Forgive my heresy, but this book sounds like Yet Another Stoicism Book. Oh, you can be satisfied with life by never wanting anything! What an insight? For once I'd like someone to quote a famous philosopher like, since he was mentioned, Marx, not to say we should want nothing, but instead to point out that we have very real needs which must be met before we can want nothing.
Preach to me of Stoicism when you've housed all the homeless and fed all the hungry!
I haven't read the book, but it seems to me as if you're making this judgement based solely on the line "an idea as compelling to the Greek and Roman stoics" and ignoring the fact that it's immediately followed up by "as to Sartre and Camus".
Ignoring what you said about Stoicism (which,quite frankly, is wrong; it's a very humanistic and community oriented philosophy and almost all virtue-based philosophies are action oriented) the idea of detachment is common to many philosophies and religions including Buddhism, Absurdism, Nihilism (IMHO), various monastic and mystic groups (i.e. The Church Fathers and Sufism), and good old fashioned Platonism. Stocism was probably just mentioned since it A) does incorporate detachment to some degree and B) is one of if not the most well known of the Greco-Roman philosophical schools.
Maslow's hierarchy is way too generalized to be of any use.
I would argue that it's not really a pyramid hierarchy, but more of a pool from which happiness and satisfaction is drawn, where some segments can compensate for others. The only indispensable one is the physiological one.
Even Maslow himself states:
>Maslow states that while he originally thought the needs of humans had strict guidelines, the "hierarchies are interrelated rather than sharply separated".[5] This means that esteem and the subsequent levels are not strictly separated; instead, the levels are closely related.
Like all psychology of the mid 20th century (its essential infancy), it was merely an attempt to categorize some societal patterns without any actual data or studies, but from empirical observations of an extremely narrow view of a westernized society.
What is it about "modern" life that makes us less inclined to Stoicism, though? This smells of noble savagery--I'm doubtful anyone who refers to ritual body mutilation as preferable to playing Everquest has been mutilated.
Jason Silva put it quite nicely in one of his videos [1]:
> The very same quality that make us these majestic creatures that soar above the heavens and transcend their boundaries has made us perpetually dissatisfied, neurotic beings living in urban centers drowning in consumption in an over-capitalist bloated system that can no longer satiate us always wanting something else until we're overwhelmed and overweight and immobilized by how spoiled we've become and yet we enjoy very little of it.
I once saw a bumper sticker that said "You will die. I will die a marine." I'm guessing the modern version of being drug out to the desert for "ritual body mutilation" had given that person a sense of pride and happiness at his service. Certainly something to be feel better about than hours spent on Everquest.
In the Enlightenment era, Jean-Jacques Rousseau was a famous advocate of Spartan values over the "Athenian" cultured urbanism that is essentially the foundation of modern Western life.
This may very much be the source of the happiness the author is lamenting about, though.
Status is always there, and it never went away, and I'd posit that it is is something capable of making a person feel miserable even if everything else in their life is great.
If your happiness is strongly tied to status, that is problematic, since status is almost necessarily zero-sum. For it to be significant that one is a Marine, Marines must be rare, and the comparison point would need to be some non-Marine. And, in the past, communities were smaller, you weren't comparing yourself to billions of people. If status is zero-sum or near-zero-sum, and when you can no longer stand out just by contributing to your community as the guy who makes tables or something, because there are quite a few people making better tables than you, so what happens to your status?
It never occurred to me that he was social signalling anything other than pride in what he accomplished. It's not like "look at my Porsche, I'm rich." It's more "look at the callouses on my hands, I accomplished something real."
Some people are both, it's just easier to project bad qualities onto some expressions of pride than others. There are plenty of people for whom their nice car is just a nice car that they enjoy, and there are plenty of people who take pride in their sacrifices but that pride manifests itself as a feeling of superiority over others.
This. Choosing to be happy is extremely difficult (and is fought hard by any number of other factors, like your diet, your lifestyle, your current economic status, etc.) but the simple fact is being happy is a choice. Hardly ever an easy choice but a choice nonetheless.
There's a point in that where the word "choice" seems rather meaningless. A choice is supposed to be a simple thing, it's merely a decision, not an end goal that takes an inordinate amount of energy. At that point, that's a goal, that's a direction, etc., but it's not exactly a choice since the level of difficulty necessarily implies that you are quite likely to fail, which also means most people will fail.
If anything, your statement would imply that happiness is absolutely not a choice and something most people will never achieve, just like people can't simply "choose" to become an Olympic athlete or the President. The definition has been pulled too far from its original purpose.
I think most practicing yogis, for instance, would argue that yoga is for everyone. In fact, it can be thought of as humanity's best-tested method for self-derived happiness, as filtered through generations of practice and refinement.
While you can't choose to be able to do any particular posture or position, you _can_ choose to be happier than you are now...
Becoming an Olympian involves having talent for a given event that attracts the attention of an investor, the investor's resources in getting you trained, nearly the exclusion of all other activities for a good portion of your life and dedicating all time and energy to your event and maybe, you MIGHT get there.
Being president requires membership of one of the two strong parties, having name recognition enough to be nominated, have vast resources either at your disposal or willing to be invested in by others, all that again for the actual election, and being able to win over one of the most fickle voting populations on the planet.
Being happy...is just a change in how you think. It really is that simple, it requires commitment and self-policing to a great degree but in the end anyone can do it. I wouldn't say it's anything like those other two things.
Note that I'm responding to a specific comment that implies being happy is extremely difficult. Those two things are in my book of "extremely difficult", and I'm bringing them up as examples of the fact that goals are not choices. You can choose to train, but you can't choose to become an Olympian. But I can't figure out if you agree or disagree with happiness being extremely difficult to achieve.
> It really is that simple, it requires commitment and self-policing to a great degree but in the end anyone can do it.
I don't think I can make sense of this statement... if something has many requirements, and something to a great degree, how can you say that it is merely a choice, and that anyone can do it? Again, a choice is a decision, not a goal. There's no difference between "I'll try really hard to be happy" or "I'll try really hard to be an Olympian", they're both goals with no guarantees that you can fail at. What is great? The average person, by definition, is not great. So why are you saying anyone can do it, in the end, that anyone can be great? Simplicity is not relevant here. Winning a race is simple - just run faster than everyone else.
This seems to be along the lines of losing weight. It's simple, but so many people fail at it. If people, in large numbers, greater than average, fail at doing something universality perceived as good, I posit that that means it's not available to most people for whatever reason, because nobody in their right mind would choose a bad outcome for themselves.
If your interest is in making a large proportion of people happy, rather than making a few chosen individuals happy, it's a more interesting question as to why so many people "choose" to not be happy or some other universally positive thing. I'd say the word "choice" is being horribly misused. People struggle and fail, that's what's happening.
What made you decide that changing how you think is simple, easy, and readily available?
> Note that I'm responding to a specific comment that implies being happy is extremely difficult. Those two things are in my book of "extremely difficult", and I'm bringing them up as examples of the fact that goals are not choices. You can choose to train, but you can't choose to become an Olympian. But I can't figure out if you agree or disagree with happiness being extremely difficult to achieve.
I would say difficult, but not extremely difficult. Your examples require a lot of external resources and material goods to achieve, and the services of others. What we're talking about is possibly altering your food intake, maybe a supplement or two, and other than that it's just your own self discipline.
> I don't think I can make sense of this statement... if something has many requirements, and something to a great degree, how can you say that it is merely a choice, and that anyone can do it?
Because everyone has a brain and a will and those are in the vast majority of cases all you need to do it.
> The average person, by definition, is not great. So why are you saying anyone can do it, in the end, that anyone can be great? Simplicity is not relevant here. Winning a race is simple - just run faster than everyone else.
I would say the gateway to happiness is realizing that you are in fact not great, that you are not destined to be famous or wealthy, and to embrace just being the best you that you can be. Embrace average, buy better beer, enjoy the luxuries you can afford instead of pining for the ones you can't.
> What made you decide that changing how you think is simple, easy, and readily available?
Well again I said no such thing, I said in comparison to becoming an Olympian or being elected President that this was easy. There are a lot of other things that are easier than those two things. Altering the way you think just requires self discipline, self policing, and commitment. There's no magic solution or program or book, it's not self help tapes or a twelve step program. It's something you decide to do for you with the resources you were born with.
I've made radical changes to how I think in the last few years and in so doing have greatly improved the quality of my life, and the first step on that journey was realizing that I was just a regular guy, I would never be a celebrity, never be very wealthy, never be famous and never be some massive achiever, and that there was nothing wrong with that. It hurts at first because our society tells us to a large degree that that is how you succeed in life, but after awhile, you learn to appreciate average. Since then I've never been happier.
> Your examples require a lot of external resources and material goods to achieve, and the services of others.
I find it interesting that you think this about becoming an Olympian, but not about being mentally stable and happy. Are you sure you are not simply labeling the thing you are unable to do as something requiring a lot of external resources, and then labeling the thing you are able to do as something not requiring such?
Because I would certainly argue that becoming purposefully happy seems sufficiently out of reach for most people that it probably requires some external resources. Like a good social influence, for starters. Someone at least needs to be there to even tell you about such things.
> What we're talking about is possibly altering your food intake, maybe a supplement or two, and other than that it's just your own self discipline.
That's quite a caveat. Self-discipline is a fairly nebulous thing, how are you going to evaluate it? What is it chemically? Why do some seem to have less and some more? At what point would you stop saying: "Just get more self-discipline" towards a problem?
Why is self-discipline not recommended for people with depression, anxiety, etc., if what you're saying is true?
> Because everyone has a brain and a will and those are in the vast majority of cases all you need to do it.
This looks like a claim, but I'm not sure what you're supporting it with. Some people have very poor brains, where does that fit in in your hypothesis? Should this have been prefixed with "healthy, standard brain"? Because that cuts out a pretty big chunk of people.
> I've made radical changes to how I think in the last few years and in so doing have greatly improved the quality of my life, and the first step on that journey was realizing that I was just a regular guy, I would never be a celebrity, never be very wealthy, never be famous and never be some massive achiever, and that there was nothing wrong with that.
I think the main problem with this thinking is that it's very unlikely that you're an average guy, and I'm curious as to when was the last time you've seen a truly average person. Or how about below average person. Chances are, that by all standard metrics - intelligence, social skills, income, health, etc., you're not average. You're not a celebrity, either, but I don't know why you're so concerned with the top 1% when there's 49% in between you could be in.
The core question here is this: if it is all so available, and so straightforward, and open to everyone, and requires one to simply be human with a brain and nothing else, why is it, then, that nobody does it? Why do people choose to be unhappy, why do they choose to be fat?
> I find it interesting that you think this about becoming an Olympian, but not about being mentally stable and happy.
Now hold on, you never said anything about mental state, we're talking about a healthy person choosing to be happy here (or at least I was). If you have depression or stress disorders or anything of that nature then yes, obviously more is required. The flip side of that: Someone who is otherwise in a fit mental state can choose to be happy in the way we've discussed.
> That's quite a caveat. Self-discipline is a fairly nebulous thing, how are you going to evaluate it? What is it chemically?
Why do we need to evaluate it?
> Why do some seem to have less and some more? At what point would you stop saying: "Just get more self-discipline" towards a problem?
I think a lot of it has to do with how you're raised and the values you're given in your developmental years, but like anything else it's something that's practiced and honed. I'm not perfect by any stretch, I have down days like anyone else.
As to when you stop, I feel like that's connected to this:
> This looks like a claim, but I'm not sure what you're supporting it with. Some people have very poor brains, where does that fit in in your hypothesis? Should this have been prefixed with "healthy, standard brain"? Because that cuts out a pretty big chunk of people.
And:
> Why is self-discipline not recommended for people with depression, anxiety, etc., if what you're saying is true?
Which yes, I am talking about otherwise mentally healthy people but I'd disagree with you that such a statement excludes a lot of people. I think a lot more people are what we would say are "normal" than not.
> The core question here is this: if it is all so available, and so straightforward, and open to everyone, and requires one to simply be human with a brain and nothing else, why is it, then, that nobody does it? Why do people choose to be unhappy, why do they choose to be fat?
Well speaking as someone who's also working on being way too fat for my own good, it's because that's what we're programmed to be. Growing up poor food is the only luxury you really have so every celebration, the good times, are built around big meals and as such I have an issue with comfort eating. It's getting better but just like cultivating happiness it's something that takes constant self policing. The nice thing is, the happiness went first, and that makes comfort eating less necessary by itself.
As has been said elsewhere in the thread, advertising, a huge part of all our lives is built on the idea of convincing people who otherwise wouldn't be aware of a product that they need that product to be happy. Is it such a logical leap that this constant barrage of messages would make people unhappy if they weren't consciously aware of the message and why it's being used that way?
How do you define happy? Are we talking about hedonistic pleasure? Stoic tranquility? Human flourishing (and if we are, Aristotle has some strong words for you regarding external goods)? Oneness with God? Can a clinically depressed person be happy just based off their mentality?
Happiness is a tricky and complicated subject; Just saying its a mentality or that you can "choose" to be happy is an awfully strong statement.
I don't think it's an accident that so many religions encourage monasticism and/or hermitic living as the best (even only) way to achieve inner peace or enlightenment or whatever. Every-moment-zen or the peace of knowledge of the divine and so on are probably way easier to find and maintain in some environments than others. That kind of advice too common across too many cultures/philosophies/religions to be BS. So while it may be technically correct that one can be happy entirely without regard for external circumstances, that goes against prevailing... let's say expert opinion. Environment matters, and controlling and modifying it to make contentment easier to attain isn't a bad idea.
Exception: Sikhs. They do religious living on hard mode.
I had this realization when considering the happiest people on earth (scandinavians) also have pretty much the most disgusting food (imo). But my culture's food (soul food) makes me happy.
This led to the realization that you can change what makes you happy. Though it's very difficult to do that work in today's climate, and impossible over short time scales. A practice like transcendental meditation or yoga is essential in my opinion.
Disappointing that well-tested multigenerational wisdom like this is often downvoted on HN =/
disclaimer: currently reading Autobiography of a Yogi.
Same here. Meditations is fantastic, though for a more complete look into Stoicism, I can't recommend A Guide to the Good Life (The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy) by William B Irvine enough!
I too recommend "A Guide to the Good Life" but saying its a "more complete look into Stoicism" seems a little exagerating. Irvine covers a lot of of the major topics and offers a many excellent ways of integrating them into modern life but underplays one of the most important aspects of Stoicism: living a virtuous lifestyle. He instead heavily plays up the tranquility aspects which I find a bit disingenuous. He also neglects many of the metaphysical aspects of Stoicism which, even if you don't believe/agree with them (I certainly don't), makes it more difficult to understand the background of a lot of Stoic teachings and practices.
It's best to take Irvine's book as a guide to his own modern philosophy heavily based off Stoicism. Take that as you will, but I would recommend Stoicism and the Art of Happiness and some of the original Stoic classics; Enchiridion by Epictetus (it's short and very direct) and Seneca the Youngers Letters.
There is an entire industry dedicated to making you feel inadequate and unhappy: advertising. We are bombarded with messages telling us we are not good enough as we are, but certain products and services can make it so.
Don't worry though, it will all be better once you sit down with your Bay Area Mercedes Benz dealer to talk about financing options on the fantastic new S series featuring blah blah blah.
Right. To put a finer point on it, the insidious part is that advertising teaches us not what to want, but how to want. It doesn't say "a Mercedes makes you worth something", it says "only the things you buy can [make you valuable|entertain you|satisfy you|make life worth living]", which ingrains certain behaviors.
It's like the Dark Side version of the "...teach them to long for the endless immensity of the sea" quote.
Edit: and it really goes even deeper than that, teaching us that being constantly entertained or totally satisfied is the state of being everyone else is in (so why aren't you?) --> only buying things can get you there --> here, buy this.
Until it becomes socially acceptable to bring a tax return and 401k statement on a first date, nice clothes and a nice car are going to remain the only way to demonstrate success to a stranger.
Accusing someone of being "shallow" because they have evolutionarily sensible sexual preferences is incredibly puerile. Any evolutionarily rational person would place substantial value on a partner who can provide for themselves and their offspring.
>Accusing someone of being "shallow" because they have evolutionarily sensible sexual preferences is incredibly puerile.
Being shallow is exactly that: being "evolutionarily sensible".
Unlike animals, that can be only (or mostly) "evolutionarily sensible", we have critical and self-critical faculties, and can see beyond what's "evolutionarily sensible".
And of course, billions of people don't give a rats arse about whether the person they'll fall in love with has a fast car and a fancy suit, or the body type that signals "I'll have plenty of milk for our offspring".
>Any evolutionarily rational person would place substantial value on a partner who can provide for themselves and their offspring.
If they see the world as some kind of jungle where what matters is a partner who can "provide for themselves and their offspring" then they're not just shallow, but also regressive.
You are allowed to have more than one factor in your preferences.
> And of course, billions of people don't give a rats arse about whether the person they'll fall in love with has ... the body type that signals "I'll have plenty of milk for our offspring".
Which billions of people? Females? Yeah, they're typically not looking for milk production in a mate. On the other hand, breasts are a huge component of male attraction in most cultures.
As for fancy cars, it's not the car itself; it's what it signifies. (Although personally, I would place substantial value on a mate driving fast cars! I love driving.)
In what way is it "regressive" to seek a mate who can provide for one's children?
>On the other hand, breasts are a huge component of male attraction in most cultures.
Yes, when you're 16 years old. Or maybe 20. At some point people (not everybody, but I'd say most) learn to see beyond "boobz" in a mate. Especially one they'll marry.
>As for fancy cars, it's not the car itself; it's what it signifies.
A small penis?
>In what way is it "regressive" to seek a mate who can provide for one's children?
In the 20th and 21th century we had this women's liberation thing, where both mates should be able to provide for their children, instead of picking the mate that will provide for you.
I see. So you've completely transcended any desire for physical attractiveness? Impressive.
Did I say anything about men or women in particular? I said its desirable to have a mate who can provide for offspring, which is exactly what you've said here in slightly different words.
>I see. So you've completely transcended any desire for physical attractiveness? Impressive.
So you've transformed my argument into the ultimate straw-man? Impressive.
What I've said is that we are (and have been for millennia) far more nuanced that merely following evolutionary urges.
Even the "desire for physical attractiveness" that we have today has little to do with "big boobs, lots of fat, she will endure and raise healthy children among snow, animal predators, and scarcity of food", to the point that it's not even much relevant anymore.
There are people who like women with small breasts for example, contrary to naive evolutionary-instincts conceptions. And all kinds of sexual preferences, even down to kinks, that are are adopted by tens of millions, and don't have anything to do with revolutionary urges and instincts. Including, of course, being gay, lesbian, etc.
Heck, at this point, the movies and star system drive our sexual preferences towards appearance, etc, more than evolutionary instincts. Fashion too.
>Did I say anything about men or women in particular? I said its desirable to have a mate who can provide for offspring
And I said even that's not related to fancy cars and suits for the huge majority of people.
> In the 20th and 21th century we had this women's liberation thing, where both mates should be able to provide for their children, instead of picking the mate that will provide for you.
The things they are talking about are proxies for being able to provide for one's children. Women need to survive child birth and raise a healthy baby (which required breastfeeding until very recently) hence so much emphasis placed on specific physical characteristics.
Women need men to provide for the family while they take care of the children, hence the emphasis on resource accrual.
Yes there are other options now, but they go against our evolution to date. They are also arguably not child-rearing focused and more along the lines of "providing for you".
First, not everyone defines success in such material terms. If you don't, you probably also aren't interested in attracting a mate who does.
Second, in a society as laden in consumer debt as the USA in the early 21st century, the nature of the correlation between financial wellbeing and ownership of nice things is far from certain. To put it in its most basic terms, the $40k someone spent on their BMW is, by definition, money they didn't stick in their 401k.
Having money is a pretty good heuristic for a lot of positive traits that women generally look for in a mate. It's pretty damn hard to buy a new luxury car with below-average intelligence, social skills, discipline, determination, etc.
And unfortunately unless you're a doctor, lawyer, or CEO, 'having nice things' is the only socially appropriate way to signal that.
I don't like it, but it works really well and sexual selection is what sells luxury cars in general, not advertising.
Not to mention, 'compatible value systems' are not necessary to bring a girl home after a first date and have some fun...
> It's pretty damn hard to buy a new luxury car with below-average intelligence, social skills, discipline, determination, etc.
Yeah. That's why they lease those cars.
------------
Its rather easy today to borrow money and get things that are completely unsustainable. Nothing against people who actually like leasing cars (some people MUST have a new car every 2 years, so its cheaper to lease than to buy).
But a huge number of people who are leasing cars simply can't afford the car. So instead, they go for a "low cost monthly plan" that doesn't build any wealth at all.
> Having $500/mo in free cash flow for the lease payment already shows that you're richer than the majority of twenty-something males.
Nah, it really could just mean someone HAD managed to save up $2000 and are about to get that car repossessed in 4 months.
And based on the ridiculously dumb financial decisions of my friends and peers... that's what happens. Albeit with smaller decisions, but I've seen thousand+-dollar financial mistakes before.
>Talking about relationships in pseudo-Darwinian terms is something that comes out of the pickup artist community.
You do realize that what Darwin is known for is discussing mating behaviour and natural selection, don't you? Or do you think that is not relevant because humans are not animals but special snowflakes, carried down on the wings of angels?
I'm not the OP, but I would say that kind of language is exactly what one would use in order to try to explain exactly what really motivates humans, beyond some ephemeral idea that our actions are based on "feelings", with no deeper interest in understanding of what might be the basis for those feelings.
And since you brought up dehumanizing (which I don't agree this is, BTW): If that is dehumanizing, would such a description not also dehumanize men, who are described as mindlessly dedicating a significant portion of their life to acquiring the money with which to impress? It's a pity that such behaviour would have no effect because women are humans with unfathomable and intractable feelings...
Or can we just admit that some women might be impressed by material wealth, making them precisely human, because some humans may be impressed by material wealth?
This whole line of reasoning is self-defeating. If what you say is true, then I should go out right now and buy expensive cars and clothes for the sole purpose of attracting a mate. Which should clearly demonstrate that I am not financially well-off, smart, or responsible in any way. And it would mean nothing if I am unattractive in other ways.
>And unfortunately unless you're a doctor, lawyer, or CEO, 'having nice things' is the only socially appropriate way to signal that.
Meaningful conversation, a sense of humor, good looks, and an approachable demeanor are all perfectly socially appropriate, and they tend to attract people much more reliably.
I meant nice clothes, nice car, nice apartment, etc are the only socially acceptable ways to demonstrate financial success to a stranger unless you have a prestige career.
There are obviously many other factors besides financial success (and more important ones!) in being attractive.
The idea isn't that you have a nice car and that makes you attractive. It just gets simplified to that for caricature.
The idea is, no matter who you are as a person, the version of you that is healthy, fit, and clearly never has to worry about money, is one of the more attractive versions of you. She's not a gold digger, she just wants to be with someone who is financially secure.
Even "she wants to be with someone who is financially secure" seems to get taken the wrong way.
One relationship has more fun/fulfilling lifestyle options available and the other has fewer. This applies to anyone regardless of gender, although a lot of people have hangups about traditional roles and money.
Right, it makes a lot more sense to judge people on their adherence to a particular muscular profile than on their wealth.
Fitness is an indicator of physical health and ability to defend from predators and fancy cars and clothes are indicators of mental/social prowess and ability to garner resources. They're both valid, if imperfect, criteria by which to judge someone for reproductive fitness.
But once you see this for what it is, that changes things doesn't it? It certainly does for your personal life where you are going to feel less inclined to impress people who are impressed in this way.
Of course sometimes you want to impress people who don't see this anyway, most obviously the job interview or the business meeting. Well in that case: it's incredibly easy to fake these signals, especially when you see them for what they are.
But you still went to tax return/401K, so defining success as owning a lot of the medium of exchange. Not that you have exchanged it for the correct things or gotten them some other way. So you got past viewing nice clothes and cars as and end in themselves but not past viewing money as an end in itself. There is another step you can take, another narrative that has been built to motivate you to act in another group's interest you can abandon.
I made it a point to use public transportation and not drive a car when dating my (now) wife, at least for the first several dates. I wanted to make sure she liked me for what I am, not my possessions (owning a car at my age was quite rare back then). Luckily, she turned out to not care and life has been good :-)
My wife's told me that if I'd showed up in a BMW she probably would've cut the date short. (I walked to the Caltrain station and we Caltrained up together.)
Dating's a way to get a read on someone's value system and find someone who shares your values. It's a mistake to think that everyone shares mainstream American cultural values, even in America. There are plenty of people who don't buy into consumerism or advertising messages.
Its funny that nowadays the idea that you live in a place where you can walk to a caltrain station makes you more likely to be a millionaire than driving a BMW 7 series.
Nice clothes and a nice car indicate financial wellbeing, which is a desirable characteristic in a mate.
Why demonstrate success on a date? What do you think the purpose of a date is? It's a courtship ritual where you try to demonstrate your reproductive value to a potential mate. There are many components to this; appearance, wealth, personality, etc.
I think you have this mixed up; a prostitute is precisely the person you don't need to indicate your value to. You just pay them.
I thought it was to get to know the person, build a relationship and maybe bed them (if you're too horny).
But now I've learned its purpose is to show your bling and evolutionary advantages to send the right primitive signals to the other hardly developed monkey-human.
>I think you have this mixed up; a prostitute is precisely the person you don't need to indicate your value to. You just pay them.
The distance between a whore and a golddigger is not that wide.
The things in your first paragraph are, for the most part, euphemisms for "evaluate the person's reproductive fitness". What do you think "getting to know someone" entails? You literally mention sex in the same sentence; this is the fundamental evolutionary (not teleological) purpose of courtship, regardless of how you dress it up.
>What do you think "getting to know someone" entails?
Talking to them, learning their past, their character, their preferences, their favourite Tom Waits album, etc?
>You literally mention sex in the same sentence;
Which we've managed to separate from pure evolutionary urges to reproduce at least some millennia ago.
>this is the fundamental evolutionary (not teleological) purpose of courtship, regardless of how you dress it up.
You'd be surprised, billions manage to have sex with billions without having children -- in casual relationships and such. And an increasing number of people (like 20-30% in the US I've read?) even for life.
>Talking to them, learning their past, their character, their preferences, their favourite Tom Waits album, etc?
All of these things except maybe Tom Waits are indicators of reproductive fitness. Why do you think your brain is structured to prefer these characteristics in a potential mate?
> Which we've managed to separate from pure evolutionary urges to reproduce at least some millennia ago.
Hardly. We've only had effective birth control for a few decades. Society hasn't fully caught up to this yet, let alone our evolutionary programming.
> You'd be surprised, billions manage to have sex with billions without having children
What planet do you live on? In fact, billions of people have had children!
>All of these things except maybe Tom Waits are indicators of reproductive fitness. Why do you think your brain is structured to prefer these characteristics in a potential mate?
Why do you think different men/women have completely different preferences on those things? Except if "reproductive fitness" is subjective, which defeats the whole argument...
>Hardly. We've only had effective birth control for a few decades.
We've had romantic (and even platonic) love, annal sex, gay people, and tons of other things besides arranged marriages or fucking for reproduction since at least ancient Greece...
>What planet do you live on? In fact, billions of people have had children!
One or two or five. They've had sex 100s of times.
> Why do you think different men/women have completely different preferences on those things?
Because evolutionarily optimal characteristics are different for men and women. An example: women have to endure long periods of partially debilitating gravidity, which means that, among other things, human males are optimized to perform physically exerting tasks. This is presumably why men have more muscle mass than women in general, and why women generally put more emphasis on a mate's musculature than men put on women's.
> since at least ancient Greece...
Most societies and religions select against those activities, presumably because it's sub-optimal from a memetic reproduction standpoint. If all your citizens or followers are galavanting about subverting the sexual reward system and reproducing less than they would if they were forced only to have sex for reproduction, then you will be out-bred by those societies who only allow sex for reproduction. This is why anti-sodomy, anti-homosexuality, anti-masturbation, and even anti-birth-control are extremely popular memes both in established religions and in many societies. Until quite recently the US was one such society, and we are still dealing with attitudes and policies borne of these memes. That is what I meant by "Society hasn't fully caught up to this yet". Not that I am not passing any value judgements on the morality or immorality of such policies; I am just stating historical fact.
> Your comment contains theory and pop psychology popular in the West.
It does contain theory, but it doesn't contain psychology or anything "pop". It's anthropology and evolutionary biology. My views also aren't popular among Western people, except those who like to scientifically pick apart the origins of beloved social traditions. This makes most people uncomfortable.
> many Eastern cultures do not view mating or courtship in the same way
That's nice. Do you actually know anything about "Eastern" views on courtship rituals, or are you just saying that my views aren't mystical enough and you assume that "Eastern" people have some sort of mystical interpretation?
The fact that you're appealing to cultural folklore about dating at all should cause you to re-consider your argument.
>It does contain theory, but it doesn't contain psychology or anything "pop". It's anthropology and evolutionary biology
At the very pop level. No anthropologist or biologist would make as crude presentations of the relevant arguments -- or even think their interaction with culture is some solved problem and it's 100% "evolution" at play.
>My views also aren't popular among Western people, except those who like to scientifically pick apart the origins of beloved social traditions. This makes most people uncomfortable.
No, it's mostly the crude early 20th century scientism and basic oversight of empirical data.
>The fact that you're appealing to cultural folklore about dating at all should cause you to re-consider your argument.
Well, your whole premise was that evolution trumps "cultural folklore" and customs, to which the parent's reference is completely justified as a counter-example.
> Nice clothes and a nice car indicate financial wellbeing
That, or a completely irresponsible attitude towards consumer debt. In most cases, the latter. So, this isn't really a very sound strategy for finding a mate who is financially sound.
Read The Millionaire Next Door. Most people who are actually wealthy drive moderate cars that are completely paid for. Since many of them own a small business that often works in a fairly blue collar industry, they're more likely to be wearing jeans and a work shirt rather than a suit.
> Most people who are actually wealthy drive moderate cars that are completely paid for
whoever wrote that book is selling you on a worldview. your quote is often repeated, but i don't find it to be true. i think it's wishful thinking for a lot of thrifty people, so they can feel superior by judging people they don't know by what they drive around in.
in my experience being a millionaire or not has absolutely no bearing on the kind of car you drive. some people like nice cars or sports cars, other people simply don't give a shit about cars, rich or not.
and from what i've seen, even the wealthy people who don't drive nice cars have other really nice shit, like $100k in road bicycles, or gigantic house(s) or a fully equipped fishing boat sitting in the marina. but they drive a prius, so they're thrifty and virtuous.
That's fine if you met some people who don't meet the profile outlined in the book. It's a statistical trend, not an ironclad law. Obviously once you get beyond a certain point of wealth the difference in price between a Toyota and a BMW becomes insignificant.
Rather than just anecdotes, the authors of the book did actual research and found that most people who have actual net worth above a million dollars did in fact get there by carefully managing their money, and conversely, most people who had the appearance of wealth in the form of expensive cars and boats, didn't have the actual net worth that it implied.
So, if you're judging someone's net worth by the things they happen to own, the whole point is that this is not a reliable indicator of how much wealth someone actually has.
> So, if you're judging someone's net worth by the things they happen to own, the whole point is that this is not a reliable indicator of how much wealth someone actually has.
my point is that you're doing the exact same thing, except in the other direction.
I think you're underestimating human diversity. In some very base sense what you are saying is true, but you're not going to have a successful date just because you vaguely "demonstrated reproductive value." That's because what is appropriate value depends entirely on the person you're dating -- their mood, their experiences, their self-perceptions...
The only way you're speaking the truth is if just about every human behavior qualifies as demonstrating success. In which case, you're saying nothing. It is nearly useless for making actual decisions, and thus not something you are justified in believing strongly.
> That's because what is appropriate value depends entirely on the person you're dating
But you're still demonstrating value, yes? I admit that there is no universal value function. It is subjective to a large degree. However, we can pick out large-scale trends fairly easily.
> The only way you're speaking the truth is if just about every human behavior qualifies as demonstrating success
Everything you do "demonstrates value." So what? You need to know what your date values, and that can vary wildly enough that you cannot reasonably predict it. Thus the purpose of a date is not to "demonstrate value", but to let someone else analyze your value for themselves.
Sure, you can find trends, but you're never dating trends. Real people are not averages of a population.
>Not sure what you mean.
When you say "but you're still demonstrating value", you are reducing dating analysis to a tautology. It will either be untrue or useless. Something has to fail to demonstrate value in order for you to determine not to do it. And you can't do that without knowing the person you're dating.
Which is at the heart of everyone else's point: Dating is about finding out what your date values, not 'demonstrating' what you imagine it is that they value.
So what you're telling me is that healthy, fit, intelligent, and wealthy person isn't going to have more dating success than a sickly, scrawny, impoverished idiot? Interesting theory.
You're predicting broad trends. You're not determining the actual outcome of individual dates. A "sickly, scrawny, impoverished idiot" can have successful dates, and you've just failed to predict that.
When you go on a date, whether the average person would like you means nothing. Whether the person actually sitting in front of you likes you means everything. And you can't predict that. You are talking about the middle of a bell curve, and you're failing to understand how wide that curve is and how strong the tails are. Which is why I said you're failing to understand human diversity.
It discusses studies on how materialistic desires relate to one's emotional well-being (all correlative, as I recall), and then goes from there into a thoughtful analysis of how materialism alters a person's priorities in a variety not-so-healthy ways. I found it to be a pretty good reality check.
What you said has been repeated so many times everyone just accepts it as true. But if you look at the new age hippies, they're playing the same game, but having a better car is replaced by having a nicer 30 yr old van, or nicer dreadlocks, or being more spiritual, etc. People will always want to be better than other people; having that S class you mentioned is just one of the methods of achieving that. Advertising is just one of many sources which feed you ideas on how to demonstrate your higher value over fellow human beings.
No, I don't think that's true at all. Yes, with subcultures there is and probably always will be a subset within that is obsessed with oneupmanship over their colleagues, but that's not what is being described in the parent.
The parent is discussing the idea that "advertising creates a problem and sells you a solution", and in specific they're focusing on how advertising shapes perceptions intentionally with the intent of making the product more desirable. Just do an image search for "funny salad" to understand what is going on - you'll see there's an entire meme dedicated to the absurd advertising of salads to women, who are always caught in mid-laugh as they eat their salad. Car commercials, especially for trucks, tend to have a soundtrack similar to that of an epic movie, usually with well built men driving the trucks and doing some sort of hard labor. Commercials directed at kids are even more shameless and will often just juxtapose kids sitting around bored out of their mind without [product] (often in black and white) and then suddenly there's colour and joy in life with [product].
Advertising has a very specific purpose and a lot of the focus is about creating an idea and a brand image, the idea that "these are the type of people who have our product and this is what they do at night or on the weekend." Kodak Moments were an entire marketing campaign for cheap consumer cameras, and now the term is synonymous for any good memory and that you need to take a picture of. (Granted, this example is no longer as relevant due to digital cameras, but you get the idea)
Some subcultures have things to sell you - there are numerous kickstarters and other crowdfunded items that try to play to the sympathies and sensibilities of the loosely defined gamers, and unfortunately far too many people in this subculture are far too willing to part with their money. However, I'd argue that when it comes to philosophies or social movements, there's a message. And it's one you have more power about choosing to get into than you do with advertisement.s
Usually you choose the subculture's value system that you subscribe to, though. You don't choose the advertising you get (although some video ads are experimenting with that).
When I find that I am falling into the trap of emotional highs from buying crap I don't need, I just remind myself that I grew up with only the essentials and I don’t need more toys. If we (my siblings and I) wanted anything, we made due with homemade cardboard props (for the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701)), sticks for swords, or paper men for armies.
It sounds embarrassingly crude, but it has served as an internal equalizer when I feel like desiring or whining. I have tried to demonstrate to my kids that contentment (happiness) is really best obtained and empowering when you realize you don’t need to buy it, you can just make or generate it yourself.
You chose a funny example because car commercials are as much speaking to recent car buyers as they are to car shoppers. Half of what they're intended to do is reduce "buyer's remorse," to make owners feel good and want to buy the same make again.
Also, those re-targeting ads for that thing you have already bought? Following you around the internet. Those aren't because of a mistake in the targeting criteria like a lot of people think.
You will be so pleased with a purchase that has no buyer's remorse, which you accept as normal, that you will go buy some more stuff from that store. Clearly it is a special rare deal you have discovered.
We don't live in a vacuum. Our lives are still dictated by things we need, such as food, shelter, fulfilling relationships, and meaningful activities. Some people fine actual enjoyment in cars, so they do genuinely become happy when they purchase that new S Series. The bigger issue is that media tries to say that they know what we want better than ourselves, so we should listen to the car dealer/parent/professor/etc.
Point well received. I think there's some kind of correlative regarding even bringing such an attitude into one's home...as in, the Echo. Yes it serves many purposes but I think it's germane to point out the origin and, ahem, probably preferred use in a consumer context.
In recent years I've gotten into the Greek philosophy of Stoicism and find it a great mental tool even in our modern times. I'm partial to the book A Guide to the Good Life by William Irvine.
This article doesn't do the work. It does not provide good arguments, nor does it provide evidence. It simply repeats some fairly popular platitudes and jabs in hopes that it will make people agree and go buy the book. But nothing is really being properly explored in the article and I would not give it any credit.
The book is another matter but that will need to be analyzed separately.
We are moving away from the satisfaction in the action to glamorizing all the other parts such as the result, or even worse the ability to avoid the action altogether. Our values are more aligned with pride and the communal recognition of success rather than the individual notion that you put your full effort and must live with the consequences.
On a separate note, we are seeing a gradual disappearance of the middle class resulting in desperate attempts to rise in status whether superficially or explicitly. In either case, we are losing some self-worth and putting our happiness in the hands of society and rules we don't control.
Around the turn of the century cough I became aware of the concept of "affluenza" (a portmanteau of affluence and influenza), watched a PBS show on the topic, and read the book "Your Money or Your Life," which changed my life. Before that time I was a materialistic kid, gathering as much stuff as I could.
The TL;DR to these is that once you get enough anything more produces rapidly diminishing returns in the happiness department:
The movie Fight Club also came out around this time with a similar message and was the "knockout punch" to my consumerism, haha. Not long after this I'd sold most of what I owned, quit my job, and took a trip around the world. Have been much happier ever since, with new expectations and goals.
Another thing I learned on that trip, I did not miss TV one minute while I was gone, and found a lot of the garbage (consumerism, superstition, Britney news, and petty politics) in my mind had cleared.
The main purpose of TV news and advertising is to drive fear and desire, which I now liken to a cancer, but one that can be beat.
Yes, we have netflix and itunes because there are some great shows, right? But commercials and mainstream news sources---fuck no---life is much better without them.
Well, the book gives you one way to financial independence (though it is a bit outdated now), that may be important to you. The movie gives background on why consumerism does not fulfill us.
It's easy to be happy. Read a book about life in a WWI trench, read a book about a former slave, read a book about the plague. Go visit an old folks home. Read about parents who lost their kids in a tragic accident. Just remembering those things make me realize that I should be happy with what I have.
Same, seeing or reading about more misery never makes me happier, just worse. Watching happy things makes me happy. It's the only reason I watch a stupid show like Ballers on HBO or Bollywood movies. Not necessarily deep but they are happy and fun.
Because, at least for some people, it put their minor problems into perspective. After which they apply the proper amount of emotional response to minor problem.
Hence the question about the framework, because what kind of a resolution is that if you stop and think about it for a second? You saw something really bad and that made you feel better about things? Your life is a bit better than theirs, what does this mean? It doesn't make yours suddenly better. And it certainly makes the whole world worse. Those people are part of the world you live in, and your world just got worse.
Someone gave you a random number. Say, 23. You have a biological device programmed to set this random number as your "default". It has no frame of reference. It's not objective. All it does is tell you things are bad when you feel lower than that number, and good when you feel higher than that number.
Then you found someone else and their number is a lot lower. Like, 6. You have now decided that your number is pretty awesome because it's so much higher than theirs! Later, you see someone with a 50. And you're jealous because they're a lot higher than you. Except you have never seen the full graph. You don't even have any way to really evaluate "so much higher" except that same biological device that you so hastily discredited. Maybe the max number is 30. Or 50. Or a 100. Or a million. And the most important thing - your number is still 23.
You didn't put your problems in perspective. To have perspective, you need to know how wide the possibility set is, and you don't know that. All you did is calibrated down, and reduced your expectations. But that doesn't change reality. Your minor problem may as well be bigger than you imagine it, you have no frame of reference, how can you possibly tell?
I don't think the world gets worse by finding out that someone has a bad life. The bad things would exist whether you learned about them or not.
I think knowing about other, bad lives can remind people of all the things they have and take for granted. We tend to focus on the things we don't have, but if you can appreciate the things you do have, you'll be much happier.
Think of it this way. One day, guaranteed, you will have at least one very serious problem. Be happy that day isn't today. Study history and realize how much worse your life could be, random or not, and be happy you aren't in that hell.
An old yet succinct term would be, "count your blessings." You should find things to be thankful for every day. Your health, your family, the fact that you aren't starving. The fact that you have access to clean water. And for Christ's sake, stop consuming news for a while.
If you have to worry, pick the top 3 things to worry about and ditch the rest.
Serving others tends to help out with my own happiness here. :)
Since we're on the subject, other things that help: reading scriptures, meditation, relationships (others, family), etc.
Do we have any decent evidence of raising unhappiness?
Say looking at proxies like suicide rates does not suggest any particularly strong trend in either direction?
Come on! We live in a world which is specifically designed to make us unhappy. I mean most of us don't even have the option to be less materialistic; most jobs that pay enough that you could spend less time at work don't give you the option of doing so. So the only freedom left to people is the freedom to choose how their money is spent. Human relations are constantly being squeezed out and replaced with business deals. And I keep seeing these articles blaming the victims. Folks, this is not some unintended side effect of capitalism- this is the way the system is supposed to work. You're not supposed to be happy.
> If this was an issue with capitalism in general we wouldn't be discussing it this way, since the issue would date back at lease a century.
Unless I'm misunderstanding what "this" and "it" refer to, it's not exactly a new topic. Identity, ego, happiness, capitalism, consumerism, work, family, and their various relationships and conflicts have been discussed in ways nearly indistinguishable from how they are today since the dawn of the modern global economy (the 50s), and similar issues have been covered by Western writers since at least the 19th century (much farther back, depending on how much you want to stretch "similar").
The issue has been discussed for at least a century; as well as being directly discussed, its been a common and recurring theme of art and literature within and concerning the capitalist economies for more than a century.
Especially in software development, there are enormous opportunities to work however you like for as many hours as you like. Sure, if you want a mid six-figure salary and try to keep up with the Jones' in SF you'll need to sacrifice some leisure and relationships, but that's not universally true. If your preference is to enjoy meaningful relationships and leisure time outside of work, and you have STEM skills, this is a great time to be alive.
I chose to work four days a week, and it's been an overwhelmingly good decision. Combined with living somewhere with an extremely low cost of living (I live in a nice flat and have a nice car for $1k/mo) and not liking owning too many material possessions, it's been a fantastic decision.
The alternative would be to spend another day a week working for money I literally have no need for and cannot use. I don't want to trade time during my thirties for time during my sixties, either, since time in my thirties is much more useful, as I am better able to do things with it.
Hmm, if I'm parsing your sentence correctly, yes, I used to work 5 days a week, I requested it be changed to 4 (with a 20% reduction in pay), and they agreed. I can also go back to 5 days if I want, since they've indicated they would prefer that, but I strongly feel that a 5-day work week isn't a good fit for me right now.
I've been thinking about whether is reduction in the workweek is politically or culturally possible, even if it is economically motivated. I sort of came to the conclusion that people turning 5 days jobs into 4 would be necessary on the cultural front. Glad to hear of someone that actually did it!
I work at a small manufacturing facility, while living in a relatively low COL area. The pay is not exceptional, but enough to clear all expenses, have some fun and save 15%. I am given the choice almost every week (crunch periods and other workers plans sometimes take priority) of working either 4 ~10 hour shifts or 5 ~8's. I find it extremely useful and pleasant, and would gladly keep my current job (6:30-2:30|4:30) over one that paid $4-5 more per hour that had a fixed 9-5 M-F schedule.
Having an optional 3 day weekend allows a lot of possibility for longer recreational trips, large projects, dedicating one day to errands and totally freeing the other two, etc. On the other side of the equation, having a wide open afternoon + evening every weekday is great too.
It may seem like I'm just preaching to the choir on this one, but I'm also trying to simply raise awareness of what an excellent benefit it is. Realistically, could businesses in other fields adopt this? It's a great way to keep employees happy (saving turnover expenses) and doesn't alter their paycheck.
[edit]
Since you are working less in exchange for the 20% cut, I realize not every business can do this since paying more people for fewer hours has diminishing returns. Giving the option of 4 10's or 5 8's, though, is still the same hours + work done. Why do we not see this offered more?
> most jobs that pay enough that you could spend less time at work don't give you the option of doing so.
In most countries outside of the West jobs pay much less and you'll be forced to work much more to merely survive. Want to trade with them?
> Folks, this is not some unintended side effect of capitalism- this is the way the system is supposed to work. You're not supposed to be happy.
So an economic system where private enterprises produce goods and services based on what they believe will make profit (and not through coercion) and where you, the consumer, as a result have more options to choose from is somehow designed to make you unhappy?
What would make you happy? "Democratic Socialism"? Would you prefer to work in forced labour camp? Because that's how Socialism inevitably ends every single time. Even in case of the poster child of Socialism, Venezuela, which recently passed a forced labour law.
I often wonder if anyone who believe that the freedom to sell your goods and services is a bad thing can be rationalized with. Where do you even start with someone who disagrees with free trade? I mean their stance is basically that slavery (to the state) is a good thing. That's such a philosophical starting point based on intrinsic values, where do you start?
Doesn't a disagreement with free trade mean that you think products from other countries should be taxed? If thats the case than local goods have a completive advantage in price, thats a good thing for a community isn't it?
Free trade is an advantage to these who have the capital to move around, and to the idea of consumerism because unnecessary goods can be cheaper.
Generally the places we call socialist are state capitalist, meaning the state owns the means of production.
The evolution from capitalism isn't to communism, it would be something new, something different. What we should want is a better system that is more fair to everyone and doesn't by its very purpose destroy the world.
I'm responding because I hate when people think that down-voting is a signal for disagreement, and because I think half of your second statement can be addressed.
State ownership of capital is the definition of socialism. In as much as anyone uses your term 'state capitalist', they use it to refer to the heavy-handed control of markets by government in places like China.
As to the departure from capitalism: when you depart from free markets without some seriously strong restraints to prevent further movement, you're always moving toward the same endpoint of non-choice and stagnation, but there are plenty of trajectories to get there. In the US, we enact well-meaning policy to protect our hallowed institutions or to protect the disadvantaged. The resulting distortions in knowledge conveyed by prices create arbitrage opportunities. Organizations/companies that can find and exploit those opportunities can grow powerful, and then they can sink in their talons to further distort and fossilize the market to their advantage. In the middle term, we have a different small group of people who get rich at others' expense, but it's a race to the bottom just like any other. Our confidence in preventing that decline is a finesse, just like in bridge: we're handing over control in the hope that we can both effect an intended change and regain control. That's a good trick for as long as you can keep it up.
Having said that, I think it's bizarre to say that any system's purpose is to destroy the world, even if that is the probable end state.
According to Wikipedia:
"Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production;"[1]
"social ownership" refers to the various forms of ownership for the means of production in socialist economic systems; encompassing public ownership, employee ownership, cooperative ownership, citizen ownership of equity[1] and common ownership.[2]
As far as the meaning of socialism, I'd see an evolution of capitalism leading to the employee/cooperative ownership with less government interference. It makes sense that the people doing the work have a say in the company they are a part of. There could be problems, there are always problem with any system. But a fairer situation for all workers seems overall more beneficial to society as a whole.
The issues you are describing in the US don't seem to be socialist, they are consequences of capitalism. As a process capitalism focuses on concentration of power, rent-seeking, limitation of competition (through corporate lobby). Basically what we have now is capitalism, there is no perfect ideal capitalism that we would be better with, and should move towards, we've already gone down that path and these are the consequences. This to me is the reason why we should be honestly talking about trying something else, something better.
> "social ownership" refers to the various forms of ownership for the means of production in socialist economic systems; encompassing public ownership, employee ownership, cooperative ownership, citizen ownership of equity[1] and common ownership.[2]
In Capitalism you actually have the freedom to share the means of production. Go out there and convince a few people to form a company that is collectively owned. It can be done.
So why don't we then see formation of companies with employee ownership or cooperative ownership? Because it is a model that is far less effective in producing goods and services, thus in almost every case someone tried it it failed. (and many did try)
The only way this can work is by outlawing private enterprises as we know them today, because if private enterprises were allowed to exist besides these models then they would be guaranteed to crush these alternative organisation forms.
We have seen this happen every single time Socialism was implemented. Capitalists economies consistently crushed Socialist economies.
Therefore everyone that insists on implementing Socialism has to accept that it will mean that innovation and efficiency will significantly go down as a result, which also means that everyone will get poorer. (if you produce less or at higher costs per unit then this is bound to happen)
It also means that other societies that do not implement Socialism will have an advantage and over time we'll fall back in development significantly.
And then of course you somehow have to sell your population to accept that the government will take away their private property and redistribute it, if it is any kind of business.
So it's kind of a tough sell to anyone that thinks the whole thing through.
It is also immoral by the way. You have to steal private property from others and limit their freedoms just so your little collective has a shot at surviving in the market.
If it weren't so then you'd have already created the collective, because you could. No one is preventing you from doing it in a Capitalist economy.
I haven't read the book, but is the article arguing that rampant individualism leads to unhappiness, or the lack of detachment and focus on "communities"? It seems to mention both.
Lol, his thesis is a song that is sang to kids in Elsass to remind them that you are always unsatisfied when only focused on what you want and not what you have.
D’r Hans im Schnòckeloch hät àlles, wàs er will !
Un wàs er hät, dess will er nit,
Un wàs er will, dess hät er nit.
D’r Hans im Schnòckeloch hät àlles, wàs er will !
D’r Hans im Schnòckeloch sajt àlles, wàs er will !
Wàs er sajt, dess dankt er nit,
Un wàs er dankt, dess sajt er nit,
D’r Hans im Schnòckeloch sajt àlles, wàs er will !
D’r Hans im Schnòckeloch màcht àlles, wàs er will !
Wàs er màcht, dess soll er nit,
Un wàs er soll, dess màcht er nit.
D’r Hans im Schnòckeloch màcht àlles, wàs er will !
D’r Hans im Schnòckeloch geht ànne, wo er will !
Wo er isch, dò bliebt er nit,
Un wo er bliebt, dò gfàllts im nit.
D’r Hans im Schnòckeloch geht ànne, wo er will !
Jetzt het d’r Hans sò sàtt
Un isch vom Eland màtt.
Lawe, majnt er, kànn er nit,
Un sterwe, sajt er, will er nit.
Er springt züem Fenschter nüss,
Un kommt ins Nàrrehüss.
"As time went by, the settlers from Europe noticed something: No Indians were defecting to join colonial society, but many whites were defecting to live in the Native American one."
The passage shocked me, as it is extremely surprising, and speaks to the core of our societal growth over the past few hundreds of years not leading to maximum happiness. The passage is from this David Brooks column (which I think is definitely worth the three minutes to read): http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/09/opinion/the-great-affluenc...
The core thought is that people trade up for comfort (including privacy), but that they lose out on the overall bonds with other people that are what really makes us happy.
One extremely clear choice: Do you work from home (more comfy) or an office (more social)?
The work from home choice seems extremely relevant to me. Is it actually bad for happiness in the long term to do something that's so much more comfortable (no commuting, no dressing up, feeling of being at home, etc)?
When I think about the best times in my own life, they were the times when I had a close group of people I lived and hung out with (college, summer camp, etc). I assume it's the same for many others reading this. So why do we not live more like that into our adult years?
I work from home. If I were single or if the kids had moved out of the house and my SO worked, your comment would probably be true for me (better to be in the office). But, I've had a chance to see my young children grow up in a way that couldn't have happened had I been in the office, all while doing significant meaningful work. Certainly that's more social with a closer group of people (family). So, it probably depends on circumstances.
> The core thought is that people trade up for comfort (including privacy), but that they lose out on the overall bonds with other people that are what really makes us happy.
The fundamental importance of high quality bonds with other people is something I wish was emphasised more.
The following TED talk describes a pretty interesting research experiment done over a long time frame which essentially comes to this conclusion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KkKuTCFvzI
Excellent video. It's amazing how much time we spend on hobbies, learning better skills, having fun - and how little time we spend trying to optimize our lives for happiness.
I agree with you about working in an office. Regarding the passage though, I think it can be explained by things other than one society is happier. Like, there is such a thing as romanticized notions of another culture that are not accurate. Or a tribal identity that makes it very difficult to leave regardless of happiness.
I love working from home. But it's because in the Summer I can choose to split my day in two, spend a sunny afternoon riding my bike around the city with my girlfriend, grab a beer with a friend, and finish my work in the evening; or I can go out to the country, visit my friends' office and work from there... or whatever.
Sitting at the office from 10 to 6, breathing in sterile AC, watching the world pass me by through the window was the depressing bit.
"Imagine a society that subjects people to conditions that make them terribly unhappy, then gives them the drugs to take away their unhappiness. Science fiction? It is already happening to some extent in our own society. It is well known that the rate of clinical depression had been greatly increasing in recent decades. We believe that this is due to disruption of the power process...The entertainment industry serves as an important psychological tool of the system, possibly even when it is dishing out large amounts of sex and violence. Entertainment provides modern man with an essential means of escape. While absorbed in television, videos, etc., he can forget stress, anxiety, frustration, dissatisfaction"
5 points to whoever can guess what this quote is from
191 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 227 ms ] thread"Prosperity knits a man to the world. He feels that he is finding his place in it, while really it is finding its place in him."
Preach to me of Stoicism when you've housed all the homeless and fed all the hungry!
Ignoring what you said about Stoicism (which,quite frankly, is wrong; it's a very humanistic and community oriented philosophy and almost all virtue-based philosophies are action oriented) the idea of detachment is common to many philosophies and religions including Buddhism, Absurdism, Nihilism (IMHO), various monastic and mystic groups (i.e. The Church Fathers and Sufism), and good old fashioned Platonism. Stocism was probably just mentioned since it A) does incorporate detachment to some degree and B) is one of if not the most well known of the Greco-Roman philosophical schools.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs
but you'll probably dismiss it as new-agey handwavey woo woo crap about self-actualization.
all this existential stuff is kind of ridiculous, just like life, so you kind of just have to take it at face value.
I would argue that it's not really a pyramid hierarchy, but more of a pool from which happiness and satisfaction is drawn, where some segments can compensate for others. The only indispensable one is the physiological one.
Even Maslow himself states:
>Maslow states that while he originally thought the needs of humans had strict guidelines, the "hierarchies are interrelated rather than sharply separated".[5] This means that esteem and the subsequent levels are not strictly separated; instead, the levels are closely related.
Like all psychology of the mid 20th century (its essential infancy), it was merely an attempt to categorize some societal patterns without any actual data or studies, but from empirical observations of an extremely narrow view of a westernized society.
A minimum of comfort is necessary for the practice of virtue. -- Patrice Lumumba
"You might be surprised," he said, and was himself surprised when people took it as a joke.
> The very same quality that make us these majestic creatures that soar above the heavens and transcend their boundaries has made us perpetually dissatisfied, neurotic beings living in urban centers drowning in consumption in an over-capitalist bloated system that can no longer satiate us always wanting something else until we're overwhelmed and overweight and immobilized by how spoiled we've become and yet we enjoy very little of it.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzAFCU4RCnM
An associated phenomenon is Laconophilia, the admiration of Spartan values: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laconophilia
In the Enlightenment era, Jean-Jacques Rousseau was a famous advocate of Spartan values over the "Athenian" cultured urbanism that is essentially the foundation of modern Western life.
Status is always there, and it never went away, and I'd posit that it is is something capable of making a person feel miserable even if everything else in their life is great.
If your happiness is strongly tied to status, that is problematic, since status is almost necessarily zero-sum. For it to be significant that one is a Marine, Marines must be rare, and the comparison point would need to be some non-Marine. And, in the past, communities were smaller, you weren't comparing yourself to billions of people. If status is zero-sum or near-zero-sum, and when you can no longer stand out just by contributing to your community as the guy who makes tables or something, because there are quite a few people making better tables than you, so what happens to your status?
If anything, your statement would imply that happiness is absolutely not a choice and something most people will never achieve, just like people can't simply "choose" to become an Olympic athlete or the President. The definition has been pulled too far from its original purpose.
While you can't choose to be able to do any particular posture or position, you _can_ choose to be happier than you are now...
Being president requires membership of one of the two strong parties, having name recognition enough to be nominated, have vast resources either at your disposal or willing to be invested in by others, all that again for the actual election, and being able to win over one of the most fickle voting populations on the planet.
Being happy...is just a change in how you think. It really is that simple, it requires commitment and self-policing to a great degree but in the end anyone can do it. I wouldn't say it's anything like those other two things.
> It really is that simple, it requires commitment and self-policing to a great degree but in the end anyone can do it.
I don't think I can make sense of this statement... if something has many requirements, and something to a great degree, how can you say that it is merely a choice, and that anyone can do it? Again, a choice is a decision, not a goal. There's no difference between "I'll try really hard to be happy" or "I'll try really hard to be an Olympian", they're both goals with no guarantees that you can fail at. What is great? The average person, by definition, is not great. So why are you saying anyone can do it, in the end, that anyone can be great? Simplicity is not relevant here. Winning a race is simple - just run faster than everyone else.
This seems to be along the lines of losing weight. It's simple, but so many people fail at it. If people, in large numbers, greater than average, fail at doing something universality perceived as good, I posit that that means it's not available to most people for whatever reason, because nobody in their right mind would choose a bad outcome for themselves.
If your interest is in making a large proportion of people happy, rather than making a few chosen individuals happy, it's a more interesting question as to why so many people "choose" to not be happy or some other universally positive thing. I'd say the word "choice" is being horribly misused. People struggle and fail, that's what's happening.
What made you decide that changing how you think is simple, easy, and readily available?
I would say difficult, but not extremely difficult. Your examples require a lot of external resources and material goods to achieve, and the services of others. What we're talking about is possibly altering your food intake, maybe a supplement or two, and other than that it's just your own self discipline.
> I don't think I can make sense of this statement... if something has many requirements, and something to a great degree, how can you say that it is merely a choice, and that anyone can do it?
Because everyone has a brain and a will and those are in the vast majority of cases all you need to do it.
> The average person, by definition, is not great. So why are you saying anyone can do it, in the end, that anyone can be great? Simplicity is not relevant here. Winning a race is simple - just run faster than everyone else.
I would say the gateway to happiness is realizing that you are in fact not great, that you are not destined to be famous or wealthy, and to embrace just being the best you that you can be. Embrace average, buy better beer, enjoy the luxuries you can afford instead of pining for the ones you can't.
> What made you decide that changing how you think is simple, easy, and readily available?
Well again I said no such thing, I said in comparison to becoming an Olympian or being elected President that this was easy. There are a lot of other things that are easier than those two things. Altering the way you think just requires self discipline, self policing, and commitment. There's no magic solution or program or book, it's not self help tapes or a twelve step program. It's something you decide to do for you with the resources you were born with.
I've made radical changes to how I think in the last few years and in so doing have greatly improved the quality of my life, and the first step on that journey was realizing that I was just a regular guy, I would never be a celebrity, never be very wealthy, never be famous and never be some massive achiever, and that there was nothing wrong with that. It hurts at first because our society tells us to a large degree that that is how you succeed in life, but after awhile, you learn to appreciate average. Since then I've never been happier.
I find it interesting that you think this about becoming an Olympian, but not about being mentally stable and happy. Are you sure you are not simply labeling the thing you are unable to do as something requiring a lot of external resources, and then labeling the thing you are able to do as something not requiring such?
Because I would certainly argue that becoming purposefully happy seems sufficiently out of reach for most people that it probably requires some external resources. Like a good social influence, for starters. Someone at least needs to be there to even tell you about such things.
> What we're talking about is possibly altering your food intake, maybe a supplement or two, and other than that it's just your own self discipline.
That's quite a caveat. Self-discipline is a fairly nebulous thing, how are you going to evaluate it? What is it chemically? Why do some seem to have less and some more? At what point would you stop saying: "Just get more self-discipline" towards a problem?
Why is self-discipline not recommended for people with depression, anxiety, etc., if what you're saying is true?
> Because everyone has a brain and a will and those are in the vast majority of cases all you need to do it.
This looks like a claim, but I'm not sure what you're supporting it with. Some people have very poor brains, where does that fit in in your hypothesis? Should this have been prefixed with "healthy, standard brain"? Because that cuts out a pretty big chunk of people.
> I've made radical changes to how I think in the last few years and in so doing have greatly improved the quality of my life, and the first step on that journey was realizing that I was just a regular guy, I would never be a celebrity, never be very wealthy, never be famous and never be some massive achiever, and that there was nothing wrong with that.
I think the main problem with this thinking is that it's very unlikely that you're an average guy, and I'm curious as to when was the last time you've seen a truly average person. Or how about below average person. Chances are, that by all standard metrics - intelligence, social skills, income, health, etc., you're not average. You're not a celebrity, either, but I don't know why you're so concerned with the top 1% when there's 49% in between you could be in.
The core question here is this: if it is all so available, and so straightforward, and open to everyone, and requires one to simply be human with a brain and nothing else, why is it, then, that nobody does it? Why do people choose to be unhappy, why do they choose to be fat?
Now hold on, you never said anything about mental state, we're talking about a healthy person choosing to be happy here (or at least I was). If you have depression or stress disorders or anything of that nature then yes, obviously more is required. The flip side of that: Someone who is otherwise in a fit mental state can choose to be happy in the way we've discussed.
> That's quite a caveat. Self-discipline is a fairly nebulous thing, how are you going to evaluate it? What is it chemically?
Why do we need to evaluate it?
> Why do some seem to have less and some more? At what point would you stop saying: "Just get more self-discipline" towards a problem?
I think a lot of it has to do with how you're raised and the values you're given in your developmental years, but like anything else it's something that's practiced and honed. I'm not perfect by any stretch, I have down days like anyone else.
As to when you stop, I feel like that's connected to this:
> This looks like a claim, but I'm not sure what you're supporting it with. Some people have very poor brains, where does that fit in in your hypothesis? Should this have been prefixed with "healthy, standard brain"? Because that cuts out a pretty big chunk of people.
And:
> Why is self-discipline not recommended for people with depression, anxiety, etc., if what you're saying is true?
Which yes, I am talking about otherwise mentally healthy people but I'd disagree with you that such a statement excludes a lot of people. I think a lot more people are what we would say are "normal" than not.
> The core question here is this: if it is all so available, and so straightforward, and open to everyone, and requires one to simply be human with a brain and nothing else, why is it, then, that nobody does it? Why do people choose to be unhappy, why do they choose to be fat?
Well speaking as someone who's also working on being way too fat for my own good, it's because that's what we're programmed to be. Growing up poor food is the only luxury you really have so every celebration, the good times, are built around big meals and as such I have an issue with comfort eating. It's getting better but just like cultivating happiness it's something that takes constant self policing. The nice thing is, the happiness went first, and that makes comfort eating less necessary by itself.
As has been said elsewhere in the thread, advertising, a huge part of all our lives is built on the idea of convincing people who otherwise wouldn't be aware of a product that they need that product to be happy. Is it such a logical leap that this constant barrage of messages would make people unhappy if they weren't consciously aware of the message and why it's being used that way?
Exception: Sikhs. They do religious living on hard mode.
This led to the realization that you can change what makes you happy. Though it's very difficult to do that work in today's climate, and impossible over short time scales. A practice like transcendental meditation or yoga is essential in my opinion.
Disappointing that well-tested multigenerational wisdom like this is often downvoted on HN =/
disclaimer: currently reading Autobiography of a Yogi.
God says... final's unforeseeable maximization's countermanded odes lupus noblewoman broadness legitimize skiing's indents golly overhauling avenues river SALT's taker Prince's economic Pat helplessly numismatist's Sicilian's Equuleus turquoise schematic's liquidating darn corrosion's demagoguery's contortionist's orthogonality
I made God's third temple.
I'm in a prison.
God always wins in the end. Suffering is the only way to get to heaven. Highs and lows balance.
God says... florin's hackneyed shipyard particulars née Alissa's leitmotif's speedy amperes reciprocity overstepping misread Geffen's rearing troopships viciousness's retirement's Baal's bleaker spendthrifts niftier medalist's supplant eluding rooking rigorous conspires mottling jest Marines Meyerbeer lilies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill
This article hints at both - and they were my biggest eye-openers on the question of how* to live.
It's best to take Irvine's book as a guide to his own modern philosophy heavily based off Stoicism. Take that as you will, but I would recommend Stoicism and the Art of Happiness and some of the original Stoic classics; Enchiridion by Epictetus (it's short and very direct) and Seneca the Youngers Letters.
Don't worry though, it will all be better once you sit down with your Bay Area Mercedes Benz dealer to talk about financing options on the fantastic new S series featuring blah blah blah.
It's like the Dark Side version of the "...teach them to long for the endless immensity of the sea" quote.
Edit: and it really goes even deeper than that, teaching us that being constantly entertained or totally satisfied is the state of being everyone else is in (so why aren't you?) --> only buying things can get you there --> here, buy this.
Being shallow is exactly that: being "evolutionarily sensible".
Unlike animals, that can be only (or mostly) "evolutionarily sensible", we have critical and self-critical faculties, and can see beyond what's "evolutionarily sensible".
And of course, billions of people don't give a rats arse about whether the person they'll fall in love with has a fast car and a fancy suit, or the body type that signals "I'll have plenty of milk for our offspring".
>Any evolutionarily rational person would place substantial value on a partner who can provide for themselves and their offspring.
If they see the world as some kind of jungle where what matters is a partner who can "provide for themselves and their offspring" then they're not just shallow, but also regressive.
> And of course, billions of people don't give a rats arse about whether the person they'll fall in love with has ... the body type that signals "I'll have plenty of milk for our offspring".
Which billions of people? Females? Yeah, they're typically not looking for milk production in a mate. On the other hand, breasts are a huge component of male attraction in most cultures.
As for fancy cars, it's not the car itself; it's what it signifies. (Although personally, I would place substantial value on a mate driving fast cars! I love driving.)
In what way is it "regressive" to seek a mate who can provide for one's children?
Yes, when you're 16 years old. Or maybe 20. At some point people (not everybody, but I'd say most) learn to see beyond "boobz" in a mate. Especially one they'll marry.
>As for fancy cars, it's not the car itself; it's what it signifies.
A small penis?
>In what way is it "regressive" to seek a mate who can provide for one's children?
In the 20th and 21th century we had this women's liberation thing, where both mates should be able to provide for their children, instead of picking the mate that will provide for you.
Stupid crap to keep up with the Joneses is running me $1000 a month whereas a hooker is what, $200 an hour plus risk of jail time and disease?
Plus there is some inherent value in a nice place and a nice car besides showing off :)
Did I say anything about men or women in particular? I said its desirable to have a mate who can provide for offspring, which is exactly what you've said here in slightly different words.
So you've transformed my argument into the ultimate straw-man? Impressive.
What I've said is that we are (and have been for millennia) far more nuanced that merely following evolutionary urges.
Even the "desire for physical attractiveness" that we have today has little to do with "big boobs, lots of fat, she will endure and raise healthy children among snow, animal predators, and scarcity of food", to the point that it's not even much relevant anymore.
There are people who like women with small breasts for example, contrary to naive evolutionary-instincts conceptions. And all kinds of sexual preferences, even down to kinks, that are are adopted by tens of millions, and don't have anything to do with revolutionary urges and instincts. Including, of course, being gay, lesbian, etc.
Heck, at this point, the movies and star system drive our sexual preferences towards appearance, etc, more than evolutionary instincts. Fashion too.
>Did I say anything about men or women in particular? I said its desirable to have a mate who can provide for offspring
And I said even that's not related to fancy cars and suits for the huge majority of people.
The things they are talking about are proxies for being able to provide for one's children. Women need to survive child birth and raise a healthy baby (which required breastfeeding until very recently) hence so much emphasis placed on specific physical characteristics.
Women need men to provide for the family while they take care of the children, hence the emphasis on resource accrual.
Yes there are other options now, but they go against our evolution to date. They are also arguably not child-rearing focused and more along the lines of "providing for you".
It's not the same as mine.
First, not everyone defines success in such material terms. If you don't, you probably also aren't interested in attracting a mate who does.
Second, in a society as laden in consumer debt as the USA in the early 21st century, the nature of the correlation between financial wellbeing and ownership of nice things is far from certain. To put it in its most basic terms, the $40k someone spent on their BMW is, by definition, money they didn't stick in their 401k.
And unfortunately unless you're a doctor, lawyer, or CEO, 'having nice things' is the only socially appropriate way to signal that.
I don't like it, but it works really well and sexual selection is what sells luxury cars in general, not advertising.
Not to mention, 'compatible value systems' are not necessary to bring a girl home after a first date and have some fun...
Yeah. That's why they lease those cars.
------------
Its rather easy today to borrow money and get things that are completely unsustainable. Nothing against people who actually like leasing cars (some people MUST have a new car every 2 years, so its cheaper to lease than to buy).
But a huge number of people who are leasing cars simply can't afford the car. So instead, they go for a "low cost monthly plan" that doesn't build any wealth at all.
It's just a heuristic, of course, but it does establish a bare minimum of financial success.
Nah, it really could just mean someone HAD managed to save up $2000 and are about to get that car repossessed in 4 months.
And based on the ridiculously dumb financial decisions of my friends and peers... that's what happens. Albeit with smaller decisions, but I've seen thousand+-dollar financial mistakes before.
Sounds more like biology to me, with the talk of sexual selection, signalling, etc.
Especially the bit where you use that jargon to dehumanize women by reducing their feelings to a set of base instincts.
You do realize that what Darwin is known for is discussing mating behaviour and natural selection, don't you? Or do you think that is not relevant because humans are not animals but special snowflakes, carried down on the wings of angels?
I'm not the OP, but I would say that kind of language is exactly what one would use in order to try to explain exactly what really motivates humans, beyond some ephemeral idea that our actions are based on "feelings", with no deeper interest in understanding of what might be the basis for those feelings.
And since you brought up dehumanizing (which I don't agree this is, BTW): If that is dehumanizing, would such a description not also dehumanize men, who are described as mindlessly dedicating a significant portion of their life to acquiring the money with which to impress? It's a pity that such behaviour would have no effect because women are humans with unfathomable and intractable feelings...
Or can we just admit that some women might be impressed by material wealth, making them precisely human, because some humans may be impressed by material wealth?
>And unfortunately unless you're a doctor, lawyer, or CEO, 'having nice things' is the only socially appropriate way to signal that.
Meaningful conversation, a sense of humor, good looks, and an approachable demeanor are all perfectly socially appropriate, and they tend to attract people much more reliably.
There are obviously many other factors besides financial success (and more important ones!) in being attractive.
"I liked her because she liked me because of my car"
said no one ever?
The idea is, no matter who you are as a person, the version of you that is healthy, fit, and clearly never has to worry about money, is one of the more attractive versions of you. She's not a gold digger, she just wants to be with someone who is financially secure.
One relationship has more fun/fulfilling lifestyle options available and the other has fewer. This applies to anyone regardless of gender, although a lot of people have hangups about traditional roles and money.
There are far more important things to think about on first date such as "Do I like this guy?", not how expensive his car is.
Fitness is an indicator of physical health and ability to defend from predators and fancy cars and clothes are indicators of mental/social prowess and ability to garner resources. They're both valid, if imperfect, criteria by which to judge someone for reproductive fitness.
Of course sometimes you want to impress people who don't see this anyway, most obviously the job interview or the business meeting. Well in that case: it's incredibly easy to fake these signals, especially when you see them for what they are.
But you still went to tax return/401K, so defining success as owning a lot of the medium of exchange. Not that you have exchanged it for the correct things or gotten them some other way. So you got past viewing nice clothes and cars as and end in themselves but not past viewing money as an end in itself. There is another step you can take, another narrative that has been built to motivate you to act in another group's interest you can abandon.
Dating's a way to get a read on someone's value system and find someone who shares your values. It's a mistake to think that everyone shares mainstream American cultural values, even in America. There are plenty of people who don't buy into consumerism or advertising messages.
And why "demonstrate success" on a date? What is the other person supposed to be? Whore/Gigolo?
Why demonstrate success on a date? What do you think the purpose of a date is? It's a courtship ritual where you try to demonstrate your reproductive value to a potential mate. There are many components to this; appearance, wealth, personality, etc.
I think you have this mixed up; a prostitute is precisely the person you don't need to indicate your value to. You just pay them.
Gosh, you are quite the romantic, aren't you... ;-)
I thought it was to get to know the person, build a relationship and maybe bed them (if you're too horny).
But now I've learned its purpose is to show your bling and evolutionary advantages to send the right primitive signals to the other hardly developed monkey-human.
>I think you have this mixed up; a prostitute is precisely the person you don't need to indicate your value to. You just pay them.
The distance between a whore and a golddigger is not that wide.
Talking to them, learning their past, their character, their preferences, their favourite Tom Waits album, etc?
>You literally mention sex in the same sentence;
Which we've managed to separate from pure evolutionary urges to reproduce at least some millennia ago.
>this is the fundamental evolutionary (not teleological) purpose of courtship, regardless of how you dress it up.
You'd be surprised, billions manage to have sex with billions without having children -- in casual relationships and such. And an increasing number of people (like 20-30% in the US I've read?) even for life.
All of these things except maybe Tom Waits are indicators of reproductive fitness. Why do you think your brain is structured to prefer these characteristics in a potential mate?
> Which we've managed to separate from pure evolutionary urges to reproduce at least some millennia ago.
Hardly. We've only had effective birth control for a few decades. Society hasn't fully caught up to this yet, let alone our evolutionary programming.
> You'd be surprised, billions manage to have sex with billions without having children
What planet do you live on? In fact, billions of people have had children!
Why do you think different men/women have completely different preferences on those things? Except if "reproductive fitness" is subjective, which defeats the whole argument...
>Hardly. We've only had effective birth control for a few decades.
We've had romantic (and even platonic) love, annal sex, gay people, and tons of other things besides arranged marriages or fucking for reproduction since at least ancient Greece...
>What planet do you live on? In fact, billions of people have had children!
One or two or five. They've had sex 100s of times.
Because evolutionarily optimal characteristics are different for men and women. An example: women have to endure long periods of partially debilitating gravidity, which means that, among other things, human males are optimized to perform physically exerting tasks. This is presumably why men have more muscle mass than women in general, and why women generally put more emphasis on a mate's musculature than men put on women's.
> since at least ancient Greece...
Most societies and religions select against those activities, presumably because it's sub-optimal from a memetic reproduction standpoint. If all your citizens or followers are galavanting about subverting the sexual reward system and reproducing less than they would if they were forced only to have sex for reproduction, then you will be out-bred by those societies who only allow sex for reproduction. This is why anti-sodomy, anti-homosexuality, anti-masturbation, and even anti-birth-control are extremely popular memes both in established religions and in many societies. Until quite recently the US was one such society, and we are still dealing with attitudes and policies borne of these memes. That is what I meant by "Society hasn't fully caught up to this yet". Not that I am not passing any value judgements on the morality or immorality of such policies; I am just stating historical fact.
Life, and love, is far more than an exercise in evolutionary psychology.
> Life, and love, is far more than an exercise in evolutionary psychology.
I agree, there is additional value in the emergent behavior of evolutionarily driven organism (us). However, this isn't contradictory to what I said.
But it is neither scientific, nor evidence-based, and many Eastern cultures do not view mating or courtship in the same way you do.
It does contain theory, but it doesn't contain psychology or anything "pop". It's anthropology and evolutionary biology. My views also aren't popular among Western people, except those who like to scientifically pick apart the origins of beloved social traditions. This makes most people uncomfortable.
> many Eastern cultures do not view mating or courtship in the same way
That's nice. Do you actually know anything about "Eastern" views on courtship rituals, or are you just saying that my views aren't mystical enough and you assume that "Eastern" people have some sort of mystical interpretation?
The fact that you're appealing to cultural folklore about dating at all should cause you to re-consider your argument.
At the very pop level. No anthropologist or biologist would make as crude presentations of the relevant arguments -- or even think their interaction with culture is some solved problem and it's 100% "evolution" at play.
>My views also aren't popular among Western people, except those who like to scientifically pick apart the origins of beloved social traditions. This makes most people uncomfortable.
No, it's mostly the crude early 20th century scientism and basic oversight of empirical data.
>The fact that you're appealing to cultural folklore about dating at all should cause you to re-consider your argument.
Well, your whole premise was that evolution trumps "cultural folklore" and customs, to which the parent's reference is completely justified as a counter-example.
That, or a completely irresponsible attitude towards consumer debt. In most cases, the latter. So, this isn't really a very sound strategy for finding a mate who is financially sound.
Read The Millionaire Next Door. Most people who are actually wealthy drive moderate cars that are completely paid for. Since many of them own a small business that often works in a fairly blue collar industry, they're more likely to be wearing jeans and a work shirt rather than a suit.
whoever wrote that book is selling you on a worldview. your quote is often repeated, but i don't find it to be true. i think it's wishful thinking for a lot of thrifty people, so they can feel superior by judging people they don't know by what they drive around in.
in my experience being a millionaire or not has absolutely no bearing on the kind of car you drive. some people like nice cars or sports cars, other people simply don't give a shit about cars, rich or not.
and from what i've seen, even the wealthy people who don't drive nice cars have other really nice shit, like $100k in road bicycles, or gigantic house(s) or a fully equipped fishing boat sitting in the marina. but they drive a prius, so they're thrifty and virtuous.
Rather than just anecdotes, the authors of the book did actual research and found that most people who have actual net worth above a million dollars did in fact get there by carefully managing their money, and conversely, most people who had the appearance of wealth in the form of expensive cars and boats, didn't have the actual net worth that it implied.
So, if you're judging someone's net worth by the things they happen to own, the whole point is that this is not a reliable indicator of how much wealth someone actually has.
my point is that you're doing the exact same thing, except in the other direction.
I think you have a very narrow definition of "date."
The only way you're speaking the truth is if just about every human behavior qualifies as demonstrating success. In which case, you're saying nothing. It is nearly useless for making actual decisions, and thus not something you are justified in believing strongly.
But you're still demonstrating value, yes? I admit that there is no universal value function. It is subjective to a large degree. However, we can pick out large-scale trends fairly easily.
> The only way you're speaking the truth is if just about every human behavior qualifies as demonstrating success
Not sure what you mean.
Sure, you can find trends, but you're never dating trends. Real people are not averages of a population.
>Not sure what you mean.
When you say "but you're still demonstrating value", you are reducing dating analysis to a tautology. It will either be untrue or useless. Something has to fail to demonstrate value in order for you to determine not to do it. And you can't do that without knowing the person you're dating.
Which is at the heart of everyone else's point: Dating is about finding out what your date values, not 'demonstrating' what you imagine it is that they value.
> you cannot reasonably predict it.
I think I just did.
When you go on a date, whether the average person would like you means nothing. Whether the person actually sitting in front of you likes you means everything. And you can't predict that. You are talking about the middle of a bell curve, and you're failing to understand how wide that curve is and how strong the tails are. Which is why I said you're failing to understand human diversity.
https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/high-price-materialism Tim Kasser, The High Price of Materialism
It discusses studies on how materialistic desires relate to one's emotional well-being (all correlative, as I recall), and then goes from there into a thoughtful analysis of how materialism alters a person's priorities in a variety not-so-healthy ways. I found it to be a pretty good reality check.
http://stayoutofmynamastespace.com/
The other half are downright terrifying...
This isn't frightening. It's funny (because it's true).
> I would rather have the aspartame that causes cancer than the sugar that causes diabetes.
This, on the other hand, is frightening.
The parent is discussing the idea that "advertising creates a problem and sells you a solution", and in specific they're focusing on how advertising shapes perceptions intentionally with the intent of making the product more desirable. Just do an image search for "funny salad" to understand what is going on - you'll see there's an entire meme dedicated to the absurd advertising of salads to women, who are always caught in mid-laugh as they eat their salad. Car commercials, especially for trucks, tend to have a soundtrack similar to that of an epic movie, usually with well built men driving the trucks and doing some sort of hard labor. Commercials directed at kids are even more shameless and will often just juxtapose kids sitting around bored out of their mind without [product] (often in black and white) and then suddenly there's colour and joy in life with [product].
Advertising has a very specific purpose and a lot of the focus is about creating an idea and a brand image, the idea that "these are the type of people who have our product and this is what they do at night or on the weekend." Kodak Moments were an entire marketing campaign for cheap consumer cameras, and now the term is synonymous for any good memory and that you need to take a picture of. (Granted, this example is no longer as relevant due to digital cameras, but you get the idea)
Some subcultures have things to sell you - there are numerous kickstarters and other crowdfunded items that try to play to the sympathies and sensibilities of the loosely defined gamers, and unfortunately far too many people in this subculture are far too willing to part with their money. However, I'd argue that when it comes to philosophies or social movements, there's a message. And it's one you have more power about choosing to get into than you do with advertisement.s
It sounds embarrassingly crude, but it has served as an internal equalizer when I feel like desiring or whining. I have tried to demonstrate to my kids that contentment (happiness) is really best obtained and empowering when you realize you don’t need to buy it, you can just make or generate it yourself.
If anyone needs a primer, I suggest starting with the existing literature, namely Calvin and Hobbes.
http://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/2012/05/28
https://riteshjsr.wordpress.com/2010/05/22/recurring-motifs-...
Source: I do this for a living
You will be so pleased with a purchase that has no buyer's remorse, which you accept as normal, that you will go buy some more stuff from that store. Clearly it is a special rare deal you have discovered.
> The problem is that detachment – solitude, quietly taking responsibility for your own actions – is inimical to modern life ...
Top comment here:
> It is the fault of advertising!!
I'd say that is the polar opposite of taking responsibility for your own actions.
Summary: http://becomingeden.com/summary-of-a-guide-to-the-good-life/
The book is another matter but that will need to be analyzed separately.
On a separate note, we are seeing a gradual disappearance of the middle class resulting in desperate attempts to rise in status whether superficially or explicitly. In either case, we are losing some self-worth and putting our happiness in the hands of society and rules we don't control.
The TL;DR to these is that once you get enough anything more produces rapidly diminishing returns in the happiness department:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affluenza
- http://www.pbs.org/kcts/affluenza/show/joe.html
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs
The movie Fight Club also came out around this time with a similar message and was the "knockout punch" to my consumerism, haha. Not long after this I'd sold most of what I owned, quit my job, and took a trip around the world. Have been much happier ever since, with new expectations and goals.
Another thing I learned on that trip, I did not miss TV one minute while I was gone, and found a lot of the garbage (consumerism, superstition, Britney news, and petty politics) in my mind had cleared. The main purpose of TV news and advertising is to drive fear and desire, which I now liken to a cancer, but one that can be beat.
Yes, we have netflix and itunes because there are some great shows, right? But commercials and mainstream news sources---fuck no---life is much better without them.
Guess what? It didn't make me feel better. I just felt sad.
Listening to music or reading less depressing books lifted my gloom. YMMV.
Someone gave you a random number. Say, 23. You have a biological device programmed to set this random number as your "default". It has no frame of reference. It's not objective. All it does is tell you things are bad when you feel lower than that number, and good when you feel higher than that number.
Then you found someone else and their number is a lot lower. Like, 6. You have now decided that your number is pretty awesome because it's so much higher than theirs! Later, you see someone with a 50. And you're jealous because they're a lot higher than you. Except you have never seen the full graph. You don't even have any way to really evaluate "so much higher" except that same biological device that you so hastily discredited. Maybe the max number is 30. Or 50. Or a 100. Or a million. And the most important thing - your number is still 23.
You didn't put your problems in perspective. To have perspective, you need to know how wide the possibility set is, and you don't know that. All you did is calibrated down, and reduced your expectations. But that doesn't change reality. Your minor problem may as well be bigger than you imagine it, you have no frame of reference, how can you possibly tell?
I think knowing about other, bad lives can remind people of all the things they have and take for granted. We tend to focus on the things we don't have, but if you can appreciate the things you do have, you'll be much happier.
An old yet succinct term would be, "count your blessings." You should find things to be thankful for every day. Your health, your family, the fact that you aren't starving. The fact that you have access to clean water. And for Christ's sake, stop consuming news for a while.
If you have to worry, pick the top 3 things to worry about and ditch the rest.
And those typically don't cost much money LOL
Unless I'm misunderstanding what "this" and "it" refer to, it's not exactly a new topic. Identity, ego, happiness, capitalism, consumerism, work, family, and their various relationships and conflicts have been discussed in ways nearly indistinguishable from how they are today since the dawn of the modern global economy (the 50s), and similar issues have been covered by Western writers since at least the 19th century (much farther back, depending on how much you want to stretch "similar").
Take a look at e.g. https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=ANHRS#. In most places, people are working less hours, and they have significantly higher standards of living in many ways.
Especially in software development, there are enormous opportunities to work however you like for as many hours as you like. Sure, if you want a mid six-figure salary and try to keep up with the Jones' in SF you'll need to sacrifice some leisure and relationships, but that's not universally true. If your preference is to enjoy meaningful relationships and leisure time outside of work, and you have STEM skills, this is a great time to be alive.
The alternative would be to spend another day a week working for money I literally have no need for and cannot use. I don't want to trade time during my thirties for time during my sixties, either, since time in my thirties is much more useful, as I am better able to do things with it.
I've been thinking about whether is reduction in the workweek is politically or culturally possible, even if it is economically motivated. I sort of came to the conclusion that people turning 5 days jobs into 4 would be necessary on the cultural front. Glad to hear of someone that actually did it!
Having an optional 3 day weekend allows a lot of possibility for longer recreational trips, large projects, dedicating one day to errands and totally freeing the other two, etc. On the other side of the equation, having a wide open afternoon + evening every weekday is great too.
It may seem like I'm just preaching to the choir on this one, but I'm also trying to simply raise awareness of what an excellent benefit it is. Realistically, could businesses in other fields adopt this? It's a great way to keep employees happy (saving turnover expenses) and doesn't alter their paycheck.
[edit] Since you are working less in exchange for the 20% cut, I realize not every business can do this since paying more people for fewer hours has diminishing returns. Giving the option of 4 10's or 5 8's, though, is still the same hours + work done. Why do we not see this offered more?
In most countries outside of the West jobs pay much less and you'll be forced to work much more to merely survive. Want to trade with them?
> Folks, this is not some unintended side effect of capitalism- this is the way the system is supposed to work. You're not supposed to be happy.
So an economic system where private enterprises produce goods and services based on what they believe will make profit (and not through coercion) and where you, the consumer, as a result have more options to choose from is somehow designed to make you unhappy?
What would make you happy? "Democratic Socialism"? Would you prefer to work in forced labour camp? Because that's how Socialism inevitably ends every single time. Even in case of the poster child of Socialism, Venezuela, which recently passed a forced labour law.
Free trade is an advantage to these who have the capital to move around, and to the idea of consumerism because unnecessary goods can be cheaper.
The evolution from capitalism isn't to communism, it would be something new, something different. What we should want is a better system that is more fair to everyone and doesn't by its very purpose destroy the world.
State ownership of capital is the definition of socialism. In as much as anyone uses your term 'state capitalist', they use it to refer to the heavy-handed control of markets by government in places like China.
As to the departure from capitalism: when you depart from free markets without some seriously strong restraints to prevent further movement, you're always moving toward the same endpoint of non-choice and stagnation, but there are plenty of trajectories to get there. In the US, we enact well-meaning policy to protect our hallowed institutions or to protect the disadvantaged. The resulting distortions in knowledge conveyed by prices create arbitrage opportunities. Organizations/companies that can find and exploit those opportunities can grow powerful, and then they can sink in their talons to further distort and fossilize the market to their advantage. In the middle term, we have a different small group of people who get rich at others' expense, but it's a race to the bottom just like any other. Our confidence in preventing that decline is a finesse, just like in bridge: we're handing over control in the hope that we can both effect an intended change and regain control. That's a good trick for as long as you can keep it up.
Having said that, I think it's bizarre to say that any system's purpose is to destroy the world, even if that is the probable end state.
"social ownership" refers to the various forms of ownership for the means of production in socialist economic systems; encompassing public ownership, employee ownership, cooperative ownership, citizen ownership of equity[1] and common ownership.[2]
As far as the meaning of socialism, I'd see an evolution of capitalism leading to the employee/cooperative ownership with less government interference. It makes sense that the people doing the work have a say in the company they are a part of. There could be problems, there are always problem with any system. But a fairer situation for all workers seems overall more beneficial to society as a whole.
The issues you are describing in the US don't seem to be socialist, they are consequences of capitalism. As a process capitalism focuses on concentration of power, rent-seeking, limitation of competition (through corporate lobby). Basically what we have now is capitalism, there is no perfect ideal capitalism that we would be better with, and should move towards, we've already gone down that path and these are the consequences. This to me is the reason why we should be honestly talking about trying something else, something better.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_ownership
In Capitalism you actually have the freedom to share the means of production. Go out there and convince a few people to form a company that is collectively owned. It can be done.
So why don't we then see formation of companies with employee ownership or cooperative ownership? Because it is a model that is far less effective in producing goods and services, thus in almost every case someone tried it it failed. (and many did try)
The only way this can work is by outlawing private enterprises as we know them today, because if private enterprises were allowed to exist besides these models then they would be guaranteed to crush these alternative organisation forms.
We have seen this happen every single time Socialism was implemented. Capitalists economies consistently crushed Socialist economies.
Therefore everyone that insists on implementing Socialism has to accept that it will mean that innovation and efficiency will significantly go down as a result, which also means that everyone will get poorer. (if you produce less or at higher costs per unit then this is bound to happen)
It also means that other societies that do not implement Socialism will have an advantage and over time we'll fall back in development significantly.
And then of course you somehow have to sell your population to accept that the government will take away their private property and redistribute it, if it is any kind of business.
So it's kind of a tough sell to anyone that thinks the whole thing through.
It is also immoral by the way. You have to steal private property from others and limit their freedoms just so your little collective has a shot at surviving in the market.
If it weren't so then you'd have already created the collective, because you could. No one is preventing you from doing it in a Capitalist economy.
For those who haven't seen it, this article also argues the former: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/20/opinion/the-fragmented-soc...
D’r Hans im Schnòckeloch hät àlles, wàs er will ! Un wàs er hät, dess will er nit, Un wàs er will, dess hät er nit. D’r Hans im Schnòckeloch hät àlles, wàs er will !
D’r Hans im Schnòckeloch sajt àlles, wàs er will ! Wàs er sajt, dess dankt er nit, Un wàs er dankt, dess sajt er nit, D’r Hans im Schnòckeloch sajt àlles, wàs er will !
D’r Hans im Schnòckeloch màcht àlles, wàs er will ! Wàs er màcht, dess soll er nit, Un wàs er soll, dess màcht er nit. D’r Hans im Schnòckeloch màcht àlles, wàs er will !
D’r Hans im Schnòckeloch geht ànne, wo er will ! Wo er isch, dò bliebt er nit, Un wo er bliebt, dò gfàllts im nit. D’r Hans im Schnòckeloch geht ànne, wo er will !
Jetzt het d’r Hans sò sàtt Un isch vom Eland màtt. Lawe, majnt er, kànn er nit, Un sterwe, sajt er, will er nit. Er springt züem Fenschter nüss, Un kommt ins Nàrrehüss.
The passage shocked me, as it is extremely surprising, and speaks to the core of our societal growth over the past few hundreds of years not leading to maximum happiness. The passage is from this David Brooks column (which I think is definitely worth the three minutes to read): http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/09/opinion/the-great-affluenc...
The core thought is that people trade up for comfort (including privacy), but that they lose out on the overall bonds with other people that are what really makes us happy.
One extremely clear choice: Do you work from home (more comfy) or an office (more social)?
The work from home choice seems extremely relevant to me. Is it actually bad for happiness in the long term to do something that's so much more comfortable (no commuting, no dressing up, feeling of being at home, etc)?
When I think about the best times in my own life, they were the times when I had a close group of people I lived and hung out with (college, summer camp, etc). I assume it's the same for many others reading this. So why do we not live more like that into our adult years?
The fundamental importance of high quality bonds with other people is something I wish was emphasised more. The following TED talk describes a pretty interesting research experiment done over a long time frame which essentially comes to this conclusion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KkKuTCFvzI
Sitting at the office from 10 to 6, breathing in sterile AC, watching the world pass me by through the window was the depressing bit.
5 points to whoever can guess what this quote is from
If an Asian or African had said the same thing would it hold as much value to you?
"Is it possible that a starving African farmer has less sense of injustice than a middle-aged western male who has never been fellated?"