can happily take public transit to get to work because the local government invested in subways. Then you don't have to worry about your car breaking down and ruining your day or worse.
This makes more sense for small countries.
For example, I live in Canada and unless you life in the capital of the province everything is really far away.
A lot of people live in cheap apartment blocks of rural areas and it can be a walk of pretty much an hour to get to the groceries store. There is public transit but it's usually every few hours instead of a constant traffic, so you have to plan your entire day around it.
I do agree with your main point that public transit should be one of the main investment of a country.
For example, I live in Canada and unless you life in the capital of the province everything is really far away.
A lot of people live in cheap apartment blocks of rural areas and it can be a walk of pretty much an hour to get to the groceries store. There is public transit but it's usually every few hours instead of a constant traffic, so you have to plan your entire day around it.
I do agree with your main point that public transit should be one of the main investment of a country.
Most people in the Americas live in cities, and that number is constantly increasing with urbanization. With proper urban planning and funding, public transit in the US/Canada could be far better than it is, and a useful way of getting around. But there seems to be no political will to do this. Cities in Europe are far better laid out and planned, with mixed-use development (shops on the ground floor, apartments on top), but North America seems to be allergic to this and wants subdivisions with McMansions instead.
Very true. In the end it comes down to feeling safe. I can handle a lot of problems easily if I know that I won't end up on the street.
When I was unemployed for a while even the smallest problem was all-consuming because I had to worry about losing my last money and everything else.
When I was unemployed for a while even the smallest problem was all-consuming because I had to worry about losing my last money and everything else.
Agreed. The need for introspection will happen many times over in the course of a lifetime. Saving in anticipation for these transitional periods should be a top priority.
"Having money isn't everything. Not having money is everything"
- I forgot who first said this.
- I forgot who first said this.
First, I don't know, but most quotably: Kanye West https://genius.com/945345
"Necessary but not sufficient" is the phrase, I believe.
money won't make you happy but it's more comfortable to cry in a Mercedes.
Wealth creates discomforts and tells you that you need wealth to alleviate them. Don't buy into it the hype too much.
I'm talking about moving up from below the of poverty line.
What discomfort does wealth create? It enables you to make yourself uncomfortable, yes, but wealth itself will not make you uncomfortable.
[deleted]
wealth creates a system in which you need to have money to survive.
Yes but we are already in said system.
When I was a kid we had no access to a car, quality food or enough money for over the counter medication (acne, mild infections, etc.). Luckily we live in Canada where we can get prescribed medication for free, so none of us died of dangerous infections or anything like that.
We only managed to grow healthy and avoid criminality because our mother is a saint of a woman who sacrificed her adult life to give us a chance for something better.
I really doubt the lack of wealth gave us any comfort and that gaining wealth created any discomfort.
When I was a kid we had no access to a car, quality food or enough money for over the counter medication (acne, mild infections, etc.). Luckily we live in Canada where we can get prescribed medication for free, so none of us died of dangerous infections or anything like that.
We only managed to grow healthy and avoid criminality because our mother is a saint of a woman who sacrificed her adult life to give us a chance for something better.
I really doubt the lack of wealth gave us any comfort and that gaining wealth created any discomfort.
Do you have any viable alternative?
Yes: free healthcare, unemployment checks, public housing like in various countries in Europe.
So that people can go to work out of personal choice and not out of desperation.
So that people can go to work out of personal choice and not out of desperation.
I sincerely have no idea how this answers the question. I think you either misunderstood me and the whole thread or have accidentally replied to someone else. I'm European, we have wealth here as well.
Or maybe I am the one misunderstanding, in which case - you can be sure I am a supporter of social safety net.
However as someone experienced not only with the excellent public healthcare system in the north of Europe or in Germany, but with the more average ones in the union as well, IMO you should look at Switzerland more than at the EU. You talk of the EU system as if it is awesome everywhere - it's not. Answer for yourself - are your local governments as efficient, robust and not corrupt as the German is?
Or maybe I am the one misunderstanding, in which case - you can be sure I am a supporter of social safety net.
However as someone experienced not only with the excellent public healthcare system in the north of Europe or in Germany, but with the more average ones in the union as well, IMO you should look at Switzerland more than at the EU. You talk of the EU system as if it is awesome everywhere - it's not. Answer for yourself - are your local governments as efficient, robust and not corrupt as the German is?
Your life is literally made up of the things you pay attention to. If those are happy things, you will probably be more happy than not, and vice-versa. Money gives you a choice about what to pay attention to. If you are in a survival or starvation situation, you will be forced to pay attention to surviving / eating. Not having a choice about what you can pay attention to means your life is defined by outside forces. If these align with what you like, you can be happy in those situations; but if not, you will struggle.
> If you are in a survival or starvation situation, you will be forced to pay attention to surviving / eating. Not having a choice about what you can pay attention to means your life is defined by outside forces.
Well said. This describes my experiences really well.
Well said. This describes my experiences really well.
You can also use your money to sit at the pub drinking all day, which will likely affect your life negatively.
Overall I agree with the article, and would gladly trade my high paying job for one that I actually enjoy, as long as I could be sure that I can make ends meet. The one disagreement I have is the assertion that we should be happy making "just enough" money that we need. "just enough" can change due to circumstances outside our control, so earning more than enough gives you some cushion for when things don't go as planned. For example, a couple of years ago I was laid off due to budget issues at the company, and since I had been earning more than I needed, my wife and I were able to still live comfortably off savings while I was unemployed for a few months. If I had been earning "just enough", I might have lost my home when I suddenly started earning nothing.
You were earning just enough. Don't listen to people whose time horizon isn't further than the next month's paycheck.
I totally agree, and while a good % of HN readers probably are making a lot, the vast majority of people (at least in the US) are living month to month.
I went mattress shopping yesterday. The fact that there's options for financing a $2000 purchase is indicative that "just enough" is, in fact, not.
This is one of those crazy cases where parts of American population were seemingly hypnotised by advertising and are spending insane amounts of money on a commodity item. Here in Poland, the most I've paid for a mattress was an equivalent of $130. I've never had problems with them.
We ended up buy a model that was about $2000 just because we could tell the difference between the $700 model. But yeah, why is it $2000? What value is there actually in the mattress that justifies it? And if a cheaper option exists that would allow one to exist within one's needs, why not get that instead?
There are some very good mattresses online for much less than 2k. We recently got some all-latex (normally very expensive) twins for $600.
I live month to month, as should everybody. Financially secure people just have their savings plans in order, so what is left over after all their savings is what they live on. Financially insecure people don't keep money going into savings.
You can't take it with you, and you don't know how long you have to live. So there is no point in saving money for the sake of saving money. There are few religions that disagree, if you belong to such a religion I guess saving for the next life makes sense.
You can't take it with you, and you don't know how long you have to live. So there is no point in saving money for the sake of saving money. There are few religions that disagree, if you belong to such a religion I guess saving for the next life makes sense.
[deleted]
There's some comfort to that which people don't realise, living month to month means you are more in the moment, while you can always dream and strive for a more easy life, that toil gives you purpose, and you can clearly see the happy times when they come. Not to say I would want that or encourage it, but ignoring that side to it denies the happiness that could be found. It sounds like such a middle class problem, and it is. Though suffering exists no matter your income.
> Overall I agree with the article, and would gladly trade my high paying job for one that I actually enjoy, as long as I could be sure that I can make ends meet.
I think research has found that people really overestimate how much "meaningful" or "enjoyable" employment is worth to them. Last I read, it was worth about 20% of one's salary on average, at least when you survey people.
To me, this makes sense. We have a limited number of days on this earth. If we're going to trade some of them for other resources, it's easy to see that you should get the best value for that trade possible. Anything less is basically giving away parts of your life.
Now that doesn't mean you should take a job that is actively unpleasant or unethical (although it explains why people do). But, personally, I can picture being significantly more satisfied with the day to day of my job. My current workplace is pleasant but not necessarily highly stimulating. On the other hand, it is highly compensated with good hours. That's the most important to me.
I think research has found that people really overestimate how much "meaningful" or "enjoyable" employment is worth to them. Last I read, it was worth about 20% of one's salary on average, at least when you survey people.
To me, this makes sense. We have a limited number of days on this earth. If we're going to trade some of them for other resources, it's easy to see that you should get the best value for that trade possible. Anything less is basically giving away parts of your life.
Now that doesn't mean you should take a job that is actively unpleasant or unethical (although it explains why people do). But, personally, I can picture being significantly more satisfied with the day to day of my job. My current workplace is pleasant but not necessarily highly stimulating. On the other hand, it is highly compensated with good hours. That's the most important to me.
Just beware lifestyle inflation
“Marry, and you will regret it; don’t marry, you will also regret it; marry or don’t marry, you will regret it either way. Laugh at the world’s foolishness, you will regret it; weep over it, you will regret that too; laugh at the world’s foolishness or weep over it, you will regret both. Believe a woman, you will regret it; believe her not, you will also regret it… Hang yourself, you will regret it; do not hang yourself, and you will regret that too; hang yourself or don’t hang yourself, you’ll regret it either way; whether you hang yourself or do not hang yourself, you will regret both. This, gentlemen, is the essence of all philosophy.”
― Søren Kierkegaard
I disagree. I wrote this in another thread just yesterday I think. My philosophy: make the best choice you can given the information you have, and you'll not have cause to regret anything in your life. Some choices might hurt and you might not like the outcome, but you did what you felt was best. You can learn from it, but there is never cause to regret it.
You can't just "logic" away regret. We make bad choices, no matter what, and that causes regret.
not sure what to tell you. I don't have regrets. It's nice. No "logic-ing" it, I believe it.
Edit. Thought I'd expand on that. I grew up poor. Had a kid at 15. I've had to ward off wild animals from eating my food. I've injured myself doing stupid stuff (some injuries that have not fully healed even years later and they limit me near daily), I've been fired, I've changed careers, I've gone into debt when I should not have, I've not tended some friendships I should and I've lost them, I've made bad purchases. I could cry a river. I don't. I always try to make the best decision given the information I have. This year, I made a financial choice that had I not, I could have put an additional year's salary into my bank account. No regrets. I've done the best I can. Sometimes it hurts. I learn from it, and continue living.
Edit. Thought I'd expand on that. I grew up poor. Had a kid at 15. I've had to ward off wild animals from eating my food. I've injured myself doing stupid stuff (some injuries that have not fully healed even years later and they limit me near daily), I've been fired, I've changed careers, I've gone into debt when I should not have, I've not tended some friendships I should and I've lost them, I've made bad purchases. I could cry a river. I don't. I always try to make the best decision given the information I have. This year, I made a financial choice that had I not, I could have put an additional year's salary into my bank account. No regrets. I've done the best I can. Sometimes it hurts. I learn from it, and continue living.
I would say that everyone makes the best choice they are able to given their current circumstances.
Everyone's trying their best with what they've got. Sometimes you don't have the energy, information, innate ability, etc to make the absolute best choice. Actually many times. So you make the choice that is best according to your current circumstances and abilities.
That's not to say people can't improve. When they do, they've upped their level of "best they can do".
When I remind myself of this, that people are doing the best they can at that moment, it helps me forgive myself and forgive others for disappointing me.
Everyone's trying their best with what they've got. Sometimes you don't have the energy, information, innate ability, etc to make the absolute best choice. Actually many times. So you make the choice that is best according to your current circumstances and abilities.
That's not to say people can't improve. When they do, they've upped their level of "best they can do".
When I remind myself of this, that people are doing the best they can at that moment, it helps me forgive myself and forgive others for disappointing me.
Totally agree. Worrying about making the optimal choice is no good. Do the best you can. Just don't be lazy about it :) And considering that others are doing their best is a great strategy in many situations.
in my experience regret is never something I can reason my way out of. it is sort of an intimate and reptile-brain oriented sadness that is initiated by high level thoughts but is then quite difficult to erase.
Is this different than “the grass is always greener on the other side”.
Not advocating hanging yourself, but it is something you will never regret since if done "successfully" you will cease to exist and therefore not be able to regret anything.
Quite a lot of people who survived a suicide attempt (especially by jumping off bridges) tell how they regretted their decision the same moment they jumped
After a successful hanging, there are plenty of possible afterlife scenarios where you could have plenty of opportunity for regret. Most religions teach that suicide is punished in the next life. If we're living in a physics experiment or computer simulation, there's no guarantee our consciousness won't be stored elsewhere after death, opening up the possibility of regret, especially of the storage system sucks.
Maybe there won't be an opportunity for regret, but it's certainly not definitive.
Maybe there won't be an opportunity for regret, but it's certainly not definitive.
This depends greatly on your philosophical belief of whether you will ever be held accountable for all your actions, good or bad, after you "cease to exist".
As if death by hanging is an instantaneous atomic act, you're very likely conscious for some time both during and after the irreversible moments.
This naive view is why for centuries we haven't seen any improvement in the happiness of ghosts.
[deleted]
[deleted]
The important thing in deciding between two alternatives is figuring out which you will regret least. Then constantly reminding yourself that there's a good reason you chose the grass on this side.
For those unaware there's a broken romance behind his writing
https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/keeper-loves-flame-regin...!
https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/keeper-loves-flame-regin...!
most popular quote on HN today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill
We spend a lot of our time trying to add pleasure to our lives to (temporarily) boost us above our baseline happiness level, when really we should be spending that time learning how to change the baseline level itself.
Isn't it odd that there are monks who live with nothing who are probably happier than any of us?
We spend a lot of our time trying to add pleasure to our lives to (temporarily) boost us above our baseline happiness level, when really we should be spending that time learning how to change the baseline level itself.
Isn't it odd that there are monks who live with nothing who are probably happier than any of us?
I've dreamed quite often about becoming a monk. It's not odd at all that if you limit your input your overall self is better for it. It's not really a reachable goal though, to remove all of my responsibilities and become so selfish as to become a monk. Here is the issue, you have a responsibility to the rest of the human race, to become self contained and not give back, is breaking the social contract don't you think?
Monks are some of the least selfish people alive.
They've traded a life of materialism and conflict for self-reflection, asceticism and charity. They don't just hide away and do nothing but take care of themselves.
> Here is the issue, you have a responsibility to the rest of the human race, to become self contained and not give back
This is not a truism and is open to philisophical debate.
They've traded a life of materialism and conflict for self-reflection, asceticism and charity. They don't just hide away and do nothing but take care of themselves.
> Here is the issue, you have a responsibility to the rest of the human race, to become self contained and not give back
This is not a truism and is open to philisophical debate.
It depends on the type of monk. There are certainly plenty of groups which don't contribute back to society.
How do you know those monks are "happier"? How can you measure something like that?
I can't even measure my own "happiness" most of the time, and it's a different part of my brain giving that report (usually full of crap and not realistic) from the part that actually experiences "happiness".
I can't even measure my own "happiness" most of the time, and it's a different part of my brain giving that report (usually full of crap and not realistic) from the part that actually experiences "happiness".
Subjective wellbeing, stress hormone levels, and fMRI readings would all be good ways to measure happiness in my opinion. When I wrote the above, I was thinking of Buddhist monks, but I didn't want to imply other monastic disciplines were somehow lesser, so I just said "monks". I do not have any direct proof of monks being happier, but there are TONS of scientific studies showing better results for experienced meditators on the indicators mentioned at the beginning of this comment.
Contentment = happiness in this context?
How do you know they are content? They are literally not allowed to talk about own unhappiness when it happens to them. Monk rules are pretty strict, they have to deal with own crises without raising voice and are often not allowed to talk to outside world in privacy or in public.
Where are you getting this data? I've known many monks (and nuns too for that matter) and you are encouraged to discuss when you are unhappy. No abbot wants a miserable monk, so they work with you to be sure you are happy and adjusting well to the life. If not, then you mutually come to a decision about what to do next, even if that means leaving the monastery. Implying that they are some sort of prisoner is inaccurate.
Most I gathered from current catholic journals, interviews and forums. They occasionally write about it, because it interest catholic. These are not secrets, they are wrote about so that other catholics can appreciate how hard it is to be nun or monk.
Catholics nuns and monks are supposed to live cloistered and contemplative life, a lot (sometimes completely) isolated inside a monastery. Per definition. Note that sisters and brothers are something a bit different, they work in outside world and make different vows. The formation takes years, but once it is over, they take solemn vows and that is supposed to be for life. That is what you promises. The solemn vows make you nun or monk and you are not supposed to change opinion after. Obviously it is possible to leave, it is not even legal to keep you by force. But if you do that after vows religious consequences do follow.
Whether road outside is easy or difficult for those still in formation depends on monastery in question while it being easier now. I read both types of accounts. But all in all, it is supposed to be hard and my understanding was that every nun and monk goes through hard times (that is partly why they really did not liked defections in past and punished them - defection makes it harder on others in formation).
How hard final rules are depend on monastery. But most strict one limit your ability to talk to up to two hours a day. It is called recreation - you however do work at that time that requires talking and silent work otherwise. Friendships are regulated, you are not supposed to have special relationship with someone else, all should be treated the same including emotionally. In another monastery I read about man did lonely work whole day not talking and had one hour a day where they walked with partner and walked - you was told who it will be and you switched so that they spent same amount of time with everybody.
The way monks and nuns talk, without emotions is also because regulations, rules and vow of obeisance make them so. Talking with anger is wrong for them, content is how you are supposed to look like.
The vow of silence (useless and idle words are forbidden) and obeisance are quite important when speaking of potential happiness, you are really not supposed to say no to superior even if superior changed and is someone different you may not personally fit. If you are unhappy after such change, tough luck. Note the impact of vow of silence on your ability to discuss and compare experiences with fellow monks.
Another interesting bit is that a lot of formation is literally about making you as obeisant as possible, assigning you tasks that are useless while you are supposed to gently smile, answer "yes brother" and fill the hole you just dug. That is expected, just like in army training they have as purpose to fill you into certain mold.
Catholics nuns and monks are supposed to live cloistered and contemplative life, a lot (sometimes completely) isolated inside a monastery. Per definition. Note that sisters and brothers are something a bit different, they work in outside world and make different vows. The formation takes years, but once it is over, they take solemn vows and that is supposed to be for life. That is what you promises. The solemn vows make you nun or monk and you are not supposed to change opinion after. Obviously it is possible to leave, it is not even legal to keep you by force. But if you do that after vows religious consequences do follow.
Whether road outside is easy or difficult for those still in formation depends on monastery in question while it being easier now. I read both types of accounts. But all in all, it is supposed to be hard and my understanding was that every nun and monk goes through hard times (that is partly why they really did not liked defections in past and punished them - defection makes it harder on others in formation).
How hard final rules are depend on monastery. But most strict one limit your ability to talk to up to two hours a day. It is called recreation - you however do work at that time that requires talking and silent work otherwise. Friendships are regulated, you are not supposed to have special relationship with someone else, all should be treated the same including emotionally. In another monastery I read about man did lonely work whole day not talking and had one hour a day where they walked with partner and walked - you was told who it will be and you switched so that they spent same amount of time with everybody.
The way monks and nuns talk, without emotions is also because regulations, rules and vow of obeisance make them so. Talking with anger is wrong for them, content is how you are supposed to look like.
The vow of silence (useless and idle words are forbidden) and obeisance are quite important when speaking of potential happiness, you are really not supposed to say no to superior even if superior changed and is someone different you may not personally fit. If you are unhappy after such change, tough luck. Note the impact of vow of silence on your ability to discuss and compare experiences with fellow monks.
Another interesting bit is that a lot of formation is literally about making you as obeisant as possible, assigning you tasks that are useless while you are supposed to gently smile, answer "yes brother" and fill the hole you just dug. That is expected, just like in army training they have as purpose to fill you into certain mold.
There are many religions with monks, they do not share the same rules. To which one are you specifying?
Catholics. I mean nun and monks not sisters and brothers specifically.
FWIW, I had Buddhist monks in mind. I don't have any direct empirical evidence this is true, but their methods have been and continue to be empirically validated (to increase subjective wellbeing, decrease stress markers, increase empathy, and improve health), so it's not unlikely this is the case. Full disclosure, meditation helps me in my own life, so I am definitely biased.
Americans are becoming too rational and this is a major problem. When you over-value rationality, you expect to be able to have a rational answer to every question.
The hand-licking story that made the front page today illustrates this point perfectly. Approached rationally, the mom could not solve the problem, no amount of mental effort would yield a resolution or insight into the issue. When the mind expects an answer to a problem that it can't solve, it applies more and more 'force' until it breaks through. In this case, the force was destroying her family relationships. But this is what frustrated rationalism does. People don't or can't catch themselves before they create awful situations.
It is only when she applied an irrational approach to the problem, surrendering the need to control the situation, that she could finally understand what was going on.
I rail against excessive rationality on HN all the time, promoting a more cautious, traditional outlook on certain things like office politics. I expect coders to be exceptionally rational, I don't have any issue with it.
But Americans in general are succumbing to the trend of expecting to be able to answer every question they ever have in their lives and throwing away their emotional health on meaningless symbols and missing the true core nature of what it means to be happy and healthy and whole.
Perhaps the starkest example of this phenomenon is when atheists lament that there aren't any atheist churches. 50 years ago, if you were an atheist, you still went to church. They were still the pillars that communities revolved around, the very loom of the fabric of society.
Nowadays, we've thrown away every last bit of symbolism that brings people together and wonder why we're so lonely. If things aren't perfectly rational, people's minds rebel immediately and harshly, like it's my fault you don't understand a concept requiring depth of study to really grasp.
I don't know what the answer is, but I do know that the mind will create a myth if it doesn't already believe in one. Money, job, marriage is the American Dream myth. It stems ultimately from positivism and expecting to be able to understand everything.
It doesn't have to be this way. You might not be able to fix everybody else but you can fix yourself.
The hand-licking story that made the front page today illustrates this point perfectly. Approached rationally, the mom could not solve the problem, no amount of mental effort would yield a resolution or insight into the issue. When the mind expects an answer to a problem that it can't solve, it applies more and more 'force' until it breaks through. In this case, the force was destroying her family relationships. But this is what frustrated rationalism does. People don't or can't catch themselves before they create awful situations.
It is only when she applied an irrational approach to the problem, surrendering the need to control the situation, that she could finally understand what was going on.
I rail against excessive rationality on HN all the time, promoting a more cautious, traditional outlook on certain things like office politics. I expect coders to be exceptionally rational, I don't have any issue with it.
But Americans in general are succumbing to the trend of expecting to be able to answer every question they ever have in their lives and throwing away their emotional health on meaningless symbols and missing the true core nature of what it means to be happy and healthy and whole.
Perhaps the starkest example of this phenomenon is when atheists lament that there aren't any atheist churches. 50 years ago, if you were an atheist, you still went to church. They were still the pillars that communities revolved around, the very loom of the fabric of society.
Nowadays, we've thrown away every last bit of symbolism that brings people together and wonder why we're so lonely. If things aren't perfectly rational, people's minds rebel immediately and harshly, like it's my fault you don't understand a concept requiring depth of study to really grasp.
I don't know what the answer is, but I do know that the mind will create a myth if it doesn't already believe in one. Money, job, marriage is the American Dream myth. It stems ultimately from positivism and expecting to be able to understand everything.
It doesn't have to be this way. You might not be able to fix everybody else but you can fix yourself.
I agree that we overvalue reason.
To reason about something you have to reason from premises. But where do the premises come from?
I'm sure many of us have had that experience, when dealing with a difficult problem, where an insight comes to us out of the blue.
Where did that new insight come from, certainly not through rational deliberation. In fact, often it's not until we stop reasoning that the insight is free to appear.
Often we can't explain where the idea came from, it seems to be from some subconscious (irrational?) part of our mind.
Once we have the insight (a new premise) then we can start to reason from it. But in my opinion, reason comes in only after our mind has done the real work elsewhere.
To reason about something you have to reason from premises. But where do the premises come from?
I'm sure many of us have had that experience, when dealing with a difficult problem, where an insight comes to us out of the blue.
Where did that new insight come from, certainly not through rational deliberation. In fact, often it's not until we stop reasoning that the insight is free to appear.
Often we can't explain where the idea came from, it seems to be from some subconscious (irrational?) part of our mind.
Once we have the insight (a new premise) then we can start to reason from it. But in my opinion, reason comes in only after our mind has done the real work elsewhere.
Have you read Voltaire's Bastards? https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6584.Voltaire_s_Bastards
It is an in depth criticism of the overly rational. A lot of it went over my head or didn't make sense because I don't have a strong background on some historical/philosophical touchpoints, but I thought it was a great read.
It is an in depth criticism of the overly rational. A lot of it went over my head or didn't make sense because I don't have a strong background on some historical/philosophical touchpoints, but I thought it was a great read.
How is not addressing the cause of the hand licking rational?
The cause was not known; this is the point of the story. Hypothesis generation is not a rational process.
> The hand-licking story that made the front page today illustrates this point perfectly. [...]
> It is only when she applied an irrational approach to the problem, surrendering the need to control the situation, that she could finally understand what was going on.
I feel like you have a somewhat idiosyncratic definition of "irrational" that you're applying here.
What I took from the hand-licking story was that her initial attempt to brute-force the issue without understanding it was irrational, i.e. "not logical or reasonable", and that approach failed. Then, quite reasonably and rationally, she backed off and established trust with her child, found out the underlying cause of the issue, and provided a solution that resolved the underlying issue.
> It is only when she applied an irrational approach to the problem, surrendering the need to control the situation, that she could finally understand what was going on.
I feel like you have a somewhat idiosyncratic definition of "irrational" that you're applying here.
What I took from the hand-licking story was that her initial attempt to brute-force the issue without understanding it was irrational, i.e. "not logical or reasonable", and that approach failed. Then, quite reasonably and rationally, she backed off and established trust with her child, found out the underlying cause of the issue, and provided a solution that resolved the underlying issue.
I think it's common for people, especially the overly-rational, to conflate correctness with rationality. Yes, with hindsight it can be seen that the actions she initially took were incorrect. But they seemed perfectly rational approaches at the time.
If you see your child doing something anti-social, then it's logical to try to correct it because if you don't, it will cause problems for them down the road. In fact, it would have been irrational to not do anything about it.
It was only when the logical brain got overridden by maternal instinct that she could choose an approach that led eventually to a resolution.
The logical brain demands control over the situation. If she could have surrendered control earlier, perhaps even in the first few times she witnessed it, then she could have taken a less-combative approach.
If you see your child doing something anti-social, then it's logical to try to correct it because if you don't, it will cause problems for them down the road. In fact, it would have been irrational to not do anything about it.
It was only when the logical brain got overridden by maternal instinct that she could choose an approach that led eventually to a resolution.
The logical brain demands control over the situation. If she could have surrendered control earlier, perhaps even in the first few times she witnessed it, then she could have taken a less-combative approach.
> Yes, with hindsight it can be seen that the actions she initially took were incorrect. But they seemed perfectly rational approaches at the time.
There was nothing incorrect or irrational about the actions the mother initially took. Her approach was reasonable given the limited information available to her. A slightly more rational approach would perhaps have placed greater emphasis on the value of empathy and her relationship with her child, which was being undermined by some of the measures she took, and given correspondingly less weight to the social pressure she was feeling from others—but in the end she made the rational decision in line with her own principles and priorities and stopped trying to force the issue. Later, when her son was both able and willing to discuss the matter, she was able to analyse the root cause and suggest several rational alternative courses of action which were readily adopted, thus putting an end to the problem for good.
It's unclear from the write-up whether any maternal instincts were involved, but the peer pressure which pushed her to force the issue was clearly irrational and played on her instinctive desire for acceptance. Instincts and emotions are a good thing and shouldn't be ignored, but it's a mistake to follow them blindly—they can lead you into trouble just as easily as they can get you out of it. It's best to look at them as valuable inputs into the rational process, to be evaluated alongside other data before drawing any conclusions.
There was nothing incorrect or irrational about the actions the mother initially took. Her approach was reasonable given the limited information available to her. A slightly more rational approach would perhaps have placed greater emphasis on the value of empathy and her relationship with her child, which was being undermined by some of the measures she took, and given correspondingly less weight to the social pressure she was feeling from others—but in the end she made the rational decision in line with her own principles and priorities and stopped trying to force the issue. Later, when her son was both able and willing to discuss the matter, she was able to analyse the root cause and suggest several rational alternative courses of action which were readily adopted, thus putting an end to the problem for good.
It's unclear from the write-up whether any maternal instincts were involved, but the peer pressure which pushed her to force the issue was clearly irrational and played on her instinctive desire for acceptance. Instincts and emotions are a good thing and shouldn't be ignored, but it's a mistake to follow them blindly—they can lead you into trouble just as easily as they can get you out of it. It's best to look at them as valuable inputs into the rational process, to be evaluated alongside other data before drawing any conclusions.
Things are irrational until we understand the dynamics behind them. Then they become rational. When she decided not to press the issue, that wasn't a rational decision made on logic, it was an emotional one where she prioritized one kind of truth, that it was her hurting her child, over another kind of truth, that it was the hand licking that was hurting her child.
Only in retrospect did the actuality of the situation make itself known. There was no logical way to weigh one alternative against another. Sure, one later manifested, but it didn't exist in the moment.
This is why I say she used irrational means to decide to lay off. I recognized maternal instincts in her reasoning, which I'll quote here:
> Finally, I had this moment where I felt that my efforts to ramp up the pressure to force him to stop had crossed some line. I felt I was turning into an abusive parent.
> At that moment, I decided this had to stop. I didn't care if he licked his hands the rest of his life. It couldn't be worse than this.
Rational analysis failed, some other way of deciding how to handle it took hold. Notice the semantic shift here. She moved from articulating her decision-making process in a cold, logical fashion, then after the failure, she shifts to an empathic, emotional basis.
Over-reliance on and unexamined belief in rationality drives this. Sometimes there are multiple truths out there that you are going to have to choose between, with nothing to help to distinguish them. The over-rational mindset will concoct meaningless and even counter-productive forms of "rationality" to paper over their fundamental ignorance. The colloquial term at hand is lamp posting.
Only in retrospect did the actuality of the situation make itself known. There was no logical way to weigh one alternative against another. Sure, one later manifested, but it didn't exist in the moment.
This is why I say she used irrational means to decide to lay off. I recognized maternal instincts in her reasoning, which I'll quote here:
> Finally, I had this moment where I felt that my efforts to ramp up the pressure to force him to stop had crossed some line. I felt I was turning into an abusive parent.
> At that moment, I decided this had to stop. I didn't care if he licked his hands the rest of his life. It couldn't be worse than this.
Rational analysis failed, some other way of deciding how to handle it took hold. Notice the semantic shift here. She moved from articulating her decision-making process in a cold, logical fashion, then after the failure, she shifts to an empathic, emotional basis.
Over-reliance on and unexamined belief in rationality drives this. Sometimes there are multiple truths out there that you are going to have to choose between, with nothing to help to distinguish them. The over-rational mindset will concoct meaningless and even counter-productive forms of "rationality" to paper over their fundamental ignorance. The colloquial term at hand is lamp posting.
>> Finally, I had this moment where I felt that my efforts to ramp up the pressure to force him to stop had crossed some line. I felt I was turning into an abusive parent.
>> At that moment, I decided this had to stop. I didn't care if he licked his hands the rest of his life. It couldn't be worse than this.
> Rational analysis failed, some other way of deciding how to handle it took hold. Notice the semantic shift here. She moved from articulating her decision-making process in a cold, logical fashion, then after the failure, she shifts to an empathic, emotional basis.
I see the same shift that you mentioned, but unlike you I see the original exclusion of empathy and emotion from the decision-making process as irrational. Up to this point she'd been reacting instinctively and emotionally to the external pressure to make her son stop licking his hands, without considering whether that was really a worthwhile goal or what it might cost in terms of their relationship. Taking her empathy and emotion into account was the rational choice, and allowed her to set aside the peer pressure and clearly see and evaluate how her actions thus far failed to satisfy her own priorities and goals. At that point she rationally chose to stop forcing the issue.
> Sometimes there are multiple truths out there that you are going to have to choose between, with nothing to help to distinguish them.
The "colloquial term at hand" is false dichotomy. You are never forced to choose one potential truth over another. "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable response. Naturally you still need to decide on a course of action despite not knowing where the truth lies, but that doesn't require committing to a particular version of the truth and rejecting all others as false.
> The over-rational mindset will concoct meaningless and even counter-productive forms of "rationality" to paper over their fundamental ignorance.
When one is actually ignorant, admitting ignorance is the rational choice; proceeding as if one were not ignorant (for example, by choosing one version of the truth over another when there is nothing to distinguish them) would be the hallmark of an irrational mindset, not an "over-rational" one.
>> At that moment, I decided this had to stop. I didn't care if he licked his hands the rest of his life. It couldn't be worse than this.
> Rational analysis failed, some other way of deciding how to handle it took hold. Notice the semantic shift here. She moved from articulating her decision-making process in a cold, logical fashion, then after the failure, she shifts to an empathic, emotional basis.
I see the same shift that you mentioned, but unlike you I see the original exclusion of empathy and emotion from the decision-making process as irrational. Up to this point she'd been reacting instinctively and emotionally to the external pressure to make her son stop licking his hands, without considering whether that was really a worthwhile goal or what it might cost in terms of their relationship. Taking her empathy and emotion into account was the rational choice, and allowed her to set aside the peer pressure and clearly see and evaluate how her actions thus far failed to satisfy her own priorities and goals. At that point she rationally chose to stop forcing the issue.
> Sometimes there are multiple truths out there that you are going to have to choose between, with nothing to help to distinguish them.
The "colloquial term at hand" is false dichotomy. You are never forced to choose one potential truth over another. "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable response. Naturally you still need to decide on a course of action despite not knowing where the truth lies, but that doesn't require committing to a particular version of the truth and rejecting all others as false.
> The over-rational mindset will concoct meaningless and even counter-productive forms of "rationality" to paper over their fundamental ignorance.
When one is actually ignorant, admitting ignorance is the rational choice; proceeding as if one were not ignorant (for example, by choosing one version of the truth over another when there is nothing to distinguish them) would be the hallmark of an irrational mindset, not an "over-rational" one.
> I see the original exclusion of empathy and emotion from the decision-making process as irrational.
This is because you're reifying rationality onto past events, conflating correct with rational. When she made the decision to stop, she didn't have a rational basis to make that decision, rational means you can connect a decision to logic. She didn't discover that logic, those reasons, until a full year later. That's when she finally had all the pieces.
> doesn't require committing to a particular version of the truth and rejecting all others as false.
This is a non-sequitur. Whatever you choose is going to have consequences. The very course of action is what does the rejection of all the other forms of looking at it, not your mindset. Your actions belie what you consider to be important.
> When one is actually ignorant, admitting ignorance is the rational choice; proceeding as if one were not ignorant (for example, by choosing one version of the truth over another when there is nothing to distinguish them) would be the hallmark of an irrational mindset, not an "over-rational" one.
What if you don't even know what you're ignorant of or that you are in fact ignorant? This is how this ties back to money, job, marriage. You can have these things, and be happy, or you can have these things, and be unhappy. I'm arguing that the reasons why you chase them are important, and you have to make the decision anyway.
If you are comfortable with irrational ways of gathering information, like listening to your gut, then you're way better off than trying to force rational ones.
So is your next argument going to be that "going by your gut" is a rational approach?
This is because you're reifying rationality onto past events, conflating correct with rational. When she made the decision to stop, she didn't have a rational basis to make that decision, rational means you can connect a decision to logic. She didn't discover that logic, those reasons, until a full year later. That's when she finally had all the pieces.
> doesn't require committing to a particular version of the truth and rejecting all others as false.
This is a non-sequitur. Whatever you choose is going to have consequences. The very course of action is what does the rejection of all the other forms of looking at it, not your mindset. Your actions belie what you consider to be important.
> When one is actually ignorant, admitting ignorance is the rational choice; proceeding as if one were not ignorant (for example, by choosing one version of the truth over another when there is nothing to distinguish them) would be the hallmark of an irrational mindset, not an "over-rational" one.
What if you don't even know what you're ignorant of or that you are in fact ignorant? This is how this ties back to money, job, marriage. You can have these things, and be happy, or you can have these things, and be unhappy. I'm arguing that the reasons why you chase them are important, and you have to make the decision anyway.
If you are comfortable with irrational ways of gathering information, like listening to your gut, then you're way better off than trying to force rational ones.
So is your next argument going to be that "going by your gut" is a rational approach?
> When she made the decision to stop, she didn't have a rational basis to make that decision, rational means you can connect a decision to logic.
She explained the rational basis in her write-up, which you quoted. The rational basis at the time of the decision was that her actions appeared to her as bordering on those of an abusive parent, which was not her intent, and consequently that stopping her son from licking his hands wasn't worth the cost. Based on these facts she made the rational decision to stop.
> Whatever you choose is going to have consequences.
Choices do have consequences, but there is no need to choose between "multiple truths"—only between multiple actions. If two or more "truths" are equally consistent with the facts, equally valid, then there is no reason why you can't defer judgement pending additional information. The fact that you chose to act in a way consistent with one version of the "truth" and not the other in a particular situation does not imply that you believe the first version to be true and the other false. You could turn around and choose the opposite action the next time without the slightest hint of hypocrisy.
The key point I'm trying to make here is that, having chosen to act in a way consistent with one particular version of the "truth", one should not then lie to oneself and pretend that this version is true, excluding all other possibilities, in the absence of evidence. It's OK (and rational) to admit that your action was chosen arbitrarily, and that you still don't know which version of the "truth" is real.
> What if you don't even know what you're ignorant of or that you are in fact ignorant?
Then the first step is to admit that you have a problem. Recognizing "unknown unknowns" is a hard problem, but it's an important skill to learn.
> If you are comfortable with irrational ways of gathering information, like listening to your gut...
If it has a history of providing useful information, it isn't irrational to pay attention even if you don't know how that information was obtained.
> So is your next argument going to be that "going by your gut" is a rational approach?
Just "going by your gut" without considering other factors isn't any more rational than acting purely on instinct or emotion. It is, however, one component you can use as input to make a rational decision. Acting rationally does not mean you disregard instincts or emotions or "gut feelings" or any of the other hard-to-quantify aspects of our existence. These things are important and exist for a reason. They aren't always right, however, and that's where rational thought comes in. Giving full reign to one's impulses and emotions, without filtering them through the lens of reason, is harmful both to oneself and to others.
She explained the rational basis in her write-up, which you quoted. The rational basis at the time of the decision was that her actions appeared to her as bordering on those of an abusive parent, which was not her intent, and consequently that stopping her son from licking his hands wasn't worth the cost. Based on these facts she made the rational decision to stop.
> Whatever you choose is going to have consequences.
Choices do have consequences, but there is no need to choose between "multiple truths"—only between multiple actions. If two or more "truths" are equally consistent with the facts, equally valid, then there is no reason why you can't defer judgement pending additional information. The fact that you chose to act in a way consistent with one version of the "truth" and not the other in a particular situation does not imply that you believe the first version to be true and the other false. You could turn around and choose the opposite action the next time without the slightest hint of hypocrisy.
The key point I'm trying to make here is that, having chosen to act in a way consistent with one particular version of the "truth", one should not then lie to oneself and pretend that this version is true, excluding all other possibilities, in the absence of evidence. It's OK (and rational) to admit that your action was chosen arbitrarily, and that you still don't know which version of the "truth" is real.
> What if you don't even know what you're ignorant of or that you are in fact ignorant?
Then the first step is to admit that you have a problem. Recognizing "unknown unknowns" is a hard problem, but it's an important skill to learn.
> If you are comfortable with irrational ways of gathering information, like listening to your gut...
If it has a history of providing useful information, it isn't irrational to pay attention even if you don't know how that information was obtained.
> So is your next argument going to be that "going by your gut" is a rational approach?
Just "going by your gut" without considering other factors isn't any more rational than acting purely on instinct or emotion. It is, however, one component you can use as input to make a rational decision. Acting rationally does not mean you disregard instincts or emotions or "gut feelings" or any of the other hard-to-quantify aspects of our existence. These things are important and exist for a reason. They aren't always right, however, and that's where rational thought comes in. Giving full reign to one's impulses and emotions, without filtering them through the lens of reason, is harmful both to oneself and to others.
> There was nothing incorrect or irrational about the actions the mother initially took.
I didn't spot this the first time, let me address it now. The actions were rational, because they were grounded in reasons that usually work for that kind of situation.
They were incorrect because they didn't have the desired outcome. When she corrected her course of action, they started to have the desired outcome, and the whole thing became clear a year later.
When she corrected course, she used an irrational basis to make that determination. What makes it irrational? The decision to not try to solve a problem is inherently irrational.
There's nothing wrong with using irrational bases for decision-making. What's wrong is making incorrect decisions. If you're irrational, and wrong, then that's a bad thing. If you're irrational and right, then that's a good thing. It's better to be rational and right, but in the absence of the foundation for reason, when you can't determine how things work or why, you're forced to operate along irrational lines.
I'll allow that her course correction was at least somewhat rational, after all we can articulate and understand her reasons, which we couldn't if they were totally irrational. But they're less rational than her earlier approach. Your perception that her second approach was more rational is the conflation of rationality and correctness. It was more correct. It was less rational. Reason could only enter the picture again when she had concrete evidence.
The only reason her story is salient at all is precisely because it messes with our conception of rationality.
I didn't spot this the first time, let me address it now. The actions were rational, because they were grounded in reasons that usually work for that kind of situation.
They were incorrect because they didn't have the desired outcome. When she corrected her course of action, they started to have the desired outcome, and the whole thing became clear a year later.
When she corrected course, she used an irrational basis to make that determination. What makes it irrational? The decision to not try to solve a problem is inherently irrational.
There's nothing wrong with using irrational bases for decision-making. What's wrong is making incorrect decisions. If you're irrational, and wrong, then that's a bad thing. If you're irrational and right, then that's a good thing. It's better to be rational and right, but in the absence of the foundation for reason, when you can't determine how things work or why, you're forced to operate along irrational lines.
I'll allow that her course correction was at least somewhat rational, after all we can articulate and understand her reasons, which we couldn't if they were totally irrational. But they're less rational than her earlier approach. Your perception that her second approach was more rational is the conflation of rationality and correctness. It was more correct. It was less rational. Reason could only enter the picture again when she had concrete evidence.
The only reason her story is salient at all is precisely because it messes with our conception of rationality.
Perhaps the starkest example of this phenomenon is when atheists lament that there aren't any atheist churches. 50 years ago, if you were an atheist, you still went to church. They were still the pillars that communities revolved around, the very loom of the fabric of society.
Nowadays, we've thrown away every last bit of symbolism that brings people together and wonder why we're so lonely. If things aren't perfectly rational, people's minds rebel immediately and harshly, like it's my fault you don't understand a concept requiring depth of study to really grasp.
You had me up until here. First of all, who's lonely, who's "we"? In a conformist society, those who think differently can find it more lonely, by definition. Second, atheists went to Church? Well was that because if they didn't, they were ostracized -- and, well, lonely?
Children of higher intelligence (we do believe that it's possible that we're not all blank slates at birth, right?) tend to find it more lonely than children of average intelligence.
If you consider yourself an exceptional (in some way) person -- rightly or wrongly -- you'll find things more complicated socially.
Now I think you're onto something with the rationality bit, but not in the Nietzschean way you're alluding to (religion and community). Instead, well look at how we create our social bonds in the U.S.: use-value.
Have you ever been in a position of power, and found that suddenly everyone wanted to be your friend?
Or, have you read what men and women write on dating websites in terms of what they want? These to me are more evidence of a "rationality militates against happiness" than your strange atheist example.
Nowadays, we've thrown away every last bit of symbolism that brings people together and wonder why we're so lonely. If things aren't perfectly rational, people's minds rebel immediately and harshly, like it's my fault you don't understand a concept requiring depth of study to really grasp.
You had me up until here. First of all, who's lonely, who's "we"? In a conformist society, those who think differently can find it more lonely, by definition. Second, atheists went to Church? Well was that because if they didn't, they were ostracized -- and, well, lonely?
Children of higher intelligence (we do believe that it's possible that we're not all blank slates at birth, right?) tend to find it more lonely than children of average intelligence.
If you consider yourself an exceptional (in some way) person -- rightly or wrongly -- you'll find things more complicated socially.
Now I think you're onto something with the rationality bit, but not in the Nietzschean way you're alluding to (religion and community). Instead, well look at how we create our social bonds in the U.S.: use-value.
Have you ever been in a position of power, and found that suddenly everyone wanted to be your friend?
Or, have you read what men and women write on dating websites in terms of what they want? These to me are more evidence of a "rationality militates against happiness" than your strange atheist example.
> Second, atheists went to Church? Well was that because if they didn't, they were ostracized -- and, well, lonely?
American distrust for religion began in the sixties and seventies. Before, it was a normal and accepted part of life. People wanted to go to church. Even if you didn't believe in it you still wanted to go. It's hard to believe but that's how all of the world's societies were up until very recently. Religion aided life, not hindered it.
The Enlightenment was a comparatively small movement that really only took root in the intelligentsia. You would have had to pry religion out of the cold dead fingers of the common folks.
Now, even religious folks often stay home on Sunday.
American distrust for religion began in the sixties and seventies. Before, it was a normal and accepted part of life. People wanted to go to church. Even if you didn't believe in it you still wanted to go. It's hard to believe but that's how all of the world's societies were up until very recently. Religion aided life, not hindered it.
The Enlightenment was a comparatively small movement that really only took root in the intelligentsia. You would have had to pry religion out of the cold dead fingers of the common folks.
Now, even religious folks often stay home on Sunday.
> that there aren't any atheist churches.
That isn't a rational response, that's an irrational response to an emotional need they apparently do acknowledge. My grandfather and uncles literally built their churches with their bare hands and wallets. If you're an athiest and want a church, well, the rational response would be go out and build one.
Or at least join the Unitarians. Most of them don't care.
That isn't a rational response, that's an irrational response to an emotional need they apparently do acknowledge. My grandfather and uncles literally built their churches with their bare hands and wallets. If you're an athiest and want a church, well, the rational response would be go out and build one.
Or at least join the Unitarians. Most of them don't care.
My job gives me a good paycheck, but isn't all that satisfying. It's varied over the years with some jobs being better than others, but overall I can't complain.
Marriage (because of the kids) has been much harder, and at times more stressful. But while I would trade my job in heartbeat, I wouldn't trade my family for anything.
I would definitely say that I'm happy. But like people have said above. Happiness is something you choose. You have to choose to recognize the blessings in life, of which I have many, and to deal with the stress and problems (which I also have plenty) as they come, without letting them rule you.
Marriage (because of the kids) has been much harder, and at times more stressful. But while I would trade my job in heartbeat, I wouldn't trade my family for anything.
I would definitely say that I'm happy. But like people have said above. Happiness is something you choose. You have to choose to recognize the blessings in life, of which I have many, and to deal with the stress and problems (which I also have plenty) as they come, without letting them rule you.
>> happiness goes up with increases in income at the lower end of the scale, but then it falls with higher incomes
Income and wealth are two completely unrelated concepts. Income doesn't mean much because you usually need to work harder to get more income; so the benefits are offset by the suffering of having to work harder.
Wealth, on the other hand doesn't require any suffering - It's just pure happiness. Wealth can buy you anything. The only downside is that it erodes your mental fortitude/willpower but if you have enough wealth, you don't need any willpower anyway because wealth makes all personality traits redundant - Everyone likes a rich person no matter what; to a rich person, personality is useless.
Income and wealth are two completely unrelated concepts. Income doesn't mean much because you usually need to work harder to get more income; so the benefits are offset by the suffering of having to work harder.
Wealth, on the other hand doesn't require any suffering - It's just pure happiness. Wealth can buy you anything. The only downside is that it erodes your mental fortitude/willpower but if you have enough wealth, you don't need any willpower anyway because wealth makes all personality traits redundant - Everyone likes a rich person no matter what; to a rich person, personality is useless.
Is happiness the right thing to aim for? Using words like "content", "satisfied", "meaning", "engagement", "accomplishment" or "purpose" can result in very different results.
The standard example is kids. Having kids, especially in a place without many social supports, such as the United States, results in a drop in perceived happiness, but an increase in satisfaction, which in the long term is better correlated with mental health.
The standard example is kids. Having kids, especially in a place without many social supports, such as the United States, results in a drop in perceived happiness, but an increase in satisfaction, which in the long term is better correlated with mental health.
Exactly, happiness is so fleeting it's very difficult to describe your entire being as happy or not. I certainly experience very happy moments, but also sad, angry, frustrating moments. These short and temporary moments should not be used to judge the general quality of your life.
Two points jumped out at me: 1)
> Contrary to what most of us might predict, those earning over $100K are no happier than those with incomes of less than $25K
And 2) > ... happiness and sense of purpose are both at their highest among people working between 21 and 30 hours a week, and misery increases in tandem with the number of hours worked thereafter. The results are consistent across genders.
I can't say I agree with the first. I've gone from quite poor to upper middle class. Money does not make one more happy per se, but your ability to reduce stressors is much higher (and that can tip the balance to being more happy). Food running out? Unexpected bills/repairs? Water heater broke? Several years ago, that would mean I have cold water for the next few months (true story, our on-demand water heater required manual lighting from outdoors for about 7 years - couldn't afford a new one. Wind, rain, snow, day, night, go outside to light the pilot). With more income, that means I go out that evening and pick up a water heater (which I did when I could afford it!). My ability to now remove nearly all debts has made me feel so much better than I have for _years_. This only happened because I was firmly on the higher end of the middle class.
For the second part, I agree fully. All I want to do is work my property and spend time with my kids. I do want to work too, but I want that to take up much, much less of my time. If I could do 21 hours of work a week and maintain a similar ability to fix a water heater at the drop of a hat (or car issue, or whatever), that would be an easy sell.
As for happiness, you choose to be happy. And that is an easier choice when stressors are less present.
And 2) > ... happiness and sense of purpose are both at their highest among people working between 21 and 30 hours a week, and misery increases in tandem with the number of hours worked thereafter. The results are consistent across genders.
I can't say I agree with the first. I've gone from quite poor to upper middle class. Money does not make one more happy per se, but your ability to reduce stressors is much higher (and that can tip the balance to being more happy). Food running out? Unexpected bills/repairs? Water heater broke? Several years ago, that would mean I have cold water for the next few months (true story, our on-demand water heater required manual lighting from outdoors for about 7 years - couldn't afford a new one. Wind, rain, snow, day, night, go outside to light the pilot). With more income, that means I go out that evening and pick up a water heater (which I did when I could afford it!). My ability to now remove nearly all debts has made me feel so much better than I have for _years_. This only happened because I was firmly on the higher end of the middle class.
For the second part, I agree fully. All I want to do is work my property and spend time with my kids. I do want to work too, but I want that to take up much, much less of my time. If I could do 21 hours of work a week and maintain a similar ability to fix a water heater at the drop of a hat (or car issue, or whatever), that would be an easy sell.
As for happiness, you choose to be happy. And that is an easier choice when stressors are less present.
I think the two are more coupled than you're making them out to be.
In my experience, jobs that pay upwards of 100k require significant time/energy investments. I make good money, but I have to be mentally engaged all day long. I also have to deal with situations that come up nights/weekends/holidays. My average work week is about 50 hours of time I'd call "billable" plus another 20 hours of time spent on keeping current with my field.
I would GLADLY trade half of my salary to work half the hours, but that's not very easy to do: companies want employees on standard hours, and I still have to keep up with what's changing in my field to be relevant and continue pulling in the salary I have.
So I think there's a sweet spot where a job is good enough to avoid the financial stressors like missing payments or not being able to replace necessities, but not so demanding that the stress of the job itself approaches the same level.
On the extremes: Stress from finances (low income), stress from very taxing job (high income). I agree with you that I'd prefer the job stress, but not by all that much. They both make me anxious, worried, drained.
In my experience, jobs that pay upwards of 100k require significant time/energy investments. I make good money, but I have to be mentally engaged all day long. I also have to deal with situations that come up nights/weekends/holidays. My average work week is about 50 hours of time I'd call "billable" plus another 20 hours of time spent on keeping current with my field.
I would GLADLY trade half of my salary to work half the hours, but that's not very easy to do: companies want employees on standard hours, and I still have to keep up with what's changing in my field to be relevant and continue pulling in the salary I have.
So I think there's a sweet spot where a job is good enough to avoid the financial stressors like missing payments or not being able to replace necessities, but not so demanding that the stress of the job itself approaches the same level.
On the extremes: Stress from finances (low income), stress from very taxing job (high income). I agree with you that I'd prefer the job stress, but not by all that much. They both make me anxious, worried, drained.
The authors assertion that swearing isn’t bad annoys me. Swearing isn’t bad, but that’s not the point. Not swearing in certain contexts is obviously just a social norm, not a rational evaluation. It’s ok and natural for social norms to change.
I would wager The overall thesis seems to be that non rationally proven social norms are negative influences is naive to the fact that (I would guess) strong social norms of any variety in a society lead to better community and happiness.
I feel that by arguing we change a bunch of established norms because we can be smarter than them, he’s unintentionally tripling down on the very effects he’s advocating against.
I would wager The overall thesis seems to be that non rationally proven social norms are negative influences is naive to the fact that (I would guess) strong social norms of any variety in a society lead to better community and happiness.
I feel that by arguing we change a bunch of established norms because we can be smarter than them, he’s unintentionally tripling down on the very effects he’s advocating against.
Like literally everything else, it's about balance.
No, you shouldn't let the world dictate your choices every single day.
But also you need to conform to some amount of societal standard. Social norms exist sometimes to keep society working and moving forward.
As for happiness, if you are trying to 'get' happiness through external forces, you're never going to be happy. That's not a secret.
No, you shouldn't let the world dictate your choices every single day.
But also you need to conform to some amount of societal standard. Social norms exist sometimes to keep society working and moving forward.
As for happiness, if you are trying to 'get' happiness through external forces, you're never going to be happy. That's not a secret.
And sometimes the social norm's arent helpful. In the article, he makes it clear he rejects each norm mentioned specifically because he has reflected on it and found it non helpful, and at least slightly harmful (if only to individual autonomy and happyness). Saying norm's can help is a platitude, but when considered individually you might find most are only actually more beneficial then harmful very situationally.
Obviously. Saying norms can help is a platitude. So is saying they don't help with no thought. And that is what I believe most people take from articles like this one.
My problem with these sorts of articles that pop up every now and then is that folks tend to absorb less the 'evaluate your life in its own context' message, and instead hear 'you can be a hot weirdo with no repercussions'. Which is just flat wrong.
I fully agree with you that every person needs to evaluate their place in society and see whether their role is their role or just what they believe is expected. (completely separate tangent, I also believe more people should experience psychedelic drugs for this very reason)
My problem with these sorts of articles that pop up every now and then is that folks tend to absorb less the 'evaluate your life in its own context' message, and instead hear 'you can be a hot weirdo with no repercussions'. Which is just flat wrong.
I fully agree with you that every person needs to evaluate their place in society and see whether their role is their role or just what they believe is expected. (completely separate tangent, I also believe more people should experience psychedelic drugs for this very reason)
Our combined income is about $600k USD, but funny enough we don't consider ourselves "rich". We consider ourselves "upper middle class" at least for the Bay Area, because we both work very hard, probably 10+ hours a day. Our mortgage on our house is less than 1 year's income so it's relatively low compared to others in the Bay Area. If one of us lost our jobs, we could still comfortably afford our mortgage but we would have to cut back on a lot of things.
Our children go to a private school that is close by, and our commutes are less than 20 mins away each. My wife makes 2x more than me and she works hard but loves her job. I'm a lot more relaxed with my job even though I'm older, but I get to spend a lot more time with the kids (ex. pickup from school every day, make dinner for them, etc).
We have enough money such that we don't have to think about it, which is a luxury. We have never fought over money, but we have fought over other more mundane things like over how we raise our children. But overall, not having to worry takes a lot of conflict off the table that many other people ave to endure, so we consider ourselves very lucky.
So yes, I'm pretty happy these days. It hasn't always been this way but once we both started making > $400k combined, things got easier and easier. A lot of our happiness these days is predicated by how our children behave, are they fighting, do they have issues at school, etc.
Our children go to a private school that is close by, and our commutes are less than 20 mins away each. My wife makes 2x more than me and she works hard but loves her job. I'm a lot more relaxed with my job even though I'm older, but I get to spend a lot more time with the kids (ex. pickup from school every day, make dinner for them, etc).
We have enough money such that we don't have to think about it, which is a luxury. We have never fought over money, but we have fought over other more mundane things like over how we raise our children. But overall, not having to worry takes a lot of conflict off the table that many other people ave to endure, so we consider ourselves very lucky.
So yes, I'm pretty happy these days. It hasn't always been this way but once we both started making > $400k combined, things got easier and easier. A lot of our happiness these days is predicated by how our children behave, are they fighting, do they have issues at school, etc.
If your mortgage is $600k, you should work towards paying that off more quickly, depending on the interest rate, so that you can be free from that burden. Once your house is paid for, then your daily work can decrease if you want, or have extra savings available for earlier retirement or maybe doing more fun things. I won't be "happy" until I'm debt free with $10mil in savings/investments, but I am definitely happy regardless because I genuinely look forward to every day of working towards that goal.
The cost of capital for the mortgage was reasonably low, and my expectation is that it will approach 0% real interest rates in the near future. Therefore it doesn't make sense to me to pay it off when I would be essentially paying 0% in real rates for the mortgage. I could be wrong but I'd rather have a below 4% interest rate when rates are between 5 and 6%
paying off a debt under 4% faster at the expense of putting that money into a portfolio that is expected to earn 6%+ is making your overall assets less diversified. You're trading down on both variance and return expectation.
Sure, but that assumes the goal is just to accumulate money.
That's a fine goal if that's what you want, and if done well it can lead to financial freedom, but it's also entirely reasonable to remove fixed expenses in order to make it possible to change from a high paying and stressful job to a lower paying but more fulfilling job.
That's a fine goal if that's what you want, and if done well it can lead to financial freedom, but it's also entirely reasonable to remove fixed expenses in order to make it possible to change from a high paying and stressful job to a lower paying but more fulfilling job.
You make more money paying off debt earlier, instead of investing that same money at a possible return of 6% per year, I've done the calculations myself for my situation. You should do the same.
What?
If I have $100 in an investment at 6% yearly and $100 in debt at 4% yearly, after 1 year I have $106 in the investment and $104 in debt, so $2 more than I had a year ago. If I pay off the debt now, I have exactly the same amount of money I had a year ago.
If I have $100 in an investment at 6% yearly and $100 in debt at 4% yearly, after 1 year I have $106 in the investment and $104 in debt, so $2 more than I had a year ago. If I pay off the debt now, I have exactly the same amount of money I had a year ago.
Happiness isn't a state you can reach and just dwell in. As soon as you realize you're happy and start to think about it, it evaporates. It's a byproduct that sits in your periphery when you're experiencing life to the fullest, whatever that means to you.
I think your ability to be content is just a personality trait, and some have that ability to a much greater extent than others. For example, the saying "ignorance is bliss" seems to have some merit - many highly intelligent people just cannot be happy. It's an unfortunate product of your brain chemistry, and it's nothing you can choose to escape given average circumstances, as much as we romanticize the idea of "finding happiness."
We are all able to be content. Meditation is the most straightforward way to learn how. It teaches you to live in the present moment, which teaches you that the present moment is enough - you can just be. Another approach is to learn to recognize when you are making thinking errors:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/what-mentally-strong...
Thinking errors get in the way of contentment.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/what-mentally-strong...
Thinking errors get in the way of contentment.
Why the great disparity in job satisfaction between UK and US lawyers? 64% of UK lawyers are satisfied compared to (unequal measures, yeah) Associate Attorneys who were at a 2.89 "Bliss Score" the unhappiest profession (https://www.forbes.com/pictures/efkk45ehffl/no-1-unhappiest-...)
As for myself I am generally unhappy. I left the law and back to engineering which I love, I'm married but spend too little time with my wife because we're in different cities and live apart most of the time, I'm sad most of the time when I'm not working, I don't have any life battering chronic diseases, I take home enough money that I'm not indebted other than for my house and FFS am I grateful for that. So no, I'm not happy, but I've stopped expecting happiness so there is some satisfaction in not experiencing repeated disappointment.
As for myself I am generally unhappy. I left the law and back to engineering which I love, I'm married but spend too little time with my wife because we're in different cities and live apart most of the time, I'm sad most of the time when I'm not working, I don't have any life battering chronic diseases, I take home enough money that I'm not indebted other than for my house and FFS am I grateful for that. So no, I'm not happy, but I've stopped expecting happiness so there is some satisfaction in not experiencing repeated disappointment.
Coming from a Mediterranean culture I can sympathise with the 'money doesn't mean happiness' maxim, but the opposite narrative is not much deeper.
In my life I moved from both extremes, from a poverty level wage in a dead beat job with a friend and family support network, to a high stress, high earning job, and something in between.
In all those situations I had sources of happiness and sources of unhappiness. As you move in life you make tradeoff that think will make you better off, some work and others don't. Ironically my current high stress job makes me happier than the previous one, because I am able to learn, grow and do great things. I traded a bit of work life balance for something else and that's ok; it might work for me and not for others.
So by all means avoid the rat race and live a more relaxed life, but also don't be afraid to try different things and see what works best for you at each point in your life.
In my life I moved from both extremes, from a poverty level wage in a dead beat job with a friend and family support network, to a high stress, high earning job, and something in between.
In all those situations I had sources of happiness and sources of unhappiness. As you move in life you make tradeoff that think will make you better off, some work and others don't. Ironically my current high stress job makes me happier than the previous one, because I am able to learn, grow and do great things. I traded a bit of work life balance for something else and that's ok; it might work for me and not for others.
So by all means avoid the rat race and live a more relaxed life, but also don't be afraid to try different things and see what works best for you at each point in your life.
I don't seek money, have a job, or got married, or other social markers of success, to be happy.
I did it to thrive in society; it increases my and my family's chances of survival.
I'd be happier by myself, with enough money to live with, and without a job. Happiness is not the most important thing in my life.
I did it to thrive in society; it increases my and my family's chances of survival.
I'd be happier by myself, with enough money to live with, and without a job. Happiness is not the most important thing in my life.
Am I happier not having to worry about money, having the stability of a life partner, and having something to do every day?
Yes.
I don't have a control group for myself, though, but it's sure a lot better than the turmoil of teens and twenties life.
Yes.
I don't have a control group for myself, though, but it's sure a lot better than the turmoil of teens and twenties life.
The path to true happiness is to want for nothing.
“Attachments are just resentments waiting to happen.”
The only time I'm concerned about money is when I think about the future. I make a lot of money when you consider that I live alone and don't really go out much, but if I ever want to raise a family in a house that I own, what I make right now won't cut it. I love my job, even though I'll have to leave it and get a PhD later.
The only other reason I want more money is to be able to eat out whenever I want, and not feel bad about spending the money instead of saving it.
The only other reason I want more money is to be able to eat out whenever I want, and not feel bad about spending the money instead of saving it.
"Money might not buy happiness, but I'll take my fucking chances."
"All I ask is for a chance to prove that money won't make me happy."
(At least, that's the way I usually hear that expressed.)
(At least, that's the way I usually hear that expressed.)
[deleted]
"Everything in moderation, even moderation itself"
Walk The Middle Way
Your natural state is bliss and peace but your mind's thoughts and heart's vibration pull you out of that state because the real you, the soul, the observer, the atman become identified with them.
That's the great illusion - Maya.
Walk The Middle Way
Your natural state is bliss and peace but your mind's thoughts and heart's vibration pull you out of that state because the real you, the soul, the observer, the atman become identified with them.
That's the great illusion - Maya.
The benefit of wealth is not happiness but freedom to spend your time and resources as you please. That allows you to focus on what matters which in turn gives you meaning and amplifies your ability to affect the world around you, for good or bad.
Sebastian Junger’s work is relevant to this, and after a decade of thinking about happiness and looking back on my own experiences and others, he lays out explicitly what I couldn’t put into words. His book Tribe is worth the read, and he has two documentaries on Netflix, Restrepo and Korengal that touches on the issue lightly.
It answers the question of why cancer patients can miss being sick, why soldiers miss being on the frontlines and why I was happiest living in a third world hole in a beat up apartment vs the luxury I’m living in now.
It answers the question of why cancer patients can miss being sick, why soldiers miss being on the frontlines and why I was happiest living in a third world hole in a beat up apartment vs the luxury I’m living in now.
All I need is a skateboard, a magic the gathering draft, a chart of the S&P 500, a game of Halo, and a good pizza and I'm pretty happy
Oh boy, you from the future would like to have a word with you about your oncoming knee arthritis, fading friend group, recession, cataracts and heartburn.
If only people who are happy would shut up enjoy their happiness without telling the world. Okay you can tell your wife and brother but leave the rest of us out of it. I think this creates pressure on the rest of us to emulate you to be as happy as you or even worse some people fake happiness and this makes situation even worse because we are chasing fake happiness.
It's not clear that happiness ought to be the goal. I mean, sure, we were bred by schools and culture to aim for happiness as if it was the goal, but being stressed and discontent isn't necessarily bad. I believe that finding meaning in what you do ought to be the goal. Meaning is what fulfills, not happiness.
Relative happiness places emphasis on external factors and tend to wear off after the initial attainment of these factors. True happiness comes from within and from the insight that regardless of whatever situation or problems you face, you have the means of overcoming them and you’re able to be happy just as you are.
Happiness is a process, not a destination. I have seen far too many of my colleagues get the spouse, the house, and the children and then go ".... oh shit, now what?".
Well he might not like conforming to the stereotype of a middle class university professor but he sure as hell enjoys having a massive chip on his shoulder about it.
This is the part that is new to me:
> When we look again at the ATUS, happiness and sense of purpose are both at their highest among people working between 21 and 30 hours a week
> When we look again at the ATUS, happiness and sense of purpose are both at their highest among people working between 21 and 30 hours a week
The pursuit of happiness is the most unhappy pursuit of all
Nature really hates things out of the ordinary. If you want to be out of the ordinary don't expect it to be easy and pain free.
happiness is not the goal. meaning is.
What's the point if you're not happy? Fulfilling your meaning and being utterly miserable seems like a goal I want to avoid. Unless meaning will lead to happiness, at which point happiness is again the goal.
Life is suffering. Life is not happiness. Best you figure that out now.
We have birthday parties and celebrations all the time. Why? Because life is miserable and we should take every opportunity to celebrate when we can.
We have birthday parties and celebrations all the time. Why? Because life is miserable and we should take every opportunity to celebrate when we can.
> Life is suffering. Life is not happiness. Best you figure that out now.
Well, that's wonderfully patronizing.
>We have birthday parties and celebrations all the time. Why? Because life is miserable and we should take every opportunity to celebrate when we can.
So finding reasons and opportunities to be happy is the goal?
Well, that's wonderfully patronizing.
>We have birthday parties and celebrations all the time. Why? Because life is miserable and we should take every opportunity to celebrate when we can.
So finding reasons and opportunities to be happy is the goal?
I didn't mean to sound patronizing. "The pursuit of happiness." There is a reason it doesn't say happiness. Choosing your own happiness, yes that sounds like a pretty good goal to me. One of the original replies here does talk about choosing to be happy. Which is of course how you become happy when you have no outside influences to make you happy.
maybe the 'get more' is mostly a dynamic adaptive limit sensing mechanism. 'get more until you feel satisfied' as opposed to 'dont ever try'
But, I think some of us aren’t necessarily in the hedonic treadmill game. Some of us keep working to gain more wealth not be of higher social status but because we fear being relegated back to poor-guy status.
Now, I often do want to be the non-rich guy again. I see many of my friends making 30k a year and enjoying life. And, I often take time off to hang with my old friends because it gets me out of my bubble and also because it’s more authentic to me. I get tired of wearing a mask.
But, I keep driving myself for wealth because I find it gives me security. As a poor kid, I can’t tell you how many times I was targeted by the power hierarchy. Being at the bottom of the social ladder hurts. You get abused and bullied. You have no voice or remedy when you (often) become the target of those with wealth. It hurts mentally, emotionally, financially, and - as the police are mostly paid to watch you - it can wind you in prison.
No, I can’t deal with that feeling. I want money because it gives me access and it keeps the creepers away.