It doesn't surprise me in the least, because smart != wise. Academic achievement does not require wisdom on how best to live, and wisdom is not dependant on academic achievement.
That's one possible interpretation, but just to be clear I didn't say they were mutually exclusive, I said they weren't dependant. It's possible to be both academically gifted and wise, but one does not depend on the other to exist.
> If you were to go back to the three things that people need—mastery, belonging, and autonomy—I'd add a fourth, after basic necessities have been met. It’s the attitude or the worldview that you bring to life. And that worldview can be characterized, just for simplicity, in one of two fashions: One extreme is a kind of scarcity-minded approach, that my win is going to come at somebody else's loss, which makes you engage in social comparisons. And the other view is what I would call a more abundance-oriented approach, that there's room for everybody to grow.
The best part of his analysis, IMHO. I don't even like being around zero-sum people.
It's just so hard to believe the abundance view! I wish I could. Our economy simply does not reward people for being good or ok at things. You have to be amazing. So you are forced into competition simply to survive and pay for your existence.
"Our economy simply does not reward people for being good or ok at things. You have to be amazing."
This is only true locally. I can derive a huge amount of happiness by being the best singer at a party, or the best at telling jokes in the pub, or the best at $SKILL in my team.
Even if you consider global geography (as with competing on the Internet as a startup, or looking for a job as a remote worker), you only have to be the best in that narrow area of what is available at that time (or the best at marketing it, or the best at selling it, or just the best at turning up and being presentable).
There are many, many opportunities to be "amazing" locally. You just need to define what, and where. The article uses the word "mindset", because happiness about what you think more than anything else.
I've only been working in industry for a few years, but in my mind the majority of white collar jobs are no different than government welfare, in terms of value derived for society, except white collar people are paid better. The majority of white collar workers I've experienced are mediocre, lazy, and coast through the day on reddit and facebook and earn six figure paychecks. Yet we cheer on these people, congratulate them on getting jobs and hold them up as examples for peers. There's been many a time I've attended a party back home and people have berated their children for not getting a "good job" like me - meaning white collar and well paid. But hell I'll be the first one to admit I don't do shit at my job (and I work for a huge 'world-changing' company that you've definitely heard of) - I'll do what it takes not to get fired but do I feel like I make a difference or help the world through my career? Hell no. I'll close a few tickets and then collect my paycheck and then do something actually meaningful in my free time.
Americans love corporations for some reason. If you make $100k/yr at a job and mostly surf the web, people consider that 'made'. If you are on welfare from the government, you're a no good bum. Why?
not that these jobs dont exist, but instead of 100,000 people doing this at inefficient mega corp, there are now 5,000 people doing this and achieving the same results in sv.
The US produces more than enough food for everyone on the planet. There is ample room across the nation to build enough housing for everyone. Why don't we do it? Because the zero-sum neoliberal worldview has been ingrained in the American mind thanks to absurd concepts of exceptionalism and "individual liberty" and so the prevailing sentiment of the day is "fuck you got mine" in the biggest christian nation on earth.
I think it's a great description then for an emerging worldview that simultaneously believes in too big to fail for banks but not in people, champions social equality but supports laws that allow racial profiling by police and TSA, and believes the war in Iraq was a mistake but that we should support Isreal unilaterally
That's not even close to true. Take food for example, you're simply wrong because the issue with food isn't production, it's transportation and distribution of the food to the places that need it that is and always has been the issue. It doesn't matter if we produce extra food here, the resources required to deliver it to where it's needed are massive and impractical; that's why we don't do it, it isn't because of a zero-sum neoliberal worldview; it's because no one wants to pay for it.
> "fuck you got mine" in the biggest christian nation on earth.
I fail to see what Christian's have anything to do with the matter. And we aren't a Christian nation, we're a secular nation with a lot of Christians, huge difference.
The US exports billions upon billions of dollars worth of food annually, mostly to Canada and China. The infrastructure is already in place. We can deploy military technology anywhere in the world, but we can't export food? C'mon. It's not a technological issue in the least anymore.
> "that's why we don't do it, it isn't because of a zero-sum neoliberal worldview; it's because no one wants to pay for it."
Uh, the zero-sum neoliberal worldview is EXACTLY why we don't do it - because such a worldview says that if no one wants to pay for it then it's not worth it despite the fact that it could vastly improve welfare throughout the world and ensure more peace and stability than any "democracy spreading" wars ever could.
>"And we aren't a Christian nation, we're a secular nation with a lot of Christians, huge difference."
If you want to play semantics, fine you're right. There is no state religion (excepting the fact that christianity is part of our founding myth, it's all over the US currency, in our pledge of allegiance, in our symbology etc). But the point is there are hundreds of millions of Christians in this country, a religion whose foundational text (New Testament) is filled with endless cries to help the poor, to give away the material pleasures of life to help another, and yet we embrace the exact opposite. It's an example of how we've perverted our principles.
> The infrastructure is already in place. We can deploy military technology anywhere in the world, but we can't export food? C'mon. It's not a technological issue in the least anymore.
You are mistaken due to that bad metaphor. There is a vast difference between deploying some troops anywhere in the world, and setting up a permanent supply chain for food to everywhere in the world that needs food; tons of places don't even have decent roads nor the local government approval/agreement to allow the relief or not steal the relief. They are not remotely comparable. Getting food to the places it'd be needed is absolutely not a solved problem.
> It's just so hard to believe the abundance view! I wish I could. Our economy simply does not reward people for being good or ok at things. You have to be amazing.
That's the zero sum trap in itself! What a painful place to be, I'm sorry.
It's a big ocean and we can all swim in it without having to push someone else down to accomplish it.
Sadly There are certainly a huge of people trying to convince you otherwise; consider the words of that famous London School of Economics student who (along with Richards) wrote:
He's tellin' me more and more
About some useless information
Supposed to drive my imagination
[..]
And a man comes on and tells me
How white my shirts can be
But he can't be a man 'cause he doesn't smoke
The same cigarrettes as me
All about "amazing" status via a combination of attainable and aspirational goods. I am sure most of those people are unhappy too.
But of all the dimensions of amazing (and there are gazillions, not just coding or money collecting but parenting, spousing, woodworking, piano playing) there are also gazillions of local "amazing" thresholds. I'm not a great piano player but I really have a good time playing, and playing music with my friends.
Plus you may be a "superstar" without realizing it. A couple of weeks ago I was at a party and someone I consider quite accomplished, more than me, said to my kid (presumably not realizing I could hear): "now, we can't all be superstars like your Dad, but at least I have managed...."
My rule (shamelessly stolen from a source I don't remember) - its incredibly incredibly difficult to be top 2% in anything. Its far easier and more achievable to be top 20% in 2 things, and the value you bring from connecting those 2 things together can frequently outweigh the hyperspecialist.
I think the economy is very positive-sum. In a sense that there is so much more wealth now than ever before, and it is being reinvested and new wealth is being created. The most common instance of zero-sum competition these days is not the economy, but dating. No matter what, dating will be unfair, challenging, and zero-sum. Technology and modern culture can make dating more pleasant, but the dating market itself will always be zero-sum.
I am a very romantic person and I don't see your point in the comment about dating.
I am dating the only person I would like to date, not the smartest, not the hottest, not,the funniest but the only one that now I feel like dating.
Right now, not other persons will get as much as she is getting from dating me (I can definitely being a better boyfriend, but I am the best I can be right now) nor I would get anything more from dating someone else but her...
Maybe we just eventually optimize for what will make us happy across all the various categories (looks, personality, lifestyle etc.) which is "good enough" for lack of a better term.
Maybe, but I don't think so... Or, at least, it didn't happened to me.
The first time of dating is like a bet, the partner is "good enough", you definitely look around and see more beautiful woman, smarter people or funnier mates, but for one reason or another you stick with her.
After a while you know her better, she know you better and something more happens, you start to care for each other, you want to care for the other, you do things against your self interest for the other.
Then you develop some sort of intimate caring and empathy, her becomes like a part of you, you see all of her flaws but they don't matter, you can understand her just by looking, you can feel when something is wrong, you don't image to share the same experience you had with her with some one else. (And this is the phase where I am now)
However, I am still physically attracted by other women, I cannot image nothing but sex with some one different from my partner; not romantic walks, not dinner together, not talking about me and my hopes or fear; but sex, definitely yes.
I get what you're saying. You take a chance on a specific person and then over time your empathy grows and you see them as an extension of yourself. I think relationships that have long-term potential should ideally have this quality.
Lastly, I think that some for some people, sex is meaningless without the empathy, mutual love and concern backing it.
Of course it is, you've taken her off the market thus that other guy that wants to date her must lose. People are a limited resource, there's only one of her, when resources are limited the game is always zero sum.
In my opinion she is the maximum; from any other gals I won't get as much positive "points", still in my opinion, I won't be able to provide more positive "points" to someone else but her.
This is not a zero-sum games, because, if it was, swapping girls wouldn't changes my "points"...
No, you're too focused on you; it's zero sum because two men can't have her, one gets her and one doesn't. Zero sum isn't about you, it's about if getting what you want deprives someone else of what they want, which it does in the case of a woman.
If marriage rates were very close to 100% I'd see your point. But they aren't, and so there is a very real chance the partner you find would have been single if not for you.
Wealth is just the measurement of total value, and value is completely relative and conjured up by our own minds. We have an entire industry (marketing/advertising) which dedicates itself to give value to garbage. People don't compare their value to a static number, but to other people's value, thus 90%+ of people will in some way feel as they don't have enough value and will spend their lives trying to obtain it.
> No matter what, dating will be unfair, challenging, and zero-sum.
The first two, yes, but I don't see how the third follows. Let's say A + B are dating, likewise C + D. Later, they split up and pair up as A + C and B + D. It turns out A and C are much more compatible with each other as, are B and D. The total happiness of the system has increased.
Sure, the number of participants is relatively fixed, but it's not a question of "any warm body or alone", it's more a question of which specific people are most compatible with each other.
I agree that people with the "scarcity-minded" approach aren't fun to be around. However, this is the unfortunate reality of some jobs. If you work somewhere where the revenue stream is relatively fixed (non-profits), then a huge raise for one person necessarily takes away from the pool to distribute raises to others. Even for profit enterprises are scarcity driven in any given year. Everyone is competing for the budget surplus to go to their own paycheck. I don't think this view necessitates engagement in social comparisons...it is merely a realistic perspective of business operations.
Just to play devils advocate for the scarcity-minded, it is a hell of a lot more fun to spend a night out with someone who knows that time is scarce and strives to make the most of it than someone who is easily contented by the tidal wave of modern material abundance.
I think they're orthogonal. You can have fun and be really driven and still not think you're succeeding at someone else's expense. While you can be contented or consoled by material abundance -- if you think it's zero sum and feel discouraged from succeeding, you may seek comfort in zoning out.
I think a lot of resistance to basic income, and a lot of fear of job loss due to outsourcing and automation, comes from the scarcity mindset. And if that's your world view, Trump makes sense.
Not sure if that's a joke on what I said or if I was unclear so in case it was the latter: I mean people with the zero sum mentality.
I grew up with pretty limited resources (some weeks not much to eat at the end of the week) with two war-survivor parents with a pretty careful/cautious view of budget and resources so I certainly am comfortable around people who don't have a lot or don't have a lot of status.
I just don't enjoy people who think that winning is the point, and that in order to win another must lose.
building off that, I find myself drawn to sports/activities/challenges where I compete against myself, primarily. Rock climbing, music, programming, etc. It seems related to me, that I enjoy the things where the only person holding me back is myself. I've never been good at team sports, or even been able to enjoy them as much. I don't know if it's the zero-sum nature of the game (a winner and loser, and rankings), or if it's the teamwork I just avoid.
Almost every aspect of the world, cultural constructs and the physical realities that underpin them, for the foreseeable future, are going to remain, in effect, zero sum.
Right here on Hackernews the top story yesterday was the dead end Japan has reached by virtue of clinging to the fiction of permanent growth.
Worse, in domains in which there has been genuine growth of some kind (e.g. increased returns as a result of higher efficiencies), the story since 1970 has been: _zero sum for everyone but the top few percent, who have seized all gains for themselves_.
"Zero-sum people" are being minted by the millions by our current economy.
When you hoard the upside at historically unprecedented levels, what you get is resentment and an accurate perception that you have been left to fight for scraps.
I wish someone smarter than I could come up with actionable ways to actually change this status quo, so that people could latch onto. It feels like politics is one of the few levers that exist that people can pull, but its so entrenched anyone who looks at it long enough becomes hopeless.
Those who work and fight within the system for decades at the end of it seek to protect what they perceive they worked for. Even if you changed the incentives on a local (country) level, those with power are pushing for more globalization and providing havens for anyone already with wealth. Its always been this way, but its now at a larger scale, and I feel that most people wish they had something to do to make change happen.
It's difficult to comment on this without sounding arrogant or entitled, but still I personally think this interview misses a couple of points I've seen in my own circle of friends.
1) Smart children are raised with expectations of doing great things because they are smart. If you have two children and one is obviously smarter than the other, the burden of your hopes and dreams will naturally fall on the smarter one, and equal accomplishments between the two will not have equal praise. Later in life this turns into being unhappy because you feel like you could do more because you are smart. It's a constant burden.
2) Being smart brings with it a certain level of ability to "peer behind the curtain" so to speak, and see just how dirty the real world is. It can make it seem like sinking time and effort to make meaningful changes is just futile because of how many things are messed up. And that kind of mindset saps happiness in a hurry.
Your two points are really one point - the mistaken idea that one can 'change the world' in a significant way if only he/she works hard.
That's a tough idea to shake when people connect their self esteem and meaning in life to it.
The solution is to re-discover what you want your life to be about and then get to it. People usually either figure it out somewhat by the time they're 30 or they get burdened by self-imposed obligations to a point where they give up trying and just go with the flow.
So really, a temporary hurdle in the scheme of things :)
>It can make it seem like sinking time and effort to make meaningful changes is just futile because of how many things are messed up. And that kind of mindset saps happiness in a hurry.
So youre saying smart people should ignore the information and feedback they are receiving and blindly follow an ambition to meaningfully change the world, even though their intelligence tells them this will not work?
They should work smarter. Individual ability to effect change is negligible in the global scheme. Aggregate ability is what matters. People who seem able to effect global (or large-scale) change are better (or more successful) at combining the abilities of others. Any individual doctor in Doctors without Borders is ineffectual. The combined actions of their organization have real, positive, impact.
So instead of wasting their time on individual efforts that go nowhere or have no lasting effect, smart people should contribute their resources to a collective organization. Either by assembling such an organization and managing it, or by being a part of such an organization and providing skills/competency to it.
A parallel to analysis paralysis. Sometimes being less familiar with all the options is best. Instead of having to make a decision on what to work on, you have a task and you have a tool and you use the tool to complete the task.
If you're aware of all the problems in the world, of all the places that have issues, how do you decide which one to apply your time and talent to?
Or maybe it's actually the truth, and maybe smart individuals are more aware of their very small amount of power to change things for unworkable opportunity costs.
Unfortunately so many top achievers are working exclusively in internet advertising, simply because the economy is not so fair and in the US at least its extremely easy to fall into economic insecurity.
"The best minds of my generation are thinking about how to make people click ads" - said by Jeffrey Hammerbacher in 2011 is still incredibly poignant today.
I think the parent comment is using "peer behind the curtain" not to describe insight into the physical universe and its wonders, but rather insight into the 'human universe' and its various disappointments (like how it's often non-meritocratic, the difficulties of making meaningful change, the political shietgeist, being better able to predict a decision's potentially disastrous consequences, etc)
I think it's a bit sad, really. Baring a discovery that fundamentally changes how the universe as we know it works, we'll very likely never communicate with another form of life. We'll never leave our solar system. We'll probably never even see images of other solar systems, much less galaxies. The universe is an amazing thing full of stuff that would probably sound far-fetched in a science fiction novel and we'll never even get to know whether it exists. If I could be dumber and more preoccupied with the material lifestyle of most people, I'd probably be happier.
We went from inventing powered flight to landing on the freaking moon in less than 70 years.
In any case, I suspect that you may not be satisfied no matter want reality was. If you had interstellar travel you wouldn't be happy without intergalactic travel.
Even if you only see your own planet, creation is beautiful. (FYI, you happen to be living on the most amazing planet known.)
We went from inventing powered flight to landing on the freaking moon in less than 70 years.
In any case, I suspect that you may not be satisfied no matter want reality was. If you had interstellar travel you wouldn't be happy without intergalactic travel.
Even if you only see your own planet, creation is beautiful. (FYI, you happen to be living on the most amazing planet known.)
With respect to your second point, I am in full agreement.
Not only do I routinely see right through the benign bullshit designed to keep most people fat and happy, I also often see past the second layer designed to let the people who see past the first layer think that they can actually "fix" anything.
Without the illusions, I'm just a terrified ant scurrying around in a world filled with uncaring stomping boots and sadistic kids with magnifying glasses.
Being intelligent and ethical is a great advantage in the secondary mythic version of life, but it seems in the real, un-glamoured world, the only quality that has value is the ability to excise essential bits of your own humanity and trade them away for power. Intelligence also helps there, obviously, but without principles, the smartest person becomes the worst monster of them all.
Can you give an example of one of those "double layered" illusions? I.e., the view most people are fed, the view most intelligent people are fed, then the view you see?
Not the above poster, but I'd say layer 1 is "I'll just become a pro-athlete/famous musician/celebrity then everything will be fine, I don't need school!" layer 2 is "I'll just go to school get straight As go to college and get a high-paying rewarding job, then everything will be fine!". I imagine layer 3 involves thinking everything will be fine if you drop out of Harvard and launch a tech startup.
Here's a (cynical) quote describing modern US politics:
The United States is a corporate oligarchy pretending to be a two-party dictatorship pretending to be a representative democracy.
That's the sort of thing meant, I think. There are layers and in this quote the implication is that the fat and happy people are at the outer layer (they think the levers of power of a representative democracy are still valid ways to control the country), and others can see past that into the other two layers behind it.
Most people are happy just to vote. Some people try to channel the overall direction of the vote via party politics. A handful of people know that the election is merely to choose between different means to exactly the same end.
The people can vote to name the ship Boaty McBoatface. The owner will name it something else. It will steer the same course without regard to its name or to the orientation of its deck chairs.
I think you have some good arguments. If you remove the external factors (parents, etc) the first argument simplifies to:
People are happier when they meet their own expectations, and people who are "smart" have higher self expectations.
There may be some transfer of parental expectations ("you are smart, you can do anything when you grow up"), but I suspect (apologies, I cannot cite anything) that even if you remove the external expectations, smarter people have higher standards for themselves. Thus, they are less happy.
The second argument is a variant on:
ignorance is bliss
... which is pretty well supported in literature. I am not sure if the futility/frustration causes unhappiness more than just increased awareness of issues, but it falls in line with that general theme.
Just my 2 cents, as someone who often falls into this category.
Has anyone considered the flipside to this? Maybe a lot of unhappy people just assume they're "smart" instead of depressed or other mental illness, or are just asocial personality types. I've met more than a few mediocre people who have this attitude and engage in talk about "sheeple" and such, but they're not remotely exceptional intellectually. In fact, most of them are fairly average or perhaps do slightly better than average in one small area in their life and play that up as justification for their greatness.
I think its easy for the depressed or people who are just misanthropes to hide behind a "the world will never understand my genius" attitudes we see portrayed in the media. They see themselves as a John Nash or a misunderstood artist, when they're just, well, ordinary.
This isn't a hypothetical in my world. When we do hiring its hard to filter out the asocial smart guy from the asocial bullshitter for technical jobs, especially for entry-level. Shockingly, I find the asocial bullshitter personality is mostly unaware at how terrible he is for the job he's applying for. Maybe its Dunning-Kruger or just old fashioned arrogance, but it can be hard to spot. We have a bad hire like this and its incredible how much damage he has done to the department and how he's unwilling to accept that he's, at best, below average. Instead he engages in this "tech master" personality with non-technical staff that is bizarre to witness, especially when you listen in and hear that 50% of what he's saying is just completely and obviously wrong.
> Maybe a lot of unhappy people just assume they're "smart" instead of depressed/mental illness, or are just asocial personality types. I've met more than a few mediocre people who have this attitude and engage in talk about "sheeple" and such, but they're not remotely exceptional intellectually
This isn't a hypothetical in my world. When we do hiring its hard to filter out the asocial smart guy from the asocial bullshitter for technical jobs, especially for entry-level. Shockingly, I find the asocial bullshitter personality is mostly unaware at how terrible he is for the job he's applying for. Maybe its Dunning-Kruger or just old fashioned arrogance, but it can be hard to spot. We have a bad hire like this and its incredible how much damage he has done to the department and how he's unwilling to accept that he's, at best, below average. Instead he engages in this "tech master" personality with non-technical staff that is bizarre to witness, especially when you listen in and hear that 50% of what he's saying is just completely and obviously wrong.
It does not occur only with technical people, nor only with employees. I have met many people who simply feel that the world is out to get them and are consequently always on the defensive. They attack because if they don't, they feel like they will be attacked. And then it happens according to their perception, even if it's only in their minds. It ruins relationships in general, even marriages.
I emphasize that it's important to note it's not just technical people or employees. Imagine trying to serve a client who gets everything wrong, and when you try to get to the bottom of their problem or even just reproduce it, they get angry that you're not doing what you pay them to do. But they're not willing to consider the expertise they're paying you to provide. I've had a bunch of experiences where I can't even believe a social interaction actually happened because it's so illogical. And it is not a surprise when I notice that those people have poor relationships with a number of their colleagues.
I just told a kid today (I coach middle school basketball) that one of the biggest differences between mature and successful people and immature and unsuccessful people is whether the person is able and willing to consider they could be wrong about all the thoughts they have about others. He was a mirror image of those grown-ups who are always crying foul because the world hates them. He didn't care to consider how what I had to say applied to him too.
I don't know what to do when I run across these types of people. I have failed many times to communicate with them. So now I just try to get through the issue to solve their problem, even if it means some sleight of hand sometimes to make them feel like I agree with what they're saying. You can't treat clients the way you treat employees.
edit: alexashka nailed it. Delusional is the word. I don't know how to deal with it.
A lot of people are self conscious about their looks. Comedians making fun of it is on the same level as high school bullying. There will always be people who laugh.
I disagree. I've never bullied anyone in my life and laughing at jokes that involve the use of the word ugly/lazy/stupid in no way justifies or excuses bullying. It's just about having a broad sense of humour.
I think it's because generalized intelligence isn't a thing, and if you're an early reader, or an early computer user, so end up scoring far from the norm on early tests, the identity of being "smart" is assigned to you for life - and the only thing left for you to become is a disappointment. This leads to perfectionism, which is crippling.
The word "smart" appears in the title of the book being publicised, and in the title of the article, but appears nowhere else in the article. The comments here, and the title of the article, are quite misleading about the content of the article.
"Smart" has little or nothing to do with it. It so happens that whether you're smart or not is not a predictor of your happiness. The article might as well be called "Why so many people born on Tuesdays aren't happy."
I think people who believe to be smart and depressed might be a slave to their own pride/ego. They may have high expectations that comes with a high cost to their well being.
Smart people suffer from isolation, they can't easily find friends that can keep up with them. If you have an IQ of 135, there is maybe one person as smart as you in 100 people. If your IQ is 145, then it's 1 in 1000. They have little chance of socializing on their level, so most of the time they have to hold back. In extreme, that creates a state of feralization - they are like lone humans amidst animals, so they are almost alone.
Having really close friends within 20 IQ points of you is completely reasonable. Further, people more or less self stratify by IQ. So, 145 is not 1:1000 at even a run of the mill state school.
IMO, the real issue is smart people fall into the same traps as everyone else. They just end up feeling worse about it. Yes, getting a PHD in molecular biology was probably a bad plan because getting a PHD is generally a bad idea. Which is sadly the same trap as becoming a Hair Stylist just aimed at smart people.
There is no rule that you can only socialize with people "on your level". This can turn into a self-fulfilling prophesy where people impose this view that a lack of intelligent peers is problematic, and they feel and become isolated as a result.
It can be a problem if the population adopts an anti-intellectual strain of thought, which I think persists in America to some degree. It is important to have people who are supportive of other people's intellectual interests. But even intelligent people can be dismissive of intellectual pursuits, especially if they're outside their own set of interests.
It is possible to have a good social life with people who have had less education, or are not as intelligent. There are ways to lead a satisfying intellectual life without having access to the Stanford CS department happy hour, and this is more true now thanks to the Internet.
It's exhausting explaining things to others that seem obvious to you, or holding back for fear of completely alienating other people. Doing so is essential for relating to the rest of humanity, but at some level it's not being true to yourself, either. Romantic relationships can be especially difficult if you are looking for an intellectual equal.
Intelligence isn't the only measure of a person, though. Wit, humor, and empathy are also very important. Humor and empathy, at least, aren't always paired with deep intelligence.
The only people I recognize, time and again, as having an "abundance mindset" are people who prioritize wealth and material objects first and foremost, because they recognize there's a whole lot of that stuff out there for the person willing to go out there and get it however they can. Otherwise, I kind of see the term as not very useful. Actually, it might be inherently wrong.
A major part of the 'unhappiness' that I see a lot of "smart" people deal with is kind of the opposite of this "abundance" thing - in reality, there aren't enough of 'everything' to go around. Good jobs, reasonably priced things, work-life balance, adequate sick and vacation time, opportunities to advance in a company...it's not that smart people reject these things, it's that some of the conditions are pretty un-sympathetic to merit and integrity based approaches. For all the talk about the US having a very mobile system of social and economic status - which I think it does, global context in mind - it's still a bell curve of haves and have nots. Being smart enough to see that conditions are not very appealing doesn't jack up the seratonin feelings of "oh everything is just great" in my neighborhood. Relevant quote:
Peter Gibbons: Our high school guidance counselor used to ask us what you'd do if you had a million dollars and you didn't have to work. And invariably what you'd say was supposed to be your career. So, if you wanted to fix old cars then you're supposed to be an auto mechanic.
Samir: So what did you say?
Peter Gibbons: I never had an answer. I guess that's why I'm working at Initech.
Michael Bolton: No, you're working at Initech because that question is bullshit to begin with. If everyone listened to her, there'd be no janitors, because no one would clean shit up if they had a million dollars.
Understanding something doesn't mean you are able to:
- solve anything;
- improve anything;
- even do anything at all.
E.G: I know very smart people, perfectly understanding the theory of social interactions, knowing second to second the dynamic our group is engaged in, and yet, absolutly enable to flirt with the girl they fancy. And it makes them miserable.
"But what is happiness? It's a moment before you need more happiness."
Happiness is like a high that we chase. When I was 25, I was unhappy. But, I was making 150k a year, was very healthy, had good relationships with parents, siblings and friends. I had everything that I needed. I had a good social life and a good job that challenged me intellectually. I was working hard towards my long term goals of climbing the corporate ladder. I had many hobbies that I devoted serious time to. Yet, there was a sense of unhappiness. An "is this all to life" feeling.
I'm 27 now. I still feel like this on some days, but what has made is better is the notion that I can use my skills to help other people improve their lives. I've also learned not to pay too much attention to how you feel/what you're feeling.
The best solution I've found for coping with it is to actively, constantly push down my expectations and deliberately foster a sense of gratefulness about all of the wonderful things in my life.
Great cursory assessment of capitalism and happiness:
>On the face of it, it might look like I'm saying that capitalism in general is not very good at promoting an abundance mindset. But I don't think that that is entirely accurate. If you were to break capitalism down into two very important tenets, one is the freedom of movement of people, thought, and goods, and the freedom of choice. The second aspect is a distribution of resources according to people's abilities rather than according to people's needs.
>That first tenet of capitalism, I think, is beautiful, and I wouldn't let go of it. And if that ideology comes with the baggage of distribution of resources according to abilities, then I take that package, rather than a package where you restrict people's freedom of thought and what kinds of choices they can make, even if it's combined with a distribution of resources according to people's needs.
110 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 182 ms ] threadThats how we are raised; in a problem/solution format.
The best part of his analysis, IMHO. I don't even like being around zero-sum people.
This is only true locally. I can derive a huge amount of happiness by being the best singer at a party, or the best at telling jokes in the pub, or the best at $SKILL in my team.
Even if you consider global geography (as with competing on the Internet as a startup, or looking for a job as a remote worker), you only have to be the best in that narrow area of what is available at that time (or the best at marketing it, or the best at selling it, or just the best at turning up and being presentable).
There are many, many opportunities to be "amazing" locally. You just need to define what, and where. The article uses the word "mindset", because happiness about what you think more than anything else.
Americans love corporations for some reason. If you make $100k/yr at a job and mostly surf the web, people consider that 'made'. If you are on welfare from the government, you're a no good bum. Why?
This makes about as much sense as "the laissez-faire fascist worldview" or the "growth at any costs environmental worldview."
> "fuck you got mine" in the biggest christian nation on earth.
I fail to see what Christian's have anything to do with the matter. And we aren't a Christian nation, we're a secular nation with a lot of Christians, huge difference.
> "that's why we don't do it, it isn't because of a zero-sum neoliberal worldview; it's because no one wants to pay for it."
Uh, the zero-sum neoliberal worldview is EXACTLY why we don't do it - because such a worldview says that if no one wants to pay for it then it's not worth it despite the fact that it could vastly improve welfare throughout the world and ensure more peace and stability than any "democracy spreading" wars ever could.
>"And we aren't a Christian nation, we're a secular nation with a lot of Christians, huge difference."
If you want to play semantics, fine you're right. There is no state religion (excepting the fact that christianity is part of our founding myth, it's all over the US currency, in our pledge of allegiance, in our symbology etc). But the point is there are hundreds of millions of Christians in this country, a religion whose foundational text (New Testament) is filled with endless cries to help the poor, to give away the material pleasures of life to help another, and yet we embrace the exact opposite. It's an example of how we've perverted our principles.
You are mistaken due to that bad metaphor. There is a vast difference between deploying some troops anywhere in the world, and setting up a permanent supply chain for food to everywhere in the world that needs food; tons of places don't even have decent roads nor the local government approval/agreement to allow the relief or not steal the relief. They are not remotely comparable. Getting food to the places it'd be needed is absolutely not a solved problem.
That's the zero sum trap in itself! What a painful place to be, I'm sorry.
It's a big ocean and we can all swim in it without having to push someone else down to accomplish it.
Sadly There are certainly a huge of people trying to convince you otherwise; consider the words of that famous London School of Economics student who (along with Richards) wrote:
All about "amazing" status via a combination of attainable and aspirational goods. I am sure most of those people are unhappy too.But of all the dimensions of amazing (and there are gazillions, not just coding or money collecting but parenting, spousing, woodworking, piano playing) there are also gazillions of local "amazing" thresholds. I'm not a great piano player but I really have a good time playing, and playing music with my friends.
Plus you may be a "superstar" without realizing it. A couple of weeks ago I was at a party and someone I consider quite accomplished, more than me, said to my kid (presumably not realizing I could hear): "now, we can't all be superstars like your Dad, but at least I have managed...."
I am a very romantic person and I don't see your point in the comment about dating.
I am dating the only person I would like to date, not the smartest, not the hottest, not,the funniest but the only one that now I feel like dating.
Right now, not other persons will get as much as she is getting from dating me (I can definitely being a better boyfriend, but I am the best I can be right now) nor I would get anything more from dating someone else but her...
I don't see it as a sum zero game...
The first time of dating is like a bet, the partner is "good enough", you definitely look around and see more beautiful woman, smarter people or funnier mates, but for one reason or another you stick with her.
After a while you know her better, she know you better and something more happens, you start to care for each other, you want to care for the other, you do things against your self interest for the other.
Then you develop some sort of intimate caring and empathy, her becomes like a part of you, you see all of her flaws but they don't matter, you can understand her just by looking, you can feel when something is wrong, you don't image to share the same experience you had with her with some one else. (And this is the phase where I am now)
However, I am still physically attracted by other women, I cannot image nothing but sex with some one different from my partner; not romantic walks, not dinner together, not talking about me and my hopes or fear; but sex, definitely yes.
Sorry for the long off topic post :)
Lastly, I think that some for some people, sex is meaningless without the empathy, mutual love and concern backing it.
Of course it is, you've taken her off the market thus that other guy that wants to date her must lose. People are a limited resource, there's only one of her, when resources are limited the game is always zero sum.
But our analysis should be a little more deep.
In my opinion she is the maximum; from any other gals I won't get as much positive "points", still in my opinion, I won't be able to provide more positive "points" to someone else but her.
This is not a zero-sum games, because, if it was, swapping girls wouldn't changes my "points"...
The first two, yes, but I don't see how the third follows. Let's say A + B are dating, likewise C + D. Later, they split up and pair up as A + C and B + D. It turns out A and C are much more compatible with each other as, are B and D. The total happiness of the system has increased.
Sure, the number of participants is relatively fixed, but it's not a question of "any warm body or alone", it's more a question of which specific people are most compatible with each other.
I think a lot of resistance to basic income, and a lot of fear of job loss due to outsourcing and automation, comes from the scarcity mindset. And if that's your world view, Trump makes sense.
I grew up with pretty limited resources (some weeks not much to eat at the end of the week) with two war-survivor parents with a pretty careful/cautious view of budget and resources so I certainly am comfortable around people who don't have a lot or don't have a lot of status.
I just don't enjoy people who think that winning is the point, and that in order to win another must lose.
I'm not a muslim but I found that word really useful...until about 15 years ago :-(. Need a better word acceptable to anglos in the west.
Almost every aspect of the world, cultural constructs and the physical realities that underpin them, for the foreseeable future, are going to remain, in effect, zero sum.
Right here on Hackernews the top story yesterday was the dead end Japan has reached by virtue of clinging to the fiction of permanent growth.
Worse, in domains in which there has been genuine growth of some kind (e.g. increased returns as a result of higher efficiencies), the story since 1970 has been: _zero sum for everyone but the top few percent, who have seized all gains for themselves_.
"Zero-sum people" are being minted by the millions by our current economy.
When you hoard the upside at historically unprecedented levels, what you get is resentment and an accurate perception that you have been left to fight for scraps.
Those who work and fight within the system for decades at the end of it seek to protect what they perceive they worked for. Even if you changed the incentives on a local (country) level, those with power are pushing for more globalization and providing havens for anyone already with wealth. Its always been this way, but its now at a larger scale, and I feel that most people wish they had something to do to make change happen.
1) Smart children are raised with expectations of doing great things because they are smart. If you have two children and one is obviously smarter than the other, the burden of your hopes and dreams will naturally fall on the smarter one, and equal accomplishments between the two will not have equal praise. Later in life this turns into being unhappy because you feel like you could do more because you are smart. It's a constant burden.
2) Being smart brings with it a certain level of ability to "peer behind the curtain" so to speak, and see just how dirty the real world is. It can make it seem like sinking time and effort to make meaningful changes is just futile because of how many things are messed up. And that kind of mindset saps happiness in a hurry.
That's a tough idea to shake when people connect their self esteem and meaning in life to it.
The solution is to re-discover what you want your life to be about and then get to it. People usually either figure it out somewhat by the time they're 30 or they get burdened by self-imposed obligations to a point where they give up trying and just go with the flow.
So really, a temporary hurdle in the scheme of things :)
>It can make it seem like sinking time and effort to make meaningful changes is just futile because of how many things are messed up. And that kind of mindset saps happiness in a hurry.
So smart people should be dumber?
So instead of wasting their time on individual efforts that go nowhere or have no lasting effect, smart people should contribute their resources to a collective organization. Either by assembling such an organization and managing it, or by being a part of such an organization and providing skills/competency to it.
If you're aware of all the problems in the world, of all the places that have issues, how do you decide which one to apply your time and talent to?
"The best minds of my generation are thinking about how to make people click ads" - said by Jeffrey Hammerbacher in 2011 is still incredibly poignant today.
I like to think I'm much happier knowing how wonderfully magnificent the universe is, rather than staring at the ceiling.
We went from inventing powered flight to landing on the freaking moon in less than 70 years.
In any case, I suspect that you may not be satisfied no matter want reality was. If you had interstellar travel you wouldn't be happy without intergalactic travel.
Even if you only see your own planet, creation is beautiful. (FYI, you happen to be living on the most amazing planet known.)
We went from inventing powered flight to landing on the freaking moon in less than 70 years.
In any case, I suspect that you may not be satisfied no matter want reality was. If you had interstellar travel you wouldn't be happy without intergalactic travel.
Even if you only see your own planet, creation is beautiful. (FYI, you happen to be living on the most amazing planet known.)
Not only do I routinely see right through the benign bullshit designed to keep most people fat and happy, I also often see past the second layer designed to let the people who see past the first layer think that they can actually "fix" anything.
Without the illusions, I'm just a terrified ant scurrying around in a world filled with uncaring stomping boots and sadistic kids with magnifying glasses.
Being intelligent and ethical is a great advantage in the secondary mythic version of life, but it seems in the real, un-glamoured world, the only quality that has value is the ability to excise essential bits of your own humanity and trade them away for power. Intelligence also helps there, obviously, but without principles, the smartest person becomes the worst monster of them all.
The United States is a corporate oligarchy pretending to be a two-party dictatorship pretending to be a representative democracy.
That's the sort of thing meant, I think. There are layers and in this quote the implication is that the fat and happy people are at the outer layer (they think the levers of power of a representative democracy are still valid ways to control the country), and others can see past that into the other two layers behind it.
Most people are happy just to vote. Some people try to channel the overall direction of the vote via party politics. A handful of people know that the election is merely to choose between different means to exactly the same end.
The people can vote to name the ship Boaty McBoatface. The owner will name it something else. It will steer the same course without regard to its name or to the orientation of its deck chairs.
People are happier when they meet their own expectations, and people who are "smart" have higher self expectations.
There may be some transfer of parental expectations ("you are smart, you can do anything when you grow up"), but I suspect (apologies, I cannot cite anything) that even if you remove the external expectations, smarter people have higher standards for themselves. Thus, they are less happy.
The second argument is a variant on:
ignorance is bliss
... which is pretty well supported in literature. I am not sure if the futility/frustration causes unhappiness more than just increased awareness of issues, but it falls in line with that general theme.
Just my 2 cents, as someone who often falls into this category.
I think its easy for the depressed or people who are just misanthropes to hide behind a "the world will never understand my genius" attitudes we see portrayed in the media. They see themselves as a John Nash or a misunderstood artist, when they're just, well, ordinary.
This isn't a hypothetical in my world. When we do hiring its hard to filter out the asocial smart guy from the asocial bullshitter for technical jobs, especially for entry-level. Shockingly, I find the asocial bullshitter personality is mostly unaware at how terrible he is for the job he's applying for. Maybe its Dunning-Kruger or just old fashioned arrogance, but it can be hard to spot. We have a bad hire like this and its incredible how much damage he has done to the department and how he's unwilling to accept that he's, at best, below average. Instead he engages in this "tech master" personality with non-technical staff that is bizarre to witness, especially when you listen in and hear that 50% of what he's saying is just completely and obviously wrong.
So the people showcased on /r/iamverysmart?
It is indeed a massive epidemic, as far as I can tell. A lot of people are in on the game and perpetuating it however - so what can one expect?
Oh, the guy in my earlier posting? Strict atheist. I don't think religiosity has any bearing on intelligence.
> I don't think religiosity has any bearing on intelligence.
I think it has every bearing on intelligence; they are highly correlated[1] and the science backs this up.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence
It does not occur only with technical people, nor only with employees. I have met many people who simply feel that the world is out to get them and are consequently always on the defensive. They attack because if they don't, they feel like they will be attacked. And then it happens according to their perception, even if it's only in their minds. It ruins relationships in general, even marriages.
I emphasize that it's important to note it's not just technical people or employees. Imagine trying to serve a client who gets everything wrong, and when you try to get to the bottom of their problem or even just reproduce it, they get angry that you're not doing what you pay them to do. But they're not willing to consider the expertise they're paying you to provide. I've had a bunch of experiences where I can't even believe a social interaction actually happened because it's so illogical. And it is not a surprise when I notice that those people have poor relationships with a number of their colleagues.
I just told a kid today (I coach middle school basketball) that one of the biggest differences between mature and successful people and immature and unsuccessful people is whether the person is able and willing to consider they could be wrong about all the thoughts they have about others. He was a mirror image of those grown-ups who are always crying foul because the world hates them. He didn't care to consider how what I had to say applied to him too.
I don't know what to do when I run across these types of people. I have failed many times to communicate with them. So now I just try to get through the issue to solve their problem, even if it means some sleight of hand sometimes to make them feel like I agree with what they're saying. You can't treat clients the way you treat employees.
edit: alexashka nailed it. Delusional is the word. I don't know how to deal with it.
A comedian telling a story about a made up person and calling that made up person ugly is absolutely nothing like bullying.
http://www.hillaryrettig.com/perfectionism/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hillary-rettig/perfectionism-a...
"Smart" has little or nothing to do with it. It so happens that whether you're smart or not is not a predictor of your happiness. The article might as well be called "Why so many people born on Tuesdays aren't happy."
IMO, the real issue is smart people fall into the same traps as everyone else. They just end up feeling worse about it. Yes, getting a PHD in molecular biology was probably a bad plan because getting a PHD is generally a bad idea. Which is sadly the same trap as becoming a Hair Stylist just aimed at smart people.
It can be a problem if the population adopts an anti-intellectual strain of thought, which I think persists in America to some degree. It is important to have people who are supportive of other people's intellectual interests. But even intelligent people can be dismissive of intellectual pursuits, especially if they're outside their own set of interests.
It is possible to have a good social life with people who have had less education, or are not as intelligent. There are ways to lead a satisfying intellectual life without having access to the Stanford CS department happy hour, and this is more true now thanks to the Internet.
Intelligence isn't the only measure of a person, though. Wit, humor, and empathy are also very important. Humor and empathy, at least, aren't always paired with deep intelligence.
http://nmh.sdf.org/aboutyouriq.cgi
A major part of the 'unhappiness' that I see a lot of "smart" people deal with is kind of the opposite of this "abundance" thing - in reality, there aren't enough of 'everything' to go around. Good jobs, reasonably priced things, work-life balance, adequate sick and vacation time, opportunities to advance in a company...it's not that smart people reject these things, it's that some of the conditions are pretty un-sympathetic to merit and integrity based approaches. For all the talk about the US having a very mobile system of social and economic status - which I think it does, global context in mind - it's still a bell curve of haves and have nots. Being smart enough to see that conditions are not very appealing doesn't jack up the seratonin feelings of "oh everything is just great" in my neighborhood. Relevant quote:
Peter Gibbons: Our high school guidance counselor used to ask us what you'd do if you had a million dollars and you didn't have to work. And invariably what you'd say was supposed to be your career. So, if you wanted to fix old cars then you're supposed to be an auto mechanic.
Samir: So what did you say?
Peter Gibbons: I never had an answer. I guess that's why I'm working at Initech.
Michael Bolton: No, you're working at Initech because that question is bullshit to begin with. If everyone listened to her, there'd be no janitors, because no one would clean shit up if they had a million dollars.
- solve anything; - improve anything; - even do anything at all.
E.G: I know very smart people, perfectly understanding the theory of social interactions, knowing second to second the dynamic our group is engaged in, and yet, absolutly enable to flirt with the girl they fancy. And it makes them miserable.
"But what is happiness? It's a moment before you need more happiness."
Happiness is like a high that we chase. When I was 25, I was unhappy. But, I was making 150k a year, was very healthy, had good relationships with parents, siblings and friends. I had everything that I needed. I had a good social life and a good job that challenged me intellectually. I was working hard towards my long term goals of climbing the corporate ladder. I had many hobbies that I devoted serious time to. Yet, there was a sense of unhappiness. An "is this all to life" feeling.
I'm 27 now. I still feel like this on some days, but what has made is better is the notion that I can use my skills to help other people improve their lives. I've also learned not to pay too much attention to how you feel/what you're feeling.
/rant
Now I'm the king of the swingers, whoa/The jungle VIP/I've reached the top and had to stop/And that's what botherin' me
The best solution I've found for coping with it is to actively, constantly push down my expectations and deliberately foster a sense of gratefulness about all of the wonderful things in my life.
https://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/2014/05/12/average-...
>On the face of it, it might look like I'm saying that capitalism in general is not very good at promoting an abundance mindset. But I don't think that that is entirely accurate. If you were to break capitalism down into two very important tenets, one is the freedom of movement of people, thought, and goods, and the freedom of choice. The second aspect is a distribution of resources according to people's abilities rather than according to people's needs.
>That first tenet of capitalism, I think, is beautiful, and I wouldn't let go of it. And if that ideology comes with the baggage of distribution of resources according to abilities, then I take that package, rather than a package where you restrict people's freedom of thought and what kinds of choices they can make, even if it's combined with a distribution of resources according to people's needs.