Live data from Hacker News

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

businessinsider.com

121–130 of 175 posts

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

#121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 relig…

and I merely pointed out that science doesn't have all the answers. That's why science found out that to be happy you need to believe in religion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_happiness

The paradox is that you seem to embrace science but ignore some of its findings in your personal life. (i.e. you are not religious).

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

#123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now, I find myself to be a pretty darn introverted mofo internally (I line up perfectly as a full-out INTP on the Myers-Briggs scale if that means anything to anybody), but I've found that socializing is just as useful of a skill as programming or playing a musical instrument. Sure, I find it to be significantly more tiring than either of those two activities, and I'm not nearly as proficient at it as I'd like to be,…

Imagine that learning social skills from scratch is like tuning a feedback loop. You need to have something in the loop to begin with in order to tune it. If you're a child, good news, you can just feed your imagination's random number generator into the loop and see what happens. If you're an adult though, you might find yourself with absolutely no starting data on which to iterate, and your internal RNG has been fo…

That's where I was at not so long ago until I realized that if you have no starting data, just copy over some data from your peers :) Look at how others behave socially and start with those bits, it's not going to be easy but it is something to use until you have enough to bootstrap your own thing.

And remember even if it is weird, play along, things get better as you go. Keep making conversation (and always smile), it's better to be the awkward guy trying rather than the weird/silent/alone guy in the corner of the room :)

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

#124
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's just a lie. Ah, the beautiful false equivalence... you will be nothing in 100 years, but you're something now. You can choose to be nothing now as well if you want, except that you're not, because you're something while you're here.

You've been given about a half-century on this planet; you're one of the luckiest groups of atoms in the entire universe to have agglomerated into a self-replicating sentient body that is on the brink of voluntarily expanding into a next level of its evolution at a more and more rapid pace.

At the end of the next century, the human race will probably be, as a whole, more aware and more advanced than ever before. And you, of all the agglomerations of atoms in the universe, get to be a part of it. You get to contribute; you get to be a cell in this incredible human race. And even better, you get to exist at a time when all the humans on earth are connecting to each other and spreading information and knowledge faster and better than ever before. We're becoming a human organism, we're cells in a great life-form, neurons in a giant brain; we're going to evolve as a planet now, faster than biology could ever dream.

Happiness is love, and love is the glue that binds us together like neurons, each knowing if only instinctively how important the others are to the great network we're in. You can isolate yourself and think that you don't matter and everything is futile, but if you do that, then and only then will everything actually be futile. Otherwise, you are very real, the time you have is real, your life is real, what you choose to do with it is real, and the results will—in some small or maybe big way—evolve the human race.

To me, that matters.

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

#125

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…

It really is.

There are people who believe people are predestined and struck in stone, and that there are good people and bad people, and that if someone is bad or lazy or has bad characteristics there's nothing that can be done, it's just who they are.

Those people are wrong and make horrible parents.

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

#126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

No, it's not. It was made-up in the 1740s, and has never really been followed as a rule that closely.[1]

Or from Geoff Pullum[2]:

>"Avoid singular they if you want to; nobody is making you use it. But don't ever think that it is new (it goes back to early English centuries ago), or that it is illogical (there is no logical conflict between being syntactically singular and semantically plural), or that it is ungrammatical (it is used by the finest writers who ever used English, writers who uncontroversially knew what they were doing)."

1: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/112896/tyranny-pronouns-f...

2: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=89

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

#127
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure there are exceptions, but as a rule, he's right. I'm slightly taller than average, but even I have noticed this phenomenon. It is ridiculous how many single women say they exclusively want a tall man, they want to "look up" to a man. Even the shorter-than-average women want a man of at least average height. On dating sites like PlentyOfFish I've seen ~5' tall women say that they are only interested in men at lea…

Read The Game. I've met Neil Strauss in real life and he's 5'6" on a good day. His fiance is beautiful, smart and taller (plus, she likes to wear heels).

The Game is a superficial childish half-assed douche version of the truth.

The truth is you have to be confident and genuine, treat women like people, meet a whole lot of them, and actually try to find someone you get along with and like.

There are no shortcuts to that; you can't simulate it. The Game might get you to fake-it-til-you-make-it, but that's about it.

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

#128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a longitudinal study. They were surveyed every two years.

My comment still applies. People with happy lives will see their earlier years in a warmer light than those without happy lives.

I think the point is that they actually surveyed them every two years, so they weren't asking them to look back on their lives, they actually had that information while they were experiencing it.

There may be other biases and errors, but I don't think your argument is valid given the method.

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

#129
post #26

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.

I never said preventing. It's a massive disadvantage. I could (+ might) write a longer piece about the whole subject as there is more to this than height but it's quite surprising what a difference it makes.

If you can overcome that disadvantage, all power to you, but it doesn't change the state of affairs.

I refer you to this graph - http://cdn.okcimg.com/blog/lies/MessagesPerWeek.png

It's a rough analysis but shows a clear female preference based on height. Certainly an indicator.

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

#130

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)…

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…

Again, the exception to the rule doesn't make it not (generally) true.

"Men fall in love through their eyes. Women fall in love through their ears."

And people love to tell themselves convenient stories that may or may not be true. If that proverb were really the case you'd expect to see a full variation of height difference in couples but no, you nearly always see a woman ~ 2 - 3" shorter than the man, so it's certainly a factor.

Additionally you see a general increase in height in populations with decent nutrition over time which is arguably due to sexual selection.

Explain to me the 'TALL, dark, handsome' cliche?

There's plenty of evidence that height is a thing. As I said before, it's not 100%, but the fact it's a big factor is undeniable. It's not everything, but it's a massive factor, even if other factors can compensate to some degree.

Post reply on HN