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

61–70 of 222 posts

Re: How to Be Happy

#61

Post by ams6110 »

pkorzeniewski wrote: post #46

I've read many articles and books on this subject and not a single one of them had any effect on my life. It's usually just a list of things that - according to the author (and every author of course has different opinion) - will make you happy. It's bullshit, there is no "golden solution" for everyone. Reading such articles will make you even more unhappy, because now you've the whole list of things and you feel lik…

Author himself identifies this problem in the concluding paragraph: seeking happiness as an end might be counterproductive

Re: How to Be Happy

#62

Post by mansr »

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 it.

Re: How to Be Happy

#63

Post by dominotw »

pkorzeniewski wrote: post #46

I've read many articles and books on this subject and not a single one of them had any effect on my life. It's usually just a list of things that - according to the author (and every author of course has different opinion) - will make you happy. It's bullshit, there is no "golden solution" for everyone. Reading such articles will make you even more unhappy, because now you've the whole list of things and you feel lik…

What can one do to a live happy life is a very hard question to answer for anyone. Life is fundamentally absurd, we are yet to find what this whole madness is all about. Most people choose ( or fall into) an ideology to give meaning and structure life. To cite an example of an ideology the family man - fulfillment in raising a child, having a family, bunch of friends to hang out with, a job to sponser all this. This is the default ideology of most people and societies built around this. There are many others , 'the religious man', 'the scholar/intellectual', 'social worker' , 'the rational man who votes' etc. You have to find an ideology that you find comfortable brainwashing yourself with, doesn't matter which one as long as the delusion is strong enough that you can convince yourself that you are living your life to reach a certain goal or a purpose.

Re: How to Be Happy

#64

Post by JamesArgo »

Jweb_Guru wrote: post #10

Just for those of you who aren't aware, LessWrong is a site devoted to the cult of the "singularity." The site founder, Eliezer Yudkowsky, is a secular humanist who is probably most well-known for his Harry Potter fanfiction, "Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality." His core beliefs include that the obvious goal of the human race is immortality, that it is justifiable to kill a man if it would remove a spec of…

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 - though some of the early visions may have been naive. It's likely that artificial systems can be created using a broader pallet than natural selection does, and that these technologies will be powerful.

>That it is justifiable to kill a man if it would remove a spec of dust from the eye of every other person on Earth

No, he wrote that it was justifiable to torture a man to prevent 3^^^3 dust specs from floating into 3^^^3 eyes. 3^^^3 is a mind-bogglingly large number - far far far far far more than everyone on earth.

Re: How to Be Happy

#65

Post by joesmo »

vesche wrote: post #39
Jweb_Guru wrote: post #10

Just for those of you who aren't aware, LessWrong is a site devoted to the cult of the "singularity." The site founder, Eliezer Yudkowsky, is a secular humanist who is probably most well-known for his Harry Potter fanfiction, "Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality." His core beliefs include that the obvious goal of the human race is immortality, that it is justifiable to kill a man if it would remove a spec of…

>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…

> Primarily he focuses not on developing a Strong AI (AGI), but rather focusing on safety issues that such a technology would pose.

That's absurd at worst, science fiction at best, akin to worrying about manned flight safety in the 1500's.

Re: How to Be Happy

#66

Post by coldtea »

Jweb_Guru wrote: post #10

Just for those of you who aren't aware, LessWrong is a site devoted to the cult of the "singularity." The site founder, Eliezer Yudkowsky, is a secular humanist who is probably most well-known for his Harry Potter fanfiction, "Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality." His core beliefs include that the obvious goal of the human race is immortality, that it is justifiable to kill a man if it would remove a spec of…

>His core beliefs include that the obvious goal of the human race is immortality, that it is justifiable to kill a man if it would remove a spec of dust from the eye of every other person on Earth, and that the most important thing we could possibly be doing right now is devoting all of our time developing a mathematical model of a "safe AI."

Possitive proof that IQ doesn't equal smartness, much less wisdom.

Re: How to Be Happy

#67

Post by ams6110 »

adamzerner wrote: post #9
__Joker wrote: post #6

I hardly agree with "Develop the skills and habits associated with extroversion". Why I need to be comfortable with social company if my predisposed nature and comfortableness is to be alone ?

Because you have a lot to gain by doing so. Humans are capable of deriving a lot of happiness from social matters, so there's a large opportunity cost to being alone. That said, it obviously depends on the person's situation. I don't think the advice is good for everyone. But it's probably good for most. Edit: I found http://www.succeedsocially.com/allarticles to be really insightful and useful.

If you are a man, there is one thing that will solve the extroversion problem and that is to be able to talk about sports. It is the default subject of conversation for men who don't know each other, and if you can't talk about sports then you are awkwardly trying to find something to talk about 80% of the time.

Re: How to Be Happy

#69

Post by elbear »

pkorzeniewski wrote: post #46

I've read many articles and books on this subject and not a single one of them had any effect on my life. It's usually just a list of things that - according to the author (and every author of course has different opinion) - will make you happy. It's bullshit, there is no "golden solution" for everyone. Reading such articles will make you even more unhappy, because now you've the whole list of things and you feel lik…

Did you merely read them or did you also apply what was said in those readings? Have you also consulted a specialist?

Re: How to Be Happy

#70

Post by sehr »

barry-cotter wrote: post #20
kstop wrote: post #5

Pretty sure the last thing the world needs is Less Wrong cross-pollinating with Hacker News.

Really? Why? What exactly is wrong with lesswrong? Please be specific.

From this thread [0], they are looked at as a sort of cult. Funnily enough, they look at HN the same way.

[0] -https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8053606

Post reply on HN