Live data from Hacker News

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

businessinsider.com

151–160 of 175 posts

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

#151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The world isn't black and white. We're born with predispositions. Upbringing has some influence. But consider that all the parenting in the world can't make a retarded kid smart. How do you know there aren't other things in our brains that are difficult or can't be controlled?

I absolutely agree, I think there definitely are.

I'm not saying there are only 2 kinds of people, but that there's sort of a divide. This divide appears to be nearly dichotomous, and it seems to follow some pretty fundamental beliefs about humanity and our place in the world. It's no doubt a stochastic process leading to such a divide, and it's no doubt continuous, but there's a line where if you're on one side, you sort of think it's okay to use some negative reinforcement with people and that they need that to grow stronger (a self-reinforcing idea), and if you're on the other side you sort of think it's not really okay to punish (also a self-reinforcing idea), and the self-reinforcing nature of those ideas leads to their internal reinforcement to become stronger, such that we really do get clustering of individuals who all hold this strong belief about people, and reinforce each other.

There are very few people in the middle of this, and while the child and the personality is not a dichotomy per se, the belief about punishment vs. reward; negative vs. positive reinforcement—is quite dichotomous, not because the world is black and white, but because of the effect of internal reinforcement, groupthink, and time. People gravitate to one side or the other, and having a middle way on these sorts of issues is not attractive to the human psyche or, as it turns out, the way ideas naturally propagate and grow within people.

Politics works precisely the same way, and indeed shares many of the roots of this very opinion on humanity: does punishment work better, or does reward work better? Do we leave the poor to fend for themselves, or do we proactively help them due to their circumstances? It comes down to the way people believe humans work, and again, these ideas gravitate naturally toward opposite ends.

It's quite sad, because reality really is somewhere in the middle, and an effective strategy would take into account the reality of human behavior in addition to the side effects of negative reinforcement and the benefits of positive reinforcement and result in a well-balanced type of policy or parenting style that's scientifically sound and based on truth. But that's not how we work with our offspring; we do what we believe is right and try to do better than our parents, and maybe if we read here or there that this or that is good for the kid, we'll take it into consideration. I truly believe most parents are trying to do what's best for their child, if they can, and it's ignorance and false beliefs about people in general that leads them to make mistakes. I think that's the gist of it.

So you're right, the world isn't black and white, I appreciate you opening my eyes to the truth of the middle way and the truth behind the incomprehensible layers of complexity. It's just fascinating to me how people form ideas, and especially how dichotomous ideas take hold and self-reinforce, because I really think they do. I think it's one of the great problems we could solve in society in the next few dozen years with great benefit, but there's probably not anyone with the right mindset to study it correctly.

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

#152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They started surveying them when they were at Harvard from what I understand. That is still quite a bit removed from their childhoods. In any case the point about correlation != causation stands. The information is interesting, but I find that too often with these studies a correlation is taken. A conclusion is then made on the basis of the correlation, and then the conclusion is stated as fact. Anecdotal evidence fo…

I think you'll always get that in the pop psych pieces; they'll always always try to reach some eye-catching conclusion title to pull people in. I haven't read the original paper, but I highly doubt they made a case for causation unless the statistics backed it up; and if the stats did back it up, then the science does in fact say causation and not just correlation. It would be interesting to check.

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

#153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What can the child do once he starts to ask himself what the hell is wrong with him, and little by little, starts to associate some wrongs with his childhood? Is it possible to revert bad parenting?

Albert Ellis has already proven the answer to this is "yes". In short, we are the ones typically responsible for our own neurosis as we maintain flawed thinking or understandings of reality. People with loving parents have turned out screwed up kids, just the same.

"People with loving parents have turned out screwed up kids, just the same."

This simply does not matter if there is a statistically valid conclusion saying the opposite.

There will always be outliers and anecdotes. You should be looking at the statistical trend, not individual cases.

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

#154
post #4

Paul Tough's book, "How Children Succeed" [1] has a great section on how mothering style has a large effect on offspring throughout their lives: "Parents and other caregivers who are able to form close, nurturing relationships with their children can foster resilience in them that protects them from many of the worst effects of a harsh early environment. This message can sound a bit warm and fuzzy, but it is rooted i…

What can the child do once he starts to ask himself what the hell is wrong with him, and little by little, starts to associate some wrongs with his childhood? Is it possible to revert bad parenting?

I read about a different study some time ago (apologies, I've completely forgotten the title, authors or even field) which basically said that twins separated at birth ended up with relatively similar abilities and personalities regardless of whether they were raised in different households with different income levels, parenting styles, diets, etc.

In other words, much of it comes down to genetics. I have no idea the relevance of this idea or even of its validity, but it makes me wonder if the causation they speak of here between parents of a certain personality and their children has any ties to the inherited genetic characteristics rather than the nurturing of the child.

And yes, some of your personality traits may have been affected, but you will be a different person every 5 years anyway; walk in that direction and you will get closer to where you want to be.

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

#155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there anything wrong with them, they and themselves?

It's ambiguous. "You are in a dark forest. A disembodied voice speaks to you. They want you to follow." How many voices? Would it have been more correct to say "They wants you to follow"? Should you contort the sentence to drop agency, saying "You should follow"? Is the pronoun referring to some group of people not included in this paragraph? s/They want/Ze wants/ solves all of these questions immediately and simply.…

> s/They want/Ze wants/ solves all of these questions immediately and simply.

Hardly 'simply', as it prompted the GGGP to go and Google the term. You're changing some very significant terms in the language, and it's only simple if everybody is on board with the change.

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

#156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The world isn't black and white. We're born with predispositions. Upbringing has some influence. But consider that all the parenting in the world can't make a retarded kid smart. How do you know there aren't other things in our brains that are difficult or can't be controlled?

If you were right Nature wouldn't make us to take care of our offspring for so many years. Can't quote the exact source at that point but I remember that I was taught at school that one of the charasteristics of homo sapiens that you will not find among other mammals is that we take care of our children for so long.

There must be a reason for which homo sapiens take care of their offspring for 10+ years. Wouldn't you think?

If it's irrelevant as you seem to claim then why we would be "wasting" years of our lives that could be spent more effectively?

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

#157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The world isn't black and white. We're born with predispositions. Upbringing has some influence. But consider that all the parenting in the world can't make a retarded kid smart. How do you know there aren't other things in our brains that are difficult or can't be controlled?

I absolutely agree, I think there definitely are. I'm not saying there are only 2 kinds of people, but that there's sort of a divide. This divide appears to be nearly dichotomous, and it seems to follow some pretty fundamental beliefs about humanity and our place in the world. It's no doubt a stochastic process leading to such a divide, and it's no doubt continuous, but there's a line where if you're on one side, you…

Very interesting post. I definitely agree with you.

There are two additional points I'd like to make.

1. >does punishment work better, or does reward work better?

There are always two "variables" when dealing with a situation: a) person you're dealing with b) situation you're dealing with For situation A that involves Henry, you know that punhishment works better. For situation A that involves Jonathan you will know that reward works better. For situation B it might be just opposite for the given persons. So, you just adjust to get results. It's not like you are in the punishing camp and won't reward in another situation involving the same person or different one. It's all about results sometimes. You want to get your stuff done or your kid do what you want, right? Not just to punish or reward. That would be really hollow personality type. At least in my book.

2. >It's just fascinating to me how people form ideas, and especially how dichotomous ideas take hold and self-reinforce, because I really think they do. I think it's one of the great problems we could solve in society in the next few dozen years with great benefit, but there's probably not anyone with the right mindset to study it correctly.

Well, this problem has been "solved" by politicians who are currently running show in the West. Ever heard of the term technocrat when talking about politicians? Left more efficient with the social issues? Let's have left there. Right more efficient with the economy? Let's do what right advocates there. What you described is what technocrat politicians believe in and do. And is the reason why our societies and economies are so messed up ;-)

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

#158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The world isn't black and white. We're born with predispositions. Upbringing has some influence. But consider that all the parenting in the world can't make a retarded kid smart. How do you know there aren't other things in our brains that are difficult or can't be controlled?

If you were right Nature wouldn't make us to take care of our offspring for so many years. Can't quote the exact source at that point but I remember that I was taught at school that one of the charasteristics of homo sapiens that you will not find among other mammals is that we take care of our children for so long. There must be a reason for which homo sapiens take care of their offspring for 10+ years. Wouldn't you…

You've set up a false dichotomy. I guess I have to reiterate, "the world isn't black and white".

Suppose that 90% of our children can be made better through proper upbringing and 10% can't (by today's social standards of what is "better"). We'll still evolve a natural desire to try, because there's a huge change it will work properly, but sometimes it won't.

I didn't even claim "this is true", I only suggest that this cannot be dismissed unless we see enough real evidence that proves otherwise.

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

#159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's ambiguous. "You are in a dark forest. A disembodied voice speaks to you. They want you to follow." How many voices? Would it have been more correct to say "They wants you to follow"? Should you contort the sentence to drop agency, saying "You should follow"? Is the pronoun referring to some group of people not included in this paragraph? s/They want/Ze wants/ solves all of these questions immediately and simply.…

> s/They want/Ze wants/ solves all of these questions immediately and simply. Hardly 'simply', as it prompted the GGGP to go and Google the term. You're changing some very significant terms in the language, and it's only simple if everybody is on board with the change.

And he understood it immediately after Googling the definition, just like any other neologism.

The alternative is not having any solution at all.

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

#160
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is "solving the problem" of "trying to contribute to a conversation and not making a fool of myself" something that doesn't makes you happy?

Because there's no cerebral solution to that problem short of going out there and making yourself look like an idiot until you don't looks like an idiot anymore.

Start by appreciating what makes you interesting to yourself.
Post reply on HN