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

How to Be Happy

lesswrong.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 222 posts

Re: How to Be Happy

#171

Post by spacehome »

davidtanner wrote: post #150
onetimeusename wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you care to elaborate on this? I have my own criticisms of LW and without mentioning what they are, I want to see if other people's match up with mine.

Edi/Disclaimer: I do feel like I benefited intellectually by reading the original Sequences on LessWrong. The general idea that strong AI might represent a risk to humanity seems plausible, although I'm not sure how credible the specifics are. Well, I don't feel intelligent or well educated enough to critique most of what they (EY and supporters) say point by point. However, one thing I recall seems indicative of som…

IIRC his attempted exercise was walking around the Bay Area which left him winded and sore. Agree it sounded woefully ignorant to the science of fitness. He would have done a lot better to hire a physical trainer who could kick his ass a little bit, boot-camp style.

Re: How to Be Happy

#172

Post by 3rd3 »

jeffreyrogers wrote: post #132

At the time in my life when I stopped reading LessWrong I became remarkably happier within a week. I attribute this to two reasons: 1. LessWrong's focus on optimizing your life is so great that whenever I failed at something or didn't uphold something I said I would do I felt bad about it. 2. One thing that makes me happy (and I think most others would agree they're happiest when this occurs as well) is accomplishmen…

> The allure of LW is that we're perfectly rational …

Isn’t this allure extremely irrational then? (Since it’s a known fact that we are controlled by large parts by relicts of our primate ancestry.)

Re: How to Be Happy

#173

Post by davidtanner »

spacehome wrote: post #171
davidtanner wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Edi/Disclaimer: I do feel like I benefited intellectually by reading the original Sequences on LessWrong. The general idea that strong AI might represent a risk to humanity seems plausible, although I'm not sure how credible the specifics are. Well, I don't feel intelligent or well educated enough to critique most of what they (EY and supporters) say point by point. However, one thing I recall seems indicative of som…

IIRC his attempted exercise was walking around the Bay Area which left him winded and sore. Agree it sounded woefully ignorant to the science of fitness. He would have done a lot better to hire a physical trainer who could kick his ass a little bit, boot-camp style.

Woefully lacking in the sort of common sense most people acquire just by living.

Re: How to Be Happy

#174

Post by davidrusu »

coldtea wrote: post #169
davidrusu wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We all ready have a well defined rigorous AGI[0] that would have god like intelligence. There are some approximations that played pacman [1] without knowing anything specific about pacman itself. i.e. it learned how to play by itself. [0] http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/AIXI [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfsMHtmGDKE

So? You can have a neural network that "learns" tic-tac-toe by itself in 100 lines of code. Does that prove anything?

AIXI is an artificial 'general' intelligence. It is not hard coded to do a specific task. That neural network is useless at doing anything other than playing tic tac toe

Re: How to Be Happy

#175

Post by adamzerner »

jeffreyrogers wrote: post #132

At the time in my life when I stopped reading LessWrong I became remarkably happier within a week. I attribute this to two reasons: 1. LessWrong's focus on optimizing your life is so great that whenever I failed at something or didn't uphold something I said I would do I felt bad about it. 2. One thing that makes me happy (and I think most others would agree they're happiest when this occurs as well) is accomplishmen…

I don't think it's fair to blame Less Wrong for over-optimizing. Less Wrong is just a resource and can be used in bits and pieces. Just because it can be overused doesn't mean that it is a bad resource.

Thinking about it some more... perhaps they don't warn you enough against over-optimizing. Like you said, there's a ton of advice about how to optimize a plethora of things. If you're going to do that, perhaps it's your responsibility to sufficiently warn against over-optimizing. But still, despite the fact that it could be overused, I think it's a really useful resource if used appropriately.

Re: How to Be Happy

#176

Post by Deivuh »

chippy wrote: post #85
Deivuh wrote: post #4

As someone was currently suffering of depression, this is going to help me. Nice article and linked resources.

Interesting use of varying tenses in your grammar. Is English your first language?

No, it's spanish. Just spotted one mistake, would you care to correct what I wrote? BTW, there's no way to edit my comment here on HN right?

Re: How to Be Happy

#177

Post by NoahTheDuke »

nerfhammer wrote: post #105
NoahTheDuke wrote: post #84

I actually found the Be Happier [0] article to be a better source of actionable and researched-backed advice. I put a bunch of the In A Nutshell sentences into my general Anki [1] deck, and it's had a measurable effect on my overall happiness. [0]: http://lesswrong.com/lw/bq0/be_happier/ [1]: http://ankisrs.net/

Re: the anki deck, what you do put on the front of the card vs. the back of the card?

I know it's not recommended, but I made a single page Note Type, and just put them on there:

Be Happier Interpersonal: Give the people around you opportunities to be generous. Ask them for favors.

When it comes up, I quietly read it out loud to myself. I've found that seeing these cards often enough keeps their concepts on my mind, so when I go out with friends and someone offers to buy me a beer, I accept it and thank them, instead of refusing even to the point of awkwardness (as is my natural inclination).

Re: How to Be Happy

#178

Post by halfcat »

onetimeusename wrote: post #114
dominotw wrote: post #79

Can someone tell me how this 'cult of happiness' started in western culture. The obsession with happiness is so pervasive and absurd that people are depressed because they are not happy 24x7 not because of a personal tragedy. Why is some vaguely defined happiness sold as some holy grail that must be achieved at all costs. There are billion dollar industries built around selling happiness ( fashion industry, fitness i…

In the article, the writer mentioned he is rarely unhappy for more than 20 minutes. I don't understand this. Happiness is a result of something that is good and sadness is a result of something being bad. Emotions have a purpose. Emotions are not some sort of primitive remnant from prehistoric times we need to overcome. It's as if because of science we can now see what is good and what is bad and remove the bad emoti…

There is a difference between happiness and joy. Some have the definitions flipped, so I'll not try to define them. It's not important which is which.

One is a result of circumstances. If something bad happens, like you get a flat tire, then you're in some negative state of emotion. Most people are ruled by this, and since most circumstances are out of our control, we spend a large portion of our time in some state of unhappiness or frustration.

The other is trying to be at peace. If you're basically at peace then the flat tire doesn't ruin your day. It's just something to deal with. Things happen, you deal with them, life goes on, and you're mostly thankful for what you have.

The author's 20 minute comment, I suspect, is that he practices mindfulness meditation, and is therefore never longer than 20 minutes away from resetting his mind to a more balanced state.

Plus there is nothing new here. This is the ancient philosophy of stoicism. See "A Guide To The Good Life: The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy"

Re: How to Be Happy

#180

Post by maaku »

randallsquared wrote: post #139
maaku wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and their annoyance can't be simply added together Why not? EDIT: Serious question. If I save two lives that is twice as good as saving one, right? Why is this situation different?

It depends on how you measure "good". :/ Most people measure goodness and badness by how they feel about it, and for anyone who feels a significant amount of badness (grief, anger, whatever) at the death of a single person, it is physiologically impossible for them to feel a million times worse about the death of a million people. It's intuitively obvious to most people, therefore, that suffering, annoyance, life-sav…

It's analogous to saying that "most people believe the world is flat. the burden is really on you to show that the world is really round."

Which is true. But requires a willingness to counter one's own intuition when encountering contradictory evidence. Unfortunately the type of person that does that is uncommon.

Post reply on HN