5 ms·

The point being made is that HN is meant for discussion; so I'd assume you wouldn't see any value in discussing that topic on the forum. I think it's fair to s

by bumby 4y ago

The point being made is that HN is meant for discussion; so I'd assume you wouldn't see any value in discussing that topic on the forum. I think it's fair to say there are certain principles (like the idea that a minor cannot consent to a sexual relationship with an adult, or that slavery is a moral wrong) can be viewed as immutable (or, at least immutable within a certain cultural context). However, germane to the discussion in this thread, I don't think the definition of "happiness" is one of those immutable principles.

tjrDL6MjB2Zwwa 4y ago
The quote in it's full context > A lot of those on here, I don’t listen to their input on what successs is. > I will never be happy until I am climbing to the highest potential I can get to. No one is going to talk me into being otherwise. What's being discussed is the definition of _success_, not happiness. And in fact, what the poster said is, this is what makes me happy and I'm not interested in anyone convincing me that shouldn't be what makes me happy.
- bumby 4y ago
  You’re missing the even broader context. The article is explicitly discussing “happiness” and why the author isn’t happy despite being “successful” by traditional measures. Further, some of the issue is with the imprecise definition of “happy”. The modern use of the term can be used interchangeably. What causes someone to be hedonically happy may make them eudaimonically unhappy. So IMO it’s completely warranted to have further discussion to either define the definition or bring into question if someone is chasing the right goal for them. Saying what is tantamount to “I’m not willing to discuss this” facilitates none of that.
  - tjrDL6MjB2Zwwa 4y ago
    It's exactly that imprecision that means the person making the statement gets to tell you what it means for them, and they're not unreasonable for being very explicit in telling you that you will not convince them that their definition is more appropriate. Furthermore, on a purely mechanical level, what you're doing here is trying to escalate scope specifically so you don't have to give the point. Just give the point.
    - bumby 4y ago
      Everything I've said is pretty clearly within the scope of the featured article or the HN guidelines. You seem to be conflating what I'm saying with something that's more argumentative. What I'm not saying: The OP is wrong about how they go about defining happiness or what they do to achieve that goal. What I am saying: They are misusing HN if they are so close-minded as to be unwilling to engage in discussion, or swayed by counter-arguments. It's a red flag when somebody says they can't be convinced, particularly on a subjective topic. Obviously, a subjective measure like happiness is up to the individual to define. I'm not disagreeing with that and I don't think any of my posts give that impression unless someone is already using a hard-focused lens to read too much into them. My point was pretty clearly stated multiple times but it seems people are primed to argue. The HN guidelines clearly state one of the intents of the forum is to foster curious conversation. If somebody makes a post that "they can't be convinced" they are no longer interested in a discussion and they are therefore misusing HN. I would make the same case if they were claiming "Red is best color and I can't be convinced otherwise." In that case, maybe HN isn't the place for you on this topic. If you want to just plug your ears and talk at someone, there's plenty of places on the internet to do that. It would be akin to someone saying "This classroom was built for learning" and I show up with my arms crossed and say I refuse to learn. Well, ok, nobody is saying you can't take that stance. But they can say you're misusing the forum provided.
      - tjrDL6MjB2Zwwa 4y ago
        One has to wonder if I've been going back and forth with ChatGPT. People talk about having a feeling of uncanny valley when reading some of the things ChatGPT says and I must say, this must be what it feels like. And if you're not open to the possibility that I'm speaking with ChatGPT it's because you're misusing HN.
        bumby 4y ago
        Ha, the same thought crossed my mind as I was reading https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34420721 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34420721. In fact, one of the top comments talks about the uncanny valley-ness of ChatGPT. I guess the follow up question is: what guideline do you think I'm violating?

by bumby 4y ago

tjrDL6MjB2Zwwa 4y ago

The quote in it's full context > A lot of those on here, I don’t listen to their input on what successs is. > I will never be happy until I am climbing to the highest potential I can get to. No one is going to talk me into being otherwise. What's being discussed is the definition of _success_, not happiness. And in fact, what the poster said is, this is what makes me happy and I'm not interested in anyone convincing me that shouldn't be what makes me happy.

bumby 4y ago
You’re missing the even broader context. The article is explicitly discussing “happiness” and why the author isn’t happy despite being “successful” by traditional measures. Further, some of the issue is with the imprecise definition of “happy”. The modern use of the term can be used interchangeably. What causes someone to be hedonically happy may make them eudaimonically unhappy. So IMO it’s completely warranted to have further discussion to either define the definition or bring into question if someone is chasing the right goal for them. Saying what is tantamount to “I’m not willing to discuss this” facilitates none of that.
- tjrDL6MjB2Zwwa 4y ago
  It's exactly that imprecision that means the person making the statement gets to tell you what it means for them, and they're not unreasonable for being very explicit in telling you that you will not convince them that their definition is more appropriate. Furthermore, on a purely mechanical level, what you're doing here is trying to escalate scope specifically so you don't have to give the point. Just give the point.
  - bumby 4y ago
    Everything I've said is pretty clearly within the scope of the featured article or the HN guidelines. You seem to be conflating what I'm saying with something that's more argumentative. What I'm not saying: The OP is wrong about how they go about defining happiness or what they do to achieve that goal. What I am saying: They are misusing HN if they are so close-minded as to be unwilling to engage in discussion, or swayed by counter-arguments. It's a red flag when somebody says they can't be convinced, particularly on a subjective topic. Obviously, a subjective measure like happiness is up to the individual to define. I'm not disagreeing with that and I don't think any of my posts give that impression unless someone is already using a hard-focused lens to read too much into them. My point was pretty clearly stated multiple times but it seems people are primed to argue. The HN guidelines clearly state one of the intents of the forum is to foster curious conversation. If somebody makes a post that "they can't be convinced" they are no longer interested in a discussion and they are therefore misusing HN. I would make the same case if they were claiming "Red is best color and I can't be convinced otherwise." In that case, maybe HN isn't the place for you on this topic. If you want to just plug your ears and talk at someone, there's plenty of places on the internet to do that. It would be akin to someone saying "This classroom was built for learning" and I show up with my arms crossed and say I refuse to learn. Well, ok, nobody is saying you can't take that stance. But they can say you're misusing the forum provided.
    - tjrDL6MjB2Zwwa 4y ago
      One has to wonder if I've been going back and forth with ChatGPT. People talk about having a feeling of uncanny valley when reading some of the things ChatGPT says and I must say, this must be what it feels like. And if you're not open to the possibility that I'm speaking with ChatGPT it's because you're misusing HN.
      - bumby 4y ago
        Ha, the same thought crossed my mind as I was reading https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34420721 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34420721. In fact, one of the top comments talks about the uncanny valley-ness of ChatGPT. I guess the follow up question is: what guideline do you think I'm violating?