4 ms·

This reads like a very good example of how not to behave if you actually want to be happy

OneGuy123 6y ago
You imply that what makes you happy makes others happy. A programmer who obsessively programms random side projects in his spare time is completely engaged with them and likes to do that because he enjoys it on some level. So if you think that this is worse than watching netflix or wasting time with mundant social interactions...well...I guess that doesn't make you bad. You're just average.
- foolmeonce 6y ago
  If you are doing whatever makes you happy, what is this style of article for? If you are trying to alter what makes you happy to be successful then maybe that is a recipe for unhappiness.
- 0x262d 6y ago
  Lol this comment is absurdly condescending. I think the issue is more with picking "abnormal" as a goal, from reading this book, and then trying to develop abnormal traits to get there; in contrast to being intrinsically motivated to work hard on and specialize in something, which is obviously fine. Additionally, one could argue that fixating on the "abnormal" language is a surface level reading of this and an unfair criticism, which I think is partially true. But if I were to rephrase "be abnormal" based on this article, it would just end up at "be unusually good", which isn't very insightful.
  - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
    > the issue is more with picking "abnormal" as a goal I actually like this language. It’s a different way of asking “what makes you different, and how can you leverage instead of fighting that?”
- switchbak 6y ago
  The opposite of being singularly driven in the way you describe is not necessarily 'watching netflix or wasting time with mundant social interactions' (sic). Do you really think those are the only two options? You've made a strawman out of his (admittedly short) response. I can imagine someone who pushes themselves outside of work, and also makes time for sports, loved ones, and other intellectual pursuits. Perhaps by cutting down on some of that mundane time wasting you mentioned.
dang 6y ago
Maybe so, but a better comment would explain why. Otherwise it just reads as a sort of "nuh-uh", which goes against the HN guideline against shallow dismissals: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
0x262d 6y ago
Yeah, this sounds like a slightly more demented, self help-ey version of Outliers. The actual bullet points here are less weird than than "be abnormal", they're more pretty standard entrepreneur-oriented self help fare.
goldenchrome 6y ago
Happiness is highly overrated and I doubt it even exists as a constant state of being. People thrive on different amounts of stress and many people need a certain amount of stress to remain sane.
- edmundsauto 6y ago
  My understanding is that people have a pretty consistent "set point" of happiness that may vary, but generally returns to the set point. See research on lotto winners.
  - barry-cotter 6y ago
    Yeah, that research didn’t hold up. * Long-run Effects of Lottery Wealth on Psychological Well-being http://www.nber.org/papers/w24667 http://www.nber.org/papers/w24667 We surveyed a large sample of Swedish lottery players about their psychological well-being and analyzed the data following pre-registered procedures. Relative to matched controls, large-prize winners experience sustained increases in overall life satisfaction that persist for over a decade and show no evidence of dissipating with time. The estimated treatment effects on happiness and mental health are significantly smaller, suggesting that wealth has greater long-run effects on evaluative measures of well-being than on affective ones. Follow-up analyses of domain-specific aspects of life satisfaction clearly implicate financial life satisfaction as an important mediator for the long-run increase in overall life satisfaction. Does Money Buy Happiness? A Longitudinal Study Using Data on Windfalls https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/ajoswald/marchwindfallsgo.pdf https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/ajoswald/march... The most fundamental idea in economics is that money makes people happy. This paper constructs a test. It studies longitudinal information on the psychological health and reported happiness of approximately 9,000 randomly chosen people. In the spirit of a natural experiment, the paper shows that those in the panel who receive windfalls -- by winning lottery money or receiving an inheritance -- have higher mental wellbeing in the following year. A windfall of 50,000 pounds (approximately 75,000 US dollars) is associated with a rise in wellbeing of between 0.1 and 0.3 standard deviations. Approximately one million pounds (1.5 million dollars), therefore, would be needed to move someone from close to the bottom of a happiness frequency distribution to close to the top. Whether these happiness gains wear off over time remains an open question
zajio1am 6y ago
Why should one strive to be happy instead of strive to do something meaningful?
- holografix 6y ago
  Because one is not a robot. Our purpose in life is not to serve others and be useful without serving ourselves. Doing both is great of course, and leads to the most successful societies we have today.

You imply that what makes you happy makes others happy. A programmer who obsessively programms random side projects in his spare time is completely engaged with them and likes to do that because he enjoys it on some level. So if you think that this is worse than watching netflix or wasting time with mundant social interactions...well...I guess that doesn't make you bad. You're just average.

foolmeonce 6y ago
If you are doing whatever makes you happy, what is this style of article for? If you are trying to alter what makes you happy to be successful then maybe that is a recipe for unhappiness.
0x262d 6y ago
Lol this comment is absurdly condescending. I think the issue is more with picking "abnormal" as a goal, from reading this book, and then trying to develop abnormal traits to get there; in contrast to being intrinsically motivated to work hard on and specialize in something, which is obviously fine. Additionally, one could argue that fixating on the "abnormal" language is a surface level reading of this and an unfair criticism, which I think is partially true. But if I were to rephrase "be abnormal" based on this article, it would just end up at "be unusually good", which isn't very insightful.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago
  > the issue is more with picking "abnormal" as a goal I actually like this language. It’s a different way of asking “what makes you different, and how can you leverage instead of fighting that?”
switchbak 6y ago
The opposite of being singularly driven in the way you describe is not necessarily 'watching netflix or wasting time with mundant social interactions' (sic). Do you really think those are the only two options? You've made a strawman out of his (admittedly short) response. I can imagine someone who pushes themselves outside of work, and also makes time for sports, loved ones, and other intellectual pursuits. Perhaps by cutting down on some of that mundane time wasting you mentioned.

dang 6y ago

Maybe so, but a better comment would explain why. Otherwise it just reads as a sort of "nuh-uh", which goes against the HN guideline against shallow dismissals: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

0x262d 6y ago

Yeah, this sounds like a slightly more demented, self help-ey version of Outliers. The actual bullet points here are less weird than than "be abnormal", they're more pretty standard entrepreneur-oriented self help fare.

goldenchrome 6y ago

Happiness is highly overrated and I doubt it even exists as a constant state of being. People thrive on different amounts of stress and many people need a certain amount of stress to remain sane.

edmundsauto 6y ago
My understanding is that people have a pretty consistent "set point" of happiness that may vary, but generally returns to the set point. See research on lotto winners.
- barry-cotter 6y ago
  Yeah, that research didn’t hold up. * Long-run Effects of Lottery Wealth on Psychological Well-being http://www.nber.org/papers/w24667 http://www.nber.org/papers/w24667 We surveyed a large sample of Swedish lottery players about their psychological well-being and analyzed the data following pre-registered procedures. Relative to matched controls, large-prize winners experience sustained increases in overall life satisfaction that persist for over a decade and show no evidence of dissipating with time. The estimated treatment effects on happiness and mental health are significantly smaller, suggesting that wealth has greater long-run effects on evaluative measures of well-being than on affective ones. Follow-up analyses of domain-specific aspects of life satisfaction clearly implicate financial life satisfaction as an important mediator for the long-run increase in overall life satisfaction. Does Money Buy Happiness? A Longitudinal Study Using Data on Windfalls https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/ajoswald/marchwindfallsgo.pdf https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/ajoswald/march... The most fundamental idea in economics is that money makes people happy. This paper constructs a test. It studies longitudinal information on the psychological health and reported happiness of approximately 9,000 randomly chosen people. In the spirit of a natural experiment, the paper shows that those in the panel who receive windfalls -- by winning lottery money or receiving an inheritance -- have higher mental wellbeing in the following year. A windfall of 50,000 pounds (approximately 75,000 US dollars) is associated with a rise in wellbeing of between 0.1 and 0.3 standard deviations. Approximately one million pounds (1.5 million dollars), therefore, would be needed to move someone from close to the bottom of a happiness frequency distribution to close to the top. Whether these happiness gains wear off over time remains an open question

zajio1am 6y ago

Why should one strive to be happy instead of strive to do something meaningful?

holografix 6y ago
Because one is not a robot. Our purpose in life is not to serve others and be useful without serving ourselves. Doing both is great of course, and leads to the most successful societies we have today.