Top Performers Have a Superpower: Happiness(sloanreview.mit.edu)
sloanreview.mit.edu
Top Performers Have a Superpower: Happiness
https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/top-performers-have-a-superpower-happiness/
476 comments
Well, having already made enough money to always be able to just say "you know what, I'm out" whenever you feel like it is necessary to be happy in any situation and interested in everything.
Anyone who's not "secure for life" and has to keep the salaries coming in will have to deal with bad people, bad decisions, bad culture, etc. and become unhappy.
I've sort of dabbled in that situation: I made and lost a fortune on the stock market at the start of this millenium. Not filthy rich, but enough to never have to work again and live a comfortable, middle-class life.
I didn't "get out" because of greed, and voila, the bubble burst and the comfortable situation was over - I was at the mercy of my salary again, and everything that comes with it. Dumb colleagues, inept superiors, boring work, etc.
My employment situation didn't change - but when I had the theoretical opportunity to just quit with no financial worries, I was happy despite everything. Once that stopped, I became unhappy, or rather, baseline neutral again.
When I was in the comfortable situation, I was carefree and open to pursue ideas and projects brought to me which I knew were stupid and prone to fail. My colleagues loved it, of course.
I learned that worrying about whether I'll have enough money to live somewhat comfortably until death is what makes me unhappy, and extremely wary to avoid failure. There's nothing else to it.
Anyone who's not "secure for life" and has to keep the salaries coming in will have to deal with bad people, bad decisions, bad culture, etc. and become unhappy.
I've sort of dabbled in that situation: I made and lost a fortune on the stock market at the start of this millenium. Not filthy rich, but enough to never have to work again and live a comfortable, middle-class life.
I didn't "get out" because of greed, and voila, the bubble burst and the comfortable situation was over - I was at the mercy of my salary again, and everything that comes with it. Dumb colleagues, inept superiors, boring work, etc.
My employment situation didn't change - but when I had the theoretical opportunity to just quit with no financial worries, I was happy despite everything. Once that stopped, I became unhappy, or rather, baseline neutral again.
When I was in the comfortable situation, I was carefree and open to pursue ideas and projects brought to me which I knew were stupid and prone to fail. My colleagues loved it, of course.
I learned that worrying about whether I'll have enough money to live somewhat comfortably until death is what makes me unhappy, and extremely wary to avoid failure. There's nothing else to it.
I can confirm. Stepping off the treadmill - or just slowing it down - gives you so much more space to be curious.
It's not just a matter of precariousness. You just have a lot more time and energy for these things. You can always sleep a bit longer, or delay work to follow an impulse with your full energy. There's always time for projects, even if they're not part of some hustle. It's an incredible privilege.
Forget about the American dream. The Victorian dream is where it's at. I want to spend my days being a gentleman scientist and a student of the arts. I want my best work to follow my morning tea in the garden, and I want to join a Society of Likeminded Nerds to talk about it.
It's not just a matter of precariousness. You just have a lot more time and energy for these things. You can always sleep a bit longer, or delay work to follow an impulse with your full energy. There's always time for projects, even if they're not part of some hustle. It's an incredible privilege.
Forget about the American dream. The Victorian dream is where it's at. I want to spend my days being a gentleman scientist and a student of the arts. I want my best work to follow my morning tea in the garden, and I want to join a Society of Likeminded Nerds to talk about it.
> I want to spend my days being a gentleman scientist and a student of the arts. I want my best work to follow my morning tea in the garden, and I want to join a Society of Likeminded Nerds to talk about it.
Atop a healthy and happy family, this is all I want from life. I would be honored to apply for membership at your Society if and when you ever start it.
Atop a healthy and happy family, this is all I want from life. I would be honored to apply for membership at your Society if and when you ever start it.
> I want to join a Society of Likeminded Nerds to talk about it.
>> I would be honored to apply for membership at your Society if and when you ever start it.
I'd argue this already exists. We're on it right now...
>> I would be honored to apply for membership at your Society if and when you ever start it.
I'd argue this already exists. We're on it right now...
I think HN overlaps a lot with what I imagine from OP's description. I personally would want more content along the lines of showing what random projects people are working on and far less focus on the companies that a particular VC firm happens to back.
> I personally would want more content along the lines of showing what random projects people are working on
YES. Anyone know of a good place for this?
YES. Anyone know of a good place for this?
hackaday is like this, but with an electronics focus rather than software
Lobste.rs does this occasionally, which can be interesting.
Yup, this is exactly what brings me to HN day after day.
I was thinking of meetup groups when writing that line. Some of them are practically adult show and tell.
Almost everytime I have a three day weekend I find that third day so enjoyable. My life feels better overall and it carries into the week. Literally having one more day off per week changes my mood drastically. I'm prioritizing a four day work week whenever I look for my next job because of this.
Ironically, the rise of the US as an economic power probably was what ended the Victorian dream of noble men doing nothing but looking for ever more refined expressions of art and culture. Huysmans wrote about it in his still very relevant novel "À rebours".
What about the Victorian period made this possible? Seems strange that we have so much more wealth and efficiencies now (even just refrigeration/freezers as one example) yet seem to have gone backwards in this regard. What could be the underlying cause of this?
The few people with the wealth to be able to live this lifestyle are the ones who left enough records to read about. The commoners definitely existed, they just didn't leave records, or the ones they did leave weren't preserved, or the ones that were, common folk don't study or read about. That's all.
In another 1,000 years, think about who around you right now might have the chance to be remembered. Someone like Bezos or Musk? Those reading about our life in the year 3,022 might believe everyone in our time was a wealthy CEO funding rocketship companies if they go by the names that have stood through time.
In another 1,000 years, think about who around you right now might have the chance to be remembered. Someone like Bezos or Musk? Those reading about our life in the year 3,022 might believe everyone in our time was a wealthy CEO funding rocketship companies if they go by the names that have stood through time.
[deleted]
It was only possible in the Victorian period for the wealthy elite. If you were born into a family that owned vast swaths of land or used to run slave plantations in the Caribbean you were set for life and could devote your life to less crude pursuits than the gain of capital. You would also have a ready built network of others with similar wealth and social expectations.
And not only in England - all of Europe's elite, in France, Germany, Hungary, Austria, Russia, spend their days sponsoring art and partying, basically. They were the ones paying all the famous composers, painters, etc. whose work we still marvel at today.
The rise of the United States and its capitalist system brought an end to that. The businessman rose over the noble man, both in wealth as well as image.
Not the businessman, really; the _normal_ man. If we were back in the Victorian age, it's likely that you and I would be doomed to labor every day for meager sustenance, supporting the occasional noble and their leisure.
Just have to reply to this, so I can find your comment in my own comments. We'll put and I am trying to love like this for myself. Thx
You can also click on the timestamp of the HN comment (e.g. ‘1 hour ago’) and then click ‘favorite’. That will save the comment (publicly) to your profile.
Looking at your profile it doesn’t look like you have any favorites saved yet, so maybe you’re not familiar with that feature?
Looking at your profile it doesn’t look like you have any favorites saved yet, so maybe you’re not familiar with that feature?
I'm not OP - but didn't know about "favorite" and thanks!
> Anyone who's not "secure for life" and has to keep the salaries coming in will have to deal with bad people, bad decisions, bad culture, etc. and become unhappy.
This is the myth that keeps people trapped in bad jobs, but it’s not true.
Yes, most of us have to continue working. But no, that doesn’t mean your job must be miserable and you must be surrounded by miserable people. Look around. Try something different. There are a lot of good jobs and teams out there.
Too many people in tech approach their careers as a simple compensation maximization problem and disregard everything else. They end up in companies that are happy to pay them 10-100% more but then demand they work 20-200% harder and deal with bad behavior and unrealistic expectations because the company knows they’re not going to leave behind that sweet total compensation to go somewhere less stressful.
You can have good pay and good working conditions, but you have to work to find it and keep it. The big company recruiters desperate to give you high total comp just to get you in the door (often to replace employees who turned over) aren’t necessarily the path to finding that optimal point, though.
I’ve taken a few salary down-steps in my career that felt scary at the time but ended up being well worth it for the increased quality of life.
This is the myth that keeps people trapped in bad jobs, but it’s not true.
Yes, most of us have to continue working. But no, that doesn’t mean your job must be miserable and you must be surrounded by miserable people. Look around. Try something different. There are a lot of good jobs and teams out there.
Too many people in tech approach their careers as a simple compensation maximization problem and disregard everything else. They end up in companies that are happy to pay them 10-100% more but then demand they work 20-200% harder and deal with bad behavior and unrealistic expectations because the company knows they’re not going to leave behind that sweet total compensation to go somewhere less stressful.
You can have good pay and good working conditions, but you have to work to find it and keep it. The big company recruiters desperate to give you high total comp just to get you in the door (often to replace employees who turned over) aren’t necessarily the path to finding that optimal point, though.
I’ve taken a few salary down-steps in my career that felt scary at the time but ended up being well worth it for the increased quality of life.
Too simplistic. Some people are trapped - the availability of even just one alternative job with chance of improvement is not a given. It's question of age(ism), ableness to move to another city / country, and luck.
Or put differently, we're not all around 30 anymore, live in the bay area, and might have family matters, e.hg. a wife that doesn't want to quit a job she loves so you can maybe improve your happiness by 10%.
Also, companies change over time. A great place can become hell with just one bad superior getting hired and poisoning everything.
Or put differently, we're not all around 30 anymore, live in the bay area, and might have family matters, e.hg. a wife that doesn't want to quit a job she loves so you can maybe improve your happiness by 10%.
Also, companies change over time. A great place can become hell with just one bad superior getting hired and poisoning everything.
Can't agree more. I've turned away from many a high paying gig (and even left a couple) for exactly this reason. With (much) more money comes much higher expectations. If they aren't reasonable, you're typically going to deal with a load of stress.
This can also happen with lower paying gigs, so you still have to qualify your jobs appropriately, but prioritizing quality of life over raw compensation is a great trade in my book. With the high salaries of the current tech market, it's not actually that hard to make a very comfortable living while still staying sane/happy and avoiding burnout.
The upside being that you can also take some time to learn new tech / get your head out of the weeds, and often make much more important and broad impacts. Like Kent Beck used to say: "program as if you had enough time".
This can also happen with lower paying gigs, so you still have to qualify your jobs appropriately, but prioritizing quality of life over raw compensation is a great trade in my book. With the high salaries of the current tech market, it's not actually that hard to make a very comfortable living while still staying sane/happy and avoiding burnout.
The upside being that you can also take some time to learn new tech / get your head out of the weeds, and often make much more important and broad impacts. Like Kent Beck used to say: "program as if you had enough time".
> You can have good pay and good working conditions, but you have to work to find it and keep it
The existential unhappiness of work is from depending on it for your livelihood.
As PP described, he was perfectly happy with his job until he became dependent on it and no longer had the ability to walk away at any time without caring about the financial consequences.
Among other things, as you indicate, as soon as you become dependent on your job financially, you take on an additional, and unhappiness-inducing, maintenance burden of constantly working to keep your job and then working to find a replacement job when your job changes or vanishes due to business conditions or the economy.
(And, of course, the work becomes something that you have to do, which creates reactance, etc..)
The existential unhappiness of work is from depending on it for your livelihood.
As PP described, he was perfectly happy with his job until he became dependent on it and no longer had the ability to walk away at any time without caring about the financial consequences.
Among other things, as you indicate, as soon as you become dependent on your job financially, you take on an additional, and unhappiness-inducing, maintenance burden of constantly working to keep your job and then working to find a replacement job when your job changes or vanishes due to business conditions or the economy.
(And, of course, the work becomes something that you have to do, which creates reactance, etc..)
I know plenty of people who will say "you know what, I'm out" despite living paycheck to paycheck, or maybe having 1 or 2 months living expenses saved up. They're just open to the risk of going with the flow, and confident they'll find something to keep them going. They tend to be a lot happier than those I know who are focussed on money and career.
This doesn't work if you're literally struggling to make ends meet to the point that you're actually not making ends meet. But you certainly don't need anything near "never have to work again" levels of wealth to have this freedom.
This doesn't work if you're literally struggling to make ends meet to the point that you're actually not making ends meet. But you certainly don't need anything near "never have to work again" levels of wealth to have this freedom.
I know someone who did that and in the end he went from well-paid technical sales to homeless with serious health issues. One piece of minor bad luck followed by more bad luck with the health issues, probably a consequence of the former. Some of his former colleagues, years later, when one of them had found him in the streets, collected money to help him out.
There is a risk of stepping outside. It's not all roses. People are not afraid for no reason and it's not just "all in the head" and an attitude problem.
There is a risk of stepping outside. It's not all roses. People are not afraid for no reason and it's not just "all in the head" and an attitude problem.
The people I'm thinking of weren't so much "stepping outside" as they were "never inside". They have always worked casual jobs which they enjoy, and generally have strong social networks that can help them out when they're in need.
It works if you don't have many responsibilities. I recently lost my only source of income and that became crippling to my overall performance when it comes to side projects that could eventually replace that source. It was really surprising since I expected to head full forward with my projects. It used to be the case when I was a student capable of living on a shoestring budget.
> It works if you don't have many responsibilities.
Yep. Single person with minimal responsibilities has more freedom/flexibility than someone with a family (for example) - kids/spouse mean your time is not just your own, and your decisions have direct (often immediate) impacts on those around you.
Yep. Single person with minimal responsibilities has more freedom/flexibility than someone with a family (for example) - kids/spouse mean your time is not just your own, and your decisions have direct (often immediate) impacts on those around you.
> It used to be the case when I was a student capable of living on a shoestring budget.
It blows me away how easy it is to grow your expenses right along with your income. I started in this industry making like $60k/yr and somehow managed to live and go on trips. Now that I’m older I make substantially more than that but somehow my expenses grew right along side. Car payment, expensive apartment, Uber eats, fancier groceries, lavish travel, expensive hobby stuff… shit adds up. Not to mention I’ve got graduate level student loans, maxed retirement, etc…
I dunno… I know for sure if push came to shove I could do away with a large portion of that. But man can your expenses blow up so easily if you don’t pay attention to them.
It blows me away how easy it is to grow your expenses right along with your income. I started in this industry making like $60k/yr and somehow managed to live and go on trips. Now that I’m older I make substantially more than that but somehow my expenses grew right along side. Car payment, expensive apartment, Uber eats, fancier groceries, lavish travel, expensive hobby stuff… shit adds up. Not to mention I’ve got graduate level student loans, maxed retirement, etc…
I dunno… I know for sure if push came to shove I could do away with a large portion of that. But man can your expenses blow up so easily if you don’t pay attention to them.
Throw a wife and two kids into that mix and let’s see what happens to your side projects.
Yeah, it goes from 16 hours a day to MAYBE 16 hours a week.
I have a lot of experience pushing forward stuff with wife / kids. One must learn to delegate. Yes you can do "programming whatever", but you don't have the time. If you believe in the project, allocate.... $100,$500,$1k a month for a few months (whatever is your threshold) and outsource! It doesn't need to be in "expensive React with microservices".... you can do v1 in Laravel and a purchased template. (as example).
If one does not feel comfortable paying someone to do some of the work - it is a key tell the project may not be worth continuing. Momentum is key as projects natural state is "trending towards death"
If one does not feel comfortable paying someone to do some of the work - it is a key tell the project may not be worth continuing. Momentum is key as projects natural state is "trending towards death"
This advice used to work years ago but user expectations have risen massively and you can no longer get away with a shitty cookie cutter MVP. You must do the big work upfront and come out very polished out of the gate, or else users will sense you don’t really have much skin in the game and not bother investing time in your niche project. This often means you must leverage the latest and greatest tech to get an edge, such as React.
Users have been burned too much by “lean startups” and “mvps” and have become wiser to their tricks.
Users have been burned too much by “lean startups” and “mvps” and have become wiser to their tricks.
Eh, I think this is a major fallacy that burns a lot of potentially viable companies to the ground.
Step 1 is validate your market and produce something of value - that is the focus of the MVP.
The MVP doesn’t need to go from $0 to $bln. and it’s a red flag in my opinion of something thinks it does. If the market is already established or there are established competitors, and you’re building out more capacity then sure - but then you should already be able to build a spreadsheet with all the market variables, or you’re fooling yourself.
If you can’t do that with 1 person and random tools, it doesn’t mean that isn’t a business. It does mean it’s a higher risk of failing, and failing catastrophically, and destroying a whole lot more money in the process.
Step 1 is validate your market and produce something of value - that is the focus of the MVP.
The MVP doesn’t need to go from $0 to $bln. and it’s a red flag in my opinion of something thinks it does. If the market is already established or there are established competitors, and you’re building out more capacity then sure - but then you should already be able to build a spreadsheet with all the market variables, or you’re fooling yourself.
If you can’t do that with 1 person and random tools, it doesn’t mean that isn’t a business. It does mean it’s a higher risk of failing, and failing catastrophically, and destroying a whole lot more money in the process.
If the value proposition is common, then yes it is hard. If it is novel, then no.
Agree design is much more important than before. But you can still pay a designer $1k or less and it looks pretty nice. Maybe not "uniquely different", but nice.
Agree the days of "simply put it up and get users" is probably gone. One has to work it, which is what distinguishes a project from a business. Developers may be good at one, but not both.
Agree design is much more important than before. But you can still pay a designer $1k or less and it looks pretty nice. Maybe not "uniquely different", but nice.
Agree the days of "simply put it up and get users" is probably gone. One has to work it, which is what distinguishes a project from a business. Developers may be good at one, but not both.
The problem with this advice is the same as with most advice for how to get ahead: It just does not scale, not even a little. It only works for a few. If more people follow it, it's just more stressful and/or expensive for everyone.
I mean, if this is the kind of society that any poster of such advice has in mind than I won't complain. Who am I to dictate what the end goal is? If people want a society for winners, so be it. I just wish that advice givers were aware of that and would show it. As it usually sounds like such advice is given without any thought for scalability.
Or you subscribe to the idea that a huge number of people could indeed have this 0.1% super idea. I can't really disprove that this would be possible I admit, a huge number of people suddenly having crazy good ideas all at once, and all or most not requiring a lot of resources (which they would compete over, and with all the old industries).
I mean, if this is the kind of society that any poster of such advice has in mind than I won't complain. Who am I to dictate what the end goal is? If people want a society for winners, so be it. I just wish that advice givers were aware of that and would show it. As it usually sounds like such advice is given without any thought for scalability.
Or you subscribe to the idea that a huge number of people could indeed have this 0.1% super idea. I can't really disprove that this would be possible I admit, a huge number of people suddenly having crazy good ideas all at once, and all or most not requiring a lot of resources (which they would compete over, and with all the old industries).
Blindly spending $100mln to make an awesome app without getting a MVP out to validate an idea for way cheaper is just ‘making up losses at scale’. It also doesn’t scale.
Almost swallowed my cuppa when you called React the latest and greatest
I know it's not, but I'm trying to draw a parallel to what many market devs would probably use and cause themselves more trouble for launching
Yeah, users care about React. [Eye roll]
As a user I care enough to make some effort to avoid it such as using old.reddit rather than the new fangled version.
They don’t care about React they care about having next generation web applications with complex state, not some garbage where you click a button and refresh a page everytime to re-render the screen.
No way - users care about speed a lot but usually could care less about a page refresh. That's why React apps are getting a bad rap with users as they are often slow due to poor engineering. If the app is fast and looks good, users like it.
Example - because many developers will fret more about the technology of their site than the actual business. <yes, it's common>
Or -16 hrs a week (made up by borrowing from sleep or other necessary time), which just isn’t sustainable.
This is what Tullio Kezich wrote in his book "Federico" to describe Federico Fellini's attitude towards life.
"He lived deep inside things with indomitable curiosity and perpetual openness, surrendering himself to what Dostoevsky calls "the river of life", in the serene awareness that it always takes you somewhere".
It always takes you somewhere.
"He lived deep inside things with indomitable curiosity and perpetual openness, surrendering himself to what Dostoevsky calls "the river of life", in the serene awareness that it always takes you somewhere".
It always takes you somewhere.
I agree with what you are saying for sure. I have spent years working for myself in a variety of roles and while I was certainly happier than when I worked under a boss, the constant stress around lack of reliable income was stressful. Suddenly this last year or so all of the skills I had cultivated with my side hustles culminated in a way that I am both my own boss and making enough money my situation feels less dire. It was the combination of the two that really made a difference in my mental health
I reckon they're not 50 or older, though.
I think that's the best argument for UBI. If people aren't constantly worried about being homeless and not having food, they are happier, healthier, more productive and live more fulfilling lives.
Unfortunately policy is formed from a balance of competing powers, not as a result of an idea for doing what is best for people.
I think it's a mistake to think that captains of industry want productivity above all else. They'll happily sacrifice productivity for certainty and compliance.
I think it's a mistake to think that captains of industry want productivity above all else. They'll happily sacrifice productivity for certainty and compliance.
Only having people working for them who want to work for them seems like an easy way to be sure of certainty and compliance.
That doesn’t ring true in my decade of management. Some people are just incapable of doing a bad job, and others just incapable of doing a good job. Whether or not they want to work for you.
A decade of management under a system where people have to work whatever job is available to them just to survive. That's a huge, screaming confounding variable. If the people you've managed have a meaningful choice in where to work, then they aren't the primary target of UBI.
Considering we’ve never (to my knowledge) had a system where
People didn’t have to work to survive at some level - how would anyone know?
Even idle noblity had expectations (military service, patrons of arts and society, etc).
Even idle noblity had expectations (military service, patrons of arts and society, etc).
No, that's an argument for a proper social safety net, as implemented in many European countries.
Most fulltime jobs pay better than a UBI ever could, so if you have a job,
a) either your standard of living is so high that a change to UBI-only would be very disruptive and you'd still be worried about losing your job,
b) or your standard of living is so low that you'd quickly accumulate enough of a financial buffer that you wouldn't have to worry about losing your job.
Therefore, a UBI wouldn't be better than a social safety net in this regard. In both cases you wouldn't have to worry about starving, but you'd still have to worry about losing your income.
a) either your standard of living is so high that a change to UBI-only would be very disruptive and you'd still be worried about losing your job,
b) or your standard of living is so low that you'd quickly accumulate enough of a financial buffer that you wouldn't have to worry about losing your job.
Therefore, a UBI wouldn't be better than a social safety net in this regard. In both cases you wouldn't have to worry about starving, but you'd still have to worry about losing your income.
The "social security net" we have in Europe isn't perfect, though. At least here in Austria they make you jump through all kinds of bureaucratic hoops to get assistance. There's not a single type of assistance you get, there's like 10 different things you can apply for, they all have different preconditions and navigating them is almost a full time job. And before people take a job, they have to think about which aid they are going to lose, etc. At the sametime they have to deal with the stigma of depending on social security.
With UBI you wouldn't need any bureaucracy, you would always get more money if you worked even a shitty job, and noone would be jealous that you are freeloading because everyone gets UBI.
With UBI you wouldn't need any bureaucracy, you would always get more money if you worked even a shitty job, and noone would be jealous that you are freeloading because everyone gets UBI.
> The "social security net" we have in Europe isn't perfect, though.
You're comparing the imperfect reality of an actual situation (unemployment benefits) against the utopian fantasy of an imagined best case scenario (UBI) – of course the imagined scenario will come out on top. The real result of a UBI will almost certainly look less rosy than the picture you paint, just like every other plan once it gets implemented. For example, this:
> noone would be jealous that you are freeloading because everyone gets UBI
would likely be wrong, because people would instead be jealous because you're "freeloading" by not working and therefore not paying taxes. Other ways a UBI could conceivably be bad or even worse than the current status quo:
* Prices rise due to increased consumer spending capability, to the point where you have to work again to get above the poverty line.
* Any realistic UBI is too low for people with special needs (like disabilities), so you'll again need a bureaucracy to deal with those cases.
* If the UBI is independent of local cost-of-living, it'll most likely be too low to survive on it in high COL areas, like most large cities. If it's dependent on COL, the exact implementation won't please everyone.
You're comparing the imperfect reality of an actual situation (unemployment benefits) against the utopian fantasy of an imagined best case scenario (UBI) – of course the imagined scenario will come out on top. The real result of a UBI will almost certainly look less rosy than the picture you paint, just like every other plan once it gets implemented. For example, this:
> noone would be jealous that you are freeloading because everyone gets UBI
would likely be wrong, because people would instead be jealous because you're "freeloading" by not working and therefore not paying taxes. Other ways a UBI could conceivably be bad or even worse than the current status quo:
* Prices rise due to increased consumer spending capability, to the point where you have to work again to get above the poverty line.
* Any realistic UBI is too low for people with special needs (like disabilities), so you'll again need a bureaucracy to deal with those cases.
* If the UBI is independent of local cost-of-living, it'll most likely be too low to survive on it in high COL areas, like most large cities. If it's dependent on COL, the exact implementation won't please everyone.
> Prices rise due to increased consumer spending capability, to the point where you have to work again to get above the poverty line.
By far this is the easiest to predict, but least likely to be addressed (by the proponents) concern I have with UBI.
A social safety net shouldn’t be a hammock, as it is said. I’m concerned with AI and what happens when it’s pointless to hire people because a $100k robot can do the same work as 3 of them and do so 20 hours a day. By then UBI may be our answer. But it doesn’t seem so now.
By far this is the easiest to predict, but least likely to be addressed (by the proponents) concern I have with UBI.
A social safety net shouldn’t be a hammock, as it is said. I’m concerned with AI and what happens when it’s pointless to hire people because a $100k robot can do the same work as 3 of them and do so 20 hours a day. By then UBI may be our answer. But it doesn’t seem so now.
Totally agree with this. Otherwise, I don't see UBI solving anything, but creating new problems.
None of what you posted is serious criticism of UBI.
> Prices rise due to increased consumer spending capability, to the point where you have to work again to get above the poverty line.
Governments will respond to economic factors that diminish purchasing power in order to maintain the effectiveness of UBI, as a part of UBI.
> Any realistic UBI is too low for people with special needs
Diminished support for disabled or sick people is not a part of UBI. UBI should become a part (within or on top of) of their support. Bureaucracy will still be diminished for non-disabled people.
> If the UBI is independent of local cost-of-living, it'll most likely be too low to survive on it in high COL areas
So people in those areas will have to have jobs. UBI still allows them to go quit their job and move out to the country if they want to subsist on it. UBI would go nicely paired with rent controls and maintaining individual purchase power, but it doesn't even need those things to be a net positive.
UBI should have been implemented 20-40 years ago, it will surely be necessary going forward, it's time to get on board.
> Prices rise due to increased consumer spending capability, to the point where you have to work again to get above the poverty line.
Governments will respond to economic factors that diminish purchasing power in order to maintain the effectiveness of UBI, as a part of UBI.
> Any realistic UBI is too low for people with special needs
Diminished support for disabled or sick people is not a part of UBI. UBI should become a part (within or on top of) of their support. Bureaucracy will still be diminished for non-disabled people.
> If the UBI is independent of local cost-of-living, it'll most likely be too low to survive on it in high COL areas
So people in those areas will have to have jobs. UBI still allows them to go quit their job and move out to the country if they want to subsist on it. UBI would go nicely paired with rent controls and maintaining individual purchase power, but it doesn't even need those things to be a net positive.
UBI should have been implemented 20-40 years ago, it will surely be necessary going forward, it's time to get on board.
> Governments will respond to economic factors that diminish purchasing power in order to maintain the effectiveness of UBI, as a part of UBI.
How? Using which political, economic, and financial tools? And what will be the side effects of those policies? That's exactly the point I was making: UBI proponents assume a downright utopian best-case scenario where everything works as planned (even though those plans are vague at best, and wishful fantasies at worst), and politicians and voters behave perfectly rational.
How? Using which political, economic, and financial tools? And what will be the side effects of those policies? That's exactly the point I was making: UBI proponents assume a downright utopian best-case scenario where everything works as planned (even though those plans are vague at best, and wishful fantasies at worst), and politicians and voters behave perfectly rational.
>> How? Using which political, economic, and financial tools? And what will be the side effects of those policies?
There's a simple answer for that: please look at communist Poland 1980-1989 - trying to counter raising prices with government intervention leads to supply crisis (since production is not economically viable anymore). Imagine all stores having nothing to sell, literally empty shelves, forcing common people to fight for scrapes.
There's a simple answer for that: please look at communist Poland 1980-1989 - trying to counter raising prices with government intervention leads to supply crisis (since production is not economically viable anymore). Imagine all stores having nothing to sell, literally empty shelves, forcing common people to fight for scrapes.
That reminds me of a German joke about the German Democratic Republic ("East Germany"):
Ein Mann geht in ein Kaufhaus in der DDR. Er fragt den Verkäufer: "Gibt's hier keine Socken?" – "Nein, hier gibt's keine Hosen. Keine Socken gibt's in der zweiten Etage."
Translated (roughly): A man visits a department store in East Germany. He asks the shop assistant: "Do you have no socks here?" – "No, we have no trousers. No socks are on the second floor."
(The joke relies on the word order of German syntax; properly translated, the dialog would be:
"Don't you have any socks?" – "No, we don't have any trousers. No socks are on the second floor"
But then the joke doesn't really make sense anymore.)
Ein Mann geht in ein Kaufhaus in der DDR. Er fragt den Verkäufer: "Gibt's hier keine Socken?" – "Nein, hier gibt's keine Hosen. Keine Socken gibt's in der zweiten Etage."
Translated (roughly): A man visits a department store in East Germany. He asks the shop assistant: "Do you have no socks here?" – "No, we have no trousers. No socks are on the second floor."
(The joke relies on the word order of German syntax; properly translated, the dialog would be:
"Don't you have any socks?" – "No, we don't have any trousers. No socks are on the second floor"
But then the joke doesn't really make sense anymore.)
Oh really? So when the United States subsidizes our otherwise non competitive corn industry, it leads to economic collapse?
When we control oil prices by using reserves and trading agreements, does that cause people to fight for scraps?
How about when we subsidize silicon chip manufacturing? Did that collapse society?
You cannot, in a serious conversation, compare Soviet Union economic policies to modern socialist ideas. It's just silly.
When we control oil prices by using reserves and trading agreements, does that cause people to fight for scraps?
How about when we subsidize silicon chip manufacturing? Did that collapse society?
You cannot, in a serious conversation, compare Soviet Union economic policies to modern socialist ideas. It's just silly.
Subsidizing any industry is always bad for economy (because you are shifting money taken from good businesses to bad ones), it's just that the amount of subsidies given to corn industry, or even amount that can be given to chip manufacturing are nothing compared to US GDP. Try make that a general rule across the whole economy and see what happens.
"Modern socialist ideas" are basically the same ideas that were already tried in Soviet Union, just dressed in fancier words.
"Modern socialist ideas" are basically the same ideas that were already tried in Soviet Union, just dressed in fancier words.
As an opponent of UBI you should know what economic and financial tools would be available, and then explain why they wouldn't work, rather than act like they don't exist. It would help your counter argument.
No, is the other way around. You claim UBI would work and the problems some of us said are not real problems because it could be solved. So now, it is your turn to explain which mechanisms would avoid those problems.
Otherwise I could say "erasing money would make us live like aristocrats" without explaining how or why, and you should try to figure out why I could think that way, what kind of tools and mechanisms I thought of and after that, explaining why it would not work. Obviously, I could say those are not the right tools for my idea, so you have no real counter arguments, yada yada yada...
Otherwise I could say "erasing money would make us live like aristocrats" without explaining how or why, and you should try to figure out why I could think that way, what kind of tools and mechanisms I thought of and after that, explaining why it would not work. Obviously, I could say those are not the right tools for my idea, so you have no real counter arguments, yada yada yada...
Of course! government intervention in prices and supply and demand! How nobody thought about it before? Well, they did. And it failed spectacularly, as central planning of prices doesn't work due to the impossibility of getting all the information needed in time and the results of the analysis on time too in order to correct the market.
And as a proponent of UBI, YOU should explain how it would work, not the others. What financial tools or mechanisms would use a government to control the inflation or the rise in prices? I mean, even in the late Soviet Union had to look at capitalists countries to have an idea of the prices for basic products, because they coul not put a price that would make it work.
And as a proponent of UBI, YOU should explain how it would work, not the others. What financial tools or mechanisms would use a government to control the inflation or the rise in prices? I mean, even in the late Soviet Union had to look at capitalists countries to have an idea of the prices for basic products, because they coul not put a price that would make it work.
> would likely be wrong, because people would instead be jealous because you're "freeloading" by not working and therefore not paying taxes
There's a precedent why I think that people will approve of "universal" income: We have "Familienbeihilfe" in Austria. It's a payment of roughly 200€ per child that parents get. Everyone gets it, regardless of income, so noone is jealous. It's the best way of distributing financial aid in my opinion.
Regarding special needs, in my experience it's much easier to get aid for disabilities. I have a kid with special needs, and it's incredible how helpful people are. Social workers are calling us to tell us what kind of aid we should apply for and help us fill out forms etc. It's completely the opposite experience of applying for unemployment or for aid with rent payments etc.
There's a precedent why I think that people will approve of "universal" income: We have "Familienbeihilfe" in Austria. It's a payment of roughly 200€ per child that parents get. Everyone gets it, regardless of income, so noone is jealous. It's the best way of distributing financial aid in my opinion.
Regarding special needs, in my experience it's much easier to get aid for disabilities. I have a kid with special needs, and it's incredible how helpful people are. Social workers are calling us to tell us what kind of aid we should apply for and help us fill out forms etc. It's completely the opposite experience of applying for unemployment or for aid with rent payments etc.
What about the childless, and those who never want children?
They pay for everyone else's children through their taxes. Money they could use elsewhere for their own needs or pleasure.
-- To be clear, I'm not saying this is necessarily a bad thing. I don't have population charts of Austria on my desk and I'm too lazy to Google it right now, I'd assume it tracks a similar trend to the rest of the Europe and it's slowing down. In that case it might be for the common good and might come back as a positive to the individual at some point in their life.
I'm just saying it's not easy to come up with a scheme that is/feels fair to everyone involved, especially if there's no justification for it. One could find justifications for child support maybe, but can you justify freeloading just as easily?
They pay for everyone else's children through their taxes. Money they could use elsewhere for their own needs or pleasure.
-- To be clear, I'm not saying this is necessarily a bad thing. I don't have population charts of Austria on my desk and I'm too lazy to Google it right now, I'd assume it tracks a similar trend to the rest of the Europe and it's slowing down. In that case it might be for the common good and might come back as a positive to the individual at some point in their life.
I'm just saying it's not easy to come up with a scheme that is/feels fair to everyone involved, especially if there's no justification for it. One could find justifications for child support maybe, but can you justify freeloading just as easily?
That's exactly why everyone should get UBI. Because then noone is left out. Some need it more than others, but you get it even if you don't need it or don't deserve it.
I'm pretty sure people would be a lot more hesitant to complain about others getting UBI if they get it themselves.
I'm pretty sure people would be a lot more hesitant to complain about others getting UBI if they get it themselves.
There are already problems with this written in a comment above. I recall it would be like: do residents get it too? How long they need to be in the country to get the UBI? What about expats working in the country? and their kids? Should the kids get the money since birth or later?
And last one: as UBI comes from taxes (the state generates 0 money, just collect from others), what about those who decide not to work at all? How long until some of them stats asking for an increase in UBI because they cannot get a rent in the city?
It seems you have an idealistic view about human nature and that everyone is good and honest, not greedy, etc. The reality is not bad, but not so naive.
And last one: as UBI comes from taxes (the state generates 0 money, just collect from others), what about those who decide not to work at all? How long until some of them stats asking for an increase in UBI because they cannot get a rent in the city?
It seems you have an idealistic view about human nature and that everyone is good and honest, not greedy, etc. The reality is not bad, but not so naive.
You sound like the motivation behind social security and UBI are different.
It's nice to present a clean (modeled) plan, but it's something different when it hits reality. Social security now, is what UBI will look like a few decades down the road.
Somebody will find a way to exploit UBI and that hole gets patched, then there's another patch and another. Not to speak of how different political ideologies will apply their own modifications to previously established laws
It's nice to present a clean (modeled) plan, but it's something different when it hits reality. Social security now, is what UBI will look like a few decades down the road.
Somebody will find a way to exploit UBI and that hole gets patched, then there's another patch and another. Not to speak of how different political ideologies will apply their own modifications to previously established laws
Confused. If the income is universal (the 'U' in UBI) then what possible hack is there? That's the entire point really. Its why you can get rid of the bureaucracy, since there are no rules to exploit.
I'm confused too. How is that engineers here talking about UBI as a solution to this pressure to keep your job don't talk or consider how to pay that? Besides, when everyone has a base level of income, inflation came in play (as a consequence of supply and demand of goods) and then we go back to the same problem: getting a good life or just the basics to life becomes expensive even with UBI.
Also, I would recommend to read "Debunking Utopia" about the social system Nordic countries implemented in the past, some kind of model for solving the problem of living decently for people without possibilities and/or problems to make a living. The countries are slowly but steady reducing that system because it solves nothing and creates extra problems. With UBI, which is a bigger plan than the system Nordic countries had, you would end up with the same if not worse problems than they faced: people decide not to work for low wages or in jobs that are needed but unappealing (and I don't blame them, for sure), but because someone has to do the jobs, wages increase a lot, which in turn, increases the costs and price of those services. And, voila, we are at the beginning of the problem, were people are stressed or unhappy because they have to keep jobs they don't enjoy or like.
The difference is that the UBI would be the new penny, because you could not buy anything. Maybe with AI and automation we would get there, as robots would not complain or care.
Also, I would recommend to read "Debunking Utopia" about the social system Nordic countries implemented in the past, some kind of model for solving the problem of living decently for people without possibilities and/or problems to make a living. The countries are slowly but steady reducing that system because it solves nothing and creates extra problems. With UBI, which is a bigger plan than the system Nordic countries had, you would end up with the same if not worse problems than they faced: people decide not to work for low wages or in jobs that are needed but unappealing (and I don't blame them, for sure), but because someone has to do the jobs, wages increase a lot, which in turn, increases the costs and price of those services. And, voila, we are at the beginning of the problem, were people are stressed or unhappy because they have to keep jobs they don't enjoy or like.
The difference is that the UBI would be the new penny, because you could not buy anything. Maybe with AI and automation we would get there, as robots would not complain or care.
> If the income is universal (the 'U' in UBI)
Will residents without citizenship receive the UBI? If yes, how long do they have to reside to be eligible? Will expats with citizenship receive the UBI? Will children receive the full UBI starting at birth? If not, when will they? Is it an abrupt step (if yes, at what age?), or is it gradual?
There are many subtleties to the meaning of "universal". And that's just what I've come up with in 2 minutes...
Will residents without citizenship receive the UBI? If yes, how long do they have to reside to be eligible? Will expats with citizenship receive the UBI? Will children receive the full UBI starting at birth? If not, when will they? Is it an abrupt step (if yes, at what age?), or is it gradual?
There are many subtleties to the meaning of "universal". And that's just what I've come up with in 2 minutes...
I think you are discounting the fact that in the second scenario you don't have to work. I don't know about y'all but that is my fantasy.
> I think you are discounting the fact that in the second scenario you don't have to work
*for a while. Only very few people are able to save enough to never have to work again, even with a low standard of living.
*for a while. Only very few people are able to save enough to never have to work again, even with a low standard of living.
If the plan is to live off the savings, probably not. The idea is to make some investments, either stocks or real estate (for renting, for example), and have the money work for you.
It is not easy in any case, that's for sure. Besides, I sometimes think if I could get there, I would work time to time in interesting projects.
It is not easy in any case, that's for sure. Besides, I sometimes think if I could get there, I would work time to time in interesting projects.
> Anyone who's not "secure for life" and has to keep the salaries coming in will have to deal with bad people, bad decisions, bad culture, etc. and become unhappy.
This is bleak way of looking at things. There's one thing to have f-u money but there's another base level of security that lets you leave a job or group and move on without too much disruption. Marriage helps there too. I'm nowhere near "secure for life" money, but if I was truly unhappy with my job I'd leave and find something else in a month or two. Around a quarter of people who left their jobs in the US don't have a new role lined up and turnover otherwise is pretty high telling me people do have a choice. [0]
> When I was in the comfortable situation, I was carefree and open to pursue ideas and projects brought to me which I knew were stupid and prone to fail. My colleagues loved it, of course.
I've found the reverse. When I was most carefree and comfortable as a child and young adult, I didn't pursue ideas or projects. I didn't do much of anything. I watched TV and hung out with friends. I went through the motions at work. Only later when I had actual responsibilities and had a partner did I get ambitious and pursued more ambitious projects. "Worrying" about making it is what gets me up in the morning and keeps me motivated and feel like I have a purpose
[0] https://time.com/charter/6138353/new-rules-of-quitting/
This is bleak way of looking at things. There's one thing to have f-u money but there's another base level of security that lets you leave a job or group and move on without too much disruption. Marriage helps there too. I'm nowhere near "secure for life" money, but if I was truly unhappy with my job I'd leave and find something else in a month or two. Around a quarter of people who left their jobs in the US don't have a new role lined up and turnover otherwise is pretty high telling me people do have a choice. [0]
> When I was in the comfortable situation, I was carefree and open to pursue ideas and projects brought to me which I knew were stupid and prone to fail. My colleagues loved it, of course.
I've found the reverse. When I was most carefree and comfortable as a child and young adult, I didn't pursue ideas or projects. I didn't do much of anything. I watched TV and hung out with friends. I went through the motions at work. Only later when I had actual responsibilities and had a partner did I get ambitious and pursued more ambitious projects. "Worrying" about making it is what gets me up in the morning and keeps me motivated and feel like I have a purpose
[0] https://time.com/charter/6138353/new-rules-of-quitting/
You're touching on something here. I think real insecurity can be a motivating, albeit stressful, factor particularly in young adulthood (you have lots to gain and less to lose for taking risks) but once you've really experienced it it stays with you. That can lead to conservative, safe choices to avoid unknowns. For those like this it's easy to see why they project that a promise of security would enable them to behave differently, even if it may be irrational.
What stands out searching my memories at that young age is there was little cognizance or care about national/international issues, let alone survival. There was nothing particularly special about what I did with my time (some of it was creative, mostly not), but I was de-facto optimistic about my future. I may have had immediate concerns and worries (I was often lonely too), but they passed. Until they didn't. And I became sufficiently aware for social anxiety and fear of failure to take hold, alongside bad coping habits. Today I have stability, but learned conservative behavior. I have to be conscious about trying to shake things up now and then.
What stands out searching my memories at that young age is there was little cognizance or care about national/international issues, let alone survival. There was nothing particularly special about what I did with my time (some of it was creative, mostly not), but I was de-facto optimistic about my future. I may have had immediate concerns and worries (I was often lonely too), but they passed. Until they didn't. And I became sufficiently aware for social anxiety and fear of failure to take hold, alongside bad coping habits. Today I have stability, but learned conservative behavior. I have to be conscious about trying to shake things up now and then.
> Marriage helps there too.
Yeah. My “wife” (girlfriend of 22 years) was recently able to say F-U to her old hated job and start part-time growing a private therapy clientele because my pay has gone up so much in the past four years or so. Having a support structure really helps.
> I've found the reverse.
Agreed. When I had nothing external motivating me I became largely idle, despite my best intentions. I joke about early retirement but I’m not sure it would be good for me.
Yeah. My “wife” (girlfriend of 22 years) was recently able to say F-U to her old hated job and start part-time growing a private therapy clientele because my pay has gone up so much in the past four years or so. Having a support structure really helps.
> I've found the reverse.
Agreed. When I had nothing external motivating me I became largely idle, despite my best intentions. I joke about early retirement but I’m not sure it would be good for me.
Marriage only helps if your partner can support you, if push comes to shove.
If they're incapable of holding realistic employment, and it's all down to you, then you're in a worse situation than being single.
Possible requirements, from best to worst:
(A has job) || (B has job) // Robustness!
(A has job) // B won't have job, but A's is enough.
(A has job) && (B has job) // Cost of living is more than max(A, B) and less than A + B.
If they're incapable of holding realistic employment, and it's all down to you, then you're in a worse situation than being single.
Possible requirements, from best to worst:
(A has job) || (B has job) // Robustness!
(A has job) // B won't have job, but A's is enough.
(A has job) && (B has job) // Cost of living is more than max(A, B) and less than A + B.
Your comment smells like resentment made into a social theory.
> Anyone who's not "secure for life" and has to keep the salaries coming in will have to deal with bad people, bad decisions, bad culture, etc. and become unhappy.
Not being secure for life is what 99% of the world experience their entire life and out of these 99% a lof them are happy. I know in the Silicon Valley microcosm the perspective of being secure for life is something everyone is after but most people are happy to live paycheck to paycheck, save a bit of their revenue every month and enjoy their life.
> Anyone who's not "secure for life" and has to keep the salaries coming in will have to deal with bad people, bad decisions, bad culture, etc. and become unhappy.
Not being secure for life is what 99% of the world experience their entire life and out of these 99% a lof them are happy. I know in the Silicon Valley microcosm the perspective of being secure for life is something everyone is after but most people are happy to live paycheck to paycheck, save a bit of their revenue every month and enjoy their life.
I’m not sure that “happy” is the right term for being content living paycheck to paycheck, and I’m even less sure that it’s necessary for so many to live like this in today’s bountiful world. Wealth is getting far too concentrated within a very small percentage of society.
I'd flip the script. Start willing yourself to be super positive, interested and committed, and no matter what you'll get much better. More than that, you'll become better liked in the eyes of people who write the checks, and overall be considered more indispensable. That will parlay into additional opportunities, responsibilities and eventually pay. After that, leverage to either negotiate pay, or attract interest from other places.
This is a move you can pull from almost any position. No need to score a stock windfall (though sorry to hear about your dramatic rise and fall)
This is a move you can pull from almost any position. No need to score a stock windfall (though sorry to hear about your dramatic rise and fall)
Successful people make their own luck!
You are so right - our attitudes have more to do with our own happiness than we often like to admit. Which is why I see the cesspool of negativity that often permeates the online world as being so pernicious. It's hard to not get caught up in it, even if you are aware it's there and inherently evil. I've dramatically cut back on the amount of time I spend online in general and I am noticeably better off for it!
Is this the thing that I see in many Americans giving presentations? They are always uncomfortably excited and happy, regardless of what they are presenting. I get it, you're excited, but please accept that I'm here for the information, not your personal endorphin levels.
/rant off.... Sorry just came out of a workshop where the presenter spent half the time trying to get a bunch of technical people excited rather than just presenting the information we came for. Very exhausting.
/rant off.... Sorry just came out of a workshop where the presenter spent half the time trying to get a bunch of technical people excited rather than just presenting the information we came for. Very exhausting.
There's a difference between putting on a show, and genuinely being into whatever it is you're doing. What you're responding to is the former. What I'm suggesting is the latter.
> There's nothing else to it.
Your response seems too generalized as if it relates to everyone. Let me disagree.
I myself can be considered that kind of genius OP is talking about, at least in my earlier days. First 15 years of my career I've never had any (ANY) savings, and most of the time had some amount of debt. But I always felt simple enough to walk away from any situation I don't want to be in and was ready to live in any condition. But I always loved my job, always was super-curious and eager to learn, and employers were always looking for me not the other way around.
I can say that OP is right, at least for some subset of people.
Your response seems too generalized as if it relates to everyone. Let me disagree.
I myself can be considered that kind of genius OP is talking about, at least in my earlier days. First 15 years of my career I've never had any (ANY) savings, and most of the time had some amount of debt. But I always felt simple enough to walk away from any situation I don't want to be in and was ready to live in any condition. But I always loved my job, always was super-curious and eager to learn, and employers were always looking for me not the other way around.
I can say that OP is right, at least for some subset of people.
Sorry but I don't think a real genius would call himself one.
Maybe growing up with this kind of money has that effect, but not acquiring it midlife.
I got the money to get out and that's exactly what I did. I got out of everything. I'm not any more open than I was and I'm not happier. I just feel more secure and comfortable.
I got the money to get out and that's exactly what I did. I got out of everything. I'm not any more open than I was and I'm not happier. I just feel more secure and comfortable.
They mentioned they were happier having enough money to get out, but not actually getting out. Maybe that’s the difference? Just knowing it’s an option?
It definitely makes a difference knowing you have the option, the startup I worked for exited last year leaving me with a significant but not life changing windfall from cashing out my options. I'm still in the same job, but now working for a big corporate, and some days I absolutely hate it, but I at least know that I'm here by choice rather than necessity. Should it become too much I've got enough money in the bank to just rage quit and walk away without needing to immediately find another job.
It's more than that - it's also coming in to work and knowing you are better than 90% of the people there at a leisurely pace. There is a huge difference between coming in and working 16 hours just not to seem stupid and working 4 hours and being considered indispensable. Has NOTHING to do with some idealistic outlook perspective.
[deleted]
The idea that this positive state of mind is resource dependent is itself a preemptive loss of that state of mind.
Interesting that you're suggesting you were given stupid/risky projects at work. For most of us, it's the boring stuff across the board. At any rate, did those realistically pose a risk for your future employment, or is it a symptom of feeling more conservative following financial insecurity (I've felt this myself)?
I have a bit of time I could reserve personal projects, as a means to bridge myself to more interesting things, but I usually don't bother with much. This becomes a source of pressure on myself. I see it as my only viable option for deviating from things as they are. I have to fight through fatigue and search through crumbs for sparks of interest.
I have a bit of time I could reserve personal projects, as a means to bridge myself to more interesting things, but I usually don't bother with much. This becomes a source of pressure on myself. I see it as my only viable option for deviating from things as they are. I have to fight through fatigue and search through crumbs for sparks of interest.
I can testify this is not the case, at least in my experience. Being able to say "I'm out" does not guarantee happiness. Compare it to people saying "when I win the lottery, all my problems are fixed". Surely you have heard about studies that conclude quite the opposite. So what makes happy, instead? Being able to cooperate with, surprise people in positive ways, and getting appreciation from that. But this also means investment: being open to ideas of others, being creative and working hard. No pain, no gain...
I may be making a mundane observation here, but I've tried living with less money and more money, and more money makes me much happier. People who aren't happy with more money (and assuming there are no trade-offs with time spent at work or work-induced stress, say moving from 100k a year to 500k a year), are deserts of desire.
> Being able to say "I'm out" does not guarantee happiness.
It doesn't seem to me that anyone was saying it was a guarantee. Rather, that being able to say "I'm out" is in something along the lines of the "necessary, but not sufficient" category.
It doesn't seem to me that anyone was saying it was a guarantee. Rather, that being able to say "I'm out" is in something along the lines of the "necessary, but not sufficient" category.
It sounds like you went through a path that helped you learn things about yourself, that's always a good thing.
It probably a mistake to try and project this too broadly though. I'm sure there are lots of people who would respond similarly to the way that you did, but also lots that would not.
It probably a mistake to try and project this too broadly though. I'm sure there are lots of people who would respond similarly to the way that you did, but also lots that would not.
You make a good point. Are people successful because they are happy, or vice versa?
Secure situations make successful people. Children raised in well-off households with no financial worries do better in school and later in their careers, on average.
Sure, you get the rich kid wasting their life on parties or drugs, or the poor kid beating the odds by hard work and determination, but those are outliers. That's why there are so many of these characters in literature, movies, and TV - they're not the norm.
The mechanism is:
- a rich kid wastes 3 years on drugs and partying, gets caught once or twice, gets bailed by parents, moves on to do something productive
- a poor kid wastes 1 year on drugs and partying, gets caught once, it snowballs from there, recovery is very hard if at all possible
- a rich kid wastes 3 years on drugs and partying, gets caught once or twice, gets bailed by parents, moves on to do something productive
- a poor kid wastes 1 year on drugs and partying, gets caught once, it snowballs from there, recovery is very hard if at all possible
My personality is like the happy math guy above; I grew up in poverty, but I had a ton of loving security from both parents centered around love and commitment.
We used to have to collect change at McDonald’s for lunch. Eventually I graduated from MIT.
I understand it is not the norm… :)
We used to have to collect change at McDonald’s for lunch. Eventually I graduated from MIT.
I understand it is not the norm… :)
I think you're asking the right question. Very unpopular opinion, but I think some of it comes down to genetics. I know a guy who is just always happy, no matter what. I've just never seen him feeling down. He grew up in a somewhat challenging situation but it doesn't seem to matter. I really think some of it is just the way he's wired. He has a lot of energy, is physically active everyday and doesn't fall asleep easily. This dude has the personality of a friendly dog (in a good way). He's a very reliable friend and I would trust him with my life.
The complete answer is probably that it goes both ways. People have a natural tendency to be more anxious or more energetic or happy or sad, a baseline if you will. If you take care of your body, it helps. If you're exposed to stressful situations, especially in childhood, that can become a risk factor later. But, IMO, there's definitely people out there who are genetically lucky in this area, and others less so.
I'm going to note that just suggesting that there's a genetic component is controversial because it goes against the modern day idea that "you can do anything if you just try hard enough" a little bit. The fact is though, we're all genetically unique. I think it's a good idea to acknowledge that we all start in a different place. That doesn't mean you can't work on yourself. Even short people can run a marathon and develop a lot more endurance if they train as opposed to playing videogames all day.
It also comes down to knowing your strengths and weaknesses. I feel like I have a natural tendency to feel more down and tired than others. I've developed healthy coping strategies and structured my life in a way that I can minimize stress. Being aware of my own limitations makes me better able to cope with them. Pretending that I'm one of those always happy people would not.
The complete answer is probably that it goes both ways. People have a natural tendency to be more anxious or more energetic or happy or sad, a baseline if you will. If you take care of your body, it helps. If you're exposed to stressful situations, especially in childhood, that can become a risk factor later. But, IMO, there's definitely people out there who are genetically lucky in this area, and others less so.
I'm going to note that just suggesting that there's a genetic component is controversial because it goes against the modern day idea that "you can do anything if you just try hard enough" a little bit. The fact is though, we're all genetically unique. I think it's a good idea to acknowledge that we all start in a different place. That doesn't mean you can't work on yourself. Even short people can run a marathon and develop a lot more endurance if they train as opposed to playing videogames all day.
It also comes down to knowing your strengths and weaknesses. I feel like I have a natural tendency to feel more down and tired than others. I've developed healthy coping strategies and structured my life in a way that I can minimize stress. Being aware of my own limitations makes me better able to cope with them. Pretending that I'm one of those always happy people would not.
All behavioral and "personality" traits are partly heritable and most (all?) of them are due to many genes of small effects. This is a very general and solid result of behavioral genetics, <<the modern idea that "you can do anything if you just try hard enough">> is made with people who have no clue about the realities of life and speak because they can. It has the same intellectual value as "love will find you."
Although personalities tend to be sticky throughout life, that some people can substantially change their personalities is also quite obvious to anyone with (figuratively) open eyes.
Although personalities tend to be sticky throughout life, that some people can substantially change their personalities is also quite obvious to anyone with (figuratively) open eyes.
What is “be successful” other than being content with your life?
Dudes who make bank almost always have to work really hard to get there. Or at least make a lot of sacrifices (for example trade most of your social life / relationships / etc for work).
Personally I just want to make enough to enable me to buy shit for my hobbies and personal projects. I’d like to do that while maintaining the ability to take lots of time off. I’d trade hobby money for time off. I’d trade a lot for time off…
Dudes who make bank almost always have to work really hard to get there. Or at least make a lot of sacrifices (for example trade most of your social life / relationships / etc for work).
Personally I just want to make enough to enable me to buy shit for my hobbies and personal projects. I’d like to do that while maintaining the ability to take lots of time off. I’d trade hobby money for time off. I’d trade a lot for time off…
> I’d trade a lot for time off…
I've said it before and I'll say it again: the moment my company comes to me and says "would you be interested in taking a 50% pay cut to work 20 hours a week?" I'm taking it. Even though I'd get the short end of the deal by doing more than 50% of what I'm doing now.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: the moment my company comes to me and says "would you be interested in taking a 50% pay cut to work 20 hours a week?" I'm taking it. Even though I'd get the short end of the deal by doing more than 50% of what I'm doing now.
This might also be why religious people are so optimistic. I mean actual religious people who welcome poverty and their own death, as opposed to those using it to socially/politically get ahead.
This is exactly what i feel but did not thought about until i read the post. Is there a name for this pheneomeon. Dejavu is kind of tangential to this.
ennui, perhaps?
So I assume you are now saving and investing as aggressively as you can to reenter that situation?
This is why you take money off the table and put it into index funds.
^ Words that would likely not be written by a genius
Cannot really confirm this from my experience. Have worked with a lot of very unhappy geniuses. Perhaps not really unhappy, but not particularly happy either. But performance can mean something different.
I think the study source is questionable as well. Perhaps the soldiers were happier because they got acknowledgement for their work?
Most intellectuals don't get noticed because they are positively beaming, even if that is a likable truth for management... Or is it just to get management to make people happier?
That said, people that are always happy are often not the brightest in my experience. But maybe they do perform well.
I think the study source is questionable as well. Perhaps the soldiers were happier because they got acknowledgement for their work?
Most intellectuals don't get noticed because they are positively beaming, even if that is a likable truth for management... Or is it just to get management to make people happier?
That said, people that are always happy are often not the brightest in my experience. But maybe they do perform well.
> Have worked with a lot of very unhappy geniuses.
I haven't worked with a lot of very obvious geniuses, strictly speaking, but I've known plenty of very smart people who weren't particularly happy. And I've known several people that I absolutely would not consider geniuses who were nevertheless brimming with curiosity, successful, and quite outwardly cheerful (though at least one suffered from anxiety and depression).
Heck, going by IQ I'm only, what, 15 points off from genius and I'm not particularly happy either. Nor am I that smart for values of "smart" that people would traditionally associate with genius, but maybe that makes all the difference? I can barely do tips in my head ...
I haven't worked with a lot of very obvious geniuses, strictly speaking, but I've known plenty of very smart people who weren't particularly happy. And I've known several people that I absolutely would not consider geniuses who were nevertheless brimming with curiosity, successful, and quite outwardly cheerful (though at least one suffered from anxiety and depression).
Heck, going by IQ I'm only, what, 15 points off from genius and I'm not particularly happy either. Nor am I that smart for values of "smart" that people would traditionally associate with genius, but maybe that makes all the difference? I can barely do tips in my head ...
Multiply by .10 by moving the decimal on the bill. So 15.23 would be 1.523 and then just double it - 3.0 for a 20% tip.
All the genius-level people over had the pleasure to work with had tremendous amounts of curiosity on common. They were having a lot of fun when they got to explore something new. I do know though that several of them also struggled with depression at the same time.
> But maybe they do perform well.
More likely it's "well enough", and that matches the needs of most organizations just fine.
More likely it's "well enough", and that matches the needs of most organizations just fine.
I would expect that corporate logic will then simply dictate happiness. Wasn't there a case in China or Japan were employees must smile to open doors? They are probably extremely happy employees.
I think it's the curiosity.
I know one guy who rushed through bachelor, master, and a PhD in mathematics in like half the regular time without ever breaking a sweat. Sometimes, you'd meet him in the cafeteria reading research papers for fun. You could mention any topic, and he'd know something related that one time he was super curious about and he spent an evening reading through Wikipedia. He's like a sponge who soaks up useful information. That made him an interesting person to be around. And it seems that it's also working exceptionally well for him career-wise.
I know one guy who rushed through bachelor, master, and a PhD in mathematics in like half the regular time without ever breaking a sweat. Sometimes, you'd meet him in the cafeteria reading research papers for fun. You could mention any topic, and he'd know something related that one time he was super curious about and he spent an evening reading through Wikipedia. He's like a sponge who soaks up useful information. That made him an interesting person to be around. And it seems that it's also working exceptionally well for him career-wise.
What if you’re exactly like this guy, but with a small fraction of his raw intelligence? Does that work out or just annoy people? Asking for a friend…
I can only speak for myself and I find people who are genuinely curious somewhat endearing, even if they are not yet skilled at it. But my main decision factor would be how much effort someone puts in. Working hard? I'll help. Asking for help but not reading the tutorial links I sent? I won't help again.
I also believe it's an easy date tactic to ask the other person to teach one of their hobbies to you. You'll have lots of stuff to talk about, so you don't need to worry about what to say next. And that makes everything more relaxing and, hence, more enjoyable.
I also believe it's an easy date tactic to ask the other person to teach one of their hobbies to you. You'll have lots of stuff to talk about, so you don't need to worry about what to say next. And that makes everything more relaxing and, hence, more enjoyable.
Perhaps...
Explore and nurture one's motivation (the "for fun"), else the years of time/effort won't be allocated. Including topics, environment, tooling, metacognition, enjoyment, etc, etc.
Emphasize integration, making connections. As merely accumulating disconnected trivia provides less leverage for understanding and play, for engaging with and informing new observations, and for interesting storytelling. Rough-quantitative understanding can be helpful (eg Fermi questions), but utility seemingly plateaus low absent accompanying integrated conceptual understanding.
Integration seemingly requires surfing primary-ish literature (the "reading research papers"). Using paper intros, journal "in this issue" summaries-with-context, survey articles, definitive doorstop tome on topic X, etc. Because outreach and education content is very not sufficient (example: 5-yr old Q: What color is the Sun? 1st-tier astronomy grad student pervasive A: Yellow! Q: And sunlight? Common A: white. And then, not infrequently, a pause, and: That doesn't make sense, does it??? Two incompatible conceptions, perhaps first learned in K, persisting unintegrated into grad. Helped by popular intro astro college textbooks having it wrong, remaining decoupled from the science, for decades. The distance/gap between "science" education content, and science, can be very large. Despite some overlap in personnel, their goals, institutional support and infrastructure, culture and incentives, are rather divergent.
Integration can benefit from sheer quantity of material chewed on. Jim Keller (chip designer) commented his superpower was reading books, IIRC a book (or few?) a week, since he was 8 yo.
Cultivate storytelling skills (the "interesting person to be around").
Excellence is far easier if you can do playdates with excellent people. Especially in math. The delta between "I read the book and saw the lecture" and "I worked the problems" and "I did hours with someone wizzy in front of a blackboard" can be vast. And then there's people who could have a clue, but are babbling history/economics/policy nonsense to praise at DC dinners, lacking folks to push back. Being non-nutter can be hard without a good community. Witness researchers respected on their research focus, but gone nutter on some nearby-but-not-their-research-focus side interest. Or non-tech discussions on HN. ;)
What else...?
Explore and nurture one's motivation (the "for fun"), else the years of time/effort won't be allocated. Including topics, environment, tooling, metacognition, enjoyment, etc, etc.
Emphasize integration, making connections. As merely accumulating disconnected trivia provides less leverage for understanding and play, for engaging with and informing new observations, and for interesting storytelling. Rough-quantitative understanding can be helpful (eg Fermi questions), but utility seemingly plateaus low absent accompanying integrated conceptual understanding.
Integration seemingly requires surfing primary-ish literature (the "reading research papers"). Using paper intros, journal "in this issue" summaries-with-context, survey articles, definitive doorstop tome on topic X, etc. Because outreach and education content is very not sufficient (example: 5-yr old Q: What color is the Sun? 1st-tier astronomy grad student pervasive A: Yellow! Q: And sunlight? Common A: white. And then, not infrequently, a pause, and: That doesn't make sense, does it??? Two incompatible conceptions, perhaps first learned in K, persisting unintegrated into grad. Helped by popular intro astro college textbooks having it wrong, remaining decoupled from the science, for decades. The distance/gap between "science" education content, and science, can be very large. Despite some overlap in personnel, their goals, institutional support and infrastructure, culture and incentives, are rather divergent.
Integration can benefit from sheer quantity of material chewed on. Jim Keller (chip designer) commented his superpower was reading books, IIRC a book (or few?) a week, since he was 8 yo.
Cultivate storytelling skills (the "interesting person to be around").
Excellence is far easier if you can do playdates with excellent people. Especially in math. The delta between "I read the book and saw the lecture" and "I worked the problems" and "I did hours with someone wizzy in front of a blackboard" can be vast. And then there's people who could have a clue, but are babbling history/economics/policy nonsense to praise at DC dinners, lacking folks to push back. Being non-nutter can be hard without a good community. Witness researchers respected on their research focus, but gone nutter on some nearby-but-not-their-research-focus side interest. Or non-tech discussions on HN. ;)
What else...?
I'd like to know too...
A lot of unexpected discussion on this one. Thanks.
Some more details: Setting was evening/night at an european university college dorm.
We were both not poor, as we could go to university , but we both had a governemental scholarship, so not rich either. We had food and a bed, but not much money for anything hobby or party related. Sometimes a side job, and that's it. Both our dads had corporate jobs, and moms at home. I'd say all of us were middle class.
He had no special connections or privileges, except what he buikt up himself in the scientific world while being there. He was average looking, not specifically beautiful or ugly. He was healthy and quite sporty. A bit lower than average height.
I don't know what's the criterium for declaring someone a genius. He was a topper in the math olympiads, while I made it rarely out of the second round. He was good at a lot of other olympiads too. He also won a frw competitive sports. But it was the generality of the interest. He could do with particle physics stuff what he did with the map. Or astronomy, physics, every hard science. Or something completely non scientific. I had to take the equations and try to calculate, slowly, while he could feel where some phusics stuff was going to end up. He'd mix knowledge, probably learn something from the map and use it in his quantum stuff. He's a professor now.
The attitude was easygoing, good natured, no bullshit, honest. He was competitive, but if he lost he had just as much fun.
He was part of a loose group of like minded people all behaving like. I'd consider most of them geniuses.
Maybe I'm idealizing, or he had other characteristics I didn't notice. He was described as genius by other people than me, and when we talked about him, similar stories pop up.
And indeed, I was humbled, not humiliated. Gratefull for the experience, but it was clearly a height I would never reach. Oh well.
Some more details: Setting was evening/night at an european university college dorm.
We were both not poor, as we could go to university , but we both had a governemental scholarship, so not rich either. We had food and a bed, but not much money for anything hobby or party related. Sometimes a side job, and that's it. Both our dads had corporate jobs, and moms at home. I'd say all of us were middle class.
He had no special connections or privileges, except what he buikt up himself in the scientific world while being there. He was average looking, not specifically beautiful or ugly. He was healthy and quite sporty. A bit lower than average height.
I don't know what's the criterium for declaring someone a genius. He was a topper in the math olympiads, while I made it rarely out of the second round. He was good at a lot of other olympiads too. He also won a frw competitive sports. But it was the generality of the interest. He could do with particle physics stuff what he did with the map. Or astronomy, physics, every hard science. Or something completely non scientific. I had to take the equations and try to calculate, slowly, while he could feel where some phusics stuff was going to end up. He'd mix knowledge, probably learn something from the map and use it in his quantum stuff. He's a professor now.
The attitude was easygoing, good natured, no bullshit, honest. He was competitive, but if he lost he had just as much fun.
He was part of a loose group of like minded people all behaving like. I'd consider most of them geniuses.
Maybe I'm idealizing, or he had other characteristics I didn't notice. He was described as genius by other people than me, and when we talked about him, similar stories pop up.
And indeed, I was humbled, not humiliated. Gratefull for the experience, but it was clearly a height I would never reach. Oh well.
That sounds like someone that has confidence and curiosity.
In Dutch we have a word "relativeren" which I think loosely translates to "being able to put things in perspective". I think that is a really important super power. It has helped me immensely whenever things got bad, or I got into a depressing mood.
I'm not sure how you can "grow" these attributes, but I'm willing to say that travelling, seeing the world, discovering other people, other cultures, other habits probably contributes a great deal. Having open-minded parents and an education that doesn't stigmatise helps a lot too.
In Dutch we have a word "relativeren" which I think loosely translates to "being able to put things in perspective". I think that is a really important super power. It has helped me immensely whenever things got bad, or I got into a depressing mood.
I'm not sure how you can "grow" these attributes, but I'm willing to say that travelling, seeing the world, discovering other people, other cultures, other habits probably contributes a great deal. Having open-minded parents and an education that doesn't stigmatise helps a lot too.
Relativise is also an English word, although I'm not sure if people use it a lot.
I don't think that travelling necessarily helps. Only having the time and resources to travel also means you probably have some leeway to pursue hobbies and follow your curiosity.
I don't think that travelling necessarily helps. Only having the time and resources to travel also means you probably have some leeway to pursue hobbies and follow your curiosity.
And realising we're all going to die one day.
I want to focus on the social power this individual had, and to remind everyone that interested people are interesting
The reason that you're friend was so magnetic was because they could look at an old tattered map, be entertained for an hour, and be open to sharing that experience with those around them.
The reason that you're friend was so magnetic was because they could look at an old tattered map, be entertained for an hour, and be open to sharing that experience with those around them.
> interested people are interesting
If what they're interested in interests you too.
Or as happened in this map genius story, if they're charismatic enough to convince you (and the gathering crowd) that it's interesting. Professor sounds like an ideal place for that skillset to end up.
I know people who are profoundly interested in certain things but you learn not to touch the topic because they'll deep dive on something you don't care about, and they aren't socially skilled enough to keep you engaged despite that.
If what they're interested in interests you too.
Or as happened in this map genius story, if they're charismatic enough to convince you (and the gathering crowd) that it's interesting. Professor sounds like an ideal place for that skillset to end up.
I know people who are profoundly interested in certain things but you learn not to touch the topic because they'll deep dive on something you don't care about, and they aren't socially skilled enough to keep you engaged despite that.
Yeah - unfortunately - this is not a story of a genius. It’s a story of someone who was interested in mundane things. I think it’s also important to realize that there were likely other attributes at play but OP likely has created a narrative that it was simply their interests that made them engaging. (This is usually not it - I’ve met plenty of people who were also interested in mundane things but exceptionally unpleasant to be around)
Consider light. One of the most mundane things. But also one of the most interesting to study.
> I learned a lot from him, and try to follow this example, but I still can't do this today and am humiliated (in a positive way) by this way of living.
Can confirm. Had a friend for awhile (she and her husband moved to NZ, and I barely hear from them now) who had this same "wonder at everything / happy with anything" aspect, and her entire life is practically magic; her father is similar, both in success and vibe.
> am humiliated (in a positive way)
I think the word you're looking for is "humbled"?
Can confirm. Had a friend for awhile (she and her husband moved to NZ, and I barely hear from them now) who had this same "wonder at everything / happy with anything" aspect, and her entire life is practically magic; her father is similar, both in success and vibe.
> am humiliated (in a positive way)
I think the word you're looking for is "humbled"?
I see it like this:
A lot of resource —> happiness.
A lot of resource —> energy for curiosity.
A lot of resource —> energy and time for high achievement at work.
So happiness is a correlate for staying in high-resource state in a stable manner, which correlates with high achievement, the quality employers seek.
Immediately one can consider a trap of unhappiness, similar to the trap of poverty: being worried makes you perform worse, which leads to problems with employers, which males you even more worried. Unlike poverty, this potentially could be countered by antidepressants.
A lot of resource —> happiness.
A lot of resource —> energy for curiosity.
A lot of resource —> energy and time for high achievement at work.
So happiness is a correlate for staying in high-resource state in a stable manner, which correlates with high achievement, the quality employers seek.
Immediately one can consider a trap of unhappiness, similar to the trap of poverty: being worried makes you perform worse, which leads to problems with employers, which males you even more worried. Unlike poverty, this potentially could be countered by antidepressants.
Research suggests that happiness isn't quite that simple. It's not obvious which direction the causation arrow points. See for example this podcast on the topic:
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-happiness-lab-with...
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-happiness-lab-with...
I know plenty of curious and well-resourced people who are depressed.
You would think, reading what you wrote, that when we walk into ghetto elementary schools that we see little kids sitting there dull, insipid, and sullen who don't do well on basic tests of learning, (even if perhaps they aren't well taught how to read). This would be a completely false assumption.
There are plenty of people with hereditary wealth who are otherwise very ordinary, and not particularly happy, too.
There are plenty of people with hereditary wealth who are otherwise very ordinary, and not particularly happy, too.
I never mentioned money / wealth.
Think about good health, no depression, loving parents and/or partners, no previous crippling / traumatic experience, absence of all these things that drain energy from a human being.
Think about good health, no depression, loving parents and/or partners, no previous crippling / traumatic experience, absence of all these things that drain energy from a human being.
You had me agreeing with you there until you recommended highly addictive drugs with questionable benefit as the primary intervention.
They're just stating facts. Good or bad, antidepressants help people cope with life just as opioid help people deal with physical pain. Chronic usage can become a problem, but short term usage is unquestionably beneficial for many people.
Sometimes your mental state is so bad you can't make any decision or improve your current situation. Maybe you're working during the day and dealing with your family the rest of the time and feel stuck and sinking. Antidepressants can help dissipate the fog in your mind, allowing you to think clearly and actually make the decisions you needed to make and improve your live to a point where they are not needed anymore. You also talk with the doctor prescribing the drugs, if it's not improving how you feel they will suggest other solutions.
Also I totally agree with parent. Decent material conditions and the knowledge that they are stable are absolutely needed for a healthy and flourishing mind.
Sometimes your mental state is so bad you can't make any decision or improve your current situation. Maybe you're working during the day and dealing with your family the rest of the time and feel stuck and sinking. Antidepressants can help dissipate the fog in your mind, allowing you to think clearly and actually make the decisions you needed to make and improve your live to a point where they are not needed anymore. You also talk with the doctor prescribing the drugs, if it's not improving how you feel they will suggest other solutions.
Also I totally agree with parent. Decent material conditions and the knowledge that they are stable are absolutely needed for a healthy and flourishing mind.
My first single dose of antidepressant changed my life when I was stuck in depression and anxiety. A few years later, remembering that it worked so well, it brought me to the verge of addiction with no benefits. From my perspective antidepressants work but are extremely dangerous.
It’s a bit strange to hear antidepressants called “addictive”. It’s true that some SSRIs, for some people, need to be tapered off before stopping (though I think in some cases this is overblown), but they are not habit-forming in the sense that, say, smoking is.
Anecdotally, I’ve gone off Zoloft after years of daily use without any side effects more seriously than temporarily being a little mopey.
As for benefit … we’ll, in raw numbers plenty of people see some benefit. Given the low side effect profile they’re worth trying as a first line of defense for therapy-resistant anxiety and depression. Particularly severe depression may require interventions such as ECT, but for mild to moderate cases a combination of an SSRI and CBT is often pretty effective.
Anecdotally, I’ve gone off Zoloft after years of daily use without any side effects more seriously than temporarily being a little mopey.
As for benefit … we’ll, in raw numbers plenty of people see some benefit. Given the low side effect profile they’re worth trying as a first line of defense for therapy-resistant anxiety and depression. Particularly severe depression may require interventions such as ECT, but for mild to moderate cases a combination of an SSRI and CBT is often pretty effective.
SSRIs aren't necessarily highly addictive, you need to taper off, but you it's not opioids...
They're not addictive unless you also count insulin as "addictive", in that if people who need it stop getting their symptoms come back. shrug
Antidepressants are proven as a treatment against depression. They're not without risk but the benefits far outweigh them.
> The ability to be happy in any situation and interested in everything.
I would add: and the ability to share that enthusiasm with others. I consider myself a very average person, but from time to time I do experience what I have highlighted from your paragraph. Most often than not, I keep that enthusiasm to myself. I don't have the ability to share it with others, and when I try, it's not like you have described it.
I would add: and the ability to share that enthusiasm with others. I consider myself a very average person, but from time to time I do experience what I have highlighted from your paragraph. Most often than not, I keep that enthusiasm to myself. I don't have the ability to share it with others, and when I try, it's not like you have described it.
Yes. It's a performance; you can never quite be sure of their real emotional state, but they're doing a great job of giving entertainment to people. Usually a combination of being naturally good at it and being rewarded for this kind of performance as kids. It can get discouraged in a lot of people for being "attention seeking".
It goes deeper though -- sharing happiness with others is one of the most crucial parts of sustaining happiness. It literally will make you happier and also surrounded by happier people, creating a virtuous cycle of happiness.
What did he look like?
How tall?
Did he have any speech impediments?
Obviously "happiness" is not the reason he is so popular, since "happy" dorks are openly mocked throughout culture (at least in the USA) if they aren't physically attractive, and loved (Henry Cavill) if they are physically attractive.
How tall?
Did he have any speech impediments?
Obviously "happiness" is not the reason he is so popular, since "happy" dorks are openly mocked throughout culture (at least in the USA) if they aren't physically attractive, and loved (Henry Cavill) if they are physically attractive.
In what kind of social context do people approach two strangers passionately pointing to and discussing an old, ugly map? Especially if said people are “beautiful partygirls”.
Unless those were Russian spies confusing you two for Ukrainian generals planning for the upcoming battle, that seems rather unlikely.
Unless those were Russian spies confusing you two for Ukrainian generals planning for the upcoming battle, that seems rather unlikely.
I believe the word you want is humbled.
Humiliated can almost never be positive, but people often conflate these two words.
Humiliated can almost never be positive, but people often conflate these two words.
The sad thing is 99% people mean "honored" of the the (opposite of humbled) when they say "humbled" ("I'm so humbled to be recognized by the best by so many people"), but here was a rare case that "humbled" fits.
Humbled to be recognized seems to mean something like: "You're all so astute for recognizing me in this way that your astuteness humbles me in return". I find it confusing, and likely disingenuous. Maybe I'm not understanding it properly. Or it's just being misused like you say, but it never occurred to me that what they really mean is simply that they feel honored and choose not to use that word for whatever reason.
I have always found recognition to be naturally humbling and have always thought the opposite to be a character flaw.
I dunno if humiliated is the right word for that. I’d be very humbled to be around that.
For me it’s quite humbling to be around people who can connect with others almost instantly, seemingly with no effort at all.
I’ve resigned myself to accepting I’ll never really be like that. It’s quite exhausting, at least for me. I dunno, maybe it is just a skill I could learn but the desire to do so isn’t there and so here we are…
For me it’s quite humbling to be around people who can connect with others almost instantly, seemingly with no effort at all.
I’ve resigned myself to accepting I’ll never really be like that. It’s quite exhausting, at least for me. I dunno, maybe it is just a skill I could learn but the desire to do so isn’t there and so here we are…
How can one be more like that person? Is it something inate, or something you develop?
Some people here suggest that privilege helps and I agree, but is there something else? Is there a way to develop this trait?
I think that the 99% Impossible podcast helped me look closer at certain things. I could also name a few YouTube channels. I certainly got a lot about film and literature from dating an art student.
Some people here suggest that privilege helps and I agree, but is there something else? Is there a way to develop this trait?
I think that the 99% Impossible podcast helped me look closer at certain things. I could also name a few YouTube channels. I certainly got a lot about film and literature from dating an art student.
i genuinely think curiosity is the most important characteristic anybody can possibility have. it helps with sales and engineering, two of the most important skills to starting a business in any vertical.
We must not forget that being happy and curious is not an inherent ability, but the consequence of countless factors in your surroundings and social life that accumulate over years.
Saying this as somebody who used to fit your description, and noticed a hard toll on his performance after a few years of setbacks and bad experiences
Saying this as somebody who used to fit your description, and noticed a hard toll on his performance after a few years of setbacks and bad experiences
Almost invariably, people like your role model have benefited from an excellent upbringing (e.g. parents) that trained/instilled their positive and resilient value framework. This doesn’t make their mindset any less admirable, but hopefully helps with the humiliation aspect :).
Humbled is the word you are looking for
I would say a common problem with his attitude is that some people can become bored very quickly. Why give facts nobody asked? Why talk about those things if you are not an expert?
Then he unlearns that optimism because he is alone and loses that "happy" attitude.
Then he unlearns that optimism because he is alone and loses that "happy" attitude.
[deleted]
There's a lot of Goodhart's Law, to see a happy high performing coworker and then feel positive-humiliation to not behave similarly.
There's a relevant quote that I love to remind myself of
"Enthusiasm is worth 25 iq points".
From 68 Bits of Unsolicited Advice by Kevin Kelly
"Enthusiasm is worth 25 iq points".
From 68 Bits of Unsolicited Advice by Kevin Kelly
Amazing anecdote! I'm envious of such folks.
I think you mean humbled, not humiliated.
> humiliated
Humbled I think you mean
Humbled I think you mean
Lmao. What an idol! Charisma, looks, wealth, connections - possibly some of these are relevant to your observations? Forgive me, I merely speculate..
> we suggest that leaders follow the science and take a structured approach to hiring for, promoting, and developing employee happiness
> Measure happiness in both employees and job candidates.
> we conservatively advocate using measures of happiness and optimism as discriminators, or tiebreakers, because the risks are low and the benefits could be important.
Good luck getting a job, unhappy people…
I don’t think they have the evidence to make this recommendation, since they surveyed people already employed (by the US army), who may have been unhappier pre employment.
> might dismiss these results if you believe that military data somehow doesn’t apply to the business world, but you would be wrong to do so. After all, the U.S. Department of Defense is the single largest employer in the world
Their entire argument for this also applying outside the military domain seems to be that the military is a very large employer… However, is not the military a vastly different environment from normal civilian workplaces?
> Measure happiness in both employees and job candidates.
> we conservatively advocate using measures of happiness and optimism as discriminators, or tiebreakers, because the risks are low and the benefits could be important.
Good luck getting a job, unhappy people…
I don’t think they have the evidence to make this recommendation, since they surveyed people already employed (by the US army), who may have been unhappier pre employment.
> might dismiss these results if you believe that military data somehow doesn’t apply to the business world, but you would be wrong to do so. After all, the U.S. Department of Defense is the single largest employer in the world
Their entire argument for this also applying outside the military domain seems to be that the military is a very large employer… However, is not the military a vastly different environment from normal civilian workplaces?
This is literally just emotional labor: https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/article/5ea9f140-f722-4214-bb...
> we conservatively advocate using measures of happiness and optimism as discriminators
So the job goes to the people who, in the eyes of the interviewer, can best fake happiness. The more desperate you are for the job for economic reasons, the more pressure on you to fake it convincingly. Big bright but not desperate smile. Right set of inspirational stories. No complaints or demands.
From article:
>> Here are three examples of simple exercises, each backed by rigorous evidence of effectiveness. In the first, the Gratitude Visit, participants prepare and present a 300-word testimony of gratitude to someone who changed their life for the better. In the second, Three Good Things, participants write down three things that went well each day and what caused those things to go well, for one week. The third, Using Signature Strengths in a New Way, calls on participants to complete an online strengths survey and then use one of their top strengths in a new way each day for at least a week
I don't know whether it's because I'm not American or just really cynical, but I absolutely hate this kind of mandatory public performance of fake emotions. It's also more work for the employees to do; presumably this essay-writing is on the clock, in addition to other duties? I wonder if there will be an essay mill you can go to for the right set of inspirational stories to feed to your manager?
Note that none of this stuff ever touches real concerns. Are the employees unhappy about the process? The breakroom snacks? The pay and pensions? Casualisation? Sexual harassment? (Obviously if someone gets groped at work, their happiness factor will go down, and that can be used against them in performance improvement)
All of this has already been seen with the Bradford factor, a means of measuring employee sickness and targeting them for firing.
> we conservatively advocate using measures of happiness and optimism as discriminators
So the job goes to the people who, in the eyes of the interviewer, can best fake happiness. The more desperate you are for the job for economic reasons, the more pressure on you to fake it convincingly. Big bright but not desperate smile. Right set of inspirational stories. No complaints or demands.
From article:
>> Here are three examples of simple exercises, each backed by rigorous evidence of effectiveness. In the first, the Gratitude Visit, participants prepare and present a 300-word testimony of gratitude to someone who changed their life for the better. In the second, Three Good Things, participants write down three things that went well each day and what caused those things to go well, for one week. The third, Using Signature Strengths in a New Way, calls on participants to complete an online strengths survey and then use one of their top strengths in a new way each day for at least a week
I don't know whether it's because I'm not American or just really cynical, but I absolutely hate this kind of mandatory public performance of fake emotions. It's also more work for the employees to do; presumably this essay-writing is on the clock, in addition to other duties? I wonder if there will be an essay mill you can go to for the right set of inspirational stories to feed to your manager?
Note that none of this stuff ever touches real concerns. Are the employees unhappy about the process? The breakroom snacks? The pay and pensions? Casualisation? Sexual harassment? (Obviously if someone gets groped at work, their happiness factor will go down, and that can be used against them in performance improvement)
All of this has already been seen with the Bradford factor, a means of measuring employee sickness and targeting them for firing.
> I don't know whether it's because I'm not American or just really cynical, but I absolutely hate this kind of mandatory public performance of fake emotions.
It seems that you completely misunderstood the study, a longitudinal study conducted over 5 years and compared against a real world factor outside the study: military awards irrespective of any study.
It seems that you completely misunderstood the study, a longitudinal study conducted over 5 years and compared against a real world factor outside the study: military awards irrespective of any study.
"mandatory public performance of fake emotions" relates to this paragraph of the article which I quoted:
>> Here are three examples of simple exercises, each backed by rigorous evidence of effectiveness. In the first, the Gratitude Visit, participants prepare and present a 300-word testimony of gratitude to someone who changed their life for the better. In the second, Three Good Things, participants write down three things that went well each day and what caused those things to go well, for one week. The third, Using Signature Strengths in a New Way, calls on participants to complete an online strengths survey and then use one of their top strengths in a new way each day for at least a week
Reading carefully, it is not clear whether those exercises were things that were specifically "validated" by this specific study, in the military, since the next paragraph talks about the "ENHANCE" programme in the military.
>> Here are three examples of simple exercises, each backed by rigorous evidence of effectiveness. In the first, the Gratitude Visit, participants prepare and present a 300-word testimony of gratitude to someone who changed their life for the better. In the second, Three Good Things, participants write down three things that went well each day and what caused those things to go well, for one week. The third, Using Signature Strengths in a New Way, calls on participants to complete an online strengths survey and then use one of their top strengths in a new way each day for at least a week
Reading carefully, it is not clear whether those exercises were things that were specifically "validated" by this specific study, in the military, since the next paragraph talks about the "ENHANCE" programme in the military.
The study claims that high measures of X resulted in more rewards statistically validated against a long enough timespan and large enough sample size, where X is whatever they chose to measure. In this case the measure is happiness as defined by prior research which they describe in moderate details under the heading: "What Do We Know About Happiness?"
I think a lot of your points are good ones, but I wonder why you're so convinced it has to be fake emotions? It is not outlandish to think a person would have real gratitude for someone or three good things that happened in a day or strengths they can apply in new ways.
I share your sense that forcing employees to do these exercises is pretty gross, but these are not exercises that would be difficult or which I would balk at in my own private life. Not all emotion is fake...
I share your sense that forcing employees to do these exercises is pretty gross, but these are not exercises that would be difficult or which I would balk at in my own private life. Not all emotion is fake...
"Not all emotion is fake..."
Agreed. But when people are incentivized to show outward indicators of certain emotions, people aren't particularly good mind readers which makes it hard to parse out fakers from the authentic, it leaves the door open for opportunism, smarm, passive aggression and a different flavor of toxicity.
The way I see it:
Authnetic and happy?
Fantastic!
Authentic and morose?
Not ideal but if the person makes positive contributions and can be trusted theres potential for value add.
Inauthentic with a sunny disposition?
This screams underhanded, manipulative and untrustworthy. Fuck off.
Makes me think of an adage from Warren Buffet.
"We look for intelligence, we look for initiative or energy, and we look for integrity. And if they don't have the latter, the first two will kill you, because if you're going to get someone without integrity, you want them lazy and dumb."
https://www.inc.com/marcel-schwantes/warren-buffett-hiring-t....
Agreed. But when people are incentivized to show outward indicators of certain emotions, people aren't particularly good mind readers which makes it hard to parse out fakers from the authentic, it leaves the door open for opportunism, smarm, passive aggression and a different flavor of toxicity.
The way I see it:
Authnetic and happy?
Fantastic!
Authentic and morose?
Not ideal but if the person makes positive contributions and can be trusted theres potential for value add.
Inauthentic with a sunny disposition?
This screams underhanded, manipulative and untrustworthy. Fuck off.
Makes me think of an adage from Warren Buffet.
"We look for intelligence, we look for initiative or energy, and we look for integrity. And if they don't have the latter, the first two will kill you, because if you're going to get someone without integrity, you want them lazy and dumb."
https://www.inc.com/marcel-schwantes/warren-buffett-hiring-t....
A lot of chronically unhappy people are adept at masking - faking they are happy and/or neurotypical. Especially so when they are aware that they are being tested for it.
It's quite possible that a percentage of the top performers referenced on the original article are just doing that.
It's quite possible that a percentage of the top performers referenced on the original article are just doing that.
People tend to have an overly optimistic image of what it means to be neurotypical.
Neurotypical people are not the extremely successful, always-happy, super charismatic elite. That's the 99% percentile. They are as outliers as the most unhappy and miserable of the people.
Neurotypical is about the norm. If you have your set of problems but you don't need to take psychiatric drugs to deal with them, then you are neurotypical. And that's it.
Neurotypical people are not the extremely successful, always-happy, super charismatic elite. That's the 99% percentile. They are as outliers as the most unhappy and miserable of the people.
Neurotypical is about the norm. If you have your set of problems but you don't need to take psychiatric drugs to deal with them, then you are neurotypical. And that's it.
I think that's an important point. I can believe that happiness is a component of workplace success, but the sort of stuff discussed in the article (self reporting happiness after writing Three Good Things narratives) sounds like it's far stronger evidence of compliance than actual genuine increase in hedonic well being.
Soon to be launched on leet code : Coaching sessions on how to convey (fake) happiness effectively.
How do the authors separate out the causation part? May be the top performers are happy because they are performing well? Will they retain their happiness if lets say, they are thrown in something with stack ranking like Amazon. How about something like on calls? How happy are they going to be if their nights are continously ruined by production issues. What about personal stuff like divorces and family issues.
How do the authors separate out the causation part? May be the top performers are happy because they are performing well? Will they retain their happiness if lets say, they are thrown in something with stack ranking like Amazon. How about something like on calls? How happy are they going to be if their nights are continously ruined by production issues. What about personal stuff like divorces and family issues.
Work Units whose happiness is below 3.0 must attend mandatory 6:30 AM Joy Sessions.
I love this term 'work units'. Far more demeaning than 'resources'. Hr is going to soon start using it.
GE...is that you?
Wait, GE has staff they haven't laid off?
Yes, but all of them have been screwed over.
Followed by "how to fool the happiness detector built into your cubicle."
> Coaching sessions on how to convey (fake) happiness effectively.
Most popular "positive psychology" is exactly that.
Unsurprisingly, companies love the idea that employees should act happy in any circumstance.
Most popular "positive psychology" is exactly that.
Unsurprisingly, companies love the idea that employees should act happy in any circumstance.
Tale wagging and diving vigorously for scraps...or master gets "concerned."
Their entire argument for this also applying outside the military domain seems to be that the military is a very large employer…
That seemed a bit shaky to me as well. You could just as well argue that people who are happy to go to war end up earning more medals. Happiness inside of the military is not the same as happiness in the workplace in general.
That seemed a bit shaky to me as well. You could just as well argue that people who are happy to go to war end up earning more medals. Happiness inside of the military is not the same as happiness in the workplace in general.
Firm agree. Military unemployment and happiness assessment is absolutely different from other jobs. Look at the clear hierarchies, the enforced respect, the employment security, the healthcare, the indoctrination, the danger. It's greviously haughty and myopic to conclude this applies elsewhere without esupporting arguments, to which "it's a big employer" does not count. How did this pass muster?
I conclude the authors are faking happiness to not get fired.
I conclude the authors are faking happiness to not get fired.
Military employment in the US is not that different from any other job I’ve ever had, including my current one as a SWE. Sure, there are jobs in the military that can be quite different (frontline assault units) but the vast majority of the military is support units.
> enforced respect
You are contractually obligated to do your job. They can’t fire you or send you home. Thus getting “smoked” (physical training as punishment) or an Article 15 (losing pay and/or rank) is the only option. I only once told a superior to go fuck themselves. It was worth every push up. Is it really so hard to be respectful in the workplace?
> the indoctrination
I’ve worked places that have heavier cool aid than the military. At least the military codifies it instead of “treating me like family” or “corporate values” enforced by some kind of cult-like culture.
> the danger
Yeah, getting rockets and bullets slung at you is pretty dangerous. But by the time that happens to you for real, you know exactly what to do. It’s survival, not war, in most cases (at least for support units). You do get hazard pay, so that’s something. Luckily I haven’t had to deal with this in any other job since then. However, it does give me a perspective that is quite useful. Whenever an “emergency” strikes at work, I’m calm when most people panic. No one is dying. The only thing wounded is the business’s bank account and maybe someone’s pride at screwing up. I can live with that.
> enforced respect
You are contractually obligated to do your job. They can’t fire you or send you home. Thus getting “smoked” (physical training as punishment) or an Article 15 (losing pay and/or rank) is the only option. I only once told a superior to go fuck themselves. It was worth every push up. Is it really so hard to be respectful in the workplace?
> the indoctrination
I’ve worked places that have heavier cool aid than the military. At least the military codifies it instead of “treating me like family” or “corporate values” enforced by some kind of cult-like culture.
> the danger
Yeah, getting rockets and bullets slung at you is pretty dangerous. But by the time that happens to you for real, you know exactly what to do. It’s survival, not war, in most cases (at least for support units). You do get hazard pay, so that’s something. Luckily I haven’t had to deal with this in any other job since then. However, it does give me a perspective that is quite useful. Whenever an “emergency” strikes at work, I’m calm when most people panic. No one is dying. The only thing wounded is the business’s bank account and maybe someone’s pride at screwing up. I can live with that.
I feel this article is peak 2020s so far: super positive title with a utterly Orwellian conclusion.
>Good luck getting a job, unhappy people…
Since employment is one of the main sources of unhappiness I assume this will create an oscillating state of happy unemployed - unhappy employed people perpectually in and out of jobs as their happiness dips below a certain threshold.
Since employment is one of the main sources of unhappiness I assume this will create an oscillating state of happy unemployed - unhappy employed people perpectually in and out of jobs as their happiness dips below a certain threshold.
>happy unemployed - unhappy employed
I see you've never been under any economic hardship ever in your life. Good on you, but that really, really doesn't apply for most people.
Poverty sucks.
I see you've never been under any economic hardship ever in your life. Good on you, but that really, really doesn't apply for most people.
Poverty sucks.
so what do I win if I disprove your 'I see'?
Employment is a common source of unhappiness.
That to be a source at all requires a job. If you are unemployed you aren't just "less unhappy about your employment", you don't have any.
I'd wager economic instability far outweighs the negatives of one's employment. After all, it's why many people still attend their jobs.
I'd be absolutely amazed if you managed to disprove him, because nothing I've ever observed or experienced seems to fit into it.
I'd wager economic instability far outweighs the negatives of one's employment. After all, it's why many people still attend their jobs.
I'd be absolutely amazed if you managed to disprove him, because nothing I've ever observed or experienced seems to fit into it.
Your parent commenter was saying that they have, in fact, faced economic hardships, countering the implication that their opinion was underinformed because they hadn't.
He was replying to someone challenging his claim that unemployment makes you happier than being employed, and so am I.
he said "I see you've never been under any economic hardship ever in your life."
I said "so what do I win if I disprove your 'I see'?"
you said: "I'd be absolutely amazed if you managed to disprove him, because nothing I've ever observed or experienced seems to fit into it. "
So, you've spent your whole life tracking my levels of economic hardship? What organization do you work for?
to say it another way, as I have lately noticed people not following what I say:
I have had greater economic hardships than most Americans, the poster said they could tell I have not had any economic hardships, I made a response meant to cause them to think again by asking what I would win if I showed I had been under economic hardships, finally you seem to think that both you and the poster would absolutely 100% know that I have never been under any economic hardships - either that or you have grossly misunderstood what I wrote in response to them even though it was quite a short sentence and thus should be relatively clear.
I said "so what do I win if I disprove your 'I see'?"
you said: "I'd be absolutely amazed if you managed to disprove him, because nothing I've ever observed or experienced seems to fit into it. "
So, you've spent your whole life tracking my levels of economic hardship? What organization do you work for?
to say it another way, as I have lately noticed people not following what I say:
I have had greater economic hardships than most Americans, the poster said they could tell I have not had any economic hardships, I made a response meant to cause them to think again by asking what I would win if I showed I had been under economic hardships, finally you seem to think that both you and the poster would absolutely 100% know that I have never been under any economic hardships - either that or you have grossly misunderstood what I wrote in response to them even though it was quite a short sentence and thus should be relatively clear.
No.
It's your claim that poverty makes you happier than employment on some average. The last thing he said and the only relevant thing to even discuss here.
It's your claim that poverty makes you happier than employment on some average. The last thing he said and the only relevant thing to even discuss here.
Brownie points, of course.
Were you happier when you were homeless and needed to rely on other people's pity to survive than when you could buy your own food due to your job? I would find it rather surprising if you were.
I supposed it could be that you're from one of these places where workers' rights aren't really a thing or that you can survive on your own without monies, however.
Were you happier when you were homeless and needed to rely on other people's pity to survive than when you could buy your own food due to your job? I would find it rather surprising if you were.
I supposed it could be that you're from one of these places where workers' rights aren't really a thing or that you can survive on your own without monies, however.
I have certainly been happier in situations of no work than in some situations of work and happier in some conditions of being homeless than in some having a home, but then happiness is a relative thing and I have never had what one generally refers to as a happy life. It is true that having a home was in itself not the cause of my unhappiness, whereas being homeless was the exact cause.
As far as being unhappy when poor, when I spent my days in the library reading and writing poetry, but did not have any money and would dumpster dive later to get food and would have to walk through the cold Salt Lake City streets in winter to find an apartment building I could sneak into the storage area of and sleep for the night I was unhappy when I was hungry, and I was unhappy when I was very cold, so for perhaps 2 hours a day, but when I was working a job I was miserable at but could not quit for various reasons I was unhappy for at least 8 hours a day, and probably more than that as my unhappiness also affected my family after work, whereas starving and living on the street affected nobody but myself.
I hope my explanation on this matter meets with your moral approval.
As far as being unhappy when poor, when I spent my days in the library reading and writing poetry, but did not have any money and would dumpster dive later to get food and would have to walk through the cold Salt Lake City streets in winter to find an apartment building I could sneak into the storage area of and sleep for the night I was unhappy when I was hungry, and I was unhappy when I was very cold, so for perhaps 2 hours a day, but when I was working a job I was miserable at but could not quit for various reasons I was unhappy for at least 8 hours a day, and probably more than that as my unhappiness also affected my family after work, whereas starving and living on the street affected nobody but myself.
I hope my explanation on this matter meets with your moral approval.
Huh, that's a first. I've never met someone who would prefer to not have fresh food and shelter than work for it, except for places where worker's rights aren't a thing.
>so for perhaps 2 hours a day
Didn't you find it mighty stressful not knowing if you'll get food, get fucked by the weather or other people?
The people I know who live/lived on the streets always preferred any job to it. But that might be a thing related to Brazilian streets (the unprovoked violence ain't no joke)
>so for perhaps 2 hours a day
Didn't you find it mighty stressful not knowing if you'll get food, get fucked by the weather or other people?
The people I know who live/lived on the streets always preferred any job to it. But that might be a thing related to Brazilian streets (the unprovoked violence ain't no joke)
Rather, it creates attrition, where people leave jobs after 2-3-4 years always hoping the next one will be less bad.
It's so common in the software industry it's seen as normal.
It's so common in the software industry it's seen as normal.
I generally leave jobs after 2-3 years because:
1. It was a contractor position and the project was over.
2. I got tired of the project and needed something new, even though the place was great in other regards.
3. I got an offer with more money.
1. It was a contractor position and the project was over.
2. I got tired of the project and needed something new, even though the place was great in other regards.
3. I got an offer with more money.
“I was looking for a job, and then I found a job
And heaven knows I'm miserable now“
And heaven knows I'm miserable now“
right, it does seem people complain about employment a lot.
> Their entire argument for this also applying outside the military domain seems to be that the military is a very large employer… However, is not the military a vastly different environment from normal civilian workplaces?
It’s not vastly different from other professions except software. Source: I have been in the U.S. Army for 25 years and I have been a corporate software developer for 16 years.
The only valid question is not what makes the military unique but instead what makes software unique. The answer: a complete absence of professionalism. I wrote about this here:
https://github.com/prettydiff/wisdom/blob/master/Leadership_...
Edit: corrected the hyperlink.
It’s not vastly different from other professions except software. Source: I have been in the U.S. Army for 25 years and I have been a corporate software developer for 16 years.
The only valid question is not what makes the military unique but instead what makes software unique. The answer: a complete absence of professionalism. I wrote about this here:
https://github.com/prettydiff/wisdom/blob/master/Leadership_...
Edit: corrected the hyperlink.
even if they recruit only happe people, what guarantee they will stay happy? should they fire them once they are not?
This ties into the most consistent mistake EVERY manager makes - people don't change. I know of maybe 5% of people who do change, but that is so inconsistent and unpredictable that it can't be relied upon.
Managers hire "almost great" candidates and think they can affect change and get a good deal, and this NEVER works out. Any red flags on the interviews/trial period will and do persist forever. In the end, it's always the reason the person gets fired, and the company loses the time they invested into the person.
based on my experience of 10 years leading tech and marketing teams. Curious if anyone has conflicting experiences to share.
Managers hire "almost great" candidates and think they can affect change and get a good deal, and this NEVER works out. Any red flags on the interviews/trial period will and do persist forever. In the end, it's always the reason the person gets fired, and the company loses the time they invested into the person.
based on my experience of 10 years leading tech and marketing teams. Curious if anyone has conflicting experiences to share.
Quite the opposite. People change slowly but people's *behavior* can change a lot depending on the environment.
I've been in the industry for twice your years. I've seen a lot of people changing their behavior completely and in many ways. Mostly due to good or bad management or being in the right or wrong company or team.
I've been in the industry for twice your years. I've seen a lot of people changing their behavior completely and in many ways. Mostly due to good or bad management or being in the right or wrong company or team.
People may not change much, but the same person can behave very differently under two different systems or leaders, or with a different workload.
>Managers hire "almost great" candidates
I would think an almost great candidate is someone who knows how to do most of what you need them to know how to do, people not changing is generally in referral to their innate personalities and not some idea that people can never learn anything.
I would think an almost great candidate is someone who knows how to do most of what you need them to know how to do, people not changing is generally in referral to their innate personalities and not some idea that people can never learn anything.
This is also one of the biggest dating mistakes people make, believing a partner will change. Odds are they won't, and if they do it may not be in the way you wanted them to change.
"The beatings will continue until morale improves."
I had the same thought! There is an 'upbeat filter'.
There's something to be said for a world where people don't have to stay in jobs they really hate.
Some jobs literslly ruin lives / your health, or make you miserable, so with this outlook these jobs should be paying massive fines or compensation?
My old boss said he used to ask people in interviews if they were "lucky" people, until he decided it was too risky on a religious discrimination basis. "Lucky" is approximately the same as "happy" here.
I also thought the analogy between the military and businesses by mere dint of workforce and asset sizes was incredibly weak.
> Good luck getting a job, unhappy people…
More like "have fun discriminating against people with psychiatric disabilities."
More like "have fun discriminating against people with psychiatric disabilities."
What happens when psychiatric symptoms are indistinguishable from 'normal' poor performance?
When the person cannot do the job with reasonable accommodations.
Reading these comments is forehead slap inducing. People think that just because something is mental that it has to do with your mindset, your parents, your this your that.
When a dude can run faster than other people, it’s written off as genetics. When someone is resilient to depression, it’s anything other than genetics. Both cases are the same: it’s just biological.
I’ve been suffering super hard with depression recently and it’s made something clear to me: your mindset is bullshit. It might tip things one way or another but the actual mechanisms of depression will change your life. Everyone will be super humbled when we figure out how to turn off depression, and everyone gets it and everyone experienced on average a 50% boost to their intelligence and productivity. They will be humbled because they will realize that all of that relative suffering was totally pointless and for no other reason than a quirk of evolution. And that some people had it good for absolutely no reason. But it’s exciting to know that this day will come and it can’t come fast enough for me!
When a dude can run faster than other people, it’s written off as genetics. When someone is resilient to depression, it’s anything other than genetics. Both cases are the same: it’s just biological.
I’ve been suffering super hard with depression recently and it’s made something clear to me: your mindset is bullshit. It might tip things one way or another but the actual mechanisms of depression will change your life. Everyone will be super humbled when we figure out how to turn off depression, and everyone gets it and everyone experienced on average a 50% boost to their intelligence and productivity. They will be humbled because they will realize that all of that relative suffering was totally pointless and for no other reason than a quirk of evolution. And that some people had it good for absolutely no reason. But it’s exciting to know that this day will come and it can’t come fast enough for me!
Depression, like your sports analogy, is not only rooted in genetics but also in the environment. While you can act on your environment, you can't act on genetics for now. Focusing on what is in one's reach is the only thing one can do. Being certain that the cause is out of our control (while true for parts of it) is in itself something fueling depression.
No no no. Nobody is fully aware of the situation but choosing to focus on what they can control. Most of the people in the first world who suffer from depression don’t even realize they have depression. Depression and mindset and sadness are are muddled together in our lexicon — the thing I’m pointing out is that most people don’t even know the truth. For me, knowing that it’s not my actions causing me to feel this way is what saves me. Because for a long time I blamed myself because of the mass ignorance we harbor. The whole reason for the muddling is that the mind naturally tries to put together cause and effect and so depression can hide that way. It’s a fight of intuition against science.
But it is, in part, your actions. The evidence does not support claiming depression is purely biological. That, however, doesn't mean blame is helpful or appropriate.
Meh... you're teaching depressed people to focus on changing things to improve their environment. Maybe some of them can't and the best thing for them to do is accept it, even if it is a substantial drain on their productivity and life quality. Indeed there are some therapeutic approaches that do exactly this (Acceptance and Commitment Therapy).
Obsessing over an intractable problem as if it can be improved can make the problem worse.
Obsessing over an intractable problem as if it can be improved can make the problem worse.
Some people are more susceptible to depression, that's clear. You mentioned mindset, but therapy approaches are not tantamount to just "rationalizing" your way out of depression. If it were that simple no one would be depressed. Interventions are a multi-pronged approach, but for those dealing with cognitive factors, they apply training with workbook exercises. The CBT way is to learn to recognize distorted unrealistic thinking, there are also approaches that attempt to mitigate automatic thinking or the emotional reaction to it. Bottom line is the research suggests this is generally effective.
> it’s just biological.
According to the ACE study, your early childhood environment has a dramatic effect on your life outcome:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_childhood_experiences#...
According to the ACE study, your early childhood environment has a dramatic effect on your life outcome:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_childhood_experiences#...
There appear to be many different causes for depression. The day may come when it’s either curable for all the causes or at least the symptoms can be removed. If faith in that day is needed to survive until then, have that faith.
It is so pointless. Why does it occur more than its opposite?
It is so pointless. Why does it occur more than its opposite?
I once heard someone say that depression is a spiritual problem, as in the cause lies with your relationship (or lack there of) with a higher power.
I just had a thought - what if there is a biological or evolutionary quirk that believing in a higher power results in more happiness? It would certainly explain why some people who seem to have a supernatural outlook are so happy dispite what seems like terrible suffering.
E.g. Carlo Acutis [1] was known for his cheerfulness despite suffering and dying from leukaemia.
[1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_Acutis
Edit: spelling
I just had a thought - what if there is a biological or evolutionary quirk that believing in a higher power results in more happiness? It would certainly explain why some people who seem to have a supernatural outlook are so happy dispite what seems like terrible suffering.
E.g. Carlo Acutis [1] was known for his cheerfulness despite suffering and dying from leukaemia.
[1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_Acutis
Edit: spelling
Kierkegaard would beg to differ. :)
[deleted]
Showing you some love... Keep fighting the good fight =]
Change your environment. Move to another country and reinvent your identity. This can change your mindset. I think the misnomer is that mindset can be changed by willpower alone. They are wrong.
Soldiers in the Vietnam war all did heroin. When they returned to the US people thought we'd have a heroin epidemic. Turns out the change in environment rewired there brains. Try it.
Soldiers in the Vietnam war all did heroin. When they returned to the US people thought we'd have a heroin epidemic. Turns out the change in environment rewired there brains. Try it.
Abandon all of your friends and family?
Yes, yes, a thousand times, yes!
>You might dismiss these results if you believe that military data somehow doesn’t apply to the business world, but you would be wrong to do so. After all, the U.S. Department of Defense is the single largest employer in the world, dwarfing Walmart by nearly 1 million employees
I don't think anyone dismiss the data taken only from the military because of their workforce size & variety of positions (as indicated later) but because their task/goal is very unique to other private companies where the (primary) goal is making a profit, and the fact that at the military, sizable proportion of the employee might be in a high stress, life-or-death situation (the data was taken under Iraq/Afgan war) .
All in all this seems like a "checked all the boxes for a good study; but still whimsical result" kind of study. (I guess that's why it went to a low impact factor Journal)
I still would prefer HR people take recommendations from this article, such as: "Measure happiness in both employees & job candidates" at face value rather than wasting their time in BS Personality-type and pseudo-IQ tests for hiring/managing project groups
Edit: Might also add that (to me) it makes no sense to equate "getting a medal" to performance, when they also claim "Military also have non-combatant jobs!" as the basis for generalization of the study; yea but your success metric doesn't take that in to account? Does military-chefs get medals for extra-ordinary dishes? Does safety technicians get medals for "extra-ordinary safety"?
I don't think anyone dismiss the data taken only from the military because of their workforce size & variety of positions (as indicated later) but because their task/goal is very unique to other private companies where the (primary) goal is making a profit, and the fact that at the military, sizable proportion of the employee might be in a high stress, life-or-death situation (the data was taken under Iraq/Afgan war) .
All in all this seems like a "checked all the boxes for a good study; but still whimsical result" kind of study. (I guess that's why it went to a low impact factor Journal)
I still would prefer HR people take recommendations from this article, such as: "Measure happiness in both employees & job candidates" at face value rather than wasting their time in BS Personality-type and pseudo-IQ tests for hiring/managing project groups
Edit: Might also add that (to me) it makes no sense to equate "getting a medal" to performance, when they also claim "Military also have non-combatant jobs!" as the basis for generalization of the study; yea but your success metric doesn't take that in to account? Does military-chefs get medals for extra-ordinary dishes? Does safety technicians get medals for "extra-ordinary safety"?
While you're entitled to your own opinion, I can safely say this study matches my own observations 100%. Having hired and led over a hundred engineers, I wasn't surprised of the magnitude of this finding at all.
Yes, happy people get easily worn down in bureaucratical organizations.
Some of them adapt and get cynical.
Some of them quit and join organizations where they can be happy and effective. It's the best part of my day to work among many of them.
Yes, happy people get easily worn down in bureaucratical organizations.
Some of them adapt and get cynical.
Some of them quit and join organizations where they can be happy and effective. It's the best part of my day to work among many of them.
I've worked for a couple of businesses where bullying, spitefulness and a generally unpleasant atmosphere were the norm and where it was clear from the outset that no one was happy and happiness in others was not to be tolerated.
I would describe myself as 'optimistic' rather than 'happy' but, in both cases, these businesses sucked the life out of me and the happiest days were when I left. Both times to my initial financial detriment.
Neither business is currently operating though, so no loss to me long term.
I would describe myself as 'optimistic' rather than 'happy' but, in both cases, these businesses sucked the life out of me and the happiest days were when I left. Both times to my initial financial detriment.
Neither business is currently operating though, so no loss to me long term.
> happiness in others was not to be tolerated
This is something that worries me on occasion. Certainly very few would intentionally do it, but I fear there could be some alligator-brain crab bucket game going on in the subconscious where some team members will be inclined to "even out" any happiness deltas across the team.
This is something that worries me on occasion. Certainly very few would intentionally do it, but I fear there could be some alligator-brain crab bucket game going on in the subconscious where some team members will be inclined to "even out" any happiness deltas across the team.
[deleted]
I wonder how much this has to do with complaining.
In my experience - not all unproductive people are complainers - but almost all complainers are not productive.
The productive people are proactive and start making change rather than complain.
I haven't met a lot of unhappy proactive people.
In my experience - not all unproductive people are complainers - but almost all complainers are not productive.
The productive people are proactive and start making change rather than complain.
I haven't met a lot of unhappy proactive people.
I thought the study was saying you need to be happy first.
I never stated something else.
The DoD's culture is indeed unique. There aren't many corporations where you're enlisted for a set duration, have to go through a very unpleasant Basic Training Bootcamp, and aren't allowed off the premises without permission.
And that's before you get to the sharp end, which is about killing people.
It's certainly going to take a certain kind of personality to be happy in that kind of setting.
Whether you can generalise that to corporate life in general and software development in particularly is very, very debatable.
Of course this is a popular trope with a certain kind of manager - business as sport, business as military command, and so on.
And that's before you get to the sharp end, which is about killing people.
It's certainly going to take a certain kind of personality to be happy in that kind of setting.
Whether you can generalise that to corporate life in general and software development in particularly is very, very debatable.
Of course this is a popular trope with a certain kind of manager - business as sport, business as military command, and so on.
> While many — if not most — of us are motivated by genuine caring for the people who power our organizations, we also intuitively know that employee happiness should boost job performance.
I have a hard time believing that "many — if not most" people in management are actually motivated by this.
I have a hard time believing that "many — if not most" people in management are actually motivated by this.
I am not, you can add it as a data point. Its just work, you are probably not caring about your manager outside of your performance review. And thats fair.
I absolutely care about my manager, for what it's worth. I've generally (luckily) had very good relationships with basically all my managers, and it's tended to pay off well, even though I'd still care if it didn't pay off.
I care about my immediate co-workers as people, but as employees & bosses not so much.
There's an added layer of subtlety IMO.
Like most people we do care, and managers may in general care too, but on the field things become murky and doubt / mixed signals / ambiguity creates more work than people will accept to really care.
It needs to exist in the team spirit already otherwise the will just dries up.
Like most people we do care, and managers may in general care too, but on the field things become murky and doubt / mixed signals / ambiguity creates more work than people will accept to really care.
It needs to exist in the team spirit already otherwise the will just dries up.
Why? Are you saying people in general don't care about other people's happiness, or just that managers are special and don't care? I believe we care about people in close connection to us (family, friends, employees) but it becomes harder to truly relate the further away and larger the number of people are and it becomes more abstract (hence why it's hard to fix global health and poverty etc). I think there's even a psychological need to care about others once we've fed ourselves and achieved basic securities.
They are generally motivated by the stern, unforgiving managers above them dangling an implicit "I can get anyone to do your job" air of death type of attitude. Management meetings are rarely pretty, and most of the corporate fluff heaped on the rank and file is just not a thing there. I feel sorry for middle managers.
Speaking only for myself (pure anecdata), I can say that the last four years or so, have been the happiest of my life, as well as the most productive.
Five years ago, was when I left the company that I'd worked for, for 27 years. This was followed, almost immediately, by finding out that the tech industry really doesn't like older workers (which didn't make me happy). I floundered around, for a year or so, being insulted, ignored, and rejected, before I took the hint, and just accepted that I'm in early retirement; whether or not I like it.
Since then, I have been insanely productive. I spent a couple of years, "leveling-up," and, a couple of years ago, I found some folks with a nonprofit, that were being "gamed" by the same types of folks that rejected me, and decided to help them out.
It's been great.
Five years ago, was when I left the company that I'd worked for, for 27 years. This was followed, almost immediately, by finding out that the tech industry really doesn't like older workers (which didn't make me happy). I floundered around, for a year or so, being insulted, ignored, and rejected, before I took the hint, and just accepted that I'm in early retirement; whether or not I like it.
Since then, I have been insanely productive. I spent a couple of years, "leveling-up," and, a couple of years ago, I found some folks with a nonprofit, that were being "gamed" by the same types of folks that rejected me, and decided to help them out.
It's been great.
I can absolutely believe that there is rampant ageism in tech, but if you don't mind my asking, is it possible part of the difficulty you faced in finding a new job just stemmed from your skills getting a little stale? I ask since you describe spending two years "leveling-up." Have you tried interviewing since?
Oh, it never even got that far. I think I only had two or three leetcode tests, and, of course, they were Binary Tree tests (which I would still be bad at). To be fair, I did have a couple of "take-home" tests, but they were looking for buzzword du jour solutions, as opposed to ones that worked, with half the code, much higher Quality, and twice the performance.
My skills were (and have been, since I wrote my first line of code) very relevant, as you can actually easily see, simply by viewing my rather extensive portfolio (which no one ever does). That covers over a decade, and my last checkin was about five minutes ago (in fact, just this second, I got a TestFlight notification that my next build is ready). I never actually stopped coding.
But no one ever bothered looking at it. I've mentioned that, here, before. By "leveling up," I was really talking about developing work habits that didn't rely on corporate infrastructure, worked for a standup desk at home, and in a much smaller scope (I used to run a C++ image processing shop, and I have switched to just working on apps in Swift). Once I realized that no one was going to hire me for the skills I used to get paid for, I decided to concentrate on the ones that I enjoyed.
Also, I wanted to become much more proficient at Swift. I've been writing it since the day it was announced (and releasing apps, written in it). This had been my "nights and weekends" work, and now, it was my full-time work. If I had been employed, doing this work, I would have had to go through the same adjustments, anyway -maybe. It's quite possible that most corporate stuff is still done in ObjC.
Also, I wanted to dedicate a bunch of time to writing stuff. I enjoy writing. It also helps me to be a better programmer and architect.
And, I guess the best part of "leveling up," was learning some essential self-respect. Employers don't want employees to have self-respect (well, I did, but, apparently, I'm an outlier. My employers certainly didn't want me to have any). Once I had that, the scales fell from my eyes, and I realized what I was missing.
And, no, I never want to work for anyone, ever again. I have become spoiled, by not having my work ignored, destroyed, and misused. That makes me very happy. I suspect that employers wouldn't be happy with my "uppity" attitude.
My skills were (and have been, since I wrote my first line of code) very relevant, as you can actually easily see, simply by viewing my rather extensive portfolio (which no one ever does). That covers over a decade, and my last checkin was about five minutes ago (in fact, just this second, I got a TestFlight notification that my next build is ready). I never actually stopped coding.
But no one ever bothered looking at it. I've mentioned that, here, before. By "leveling up," I was really talking about developing work habits that didn't rely on corporate infrastructure, worked for a standup desk at home, and in a much smaller scope (I used to run a C++ image processing shop, and I have switched to just working on apps in Swift). Once I realized that no one was going to hire me for the skills I used to get paid for, I decided to concentrate on the ones that I enjoyed.
Also, I wanted to become much more proficient at Swift. I've been writing it since the day it was announced (and releasing apps, written in it). This had been my "nights and weekends" work, and now, it was my full-time work. If I had been employed, doing this work, I would have had to go through the same adjustments, anyway -maybe. It's quite possible that most corporate stuff is still done in ObjC.
Also, I wanted to dedicate a bunch of time to writing stuff. I enjoy writing. It also helps me to be a better programmer and architect.
And, I guess the best part of "leveling up," was learning some essential self-respect. Employers don't want employees to have self-respect (well, I did, but, apparently, I'm an outlier. My employers certainly didn't want me to have any). Once I had that, the scales fell from my eyes, and I realized what I was missing.
And, no, I never want to work for anyone, ever again. I have become spoiled, by not having my work ignored, destroyed, and misused. That makes me very happy. I suspect that employers wouldn't be happy with my "uppity" attitude.
Out of curiosity (and I realize you're happy with how things are for you now), did you try contract work? I've worked with plenty of highly skilled, highly paid contractors who were well above the average age of direct employees at my organization.
Yup. Same deal with the contractor shops.
They only want young, "Buzzword Bingo" champs. If anything, they were worse than the employers.
In "the good ol' days," we had these contract agents, that acted a lot like talent agents.
Sadly, these seem to have gone the way of the Dodo...
They only want young, "Buzzword Bingo" champs. If anything, they were worse than the employers.
In "the good ol' days," we had these contract agents, that acted a lot like talent agents.
Sadly, these seem to have gone the way of the Dodo...
This paper does seem a little dodgy in its assumptions. We shouldn't dismiss military-based studies? Okay, (ish), but then the study doesn't measure happiness vs performance, it measures "how do you rate yourself" vs "the army's selection process for awarding medals".
Given medals at least partly exist to reward extremely optimistic behaviour at the expense of personal safety, shall we say, having an optimistic outlook could singularly apply to the field of warfare where individual optimism in the face of unlikely odds is a good thing.
This isn't sort of mindset we wouldn't want in our doctors or engineers or bankers, or almost anyone else.
Given medals at least partly exist to reward extremely optimistic behaviour at the expense of personal safety, shall we say, having an optimistic outlook could singularly apply to the field of warfare where individual optimism in the face of unlikely odds is a good thing.
This isn't sort of mindset we wouldn't want in our doctors or engineers or bankers, or almost anyone else.
> the study doesn't measure happiness vs performance, it measures "how do you rate yourself" vs "the army's selection process for awarding medals".
The author explains that happiness is subjective:
> The behavioral science literature often refers to happiness as subjective well-being because the meaning of happiness varies in different contexts
...and then proceeds to delineate how psychology defines happiness:
1. a person’s own assessment of their satisfaction with life;
2. how much positive emotion [...] they experience;
3. and how little negative emotion [...] they experience
So yeah, self-rating is an important factor to measuring happiness.
The author explains that happiness is subjective:
> The behavioral science literature often refers to happiness as subjective well-being because the meaning of happiness varies in different contexts
...and then proceeds to delineate how psychology defines happiness:
1. a person’s own assessment of their satisfaction with life;
2. how much positive emotion [...] they experience;
3. and how little negative emotion [...] they experience
So yeah, self-rating is an important factor to measuring happiness.
Haven't read the full paper, but they probably used this scale" https://ogg.osu.edu/media/documents/MB%20Stream/PANAS.pdf
It's relatively standard in the field.
It's relatively standard in the field.
> So yeah, self-rating is an important factor to measuring happiness
Well, it's the only measure. I wasn't saying self-rating is bad (although it, of course, is if you're trying to draw objective conclusions), I'm trying to say that performance doesn't equate strongly enough to medals and happiness doesn't relate strongly enough to how people self-report to make any conclusions particularly useful.
Well, it's the only measure. I wasn't saying self-rating is bad (although it, of course, is if you're trying to draw objective conclusions), I'm trying to say that performance doesn't equate strongly enough to medals and happiness doesn't relate strongly enough to how people self-report to make any conclusions particularly useful.
> Which comes first, succeeding and then being happy, or being happy and then succeeding?
Er, that sounds suspiciously like the eternal question "which came first, the chicken or the egg?". If you start off with a "happy" state of mind because of "external" reasons, you are probably more likely to succeed at work too, but of course your work also should contribute to maintaining your happiness. So it's either a virtuous cycle of success at work (without having to invest all of your time into it!) leading to a better overall life; or a balance of work being (negatively) stressful and you needing to "recharge" in your spare time (family life, friends, hobbies...); or a vicious cycle of your work burning you out and also leading to personal problems - of course, a positive attitude helps, but IMHO asking the simplistic question "which comes first" is as dumb as in the chicken-and-egg example...
Er, that sounds suspiciously like the eternal question "which came first, the chicken or the egg?". If you start off with a "happy" state of mind because of "external" reasons, you are probably more likely to succeed at work too, but of course your work also should contribute to maintaining your happiness. So it's either a virtuous cycle of success at work (without having to invest all of your time into it!) leading to a better overall life; or a balance of work being (negatively) stressful and you needing to "recharge" in your spare time (family life, friends, hobbies...); or a vicious cycle of your work burning you out and also leading to personal problems - of course, a positive attitude helps, but IMHO asking the simplistic question "which comes first" is as dumb as in the chicken-and-egg example...
The chicken/egg question always irks me. Eggs came first. Eggs have existed far longer than chickens (eg dinosaur eggs). Whatever the first thing we could possibly call a chicken came from an egg.
You're right but for the people who are confused, it's because of the semantics of the question. If you specify the question a little more and ask "What came first? The chicken or the chicken egg" then the question is how do you define a chicken egg. Is it the egg that comes from a chicken or the egg that a chicken hatches from.
In the first case, the chicken came first and in the second case, the egg came first. I think it's obvious the the second case makes more sense but some people might argue.
In the first case, the chicken came first and in the second case, the egg came first. I think it's obvious the the second case makes more sense but some people might argue.
The deeper question is not really about which came before in any random pair of "chicken and its chicken egg" or "chicken egg and its chicken".
It's about how chickens and chicken eggs emerge (first means "very very first"), and it's supposed to point to this paradox: If you need both chickens to have chicken eggs, and chicken eggs to produce a chicken, how did either came about?
E.g. did something non-chicken-yet that could lay eggs suddenly laid a chicken egg? Or did a non-chicken egg suddenly produce a chicken? and so on...
It's about how chickens and chicken eggs emerge (first means "very very first"), and it's supposed to point to this paradox: If you need both chickens to have chicken eggs, and chicken eggs to produce a chicken, how did either came about?
E.g. did something non-chicken-yet that could lay eggs suddenly laid a chicken egg? Or did a non-chicken egg suddenly produce a chicken? and so on...
It's not even that simple. Evolution occurs gradually, so gradually in fact that there is no "first" chicken. Any given chicken/ancestor you pick will be so genetically close to its parents/children, that they're the same species by any definition.
Another way of putting the paradox is "Which chicken arrived first, the chicken or its parent"?
Another way of putting the paradox is "Which chicken arrived first, the chicken or its parent"?
Chicken. If we establish some trait of a chicken we could be able to trace the first bird wich had the specific gene combination and it's parents had not. Still a well defined non paradox.
>Eggs have existed far longer than chickens (eg dinosaur eggs)
Which is neither here, nor there, and has little to do with the question, which is based on the paradox that you need a chicken egg to produce a chicken, and a chicken to produce a chicken egg.
It's not about whether some other random eggs existed before, but about when the cycle of chicken and chicken egg came to be, and how the vicious circle was resolved.
Which is neither here, nor there, and has little to do with the question, which is based on the paradox that you need a chicken egg to produce a chicken, and a chicken to produce a chicken egg.
It's not about whether some other random eggs existed before, but about when the cycle of chicken and chicken egg came to be, and how the vicious circle was resolved.
Your parent just explained, that there have been animals hatching from eggs before there were chicken. At some point some of those egg-hatching animals had mutated enough to be now called the first chicken. He thereby answered the chickend-egg-question through evolution.
Edit: Even if you specify, that it has to be a "chicken-egg" you just have to decide, whether an animal producing a chicken-egg is automatically a chicken. I would argue no, because you could then prove by induction that everything before has been a chicken.
Edit: Even if you specify, that it has to be a "chicken-egg" you just have to decide, whether an animal producing a chicken-egg is automatically a chicken. I would argue no, because you could then prove by induction that everything before has been a chicken.
>Your parent just explained, that there have been animals hatching from eggs before there were chicken
And I just explained that that alone is neither here, nor there, as the paradox is about the chicken egg, specifically, not whether eggs existed in general.
>At some point some of those egg-hatching animals had mutated enough to be now called the first chicken
Yes, but that's a different answer, which wasn't available when the chicken/egg question was posited - and it still points to a random (evolutionary) and fuzzy (when? how?) process.
And I just explained that that alone is neither here, nor there, as the paradox is about the chicken egg, specifically, not whether eggs existed in general.
>At some point some of those egg-hatching animals had mutated enough to be now called the first chicken
Yes, but that's a different answer, which wasn't available when the chicken/egg question was posited - and it still points to a random (evolutionary) and fuzzy (when? how?) process.
There is a process called evolution going on. It's gradual and at some point there was a first bird which had the right gene combination for us to call it a chicken. It's parents did not have this specific traits and hence it's the egg which came first. Not some random "eggs".
We should come up with a better alternative paradoxes ...
We should come up with a better alternative paradoxes ...
>There is a process called evolution going on. It's gradual and at some point there was a first bird which had the right gene combination for us to call it a chicken.
Yes, but those initially positing the ancient chicken/egg paradox haven't discovered the theory of evolution yet, and for those later that still use it, the boundaries (when it "had the right gene combination for us to call it a chicken") are fuzzy. Those are the things the paradox aimed/aims to showcase.
Yes, but those initially positing the ancient chicken/egg paradox haven't discovered the theory of evolution yet, and for those later that still use it, the boundaries (when it "had the right gene combination for us to call it a chicken") are fuzzy. Those are the things the paradox aimed/aims to showcase.
Such a pre-Darwinian mental exercise. It's there some other common variant, which actually is undefined?
Let me try - rivers or rain? - ping or pong?
Let me try - rivers or rain? - ping or pong?
[deleted]
I don't know about you but I for sure don't want do be a top performer in a job. I disrespect the societal applause you get as a good cog in an enterprise.
Build my own stuff and be my own boss makes me happier but then reality hits in and all the cracks in our society begin to show.
Seriously. I WANT to be happy. But how can one be happy in a world like this?
EDIT: Maybe I'm not in a good mood today but right now I find it really hard to stay positive.
EDIT: Maybe I'm not in a good mood today but right now I find it really hard to stay positive.
I don't think it is just you and today. I remember when I was younger (college and before) I was happy because I was looking forward to something and envisioned a positive future (e.g. graduation, first job, high salary etc.). Kind of hard to do the same thing these days, especially now that I am an adult.
The world has become nothing but an endless grind for greed and corruption.
Every day I ask myself what is the point of all this anyways?
Every day I ask myself what is the point of all this anyways?
I don't know if everyone can truly embrace this, but one perhaps useless suggestion is to embrace the absurd life. In his essay "The Myth of Sisyphus", Albert Camus asks: does the absurdity of our futile lives require that we reject life itself? Camus answers: no, it requires revolt. Camus compares the absurdity of the human life with the situation of Sisyphus, a figure of Greek mythology who was condemned to repeat forever the same meaningless task of pushing a boulder up a mountain, only to see it roll down again. He concludes that "The struggle itself ... is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_Sisyphus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_Sisyphus
Before you had hope that it could change or that you could change things in your life enough for it to not matter. Then you saw the world didn’t change and that you failed at accomplishing enough for it to not matter.
This is the story of most people with ambition. Nothing is new there. The only thing that will keep the light on is keeping the dream alive and thinking that you still have time to do it. That - ultimately - is a mindset shift. (And is hard to do and might feel like a bit of lying but you can shift your goals and mindset to make you stay on that goal ladder)
This is the story of most people with ambition. Nothing is new there. The only thing that will keep the light on is keeping the dream alive and thinking that you still have time to do it. That - ultimately - is a mindset shift. (And is hard to do and might feel like a bit of lying but you can shift your goals and mindset to make you stay on that goal ladder)
I think Steven Pinker's book Enlightenment Now made a compelling case that the world now has basically never been better. You'd be crazy to wish be born in to any other time period. I find that comforting. There's good reasons to be glad you weren't born in the past, and the same reasons to be hopeful for the future.
Perhaps that's not comforting if you're suffering. But if the cause of your suffering is that you think the world is awful, give that book a read. Pinker does a good job of breaking that sentiment down in to chunks (exactly what part is awful?) and exploring those questions.
Personally, I do think that a lot of the "world is awful and broken right now" sentiment is a bit detached from the reality. Which is great news! Anyways, I'm not trying to come at you at all, just be helpful and challenge assumptions.
Perhaps that's not comforting if you're suffering. But if the cause of your suffering is that you think the world is awful, give that book a read. Pinker does a good job of breaking that sentiment down in to chunks (exactly what part is awful?) and exploring those questions.
Personally, I do think that a lot of the "world is awful and broken right now" sentiment is a bit detached from the reality. Which is great news! Anyways, I'm not trying to come at you at all, just be helpful and challenge assumptions.
> You'd be crazy to wish be born in to any other time period.
I feel like this is way too general. It really depends on as who you would have been born...
I feel like this is way too general. It really depends on as who you would have been born...
For sure, you're right. I'm talking about base rates. The curve of human
experience has shifted dramatically in a positive direction over time. So if a genie said to your unborn self, pick and era to be born into and I'll randomly assign you a person from the era, you'd be crazy to choose any time but now.
Happiness is a temporary feeling caused by a gratifying transition between two states. By that definition, no-one can be happy much of the time. This article is silly.
Aim for contentedness and a meaningful life instead. Being content reduces the desire for state change, a major source of unhappiness, and having meaning and purpose in your life will give you a reason to endure the trials of life.
A content person with purpose will have many moments of unhappiness, but they will find such periods easier to cope with.
Aim for contentedness and a meaningful life instead. Being content reduces the desire for state change, a major source of unhappiness, and having meaning and purpose in your life will give you a reason to endure the trials of life.
A content person with purpose will have many moments of unhappiness, but they will find such periods easier to cope with.
happiness is all about having good relationships in your life. that will give confidence, meaning and the ability to cope with difficulties. Happiness is not a journey inward.
I totally agree and would love to hear a counter argument from your downvoters. Some of this is just semantics around the word "happiness." I would argue that it's silly to pursue a state of perpetual bliss or enthusiastic joy, but we should absolutely pursue something closer to the Greek concept of eudaimonia[1]. Which is to say, we should seek to be healthy, content, live well, and thrive. And I think even in colloquial English we often mean "happy" in this sense. "They lived happily ever after" surely doesn't mean that they had a smile pasted on their faces in perpetuity.
1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eudaimonia
1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eudaimonia
Yeah it is, because it sucks you in. I'm working hard, I have not achieved any significant success yet, but I really love the whole lifestyle of work, work, work. And it's a mish mash, sometimes I get to work on really interesting stuff, sometimes it's super boring, but I learned to appreciate even the boring. Or learn to appreciate pain that comes from doing the same boring thing over and over. I'm big on Zen practice. This is the key for me. I do 40 - 60 min of formal practice every day and I try to put it in other activities, including work. I even have a journal were I measure my mental state based on various objective criteria - i.e. what was my body awareness when I was working - this is somehow makes me love it, and especially the boring stuff, because then it's not only about doing the work, but training my mental state while doing the work.
Because the key thing is, and that's the whole reason I write this message, is that if you learn to love something as boring as sitting still or walking circles around the room, and seeing how there's an endless potential for improvement on such a simple thing, you will see that everything is interesting. That kind of engagement can be developed.
And I'm talking about engagement, yes. Engagement equals happiness.
Because the key thing is, and that's the whole reason I write this message, is that if you learn to love something as boring as sitting still or walking circles around the room, and seeing how there's an endless potential for improvement on such a simple thing, you will see that everything is interesting. That kind of engagement can be developed.
And I'm talking about engagement, yes. Engagement equals happiness.
I can't distinguish sarcasm from gpt generated text
Happy people don't change the world. They maintain the status quo.
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - Shaw
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/536961-the-reasonable-man-a...
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - Shaw
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/536961-the-reasonable-man-a...
I think you are conflating “unreasonable” with “unhappy”.
It’s absolutely possible to have unreasonably high standards/expectations for “how things should be” and fight super hard for change/progress, while still being a happy person.
It’s absolutely possible to have unreasonably high standards/expectations for “how things should be” and fight super hard for change/progress, while still being a happy person.
With everything I've learned so far, this perfectly describes the core struggle of success and entrepreneurship.
In order to have massive success, you need a constant state of both unreasonableness and optimism.
Unreasonableness drives results and change, optimism inspires people to rally around your cause.
If you're not unreasonable, chances are you aren't striving for more. There's lots of people out there living a perfectly happy, unremarkable life.
If you're unreasonable, that's by definition an unhappiness with the world, which creates a drive to change it.
If that unreasonableness creeps to much into your life, you get unhappy as well.
If the happiness creeps too much into your unreasonableness, you start losing your edge, the very drive that made all of it happen.
That's why you see so few truly happy billionaires and so many deeply happy people who are never even trying to make a larger impact on thousands.
It's certainly possible to balance both, but it's a very fine line to walk and constant personal development.
In order to have massive success, you need a constant state of both unreasonableness and optimism.
Unreasonableness drives results and change, optimism inspires people to rally around your cause.
If you're not unreasonable, chances are you aren't striving for more. There's lots of people out there living a perfectly happy, unremarkable life.
If you're unreasonable, that's by definition an unhappiness with the world, which creates a drive to change it.
If that unreasonableness creeps to much into your life, you get unhappy as well.
If the happiness creeps too much into your unreasonableness, you start losing your edge, the very drive that made all of it happen.
That's why you see so few truly happy billionaires and so many deeply happy people who are never even trying to make a larger impact on thousands.
It's certainly possible to balance both, but it's a very fine line to walk and constant personal development.
I like Shaw's quote, and it probably summarises much of his life experience at the time.
I'd also like to argue that I think it should be possible to be happy, reasonable, and change the world for the better. Not easy perhaps, and persistence is still required, but doable.
I'd also like to argue that I think it should be possible to be happy, reasonable, and change the world for the better. Not easy perhaps, and persistence is still required, but doable.
Really? I haven’t seen it very often.
Fighting for change profits from desperation at the state of the world, which tends to be incompatible with happiness. It can work out, of course.
On the contary, it's people that have a purpose who are the happiest - and can shrug off almost anything that comes their way...
I disagree. Obviously there’s no single rule, and we can argue about what causes what and what is just a correlation, but I think a lot of unhappy people are cynical, and cynical people are less likely to try and change the world, whereas a lot of optimistic people are happier people, and optimistic people might be more likely to be crazy enough to think they can change the world.
[deleted]
This hasn’t been my experience. I’m like the ‘happy map guy’ in the discussion above. My happiness helps me be incredibly patient and optimistic about possible improvements to things. Have submitted over 100 global patent filings (in materials science, not software) and some of my inventions are being deployed globally :)
I'd argue lazy people don't often change the world and probably not people who are drunk/high all the time.
I'd argue self worth and personal happiness doesn't eliminate ones desire to positively change society (same with rich people), though it may be less common.
Lincoln was a rich white guy who still did good things. Tons of CEOs are money obsessed miserable sociopaths whos greatest contributions will be adding some zeros to their net worth.
I'd argue self worth and personal happiness doesn't eliminate ones desire to positively change society (same with rich people), though it may be less common.
Lincoln was a rich white guy who still did good things. Tons of CEOs are money obsessed miserable sociopaths whos greatest contributions will be adding some zeros to their net worth.
I'd argue lazy people don't often change the world...
There are two sorts of lazy people.
One group don't put any effort in, they avoid work, and they leave things as they are. These are the "bad lazy" people. They maintain the status quo.
The other sort of lazy people see something that takes effort and think of ways to achieve the same end result with less effort. They're the automates, the refactorers, the long term thinkers. They're the "good lazy" people who create positive change because they enable people to do more. They maintain the status quo where necessary, but also create room for improvement.
"good lazy" people don't cause industry changing disruption on a massive scale. "good lazy" doesn't invent Uber or Amazon. But I would argue that they are the cause of a lot of small, incremental changes over time, which actually has a bigger effect on our lives. It just happens too slowly for us to notice.
There are two sorts of lazy people.
One group don't put any effort in, they avoid work, and they leave things as they are. These are the "bad lazy" people. They maintain the status quo.
The other sort of lazy people see something that takes effort and think of ways to achieve the same end result with less effort. They're the automates, the refactorers, the long term thinkers. They're the "good lazy" people who create positive change because they enable people to do more. They maintain the status quo where necessary, but also create room for improvement.
"good lazy" people don't cause industry changing disruption on a massive scale. "good lazy" doesn't invent Uber or Amazon. But I would argue that they are the cause of a lot of small, incremental changes over time, which actually has a bigger effect on our lives. It just happens too slowly for us to notice.
Lincoln was born in poverty. The founding fathers were all rich. I get your point, it’s just a bad example.
Lincoln is also a famous example of someone who struggled heavily with depression.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/106591.Lincoln_s_Melanch...
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=497612...
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/106591.Lincoln_s_Melanch...
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=497612...
Benjamin Franklin was his father's 10th son, and his family only had enough money to send him to school for 2 years. He started working as an apprentice at age 12. At 17, he ran away from home and supported himself doing menial labor in Philadelphia print shops.
He ended up very rich, but he didn't start that way.
He ended up very rich, but he didn't start that way.
Lazy people change the world all the time. Not the universally lazy ones, just the lazy ones that are still responsible.
This little debate is a good example of how difficult it can be to communicate meaningfully about huge topics. Everything said in this topic has a certain amount of ‘truth’ to it.
Most posters on Hacker News doesn't strike me as particularly happy, yet I know they are among the most brilliant hackers in the world.
> Retain employees who are happy. The pandemic has reminded us of some tough realities, namely that organizations can contract in turbulent times just as fast as they expand when the economy is booming.
In other words, fire those that are unhappy. The bottom line is more important. Compassion is apparently not a useful trait among business executives. People say there is a stigma around depression. I wonder why...
> Retain employees who are happy. The pandemic has reminded us of some tough realities, namely that organizations can contract in turbulent times just as fast as they expand when the economy is booming.
In other words, fire those that are unhappy. The bottom line is more important. Compassion is apparently not a useful trait among business executives. People say there is a stigma around depression. I wonder why...
Agreed with your first point, and to extend with some of my thoughts: I think there is a unique motivation from depression, anger, and other unhappy thoughts. It feels like (although I don't have hard data) that most of the famous and prolific artists (writers, painters, musicians, comedians) turn out to be the most depressed and mentally unstable of us all.
Does circumstance cause happiness or the other way around? It is the premise of the article, but I think there is confirmation bias here.
Office perks had this purpose but it is no longer relevant in a remote culture. Now corporations need to snoop into our homes to predict productivity. Employees' lives outside work is not the employer's business, since most often than not, they will abuse it. Ex: They will sack an employee knowing he is unhappy regardless of the reason, creating a spiraling negative feedback loop.
The conclusion is very dangerous. It tells management to measure happiness as a predictor to success (and profit for employer). In fact, it is advocating to use employees' personal life as a proxy for performance, an abuse of data.
Office perks had this purpose but it is no longer relevant in a remote culture. Now corporations need to snoop into our homes to predict productivity. Employees' lives outside work is not the employer's business, since most often than not, they will abuse it. Ex: They will sack an employee knowing he is unhappy regardless of the reason, creating a spiraling negative feedback loop.
The conclusion is very dangerous. It tells management to measure happiness as a predictor to success (and profit for employer). In fact, it is advocating to use employees' personal life as a proxy for performance, an abuse of data.
It reminds me of The Matrix.
The machines tried at first to make humans always happy in the virtual world they've created. They did that not out of care for humans, but in order that they could peacefully harvest energy from the oblivious humans' bodies.
As I remember it, it didn't go well in terms of production. So, the machines replicated the real not-always-so-happy world instead.
I'm not trying to suggest anything btw.
Or, am I?
The machines tried at first to make humans always happy in the virtual world they've created. They did that not out of care for humans, but in order that they could peacefully harvest energy from the oblivious humans' bodies.
As I remember it, it didn't go well in terms of production. So, the machines replicated the real not-always-so-happy world instead.
I'm not trying to suggest anything btw.
Or, am I?
This article stinks of that feeling from the first sentence.
> The toll that working through the global pandemic has taken on employees’ job satisfaction and emotional well-being has focused business leaders on fostering workforce happiness as never before.
Yes, I'm sure it's that and not the record-high rates of resignation.
> The toll that working through the global pandemic has taken on employees’ job satisfaction and emotional well-being has focused business leaders on fostering workforce happiness as never before.
Yes, I'm sure it's that and not the record-high rates of resignation.
What a brilliant thought!
In a hypothetical pursuit of the definition of happiness, I tend to lean on an analogy in TCG's (trading cards, yes). Rarity.
The machines computed that happiness exists on a spectrum. As with TCG's, there must exist a high ratio of 'common' to feel the implication of pulling a 'mythic'.
To be happy, you must experience unhappy?
In a hypothetical pursuit of the definition of happiness, I tend to lean on an analogy in TCG's (trading cards, yes). Rarity.
The machines computed that happiness exists on a spectrum. As with TCG's, there must exist a high ratio of 'common' to feel the implication of pulling a 'mythic'.
To be happy, you must experience unhappy?
> We saw four times as many awards earned by the initially happiest soldiers
They have conflated the idea of winning an award with being a top performer, but winning an award has more to do with being well-liked than being a top performer. There are top performers who don't win awards, and there are people who aren't top performers who do win awards.
Really what they've shown is that if you want an award, you should be happy, and people will think you're a top performer. If you don't believe me, wait a bit and people will be citing this study as proof that happiness leads to top performers, hence happy people must be top performers.
They have conflated the idea of winning an award with being a top performer, but winning an award has more to do with being well-liked than being a top performer. There are top performers who don't win awards, and there are people who aren't top performers who do win awards.
Really what they've shown is that if you want an award, you should be happy, and people will think you're a top performer. If you don't believe me, wait a bit and people will be citing this study as proof that happiness leads to top performers, hence happy people must be top performers.
Was anyone in a position when they had everything: good job, good wife, good health and still were deeply unhappy, without purpose? What did you do to solve it?
I've been in the "have everything" position (by you def) and also deeply unhappy for long periods of my life.
There is a difference between "deeply unhappy" and "without purpose", though the second can lead to the first.
I "solved" it by living for duty rather than happiness.
There is a difference between "deeply unhappy" and "without purpose", though the second can lead to the first.
I "solved" it by living for duty rather than happiness.
What kind of dury did you find? Interesting take!
[deleted]
um....depression? or pre marriage ptsd? you should have a talk with my ex ..
Not a depression, just an absence of a deeper meaning for life, general „drive“ for it
Not me, but I could imagine many closet homosexuals feeling the way you described. As for how to solve it, well....
I’ve noticed my most successful friends are also my happiest friends, and vice versa. I never knew if it was correlation or causation, but I generally find I am happier myself and perform better if I surround myself with other people like that. Negativity is contagious, so I try to avoid it.
> Negativity is contagious, so I try to avoid it.
Positivity is contagious too! I had a co-worker who just exuded genuine positivity, and he was a joy to be around and I couldn't help being in a more positive mood myself.
Positivity is contagious too! I had a co-worker who just exuded genuine positivity, and he was a joy to be around and I couldn't help being in a more positive mood myself.
I was happy and a high performer. Now I'm miserable and a low performer. I think it's bidirectional. Being happy helps make people like you and makes you like your job more, so your rating increases more easily. Having a good rating and being respected in your field helps make you happy. If you're getting crushed at your job, you'll likely be unhappy.
This is a pretty typical associational/correlational study where unwarranted causality appears as if magic in the post-study journalism. Does happiness cause better performance? Does better performance lead to happiness? Is some other factor or confounder behind both?
If one were to follow the reasoning of the authors, their data also supports disbanding Active Duty and Reserve in favor of National Guard. The next MITSloane story writes itself--part time workers have higher performance: go go gig economy!
If one were to follow the reasoning of the authors, their data also supports disbanding Active Duty and Reserve in favor of National Guard. The next MITSloane story writes itself--part time workers have higher performance: go go gig economy!
Characteristic No award Award Effect size
Army Component: n (%)
Active duty 412,173 (52.28%) 36,761 (28.30%) 0.54
Reserve 179,790 (22.80%) 1,448 (1.27%) 0.06
National Guard 196,423 (24.91%) 76,234 (66.61%) 2.67
This checks out with my personal experience. My absolute worst performance period fell on my very unhappy short-lived marriage. Soon after I got a divorce and got into a healthy relationship, I was promoted.
Maybe potential top performers are unhappy because of how the company prevents them from performing?
winner winner chicken dinner
I'm annoyed by employers pretending to care about happiness and mental health.
It's usually something like "here's a link to a free one hour e-course on mindfulness". But do take it in your free time. Or the many internal emails from leaders about how they "appreciate" the difficulty of these times.
It's all performative, hollow and cheap.
If you really claim to care or appreciate it, walk the talk. Give people 1K out of the blue, for sticking to their performance despite enormous challenges. That's still really a pathetically low number.
Or...it looks like you're exhausted. Take a few days of on my expense.
Or...we normally produce 500 of whatever unit, given the incredibly hard balancing act of you managing your family at home whilst trying to get work done, we'll temporarily slow it down to 400 of whatever unit.
All of these are just examples of humane and simple signals to tell that you really do care. If you do none of these things, you don't care. So stop pretending.
It's usually something like "here's a link to a free one hour e-course on mindfulness". But do take it in your free time. Or the many internal emails from leaders about how they "appreciate" the difficulty of these times.
It's all performative, hollow and cheap.
If you really claim to care or appreciate it, walk the talk. Give people 1K out of the blue, for sticking to their performance despite enormous challenges. That's still really a pathetically low number.
Or...it looks like you're exhausted. Take a few days of on my expense.
Or...we normally produce 500 of whatever unit, given the incredibly hard balancing act of you managing your family at home whilst trying to get work done, we'll temporarily slow it down to 400 of whatever unit.
All of these are just examples of humane and simple signals to tell that you really do care. If you do none of these things, you don't care. So stop pretending.
I strongly agree, mental health only seems to be a consideration until it has any affect on output. It's now talked about more openly/included in health and safety courses/etc. which at least seems to be a step in the right direction, but good luck asking for deadlines to be pushed back/or time off for mental health because a project is causing burn out. I'm hoping it's a generational thing that 'puritanical work ethic/expectations' are offered as the solution to all problems but usually dismissed as a potential cause of any
Sure, a step in the right direction, but to me it still does not meet the low bar of it really being a consideration.
I've always seen things like mindfulness and meditation as fighting a symptom. You first put people into this overworked and anxious state of mind and then offer this "fix", rather then addressing the root cause.
When people are struggling with mental health at work, reduce the pressure on output and/or give them more free time. It doesn't solve all problems but it's the most meaningful and direct action an employer can take.
If an employer cannot afford that or is simply unwilling, I'm cool with that. As long as they admit it and don't pretend to care with a cheap email.
Same with appreciating people. Give them money. Stop making it so complicated. Money talks. Nobody cares about HR points.
I've always seen things like mindfulness and meditation as fighting a symptom. You first put people into this overworked and anxious state of mind and then offer this "fix", rather then addressing the root cause.
When people are struggling with mental health at work, reduce the pressure on output and/or give them more free time. It doesn't solve all problems but it's the most meaningful and direct action an employer can take.
If an employer cannot afford that or is simply unwilling, I'm cool with that. As long as they admit it and don't pretend to care with a cheap email.
Same with appreciating people. Give them money. Stop making it so complicated. Money talks. Nobody cares about HR points.
> Even after the researchers controlled for previous performance and a range of demographic factors, soldiers who were the happiest and most optimistic went on to earn significantly more job performance awards across the next five years compared with those who were initially unhappy and pessimistic.
How does this study account for the scenario where people are happy because they are on a good career track and others are unhappy because they are not?
For instance, someone who wanted to ace an entry exam for a new leadership position but failed to pass. Or someone who notices they lack certain core skills. Or someone who has life obligations or health issues that prevent him from making career progress?
I suggest that if you have relative high certainty that you will be successful in the next few years you will be happier on average than when you already know that the following years will be shrouded in stagnation.
How does this study account for the scenario where people are happy because they are on a good career track and others are unhappy because they are not?
For instance, someone who wanted to ace an entry exam for a new leadership position but failed to pass. Or someone who notices they lack certain core skills. Or someone who has life obligations or health issues that prevent him from making career progress?
I suggest that if you have relative high certainty that you will be successful in the next few years you will be happier on average than when you already know that the following years will be shrouded in stagnation.
Could be even simpler - you’re unhappy because you got a shit manager. Purely contextual and unrelated to your own ability.
If this finds widespread adoption in organizations, an entirely new set of minefields open up. The highly bullied children and the children of toxic parents will be somewhat more marginalized as they become comparatively less-happy adults and are kept from better opportunities. Pressure to appear happy will only be greater. You thought everyone on Facebook was happier than you?
I’d really like to see a bit more digging in there as to whether removing the happiness-sappers was more or less effective than supporting the happiness-supporters.
At the end of the day, “you’re just not happy enough” could become a valid rephrasing of “you’re just not a cultural fit”.
These are glass-half-empty perspectives, but there’s no principle that can be applied that can’t be misapplied.
I’d really like to see a bit more digging in there as to whether removing the happiness-sappers was more or less effective than supporting the happiness-supporters.
At the end of the day, “you’re just not happy enough” could become a valid rephrasing of “you’re just not a cultural fit”.
These are glass-half-empty perspectives, but there’s no principle that can be applied that can’t be misapplied.
Honestly I have to agree... for one to be a top performer, attitude needs to be pair with cognitive power as well other factors like health.
I have a friend from school who is smart and in good health. However he always critical and points out problems with services and work. Rather than being positive and building things up, he likes to deconstruct and complain. He is then upset as to why he is not doing well in his career after having lost jobs...hard to change ones attitude. Then I play a sport with someone who is always encouraging of others, tries hard and is uplifting. When he is on your team, he adds an X factor and I think this guy, while young, will go far in life and if he wants to, could become a CEO.
I have a friend from school who is smart and in good health. However he always critical and points out problems with services and work. Rather than being positive and building things up, he likes to deconstruct and complain. He is then upset as to why he is not doing well in his career after having lost jobs...hard to change ones attitude. Then I play a sport with someone who is always encouraging of others, tries hard and is uplifting. When he is on your team, he adds an X factor and I think this guy, while young, will go far in life and if he wants to, could become a CEO.
I think this X-factor, happiness co-efficient or what not...that we see top athletes (who had a natural talent just like other athletes) talk about, which gives them that small edge that lets them be the absolute best instead of just, pretty good at a sport. This kind of makes me think of luck as a quality. I wonder if Big HR FANG companies are "watching" their employees trying to find this X-Factor in a quantitative way.
Would be cool trying to think of "work projects" or experiments to find those with X-Factors.
Would be cool trying to think of "work projects" or experiments to find those with X-Factors.
> 1. Measure happiness in both employees and job candidates. In many ways, “hiring the happy” requires a bit of perspective. While we do not believe that happiness should be placed ahead of the knowledge, skills, or talent needed for a job, we conservatively advocate using measures of happiness and optimism as discriminators, or tiebreakers, because the risks are low and the benefits could be important.
How is instituting a hiring-time assessment for happiness and optimism going to do anything other than:
1. Sell more interview prep/gaming books and coaching services.
2. Bias hiring disproportionately towards to those who know the ritual of how to answer, as a proxy for class.
How is instituting a hiring-time assessment for happiness and optimism going to do anything other than:
1. Sell more interview prep/gaming books and coaching services.
2. Bias hiring disproportionately towards to those who know the ritual of how to answer, as a proxy for class.
The funny thing is that I went to all job interviews, because I wasn’t happy with my job/unemployment at the time. I have no idea how to fake here more happiness. Currently I am unhappy with technical level at the company and future salary development, but I can’t tell this directly anyway. I guess I need to learn the ritual how to produce right answers.
Say that you're looking for new opportunities and imply that you're currently happy (or at least not unhappy) but you could be even happier at this exciting new company. See, you're not an unhappy person looking to be happy, no one has time for those people, you're a happy person looking to be ecstatic. Positive spin~
Sometimes, people really are just looking for a change and new opportunities, it's not always spin. That plausibility is what makes it the perfect spin.
(I take no responsibility for the potentially terrible career advice I'm giving)
Sometimes, people really are just looking for a change and new opportunities, it's not always spin. That plausibility is what makes it the perfect spin.
(I take no responsibility for the potentially terrible career advice I'm giving)
Thanks. This is a good one! Maybe after 5 years in one place I will get different question set than during my job hoping period.
> We first asked them to rate their well-being — their happiness, if you will — along with their optimism, and then tracked which soldiers later received awards based on their job performance.
I'm curious to dig into the paper more because at first glance, I feel somewhat confused they seem to say happiness and well-being and optimism are all essentially the same thing. Again, maybe their paper doesn't say that and it's just their attempt to summarize it, and maybe some people see those three as different words for the same concept, yet I imagine many wouldn't.
I'm curious to dig into the paper more because at first glance, I feel somewhat confused they seem to say happiness and well-being and optimism are all essentially the same thing. Again, maybe their paper doesn't say that and it's just their attempt to summarize it, and maybe some people see those three as different words for the same concept, yet I imagine many wouldn't.
or is it other way around? i.e. High performers are happier and more optimistic. So cause and affect is reversed
I'm not sure if your comment was in response to my comment, as I was trying to say that I believe happiness != well being != optimism.
The study answers this question (at least partly) by measuring happiness levels _before_ the job.
[deleted]
There is no doubt in my mind that happiness predicts and causes success. A simple predictor of long term success for everywhere I have worked is mean loud laughs - whining.
An old psych study claims that one year after some great or terrible event, winning the lottery, or breaking your back. People are roughly as happy on average as they were before the event. It makes sense in many ways, happiness does not seem to change much over life. To me it looks like happiness is regulated towards some fix point. This is often cited as a reason not to despair, which is nice, but for someone like me it is horrifying. Much like with weight, there is no reason to assume that you are being regulated towards a healthy state.
I am successful by most metrics, but I am so despite being miserable, and well aware of it. But it is also a question of what kinds of tasks I focus on, positivity and natural happiness is extremely important for most sales people, and beneficial for teamwork, especially high stress teamwork. But less so for solitary independent work like research, and too much positivity seems to make people easier to scam, and I would prefer a cynic as responsible for it sec (not that I have ever seen one that wasn't). Happiness has a wide range of other positive effects too, but it is difficult to decorrelate, and if I was optimistic Id say something like teamwork and sales are easy to measure, so anything which is positively correlated with work productivity will be biased due to selection bias. If I was pessimistic I think Id just say yeah its probably true, but hey, the world isn't fair, and while I am miserable, at least I'm not stupid, and I would not want those two reversed.
An old psych study claims that one year after some great or terrible event, winning the lottery, or breaking your back. People are roughly as happy on average as they were before the event. It makes sense in many ways, happiness does not seem to change much over life. To me it looks like happiness is regulated towards some fix point. This is often cited as a reason not to despair, which is nice, but for someone like me it is horrifying. Much like with weight, there is no reason to assume that you are being regulated towards a healthy state.
I am successful by most metrics, but I am so despite being miserable, and well aware of it. But it is also a question of what kinds of tasks I focus on, positivity and natural happiness is extremely important for most sales people, and beneficial for teamwork, especially high stress teamwork. But less so for solitary independent work like research, and too much positivity seems to make people easier to scam, and I would prefer a cynic as responsible for it sec (not that I have ever seen one that wasn't). Happiness has a wide range of other positive effects too, but it is difficult to decorrelate, and if I was optimistic Id say something like teamwork and sales are easy to measure, so anything which is positively correlated with work productivity will be biased due to selection bias. If I was pessimistic I think Id just say yeah its probably true, but hey, the world isn't fair, and while I am miserable, at least I'm not stupid, and I would not want those two reversed.
I'd suggest you try meditation. It does not bring you instant happiness, but slowly brings about a sense of wisdom and peace that really resembles long-term happiness
I have, and you are right. But after a few years I used that wisdom to conclude I prefer a low average with a few severe lows and rare few extreme highs. The latter are great, but mostly it just makes me feel more alive, instead of like some monk serenely walking towards oblivion.
You wouldn't know it from my grouchy hacker-news persona, but I am actually a pretty bubbly and happy person in real life. And let me tell you, it takes work!
A few years ago I started going to therapy. And I found that a really positive outlet. I wasn't depressed, or angry, or anything like that. I just wanted to do more and be better.
And I've now adopted the motto: "Your friends and family are not your therapist" and it is true!! They should be supportive, of course, that is what they are for.
But your therapist is someone you pay to tolerate you at your worst and whiniest and to help you plan a path out of where you are.
And it worked for me! That is why I advocate for it.
I also recently started taking medication, and it has been PHENOMENAL. I am so much more productive!!!
---
It can be a bit of a double-edged sword though. I am a bubbly person, but some people find that very annoying. Or they see it as weakness or fae.
I feel like people don't realize that it takes me a lot of work to be how I am. It doesn't come naturally, it is a series of decisions I made:
1. To realize I have a problem
2. to seek help
3. To decide take medication
A few years ago I started going to therapy. And I found that a really positive outlet. I wasn't depressed, or angry, or anything like that. I just wanted to do more and be better.
And I've now adopted the motto: "Your friends and family are not your therapist" and it is true!! They should be supportive, of course, that is what they are for.
But your therapist is someone you pay to tolerate you at your worst and whiniest and to help you plan a path out of where you are.
And it worked for me! That is why I advocate for it.
I also recently started taking medication, and it has been PHENOMENAL. I am so much more productive!!!
---
It can be a bit of a double-edged sword though. I am a bubbly person, but some people find that very annoying. Or they see it as weakness or fae.
I feel like people don't realize that it takes me a lot of work to be how I am. It doesn't come naturally, it is a series of decisions I made:
1. To realize I have a problem
2. to seek help
3. To decide take medication
> Your friends and family are not your therapist
It's hard when you live with a therapist who doesn't always turn off therapist-mode when the workday is done ...
> I am a bubbly person, but some people find that very annoying.
I'll be honest, I do find exceedingly bubbly people kind of annoying. Though not every bubbly person will be annoying; they have to really wear it on their sleeve with cheerfulness that doesn't befit the situation. Or be cheerful and brutally honest, I know a guy like that. You can't criticize someone in the same way you'd wish a five year old happy birthday, c'mon.
It's hard when you live with a therapist who doesn't always turn off therapist-mode when the workday is done ...
> I am a bubbly person, but some people find that very annoying.
I'll be honest, I do find exceedingly bubbly people kind of annoying. Though not every bubbly person will be annoying; they have to really wear it on their sleeve with cheerfulness that doesn't befit the situation. Or be cheerful and brutally honest, I know a guy like that. You can't criticize someone in the same way you'd wish a five year old happy birthday, c'mon.
The beatings (unemployability, no investment for entrepreneurs who aren't 'upbeat') will continue until morale improves.
> 1. Measure happiness in both employees and job candidates.
"An employee has no legal obligation to reveal a mental health disorder to an employer. Where an employee's mental health condition comes to light, an employer cannot legally fire the employee for his or her mental health status or for failing to disclose the mental health issues previously"
"An employee has no legal obligation to reveal a mental health disorder to an employer. Where an employee's mental health condition comes to light, an employer cannot legally fire the employee for his or her mental health status or for failing to disclose the mental health issues previously"
I feel like the key is found at this: "Which comes first, succeeding and then being happy, or being happy and then succeeding? And just how much does initial happiness matter?". Satisfaction in the workplace has A LOT to do in fostering motivation and therefore productivity, creativity...
The contrary is burnout, and I bet no one is brilliant in that position
The contrary is burnout, and I bet no one is brilliant in that position
As someone stuck in the lower class almost unable to work and any work I do is very distressing because I'm someone who is chronically disabled with chronic debilitating pain and an array of other problems that are no fault of my own: Ain't this some bullshit. It sure is easy for the rich to say "just be happy", "just follow your goals" etc. It's so easy for people with opportunities to say that, is it any wonder the richest people I know are also the happiest.. I wouldn't be surprised if the people in this study are in higher positions than the rest and have less stress and demands put on them in their daily lives.
> In a recent study, the relationship between income and happiness was over four times greater for people who reported that money was important to them compared with those who cared much less about money.
In other words believe money can bring you happiness for money to bring you happiness.
In other words believe money can bring you happiness for money to bring you happiness.
(Saving the article to read later)
My first thought on seeing the title: my experience is that this is a causal loop; the key is not to focus on how good/happy people are at their peak, but how to reverse a downward spiral where decreasing performance and unhappiness are driving each other.
My first thought on seeing the title: my experience is that this is a causal loop; the key is not to focus on how good/happy people are at their peak, but how to reverse a downward spiral where decreasing performance and unhappiness are driving each other.
Measured performance vs. actual performance is a big confounder to taking this at face value.
How many times have you met a surly person that absolutely nails the un-glamorous but essential tasks that prevent parts of an organization from falling apart?
How many times have you met a surly person that absolutely nails the un-glamorous but essential tasks that prevent parts of an organization from falling apart?
> If you extrapolate our findings from the military study to a private sector context where 1,000 hires are going to be made, using well-being as a hiring criterion should lead to about 11 more exceptional performers than if the company simply hired personnel without considering well-being at all.
And if you extrapolate further, the rest of companies will end up with sad employees , with high turn over, 10x lower productivity thus lower pay and less happy. In fact this will be the common type of company to work for as the happy-employee companies will have very low turn over and won’t be looking for new hires as much.
And if you extrapolate further, the rest of companies will end up with sad employees , with high turn over, 10x lower productivity thus lower pay and less happy. In fact this will be the common type of company to work for as the happy-employee companies will have very low turn over and won’t be looking for new hires as much.
> A large-scale study found that well-being predicts outstanding job performance.
I would expect such a well-respected publication to not make such a fundamental mistake, at least before I finish reading the headline.
I would expect such a well-respected publication to not make such a fundamental mistake, at least before I finish reading the headline.
There's something gross in proposing happiness serves "performance". Happiness being defined as a productivity input isn't a great culture to find yourself participating in.
Isn’t this study using the same methodology that was recently debunked? The one about that fake ratio of positive vs negative thoughts? Someone had posted an article about it here in HN.
The top performer I know is a legend in my mind. I literally constructed a story in my head that during their gestation in the womb, there was some brain development mistake that the cells literally neglected to apply the synapses that allow frustration.
There are glass half full of water people. This top performer is glass half full of: trillions of molecules that allow for the biology the most incredible aggregation of elements in the universe! What a wonder!
What a treat to work with them!
There are glass half full of water people. This top performer is glass half full of: trillions of molecules that allow for the biology the most incredible aggregation of elements in the universe! What a wonder!
What a treat to work with them!
[deleted]
I have yet to meet a happy principal engineer within two FANG companies I've worked, so maybe this depends on the field.
Higher competence just comes from being way healthier genetically in the general case yeah? Why wouldn't they just have it easier across the board? They're likely more stress tolerant, less sickly, have more positive interactions with other people, more attractive to women. Etc.
suggestions ( via MIT Sloan )
1. Measure happiness in both employees and job candidates.
2. Develop happiness in your workforce.
3. Retain employees who are happy.
1. Measure happiness in both employees and job candidates.
2. Develop happiness in your workforce.
3. Retain employees who are happy.
On one hand, this seems like a minefield of potential issues. If you build processes to measure "happiness" and make retain/fire decisions based on it, you're going to get a lot of fake happiness as soon as the employees figure it out. A lot.
However, in the past I've made the mistake of trying to retain angry, unhappy, or otherwise disgruntled employees too long. Some people are just irreversibly angry in life and will find a way to be upset about everything. Leaving them in the company will start to bring everyone down. If someone is clearly miserable at your company and you've made efforts to address their problems with no improvement, it's time to remove them.
However, in the past I've made the mistake of trying to retain angry, unhappy, or otherwise disgruntled employees too long. Some people are just irreversibly angry in life and will find a way to be upset about everything. Leaving them in the company will start to bring everyone down. If someone is clearly miserable at your company and you've made efforts to address their problems with no improvement, it's time to remove them.
Our relationships at work make or break the whole endeavor. As a manager, it is imperative to protect your directs from toxicity. Horizontally, that means discussing and working out issues regarding satisfaction with colleagues. If skip-levels aren't conducted with happiness in mind, then they're barely more than useless. Managers who cannot steer away or excise toxicity need to be excised themselves.
Pizza and bonuses doesn't equal happiness. Making your office look like Google doesn't bring happiness. The two main things are positive, constructive relationships and autonomy.
Pizza and bonuses doesn't equal happiness. Making your office look like Google doesn't bring happiness. The two main things are positive, constructive relationships and autonomy.
But it might be that if people pretend to be happy they try to invent reasons why they should be happy and as they tell themselves and others why they (say they) are happy they start being a bit more happy.
If you really want to fake happiness the best way is to try to be happy
If you really want to fake happiness the best way is to try to be happy
Fitter, happier, more productive
Comfortable (Not drinking too much)
Regular exercise at the gym (Three days a week)
Getting on better with your associate employee contemporaries
At ease
Eating well (No more microwave dinners and saturated fats)
A patient, better driver
A safer car (Baby smiling in back seat)
Sleeping well (No bad dreams)
Comfortable (Not drinking too much)
Regular exercise at the gym (Three days a week)
Getting on better with your associate employee contemporaries
At ease
Eating well (No more microwave dinners and saturated fats)
A patient, better driver
A safer car (Baby smiling in back seat)
Sleeping well (No bad dreams)
No ofense to you in the slightest but your comment made me think of the darkest of dystopias. Re-reading it and getting to the "A patient, better driver" part I had to think of an un-patient, bad driver to sort of erase that feeling from my head, the best I could find was this scene with Harvey Keitel in "Bad Lieutenant" [1]. It also helps that I'm a Mets fan and, as such, we are almost never happy.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ir8Y4iFrWk8
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ir8Y4iFrWk8
Exercise doesn't have to be at the gym. You can do fairly high level calisthenics with a weighed bag and/or Olympic rings
Excellent books on the topic like Your Body is Your Gym, Overcoming Gravity, and Paul Wade's ultimate isometrics.
Excellent books on the topic like Your Body is Your Gym, Overcoming Gravity, and Paul Wade's ultimate isometrics.
In case you missed GP’s sarcasm, this is the beginning of the lyrics to Radiohead’s Fitter Happier.[1] To give you the general tenor of the piece’s downwards spiral, the song finishes with:
Like a cat
Tied to a stick
That's driven into
Frozen winter shit (The ability to laugh at weakness)
Calm
Fitter, healthier and more productive
A pig
In a cage
On antibiotics
[1] https://genius.com/Radiohead-fitter-happier-lyrics
Like a cat
Tied to a stick
That's driven into
Frozen winter shit (The ability to laugh at weakness)
Calm
Fitter, healthier and more productive
A pig
In a cage
On antibiotics
[1] https://genius.com/Radiohead-fitter-happier-lyrics
Reality of how management creates a happy force:
1. Create company where you say u care about happiness but you don't actually do anything to make ppl happy. Due to randomness, some ppl will be happy, and those who happen to be treated badly will be unhappy.
2. Measure happiness (perhaps with an "anonymous" employee satisfaction survey)
3. Retain ppl who are happy.
1. Create company where you say u care about happiness but you don't actually do anything to make ppl happy. Due to randomness, some ppl will be happy, and those who happen to be treated badly will be unhappy.
2. Measure happiness (perhaps with an "anonymous" employee satisfaction survey)
3. Retain ppl who are happy.
>2. Develop happiness in your workforce.
Floggings will continue until your happiness KPIs improve.
Floggings will continue until your happiness KPIs improve.
you forgot to add (MIT Sloan)
Happiness is a lifestate and a choice.
Care to elaborate? You cannot „choose“ to be happy as you cannot just „choose“ to be not depressed or anything else for that mattter
Of course you choose whether to be happy. In fact, it is the ONLY thing you have control over. But it's the key to everything.
It's the one choice you have to make in every living moment. Keep making this right choice, and life is a song. Choose to look the wrong way and life becomes hard work.
There is nothing more to it. This is all anyone ever needs to know about life.
It's the one choice you have to make in every living moment. Keep making this right choice, and life is a song. Choose to look the wrong way and life becomes hard work.
There is nothing more to it. This is all anyone ever needs to know about life.
Sure, it's a choice in the same way that the outcome of an if-branch is a "choice". You have control over it in the same way a computer program has control over its own output. Which is to say: no actual control at all.
Free will/choice isn't a coherent concept philosophically and I find it almost impossible to take anyone seriously when they propose "just change your mind" as a solution to anything. I am already struggling to resist the urge to leave this comment at "WOW THANKS, I'M CURED!".
Twin studies show that happiness is a stochastic phenomenon where the genetic heritability of the stable component of happiness is estimated to be almost 80% [1].
If you're unhappy and reading this with a sense of disappointment, I'd just say "don't count yourself out yet".
[1] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1996.tb...
Free will/choice isn't a coherent concept philosophically and I find it almost impossible to take anyone seriously when they propose "just change your mind" as a solution to anything. I am already struggling to resist the urge to leave this comment at "WOW THANKS, I'M CURED!".
Twin studies show that happiness is a stochastic phenomenon where the genetic heritability of the stable component of happiness is estimated to be almost 80% [1].
If you're unhappy and reading this with a sense of disappointment, I'd just say "don't count yourself out yet".
[1] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1996.tb...
Not sure where you are going with the free will thing unless you are going for the genetics answer to happiness which I find lacking.
Are some people happy? Yes. Are there people who were not happy who now are? Yes. How? Lots and lots of anecdotes are around changing how they approached life, not how they changed their genetics.
Looking at your linked article, they are going off of a wellness questionnaire first developed 40 years ago. Looking at the broad areas of questions, I feel they also miss what it means to be happy in many cases.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multidimensional_Personality...
Some questions are orthogonal to happiness include living interesting, exciting lives; enjoying being noticed, being the center of attention; being perfectionistic; being victims of false and nasty rumors; having been betrayed and deceived; enjoying scenes of violence (fights, violent movies); liking to plan activities in detail; and more.
Are some people happy? Yes. Are there people who were not happy who now are? Yes. How? Lots and lots of anecdotes are around changing how they approached life, not how they changed their genetics.
Looking at your linked article, they are going off of a wellness questionnaire first developed 40 years ago. Looking at the broad areas of questions, I feel they also miss what it means to be happy in many cases.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multidimensional_Personality...
Some questions are orthogonal to happiness include living interesting, exciting lives; enjoying being noticed, being the center of attention; being perfectionistic; being victims of false and nasty rumors; having been betrayed and deceived; enjoying scenes of violence (fights, violent movies); liking to plan activities in detail; and more.
There's a lot of fine literature out there that can properly explain better than I can why free will is an incoherent concept, I recommend googling it. Although the philosophy is fairly basic, it's hard to flesh out concisely in the format of social media comments. A one sentence summary might be: we are our physiology and thus bound by the laws of physics and chemistry, we cannot have more free will or more capacity to self-change than the physical particles that comprise us. Honestly I'm not interested in object-level rebuttals to this, the philosophy around this is fairly settled and feels like debating whether the earth is flat.
The genetic heritability finding is not related to the free will argument, it is its own scientific finding. I don't know why the existence of those life-changing anecdotes matters at all, the research has never shown that happiness is 100% determined by genetics, only that the stable component of happiness has a high heritability. I also want to point out that "genetic heritability" doesn't simply mean "you don't got the happy gene, you're fucked", genetic inheritance is not mutually exclusive to environmental influences. Indeed, at least some gene-behavior studies will recommend "positive gene-environment matchmaking" [1] in its conclusions.
No happiness study is going to have a perfect definition of happiness, which scientifically is studied as "subjective well-being" because it's subjective. The study's definition of subjective well-being is reasonable and consistent. If you think that changing the questions will radically change results, I invite you to do or find your own scientific research. We don't exactly have a glut of happiness research, we have some modern meta-studies [1] that flesh out the relationship between genetics and behavior a little more but otherwise upholds existing heritability findings.
[1] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10902-016-9781-6
The genetic heritability finding is not related to the free will argument, it is its own scientific finding. I don't know why the existence of those life-changing anecdotes matters at all, the research has never shown that happiness is 100% determined by genetics, only that the stable component of happiness has a high heritability. I also want to point out that "genetic heritability" doesn't simply mean "you don't got the happy gene, you're fucked", genetic inheritance is not mutually exclusive to environmental influences. Indeed, at least some gene-behavior studies will recommend "positive gene-environment matchmaking" [1] in its conclusions.
No happiness study is going to have a perfect definition of happiness, which scientifically is studied as "subjective well-being" because it's subjective. The study's definition of subjective well-being is reasonable and consistent. If you think that changing the questions will radically change results, I invite you to do or find your own scientific research. We don't exactly have a glut of happiness research, we have some modern meta-studies [1] that flesh out the relationship between genetics and behavior a little more but otherwise upholds existing heritability findings.
[1] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10902-016-9781-6
That is just a load of shit, I am so tired of this toxic positivity. Of course its a choice in the first place, but choice is not what brings you there. You need to choose right turn, yes, yes! But you have to walk the path towards the destination and that is a whole different story. If all you postulate that it is enough just to make the right turn, then… ah, whatever.
There can be no such thing as toxic positivity. Your doubts are toxic, yes. But positivity can never be toxic. Life IS utterly binary and clear-cut in this respect, there are no grey areas, no nuances. There is an absolute good and it is joy. And it is 100% a personal choice, regardless of circumstances. Once again - it is the only ONE thing over which you have any control, at all times, no exceptions. You can always choose to be happy. AND that's enough!
Leaving out people with e.g. clinical depression, this is still only true for some people. The rest don't believe that they can simply choose to be happy regardless of circumstances, and therefore they can't. I don't think we get a choice in the matter: either we're lucky to be in the first group who know it intuitively or figure it out or come across the idea somewhere, or we aren't so lucky.
Incredibly insulting to people with depression.
Which is why they are depressed. They choose (over and over and over again, many times in each hour they make this CONSCIOUS CHOICE) to find this insulting, instead of empowering.
I am leaving out no-one. Joy is absolutely accessible to every living being, at all times, under all conditions.
I am leaving out no-one. Joy is absolutely accessible to every living being, at all times, under all conditions.
I have met people who laugh and smile about hardships and I have met people who are sour about unequivocally positive situations.
I don't think happiness is a destination, it is a path. The happy person is happy to have chosen to turn right and to have had the opportunity to so. The unhappy person is still unhappy that they have not yet found what they are looking for.
That is the decision
I don't think happiness is a destination, it is a path. The happy person is happy to have chosen to turn right and to have had the opportunity to so. The unhappy person is still unhappy that they have not yet found what they are looking for.
That is the decision
>The unhappy person is still unhappy that they have not yet found what they are looking for.
>That is the decision
What is the decision exactly? If unhappy people could just choose to be happy instead, they would.
>That is the decision
What is the decision exactly? If unhappy people could just choose to be happy instead, they would.
Let's make sure we are talking about the same thing. I don't mean the fleeting joy of a pop cycle on a hot summer day when you were twelve and the cutie you have a crush on smiled at you. I'm talking about a general disposition. A "happy person."
It is the way one looks at and approaches the problems and/or situations. You can choose to change how you approach the problem and you can choose what you find rewarding in that problem and the approach. You can also choose to focus on what you've yet to attain.
In our little parable here, the unhappy person is still unhappy that they have not yet found what they are looking for. We are getting terribly abstract now. But they could instead focus on what traction they have gained, they could "enjoy the art of the search," or whatever else they choose to put value on. But it comes down to what they value.
Talks and whole books are written on this and I wont be able to do them justice. This mental outlook thing extends to depression. See CBT, Congnitive Behavioral Therapy, which reduces depression by changing how you think about things. One could choose to apply those techniques.
It is the way one looks at and approaches the problems and/or situations. You can choose to change how you approach the problem and you can choose what you find rewarding in that problem and the approach. You can also choose to focus on what you've yet to attain.
In our little parable here, the unhappy person is still unhappy that they have not yet found what they are looking for. We are getting terribly abstract now. But they could instead focus on what traction they have gained, they could "enjoy the art of the search," or whatever else they choose to put value on. But it comes down to what they value.
Talks and whole books are written on this and I wont be able to do them justice. This mental outlook thing extends to depression. See CBT, Congnitive Behavioral Therapy, which reduces depression by changing how you think about things. One could choose to apply those techniques.
A lot of this “choosing to be happy” as the way you describe it though is merely self-deception/lying-to-oneself.
If I’m starving - I have every right to be upset. Yet in your mind - I should just learn to enjoy the search for food (even if it doesn’t exist) rather than being upset that I’m literally dying.
If I’m starving - I have every right to be upset. Yet in your mind - I should just learn to enjoy the search for food (even if it doesn’t exist) rather than being upset that I’m literally dying.
"Enjoying the ride" doesn't mean not trying not trying to improve it. And you can be upset at a situation and then get to fixing it with a positive mindset.
Since you bring up starving, I'll give you my starving story. BMI was under 18 and trending south. I got kind of abandoned for a bit in high school. My daily food was one potato in the morning (baked, plain), the high school free lunch, and, as long as I stole an extra hamburger that I could sell (which was not every day, depending on rotation), I'd have enough money to get a can of soup for the evening. This would be warmed on a wood burning stove that I also used to keep my room warm. The rest of the house was, literally, ice cold due to a missing wall (which is non-ideal in the mountains and also encourages wildlife to steal your meager food stores). What meager food I could stash away got stolen by raccoons once - there was a missing wall on my house at the time and the mountain wildlife could come on in if they could navigate a tarp.
I could have been upset with my dad for leaving me in that situation. I could be upset with other extended (and close by) family who did not help. I could be upset with neighbors who didn't help. I could be upset when I saw people wasting food (and, yeah, that stung... a lot). I could be upset that my stomach being in pain or some stints with nausea was a normal feeling. I could be upset by a thousand things in my situation (and these are but the surface of my hardships). I could have decided that my happiness was based on all that.
However, I tried to enjoy "roughing it." I took the time to enjoy searching for wood to heat my wood burning stove to heat my cold room and my can of soup that I got only because I stole and sold other food earlier. Would I prefer that to where I am today? Hell the no. I looked around and knew I did not like where my life was directed and the current state of it. So I focused on what I could do. I could get my school work completed. I could talk to friends before school if I got there early enough. Maybe a day was a no-hamberger-available-to-steal-and-sell day; I would enjoy that I got to sneak a slice of pizza from another classroom's party or I could get the left overs from a friend before they tossed something. I think I was a generally happy person despite all of my hardships (and these are but the surface of my hardships).
So I've been starving with every right to be upset. I chose to, instead, focus on things I could do something about. Slowly I improved my situation. I found food. I got good grades. I got scholarships. I starved some more. I worked crazy hours. I failed. And I failed some more. By my late 20s, I had started to figure things out and I, for the first time, could buy a pizza on the way home and not think about the financial hardship. I could avoid being hungry. Tack on another decade and I am wildly successful. However, I've also had to deal with depression, anxiety, insecurity, and feeling like not belonging along the way.
Edit: post question I meant to ask:
> self-deception/lying-to-oneself
I'm curious on what you mean here - why is that significant? This sounds like saying you shouldn't read fiction because it isn't real. When you pump yourself up (for a lift, a sports game, to ask out someone attractive), you are practicing forms of self-deception. Also, you are not saying, "this is great, life sucks." You are saying, "life sucks, but there are great things." Reality doesn't change, but the way you interpret it can.
Since you bring up starving, I'll give you my starving story. BMI was under 18 and trending south. I got kind of abandoned for a bit in high school. My daily food was one potato in the morning (baked, plain), the high school free lunch, and, as long as I stole an extra hamburger that I could sell (which was not every day, depending on rotation), I'd have enough money to get a can of soup for the evening. This would be warmed on a wood burning stove that I also used to keep my room warm. The rest of the house was, literally, ice cold due to a missing wall (which is non-ideal in the mountains and also encourages wildlife to steal your meager food stores). What meager food I could stash away got stolen by raccoons once - there was a missing wall on my house at the time and the mountain wildlife could come on in if they could navigate a tarp.
I could have been upset with my dad for leaving me in that situation. I could be upset with other extended (and close by) family who did not help. I could be upset with neighbors who didn't help. I could be upset when I saw people wasting food (and, yeah, that stung... a lot). I could be upset that my stomach being in pain or some stints with nausea was a normal feeling. I could be upset by a thousand things in my situation (and these are but the surface of my hardships). I could have decided that my happiness was based on all that.
However, I tried to enjoy "roughing it." I took the time to enjoy searching for wood to heat my wood burning stove to heat my cold room and my can of soup that I got only because I stole and sold other food earlier. Would I prefer that to where I am today? Hell the no. I looked around and knew I did not like where my life was directed and the current state of it. So I focused on what I could do. I could get my school work completed. I could talk to friends before school if I got there early enough. Maybe a day was a no-hamberger-available-to-steal-and-sell day; I would enjoy that I got to sneak a slice of pizza from another classroom's party or I could get the left overs from a friend before they tossed something. I think I was a generally happy person despite all of my hardships (and these are but the surface of my hardships).
So I've been starving with every right to be upset. I chose to, instead, focus on things I could do something about. Slowly I improved my situation. I found food. I got good grades. I got scholarships. I starved some more. I worked crazy hours. I failed. And I failed some more. By my late 20s, I had started to figure things out and I, for the first time, could buy a pizza on the way home and not think about the financial hardship. I could avoid being hungry. Tack on another decade and I am wildly successful. However, I've also had to deal with depression, anxiety, insecurity, and feeling like not belonging along the way.
Edit: post question I meant to ask:
> self-deception/lying-to-oneself
I'm curious on what you mean here - why is that significant? This sounds like saying you shouldn't read fiction because it isn't real. When you pump yourself up (for a lift, a sports game, to ask out someone attractive), you are practicing forms of self-deception. Also, you are not saying, "this is great, life sucks." You are saying, "life sucks, but there are great things." Reality doesn't change, but the way you interpret it can.
Nowhere in this story did you mention you were happy. You said you "think" you were a "generally happy person". Whatever that means. Whatever it is - I can tell you - it is not being happy as the rest of us would describe it. You don't have to "think" about being happy - you know you're happy. You know you're content. The feeling is obvious.
And being upset does not mean you cannot focus on fixing the issue. You can be mad as hell but also be working on the problem. It does not mean you're helpless. Nowhere did anyone say that.
And being upset does not mean you cannot focus on fixing the issue. You can be mad as hell but also be working on the problem. It does not mean you're helpless. Nowhere did anyone say that.
I'm usually happy during the day and groggy and depressive at night when I'm tired. Being happy being a path doesn't mean you get to pick the path you're on.
This reads like a carefully prepared propaganda piece masquerading as science.
Can't tell if it's just a promotional material for the US army, or they have more objectives, but I can't agree with most of what is being pushed as "hard data", a.k.a. "science".
Can't tell if it's just a promotional material for the US army, or they have more objectives, but I can't agree with most of what is being pushed as "hard data", a.k.a. "science".
Not sure if this helps, but I bookmarked a relevant thread from the past
1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24737026 | Good sleep, good learning, good life (supermemo.guru)
1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24737026 | Good sleep, good learning, good life (supermemo.guru)
Feeling bad is not an intrinsic property of personality but a strategy that is learned via mimicry at a young age. These strategies can be improved via investigation with something like Focusing, Internal Family Systems, or my favorite, Core Transformation.
Here’s a video about happiness. It explains that has something to do with our prefrontal cortex (which IIRC is related to intelligence) - https://youtu.be/4q1dgn_C0AU
Reminds me of the beginning of the Red Clearance section of the Paranoia second edition handbook.
https://cupdf.com/document/paranoia-2nd-edition.html
(scroll to page 5)
https://cupdf.com/document/paranoia-2nd-edition.html
(scroll to page 5)
First off did they prove causation? Does happiness cause top performance, does top performance cause happiness, or is there another unknown causative source for both?
Second off. There must be an evolutionary reason why less positive people exist.
Second off. There must be an evolutionary reason why less positive people exist.
If anyone is interested in the paper itself: https://oa.mg/work/10.1007%2Fs10902-021-00441-x
So I have another reason to be unhappy about my unhappiness?
“Happiness is a cookie that your brain bakes for itself.”
https://youtu.be/8mixT5_U0hk
https://youtu.be/8mixT5_U0hk
I ran into some issues these past 2 years. Lost my firm. My friends are always wondering why I'm always happy. I consider it my super power.
Stating the bleeding obvious. The level of BS in some of this management / MBA pseudo science literature gets a bit tiring.
During interview my HR told they only recurit happy people and asked me if i am happy. I got the job
Certainly it’s system right? High performance -> happiness -> high performance.
I continuous happiness the key success, or is continuous success the key to happiness?
[deleted]
Happiness and lots of underground drugs!
Most people, esp. in the US especially and in Western Europe in general
fake happiness. esp in public. With true friends less.
US: I lost my job. I am so happy. It was time for a change, and I know there are so many better opportunities out there.
Russia: I was fired from my job. It sucks. How am I to find a new job in this economy? What am I to do? Followed by vodka with friends.
(Stereotypes that may or may not be exaggerated)
Managers reading this will demand happiness, so people must fake it even more. and they must fake it all day long at work.
Work Survey: Are you HAPPY?
Yes? (Manager wants it) No? (Won't get promoted, won't get anywhere)
It is impossible to engineer long term true happiness. Or at least nobody has figured it out yet.
Drugs, floggings (must improve your happiness), bright colored cubicle, A new Ferrari every quarter.
One could aim for "contentment". Even that is unattainable for most people.
When it comes to soldiers WTF? Victim shaming?
Soldiers are successful because they are happy? Thus if you are unhappy, depressed, PTSD, all that happened because you were not happy.
(Stretching it a little for effect).
This all reminds me of evangelical churches. (Who also forces people to be happy)
> God Heals the sick.
But God has not healed me, and I prayed, and people prayed with me.
> That is because your faith is weak, and you have too much sin in your life. If you were a true believer, you would be healed.
US: I lost my job. I am so happy. It was time for a change, and I know there are so many better opportunities out there.
Russia: I was fired from my job. It sucks. How am I to find a new job in this economy? What am I to do? Followed by vodka with friends.
(Stereotypes that may or may not be exaggerated)
Managers reading this will demand happiness, so people must fake it even more. and they must fake it all day long at work.
Work Survey: Are you HAPPY?
Yes? (Manager wants it) No? (Won't get promoted, won't get anywhere)
It is impossible to engineer long term true happiness. Or at least nobody has figured it out yet.
Drugs, floggings (must improve your happiness), bright colored cubicle, A new Ferrari every quarter.
One could aim for "contentment". Even that is unattainable for most people.
When it comes to soldiers WTF? Victim shaming?
Soldiers are successful because they are happy? Thus if you are unhappy, depressed, PTSD, all that happened because you were not happy.
(Stretching it a little for effect).
This all reminds me of evangelical churches. (Who also forces people to be happy)
> God Heals the sick.
But God has not healed me, and I prayed, and people prayed with me.
> That is because your faith is weak, and you have too much sin in your life. If you were a true believer, you would be healed.
As a guy from Poland working for American and English companies for a while and playing a lot of D&D with Americans. The culture shock is real.
Exhibit 1:
There was a poll in a huge american corpo I contract for recently, where teams from all over the world had to grade their experience with other teams. Mostly we don't interact with other teams so we don't have any experiences, the matrix is sparse, but we had to put a percentage in every cell anyway. Anglosaxons graded everybody 90%+. Eastern Europeans graded everybody but the few teams we actually interacted with - 50% :) There was a huge meeting for "solving the problems" and people couldn't believe it's normal here :)
Exhibit 1:
(boss) great job team, could you maybe fix this one thing?
(me) ok, if you say so, I thought we did pretty badly this sprint actually
(my friend) he means that, it's just how British people say you're not doing great
(my american Dungeon Master in the game we play) any feedback on the last session? I want to hear your thoughts.
(me) it was great but I thought that X, Y and Z were kinda boring
(other players) why are you so mean?
(any American person) how are you?
(me) actual response.
(they) shocked.
There was a poll in a huge american corpo I contract for recently, where teams from all over the world had to grade their experience with other teams. Mostly we don't interact with other teams so we don't have any experiences, the matrix is sparse, but we had to put a percentage in every cell anyway. Anglosaxons graded everybody 90%+. Eastern Europeans graded everybody but the few teams we actually interacted with - 50% :) There was a huge meeting for "solving the problems" and people couldn't believe it's normal here :)
Happiness is only measurable in relation to sadness. If you were "happy" all the time you wouldn't feel like you were happy because that would be your default state - you would just feel normal.
>One could aim for "contentment". Even that is unattainable for most people.
That has been my goal, which has been more or less achieved. What more can you really ask for or expect out of life? Sometimes extraordinarily bad things are going to happen, and you are going to feel sad for a while. Likewise, sometimes extraordinarily good things happen, and you are going to feel happy for a while. But you can't (shouldn't) live your life with the ever-present anticipation (or dread) of these infrequent events. We're all on this planet for a very short time in the big scheme of things, and we'll all experience a variety of pleasant and unpleasant things. At the end of the day all you can do is navigate down the bumpy road as best you are able and not worry about things that are outside your control.
>One could aim for "contentment". Even that is unattainable for most people.
That has been my goal, which has been more or less achieved. What more can you really ask for or expect out of life? Sometimes extraordinarily bad things are going to happen, and you are going to feel sad for a while. Likewise, sometimes extraordinarily good things happen, and you are going to feel happy for a while. But you can't (shouldn't) live your life with the ever-present anticipation (or dread) of these infrequent events. We're all on this planet for a very short time in the big scheme of things, and we'll all experience a variety of pleasant and unpleasant things. At the end of the day all you can do is navigate down the bumpy road as best you are able and not worry about things that are outside your control.
Yeah I agree, whatever they do at work to help you being happier is just gonna be your new normal. Obviously there should be some minimum standards, but saying that being happy makes you a better worker and therefore your employer should worry about you being happy is silly to me, because that comes from the inside. I'm not saying the environment doesn't affect you, but if you depend on external things to be happy you're always gonna come back to a default unhappy state, waiting for more new good things to happen to you. Being happy is a choice.
I think Americans are more optimistic and thus are happier. Someone somewhere said it was America’s super power, that we believe things will always get better and it creates a self fulfilling prophecy.
Not sure about the happier part, I may be wrong as I've never been to the States but it looks like the meth/drugs epidemic is a major issue in much of the US. A happy populace wouldn't need to resort to drugs.
>A happy populace wouldn't need to resort to drugs
How about instead of blaming the population, we pin the opioid addiction to big pharma and their illegal practices of lobbying and bribing their way into doctors prescribing opioids for toothaches and headaches. See Purdue.
Also, Finland is constantly rated as the happiest country in the world yet suicide rates are relatively high and alcohol abuse is rampant, so maybe that's not how happiness works.
How about instead of blaming the population, we pin the opioid addiction to big pharma and their illegal practices of lobbying and bribing their way into doctors prescribing opioids for toothaches and headaches. See Purdue.
Also, Finland is constantly rated as the happiest country in the world yet suicide rates are relatively high and alcohol abuse is rampant, so maybe that's not how happiness works.
To be fair I also have my doubts about the Finnish statistics. I agree with your first point, much of the dire situation we have now was caused by big pharma companies.
[deleted]
I once heard that Americans motivate themselves positively:
If I manage to finish this work today, great things will happen!
... while Germans motivate themselves negatively:
If I don't finish this work today, I'll lose my job, home, family and cat.
If I manage to finish this work today, great things will happen!
... while Germans motivate themselves negatively:
If I don't finish this work today, I'll lose my job, home, family and cat.
That’s questionable. Germany is social state. It has great protections for ordinary people. It’s really hard to lose everything because of bad work. Sounds more like US where you could be fired any minute without warnings.
Not entirely true. Outside of government workers who are set for life, getting fired in Germany is definitely possible for various reasons, I know many cases. There are legal processes the employer must follow in order to fire employees but nearly all companies have lawyers that take care of that process to let employees go without getting sued.
And you can fall on financial hardship if for example, you took massive loan for a house and you lost your job which happens to be in a low demand filed, making it hard to find another job quickly. You usually have your 1-3 months notice period as a buffer, but the unemployment you get after that might not cover your full expenses as that's usually around the 60% mark of your pay.
Sure, like in most of Europe, it's more difficult to become poor and homeless than in the US, but Germany doesn't give you some magic immunity talisman to never loosing your job.
And you can fall on financial hardship if for example, you took massive loan for a house and you lost your job which happens to be in a low demand filed, making it hard to find another job quickly. You usually have your 1-3 months notice period as a buffer, but the unemployment you get after that might not cover your full expenses as that's usually around the 60% mark of your pay.
Sure, like in most of Europe, it's more difficult to become poor and homeless than in the US, but Germany doesn't give you some magic immunity talisman to never loosing your job.
Yes, you can loose your job in Germany. But definitely not as easy as for example in the US. Companies need valid reasons for letting people go. And then it doesn't work like: You are fired - this is your last paycheck (only in really, really extreme cases like you stealing from your employer or punching him in the face kind of reasons).
Then there is the fact that for a time after being let go you receive a relevant share of your average salary for the last 12 months from the state while you keep looking for work.
Does it suck to be let go? Sure. Is it the end of the world in Germany? In more cases than not - it isn't.
I work in a company with even stronger employee protection as we have a so called works council. A body representing the workers towards upper management and standing in for their rights. Additionally there are strong unions in some industries in Germany that also help a lot.
Ar there areas where companies sometimes already on the side of illegalities abuse the system and workers - for sure. Esp. in the low wage sector.
Then there is the fact that for a time after being let go you receive a relevant share of your average salary for the last 12 months from the state while you keep looking for work.
Does it suck to be let go? Sure. Is it the end of the world in Germany? In more cases than not - it isn't.
I work in a company with even stronger employee protection as we have a so called works council. A body representing the workers towards upper management and standing in for their rights. Additionally there are strong unions in some industries in Germany that also help a lot.
Ar there areas where companies sometimes already on the side of illegalities abuse the system and workers - for sure. Esp. in the low wage sector.
What many outsiders don't know is that those protections you talk about don't apply much to your average Berlin startup where expats come exiting to kick back and relax and get shocked when they get ground up to a pulp in overtime.
How does that work? Are there weaker protections for foreign labor, or is it something startup-related?
The great employee protection are for those unionized German megacorps in the IG Metall brach, basically the traditional 100 year old German companies, like Mercedes, Siemens, Bosch, VW, Audi, etc. Those have the best employee protections and working conditions, albeit at the cost of usually archaic and crusty management, compensation schemes, heavy, slow and bureaucratic processes, etc.
Your average modern "move fast and break things" SW company or mobile focused startup doesn't enjoy any of those benefits and usually come with overtime expectations and pressure to ship, ship, ship.
Your average modern "move fast and break things" SW company or mobile focused startup doesn't enjoy any of those benefits and usually come with overtime expectations and pressure to ship, ship, ship.
Germans tend to rent, and overstretched mortgages aren't a thing over there. If you are fired you still have access to healthcare and unless your professional qualifications are in terribly low demand you will find work for adequate salary (unions in Germany sit on the boards). If everything else fails, you will get social security subsidies, albeit much to keep you out of poverty.
Often, these thoughts are about worst cases, and imagined outcomes so much more than realistic ones. Germans do have a word for that: "Kopfkino" (literally translated to "cinema in the head"), a state of worrying about things that becomes more darkly fantastical with every second spent on it, playing through all the imaginable adverse outcomes.
You're right. It's a societal, imagined instability.
In the US, if you lose your job, you're "between jobs". In Germany, you're "arbeitslos" (jobless), which some people use as an insult. There are entire TV channels that make fun of jobless people - think TLC type shows, but strictly about poverty and joblessness.
In the US, if you lose your job, you're "between jobs". In Germany, you're "arbeitslos" (jobless), which some people use as an insult. There are entire TV channels that make fun of jobless people - think TLC type shows, but strictly about poverty and joblessness.
There is also the term "arbeitssuchen" (= "looking for work"). It depends a little bit on the way one looks at it.
But being "arbeitslos" ("jobless") is really a stigma in Germany. At least I feel a significant share of people see it that way.
But being "arbeitslos" ("jobless") is really a stigma in Germany. At least I feel a significant share of people see it that way.
It has protection, but that doesn't mean the company will respect them and you will be compensated 18 months later after a trial. And during that time, you won't have a lot a money coming to help you.
> That is because your faith is weak, and you have too much sin in your life. If you were a true believer, you would be healed.
This is just people projecting their own insecurities. Obviously they'd like to believe that if it was them that were sick they'd be healed.
A bit like the wishful thinking around Corona.
This is just people projecting their own insecurities. Obviously they'd like to believe that if it was them that were sick they'd be healed.
A bit like the wishful thinking around Corona.
> Most people, esp. in the US especially and in Western Europe in general fake happiness. esp in public. With true friends less.
I think it's largely true. Interstingly enough there are parts of the world where faking unhappiness is the norm.
> It is impossible to engineer long term true happiness. Or at least nobody has figured it out yet.
If happiness depends on externals than its indeed immpossible, since no one can control externals all of the time.
Stoicism was such an attempt to bring about happiness. By instructing its followers to dismiss any will for externals and focus on internals instead, it aimed to make them happy. It may have been seen like a bulletproof plan.
Unfortunately for stoics, though, you can't control internals either. Freewill is at best limited.
I think it's largely true. Interstingly enough there are parts of the world where faking unhappiness is the norm.
> It is impossible to engineer long term true happiness. Or at least nobody has figured it out yet.
If happiness depends on externals than its indeed immpossible, since no one can control externals all of the time.
Stoicism was such an attempt to bring about happiness. By instructing its followers to dismiss any will for externals and focus on internals instead, it aimed to make them happy. It may have been seen like a bulletproof plan.
Unfortunately for stoics, though, you can't control internals either. Freewill is at best limited.
You can't engineer happiness, but there are things that can be done to support and foster happiness.
Some very important key factors to happiness that can be provided in a job environment are: .) self-determination \ .) a feeling of mastery/competency (or growth towards it) \ .) independence \ .) being treated fairly and equally
Managers expecting their workers to be happy and show (fake) happiness, actually goes against several of those points.
Older studies show, that small, mostly self-sufficient, self-organized teams with little managerial interference are both the happiest and most productive.
Some very important key factors to happiness that can be provided in a job environment are: .) self-determination \ .) a feeling of mastery/competency (or growth towards it) \ .) independence \ .) being treated fairly and equally
Managers expecting their workers to be happy and show (fake) happiness, actually goes against several of those points.
Older studies show, that small, mostly self-sufficient, self-organized teams with little managerial interference are both the happiest and most productive.
When it comes to work, you obviously cannot engineer happiness, but there are a number of things you can look for in an employer. If you know where to look, there are absolutely companies out there that place an emphasis on employee empathy, flexibility, kindness, etc.
I would know because I work at one such place. The thing that a lot of people are not willing to accept however is that you generally have to give up other things. I work at a nonprofit. We start at 17 days PTO and after year one you bump to 25 days. You are strongly encouraged to take it. We're given nearly $5k per year, essentially no strings attached, to be used as we see fit for continuing education efforts. Everyone is extremely kind, empathetic, and flexible. You are strongly discouraged from ever working more than 37.5 hours in a week. It's as close to heaven in an employer as I've ever found by a mile.
Of course, because it's a nonprofit, I need to take a discount on pay, to the tune of somewhere around 20% below market in the region. Is it worth my happiness though? Completely. I have no regrets and continue to work here despite interest from places willing to pay me that extra 20% and more.
I see a lot of devs getting hung up on getting "what they're worth," as if they're selling a hunk of meat to the highest bidder. If that's how you treat yourself, that's how you'll be treated in return. After about a decade of professional work, I prefer to see myself as being entered into a mutually beneficial relationship where salary is merely one piece of the picture. I've long since realized that my expenses rise/shrink to meet my salary, mostly without me noticing any actual change in quality of life, so just maximizing that number feels pointless.
This is all not to say that I don't have ambition. My ambitions are just more multifaceted than "make XXXXXXXX/yr." Feeling fulfilled by the work -- that's an ambition. Having work that energizes me rather than drains me -- that's also an ambition. And I really do mean that, you have to strive for such things. They're not going to fall into your lap. It also requires you personally to understand what happiness means (contentment and inner peace rather than chemical euphoria) and pursue that instead of alternatives.
Personally I really don't see the point in living a life of toiling away at shit work just to make an extra 20%.
Oh, and by the way, we are no slouches. We create extremely high quality products at a fast tempo - because we all love what we're doing and are invested into the mission. We work for 7.5 hours and then we turn off and enjoy life, and come back rested and refreshed the next morning.
I would know because I work at one such place. The thing that a lot of people are not willing to accept however is that you generally have to give up other things. I work at a nonprofit. We start at 17 days PTO and after year one you bump to 25 days. You are strongly encouraged to take it. We're given nearly $5k per year, essentially no strings attached, to be used as we see fit for continuing education efforts. Everyone is extremely kind, empathetic, and flexible. You are strongly discouraged from ever working more than 37.5 hours in a week. It's as close to heaven in an employer as I've ever found by a mile.
Of course, because it's a nonprofit, I need to take a discount on pay, to the tune of somewhere around 20% below market in the region. Is it worth my happiness though? Completely. I have no regrets and continue to work here despite interest from places willing to pay me that extra 20% and more.
I see a lot of devs getting hung up on getting "what they're worth," as if they're selling a hunk of meat to the highest bidder. If that's how you treat yourself, that's how you'll be treated in return. After about a decade of professional work, I prefer to see myself as being entered into a mutually beneficial relationship where salary is merely one piece of the picture. I've long since realized that my expenses rise/shrink to meet my salary, mostly without me noticing any actual change in quality of life, so just maximizing that number feels pointless.
This is all not to say that I don't have ambition. My ambitions are just more multifaceted than "make XXXXXXXX/yr." Feeling fulfilled by the work -- that's an ambition. Having work that energizes me rather than drains me -- that's also an ambition. And I really do mean that, you have to strive for such things. They're not going to fall into your lap. It also requires you personally to understand what happiness means (contentment and inner peace rather than chemical euphoria) and pursue that instead of alternatives.
Personally I really don't see the point in living a life of toiling away at shit work just to make an extra 20%.
Oh, and by the way, we are no slouches. We create extremely high quality products at a fast tempo - because we all love what we're doing and are invested into the mission. We work for 7.5 hours and then we turn off and enjoy life, and come back rested and refreshed the next morning.
I’m surrounded by a certain type of Christian that I’ve taken to calling an “Ayn Rand Christian”. The MO is: “New Testament for me, Old Testament for thee”.
IMHO when someone needs something concrete from you, and quotes one verse from the 33, but when you’re in trouble they’re happy to “pray for you” if you’re lucky, if not break out the weak faith routine you alluded to, what you’re really dealing with is the same people who give Atlas Shrugged or the Fountainhead place of privilege on their bookshelves.
I’m not a person of particularly strong religion or even spirituality, but I’m on team: the 33, while flawed, are my preferred mode of interaction over the 66.
IMHO when someone needs something concrete from you, and quotes one verse from the 33, but when you’re in trouble they’re happy to “pray for you” if you’re lucky, if not break out the weak faith routine you alluded to, what you’re really dealing with is the same people who give Atlas Shrugged or the Fountainhead place of privilege on their bookshelves.
I’m not a person of particularly strong religion or even spirituality, but I’m on team: the 33, while flawed, are my preferred mode of interaction over the 66.
I'm curious about Christianity, what does 33/66 mean specifically?
There are better sources than me for the broader history.
In roughly 420AD there was something called the “Counsel of Nicea” where representatives from different Christian sects hammered out a consensus on what counts as the “Bible”, and they reified a distinction that had predated the debate into canon: 66 books of the “Old Testament” beginning with “Genesis”, and 33 books of the “New Testament” beginning with “Matthew”, or, “The Gospel According to Matthew”, and ending with “The Book of Revelations”.
I was never a good scholar of the “Old Testament”. It’s part of the family tree that’s often called “Abrahamic”. Islam’s holy text is in this family tree in some sense.
The “New Testament” is 4 allegedly first-hand accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, a set of writings called the “Pauline Epistles”, and some other stuff (“Acts of the Apostles”, etc).
The “Old Testament” is especially complicated and random-seeming, but is broadly concerned with laws and punishments. If you’ve ever heard the phrase “an eye for an eye”, that’s very “Old Testament”.
The “New Testament” is also complicated and random-seeming, but broadly concerned withers of grace, forgiveness, compassion, and redemption.
Those are both wild oversimplifications, but I think give a flavor.
In roughly 420AD there was something called the “Counsel of Nicea” where representatives from different Christian sects hammered out a consensus on what counts as the “Bible”, and they reified a distinction that had predated the debate into canon: 66 books of the “Old Testament” beginning with “Genesis”, and 33 books of the “New Testament” beginning with “Matthew”, or, “The Gospel According to Matthew”, and ending with “The Book of Revelations”.
I was never a good scholar of the “Old Testament”. It’s part of the family tree that’s often called “Abrahamic”. Islam’s holy text is in this family tree in some sense.
The “New Testament” is 4 allegedly first-hand accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, a set of writings called the “Pauline Epistles”, and some other stuff (“Acts of the Apostles”, etc).
The “Old Testament” is especially complicated and random-seeming, but is broadly concerned with laws and punishments. If you’ve ever heard the phrase “an eye for an eye”, that’s very “Old Testament”.
The “New Testament” is also complicated and random-seeming, but broadly concerned withers of grace, forgiveness, compassion, and redemption.
Those are both wild oversimplifications, but I think give a flavor.
>I think give a flavor.
I'd agree, your post does a good job summarizing the common perception people have of biblical exoterica. There are much worse jumping off points.
My understanding is that the Council of Nicea took place in 325 AD, and had a lot more to do with church teaching and management than with establishing the canon of scripture - though secondary sources suggest canon may have been discussed there as well.
The number of the books seems to be off, I am not aware of any canon that is 33/66... It's understandable to mis-remember the number, and round it to one thirds, two thirds given that by page length, the old testament dwarfs the new.
Canon list: New/Old
Protestant: 27/39 for 66 total
Catholic: 27/46 for 73 total
Eastern Orthodox: 27/49 for 76 total
To what you said in your first post, I can commiserate with the social phenomena you're talking about... If anything, it should be "Old Testament for me New Testament for thee", to remember that our own actions carry consequences for us, and burdens of responsibility, and to be forgiving, and loving, and self sacrificing towards others. Do I do that? Not nearly enough. Can I change? I hope so.
I'd agree, your post does a good job summarizing the common perception people have of biblical exoterica. There are much worse jumping off points.
My understanding is that the Council of Nicea took place in 325 AD, and had a lot more to do with church teaching and management than with establishing the canon of scripture - though secondary sources suggest canon may have been discussed there as well.
The number of the books seems to be off, I am not aware of any canon that is 33/66... It's understandable to mis-remember the number, and round it to one thirds, two thirds given that by page length, the old testament dwarfs the new.
Canon list: New/Old
Protestant: 27/39 for 66 total
Catholic: 27/46 for 73 total
Eastern Orthodox: 27/49 for 76 total
To what you said in your first post, I can commiserate with the social phenomena you're talking about... If anything, it should be "Old Testament for me New Testament for thee", to remember that our own actions carry consequences for us, and burdens of responsibility, and to be forgiving, and loving, and self sacrificing towards others. Do I do that? Not nearly enough. Can I change? I hope so.
I'm something of an otaku about religion, and I've never heard of it. I'd like to know what he means by it too.
I replied to the sibling in some detail. It’s not my ambition to tell anyone what to believe about God: I’m quite unsure myself.
But my little primer-as-Internet comment is based on not only reading but memorizing these documents at a young age, it’s likely a reasonable place to formulate some Google search terms.
But my little primer-as-Internet comment is based on not only reading but memorizing these documents at a young age, it’s likely a reasonable place to formulate some Google search terms.
Really interesting you say that.
In Melbourne, where I am (~10% church attendance rates, most left-wing/liberal city in Australia), I see the same thing from liberal atheists.
As soon as these arbiters of morality see a friend or colleague in need, they have nothing but platitudes about mental health or mindfulness followed by a rapidly-constructed mental wall.
It wasn't until two coworkers from Brisbane experienced this, one of whom was very open about how her experience her differed to tough times back home, that I realised how fucked up it all is.
In Melbourne, where I am (~10% church attendance rates, most left-wing/liberal city in Australia), I see the same thing from liberal atheists.
As soon as these arbiters of morality see a friend or colleague in need, they have nothing but platitudes about mental health or mindfulness followed by a rapidly-constructed mental wall.
It wasn't until two coworkers from Brisbane experienced this, one of whom was very open about how her experience her differed to tough times back home, that I realised how fucked up it all is.
Well I guess I should apologize on behalf of Liberals, Atheists, and Christians at least: I’ve been some version of all of those things if we go back enough decades.
Few of even my critics would call me a fair-weather friend. And I’ve grown ever-more impatient with fair-weather friends. There’s another word for that, but everyone knows it and so I do to spend it.
Real Christianity, in my opinion, is a lot like FDR-liberalism: compassion, love, and second chances.
I don’t know what that philosophy is even called these days. I want to join that movement.
Few of even my critics would call me a fair-weather friend. And I’ve grown ever-more impatient with fair-weather friends. There’s another word for that, but everyone knows it and so I do to spend it.
Real Christianity, in my opinion, is a lot like FDR-liberalism: compassion, love, and second chances.
I don’t know what that philosophy is even called these days. I want to join that movement.
>I don’t know what that philosophy is even called these days. I want to join that movement.
In all seriousness, I think the only place to find this "movement" is offline.
In all seriousness, I think the only place to find this "movement" is offline.
There's a lot of cherry picking and hypocrisy in organized religion, even with Jesus himself making a tl;dr of the bible by going "love thy neighbour".
Agreed.
[deleted]
[deleted]
buro9(1)
For example, we were walking trough a hallway. On a wall is an old, damaged, ugly map of my country, half covered with graffiti. I'd walked past it almost every day for half a year.
He checks it out, and starts noticing a lot of semi-interesting factoids about names, merged cities, obscure places, old mapping conventions, etc... All of this with an absolute positive energy of pure interest. We spent a fun hour just looking at it. I should have known all this, and yet an hour with him makes me look at it with new eyes.
Wherever he was, he instantly attracted a group of friends and wannabe girlfriends, and never really seemed to notice. Same in this case: There was a group of beautiful partygirls we'd never met before, no nerdy interests at all, which accreted around the map in less than 5 minutes. They loved the situation just as much as us nerds did.
I learned a lot from him, and try to follow this example, but I still can't do this today and am humiliated (in a positive way) by this way of living.