5 ms·

> Your examples require a lot of external resources and material goods to achieve, and the services of others. I find it interesting that you think this about

> Your examples require a lot of external resources and material goods to achieve, and the services of others. I find it interesting that you think this about becoming an Olympian, but not about being mentally stable and happy. Are you sure you are not simply labeling the thing you are unable to do as something requiring a lot of external resources, and then labeling the thing you are able to do as something not requiring such? Because I would certainly argue that becoming purposefully happy seems sufficiently out of reach for most people that it probably requires some external resources. Like a good social influence, for starters. Someone at least needs to be there to even tell you about such things. > What we're talking about is possibly altering your food intake, maybe a supplement or two, and other than that it's just your own self discipline. That's quite a caveat. Self-discipline is a fairly nebulous thing, how are you going to evaluate it? What is it chemically? Why do some seem to have less and some more? At what point would you stop saying: "Just get more self-discipline" towards a problem? Why is self-discipline not recommended for people with depression, anxiety, etc., if what you're saying is true? > Because everyone has a brain and a will and those are in the vast majority of cases all you need to do it. This looks like a claim, but I'm not sure what you're supporting it with. Some people have very poor brains, where does that fit in in your hypothesis? Should this have been prefixed with "healthy, standard brain"? Because that cuts out a pretty big chunk of people. > I've made radical changes to how I think in the last few years and in so doing have greatly improved the quality of my life, and the first step on that journey was realizing that I was just a regular guy, I would never be a celebrity, never be very wealthy, never be famous and never be some massive achiever, and that there was nothing wrong with that. I think the main problem with this thinking is that it's very unlikely that you're an average guy, and I'm curious as to when was the last time you've seen a truly average person. Or how about below average person. Chances are, that by all standard metrics - intelligence, social skills, income, health, etc., you're not average. You're not a celebrity, either, but I don't know why you're so concerned with the top 1% when there's 49% in between you could be in. The core question here is this: if it is all so available, and so straightforward, and open to everyone, and requires one to simply be human with a brain and nothing else, why is it, then, that nobody does it? Why do people choose to be unhappy, why do they choose to be fat?

FussyZeus 10y ago
> I find it interesting that you think this about becoming an Olympian, but not about being mentally stable and happy. Now hold on, you never said anything about mental state, we're talking about a healthy person choosing to be happy here (or at least I was). If you have depression or stress disorders or anything of that nature then yes, obviously more is required. The flip side of that: Someone who is otherwise in a fit mental state can choose to be happy in the way we've discussed. > That's quite a caveat. Self-discipline is a fairly nebulous thing, how are you going to evaluate it? What is it chemically? Why do we need to evaluate it? > Why do some seem to have less and some more? At what point would you stop saying: "Just get more self-discipline" towards a problem? I think a lot of it has to do with how you're raised and the values you're given in your developmental years, but like anything else it's something that's practiced and honed. I'm not perfect by any stretch, I have down days like anyone else. As to when you stop, I feel like that's connected to this: > This looks like a claim, but I'm not sure what you're supporting it with. Some people have very poor brains, where does that fit in in your hypothesis? Should this have been prefixed with "healthy, standard brain"? Because that cuts out a pretty big chunk of people. And: > Why is self-discipline not recommended for people with depression, anxiety, etc., if what you're saying is true? Which yes, I am talking about otherwise mentally healthy people but I'd disagree with you that such a statement excludes a lot of people. I think a lot more people are what we would say are "normal" than not. > The core question here is this: if it is all so available, and so straightforward, and open to everyone, and requires one to simply be human with a brain and nothing else, why is it, then, that nobody does it? Why do people choose to be unhappy, why do they choose to be fat? Well speaking as someone who's also working on being way too fat for my own good, it's because that's what we're programmed to be. Growing up poor food is the only luxury you really have so every celebration, the good times, are built around big meals and as such I have an issue with comfort eating. It's getting better but just like cultivating happiness it's something that takes constant self policing. The nice thing is, the happiness went first, and that makes comfort eating less necessary by itself. As has been said elsewhere in the thread, advertising, a huge part of all our lives is built on the idea of convincing people who otherwise wouldn't be aware of a product that they need that product to be happy. Is it such a logical leap that this constant barrage of messages would make people unhappy if they weren't consciously aware of the message and why it's being used that way?

FussyZeus 10y ago

> I find it interesting that you think this about becoming an Olympian, but not about being mentally stable and happy. Now hold on, you never said anything about mental state, we're talking about a healthy person choosing to be happy here (or at least I was). If you have depression or stress disorders or anything of that nature then yes, obviously more is required. The flip side of that: Someone who is otherwise in a fit mental state can choose to be happy in the way we've discussed. > That's quite a caveat. Self-discipline is a fairly nebulous thing, how are you going to evaluate it? What is it chemically? Why do we need to evaluate it? > Why do some seem to have less and some more? At what point would you stop saying: "Just get more self-discipline" towards a problem? I think a lot of it has to do with how you're raised and the values you're given in your developmental years, but like anything else it's something that's practiced and honed. I'm not perfect by any stretch, I have down days like anyone else. As to when you stop, I feel like that's connected to this: > This looks like a claim, but I'm not sure what you're supporting it with. Some people have very poor brains, where does that fit in in your hypothesis? Should this have been prefixed with "healthy, standard brain"? Because that cuts out a pretty big chunk of people. And: > Why is self-discipline not recommended for people with depression, anxiety, etc., if what you're saying is true? Which yes, I am talking about otherwise mentally healthy people but I'd disagree with you that such a statement excludes a lot of people. I think a lot more people are what we would say are "normal" than not. > The core question here is this: if it is all so available, and so straightforward, and open to everyone, and requires one to simply be human with a brain and nothing else, why is it, then, that nobody does it? Why do people choose to be unhappy, why do they choose to be fat? Well speaking as someone who's also working on being way too fat for my own good, it's because that's what we're programmed to be. Growing up poor food is the only luxury you really have so every celebration, the good times, are built around big meals and as such I have an issue with comfort eating. It's getting better but just like cultivating happiness it's something that takes constant self policing. The nice thing is, the happiness went first, and that makes comfort eating less necessary by itself. As has been said elsewhere in the thread, advertising, a huge part of all our lives is built on the idea of convincing people who otherwise wouldn't be aware of a product that they need that product to be happy. Is it such a logical leap that this constant barrage of messages would make people unhappy if they weren't consciously aware of the message and why it's being used that way?