13 ms·

Having been on both sides of this argument, here's the other side's perspective: Picture two hamsters. Each knows they ate recently, but it's been a while. Is

Having been on both sides of this argument, here's the other side's perspective: Picture two hamsters. Each knows they ate recently, but it's been a while. Is their owner coming back to feed them soon? They don't know, in a constant state of uncertainty. One hamster realizes that running on the wheel and being very loud sometimes causes them to get fed. They don't know it will help, but it might. So this hamster spends all their time on the wheel. The other hamster relaxes, enjoying life and trusting in what life will provide. -- Personally, I think happiness vs. work is just a tale which people like to convey as a binary choice. Neither is better than the other, because in reality it's not a binary choice but a gradient of luck. The impact of the choice isn't what matters, it's personal perspective of best outcome that matters.

saghm 4y ago
I agree with your assessment that most people don't have a choice not to work, but I'm not sure I find the metaphor to be a compelling case for it. In both the hamster scenario and real life, there's a choice to work or not which has some variable effect on the likelihood of getting fed, but due to the effect of the hamster's work being minuscule compared to a human's in terms of influencing whether they're fed, the choice to work or not is easy. This might just be one of those things where I tend to interpret things too directly, but the idea that "choosing not to run on the wheel is like choosing to be happy" feels like a way less obvious interpretation than "choosing to run on the wheel is choosing to work".
- slimsag 4y ago
  The metaphor is that there is some baseline you must do to get fed each day / live. For the hamster, it just happens by nature of living in a cage - but it's not pleasant ("will I get fed today?" being a constant concern) For people who work low income jobs, it's similar and the cage is the job(s). Both hamsters are in a cage (job to live), and yes - when one is more noisy, runs more, etc. (works real hard) the owner notices it more frequently and gives it food, treats, etc. (better pay) The question is, which hamster has a better life?
  - ushakov 4y ago
    > The question is, which hamster has a better life? neither of them, because they're both dependant on someone else to give them food
wnolens 4y ago
> They don't know it will help, but it might. So this hamster spends all their time on the wheel. This is the salient part of the analogy. I like it a lot. I don't know that all this hard work and reaching for career heights will matter in the end.. but I'm not more confident in a different strategy (else I would do that). So I justify my immediate misery for a chance to benefit the future. I think my then problem way too much focus on the future.
esotericsean 4y ago
Great analogy, but I was waiting for the part where the hamsters suddenly have unlimited food. In that scenario, does they each continue their previous lifestyle to a certain extent? The hard working hamster continues running on the wheel because he realizes he enjoys it?
stevezsa8 4y ago
"trusting in what life will provide" is a bit new-age I feel. The analogy is comforting. But maybe something more realistic would be like this: -- Picture two hamsters. One works constantly to pay off his hamster-mansion, and hamster-sports-car. He can't spend much time with his family. The hamster-kids are at a fancy hamster-school far way. The other hamsters earns less, but makes time for playing boardgames with the hamper-family. They have a modest hampster-home, and all take a low cost trip to visit their hamster family throughout the year.

saghm 4y ago

I agree with your assessment that most people don't have a choice not to work, but I'm not sure I find the metaphor to be a compelling case for it. In both the hamster scenario and real life, there's a choice to work or not which has some variable effect on the likelihood of getting fed, but due to the effect of the hamster's work being minuscule compared to a human's in terms of influencing whether they're fed, the choice to work or not is easy. This might just be one of those things where I tend to interpret things too directly, but the idea that "choosing not to run on the wheel is like choosing to be happy" feels like a way less obvious interpretation than "choosing to run on the wheel is choosing to work".

slimsag 4y ago
The metaphor is that there is some baseline you must do to get fed each day / live. For the hamster, it just happens by nature of living in a cage - but it's not pleasant ("will I get fed today?" being a constant concern) For people who work low income jobs, it's similar and the cage is the job(s). Both hamsters are in a cage (job to live), and yes - when one is more noisy, runs more, etc. (works real hard) the owner notices it more frequently and gives it food, treats, etc. (better pay) The question is, which hamster has a better life?
- ushakov 4y ago
  > The question is, which hamster has a better life? neither of them, because they're both dependant on someone else to give them food

wnolens 4y ago

> They don't know it will help, but it might. So this hamster spends all their time on the wheel. This is the salient part of the analogy. I like it a lot. I don't know that all this hard work and reaching for career heights will matter in the end.. but I'm not more confident in a different strategy (else I would do that). So I justify my immediate misery for a chance to benefit the future. I think my then problem way too much focus on the future.

esotericsean 4y ago

Great analogy, but I was waiting for the part where the hamsters suddenly have unlimited food. In that scenario, does they each continue their previous lifestyle to a certain extent? The hard working hamster continues running on the wheel because he realizes he enjoys it?

stevezsa8 4y ago

"trusting in what life will provide" is a bit new-age I feel. The analogy is comforting. But maybe something more realistic would be like this: -- Picture two hamsters. One works constantly to pay off his hamster-mansion, and hamster-sports-car. He can't spend much time with his family. The hamster-kids are at a fancy hamster-school far way. The other hamsters earns less, but makes time for playing boardgames with the hamper-family. They have a modest hampster-home, and all take a low cost trip to visit their hamster family throughout the year.