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

161–170 of 175 posts

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

#161

Post by Tichy »

virmundi wrote: post #111
Tichy wrote: 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.

Happiness is not an illusion, it is actual neurons firing, hormones rushing and what not. Of course from an abstract standpoint it is meaningless, but you can catch the ball nature has thrown you and play. There is a reason humans haven't gone extinct yet.

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

#162

Post by tomp »

saraid216 wrote: post #159
mseebach wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> And he understood

You mean "ze"?

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

#163

Post by saraid216 »

tomp wrote: post #162
saraid216 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And he understood it immediately after Googling the definition, just like any other neologism. The alternative is not having any solution at all.

> And he understood You mean "ze"?

I'm pretty sure you're male.

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

#164

Post by LekkoscPiwa »

fragsworth wrote: post #158
LekkoscPiwa wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 thi…

>Suppose that 90% of our children can be made better through proper upbringing and 10% can't

The problem you have instantly with this type of analysis is to know if you really can't for sure. I didn't speak till I was 5. I have rare genetic disorder (1 in 50,000 odds). At preschool I was labeled 'retarded' and 'not fit for primary school' by a teacher. My mom never gave up. I had the highest GED score in high school. I was vice-president of a Student's Union at the University. I work just a regular job, but I live comfortable life of a professional.

How would you know who is a hopeless case and who is not? There is no way to know unless you try. Just like with starting a business, lol, you won't know if you're going to succeed unless you try.

That's why we have moms Man. Because they always try and believe no matter what. And I think I'm a good example why Nature made them this way.

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

#165

Post by vlasev »

drumdance wrote: post #38
vlasev wrote: post #24

If you really want to know what it takes to live a happy life, read the book Flow [1] by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. It's the best book I've ever read on happiness and reading it has positively changed my life like nothing else. [1] http://www.amazon.com/Flow-Psychology-Experience-Mihaly-Csik...

I love this book and it likewise had a great effect on my life. That said, it's mostly affected me in career choices. It doesn't have much to say about relationships.

Actually, it has a lot to say about relationships. If you are unhappy about yourself, you'll have a tough time being happy with someone else. Therefore, it is very important to work on yourself first, on your own issues, to improve your own confidence and self-respect. Only then can you expect to be happy around other people.

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

#166

Post by protitap »

gaius wrote: post #122
vijayr wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tom Cruise is 5ft 7in

... In platform shoes, standing on a box. Some special effects don't need CGI :-)

No, I'm pretty sure he's actually 5'7" and the platform shoes make him taller.

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

#167

Post by meester »

calinet6 wrote: post #153
meester wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'd say it's valid if science says otherwise

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

#168

Post by meester »

alanh wrote: post #149
meester wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I’m sorry, but your comment is quite confusing. Would you mind clarifying your points?

My point is, if you had bad parents, or no parents, you can change your behavior and thinking patterns and end up better off than kids who had good parents.

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

#169

Post by calinet6 »

meester wrote: post #167
calinet6 wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

I'd say it's valid if science says otherwise

Now you're just being silly.

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

#170

Post by mtdewcmu »

auctiontheory wrote: post #10
MarkMc wrote: 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…

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

I think that pretty much sums up most social sciences research in general. It turns up lots of data with lots of correlations, but, since the issue of causation probably fundamentally can't be resolved through observational studies (or, very often, any conceivable kind of study), the analysis is sometimes interesting, but rarely, if ever, actionable or useful.
Post reply on HN