Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A 75-Year Harvard Study Finds What It Takes To Live A Happy Life

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 175 posts

Re: A 75-Year Harvard Study Finds What It Takes To Live A Happy Life

#111

Post by virmundi »

Tichy wrote: post #82
zalzane wrote: post #32

I hate it when these things pop up because they turn problems into self-fulling prophecies. I hate being around my mother. I've never had a relationship with a girl in my entire life. I drown my sorrows into a mug of beer every friday. I barely get by as is - and have to work my ass off harder than everyone around me to get anything done. And now I come across this article that says it's likely I'll make 6 figs less…

Sorry, but it's rather funny that what you deem depressing is not making 6 figs rather than being a lonely alcoholic. Maybe some pondering about happiness would do you some good?

Besides, honestly everything is futile anyway. So you can go play Frisbee golf with a group of friends, or stay at home in the dark drunk. At the end of the next century it doesn't matter, you'll both be dead. Happiness is fleeting and an illusion when seen. Get use to it.

Re: A 75-Year Harvard Study Finds What It Takes To Live A Happy Life

#112

Post by glanch »

jimboyoungblood wrote: post #107
auctiontheory wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The research on mothering style may be highly predictive, but unless I'm missing something, it isn't actionable or "useful."

It's totally actionable- moms should lick their kids more often.

My mother never once licked me. This must be why I'm not rich and successful.

Re: A 75-Year Harvard Study Finds What It Takes To Live A Happy Life

#114

Post by [deleted] »

scarmig wrote: post #26
singular wrote: post #15

Ack. Reliable or not, I'm sure it was meant as a feel-good piece, but for people like me the quote:- "Vaillant’s key takeaway, in his own words: “The seventy-five years and twenty million dollars expended on the Grant Study points … to a straightforward five-word conclusion: ‘Happiness is love. Full stop.’" Is actually very depressing. I am 5'5" so have this (if you've not encountered it you are unlikely to be aware)…

I'm 5'4", chubby, prematurely balding, and under 30, and I've been in long term relationships with several awesome women. There are certainly disadvantages to being short, probably especially in the dating realm. Big whoop. That's not what's preventing you from dating anyone.

[deleted]

Re: A 75-Year Harvard Study Finds What It Takes To Live A Happy Life

#115

Post by jessriedel »

alxhill wrote: post #106
mseebach wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an idea that comes from linguistic relativity, i.e. the philosophy that the language we use to talk about a subject defines the way we think about it. Thus, by using "he" as the gender-neutral pronoun, we're prejudiced towards a male-centred society. No, "zirself" is not commonly used, but obviously proponents want to change that. At the end of the day, it's just another branch of political correctness.

Is there anything wrong with them, they and themselves?

Using those doesn't give you a chance to talk about your political views.

Re: A 75-Year Harvard Study Finds What It Takes To Live A Happy Life

#116

Post by kailuowang »

LekkoscPiwa wrote: post #97
kailuowang wrote: post #94

I was often asked "what do you believe then? " after I told people I don't believe in any religion. My answer is rather simple: I don't need to live on any belief. I live on knowledge. I know the following for a fact: love makes me happy, hatred makes me unhappy. And I want to be happy. That's enough. Now I can say it's not just knowledge, it's science.

Science says believing (i.e. religion) makes people's lives happier, longer, more productive. So, why you don't believe in any religion? Science says it's good for you. Paradox perhaps?

I was merely pointing out that now science also prove that love makes you happy. I didn't say that science says you shouldn't believe in religion. So what paradox are you talking about?

BTW, I don't know about the science you mentioned, sounds fascinating. Does that definition of believing also include believing in Nazi, believing in Communism? Did it include the consequence of all the wars and terrorism driven religious belief (or any other none scientific "believing")?

Re: A 75-Year Harvard Study Finds What It Takes To Live A Happy Life

#117

Post by LekkoscPiwa »

mikecane wrote: post #108
LekkoscPiwa wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most ugly, short guy (ok, almost the most) I have seen in my life was the biggest playboy I have ever met. He could have any women he wanted. It would be long story, but when observing him one thing came to mind: he knew how to talk to women. Just imagine that the guys nickname was a "Beast". He was that ugly. I've seen him just once in my life. We went on a trip in College and his College was on a trip at the sa…

>>>It would be long story, but when observing him one thing came to mind: he knew how to talk to women. That is what matters. Not height or appearance or income. FFS, the guys I've seen have women flock to them! It's like they're magnetic. Yet to another guy, they're just ordinary.

yeah. It gets worse. Not ordinary - boring beyond belief!

Re: A 75-Year Harvard Study Finds What It Takes To Live A Happy Life

#118

Post by anon1685 »

LekkoscPiwa wrote: post #96
fragsworth wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed; this study seems to only find correlations between parenting and happiness/success in life. What if some children grow up in certain ways regardless of how they're raised, and this is what causes them to have shitty relationships with their parents? Maybe some kids don't get good parenting simply because they became little shits? And then this carried on into their lives?

> became little shits no child just becomes a "little shit". It takes a lot of time and effort to create one. Children have some certain negative aspects in them and have some positive aspects in them. Parenting is all about making good aspects stronger and negative aspects weaker. Recently, my child started yelling like crazy. She will just start screaming at a restaurant thinking it's fun (3 year old). Or just yell…

I couldn't agree more. There's a saying in Hebrew: "There are no bad kids, there are only kids who feel bad."

Re: A 75-Year Harvard Study Finds What It Takes To Live A Happy Life

#119

Post by calinet6 »

zenith2037 wrote: post #105
calinet6 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think parents believe certain things based on what they're taught and their gut instincts; many parents have an opposite view than this one, thinking that "tough love" and high pressure childhoods make the children grow up to be better adults. This research basically disproves that, saying that nurturing and loving upbringings have that effect, while cold tough upbrinings are detrimental. Having that kind of eviden…

I disagree with your definition of tough love. Most people view tough love as not willing to spoil your child. Allowing them to know what consequences are for unacceptable behavior. But that doesn't automatically add "negation of all parental care" into the term.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough, but what I tried to indicate was a philosophy of punishment and negative reinforcement. They can coexist with love, but they're detrimental to it.

My mom studies animal behavior in dogs (read: she's a really good dog trainer) and the science behind positive reinforcement methods is overwhelming. Yet, people still use negative methods and get burned for it... more agressive behavior, less predictable behavior, conditioning that doesn't stick, and long-term trust issues with their dog. Positive methods are self-reinforcing, while negative methods require constant reinforcement to remain effective; at the same time, positive methods build your relationship with the dog and create a happier, healthier animal, while negative reinforcement causes extreme unintentional side-effects in both the long and short-term.

It's the same with kids; we're just animals in the end and the behavioral science applies nearly exactly the same. It's a no-brainer and proven by science, but for some reason people still think you need to whip a kid with a belt to teach them to behave.

Merely "not spoiling your child" is just a minor parenting choice; and surely you can't always be positive when there have to be negative consequences. But I'm talking about far worse negativity and lack of nurturing that's far worse and really is a core belief of a good portion of society.

Re: A 75-Year Harvard Study Finds What It Takes To Live A Happy Life

#120

Post by mseebach »

alxhill wrote: post #106
mseebach wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an idea that comes from linguistic relativity, i.e. the philosophy that the language we use to talk about a subject defines the way we think about it. Thus, by using "he" as the gender-neutral pronoun, we're prejudiced towards a male-centred society. No, "zirself" is not commonly used, but obviously proponents want to change that. At the end of the day, it's just another branch of political correctness.

Is there anything wrong with them, they and themselves?

It's bad grammar. 'He/she' is singular, 'they' is plural. On the other hand, I consider it a significantly lesser transgression than just introducing new words (with poor aesthetics, IMO).
Post reply on HN