Why So Many Smart People Aren’t Happy
theatlantic.com
theatlantic.com
1) Smart children are raised with expectations of doing great things because they are smart. If you have two children and one is obviously smarter than the other, the burden of your hopes and dreams will naturally fall on the smarter one, and equal accomplishments between the two will not have equal praise. Later in life this turns into being unhappy because you feel like you could do more because you are smart. It's a constant burden.
2) Being smart brings with it a certain level of ability to "peer behind the curtain" so to speak, and see just how dirty the real world is. It can make it seem like sinking time and effort to make meaningful changes is just futile because of how many things are messed up. And that kind of mindset saps happiness in a hurry.
That's a tough idea to shake when people connect their self esteem and meaning in life to it.
The solution is to re-discover what you want your life to be about and then get to it. People usually either figure it out somewhat by the time they're 30 or they get burdened by self-imposed obligations to a point where they give up trying and just go with the flow.
So really, a temporary hurdle in the scheme of things :)
>It can make it seem like sinking time and effort to make meaningful changes is just futile because of how many things are messed up. And that kind of mindset saps happiness in a hurry.
So smart people should be dumber?
So instead of wasting their time on individual efforts that go nowhere or have no lasting effect, smart people should contribute their resources to a collective organization. Either by assembling such an organization and managing it, or by being a part of such an organization and providing skills/competency to it.
If you're aware of all the problems in the world, of all the places that have issues, how do you decide which one to apply your time and talent to?
"The best minds of my generation are thinking about how to make people click ads" - said by Jeffrey Hammerbacher in 2011 is still incredibly poignant today.
I like to think I'm much happier knowing how wonderfully magnificent the universe is, rather than staring at the ceiling.
We went from inventing powered flight to landing on the freaking moon in less than 70 years.
In any case, I suspect that you may not be satisfied no matter want reality was. If you had interstellar travel you wouldn't be happy without intergalactic travel.
Even if you only see your own planet, creation is beautiful. (FYI, you happen to be living on the most amazing planet known.)
Not only do I routinely see right through the benign bullshit designed to keep most people fat and happy, I also often see past the second layer designed to let the people who see past the first layer think that they can actually "fix" anything.
Without the illusions, I'm just a terrified ant scurrying around in a world filled with uncaring stomping boots and sadistic kids with magnifying glasses.
Being intelligent and ethical is a great advantage in the secondary mythic version of life, but it seems in the real, un-glamoured world, the only quality that has value is the ability to excise essential bits of your own humanity and trade them away for power. Intelligence also helps there, obviously, but without principles, the smartest person becomes the worst monster of them all.
The United States is a corporate oligarchy pretending to be a two-party dictatorship pretending to be a representative democracy.
That's the sort of thing meant, I think. There are layers and in this quote the implication is that the fat and happy people are at the outer layer (they think the levers of power of a representative democracy are still valid ways to control the country), and others can see past that into the other two layers behind it.
Most people are happy just to vote. Some people try to channel the overall direction of the vote via party politics. A handful of people know that the election is merely to choose between different means to exactly the same end.
The people can vote to name the ship Boaty McBoatface. The owner will name it something else. It will steer the same course without regard to its name or to the orientation of its deck chairs.
People are happier when they meet their own expectations, and people who are "smart" have higher self expectations.
There may be some transfer of parental expectations ("you are smart, you can do anything when you grow up"), but I suspect (apologies, I cannot cite anything) that even if you remove the external expectations, smarter people have higher standards for themselves. Thus, they are less happy.
The second argument is a variant on:
ignorance is bliss
... which is pretty well supported in literature. I am not sure if the futility/frustration causes unhappiness more than just increased awareness of issues, but it falls in line with that general theme.
Just my 2 cents, as someone who often falls into this category.
The best part of his analysis, IMHO. I don't even like being around zero-sum people.
This is only true locally. I can derive a huge amount of happiness by being the best singer at a party, or the best at telling jokes in the pub, or the best at $SKILL in my team.
Even if you consider global geography (as with competing on the Internet as a startup, or looking for a job as a remote worker), you only have to be the best in that narrow area of what is available at that time (or the best at marketing it, or the best at selling it, or just the best at turning up and being presentable).
There are many, many opportunities to be "amazing" locally. You just need to define what, and where. The article uses the word "mindset", because happiness about what you think more than anything else.
Americans love corporations for some reason. If you make $100k/yr at a job and mostly surf the web, people consider that 'made'. If you are on welfare from the government, you're a no good bum. Why?
This makes about as much sense as "the laissez-faire fascist worldview" or the "growth at any costs environmental worldview."
> "fuck you got mine" in the biggest christian nation on earth.
I fail to see what Christian's have anything to do with the matter. And we aren't a Christian nation, we're a secular nation with a lot of Christians, huge difference.
> "that's why we don't do it, it isn't because of a zero-sum neoliberal worldview; it's because no one wants to pay for it."
Uh, the zero-sum neoliberal worldview is EXACTLY why we don't do it - because such a worldview says that if no one wants to pay for it then it's not worth it despite the fact that it could vastly improve welfare throughout the world and ensure more peace and stability than any "democracy spreading" wars ever could.
>"And we aren't a Christian nation, we're a secular nation with a lot of Christians, huge difference."
If you want to play semantics, fine you're right. There is no state religion (excepting the fact that christianity is part of our founding myth, it's all over the US currency, in our pledge of allegiance, in our symbology etc). But the point is there are hundreds of millions of Christians in this country, a religion whose foundational text (New Testament) is filled with endless cries to help the poor, to give away the material pleasures of life to help another, and yet we embrace the exact opposite. It's an example of how we've perverted our principles.
You are mistaken due to that bad metaphor. There is a vast difference between deploying some troops anywhere in the world, and setting up a permanent supply chain for food to everywhere in the world that needs food; tons of places don't even have decent roads nor the local government approval/agreement to allow the relief or not steal the relief. They are not remotely comparable. Getting food to the places it'd be needed is absolutely not a solved problem.
That's the zero sum trap in itself! What a painful place to be, I'm sorry.
It's a big ocean and we can all swim in it without having to push someone else down to accomplish it.
Sadly There are certainly a huge of people trying to convince you otherwise; consider the words of that famous London School of Economics student who (along with Richards) wrote:
He's tellin' me more and more
About some useless information
Supposed to drive my imagination
[..]
And a man comes on and tells me
How white my shirts can be
But he can't be a man 'cause he doesn't smoke
The same cigarrettes as me
But of all the dimensions of amazing (and there are gazillions, not just coding or money collecting but parenting, spousing, woodworking, piano playing) there are also gazillions of local "amazing" thresholds. I'm not a great piano player but I really have a good time playing, and playing music with my friends.
Plus you may be a "superstar" without realizing it. A couple of weeks ago I was at a party and someone I consider quite accomplished, more than me, said to my kid (presumably not realizing I could hear): "now, we can't all be superstars like your Dad, but at least I have managed...."
I am a very romantic person and I don't see your point in the comment about dating.
I am dating the only person I would like to date, not the smartest, not the hottest, not,the funniest but the only one that now I feel like dating.
Right now, not other persons will get as much as she is getting from dating me (I can definitely being a better boyfriend, but I am the best I can be right now) nor I would get anything more from dating someone else but her...
I don't see it as a sum zero game...
The first time of dating is like a bet, the partner is "good enough", you definitely look around and see more beautiful woman, smarter people or funnier mates, but for one reason or another you stick with her.
After a while you know her better, she know you better and something more happens, you start to care for each other, you want to care for the other, you do things against your self interest for the other.
Then you develop some sort of intimate caring and empathy, her becomes like a part of you, you see all of her flaws but they don't matter, you can understand her just by looking, you can feel when something is wrong, you don't image to share the same experience you had with her with some one else. (And this is the phase where I am now)
However, I am still physically attracted by other women, I cannot image nothing but sex with some one different from my partner; not romantic walks, not dinner together, not talking about me and my hopes or fear; but sex, definitely yes.
Sorry for the long off topic post :)
Lastly, I think that some for some people, sex is meaningless without the empathy, mutual love and concern backing it.
Of course it is, you've taken her off the market thus that other guy that wants to date her must lose. People are a limited resource, there's only one of her, when resources are limited the game is always zero sum.
But our analysis should be a little more deep.
In my opinion she is the maximum; from any other gals I won't get as much positive "points", still in my opinion, I won't be able to provide more positive "points" to someone else but her.
This is not a zero-sum games, because, if it was, swapping girls wouldn't changes my "points"...
The first two, yes, but I don't see how the third follows. Let's say A + B are dating, likewise C + D. Later, they split up and pair up as A + C and B + D. It turns out A and C are much more compatible with each other as, are B and D. The total happiness of the system has increased.
Sure, the number of participants is relatively fixed, but it's not a question of "any warm body or alone", it's more a question of which specific people are most compatible with each other.
I think a lot of resistance to basic income, and a lot of fear of job loss due to outsourcing and automation, comes from the scarcity mindset. And if that's your world view, Trump makes sense.
> I don't even like being around zero-sum people.
I grew up with pretty limited resources (some weeks not much to eat at the end of the week) with two war-survivor parents with a pretty careful/cautious view of budget and resources so I certainly am comfortable around people who don't have a lot or don't have a lot of status.
I just don't enjoy people who think that winning is the point, and that in order to win another must lose.
I'm not a muslim but I found that word really useful...until about 15 years ago :-(. Need a better word acceptable to anglos in the west.
Almost every aspect of the world, cultural constructs and the physical realities that underpin them, for the foreseeable future, are going to remain, in effect, zero sum.
Right here on Hackernews the top story yesterday was the dead end Japan has reached by virtue of clinging to the fiction of permanent growth.
Worse, in domains in which there has been genuine growth of some kind (e.g. increased returns as a result of higher efficiencies), the story since 1970 has been: _zero sum for everyone but the top few percent, who have seized all gains for themselves_.
"Zero-sum people" are being minted by the millions by our current economy.
When you hoard the upside at historically unprecedented levels, what you get is resentment and an accurate perception that you have been left to fight for scraps.
Those who work and fight within the system for decades at the end of it seek to protect what they perceive they worked for. Even if you changed the incentives on a local (country) level, those with power are pushing for more globalization and providing havens for anyone already with wealth. Its always been this way, but its now at a larger scale, and I feel that most people wish they had something to do to make change happen.
A major part of the 'unhappiness' that I see a lot of "smart" people deal with is kind of the opposite of this "abundance" thing - in reality, there aren't enough of 'everything' to go around. Good jobs, reasonably priced things, work-life balance, adequate sick and vacation time, opportunities to advance in a company...it's not that smart people reject these things, it's that some of the conditions are pretty un-sympathetic to merit and integrity based approaches. For all the talk about the US having a very mobile system of social and economic status - which I think it does, global context in mind - it's still a bell curve of haves and have nots. Being smart enough to see that conditions are not very appealing doesn't jack up the seratonin feelings of "oh everything is just great" in my neighborhood. Relevant quote:
Peter Gibbons: Our high school guidance counselor used to ask us what you'd do if you had a million dollars and you didn't have to work. And invariably what you'd say was supposed to be your career. So, if you wanted to fix old cars then you're supposed to be an auto mechanic.
Samir: So what did you say?
Peter Gibbons: I never had an answer. I guess that's why I'm working at Initech.
Michael Bolton: No, you're working at Initech because that question is bullshit to begin with. If everyone listened to her, there'd be no janitors, because no one would clean shit up if they had a million dollars.
"Smart" has little or nothing to do with it. It so happens that whether you're smart or not is not a predictor of your happiness. The article might as well be called "Why so many people born on Tuesdays aren't happy."
"But what is happiness? It's a moment before you need more happiness."
Happiness is like a high that we chase. When I was 25, I was unhappy. But, I was making 150k a year, was very healthy, had good relationships with parents, siblings and friends. I had everything that I needed. I had a good social life and a good job that challenged me intellectually. I was working hard towards my long term goals of climbing the corporate ladder. I had many hobbies that I devoted serious time to. Yet, there was a sense of unhappiness. An "is this all to life" feeling.
I'm 27 now. I still feel like this on some days, but what has made is better is the notion that I can use my skills to help other people improve their lives. I've also learned not to pay too much attention to how you feel/what you're feeling.
/rant
Now I'm the king of the swingers, whoa/The jungle VIP/I've reached the top and had to stop/And that's what botherin' me
The best solution I've found for coping with it is to actively, constantly push down my expectations and deliberately foster a sense of gratefulness about all of the wonderful things in my life.
IMO, the real issue is smart people fall into the same traps as everyone else. They just end up feeling worse about it. Yes, getting a PHD in molecular biology was probably a bad plan because getting a PHD is generally a bad idea. Which is sadly the same trap as becoming a Hair Stylist just aimed at smart people.
It can be a problem if the population adopts an anti-intellectual strain of thought, which I think persists in America to some degree. It is important to have people who are supportive of other people's intellectual interests. But even intelligent people can be dismissive of intellectual pursuits, especially if they're outside their own set of interests.
It is possible to have a good social life with people who have had less education, or are not as intelligent. There are ways to lead a satisfying intellectual life without having access to the Stanford CS department happy hour, and this is more true now thanks to the Internet.
Intelligence isn't the only measure of a person, though. Wit, humor, and empathy are also very important. Humor and empathy, at least, aren't always paired with deep intelligence.
I think its easy for the depressed or people who are just misanthropes to hide behind a "the world will never understand my genius" attitudes we see portrayed in the media. They see themselves as a John Nash or a misunderstood artist, when they're just, well, ordinary.
This isn't a hypothetical in my world. When we do hiring its hard to filter out the asocial smart guy from the asocial bullshitter for technical jobs, especially for entry-level. Shockingly, I find the asocial bullshitter personality is mostly unaware at how terrible he is for the job he's applying for. Maybe its Dunning-Kruger or just old fashioned arrogance, but it can be hard to spot. We have a bad hire like this and its incredible how much damage he has done to the department and how he's unwilling to accept that he's, at best, below average. Instead he engages in this "tech master" personality with non-technical staff that is bizarre to witness, especially when you listen in and hear that 50% of what he's saying is just completely and obviously wrong.
So the people showcased on /r/iamverysmart?
It is indeed a massive epidemic, as far as I can tell. A lot of people are in on the game and perpetuating it however - so what can one expect?
Oh, the guy in my earlier posting? Strict atheist. I don't think religiosity has any bearing on intelligence.
> I don't think religiosity has any bearing on intelligence.
I think it has every bearing on intelligence; they are highly correlated[1] and the science backs this up.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence
It does not occur only with technical people, nor only with employees. I have met many people who simply feel that the world is out to get them and are consequently always on the defensive. They attack because if they don't, they feel like they will be attacked. And then it happens according to their perception, even if it's only in their minds. It ruins relationships in general, even marriages.
I emphasize that it's important to note it's not just technical people or employees. Imagine trying to serve a client who gets everything wrong, and when you try to get to the bottom of their problem or even just reproduce it, they get angry that you're not doing what you pay them to do. But they're not willing to consider the expertise they're paying you to provide. I've had a bunch of experiences where I can't even believe a social interaction actually happened because it's so illogical. And it is not a surprise when I notice that those people have poor relationships with a number of their colleagues.
I just told a kid today (I coach middle school basketball) that one of the biggest differences between mature and successful people and immature and unsuccessful people is whether the person is able and willing to consider they could be wrong about all the thoughts they have about others. He was a mirror image of those grown-ups who are always crying foul because the world hates them. He didn't care to consider how what I had to say applied to him too.
I don't know what to do when I run across these types of people. I have failed many times to communicate with them. So now I just try to get through the issue to solve their problem, even if it means some sleight of hand sometimes to make them feel like I agree with what they're saying. You can't treat clients the way you treat employees.
edit: alexashka nailed it. Delusional is the word. I don't know how to deal with it.
A comedian telling a story about a made up person and calling that made up person ugly is absolutely nothing like bullying.
http://www.hillaryrettig.com/perfectionism/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hillary-rettig/perfectionism-a...
- solve anything; - improve anything; - even do anything at all.
E.G: I know very smart people, perfectly understanding the theory of social interactions, knowing second to second the dynamic our group is engaged in, and yet, absolutly enable to flirt with the girl they fancy. And it makes them miserable.
Thats how we are raised; in a problem/solution format.
>On the face of it, it might look like I'm saying that capitalism in general is not very good at promoting an abundance mindset. But I don't think that that is entirely accurate. If you were to break capitalism down into two very important tenets, one is the freedom of movement of people, thought, and goods, and the freedom of choice. The second aspect is a distribution of resources according to people's abilities rather than according to people's needs.
>That first tenet of capitalism, I think, is beautiful, and I wouldn't let go of it. And if that ideology comes with the baggage of distribution of resources according to abilities, then I take that package, rather than a package where you restrict people's freedom of thought and what kinds of choices they can make, even if it's combined with a distribution of resources according to people's needs.
https://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/2014/05/12/average-...