8 ms·

I just listened to an episode of The Happiness Podcast and it made it clear that obsession over goals and other people's validation kills our natural passion. I

I just listened to an episode of The Happiness Podcast and it made it clear that obsession over goals and other people's validation kills our natural passion. I don't know about you, but passion is what I'm really after -- the kind of state where you get lost in your work and love what you do. It may be easy to dismiss Bukowski's advice because his abrasive and cynical delivery style, but I think he has a point. Follow your interests, and try to forget about your ego and the rest of the world. (However, at the same time, I think it's important to be consistent and develop good habits that will prevent you from quitting at the first roadblock.)

nathan_compton 7y ago
What do you think this insight tells you about macro-economic policy and the structure of our current society? Isn't the whole idea of capitalism to force most people to align themselves to exterior goals?
- asdfman123 7y ago
  I'm not sure what you mean. Could you explain your question in more depth?
- pmichaud 7y ago
  Yes, and we're reaping the rewards. I mean that in both the sincere and the cynical sense.
- greggyb 7y ago
  > Isn't the whole idea of capitalism to force most people to align themselves to exterior goals? No more than a subsistence living as a hunter-gatherer, and in fact, likely less so. If you live absolutely primitively, then your circumstances force you to align your life and habits to those behaviors that sustain life. There is something external to yourself which constrains the actions that contribute to your continued survival. The whole idea of capitalism is this: If you want something you do not have, then you must offer to those who have it something that those people value. There is something external to yourself which constrains the actions that contribute to your continued survival. This may force you to align your life and habits differently than in the subsistence scenario, but not necessarily more so. In each scenario, there are things you can control, namely your actions and behavior. You can take actions which convert into shelter, water, and food. Whether there is nature or human volition on the other side doesn't matter so much. There are actions you can take which support your survival, and actions which don't. That the actions are different is not germane to the question as posed - there are external constraints that determine which of your own actions contribute to life. As a side note, there is nothing inherently uncapitalistic about the subsistence scenario[0]. If you build yourself a shelter, do you consider that you own the shelter and get to control its use? If you do, this is capitalistic. [0] This is phrased as a negative on purpose. I am not claiming that the subsistence scenario is inherently capitalistic.
  - greggyb 7y ago
    Noting as a reply, rather than an edit. Neither scenario I described implies that the entirety of one's life must be devoted to subsistence. The fact that the vast majority of people participating in a capitalistic society consume at a rate greater than mere subsistence indicates that they value luxury[0] more than passion, at least over some curve of resource consumption beyond subsistence. There may be an intersection point where marginal passion is valued more than marginal luxury. I will make no statement or judgment about where this intersection occurs, though you are free to. [0] Here, I am using "luxury" in a non-standard way - to indicate those things which are beyond subsistence. In this definition, all resources beyond the minimum required to support life are luxuries. I don't have a better word to use. This is a reductive definition. Anything beyond the barest shelter and minimum calories to survive is luxury for the purpose of this definition and the argument in which it is used.
  - elmomle 7y ago
    What you cited as the whole idea of capitalism is actually the whole idea of trade, which existed long before capitalism. The idea of capitalism is that the profits brought in by one's assets and labor can be reinvested in more assets or rented labor, which further increases the inflow of money as long as there is unmet market demand for whatever it is that you're doing. Likewise, building yourself a cabin in the woods is not a capitalist enterprise unless you plan on renting out that cabin and using the proceeds to build more cabins.
    - astine 7y ago
      "What you cited as the whole idea of capitalism is actually the whole idea of trade, which existed long before capitalism." Trade and property are what people usually mean by 'capitalism'. I mean, yes, Marx popularized the term to refer to specific things he saw in the economies of Europe in his time, but when people refer to 'capitalism' today they mostly aren't referring to those things. They are referring to an economy built on private property and free markets.
    - greggyb 7y ago
      Capitalism is fundamentally based on private ownership. The rest falls out of it. If I own and control something, and you own and control something else, trade is a natural byproduct. If I own and control something, then of course I can reap benefits from it in the future. Building a completely isolated cabin in the woods that I have no intention of any other human even seeing is capitalist insofar as I assume property rights over it. I am investing time and effort now to build a large, durable structure that I may reap the interest for the remainder of my life, that interest being the durability in storms and the saved effort of rebuilding semi-permanent shelter on a recurring basis. This is exactly profit brought in by one's assets and labors. I may choose to invest the saved time in other activities, such as tool-building to make the rest of my life easier. Of course, no man is an island. The concept of capitalism means little in the absence of other humans, though as we see above it can still have some small meaning. If I exist in some loose society where I interact with others and they may see and interact with my cabin, it matters much more if I assume property rights over it. Even if I do not ever allow another human to interact with the cabin, I reap the same benefits of my investment discussed above. Note, I've not brought up the idea of money yet. Money is absolutely not required for us to be able to describe something as capitalistic. This is a common misunderstanding, as "capital" today often refers to cash and cash-valued assets. Now, I am not trying to make a claim that capitalism is necessary for trade, simply that capitalism is sufficient for trade. Similarly capitalism is not necessary for the idea of investing for the long term, merely sufficient. We could, of course, talk through a thought experiment where humans in a socialistic society build a cabin or cabins and this community accrues benefits as we've discussed.
- asdfman123 7y ago
  If I understand your question correctly, capitalism has no goal. It's mainly driven by people whose goal it is to increase their own wealth. It's contributed to by people who want to provide for their families. At times, capitalism has crushed people and kept them in miserable jobs in the interests of increasing wealth. It has overthrown democratically elected governments for the benefit of private fruit companies. I am not anti capitalist, in fact I think it's better than all the other awful systems we know about, but just because it is doesn't mean it's optimal. I don't think a society built out of human beings can be optimal.
cortesoft 7y ago
Sadly, a lot of people's interests (or their interests combined with their lack of ability, connections, etc) don't put enough food on the table. "Forget about the rest of the world" isn't helpful if someone has a family to support, or even themselves. It is pretty privileged to think everyone can choose to only work in a field of their choosing... I don't know if many janitors have an 'interest' in cleaning toilets... they have an interest in supporting themselves. I have always appreciated Mike Rowe's views on work and this idea... it is ok to just work to make money, and find meaning in other parts of your life.
- slothtrop 7y ago
  I think this is in address to creative types. It's ok to be a creative and have a day-job. I'll say this, though. I hate development less than I would one of Rowe's jobs.
- vanusa 7y ago
  Then you just have to decide what your primary goal is: Is it to create a piece of (truly) original artistic expression? Or is it to... put food on the table? Both are perfectly valid. But -- as you are correct in noting -- quite different.
  - homonculus1 7y ago
    Everybody's primary goal is to put food on the table! You must be pretty insulated from the hard realities of life if you think people can simply treat survival as optional.
    - vanusa 7y ago
      Everybody's primary goal is to put food on the table! I meant your goal in choosing to do creative work, obviously. Not in a hierarchy-of-needs sense.
      - cortesoft 7y ago
        But I was speaking in a hierarchy-of-needs sense. Not everyone gets to the point where you can choose to do creative work.
rb808 7y ago
One problem I've had that I can easily follow my interests and ignore external validation or doing what others think is best. The problem is I've found often that 10 years later I realized I didn't see the bigger picture and should have done other things. Often following your natural passion takes you into a suboptimal path and you should have just made money & friends like everyone else.
- reedx8 7y ago
  I agree. I think the normal, well beaten path of simply chasing money and making friends is the best way to be both happy and succesful. To me it’s an average life, but mix luck in and you get fame and fortune.
- oceanghost 7y ago
  Wow, this cuts to the bone. I do this too.
munificent 7y ago
> the kind of state where you get lost in your work and love what you do. I don't disagree, but one of the challenges is that humans have become really good at synthesizing devices that artificially give you that sensation at the expense of future regret. We call them "games". For me, playing a good videogame (I'm particularly prone to Minecraft and roguelikes) exactly gives me that delightful incremental reward lost-in-the-process flow state. It's so good that I can lose myself in it for hours. But then when I look up and see I've spent the entire night on it, I regret the lost opportunity to do something more meaningful for myself and others. So, for me, I try to seek out activities that blend enjoying the process and enjoying* the outcome. Too much of the former feels like a waste of time. Too much of the latter feels inauthentic and like a grind. There is a sweet spot in the middle for passions that do involve some chore and grunt work, but are also joyful and leave me with an artifact I feel good about and can share with the world. That positive outcome helps motivate me to get through the un-fun parts. Of course, if you don't feel regret, then by all means game away. But I do. Beyond a certain point, playing games feels like eating junk food. Gloriously satisfying during, but unnourishing and regretful afterwards.
- homonculus1 7y ago
  You raise some interesting points here. I think that deep certainty that your time was well-spent comes a lot from others' appreciation. If my friends inhabited and appreciated the structures I build in Minecraft as much as I do then it would be just as fulfilling as when I give them something I made with my hands. As it is it does feel slightly empty even though I enjoy it so much that I sketch plans up while I'm at work.
- asdfman123 7y ago
  I suppose the key is that your hobby satisfies some deeper need your soul wants, like intellectual, artistic or emotional growth and expression. I know some people say they find growth and meaning through the storylines in video games and I'm not trying to invalidate that, but I find I personally get way more rewards from reading a challenging book or learning an instrument or developing a hobby or something.
  - 7y ago
appleshore 7y ago
As a counter point, I think obsession over goals and intense work ethic can bring immense happiness. Allows you to eventually explore and build projects you want to. To live in a home not plagued by disruptions and slum lords. To access lawyers if you need them. I think most people are just boring, lack imagination and don’t know anything interesting to do. Perhaps it’s tied to their ability to excel at a high paying job. But more likely, I’d say people are just diminished by education and life but somehow never can change. I know a lot of rich people who are terribly unhappy and do nothing at all with their vast wealth.
- medion 7y ago
  This. I think people generally are just really boring and don't have the capacity to think about all the extraordinary things they could be doing with their limited time on the planet. The world is infinite and extraordinary and full of joy and pain and suffering and intrigue - most people through upbringing, education and lack of long term thinking, cannot see past menial jobs, solving menial problems of no real value - simply because it passes the time and gives you a little lazy leisure and the occasional pat on the back from your superiors.
  - musicale 7y ago
    Our socioeconomic system is great at delivering hefty and immediate penalties to people who try to escape being a cog in the machine: loss of income (and often access to food/shelter/health care/etc.), loss of social status and connections, and becoming an outcast from one's (former) community. I can't blame people who don't find these punishments attractive.
    - medion 7y ago
      One doesn't have to become a homeless person living in the forest - look at artists as an example - why are they revered so much? Because they have managed to live as outliers outside of the norm.
      - 7y ago
pimmen 7y ago
Passion is important, it's what makes you unique and fulfills your life, but you need other people to achieve it and thus you need to do things they expect of you. Sometimes, in order for them to even give you a chance, you need to impress them when you're introduced.

nathan_compton 7y ago

What do you think this insight tells you about macro-economic policy and the structure of our current society? Isn't the whole idea of capitalism to force most people to align themselves to exterior goals?

asdfman123 7y ago
I'm not sure what you mean. Could you explain your question in more depth?
pmichaud 7y ago
Yes, and we're reaping the rewards. I mean that in both the sincere and the cynical sense.
greggyb 7y ago
> Isn't the whole idea of capitalism to force most people to align themselves to exterior goals? No more than a subsistence living as a hunter-gatherer, and in fact, likely less so. If you live absolutely primitively, then your circumstances force you to align your life and habits to those behaviors that sustain life. There is something external to yourself which constrains the actions that contribute to your continued survival. The whole idea of capitalism is this: If you want something you do not have, then you must offer to those who have it something that those people value. There is something external to yourself which constrains the actions that contribute to your continued survival. This may force you to align your life and habits differently than in the subsistence scenario, but not necessarily more so. In each scenario, there are things you can control, namely your actions and behavior. You can take actions which convert into shelter, water, and food. Whether there is nature or human volition on the other side doesn't matter so much. There are actions you can take which support your survival, and actions which don't. That the actions are different is not germane to the question as posed - there are external constraints that determine which of your own actions contribute to life. As a side note, there is nothing inherently uncapitalistic about the subsistence scenario[0]. If you build yourself a shelter, do you consider that you own the shelter and get to control its use? If you do, this is capitalistic. [0] This is phrased as a negative on purpose. I am not claiming that the subsistence scenario is inherently capitalistic.
- greggyb 7y ago
  Noting as a reply, rather than an edit. Neither scenario I described implies that the entirety of one's life must be devoted to subsistence. The fact that the vast majority of people participating in a capitalistic society consume at a rate greater than mere subsistence indicates that they value luxury[0] more than passion, at least over some curve of resource consumption beyond subsistence. There may be an intersection point where marginal passion is valued more than marginal luxury. I will make no statement or judgment about where this intersection occurs, though you are free to. [0] Here, I am using "luxury" in a non-standard way - to indicate those things which are beyond subsistence. In this definition, all resources beyond the minimum required to support life are luxuries. I don't have a better word to use. This is a reductive definition. Anything beyond the barest shelter and minimum calories to survive is luxury for the purpose of this definition and the argument in which it is used.
- elmomle 7y ago
  What you cited as the whole idea of capitalism is actually the whole idea of trade, which existed long before capitalism. The idea of capitalism is that the profits brought in by one's assets and labor can be reinvested in more assets or rented labor, which further increases the inflow of money as long as there is unmet market demand for whatever it is that you're doing. Likewise, building yourself a cabin in the woods is not a capitalist enterprise unless you plan on renting out that cabin and using the proceeds to build more cabins.
  - astine 7y ago
    "What you cited as the whole idea of capitalism is actually the whole idea of trade, which existed long before capitalism." Trade and property are what people usually mean by 'capitalism'. I mean, yes, Marx popularized the term to refer to specific things he saw in the economies of Europe in his time, but when people refer to 'capitalism' today they mostly aren't referring to those things. They are referring to an economy built on private property and free markets.
  - greggyb 7y ago
    Capitalism is fundamentally based on private ownership. The rest falls out of it. If I own and control something, and you own and control something else, trade is a natural byproduct. If I own and control something, then of course I can reap benefits from it in the future. Building a completely isolated cabin in the woods that I have no intention of any other human even seeing is capitalist insofar as I assume property rights over it. I am investing time and effort now to build a large, durable structure that I may reap the interest for the remainder of my life, that interest being the durability in storms and the saved effort of rebuilding semi-permanent shelter on a recurring basis. This is exactly profit brought in by one's assets and labors. I may choose to invest the saved time in other activities, such as tool-building to make the rest of my life easier. Of course, no man is an island. The concept of capitalism means little in the absence of other humans, though as we see above it can still have some small meaning. If I exist in some loose society where I interact with others and they may see and interact with my cabin, it matters much more if I assume property rights over it. Even if I do not ever allow another human to interact with the cabin, I reap the same benefits of my investment discussed above. Note, I've not brought up the idea of money yet. Money is absolutely not required for us to be able to describe something as capitalistic. This is a common misunderstanding, as "capital" today often refers to cash and cash-valued assets. Now, I am not trying to make a claim that capitalism is necessary for trade, simply that capitalism is sufficient for trade. Similarly capitalism is not necessary for the idea of investing for the long term, merely sufficient. We could, of course, talk through a thought experiment where humans in a socialistic society build a cabin or cabins and this community accrues benefits as we've discussed.
asdfman123 7y ago
If I understand your question correctly, capitalism has no goal. It's mainly driven by people whose goal it is to increase their own wealth. It's contributed to by people who want to provide for their families. At times, capitalism has crushed people and kept them in miserable jobs in the interests of increasing wealth. It has overthrown democratically elected governments for the benefit of private fruit companies. I am not anti capitalist, in fact I think it's better than all the other awful systems we know about, but just because it is doesn't mean it's optimal. I don't think a society built out of human beings can be optimal.

cortesoft 7y ago

Sadly, a lot of people's interests (or their interests combined with their lack of ability, connections, etc) don't put enough food on the table. "Forget about the rest of the world" isn't helpful if someone has a family to support, or even themselves. It is pretty privileged to think everyone can choose to only work in a field of their choosing... I don't know if many janitors have an 'interest' in cleaning toilets... they have an interest in supporting themselves. I have always appreciated Mike Rowe's views on work and this idea... it is ok to just work to make money, and find meaning in other parts of your life.

slothtrop 7y ago
I think this is in address to creative types. It's ok to be a creative and have a day-job. I'll say this, though. I hate development less than I would one of Rowe's jobs.
vanusa 7y ago
Then you just have to decide what your primary goal is: Is it to create a piece of (truly) original artistic expression? Or is it to... put food on the table? Both are perfectly valid. But -- as you are correct in noting -- quite different.
- homonculus1 7y ago
  Everybody's primary goal is to put food on the table! You must be pretty insulated from the hard realities of life if you think people can simply treat survival as optional.
  - vanusa 7y ago
    Everybody's primary goal is to put food on the table! I meant your goal in choosing to do creative work, obviously. Not in a hierarchy-of-needs sense.
    - cortesoft 7y ago
      But I was speaking in a hierarchy-of-needs sense. Not everyone gets to the point where you can choose to do creative work.

rb808 7y ago

One problem I've had that I can easily follow my interests and ignore external validation or doing what others think is best. The problem is I've found often that 10 years later I realized I didn't see the bigger picture and should have done other things. Often following your natural passion takes you into a suboptimal path and you should have just made money & friends like everyone else.

reedx8 7y ago
I agree. I think the normal, well beaten path of simply chasing money and making friends is the best way to be both happy and succesful. To me it’s an average life, but mix luck in and you get fame and fortune.
oceanghost 7y ago
Wow, this cuts to the bone. I do this too.

munificent 7y ago

> the kind of state where you get lost in your work and love what you do. I don't disagree, but one of the challenges is that humans have become really good at synthesizing devices that artificially give you that sensation at the expense of future regret. We call them "games". For me, playing a good videogame (I'm particularly prone to Minecraft and roguelikes) exactly gives me that delightful incremental reward lost-in-the-process flow state. It's so good that I can lose myself in it for hours. But then when I look up and see I've spent the entire night on it, I regret the lost opportunity to do something more meaningful for myself and others. So, for me, I try to seek out activities that blend enjoying the process and enjoying* the outcome. Too much of the former feels like a waste of time. Too much of the latter feels inauthentic and like a grind. There is a sweet spot in the middle for passions that do involve some chore and grunt work, but are also joyful and leave me with an artifact I feel good about and can share with the world. That positive outcome helps motivate me to get through the un-fun parts. Of course, if you don't feel regret, then by all means game away. But I do. Beyond a certain point, playing games feels like eating junk food. Gloriously satisfying during, but unnourishing and regretful afterwards.

homonculus1 7y ago
You raise some interesting points here. I think that deep certainty that your time was well-spent comes a lot from others' appreciation. If my friends inhabited and appreciated the structures I build in Minecraft as much as I do then it would be just as fulfilling as when I give them something I made with my hands. As it is it does feel slightly empty even though I enjoy it so much that I sketch plans up while I'm at work.
asdfman123 7y ago
I suppose the key is that your hobby satisfies some deeper need your soul wants, like intellectual, artistic or emotional growth and expression. I know some people say they find growth and meaning through the storylines in video games and I'm not trying to invalidate that, but I find I personally get way more rewards from reading a challenging book or learning an instrument or developing a hobby or something.
- 7y ago

appleshore 7y ago

As a counter point, I think obsession over goals and intense work ethic can bring immense happiness. Allows you to eventually explore and build projects you want to. To live in a home not plagued by disruptions and slum lords. To access lawyers if you need them. I think most people are just boring, lack imagination and don’t know anything interesting to do. Perhaps it’s tied to their ability to excel at a high paying job. But more likely, I’d say people are just diminished by education and life but somehow never can change. I know a lot of rich people who are terribly unhappy and do nothing at all with their vast wealth.

medion 7y ago
This. I think people generally are just really boring and don't have the capacity to think about all the extraordinary things they could be doing with their limited time on the planet. The world is infinite and extraordinary and full of joy and pain and suffering and intrigue - most people through upbringing, education and lack of long term thinking, cannot see past menial jobs, solving menial problems of no real value - simply because it passes the time and gives you a little lazy leisure and the occasional pat on the back from your superiors.
- musicale 7y ago
  Our socioeconomic system is great at delivering hefty and immediate penalties to people who try to escape being a cog in the machine: loss of income (and often access to food/shelter/health care/etc.), loss of social status and connections, and becoming an outcast from one's (former) community. I can't blame people who don't find these punishments attractive.
  - medion 7y ago
    One doesn't have to become a homeless person living in the forest - look at artists as an example - why are they revered so much? Because they have managed to live as outliers outside of the norm.
    - 7y ago

pimmen 7y ago

Passion is important, it's what makes you unique and fulfills your life, but you need other people to achieve it and thus you need to do things they expect of you. Sometimes, in order for them to even give you a chance, you need to impress them when you're introduced.