I think these are bad tips to be honest. Cognitive Behavioural Therapy - really?
People in countries where psychotherapy is not as prevalent as in the US aren't necessarily unhappier I think.
Some occupations have earned their bad reputation. My opinion. I am not happy with it, but generally quite happy I believe. I don't feel too happy about changing my prejudice towards this field.
Appreciation of what you have is a form of self reflection. Would be good for the occupation to be honest. Suggestion of this form are also often used as a form of psychological abuse. Also a field where this occupations excels in.
I’d encourage you to reconsider the article in context of the fact that CBT can be self-taught with no books or sessions - all of this advice is free, and each tip works independently of the others.
I do agree that open-ended talk therapy seems like a waste of time.
Open-ended talk therapy is like rubber duck debugging. Sometimes you need an expressive outlet that you can't, for various reasons, find elsewhere. And often a confidant (which a therapist can be) is what you need. Lacking a confidant in normal-life or having issues you feel you can't take to that person, a therapist is a decent alternative.
That's also what I meant. I just moved this year, leaving a lot of friends behind (I'd lived there for 10 years, longest I'd lived anywhere, next longest was 5 years when I was in elementary school). I bought a house, which added a lot of financial stress to my life (ate into savings, in 10 years I'll be better off, but now it's tough). I got into a job that was going to be better, but because someone quit I got saddled with crap work that I'm not effective it especially teleworking (I need to observe how people are working to do what they want me to do, and I literally can't right now). And with social isolation in place, my wife and I cannot effectively make new friends and develop new social outlets. From my own experiences in the past: high stress -> general anxiety -> depression -> very bad thoughts. So I sought out a counselor with no specific objective beyond needing to talk, and to relearn some CBT things that I did learn and exercise years ago. But the primary benefit has been the outlet, I'll probably stop having sessions in a few more weeks as I've finally pinpointed a few specific stressors and been able to focus on resolving them, but the outlet was key to realizing what they were.
Once was depressed in university so wrote this on happiness. Helps me to look back on. One 'good' thing about depression is it gives you a reference point of how bad it can get.
Sadly what solved the depression for me was an external event (getting out of uni and getting a job).
Why is that sad? Situational depression is the best of many bad options as it’s the case where a badly needed change can actually have outsized impact.
The general advice given is that everyone wants to change their circumstances when they're unhappy but supposedly our circumstances only account for 10% of our happiness with 50% being genetics and 40% behavior. So everyone tells you stop trying to change your circumstances and change your behavior instead. So, the OPs experience 'sadly' doesn't fit the formal recommendation.
For me, I have become happier in the moment via insight meditation, which focuses on noticing thoughts and feelings without action or reaction.
Part of the wisdom of meditation lies in the following: There is baggage we all carry, the self, this belief we're the center of it all, the author of (and subservient to) our own thoughts. How do I stop doing what makes me unhappy, if that's "who I am"? But, in reality, I can abandon "who I am" and find new processes of living and new ways of thinking about the world.
In practice, this resetting of your mind is achieved without training by various psychdelic drugs, which peel back the layers of the onion in an effortless fashion. In meditation, you train your mind to actually pay close attention, eventually achieving an effortless open-ness that drugs achieve very simply. Once you're good at following your breath, you can turn to thoughts and feelings, recognizing them as mere arisings in consciousness.
Mere arisings in the mind do not require response: there's no need to act upon our desires, urges, distraction, and regular patterns, they are just heuristics or mental shortcuts the brain uses over and over to save time/effort of decision making. Do we have to respond to all our noticing sounds, light, smells? If not, why do we have to respond to negative thoughts?
Negative thoughts may become crystallized into negative actions. However, if you know what behaviors of your own contribute to unhappiness, you can always pause for 10-15 seconds, meditate briefly, drawing upon your training of the brain's meditative ability, and you will notice the actual feeling of the urge to behave, and not act upon it. It will disappear like very other appearance in consciousness.
This. I have recently discovered after many years that I have fear thoughts and laziness antithoughts that convert into anxiety and fear and sometimes indignation. Its a mine field out there in a mind. Mental health is as much work as keeping up with fitness/gym routine.
Changing your mind is almost as good as changing the world. That speaks to the point of controlling what you have control over and also the fact that our experiences is the only way we have if perceiving the world
I’ve been taking up meditation and bubiddism but still very much a novice. I find that as you open your mind and see through more things, in a way things gets less interesting. It’s that feeling that you’ve seen this movie before. Maybe this is normal for older people but I’m in my 20s and it feels very odd.
How do you deal with that and not feel like a zombie.
Things get less interesting because you get detached from what people consider worldly pleasures. In Buddhism, happiness comes from cutting afflictions down through training and practice.
If you find a good knowing teacher, they can guide you through a process where you can attain the bliss of meditation, which is completely worth it and different from "regular" happiness.
As you practice, this newfound happiness becomes ingrained and you become happier. It's very natural.
I guess many things are interesting just because they produce dopamine spikes, they are kind of superficial, and meditation reveals it. Meditation does not erase deep and sustained interests in me.
I listened to the record again;
Popple, crackling, the sound of streams;
The tape is transcribed;
From the spinning disk to my mind;
Let’s listen again but this time one rut deeper;
The orbit quickens but the beat is steady;
The needle stops vibrating for a moment in between tracks;
Seeing through abstractions and illusions is a possible outcome, but it also frees the senses to look deeper into the once-negligible.
Get a pencil, paper, and small object that you can fit into your closed palm. Like a nut, or other piece of plant. Set a timer for 10 minutes and spend that time describing as much as you can about the object. How it feels, looks, tastes, sounds. From all different angles in different contexts. Abandon preconceptions and play with the object. You might be surprised how much detail there is and how quickly the 10 minutes passes.
It's often referred to as mindfulness, and it falls under cognitive behavioral therapy. I've had trouble finding useful links, so I'll repeat the practical info I was taught.
Pretend your active focus or attention is like a fishing line. Pick a single thing, usually a physical object like a tree, and "cast" your focus onto that. Focus on specific parts of the tree, the bark, leaves, how the wind moves through it, how it makes you feel, etc. This will cause your attention to wander. Being aware that this is happening is crucial. "Reel" your attention back in and focus on just the tree again. Repeat this for roughly 15 minutes, at least once per day. If you can only manage 5 minutes at first, that's still a great start.
You are effectively training your brain to be aware of it's own attention. The idea is not to prevent wandering or emotions, but to be mindful of how those thoughts got there, and what you are thinking and feeling. In essence, how could you possibly control your thoughts if you aren't even aware of them?
Your zombie comment was something I was worried about at first. Spoiler: you're still free to act on those emotions or thoughts, but now with undivided attention!
I’ve been practicing off an on for about ten years. I’m definitely not an expert. I like your explanation, but I think there’s more to it. Mindfulness doesn’t necessarily have to be about focusing on a particular thought. You can focus on nothingness and receive similar results. You can focus on a certain feeling for different results. Your focus object has a lot to do with what you get out of the experience. Additionally, the habit of recognizing what it feels like to not let your thoughts race can be powerful when your thoughts start racing at a later time.
I'm learning the mindfulness skills from the DBT skills workbook. For the first time I really get what 'mindfulness' is. It's actually quite accessible and not just some vague term. Really enjoying learning mindfulness skills and starting to use them in everyday situations.
I find that it gives another option other than the default reaction to situations, so you can be more intentional.
Mindfulness is not CBT, it has been integrated into it. CBT normally works in the thought, emotional or behavioral level.
Mindfulness reconditions the subconscious conditioned level in which thoughts and emotions lead to automatic behavior (i.e. conditioned behavior).
It’s subconscious because most people aren’t aware of how they are being swept away by thoughts and emotions. The reconditioning happens by training your awareness through breathing meditation, body-scan meditation (IMO better name than mindfulness/vipassana) and other meditations. Now you’re more aware which is how you’re reconditioned and with that you can decide to not act on your old habits.
CBT is a thing from psychology. Meditation is taken by psychologists from Buddhism and integrated into it. But IMO it doesn’t follow the philosophy of CBT. So to say it us CBT or falls under it ignores what it really is: a technique from religions such as Buddhism, Hinduism and Jainism.
Search Inside Yourself is a good book to read more about it from or positive psychology from Harvard (2006, taught by Tal Ben Shahar, it’s on YouTube).
I started meditating in college (30+ years ago) and always thought I was doing it right. Then a few years ago I began using Sam Harris' Waking Up app and realized I was doing it wrong.
I'd read about people traveling to Tibet to learn meditation and how, interspersed with their actual meditation, were periods of instruction. This never made sense to me. Now I understand the value of that instruction. Sure, some people can pick up an instrument without ever taking lessons; most people can't. It's the same with meditation.
Highly recommended for both novice and experienced meditators alike.
Wholeheartedly agree. I've been using Waking Up since November last year and have found it incredibly helpful even after years of practice with other mindfulness tools such as Calm or Headspace.
Any chance you could provide a brief overview of what you think makes this different? I've meditated with a few different secular and Buddhist groups and retreats and was wondering how this approach might differ.
It's pretty nice. There's a introductory course on mediation, a daily meditation, and lots of theory and interview podcasts.
Harris takes you through lots of variants of 10 minute meditations, focusing narrowly (on body sensations, breathing, sights, sounds, etc.) or very broadly (taking in everything at once), or a few on wishing happiness on others.
He emphasizes, to an almost extreme degree, the search for "self", for the thinker of thoughts. It gets a bit repetitive, but the goal is keep looking but never find the self and therefore see that "self" is simply an illusion of the mind. With practice you will experience more and more the pure state of experiential flow. An interesting aspect is learning to treat your own thoughts as another "input event" appearing in consciousness, just as sensory inputs are. You observe your thoughts, but learn not to become "lost in thought".
There's also some great practical wisdom about the waste of negative thought loops, the finite nature of life, and a habit of gratitude.
He has a great bit on "the last time" which ruminates on the idea that eventually you will do everything for the last time (and you probably won't even know it. But what if you did? How would it change your attitude toward even mundane experiences?).
Also that experience is largely determined by attitude. There are miserable people in the Carribean on luxury yachts, and joyful people in the dark in freezing rain (for example on a great wilderness adventure). And it's your ability to steer your mind that makes the difference.
If you like this sort of stuff then you'll like Sam Harris' waking up app and his ideas around consciousness in general. If I didn't know any better I could mistake this commenter as Sam himself!
Don’t minimize the importance of acting though if you constantly find the same stressors intruding on your thoughts. If meditation helps you deal with street noise, that’s great, but you might also consider closing the window.
I see lots of meditative techniques suggested to employees of larger companies through the likes of Happify, but if people really listened to their bodies their employers would be in for big trouble!
I've always struggled with what to think about how companies have recently jumped on the mindfulness bandwagon. I appreciate the support but the cynical side of me still feels like it is an attempt to keep employees complacent with the growing decrease in a positive work environment.
It sounds like you're advocating drugs as a kind of shortcut to resetting the mind and noticing thoughts as passing arisings. Can you talk more about your experience with this?
I found it strange that there was not one mention of the ancient Stoics, who, disregarding their non-materialist viewpoints, came up with much of this philosophy. I'd argue they are a more accurate original source of these viewpoints on mindfulness and contentment than the Epicureans.
Stoic ethics is greatly underrated unfortunately. Despite being extremely influential from Christian ethics to modern cognitive behavioral therapy, it's relatively obscure. Everyone is familiar with it without knowing its source.
There is a picture of Epicurus or Marcus Aurelius with some pithy quote posted daily on many social media channels. The idea that "stoicism" is obscure is tenuous at best.
Pretty weak evidence for something not being obscure. I'm willing to bet that a survey would support my position that it's obscure. As for my weak evidence: personally I don't know anyone that is familiar with stoic ethics, and even in my university's philosophy department, it's basically only the one professor who specializes in Hellenic philosophy that obviously is familiar with it. Furthermore I have seen several CBT practicioners and none of them have heard of it.
I have long regarded happiness in the same category as grace: it is an undeserved and unasked for free gift. An epiphenomena that is not a consequence of, but happens along with, other positive actions.
And for me that's living a less self-centered life.
I am happy when what I do with my life enriches the lives of others. But being transactional about this ruins the game. It is, among other things, the opposite of zero-sum. Do the thing for the exuberant joy of the thing itself, don't take yourself too seriously or try to carry too much weight, and act in the trust that, but do not demand as payment that this will lead to a happier place.
Yes, but the Catholic position is based on St James idea of "living faith". E.g. Faith without works is dead. It also is based on Jesus' instructions about "he who loves me, does my commands". The grace and love are free gifts, but what is love without good actions?
The best analogy I can think of is if a husband says they love their wife, but they never help them, show affection, do anything to serve them, do they really love them? Now in marriage, love should ultimately be unconditional (to a point, all analogies fall down at some point). If a wife loves their husband freely, but the husband says they return the love but do nothing to show it, what can we infer about his love?
At a glance it doesn't seem you're contradicting me but that faith stipulates following Biblical instruction. That describes the religion in practice, anyone that dons faith would do that (or portend to) as faith encapsulates all those ideas.
The notion that people should do good for its own sake doesn't really change the fact that it's the ticket for Catholicism. Conversely in, say, Calvinism nothing you do can guarantee Salvation.
there isn't such a thing as the singular christian ethics.
And the theologians i've read who seem the most on point explicitly reject the transactionalist nature of payment-demanding as inhuman and a fundamental misunderstanding of the game.
i'm on board with universal reconciliation, so "pie in the sky when you die" never did it for me anyway, but to be clear i'm also not describing "some happier future state" in my top post as anything other than improvement for our lives as we know them right now on this planet.
No, we are all sinners, and Jesus paid the price for each one of us on the cross:
"For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast." [Ephesians 2, 8-9 NKJV]
"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us". [1 John 1, 8-10 NKJV]
More accurately that worship / faith will be rewarded with salvation. For Christians afterlife is broadly considered a certainty, it's just a question of whether you'll get the good or bad one.
Quite a few religions will regard the present moment as such (Buddhism, Judaism), but not all propose an afterlife. Whether all the world is the Kingdom, by definition Heaven is too.
The weight of messaging and interpretation shifts with the times to capitalize on the fact that people are more life-affirming when times are good, and if broadly there's toil and suffering, well, hope for peace in the next life.
I think it's disingenuous to ignore the distinction. You can quibble about what-its-all-about, but in accordance with the dogma there's either afterlife or there isn't, and that knowledge is so prominent in popular culture that non-believers know it, people from other cultures know it.
My perspective strongly identifies the phrase "the kingdom of god" with Isaiah's vision of the mountain, which is firmly of this world and our time. It is a making-right of this world that we should never forget to strive for.
The mistake that rather a lot of my evangelical cousins make (i am not one) is that, to paraphrase James, they tend to be so focused on the life to come and have such a crabbed interpretation of "staying unblemished by the world" that they entirely forget -- or worse, regard as something that blemishes you -- the "visiting the widows and orphans in their distress" clause. And that just won't do.
Hmm, that understanding is a little bit off. Here's a common analogy:
You go before a judge for sentencing, and he says that you have inherited a debt of a trillion dollars. He then says he offers to wipe your slate clean. Your possible responses are:
1) I don't believe you, I don't owe any debt. (atheist)
2) I believe I owe this debt, but I reject your offer. (demons)
3) I believe I owe this debt, but I will pay it myself. (good works)
4) I believe I owe this debt, and I am eternally grateful that you have paid it for me. (christians)
So your description would fall under category (3). You owe a debt of a trillion dollars and then say, hey, here's a couple hundred bucks I earned through my good deeds, we're good, right? That's a complete insult, to reject the gift, and then try to pay it back with a pittance.
Just wanted to say I find this a really great framing, particularly:
> Do the thing for the exuberant joy of the thing itself
It's something that I've started to act on recently, and I'm finding that thinking about activities in this way overcomes the paralysis I often feel when thinking about trying something new. Framing it this way gives me permission to try something, and not feel negatively if I fail or am bored by it. I've discovered so many things that I can enjoy purely for the experience of them, that none of my friends know I do (and that I don't need external validation for), that also happen to be beneficial to other people who I would otherwise have never interacted with.
> 'If you look at what people actually do to be happier, it seems nearly everyone tries to change the external facts: we try to become richer, thinner, more successful, to find a better house in a nicer area, and so on. A few of us think about trying to spend less time working, and more time on hobbies or with friends and family. Almost no one thinks about actively retraining the way they think. In fact, I don’t think this last idea even crosses most of our minds.'
You might be new to this because you've just started your PhD, but that doesn't mean everyone else is too.
The article seems to touch upon Acceptance and Commitment Therapy [1] without explicitly calling it out. It is based on mindfulness and accepting things as they are. I personally have found it very effective.
I do too; I've had this conversation a few times. Happiness isn't my highest priority, it's up there, but there's a lot of trade temporary happiness for, such as health or sanity.
Some overlap with Stoicism here. From the Enchiridion of Epictetus:
1. Some things are in our control and others not. Things in our control are opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever are our own actions. Things not in our control are body, property, reputation, command, and, in one word, whatever are not our own actions.
The things in our control are by nature free, unrestrained, unhindered; but those not in our control are weak, slavish, restrained, belonging to others. Remember, then, that if you suppose that things which are slavish by nature are also free, and that what belongs to others is your own, then you will be hindered. You will lament, you will be disturbed, and you will find fault both with gods and men. But if you suppose that only to be your own which is your own, and what belongs to others such as it really is, then no one will ever compel you or restrain you. Further, you will find fault with no one or accuse no one. You will do nothing against your will. No one will hurt you, you will have no enemies, and you not be harmed.
Chapter 8
Don’t hope that events will turn out the way you want, welcome events in whatever way they happen: this is the path to peace.
Chapter 9
Sickness is a problem for the body, not the mind -- unless the mind decides that it is a problem. Lameness, too, is the body’s problem, not the mind’s. Say this to yourself whatever the circumstance and you will find without fail that the problem pertains to something else, not to you.
Chapter 10
For every challenge, remember the resources you have within you to cope with it. Provoked by the sight of a handsome man or a beautiful woman, you will discover within you the contrary power of self-restraint. Faced with pain, you will discover the power of endurance. If you are insulted, you will discover patience. In time, you will grow to be confident that there is not a single impression that you will not have the moral means to tolerate.
Chapter 14
You are a fool to want your children, wife or friends to be immortal; it calls for powers beyond you, and gifts not yours to either own or give. You can, however, avoid meeting with disappointment in your desires; focus on this, then, since it is the scope of your capacities. We are at the mercy of whoever wields authority over the things we desire or detest. If you would be free, then, do not wish to have, or avoid things that other people control, because then you must serve as their slave.
But is it really? I just read a german translation, which says to neither wish to have, nor to wish to avoid. Does anyone here know enough greek to clarify this?
> Whoever then wishes to be free, let him neither wish for any thing nor avoid anything which depends on others: if he does not observe this rule, he must be a slave.
My parsing of the sentence of the "neither wish to have" part is that the thing the other person controls is the object of this wish.
So it still works if we extrapolate that to something like "If I was in control of this software, I would make it so much better." Well, congrats, because you are (in FOSS)! Even if someone else maintains a project, you can always fork it.
A lot of philosophy and "wisdom" is in telling people what they should do and probably already try to do without giving them the tools to do it.
A wise person realizes it is silly to tell someone "Don't hope that events will turn out the way you want" without giving them real tools to address their feelings.
that's fair, although i will say that people tend to complicate these things to a ridiculous degree, coming up with a laundry list of reasons they can or cannot make strides towards these goals.
There’s also loud echoes of Nietzche’s metamorphoses - Child, Lion, Camel, Child. Most of us get stuck on lion or camel, either fighting or bearing up under burdens. The child simply is, and finds delight in those small elements of nature which are deemed irrelevant to those still labouring under the guises of misapprehended beasts.
I have concerns about following advice people write about how to be happy. Why are they doing it? Is it because they are happy, and they want to spread it? If so, is it like a rich person writing on how to become rich? Maybe they tell you X,Y,Z that they think were important in becoming rich, but it was actually A,B,C that they were blind to.
The worse alternative is if it is someone who was unhappy, and then did something to get happy, and now they want to share that thing. Maybe it is just a stop gap measure? I see this as examples in, say, youth pastors who are preaching the word, and then commit suicide and it turns out they were struggling with far more than they ever let on.
Yet, even so, the advice they give can still be true. It may be that they just want to help others and also in the process help themselves.
The advices given in the article ring true to me, so it really felt like reading something I already "know" but just don't practice often enough. I find it useful to be reminded.
And perhaps that's entirely the wrong thing to be optimized. Google "happiness vs satisfaction". Happiness is a short term emotion, satisfaction is a long term one.
A good example is having kids; kids decreases happiness but increases satisfaction.
So if you ask people if they’d be happier living in California or the Midwest, most people say California. Actually the regions have comparable life satisfaction, but people say California because they think of the weather and fail to take account of other things, such as the fact that California is full of tedious hippies.
The author does not cite research about about how "tedious hippies" make people sad, nor demographic evidence that California is "full of" them.
Yes, I think the parent is a /metajoke/ as you call it :) However, there are 3 threads around that miss the original author is poking fun there. I'd like to stress the structure of these 3 paragraphs:
The first is that, [serious things with a reference] they think of the weather and fail to take account of other things, such as the fact that California is full of tedious hippies.
The second, [serious things with a reference] [after a breakup] we’ll decide we never liked the person anyway.
The third [serious things with a reference]. In other words, last night’s party was never as good as you think it was.
Given my HN karma, I won't dare end this comment with an attempt at being humorous. It would be akin to a HN suicide.
I've lived in both places. I'd be open to going back to lots of places in the Midwest. I'd only move back to the Sierra Nevada foothills in California (where there are still tedious hippies, but they're more my kind of tedious hippies).
Yeah, I'm not sure what the author[0] means there either. I looked through the latest Census and I couldn't find any sufficient data on "hippies", as there was not a question for that[1]. If there is no data on it, how can one make the dubious claim that one is "full of"[2] them? I really wish this article was more well researched[3].
[0] by author I am referring to the author of the article which this thread is talking about
The part about hippies is just an example, think of it as an figure of speech.
The point he is making has nothing to do with the weather or hippies, it's that peoples believes on what makes them happy are not in alignment to what actually makes them happy or they fail to take account for lots of variables changing, while they believe only one changes.
One approach I consistently found to work well is to remove things that don't make me happy. It has a bigger longer term effect than doing|buying more.
There's a bit of a trap here that I find myself standing in.
Parts of our culture are participatory. You get social benefits from going through the same things as your peers. When you stop getting sucked into things by your insecurities, you become non-participatory. You miss out on chances to connect with other people. There is no bonding experience for you, but there is for everybody else. It can be kind of alienating.
Imagine you are watching a new movie with people. 15 minutes in your think, "Hey, this is a retelling of a story by [Shakespeare,Brontë]", or "Oh geeze, the nerdy guy is the killer and everyone has dismissed him despite the foreshadowing." You now know the story arc, and so the roller coaster ends for you (unless the director is exceptional - Ron Howard, Apollo 13). Everyone else is having a great time. You're still having a good time, but you're paying more attention to the production values or the emotional range of one of the actors. You aren't part of the same experience, and you are gonna have a tough time participating in the conversation. Whatever you do, don't tell them you knew what was going to happen all along, Mr Buzzkill.
There are plenty of idealogs who would insist this isn't a problem. Your need to belong is just another hang-up you need to deal with. That you should let go of that too. But I don't think many of those idealogs ended their lives forgotten and alone because they never built a connection (or inter-generational connection in particular) with other people.
What's the problem? You can enjoy the movie and talk about the connections to Bronte and the little clues the movie showed.
The problem seems to be less that literature is derivative, and more that the viewer is looking for reasons to dismiss things instead of reasons to enjoy them.
If you have a simple, relatable problem, then you can illustrate it with something that gets to the heart of the matter.
If you're trying to illustrate something esoteric, like black hole physics, immunology, or Zen, you're going to have to come at it sideways, via analogy, and possibly layered. Which may be part of our current, greater problem with anti-intellectualism. People understand the analogy and think this has prepared them to participate rather than appreciate.
So the problem with movies is that movies are the least of the problem.
> You're still having a good time, but you're paying more attention to the production values or the emotional range of one of the actors. You aren't part of the same experience, and you are gonna have a tough time participating in the conversation. Whatever you do, don't tell them you knew what was going to happen all along, Mr Buzzkill.
You need smarter friends... Hanging out for extended periods of time with people below your level does not work well.
You don't form connections by bludgeoning yourself into a different mold, but by finding a way to connect while being yourself. I see things very differently than most of my friends, and I'm still good friends with them and they with me.
203 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 307 ms ] threadPeople in countries where psychotherapy is not as prevalent as in the US aren't necessarily unhappier I think.
Some occupations have earned their bad reputation. My opinion. I am not happy with it, but generally quite happy I believe. I don't feel too happy about changing my prejudice towards this field.
Appreciation of what you have is a form of self reflection. Would be good for the occupation to be honest. Suggestion of this form are also often used as a form of psychological abuse. Also a field where this occupations excels in.
I do agree that open-ended talk therapy seems like a waste of time.
as long as you're not depressed, you're fine
Sadly what solved the depression for me was an external event (getting out of uni and getting a job).
https://wiki.nikitavoloboev.xyz/life/happiness
Seems like it would be totally in your control to leave school and start working. Remember that for next time you find yourself "trapped".
Do you have a reference for these figures? 50% genetics seems high.
Part of the wisdom of meditation lies in the following: There is baggage we all carry, the self, this belief we're the center of it all, the author of (and subservient to) our own thoughts. How do I stop doing what makes me unhappy, if that's "who I am"? But, in reality, I can abandon "who I am" and find new processes of living and new ways of thinking about the world.
In practice, this resetting of your mind is achieved without training by various psychdelic drugs, which peel back the layers of the onion in an effortless fashion. In meditation, you train your mind to actually pay close attention, eventually achieving an effortless open-ness that drugs achieve very simply. Once you're good at following your breath, you can turn to thoughts and feelings, recognizing them as mere arisings in consciousness.
Mere arisings in the mind do not require response: there's no need to act upon our desires, urges, distraction, and regular patterns, they are just heuristics or mental shortcuts the brain uses over and over to save time/effort of decision making. Do we have to respond to all our noticing sounds, light, smells? If not, why do we have to respond to negative thoughts?
Negative thoughts may become crystallized into negative actions. However, if you know what behaviors of your own contribute to unhappiness, you can always pause for 10-15 seconds, meditate briefly, drawing upon your training of the brain's meditative ability, and you will notice the actual feeling of the urge to behave, and not act upon it. It will disappear like very other appearance in consciousness.
I’ve been taking up meditation and bubiddism but still very much a novice. I find that as you open your mind and see through more things, in a way things gets less interesting. It’s that feeling that you’ve seen this movie before. Maybe this is normal for older people but I’m in my 20s and it feels very odd.
How do you deal with that and not feel like a zombie.
If you find a good knowing teacher, they can guide you through a process where you can attain the bliss of meditation, which is completely worth it and different from "regular" happiness.
As you practice, this newfound happiness becomes ingrained and you become happier. It's very natural.
But maybe it is age - I am in my mid 30s.
Get a pencil, paper, and small object that you can fit into your closed palm. Like a nut, or other piece of plant. Set a timer for 10 minutes and spend that time describing as much as you can about the object. How it feels, looks, tastes, sounds. From all different angles in different contexts. Abandon preconceptions and play with the object. You might be surprised how much detail there is and how quickly the 10 minutes passes.
Pretend your active focus or attention is like a fishing line. Pick a single thing, usually a physical object like a tree, and "cast" your focus onto that. Focus on specific parts of the tree, the bark, leaves, how the wind moves through it, how it makes you feel, etc. This will cause your attention to wander. Being aware that this is happening is crucial. "Reel" your attention back in and focus on just the tree again. Repeat this for roughly 15 minutes, at least once per day. If you can only manage 5 minutes at first, that's still a great start.
You are effectively training your brain to be aware of it's own attention. The idea is not to prevent wandering or emotions, but to be mindful of how those thoughts got there, and what you are thinking and feeling. In essence, how could you possibly control your thoughts if you aren't even aware of them?
Your zombie comment was something I was worried about at first. Spoiler: you're still free to act on those emotions or thoughts, but now with undivided attention!
I find that it gives another option other than the default reaction to situations, so you can be more intentional.
Mindfulness reconditions the subconscious conditioned level in which thoughts and emotions lead to automatic behavior (i.e. conditioned behavior).
It’s subconscious because most people aren’t aware of how they are being swept away by thoughts and emotions. The reconditioning happens by training your awareness through breathing meditation, body-scan meditation (IMO better name than mindfulness/vipassana) and other meditations. Now you’re more aware which is how you’re reconditioned and with that you can decide to not act on your old habits.
CBT is a thing from psychology. Meditation is taken by psychologists from Buddhism and integrated into it. But IMO it doesn’t follow the philosophy of CBT. So to say it us CBT or falls under it ignores what it really is: a technique from religions such as Buddhism, Hinduism and Jainism.
Search Inside Yourself is a good book to read more about it from or positive psychology from Harvard (2006, taught by Tal Ben Shahar, it’s on YouTube).
I'd read about people traveling to Tibet to learn meditation and how, interspersed with their actual meditation, were periods of instruction. This never made sense to me. Now I understand the value of that instruction. Sure, some people can pick up an instrument without ever taking lessons; most people can't. It's the same with meditation.
Highly recommended for both novice and experienced meditators alike.
https://www.wakingup.com/
It's pretty nice. There's a introductory course on mediation, a daily meditation, and lots of theory and interview podcasts.
Harris takes you through lots of variants of 10 minute meditations, focusing narrowly (on body sensations, breathing, sights, sounds, etc.) or very broadly (taking in everything at once), or a few on wishing happiness on others.
He emphasizes, to an almost extreme degree, the search for "self", for the thinker of thoughts. It gets a bit repetitive, but the goal is keep looking but never find the self and therefore see that "self" is simply an illusion of the mind. With practice you will experience more and more the pure state of experiential flow. An interesting aspect is learning to treat your own thoughts as another "input event" appearing in consciousness, just as sensory inputs are. You observe your thoughts, but learn not to become "lost in thought".
There's also some great practical wisdom about the waste of negative thought loops, the finite nature of life, and a habit of gratitude.
He has a great bit on "the last time" which ruminates on the idea that eventually you will do everything for the last time (and you probably won't even know it. But what if you did? How would it change your attitude toward even mundane experiences?).
Also that experience is largely determined by attitude. There are miserable people in the Carribean on luxury yachts, and joyful people in the dark in freezing rain (for example on a great wilderness adventure). And it's your ability to steer your mind that makes the difference.
Good stuff.
I see lots of meditative techniques suggested to employees of larger companies through the likes of Happify, but if people really listened to their bodies their employers would be in for big trouble!
And for me that's living a less self-centered life.
I am happy when what I do with my life enriches the lives of others. But being transactional about this ruins the game. It is, among other things, the opposite of zero-sum. Do the thing for the exuberant joy of the thing itself, don't take yourself too seriously or try to carry too much weight, and act in the trust that, but do not demand as payment that this will lead to a happier place.
The best analogy I can think of is if a husband says they love their wife, but they never help them, show affection, do anything to serve them, do they really love them? Now in marriage, love should ultimately be unconditional (to a point, all analogies fall down at some point). If a wife loves their husband freely, but the husband says they return the love but do nothing to show it, what can we infer about his love?
The notion that people should do good for its own sake doesn't really change the fact that it's the ticket for Catholicism. Conversely in, say, Calvinism nothing you do can guarantee Salvation.
And the theologians i've read who seem the most on point explicitly reject the transactionalist nature of payment-demanding as inhuman and a fundamental misunderstanding of the game.
i'm on board with universal reconciliation, so "pie in the sky when you die" never did it for me anyway, but to be clear i'm also not describing "some happier future state" in my top post as anything other than improvement for our lives as we know them right now on this planet.
"For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast." [Ephesians 2, 8-9 NKJV]
"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us". [1 John 1, 8-10 NKJV]
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." (emphasis mine)
the kingdom of god is not heaven after you die. it’s much more to do with the homeless woman on the street outside your house right this instant.
and i’m a boring mainline protestant!
Quite a few religions will regard the present moment as such (Buddhism, Judaism), but not all propose an afterlife. Whether all the world is the Kingdom, by definition Heaven is too.
The weight of messaging and interpretation shifts with the times to capitalize on the fact that people are more life-affirming when times are good, and if broadly there's toil and suffering, well, hope for peace in the next life.
I think it's disingenuous to ignore the distinction. You can quibble about what-its-all-about, but in accordance with the dogma there's either afterlife or there isn't, and that knowledge is so prominent in popular culture that non-believers know it, people from other cultures know it.
The mistake that rather a lot of my evangelical cousins make (i am not one) is that, to paraphrase James, they tend to be so focused on the life to come and have such a crabbed interpretation of "staying unblemished by the world" that they entirely forget -- or worse, regard as something that blemishes you -- the "visiting the widows and orphans in their distress" clause. And that just won't do.
You go before a judge for sentencing, and he says that you have inherited a debt of a trillion dollars. He then says he offers to wipe your slate clean. Your possible responses are:
1) I don't believe you, I don't owe any debt. (atheist)
2) I believe I owe this debt, but I reject your offer. (demons)
3) I believe I owe this debt, but I will pay it myself. (good works)
4) I believe I owe this debt, and I am eternally grateful that you have paid it for me. (christians)
So your description would fall under category (3). You owe a debt of a trillion dollars and then say, hey, here's a couple hundred bucks I earned through my good deeds, we're good, right? That's a complete insult, to reject the gift, and then try to pay it back with a pittance.
> Do the thing for the exuberant joy of the thing itself
It's something that I've started to act on recently, and I'm finding that thinking about activities in this way overcomes the paralysis I often feel when thinking about trying something new. Framing it this way gives me permission to try something, and not feel negatively if I fail or am bored by it. I've discovered so many things that I can enjoy purely for the experience of them, that none of my friends know I do (and that I don't need external validation for), that also happen to be beneficial to other people who I would otherwise have never interacted with.
You might be new to this because you've just started your PhD, but that doesn't mean everyone else is too.
"Makes it all the more valuable, doesn't it?"
Man does not desire happiness. Only the Englishman does. -- Nietzsche
And the thing is, I'm almost convinced he wasn't. But it still changed how I read it.
[1] https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/therapy-types/acceptance-...
1. Some things are in our control and others not. Things in our control are opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever are our own actions. Things not in our control are body, property, reputation, command, and, in one word, whatever are not our own actions.
The things in our control are by nature free, unrestrained, unhindered; but those not in our control are weak, slavish, restrained, belonging to others. Remember, then, that if you suppose that things which are slavish by nature are also free, and that what belongs to others is your own, then you will be hindered. You will lament, you will be disturbed, and you will find fault both with gods and men. But if you suppose that only to be your own which is your own, and what belongs to others such as it really is, then no one will ever compel you or restrain you. Further, you will find fault with no one or accuse no one. You will do nothing against your will. No one will hurt you, you will have no enemies, and you not be harmed.
Chapter 8 Don’t hope that events will turn out the way you want, welcome events in whatever way they happen: this is the path to peace.
Chapter 9 Sickness is a problem for the body, not the mind -- unless the mind decides that it is a problem. Lameness, too, is the body’s problem, not the mind’s. Say this to yourself whatever the circumstance and you will find without fail that the problem pertains to something else, not to you.
Chapter 10 For every challenge, remember the resources you have within you to cope with it. Provoked by the sight of a handsome man or a beautiful woman, you will discover within you the contrary power of self-restraint. Faced with pain, you will discover the power of endurance. If you are insulted, you will discover patience. In time, you will grow to be confident that there is not a single impression that you will not have the moral means to tolerate.
Chapter 14 You are a fool to want your children, wife or friends to be immortal; it calls for powers beyond you, and gifts not yours to either own or give. You can, however, avoid meeting with disappointment in your desires; focus on this, then, since it is the scope of your capacities. We are at the mercy of whoever wields authority over the things we desire or detest. If you would be free, then, do not wish to have, or avoid things that other people control, because then you must serve as their slave.
A good mantra for self-hosted FOSS as well, come to think of it.
> Whoever then wishes to be free, let him neither wish for any thing nor avoid anything which depends on others: if he does not observe this rule, he must be a slave.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%...
So it still works if we extrapolate that to something like "If I was in control of this software, I would make it so much better." Well, congrats, because you are (in FOSS)! Even if someone else maintains a project, you can always fork it.
A wise person realizes it is silly to tell someone "Don't hope that events will turn out the way you want" without giving them real tools to address their feelings.
Sickness can affect how mind works very significantly just because of blood chemistry.
if learnt to be happy without effort then happy always as it does not depend on any effort or outside influence.. final eternal happiness...
The worse alternative is if it is someone who was unhappy, and then did something to get happy, and now they want to share that thing. Maybe it is just a stop gap measure? I see this as examples in, say, youth pastors who are preaching the word, and then commit suicide and it turns out they were struggling with far more than they ever let on.
The advices given in the article ring true to me, so it really felt like reading something I already "know" but just don't practice often enough. I find it useful to be reminded.
If there is at least an attempt at a causal explanation, you can evaluate whether or not the advice is worthwhile and/or applicable to your situation.
The point about writing down to help memory is good. Though I wonder if forgetfulness of bad times isn't part of hedonic adaptation.
A good example is having kids; kids decreases happiness but increases satisfaction.
The author does not cite research about about how "tedious hippies" make people sad, nor demographic evidence that California is "full of" them.
[0] a pithy observation that contains a general truth
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphorism
[0] by author I am referring to the author of the article which this thread is talking about
[1] https://data.census.gov/cedsci/
[2] by "full of" I assume a simple majority
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research
Parts of our culture are participatory. You get social benefits from going through the same things as your peers. When you stop getting sucked into things by your insecurities, you become non-participatory. You miss out on chances to connect with other people. There is no bonding experience for you, but there is for everybody else. It can be kind of alienating.
Imagine you are watching a new movie with people. 15 minutes in your think, "Hey, this is a retelling of a story by [Shakespeare,Brontë]", or "Oh geeze, the nerdy guy is the killer and everyone has dismissed him despite the foreshadowing." You now know the story arc, and so the roller coaster ends for you (unless the director is exceptional - Ron Howard, Apollo 13). Everyone else is having a great time. You're still having a good time, but you're paying more attention to the production values or the emotional range of one of the actors. You aren't part of the same experience, and you are gonna have a tough time participating in the conversation. Whatever you do, don't tell them you knew what was going to happen all along, Mr Buzzkill.
There are plenty of idealogs who would insist this isn't a problem. Your need to belong is just another hang-up you need to deal with. That you should let go of that too. But I don't think many of those idealogs ended their lives forgotten and alone because they never built a connection (or inter-generational connection in particular) with other people.
The problem seems to be less that literature is derivative, and more that the viewer is looking for reasons to dismiss things instead of reasons to enjoy them.
If you're trying to illustrate something esoteric, like black hole physics, immunology, or Zen, you're going to have to come at it sideways, via analogy, and possibly layered. Which may be part of our current, greater problem with anti-intellectualism. People understand the analogy and think this has prepared them to participate rather than appreciate.
So the problem with movies is that movies are the least of the problem.
You need smarter friends... Hanging out for extended periods of time with people below your level does not work well.
I think that you(we) never are.