31–40 of 135 posts
preaching to the choir. happiness is the derivative of circumstance thus ultimately unachievable. Unless you can sustain exponential growth in your current circumstance. Option two, hop on a sinusoid, and sometimes you will be happy and sometimes you wont.
"The material standard of living of a homeless person in modern-day Manhattan is several dozens of times higher than the wealthiest of kings ten thousand years ago." Can someone explain to me what their definition of "standard of living" is in this context? I get that they might have access to cleaner water, but surely easy access to food prepared for you and having a roof over your head in a snowstorm would sound re…
10,000 years ago, we were living in a pre-agricultural society (or, perhaps, only somewhat agricultural) Lots of wandering tribes, moving around following the food, hunting with sharp rocks. Hunger and starvation would be common, everything would be scarce, even for "kings" (which were really just tribal leaders) Modern construction wasn't a thing, dwellings were constructed out of sod, animal skins -- at the best, s…
I'll take living as a potter in 8000 BC China over being homeless in NYC today, thanks. I don't have to be the King.
For example, I've recently moved to another city which made me happier and the effect did not wear off after four months and I don't think it will.
As another example, having a significant other versus being alone makes for such a huge difference that it's not ever up to discussion.
Maybe if we're restricting our talk to meaningless status symbols (like the mentioned Lexus), then it starts to make sense.
Studies have cast doubt on whether Subjective Well-Being (SWB) levels actually return to normal after significant life events. [1] [2] So a core element of this post may not even be an actual phenomenon. [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17469954 [2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3289759/
While we're taught to think about science in terms of "one experiment can disprove a whole theory!", the actual probability of getting an experiment wrong is much higher than the probability of a very established theory predicting an opposing effect to what's actually the case.
This is such a terrible argument, even by its own data. For instance: "The good-looking are on average 7% happier than the bad-looking." ...from which it draws the conclusion that being beautiful doesn't make much of a difference. But 7% doesn't seem like a small difference at all. Spending hundreds of hours for a 7% improvement doesn't seem like such a terrible deal to me. Of course it's a bad deal if that's time yo…
Or you could just choose uglier friends :)
This is such a terrible argument, even by its own data. For instance: "The good-looking are on average 7% happier than the bad-looking." ...from which it draws the conclusion that being beautiful doesn't make much of a difference. But 7% doesn't seem like a small difference at all. Spending hundreds of hours for a 7% improvement doesn't seem like such a terrible deal to me. Of course it's a bad deal if that's time yo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think you understand what 10,000 years ago looks like. These weren't rich European kings, they were leaders of tribes on the cusp of discovering agriculture. In Europe, they lived in caves and tents and hunted with sharp rocks -- they arguably had it worse even than some of the other prehistoric groups in the Middle East and parts of Asia.
Eating freshly cooked meat from a domesticated or game animal is miles better than a rotting piece of garbage in a dumpster sitting in the hot sun. I don't think we're understanding how filthy dumpsters are and how our bodies are not engineered to handle the types of bacteria that grow in those circumstances or just how dangerous and unhealthy urban areas are for the homeless. Even days old dried meat is going to be…
This is such a terrible argument, even by its own data. For instance: "The good-looking are on average 7% happier than the bad-looking." ...from which it draws the conclusion that being beautiful doesn't make much of a difference. But 7% doesn't seem like a small difference at all. Spending hundreds of hours for a 7% improvement doesn't seem like such a terrible deal to me. Of course it's a bad deal if that's time yo…
Aren't you ignoring the alternatives which the author suggests have significantly better ROI?
This is such a terrible argument, even by its own data. For instance: "The good-looking are on average 7% happier than the bad-looking." ...from which it draws the conclusion that being beautiful doesn't make much of a difference. But 7% doesn't seem like a small difference at all. Spending hundreds of hours for a 7% improvement doesn't seem like such a terrible deal to me. Of course it's a bad deal if that's time yo…
See, I have a hard time with all this self-help stuff. What's so difficult about it that needs hundreds of books and blogs to be expounded?
You either want to do something or you don't. Be grateful for what you have and try to improve a little at a time. Remember that everyone is out to get money from you. Try really hard not to be an asshole.
Seems like common sense to me, and everything else feels like a lot of unnecessary junk.
What adaptation implies is that all gains in subjective happiness are short-term gains. Hence the "treadmill" image: though striving forward, people go nowhere.
Maybe I've got the wrong impression.