14 ms·

Love People, Not Pleasure

345 points by ghostwords 12y ago

mattgreenrocks 12y ago
I'm particularly interested in how people receive this piece here, since it directly contradicts many of the goals put forth by YC and SV: * work really hard so you can cash out (greed) * build influence however you can (fame) * ...ultimately, become somebody so you can fill that hole The poor motives (which I've parenthesized) probably account for much of the fact that the New Boss is no different than the Old Boss that came before. Think about the love of cultural homogeny, or working your ass off (being exploited), or worship of youth, or proving yourself to capital (whether by OSS, influence, or profitable side projects).
- ealexhudson 12y ago
  Those goals aren't really personal ones though. If you want to build a successful startup, you pretty much have to work very hard, network, build influence etc. - I doubt YC/SV promotes this as a particular road to self-happiness though, and in that sense it's not that contradictory. If your primary goal is happiness (both maximisation of, and minimisation of unhappiness), I would lay a fair bet that a start-up is one of the most unlikely to succeed, even in the long term.
- dasil003 12y ago
  I don't have a problem with seeking wealth or fame, but I think the article gives a pretty clear and cogent warning that if you think it will bring you happiness once achieved then you are sorely mistaken. For me, startups are all about having control and building something with my own two hands. Of course I want to achieve success in that, but I don't see that as an end. Getting the payout is about being able to fund whatever I want to do next (even if it's not a big money winner), and getting "famous" for me is just about meeting interesting people to work with and growing in my craft.
- lsc 12y ago
  >* work really hard so you can cash out (greed) Were you born so rich that you can spend all day hanging out with your friends, without worrying about money? Most of us were not. Many people here (myself included) claim that they are working really hard so that they can get enough money to be able to do whatever they want for the rest of their lives. For me, at least, the idea of working really hard for a short period of time is way more appealing than some 9-5 job where I show up every day for the rest of my life, regardless of how hard (or not) that I am expected to work. You aren't getting around the fact that you need money; until you solve the problem of food, housing and medical care for the rest of your life, earning money is going to be a problem that will take time away from finding whatever it is that makes you happy. Even if working makes you happy, having enough money that you don't need to work gives you a huge amount of leverage and freedom that will allow you to turn down work that isn't conducive to your happiness. pg, actually, has talked a whole lot about this, and about how maybe we should try to change things so that founders can take out more money early on because of this. ref: http://paulgraham.com/vcsqueeze.html http://paulgraham.com/vcsqueeze.html "My second suggestion will seem shocking to VCs: let founders cash out partially in the Series A round. At the moment, when VCs invest in a startup, all the stock they get is newly issued and all the money goes to the company. They could buy some stock directly from the founders as well. ... In fact, letting the founders sell a little stock early would generally be better for the company, because it would cause the founders' attitudes toward risk to be aligned with the VCs'. As things currently work, their attitudes toward risk tend to be diametrically opposed: the founders, who have nothing, would prefer a 100% chance of $1 million to a 20% chance of $10 million, while the VCs can afford to be "rational" and prefer the latter."
  - anigbrowl 12y ago
    On the other hand, you could find a sort of work you enjoy, rather than treating it as something be endured in exchange for money.
    - lsc 12y ago
      >On the other hand, you could find a sort of work you enjoy, rather than treating it as something be endured in exchange for money. I think that having enough money that you can choose a job based on joy rather than monetary remuneration helps a lot with that. Having money also makes it a lot easier and less scary to leave jobs when the working environment turns bad.
- sliverstorm 12y ago
  Different people are motivated to do the same things for different reasons. * work really hard so you can cash out * work really hard so you can build something really cool Same method, different goals. SV attracts both types, though many people I know believe the balance has strongly shifted from the latter to the former. It certainly does seem like the discussion about post-exit has shifted from "How to found another, even better startup" (e.g. Elon Musk) to "How to retire at 23".
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- hkmurakami 12y ago
  I am doing a startup because it's the only way I could see myself working mostly with the kind of people I like, respect, and admire, and work for (e.g. customers) cut from the same cloth (developers). When I promised myself that I would never subject myself to corporate political cutthroat contentious BS ever again, this was what I was left with. It's definitely not monetarily optimal for me.
- paul 12y ago
  Those certainly aren't my goals, nor the path that I have followed or advised for others. For me, and for the most successful founders that I've known, creation is primarily an intrinsic activity.
  - zt 12y ago
    Ya, can't underline this sentiment enough. I think that making money or fame have to be incidental goals to the things you care about.
  - psweber 12y ago
    Do you think that extrinsic, material goals get in the way of the intrinsic goal of creation? (I do)
- baddox 12y ago
  "Work really hard so you can cash out" is just a special case of foregoing imminent sensory pleasure for greater pleasure in the future. You can certainly argue that VCs push for too much of that, but the general idea certainly shouldn't be condemned. It's the reason we save part of our paycheck, or pass on the donut, or get shots when we need medicine.
- elwell 12y ago
  If I work hard, it's most often because I enjoy my work; not as a means to an end.
Afforess 12y ago
I think this is why I enjoy working on FOSS projects a lot. At the end of the day, it is really great to interact with users and know you improved someone else's day, even a little bit.
auggierose 12y ago
So is the software you build "a thing"? I guess this depends on what you are working on is making a vision a reality, or a CRUD application that you sell for XXXXXX dollars to a customer. I find the article is too shallow. Loving people can make you really unhappy, or happy, that depends a lot on you and on the people. Sex with just 1 person can be exactly what you want, but if you are really interested in sex then 1 person might just not be enough. So no, we don't know how to be happy. Citing statistics and applying them blindly to yourself is a sure recipe for unhappiness. Better to explore yourself and find out what makes you happy. You can then use statistics to execute.
parasight 12y ago
The article reminded me of the book "To Have or to Be?" by the German social psychologist Erich Fromm. Fromm believed that the problem of the modern society is that we are too much concerned with having instead of being. It is a good read. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Have_or_to_Be%3F http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Have_or_to_Be%3F
redmaverick 12y ago
Some had “intrinsic” goals, such as deep, enduring relationships. Others had “extrinsic” goals, such as achieving reputation or fame. “If you want to live a happy life, tie it to a goal, not to people or things.” -- Albert Einstein The author considers "deep enduring relationships" as an intrinsic goal. People are extrinsic too. They can be fickle, move away, die etc. I think intrinsic goals would mean a heavy focus on self improvement. Like developing temperance, patience, forgiveness. Improving self awareness, delaying gratification, having empathy for others, having a desire to contribute and have an impact on society etc.
- pestaa 12y ago
  I'm not entirely sure Einstein meant it the way it reads on the surface. He always came across as a people-focused thinker to me. Consider his other popular wisdom: "Only a life lived for others is a life worthwhile." Is there something I'm missing?
  - capex 12y ago
    The goal can be focused on helping peoples' lives, but probably not about a particular person.
drivingmenuts 12y ago
As a misanthrope, I'm probably screwed. The ideal is to make enough money to not have to deal with people, other than a very select few.
- dreamfactory2 12y ago
  Far far easier (and more rewarding as it goes) to learn to like people.
  - 6d0debc071 12y ago
    How?
    - ernst 12y ago
      Tao Te Ching http://taotechingdecoded.com/TbM/0100.html http://taotechingdecoded.com/TbM/0100.html
  - thejdude 12y ago
    I think you can easily learn to accept people, but really really liking them is a lot harder. Most people I meet don't have the same interests as I do, and many are also very shallow that I really don't want to hang out with them. Call me misantrophic, or just experienced ;-) The more people I get to know, the more I think "what's the point?"
    - dreamfactory2 12y ago
      I think it's starts with being interested in them. Travelling may help.
      - thejdude 12y ago
        It started with being interested, but as I said, the more people I meet, the more I'm just bored by them. Travelling didn't help at all. Yes, nots of friendly people, but also lots of aggravating tourist assholes (interestingly, I find American travelers to be very nice, but many Australian or English travelers seem to be assholes, maybe just the ones I met?). Also, too many rugged, handsome, self-absorbed, sunburnt surfer types who play the guitar, are full of themselves, and generally very opportunistic and shallow in how they deal with people. Just can't take them seriously, as they don't seem to take anybody seriously.
firstOrder 12y ago
The author is the president of the American Enterprise Insititute. AEI's board are the CEO's of ExxonMobil, Dow Chemical etc. Including the CEO of Enron until he was ousted. They are bankrolled by Ford, GE, Chrysler, AT&T etc. What is his message to us? "when money becomes an end in itself, it can bring misery"..."People who rate materialistic goals like wealth as top personal priorities are significantly likelier to be more anxious, more depressed"..."the moral snares of materialism"..."it requires a deep skepticism of our own basic desires" The majority shareholders of the companies bankrolling his institute own the lion's share of this country's stocks, bonds and other assets, and are continually at war with the workers in the company's they own so that a larger lion's share of money coming in goes to profits and not wages. So of course in this zero-sum game, the parasitical side is going to tell the workers, the wealth creating side, that they should not be too concerned with money, that wealth isn't everything, that uneasy lay the head that wears the crown, and all this other nonsense. They used to have priests and reverends dress up these ideas with superstitious mumbo-jumbo, but nowadays more people are smart enough to see through that BS ( although he does talk about "Saint" Paul, the Dalai Lama, Buddha, the Love of God ). This crook is so full of hubris, he wants to lecture me on how to live a better life - that being that I should ask for a smaller piece of the pie that I work to create, and perhaps instead dwell on "the strength to love others - [...] God", the thoughts of "Saint" Paul and other nonsense. Why doesn't he tell his contributors to stop employing psychologists and Madison Avenue to try to figure out how best to create conspicuous consumption so that people will buy the commodities they're pumping out. The advertising business is one of the biggest forces out there trying to tell people life is more enjoyable if certain commodities are purchased, and he is at the center of that world. He likes quoting the bible? Try Matthew 7: "Why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
  - 12y ago
asimjalis 12y ago
The irony of this piece is that the author presents happiness as an object to be acquired.
waynecochran 12y ago
Sounds like a review of the book of Ecclesiastes -- Solomon tried power, fame, pleasure, money, all of it ...vanity ...meaningless. Sun will be red giant in 6 billion years. All of this will be gone...
- humanrebar 12y ago
  I had a similar thought. Though the author certainly doesn't reach Solomon's conclusion.
flatfilefan 12y ago
Tried loving people. It was awful. [grumpy cat picture on the background] Seriously not everyone is extroverted and btw. tldr.
cyorir 12y ago
This article reads like a crude and incomplete rehashing of Buddhism's four noble truths, minus the fourth. Humans experience suffering, this suffering comes from desire, to eliminate suffering one must eliminate desire. The difference is that the article distinguishes between 'extrinsic' and 'intrinsic' desires whereas in Buddhist discourse it is generally held that suffering comes from all forms of desire, intrinsic or not.
- mbrock 12y ago
  That's itself a rather incomplete way to explain the Four Noble Truths. Generally, utilizing desire is the only way to make any progress along the Buddhist path. Thanissaro Bhikkhu has written lots about this; here's a quote: "Most of us, when looking at the four noble truths, don't realize that they're all about desire. We're taught that the Buddha gave only one role to desire — as the cause of suffering. Because he says to abandon the cause of suffering, it sounds like he's denying any positive role to desire and its constructive companions: creativity, imagination, and hope. This perception, though, misses two important points. The first is that all four truths speak to the basic dynamic of desire on its own terms: perception of lack and limitation, the imagination of a solution, and a strategy for attaining it. The first truth teaches the basic lack and limitation in our lives — the clinging that constitutes suffering — while the second truth points to the types of desires that lead to clinging: desires for sensuality, becoming, and annihilation. The third truth expands our imagination to encompass the possibility that clinging can be totally overcome. The fourth truth, the path to the end of suffering, shows how to strategize so as to overcome clinging by abandoning its cause."
onedev 12y ago
I think this was a good piece if you take it as with all things, not as absolute fact or 100% correct. I think the general idea that the article was trying to communicate is a good and thoughtful idea.
babyturtle 12y ago
This is incredibly stupid. The giant geniuses (eg Newtown.. modern physics/calculus) who gave us all our science/tech (ie everything good in our lives)... pretty much all stayed away from people and did there own thing... for their own pleasure. If these geniuses come into too much contact with the average noisy idiot.. they will actually be discouraged from their work... "why should I build/share these amazing things for such unappreciative, loud, idiotic, selfish *.... I will keep them just to myself and my family/friends"
roryokane 12y ago
The article looks at a study that found that that men and women who had had exactly one sexual partner in the past year were happiest. The article concludes that therefore, having sex with more partners will make us unhappy. However, this conclusion is hasty. Another explanation can be made, based on two correlations that I think are likely: having multiple sexual partners is negatively correlated with having at least one stable romantic partner, and having at least one stable romantic partner is positively correlated with happiness. Given those two correlations, it is easy to see why having multiple sexual partners might be negatively correlated with happiness. The people who sleep around a lot are doing it because they have not found a girlfriend/boyfriend, so they are lonely. Thus, they are unhappy. If this explanation for the study's results is true, then sex with more partners will not make you unhappy, per se. It just means that you should make sure you have a romantic companion first (hopefully one who is agreeable to your seeking multiple partners). After you have a partner, it is possible that indulging your instincts by seeking even more partners would indeed make you happier.
- XorNot 12y ago
  Or alternatively, that statistics tell us what is likely to be the case were we to pick an individual out of the population at random. They do not tell us about ourselves individually. It should also be taken with a grain of salt that the conclusion they draw just so happens to fit into several powerful institutions decreed standards of morality.
  - judk 12y ago
    Like ancient dietary laws, our moral code may be rooted in ancient common wisdom about healthy choices.
    - logicchains 12y ago
      Eh, ancient wisdom doesn't seem to have done a great job in terms of moral codes. Slavery, institutionalised racism and sexism, foot-binding, debtor's prisons, despotism, pedophilia; all examples of practices deriving from ancient wisdom that today are considered unacceptable.
MisterBastahrd 12y ago
So does this mean he's going to push for all companies that fund AEI to give their employees at least 6 weeks of paid vacation a year? Because one of the things that makes people REALLY happy is the free time to pursue their interests outside of the office.
asimjalis 12y ago
My experience has been that happiness comes from not pursuing happiness.
- logicchains 12y ago
  "The act of pursuing happiness necessarily implies the current absence of happiness. Make the pursuit of happiness into a habit, and you habitualise the absence of happiness."
kimonos 12y ago
Great post!
kevinwang 12y ago
I enjoyed reading this article, although I feel several experiments cited don't necessarily lead to the conclusions drawn from them.
hellbreakslose 12y ago
Highly disagree with your studies, my experience in life has shown that poor people are much happier than anyone. (poor people without desires) not the ones that want to be rich. That kind of poor people are the ones that live next to very healthy ones and they desire what the others have... Take Cuba as an example, when I went there everyone was happy and dancing and cheerful, even if they dont have money.
alex_duf 12y ago
It's refreshing to read something like that on HN. Usually it's more "Hey look, I made tons of money by doing <insert technology here>"

345 points by ghostwords 12y ago

I'm particularly interested in how people receive this piece here, since it directly contradicts many of the goals put forth by YC and SV: * work really hard so you can cash out (greed) * build influence however you can (fame) * ...ultimately, become somebody so you can fill that hole The poor motives (which I've parenthesized) probably account for much of the fact that the New Boss is no different than the Old Boss that came before. Think about the love of cultural homogeny, or working your ass off (being exploited), or worship of youth, or proving yourself to capital (whether by OSS, influence, or profitable side projects).

ealexhudson 12y ago
Those goals aren't really personal ones though. If you want to build a successful startup, you pretty much have to work very hard, network, build influence etc. - I doubt YC/SV promotes this as a particular road to self-happiness though, and in that sense it's not that contradictory. If your primary goal is happiness (both maximisation of, and minimisation of unhappiness), I would lay a fair bet that a start-up is one of the most unlikely to succeed, even in the long term.
dasil003 12y ago
I don't have a problem with seeking wealth or fame, but I think the article gives a pretty clear and cogent warning that if you think it will bring you happiness once achieved then you are sorely mistaken. For me, startups are all about having control and building something with my own two hands. Of course I want to achieve success in that, but I don't see that as an end. Getting the payout is about being able to fund whatever I want to do next (even if it's not a big money winner), and getting "famous" for me is just about meeting interesting people to work with and growing in my craft.
lsc 12y ago
>* work really hard so you can cash out (greed) Were you born so rich that you can spend all day hanging out with your friends, without worrying about money? Most of us were not. Many people here (myself included) claim that they are working really hard so that they can get enough money to be able to do whatever they want for the rest of their lives. For me, at least, the idea of working really hard for a short period of time is way more appealing than some 9-5 job where I show up every day for the rest of my life, regardless of how hard (or not) that I am expected to work. You aren't getting around the fact that you need money; until you solve the problem of food, housing and medical care for the rest of your life, earning money is going to be a problem that will take time away from finding whatever it is that makes you happy. Even if working makes you happy, having enough money that you don't need to work gives you a huge amount of leverage and freedom that will allow you to turn down work that isn't conducive to your happiness. pg, actually, has talked a whole lot about this, and about how maybe we should try to change things so that founders can take out more money early on because of this. ref: http://paulgraham.com/vcsqueeze.html http://paulgraham.com/vcsqueeze.html "My second suggestion will seem shocking to VCs: let founders cash out partially in the Series A round. At the moment, when VCs invest in a startup, all the stock they get is newly issued and all the money goes to the company. They could buy some stock directly from the founders as well. ... In fact, letting the founders sell a little stock early would generally be better for the company, because it would cause the founders' attitudes toward risk to be aligned with the VCs'. As things currently work, their attitudes toward risk tend to be diametrically opposed: the founders, who have nothing, would prefer a 100% chance of $1 million to a 20% chance of $10 million, while the VCs can afford to be "rational" and prefer the latter."
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  On the other hand, you could find a sort of work you enjoy, rather than treating it as something be endured in exchange for money.
  - lsc 12y ago
    >On the other hand, you could find a sort of work you enjoy, rather than treating it as something be endured in exchange for money. I think that having enough money that you can choose a job based on joy rather than monetary remuneration helps a lot with that. Having money also makes it a lot easier and less scary to leave jobs when the working environment turns bad.
sliverstorm 12y ago
Different people are motivated to do the same things for different reasons. * work really hard so you can cash out * work really hard so you can build something really cool Same method, different goals. SV attracts both types, though many people I know believe the balance has strongly shifted from the latter to the former. It certainly does seem like the discussion about post-exit has shifted from "How to found another, even better startup" (e.g. Elon Musk) to "How to retire at 23".
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
hkmurakami 12y ago
I am doing a startup because it's the only way I could see myself working mostly with the kind of people I like, respect, and admire, and work for (e.g. customers) cut from the same cloth (developers). When I promised myself that I would never subject myself to corporate political cutthroat contentious BS ever again, this was what I was left with. It's definitely not monetarily optimal for me.
paul 12y ago
Those certainly aren't my goals, nor the path that I have followed or advised for others. For me, and for the most successful founders that I've known, creation is primarily an intrinsic activity.
- zt 12y ago
  Ya, can't underline this sentiment enough. I think that making money or fame have to be incidental goals to the things you care about.
- psweber 12y ago
  Do you think that extrinsic, material goals get in the way of the intrinsic goal of creation? (I do)
baddox 12y ago
"Work really hard so you can cash out" is just a special case of foregoing imminent sensory pleasure for greater pleasure in the future. You can certainly argue that VCs push for too much of that, but the general idea certainly shouldn't be condemned. It's the reason we save part of our paycheck, or pass on the donut, or get shots when we need medicine.
elwell 12y ago
If I work hard, it's most often because I enjoy my work; not as a means to an end.

Afforess 12y ago

I think this is why I enjoy working on FOSS projects a lot. At the end of the day, it is really great to interact with users and know you improved someone else's day, even a little bit.

auggierose 12y ago

So is the software you build "a thing"? I guess this depends on what you are working on is making a vision a reality, or a CRUD application that you sell for XXXXXX dollars to a customer. I find the article is too shallow. Loving people can make you really unhappy, or happy, that depends a lot on you and on the people. Sex with just 1 person can be exactly what you want, but if you are really interested in sex then 1 person might just not be enough. So no, we don't know how to be happy. Citing statistics and applying them blindly to yourself is a sure recipe for unhappiness. Better to explore yourself and find out what makes you happy. You can then use statistics to execute.

parasight 12y ago

The article reminded me of the book "To Have or to Be?" by the German social psychologist Erich Fromm. Fromm believed that the problem of the modern society is that we are too much concerned with having instead of being. It is a good read. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Have_or_to_Be%3F http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Have_or_to_Be%3F

redmaverick 12y ago

Some had “intrinsic” goals, such as deep, enduring relationships. Others had “extrinsic” goals, such as achieving reputation or fame. “If you want to live a happy life, tie it to a goal, not to people or things.” -- Albert Einstein The author considers "deep enduring relationships" as an intrinsic goal. People are extrinsic too. They can be fickle, move away, die etc. I think intrinsic goals would mean a heavy focus on self improvement. Like developing temperance, patience, forgiveness. Improving self awareness, delaying gratification, having empathy for others, having a desire to contribute and have an impact on society etc.

pestaa 12y ago
I'm not entirely sure Einstein meant it the way it reads on the surface. He always came across as a people-focused thinker to me. Consider his other popular wisdom: "Only a life lived for others is a life worthwhile." Is there something I'm missing?
- capex 12y ago
  The goal can be focused on helping peoples' lives, but probably not about a particular person.

drivingmenuts 12y ago

As a misanthrope, I'm probably screwed. The ideal is to make enough money to not have to deal with people, other than a very select few.

dreamfactory2 12y ago
Far far easier (and more rewarding as it goes) to learn to like people.
- 6d0debc071 12y ago
  How?
  - ernst 12y ago
    Tao Te Ching http://taotechingdecoded.com/TbM/0100.html http://taotechingdecoded.com/TbM/0100.html
- thejdude 12y ago
  I think you can easily learn to accept people, but really really liking them is a lot harder. Most people I meet don't have the same interests as I do, and many are also very shallow that I really don't want to hang out with them. Call me misantrophic, or just experienced ;-) The more people I get to know, the more I think "what's the point?"
  - dreamfactory2 12y ago
    I think it's starts with being interested in them. Travelling may help.
    - thejdude 12y ago
      It started with being interested, but as I said, the more people I meet, the more I'm just bored by them. Travelling didn't help at all. Yes, nots of friendly people, but also lots of aggravating tourist assholes (interestingly, I find American travelers to be very nice, but many Australian or English travelers seem to be assholes, maybe just the ones I met?). Also, too many rugged, handsome, self-absorbed, sunburnt surfer types who play the guitar, are full of themselves, and generally very opportunistic and shallow in how they deal with people. Just can't take them seriously, as they don't seem to take anybody seriously.

firstOrder 12y ago

The author is the president of the American Enterprise Insititute. AEI's board are the CEO's of ExxonMobil, Dow Chemical etc. Including the CEO of Enron until he was ousted. They are bankrolled by Ford, GE, Chrysler, AT&T etc. What is his message to us? "when money becomes an end in itself, it can bring misery"..."People who rate materialistic goals like wealth as top personal priorities are significantly likelier to be more anxious, more depressed"..."the moral snares of materialism"..."it requires a deep skepticism of our own basic desires" The majority shareholders of the companies bankrolling his institute own the lion's share of this country's stocks, bonds and other assets, and are continually at war with the workers in the company's they own so that a larger lion's share of money coming in goes to profits and not wages. So of course in this zero-sum game, the parasitical side is going to tell the workers, the wealth creating side, that they should not be too concerned with money, that wealth isn't everything, that uneasy lay the head that wears the crown, and all this other nonsense. They used to have priests and reverends dress up these ideas with superstitious mumbo-jumbo, but nowadays more people are smart enough to see through that BS ( although he does talk about "Saint" Paul, the Dalai Lama, Buddha, the Love of God ). This crook is so full of hubris, he wants to lecture me on how to live a better life - that being that I should ask for a smaller piece of the pie that I work to create, and perhaps instead dwell on "the strength to love others - [...] God", the thoughts of "Saint" Paul and other nonsense. Why doesn't he tell his contributors to stop employing psychologists and Madison Avenue to try to figure out how best to create conspicuous consumption so that people will buy the commodities they're pumping out. The advertising business is one of the biggest forces out there trying to tell people life is more enjoyable if certain commodities are purchased, and he is at the center of that world. He likes quoting the bible? Try Matthew 7: "Why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- 12y ago

asimjalis 12y ago

The irony of this piece is that the author presents happiness as an object to be acquired.

waynecochran 12y ago

Sounds like a review of the book of Ecclesiastes -- Solomon tried power, fame, pleasure, money, all of it ...vanity ...meaningless. Sun will be red giant in 6 billion years. All of this will be gone...

humanrebar 12y ago
I had a similar thought. Though the author certainly doesn't reach Solomon's conclusion.

flatfilefan 12y ago

Tried loving people. It was awful. [grumpy cat picture on the background] Seriously not everyone is extroverted and btw. tldr.

cyorir 12y ago

This article reads like a crude and incomplete rehashing of Buddhism's four noble truths, minus the fourth. Humans experience suffering, this suffering comes from desire, to eliminate suffering one must eliminate desire. The difference is that the article distinguishes between 'extrinsic' and 'intrinsic' desires whereas in Buddhist discourse it is generally held that suffering comes from all forms of desire, intrinsic or not.

mbrock 12y ago
That's itself a rather incomplete way to explain the Four Noble Truths. Generally, utilizing desire is the only way to make any progress along the Buddhist path. Thanissaro Bhikkhu has written lots about this; here's a quote: "Most of us, when looking at the four noble truths, don't realize that they're all about desire. We're taught that the Buddha gave only one role to desire — as the cause of suffering. Because he says to abandon the cause of suffering, it sounds like he's denying any positive role to desire and its constructive companions: creativity, imagination, and hope. This perception, though, misses two important points. The first is that all four truths speak to the basic dynamic of desire on its own terms: perception of lack and limitation, the imagination of a solution, and a strategy for attaining it. The first truth teaches the basic lack and limitation in our lives — the clinging that constitutes suffering — while the second truth points to the types of desires that lead to clinging: desires for sensuality, becoming, and annihilation. The third truth expands our imagination to encompass the possibility that clinging can be totally overcome. The fourth truth, the path to the end of suffering, shows how to strategize so as to overcome clinging by abandoning its cause."

onedev 12y ago

I think this was a good piece if you take it as with all things, not as absolute fact or 100% correct. I think the general idea that the article was trying to communicate is a good and thoughtful idea.

babyturtle 12y ago

This is incredibly stupid. The giant geniuses (eg Newtown.. modern physics/calculus) who gave us all our science/tech (ie everything good in our lives)... pretty much all stayed away from people and did there own thing... for their own pleasure. If these geniuses come into too much contact with the average noisy idiot.. they will actually be discouraged from their work... "why should I build/share these amazing things for such unappreciative, loud, idiotic, selfish *.... I will keep them just to myself and my family/friends"

roryokane 12y ago

The article looks at a study that found that that men and women who had had exactly one sexual partner in the past year were happiest. The article concludes that therefore, having sex with more partners will make us unhappy. However, this conclusion is hasty. Another explanation can be made, based on two correlations that I think are likely: having multiple sexual partners is negatively correlated with having at least one stable romantic partner, and having at least one stable romantic partner is positively correlated with happiness. Given those two correlations, it is easy to see why having multiple sexual partners might be negatively correlated with happiness. The people who sleep around a lot are doing it because they have not found a girlfriend/boyfriend, so they are lonely. Thus, they are unhappy. If this explanation for the study's results is true, then sex with more partners will not make you unhappy, per se. It just means that you should make sure you have a romantic companion first (hopefully one who is agreeable to your seeking multiple partners). After you have a partner, it is possible that indulging your instincts by seeking even more partners would indeed make you happier.

XorNot 12y ago
Or alternatively, that statistics tell us what is likely to be the case were we to pick an individual out of the population at random. They do not tell us about ourselves individually. It should also be taken with a grain of salt that the conclusion they draw just so happens to fit into several powerful institutions decreed standards of morality.
- judk 12y ago
  Like ancient dietary laws, our moral code may be rooted in ancient common wisdom about healthy choices.
  - logicchains 12y ago
    Eh, ancient wisdom doesn't seem to have done a great job in terms of moral codes. Slavery, institutionalised racism and sexism, foot-binding, debtor's prisons, despotism, pedophilia; all examples of practices deriving from ancient wisdom that today are considered unacceptable.

MisterBastahrd 12y ago

So does this mean he's going to push for all companies that fund AEI to give their employees at least 6 weeks of paid vacation a year? Because one of the things that makes people REALLY happy is the free time to pursue their interests outside of the office.

asimjalis 12y ago

My experience has been that happiness comes from not pursuing happiness.

logicchains 12y ago
"The act of pursuing happiness necessarily implies the current absence of happiness. Make the pursuit of happiness into a habit, and you habitualise the absence of happiness."

kimonos 12y ago

Great post!

kevinwang 12y ago

I enjoyed reading this article, although I feel several experiments cited don't necessarily lead to the conclusions drawn from them.

hellbreakslose 12y ago

Highly disagree with your studies, my experience in life has shown that poor people are much happier than anyone. (poor people without desires) not the ones that want to be rich. That kind of poor people are the ones that live next to very healthy ones and they desire what the others have... Take Cuba as an example, when I went there everyone was happy and dancing and cheerful, even if they dont have money.

alex_duf 12y ago

It's refreshing to read something like that on HN. Usually it's more "Hey look, I made tons of money by doing <insert technology here>"