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

201–210 of 222 posts

Re: How to Be Happy

#201

Post by TeMPOraL »

lolpep8 wrote: post #198
maaku wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In some cases, yes. If you accept utilitarianism as the the reductive explanation of morality, and assume some non-controversial terminal values, then all of morality is reduced to straight-forward calculations. "The only way to rectify our reasonings is to make them as tangible as those of the Mathematicians, so that we can find our error at a glance, and when there are disputes among persons, we can simply say: Let…

And why, even while being an atheist, would I accept utilitarianism over Jesus Christ in this case?

For more-less exactly the same reason you accept general relativity over aristotelian motion - it is derived from first principles using maths, can be shown to match experience even if somewhat intuitive to people, and works pretty well in practice.

Re: How to Be Happy

#202

Post by TeMPOraL »

coldtea wrote: post #200
TeMPOraL wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Positive proof that you can make everything sound ridiculous if you half-assedly read about it, cherry-pick some sentences, and misinterpret them as it suits your preconceived opinions. Saying that GP's criticism is just inaccurate would be extremely charitable.

> Positive proof that you can make everything sound ridiculous if you half-assedly read about it, cherry-pick some sentences, and misinterpret them as it suits your preconceived opinions. Sure. But I can't conceive ANY possible argumentation and further discussion that accepts the above points that is not also silly.

I would have trouble doing that as well; fortunately, you should not accept the points above because they are either non-issues or seriously misrepresenting what Eliezer believes and ever wrote.

It's fair to evaluate and criticize opinions, but as maaku said upthread, one should play fair.

Re: How to Be Happy

#203

Post by tim333 »

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…

>And yet most people are fooled into believing that we can somehow chase happiness ...

Well it has a long history going back before Christ eg. http://buddhism.about.com/od/basicbuddhistteachings/a/The-Bu...

And more recently has become established as a fairly respectable field of study kicked off with "Positive psychology began as a new area of psychology in 1998 when Martin Seligman chose it as the theme for his term as president of the American Psychological Association" amongst other things. (from Wikipedia)

Personally I'd rather be happy than depressed and as an atheist would rather turn to science than religion for how to advice. Dunno if that's foolish.

Re: How to Be Happy

#204

Post by tim333 »

mansr wrote: post #62
npsimons wrote: post #27

Extroversion is among the best predictors of happiness, Well of course it is! No one ever meets the shy happy people because they never go out!

There is also, as the author mentions, a correlation between religiosity and happiness. Still, "start going to church" is not on the list of things to do. I'll hazard a guess that the author is not religious and thus doesn't consider it relevant. While I don't personally believe this a worthy pursuit, it does show the arbitrariness of the selection. EDIT: Point 8 does touch on religion but does not (directly) endorse…

Within a given country religious believers seem to be happier (based on many surveys) but I don't think you can suddenly choose to believe when you don't. On the other hand basically secular countries seem to have higher average happiness levels than fundamentalist ones.

Re: How to Be Happy

#205

Post by tim333 »

anaphor wrote: post #19

I recommend giving The Conquest of Happiness by Bertrand Russell (yes, he wrote what amounts to a self-help book) a read. Despite being outdated by a long while, it's still pretty relevant and useful imo. https://archive.org/details/TheConquestOfHappiness

I tried reading that and found it fairly bad. Even the opening sentence "Animals are happy so long as they have health and enough to eat" is bollocks. I rather liked the "Happiness Hypothesis" by Haidt although it's more of an academic look at the area than a self help book. Also "Philosophy for Life: And other dangerous situations" is good on the philosophical side.

Re: How to Be Happy

#206

Post by davidgerard »

davidtanner wrote: post #40

I was a lot happier when I stopped reading LessWrong. I'm not even trying to be (overly) snarky - I really did used to read LW and I'm very glad I stopped as it was one of the many small things dragging down my well being.

I've been on it for years, but I firmly classified it as internet television and a fun place to argue amateur philosophy. Productivity impact, pfeh. YMMV of course.

Re: How to Be Happy

#207

Post by tim333 »

vertex-four wrote: post #111
JamesArgo wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not understand why there are so many haters of LessWrong. It's not a cult. No one on that site has ever bought into the Roko idea. Also, Roko's post is poorly explained there. However, everyone thought it was nonsense at the time and still does. Imagine if the most inane nonsense posted to hacker news was used to dismiss everyone who posts here. As for nanotechnology. It is possible - biology is a proof of that…

> I do not understand why there are so many haters of LessWrong. A lot of us have ended up in places where they have tried to force their beliefs on us (a huge one being "debate is always the correct way to understand things, and is never inappropriate in any situation ever" - the concept of, say, cooperative discussion, or even caring about people's emotions and sense of self, seems to have never occurred to any of…

>A lot of us have ended up in places where they have tried to force their beliefs on us

Really? I guess 'they' being less wrong enthusiasts. I'm honestly curious where as I have not come across this stuff much.

Re: How to Be Happy

#208

Post by davidgerard »

onetimeusename wrote: post #142
mseebach wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see LW as part of the cult of reason - under risk of strawmanning, it's the idea that pretty much everything subject to perfect logical deduction from first principles. It's important to study and understand human biases and it can be helpful in overcoming many struggles since most of the time, you're your own worst enemy, but the philosophy that you're inherently flawed and you should put up a constant effort to b…

I think they have taken this idea of being logical and internalized it as a status symbol. The use of the word "rational" apparently only applies to them so by criticizing LW, I assume that makes you irrational. Is it useful for every human to overcome the biases on their list? Or are these just criticisms that one group can use to distinguish themselves from other people? [1] I don't even believe all of these biases…

>The use of the word "rational" apparently only applies to them so by criticizing LW, I assume that makes you irrational.

This is most of why LW has been pissed off about RationalWiki since it dared have an article about LW. They own that word, dammit.

(Now of course, it's because of an enormously popular article on one piece of LW's history. But it started really early.)

Re: How to Be Happy

#209

Post by davidgerard »

maaku wrote: post #194
randallsquared wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't disagree with what you actually said, but your choice of analogy suggests that you believe that questions of morality are settled and have obvious, objective answers.

In some cases, yes. If you accept utilitarianism as the the reductive explanation of morality, and assume some non-controversial terminal values, then all of morality is reduced to straight-forward calculations. "The only way to rectify our reasonings is to make them as tangible as those of the Mathematicians, so that we can find our error at a glance, and when there are disputes among persons, we can simply say: Let…

>If you accept utilitarianism as the the reductive explanation of morality

... then LW ends up with Roko's Basilisk.

Really, you're using that as your answer to "I don't disagree with what you actually said, but your choice of analogy suggests that you believe that questions of morality are settled and have obvious, objective answers." You can prove anything if you first make it an axiom.

You can't seriously claim that utilitarianism accurately captures human moral intuitions. Variations on the Repugnant Conclusion occur immediately to anyone told about utilitarianism, and are discussed in first-year philosophy right there when utilitarianism is introduced.

LessWrong routinely has discussion articles showing some ridiculous or horrible consequence of utilitarianism. The usual failure mode is to go "look, this circumstance leads to a weird conclusion and that's very important!" and not "gosh, perhaps naive utilitarianism taken to an extreme misses something important."

Re: How to Be Happy

#210

Post by davidgerard »

maaku wrote: post #181
vesche wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>LessWrong is a site devoted to the cult of the "singularity." LessWrong is a discussion forum mostly pertaining to psychology, philosophy, cognitive biases, etc,. A frequent topic of discussion is artificial intelligence, but it is hardly centric. Saying that LessWrong is a hangout spot for "singularity cult members" (as you call them) is simply incorrect on multiple levels. Technological singularity is no more than…

> Yudkowsky is also a prominent researcher of a variety of artificial intelligence topics which is enhancing the field. Primarily he focuses not on developing a Strong AI (AGI), but rather focusing on safety issues that such a technology would pose. Nice defense on the other points. But no, Eliezer Yudkowsky has no peer reviewed publications, open source code, or really anything else to point to which provides any in…

There is the abandoned Flare language project from long ago: http://flarelang.sourceforge.net/
Post reply on HN