‘Success Addicts’ Choose Being Special over Being Happy | Hacker News Reader

‘Success Addicts’ Choose Being Special over Being Happy

theatlantic.com

277 pointspseudolus128 comments

Reminds me of the Harvard Study of Adult Development, which I think about often:

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2017/04/over-nearly-8...

“[F]ollowed 724 men since they were teenagers in 1938. (Approximately 60 men, now in their 90s, are still left.) The group consisted of men from various economic and social backgrounds, from Boston’s poorest neighborhoods to Harvard undergrads. (President John F. Kennedy was even part of the original group.) Over the years, the researchers have collected all kinds of health information, and every two years they ask members questions about their lives and their mental and emotional wellness. They even interview family members.”

“Close relationships, more than money or fame, are what keep people happy throughout their lives, the study revealed. Those ties protect people from life’s discontents, help to delay mental and physical decline, and are better predictors of long and happy lives than social class, IQ, or even genes. That finding proved true across the board among both the Harvard men and the inner-city participants.”

“When we gathered together everything we knew about them about at age 50, it wasn’t their middle-age cholesterol levels that predicted how they were going to grow old,” said Waldinger in a popular TED Talk. “It was how satisfied they were in their relationships. The people who were the most satisfied in their relationships at age 50 were the healthiest at age 80.”

> Close relationships, more than money or fame, are what keep people happy throughout their lives, the study revealed. Those ties protect people from life’s discontents, help to delay mental and physical decline

I call bs, selection bias. If something bad happens, the "close relationship" ends faster than you can say "divorce".

If you manage to maintain close relationship way into retirement, yiu are very lucky. Of course you will be in great shape.

I'm not so sure.. I'm an introvert and a loner, so I often feel a bias against these kind of assertions. I want to be able to continue being a loner, feel good about it, exhibit resilience and self-reliance in a way that leaves me satisfied with my days, and invested in my intentions.

I don't have a lot of friends, but I have a few. I'm divorced, but I have a great kid and am still actively intertwined, familial-y speaking, with my ex-.

I wouldn't be able to say how all this affects my EOL quality and vitality, but I'm almost 50 and I don't feel diminished or negatively impacted by my life decisions or lifestyle yet.

I'm not "lonely" but I work to make sure I'm "alone" a good amount. I feel the urge to get social about once every 3 months and I can usually make it happen. I have a few places in the world where I travel, have friends, and can be super-social for a few weeks at a time.

If not determined by a lower bound, I wonder if they meant it qualitatively as we all quantitatively.

You sound like you have enough close relationships to sustain you.

I dont want to speak for OP, but I am at similar situation. I maintain close relationship with family to help people, not to "recharge".

Close relationship are energy suckers. For relaxation there are casual friends and flinks. But I would not call that close relationships.

When these studies talk about the value of "close" relationships, they tend to point to properties like respect, trust, and emotional intimacy. Basically the relationship characteristics that someone with a secure attachment style tends to develop. (Which raises an interesting question, are they really finding that attachment style is the biggest contributor to happiness?)

It's not necessarily a function of how much time you spend with the counterparties, or exactly how many relationships you have.

If you have strong, healthy relationships with your kid, ex, and a friend or two you're probably already in the "good" column.

The book "Aging Well" goes into detail about the men themselves, the study perimeters, and the interviews they conducted:

https://www.amazon.com/Aging-Well-Surprising-Guideposts-Deve...

None of these guys led perfect lives. Alcoholism, abuse, death, divorce. But as they grew older the things they most often cited in hours of interviews as objectively making them happier, were the relationships they forged and kept along the way.

Maintaining relationships has nearly nothing to do with luck and everything to do with doing those things that are required to maintain relationships. Those come naturally to some people but for others they are learned skills that require some focus and effort. But if you fail it's almost certainly not because of bad luck, but rather because you decided that it was too much bother.

"Luck" in the meaning of statistics. Chances are not favorable.

And please stop victim blaming. Not everyone can manage two jobs, while doing third shift at home.

Even people who work long hours can build close relationships with co-workers. The point of the article is not about working a lot versus less. It's about where you seek fulfillment and rewards within your life.

Yes, this is an aspect of secure attachment. Securely attached people prioritize relationships; relationships take time and effort and require reliability.

Insecurely attached people are usually not satisfied with relationships, and consequently don't prioritize them. The (possibly unconscious) expectation of a bad relationship is self-fulfilling.

https://www.attachmentproject.com/blog/four-attachment-style...

If you are going to downvote this comment, provide evidence. It's an empirical claim and the direction of causality OP is proposing is totally plausible. Did the authors of the original study control for this?

I mean the quote is literally "relationships at 50" and "outcome at 80." It's not "relationships at 80." Causality is inherent in the 30 year gap between factor and effect.

Only a partial control. Some bad effect @50 can cause both the divorce and the problems at @80

"Good dental hygiene at 50 correlates with cardiac health at 80, therefore brushing your teeth is good for your heart."

I'm pretty introverted and generally dislike (in a passive this person will probably not be a new close friend type of way) most people I meet. I've still managed to develop a handful of close relationships over the years. Even the ones I fucked up I can still reach out to and get a response if I need it.

Will everyone of them always be able to be there for me? No. But I'm not always there for all of them. My brothers about the only one I assume I could talk to about anything anytime. But just because other are not available to me during tough times doesnt mean I don't have a close relationship with them.

> If you manage to maintain close relationship way into retirement, yiu are very lucky. Of course you will be in great shape.

If you think both relationships and physical health are factors of luck, there's no reason to believe that those who have good luck in relationships would also have good health.

A link in this study does, in fact, suggest they aren't independent variables.

The suggestion isn't that they are independent variables, it's that the causality goes in the opposite direction. If you have poor health and/or fortune, your relationships will deteriorate as a result. It's a deeply uncomfortable hypothesis but seems quite plausible.

> If something bad happens, the "close relationship" ends faster than you can say "divorce".

I think it's important to note, close relationships can take forms other than marriage. I think even for those of us who are married, having your spouse being your only close relationship probably isn't the healthiest.

That’s kind of a pessimistic take, but you raise a good point.

Maintaining a close relationship can be difficult when faced with many hardships. It’s not unusual for a couple to divorce if a child dies or a partner has an addiction problem (for example).

So is it the close relationship that brings happiness, or does the fact you’ve maintained a close relationship reflect a life with fewer hardships and that’s what’s driving the happiness?

This isn’t a blanket statement by any means, many relationships are strengthened by hardships.

I'm not sure why this was down-voted. Poster is right about the correlation-causation. When I'm stress-free and stable, I have an easy time maintaining friendships. When I'm stressed out and overloaded, I don't have time for friends, and when I do, I sometimes drive people away.

I find having friends makes burdens lighter. Having a conversation with someone during a stressful time is a great way to gain perspective, get helpful advice, just talk though it, or at minimum, escape for a bit.

I'd love for more data on this. Is ability to maintain a close relationship also a predictor of ability to overcome bad things that happen? That is, is there some overarching skill or ability that those people have whose close relationships survive to 80 to withstand such difficulties, or is it luck?

I'm thinking those weren't close relationships? :)

Just in the shitty western paradigm of what a marriage has turned into. A marriage never works with equal partners. One person needs to be dominant.

> help delay physical decline

I wouldn't immediately jump to the conclusion that they were healthier in absolute terms, can also be that as the group aged they developed health issue at the same rate but having someone around more often helped by having them recognizing and testing for ailments timely

> better predictors of long and happy lives than social class, IQ, or even genes.

They went to Harvard (The non Harvard were added over 30 years later), I would expect 130 IQ compared to 140 IQ wouldn't matter as much as close relationships.

Compare 90 IQ to 110 IQ and I'd be surprised.

I'd also think it's absolutely harder to have close relationships with lower IQ's.

But it's totally correct, relationships matter, people who go to church live longer.

Atheists might be right, but until they work out ways for ongoing communal meetings that last throughout life they are also wrong.

> I'd also think it's absolutely harder to have close relationships with lower IQ's.

Why do you think this?

Life's hard. Relationships are hard. The added burden makes having close relationships hard.

I don't think movies are correct that with struggles people come together. I think things happen out of necessity that better off people look at with rose colored glasses.

[edit] The research doesn't seem to agree with this though.

I believe this is why Casanova survived to very old age. He was good at building relationships e even if he went from rags to riches to rags again.

I think this is why lots of people are unhappy nowadays. Think about life in a small community. It’s easy to be the guy who is special because he’s the best at baking, or juggling, or playing an instrument, or telling stories. Whatever it is. Wanting to be especially good at something and recognised for it seems like a pretty basic human need to me. How is anyone going to feel special now when everyone’s seen a hundred YouTube videos of people doing your special thing infinitely better than you ever will? No wonder people get addicted to ‘fake specialness’ at work. Relationships can also make people feel special. But the nagging feeling that you’re not REALLY special may remain...

It's almost like the problem is wanting to be special? Stoicism and tangential philosophies are more critically important than ever, in my opinion. I've also found a great deal of benefit from not participating in social media.

EDIT: There's a related and quite important concept in the contemporary well-being discourse often referred to as 'the dispassionate pursuit of passion [or success]'. I think many of the people who show up on HN would benefit from understanding it. Choosing to not desire being special is not the same thing as being inert. There is a balancing point. Here's a resource (albeit maybe a bit too self-helpy) that talks about this: https://www.happinessacademy.eu/blog-en/the-6th-happiness-si....

You desire to LIVE ‘according to Nature’? Oh, you noble Stoics, what fraud of words! Imagine to yourselves a being like Nature, boundlessly extravagant, boundlessly indifferent, without purpose or consideration, without pity or justice, at once fruitful and barren and uncertain: imagine to yourselves INDIFFERENCE as a power—how COULD you live in accordance with such indifference? To live—is not that just endeavouring to be otherwise than this Nature? Is not living valuing, preferring, being unjust, being limited, endeavouring to be different? And granted that your imperative, ‘living according to Nature,’ means actually the same as ‘living according to life’—how could you do DIFFERENTLY? Why should you make a principle out of what you yourselves are, and must be? In reality, however, it is quite otherwise with you: while you pretend to read with rapture the canon of your law in Nature, you want something quite the contrary, you extraordinary stage-players and self-deluders! In your pride you wish to dictate your morals and ideals to Nature, to Nature herself, and to incorporate them therein; you insist that it shall be Nature ‘according to the Stoa,’ and would like everything to be made after your own image, as a vast, eternal glorification and generalism of Stoicism! With all your love for truth, you have forced yourselves so long, so persistently, and with such hypnotic rigidity to see Nature FALSELY, that is to say, Stoically, that you are no longer able to see it otherwise— and to crown all, some unfathomable superciliousness gives you the Bedlamite hope that BECAUSE you are able to tyrannize over yourselves—Stoicism is selftyranny—Nature will also allow herself to be tyrannized over: is not the Stoic a PART of Nature? ... But this is an old and everlasting story: what happened in old times with the Stoics still happens today, as soon as ever a philosophy begins to believe in itself. It always creates the world in its own image; it cannot do otherwise; philosophy is this tyrannical impulse itself, the most spiritual Will to Power, the will to ‘creation of the world,’ the will to the causa prima.

― Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil

In case anyone is interested in the source.

I don’t really subscribe to stoicism (and a lot, but not all, of mindfulness and CBT) for precisely this reason: it seems to me to be telling people that it doesn’t matter if their needs aren’t being met, the real problem is that they have any needs. If it helps you personally, that’s great! But to me stoicism texts often feel like they’re written by some dismissive parent, the kind who would just tell you “only the boring get bored” instead of playing with you when you were a kid :)

To me stoicism is helpful in the sense of the advice one gets in jujitsu: If taking one grip on something isn't getting you the leverage you want, don't grip it harder, let go and take a different grip.

Stoicism can't help if you're just getting traumatized, but a lot of "I feel awful about the world generally" sentiment boils down to having a tense grip on one's worldview, a rigid set of norms leading to the judgment that it is all wrong and terrible and thus to a kind of flagellatory self-harm. Nature as a whole, on the other hand, is indifferent - the "is" instead of the "ought". We learn many oughts when we're young, but they all deserve examination.

Stoicism and the Art of Jiu Jitsu.

This is one of the best comments I’ve ever read on HN.

Hmm I think I wasn't clear enough with "Stoicism and tangential philosophies". I didn't mean to imply any one philosophy is necessarily a definitive prescription. Rather, they include various good ideas that should be borrowed and amalgamated into a composite that best fits the individual.

It's interesting that you say that. Bertrand Russell writes in "The History of Western Philosphy" that the backdrop against which Stoicism (and Epicureanism for that matter) first flourished was a Greek civilization in decline. Life was becoming harder and harder for a majority of people, so people sought refuge in these two philosophies.

My guess is that wider and more open communities only make it easier for everyone to become "special" at their own little thing, with their own little (but still quite large given the scale we're looking at!) following of admirers. But most people are failing to recognize this, because they expect the kind of dynamic that would apply in a tiny community - where you can be "the best" at something as broadly defined as 'telling stories', and be respected for that.

> Wanting to be especially good at something and recognised for it seems like a pretty basic human need to me

You would be surprised. I for one I know I don't want to be "especially good at anything", I've started calling this recently "the George Costanza-way of looking at life", when I was younger I was calling it after a very great novel I had read as a teenager, Musil's "The Man Without Qualities" [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Without_Qualities

It is always a bit paradoxical to discuss articles like this over a message board where we compete for votes and the top comment haha.

I often think that happiness is a shallow goal, and you leave a lot on the table if you are unwilling to suffer. Success and achievements are answers to that old question 'why?', they justify our existence.

Contrary to that, to paraphrase Gene Wolfe from Book of the Long Sun: "When something is good it needs no justification."

another relevant quote (just because!) from East of Eden:

"On one side you have warmth and companionship and sweet understanding, and on the other - cold, lonely greatness. There you make your choice. I'm glad I chose mediocrity, but how am I to say what reward might have come with the other? None of my children will be great either, except perhaps Tom. He's suffering over the choosing right now. It's a painful thing to watch."

I think we use the happy in too broad of a manner. There's at least two dimensions to happiness that I regularly talk about

1) ephemeral pleasure (candy)

2) longer lasting joy / satisfaction (legacy/friendships/service)

I disagree, I don’t see happiness as a shallow goal. But for me happiness does not mean that I won’t suffer. Kids make me happy, but they also bring great suffering.

> where we compete for votes and the top comment haha

I don't think this is the reason most people post here.

There’s nothing like the rush of getting a post to the front page, even if it is vacuous compared to more difficult accomplishments.

I love this comment

happiness is a shallow goal, and you leave a lot on the table if you are unwilling to suffer

I don’t think these experiences are mutually exclusive. Look at the face of a marathon runner for those last few miles. Agony? Yes. Determination? Definitely. Unhappiness? I’m not so sure about that.

Plenty of runners will tell you they’re in their happy place when they’re out on the road, putting one foot in front of the other, for miles and miles and miles.

Similar things could be said about the people who love spicy food, I suppose.

In so many aspects of life, I see people chasing after an analog for the thing that they actually want, either because they become confused along the way, or could never decide/admit/discover what it is they really wanted.

If I'm famous people will love or accept me (if you're famous, you will never again know for sure who really loves or accepts you). If I have money I will finally feel safe. If I am the most intimidating person in the room, I'll never feel intimidated again, and nobody will ever know how helpless and small that makes me feel. If I have tons of kids, someone will still remember me fondly when I'm old.

These all end up fixing the wrong problem.

This is the best comment in the thread. We often compensate in ways to patch over the thing that is difficult or harming us. It's so much easier to just go for gold than it is to criticize and deconstruct your own motivations.

"banality of mere happiness"

That is exactly it.

Based on this article I would certainly be a member of the group called a success addict. I can only speak for myself here but in my opinion "happiness" is not only the wrong goal, it's an active distraction from determining and pursing the right goal. I have MY version of what the right goal is, but have no illusions on it's generality.

Therein the conflict lies: The average person in my estimation defaults to "happiness" as the generalizable optimization vector.

To wit - the article demonstrates this with the language of addiction and a reinforcement of the ONE TRUE GOAL: "relationships and love." Deviation from happiness (epicurean or hedonistic) as the ultimate goal is exactly that - deviant!

Well said.

The topic of spending "too much time at work" is something I think about a lot. (Wrote 2 previous comments about this.[0])

In the 2nd thread, one reply ask, "Have you tried finding fulfillment in having a family?" -- I didn't reply to that but I want to do so here.

It depends on the personality as a parent but it can be very dangerous to rely on your family to be the source of happiness and hoping that it overrides an unsatisfactory job. I'm heavily influenced by growing up with my unhappy mother because she had artistic ambitions that were disrupted by having children (me). She had to work at a "boring" 9-to-5 job to put food on the table and a roof over our heads. Because of her awful (but good paying) job, all of our misbehavior and problems were magnified and she lost a lot of patience with us. For our specific circumstances, we might have been all better off if she (over)worked 60+ hours at something she liked (for possibly even less pay) so we as children weren't such a glaring irritation to her. Lots of frustrations with us with exasperations such as, "Do you know how hard I have to work to put food on the table?!"

Based on that, I think one of the greatest gifts you can give to your future spouse, and future children ... is to find work that's palatable. Don't bring your misery home. Don't ask your family to be the _source_ of happiness. That's too much pressure on them. Instead, see them as _enhancing_ your existing happiness.

I'm not giving universal advice here. I'm emphasizing that you really need to examine yourself and understand who you really are before thinking your family and relationships will be your salvation. It wasn't for my mother and it's not for me. Maybe we're psychologically defective. I don't know. For me, I already tried the author's advice with a 40-hour job and "work/life balance". That doesn't make me happy. What works for me is to pursue an unbalanced life.

Yes, there's "all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy", and "nobody lies on their deathbed wishing they spent more time at the office", and "hustle porn", etc. I'm aware of all the derogatory memes that try to invalidate how I feel but I can't help it.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9426760

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23924830

I'm with you 100%. This "the 40 hour work week is too long" stuff doesn't resonate with me at all. For some people, hustling is what makes them happy.

"Don't ask your family to be the _source_ of happiness."

I think investing in a family means seeing their happiness and successes and flourishing as one of the sources of your happiness.

And working a job to make money to give them an environment where they can grow and thrive and flourish can be part of that happiness, even if the job itself is kind of "meh".

(And if that's not something that motivates you, then, yeah, probably best not to start a family.)

Not everyone lives to seek happiness. There's no reason to view seeking "success" or any other mode of living as illness just because it's not going to achieve happiness.

I don't think most want to be simply happy anyway. A lot of people want to have kids. Is this because they want to be happy? Is buying a house about seeking happiness? Is the author writing this article to be happy? Is reading Hacker News going to make you happy?

It's usually a mixture of motivations. There's far easier ways to be happy than most choose, but happiness is not the only reason to live.

Agreed. Some people are motivated by wanting to have a significant positive impact on the world, and they're fine if that makes me a little less happy overall. I think that's great - especially when it's someone who has a lot of privilege/power. We should be encouraging that over pursuit of happiness/pleasure.

Yeah back in the day the pursuit of happiness used to be a vice, hedonism almost. Now it's seen as the ultimate life purpose, wtf.

Back in what day? Aristotle spent considerable time explaining how to achieve eudaimonia. In more recent history, humanist psychologists (e.g., Maslow, Rogers, etc.) have suggested people have an inbuilt tendency towards self actualization (which is roughly equivalent to happiness). I’m sure there are many more examples, but I find it unlikely that happiness has been seriously considered as a vice.

Pleasure (i.e. self-reported, short-term happiness) and actualisation/flourishing seem to be very different things to me. Or at least that's one of the lessons I learned from the novel Brave New World.

I haven’t read the book you mentioned, but from my opinion derived after studying Maslow and Rogers, is that actualization refers to the result of factors leading to a fully functioning human, and by proxy, a happy/content/at peace one.

If you ever get a chance, look into some of Maslow’s explanations on the characteristics of an individual who has self-actualizated. There are other interesting humanistic psychologists such as Dabrowski that are fascinating as well.

> happy/content/at peace

Is that the same as immediate pleasure though?

Not sure about that. Utilitarianism was around for a pretty long time, and I'm sure folks like Jeremy Bentham would probably disagree that the pursuit of happiness is/was a vice.

I disagree, I think every decision we make is ultimately pleasure seeking (or equivalently, suffering-minimizing). That doesn’t mean we are right about what actions we should perform to optimize our wellbeing, just that how we act necessarily reflects our beliefs in what will make us happy.

Buying a house for example: We think it will provide us safety and comfort, a place to raise children, etc.

Creating children is desired in itself through evolutionary impulses, and we see that manifested by desire, seeking purpose, leaving a legacy, etc.

Happiness, in its usage in the article and by me, is not pleasure. Your disagreement is not with my point

I am suggesting that happiness indeed boils down to pleasure

Curious if corona quarantines have changed folks' perspectives on this. I consider myself pretty high on the "success addict spectrum", but after sitting at home in my sweatpants (or underwear) for the past 4 months, I just feel like some of those "success desires" have lost their luster.

So much of desiring success is really about desiring recognition from others, and for some reason I just feel like I care less after being socially distant for this long.

I actually feel like covid lockdown has had the opposite effect on me. Many of the things I enjoyed doing have been made impossible or much more difficult, so it feels like all I am left with is striving for work accomplishments.

Put another way: many people choose to pursue a meaningful life over a happy life.

The English word "happy" covers a wide range of states and I'm not sure the original article has even settled on one definition. They reference terms like 'life satisfaction', 'orginary delights', 'relationships and love', 'hedonic treadmill', etc.

The article seems to be coming from a good place, but I think the deeper message got lost in the noise: "Work for a sense of personal meaning, not outward achievement" (paraphrased).

Happiness and success don't have to be mutually exclusive.

Incredibly interesting article, I don't think it's just America that suffers from "success culture", from Europe to Asia to Africa you can find swathes of people who want to "be the best".

And it's worrying, because at some point you will do the best work you can. You will hit that goal. If you don't have any other things you want to achieve out of doing a good job at work, I could see it easy to fall down the slippery slope of depression.

Thought provoking stuff!

I seek success and money explicitly so I don't have to give two f*cks about what people think about me. So I can do exactly what I want, specifically things many other people can't do because they've encumbered themselves with "meaningful" relationships and kids.

"Being special" is a bad take in my book. Everyone has a unique idea of what success is. Success can skirt the lines of being widely known, rich or surrounded by a family they built.

Just live your life, it's an optimization problem without any real end - so get on with it and stop worrying you're going to make the "wrong" call.

If you need success and money to not care what people think about you, well, whatever works.

I think competitive personalities and globalization just don’t mix. When humans lived in much smaller groups it was possible to carve out a niche if you wanted to. Aside from the monarch you probably didn’t know of many other people outside your community who were really good at X/Y/Z. Now there are 8b of us and it’s not hard to find out how many of those people are really good at something. Survival in wealthier countries is also so easy that all the competition is really for prestige/glory/status (having a moderately bigger house, nicer vacation, sending your kids to a better school) anyway.

The other thing is that our financial system is so well-defined it can gamify “success” as just increasing a simple, well-understood metric: money

This reminds me of something Alex Honnold said in the fantastic documentary Free Solo:

“She [his girlfriend] sees things in a different way. For Sanni, the point of life is happiness. To be with people that make you feel fulfilled and have a good time.

For me it’s all about performance. The thing is anybody can be happy and cozy. Nothing good happens in the world by being happy and cozy. Nobody achieves anything great because they’re happy and cozy.”

I found his perspective so fascinating and revealing about people who are among the best in the world at something.

Addiction is a progressive narrowing of what brings you pleasure.

Addicts don’t choose their addiction over happiness, they lose the ability for other things to bring them happiness through desensitization.

“There are only three requirements for success. First, decide exactly what it is you want in life. Second, determine the price that you are going to have to pay to get the things you want. And third, and this is most important, resolve to pay that price."

H.L. HUNT

Eloquent, intuitive, and wrong. You may still fail despite your best efforts.

Of course, 'success', however defined, is presumably different from happiness.

Why does “You may still fail despite your best efforts” mean the above quote about success is wrong?

It says there are only three requirements, but those three are not enough

You can pay the price you calculated, and still not get what you want.

But maybe the real treasure was the friends you made along the way?

There's a great parable relating to this: The Other Side of the Hedge[0] by E. M. Forster. It's not too long, and I can confidently say it's worth your while if this article struck a chord with you.

[0] http://www.101bananas.com/library2/otherside.html

Wallace Carothers, the DuPont chemist that created nylon and contributed to the creation of neoprene, felt that he did not achieve much and committed suicide.

To most people, those are outstanding life achievements.

Damn. And I'm happy when I can get a few people to use my crappy software.

I agree that happiness on a diet of achievements sets you up for failure. I also think that a lot of people know this intuitively but don't acknowledge it consciously or to others.

However, the author should have elaborated on "meaningful relationships". Dominant networking sites have imposed the unproved notion that "who you know" is more important than "who you are" and "what you know". Constant social comparisons encouraged by social media are also contributing to depression. As the author of a University of Houston 2015 study [0] stated: "This research and previous research indicates the act of socially comparing oneself to others is related to long-term destructive emotions".

[0] - https://uh.edu/news-events/stories/2015/April/040415FaceookS...

I don't think any of the relationships you describe would qualify as "meaningful".

That's my point.

No matter how good you are at something, there's always a million people better than you.

  -- Homer Simpson

Gotcha: Can't win. Don't try.

  -- Bart Simpson

https://youtu.be/1YgGnfBNAqg

I recall once having a conversation with the gifted kids about how being in the "99.5th percentile" meant that there were 8 million people in the world smarter than you. That number is just bigger now, and ignores fields of specialization entirely.

If you are in the US, that 8 million number won’t mean much. You would be surprised how fast the brain withers away without proper education

This is such an American perspective. Happiness doesn't have to be your #1 goal, or even in your top 5-10. The article seems to undervalue the idea of making a positive impact in the world or lasting change. It seems to conflate achieving goals with the idea that you'll move the goal post, and that's necessarily bad (e.g. the Sisyphean concept). Personally speaking, I much rather have a long-term positive impact on humanity than to be happy but a blip on history's radar. I should be so lucky. Many choose to value their own family's success over their own, or their community. Others dedicate themselves to noble causes with high potential fatality risk.

> even though a good relationship is more satisfying than any job.

Um, citation needed. Also relevant, "Find a job you enjoy doing, and you will never have to work a day in your life."

If you love your job, it can bring you happiness and success. Look at jobs like being a doctor where you get to help people. Even though many doctors have plenty of money to retire, they tend to keep working and helping people because many times they just really enjoy it!

This also misses out on all the problems of a relationship, like stress, cheating, money, fighting, etc. If relationships are so great, why do so many marriages end in divorce? (isn't that like "quitting" your "job"?)

Maybe I'm just a success addict, but if it's something I care about, then I'm going to go for it. And I try to keep what I measure to be how useful I am to others, what I can bring to the table, rather than dollars or title.

Of course if you constantly strive for the things you don't really want, you can stress yourself out trying, then stress yourself out failing, or stress yourself out being there. But the same could be said of a relationship with the wrong person. Coming from a broken home, I wish I could explain how easy it is to see people in broken relationships that make them unhappy, but also unable to get off the "relationship treadmill". Pick the right people and the right things!

A few points:

- rhetoric about loving your job tends to come from a very small minority of people who do not have an absolutely mind-, body-, and soul-crushing job. Rich people like to talk about working at Wendy’s as some sort of “introductory” or “transitional” job, but this is not the case. And on top of the job itself being awful, then you get to go home and worry about the fact that you don’t have any money. There is something to be said for having a sense of Zen at work, since that will make it less miserable, but the strange capitalist utopia where everyone is whistling at work is probably a long way off.

- “relationships” are more than just with your spouse. What about your friends, roommates, relatives, children, neighbors, baristas, janitors, etc. I don’t count coworkers because I believe that a work environment tends to inculcate a sense of competition and scarcity among people which is the opposite of what good relationships are made of. It is so important to have at least a few people in your life that would be there for you even if you didn’t have a fancy job or nice things, because one day you might not have those things and then where will you be?

Good points and fair enough!

I guess my point was that it's kind of a false dichotomy, in that you can have happiness from work, and sadness from relationships as well. But I think also they are inter-related, in that good relationships can bring about more meaningful work (job opportunities, people you can learn from, etc.) and good work can lead to relationships (people you meet at work, through work, customers, etc.)

While you say that coworkers are considered a bit differently, I think that also depends on the type of job. In high pressure jobs, I think you are absolutely correct, but in some of the more "soul-crushing" jobs that you mention, the coworkers are the best part. I think some of the best coworker relationships I had were when I was making pizzas.

People / relationships can also move on themselves (moving, death, other changes), so those aren't permanent either.

I’m not rich, but even I view a food service job at a fast food business (besides owning the business) as transitional. In other words, I would have no intention to stay there longer than absolutely necessary. I would forego many comforts to save what I need to make my move and get out.

There’s a saying that if you took away all of a rich person’s financial assets (anything owned) they would be rich again within a few years. That may be a bit of a stretch (it might take more like 10 or even 20 years), but the point is, there is a required mindset that it takes to get out of poverty, and that is a firm determination to not accept the status quo.

Don’t get me wrong: having that determination doesn’t guarantee anything (plenty of people work hard and don’t break out of it after 20 years because of hard luck or inescapable obligations), but those who do make it out always have that mindset. And those who don’t have that mindset never make it out, even if they win the lottery.

It's fascinating to see so many commenters here automatically assuming "relationship" must mean "spouse".

It's important to invest in some kind of close relationships, but that doesn't have to mean marriage.

I agree, but the article really seems to imply marriage, spouse, and kids. It specifically says marriage early on, and then talks about "little league games" and "ballet" which are obviously referring to having kids, which is implicit in the article as well.

Something I've really struggled with is when people who enjoy working more than I (perhaps addictively, perhaps not) then exclude me and others from participating. They've often earned the control but I've often produced higher quality work and only prefer a different work life balance. However, unless I'm willing to project onboard-ness with the culture and act accordingly, I'm excluded from participating.

Richard Hamming disagrees:

"Is effort to be a great person worth it? ...those who did succeed said - Yes it's better than wine women and song put together... Doing something really first class and knowing you've done it is better than anything else they can think of."

https://youtu.be/a1zDuOPkMSw?t=2461

It's a roll of the dice though. Of those who attempt to do something first class and pin their hopes on it, how many can succeed? You can at least say that the Stoic path is a more reliable path to satisfaction.

"This might be hard to believe, but I'm just a regular Joe. I just want to be happy. And happiness comes from the achievement of goals. It's just that when you've made your first billion by the age of 19, it's hard to keep coming up with new ones! But finally, I've got myself a new goal: WORLD DOMINATION!" Darwin Mayflower in "Hudson Hawk"

I love every Mayflower scene in that movie, even when Minerva just sits on the boardroom table singing "I've Got The Power".

Hmm, I guess I'd probably be in this situation. Always been far more interested in becoming the best/world class at something, and very uninterested in people or personal relationships.

However, I think the reasons for that are:

1. I've always found it tricky to form real relationships or connect with people in any emotional sense, so trying to become rich/famous/successful feels like a more easily quantifiable, practical alternative.

2. As an existentialist, I've always believed that people make their own destiny, and that people can forge their own path to success. So I've always chased success to prove that you don't have to be some gifted prodigy born with the right genetics and upbringing to do great things or innovate in any field.

And I guess the internet probably hasn't helped either. The news and social media sites are full of outliers seemingly doing amazing things, so my standards for everything have basically become 'has to match/beat the top X% of people in this fied showcasing their work online'

"The pursuit of achievement distracts from the deeply ordinary activities and relationships that make life meaningful."

Obviously if they value achievement more, then that's what's more meaningful to them. Not sure how anybody can define what's meaningful in general for everybody. And meaning changes with time - what's meaningful today, may not be tomorrow.

Success as a synonym for making money always felt like a hijacking of the word to me. Good life outcomes and slaving to get rich are different things. Being intense about your own thing is yet a third idea, frequently associated with sacrifice of financial security (eg pursuit of the arts or non moneyed academia fields)

> Rather, it should be work that serves others and gives you a sense of personal meaning.

Way to finish the article with a tautology. "To find meaning, do something meaningful." Sage advice.

Looks like I'm very bitter that the author suggests happiness as the alternative. Brainwashing ourselves into permanent happiness is clearly not something we'd want.

> As I once found myself confessing to a close friend, “I would prefer to be special than happy.” He asked why. “Anyone can do the things it takes to be happy—going on vacation with family, relaxing with friends … but not everyone can accomplish great things.” My friend scoffed at this...

I had a similar exchange with a friend. I wish the author said more.

Tangentially related random connection. This quote

In the 1980s, the physician Robert Goldman famously found that more than half of aspiring athletes would be willing to take a drug that would kill them in five years in exchange for winning every competition they entered today

Stood out to me as a possible source for inspiration of the Juicer class in the Rifts RPG (https://rifts.fandom.com/wiki/Juicer_)

Whoa, when I read the quoted sentence of yours I immediately had the same though. Kind of eerie.

Man, RIFT was kind of weird with all their numbers, but it was cool in ideas.

Isn't the rise of the US based on breaking out of past stagnant structures, and using creative destruction to change how the world works?

I don't know if the creativity and opportunities to grow, try new things, be someone else would be the same if everyone were "just happy" ala Old Europe (in Rumsfeld's words). You might not be very happy, if the environment were everyone just being happy...

But I guess the article is suggesting that people readjust their definition of what happy is.

Everyone has personal problems. I promise you it's much better to deal with those problems while not having to worry about money or career.

"In the 1980s, the physician Robert Goldman famously found that more than half of aspiring athletes would be willing to take a drug that would kill them in five years in exchange for winning every competition they entered today"

Seems very probable that when it comes down to it and they had the pill in their hand, a lot would not go through with it once the reflection hits.

"the notion that one's goal in life is to be happy, that your own happiness is the goal. i just don't buy it.

... i mean, happiness is... (pause) ...I've heard from several people an now I wonder... (pause) ...is that what postwar democracy has amounted to?"

-- Hayao Miyazaki (of Studio Ghibli) in "The Kingdom of Dreams and Madness"

> Imagine reading a story titled “The Relentless Pursuit of Booze.”

It's called the Modern Drunkard Magazine

https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Homage-to-boozers-Bimont...

This is pretentious. Happiness has never been the purpose of life. Meaning is, and if these people find meaning in their work the better for it.

Most of the people I find unhappy now a days are the one constantly running after it. Never picking something that matters and may in a lot of cases make them unhappy for a time.

The Variability Hypothesis means that the evolutionarily optimal strategy for males is to be very special (top few percent) within their competitor group. Since competitor groups have grown a lot since the evolutionary environment, it's not surprising to see this manifest in arguably pathological ways.

The intellect of man is forced to choose / Perfection of the life, or of the work, / And if it take the second must refuse / A heavenly mansion, raging in the dark. -W.B. Yeats, “The Choice”

I have done this for a long time and am just waking up out of it. It is sad to have spent so much time lost... (when I embarrassingly thought I was found). Trying to find the right pathway for myself now.

as Schopenhauer put it:

"Life itself is a sea full of reefs and maelstroms that a human being takes the greatest care and caution to avoid; he uses all his efforts and ingenuity to wend his way through, while knowing that even if he is successful, every step brings him closer to the greatest, the total, the inescapable and irreparable shipwreck, and in fact steers him right up to it, - to death: this is the final goal of the miserable journey and worse for him that all the reefs he managed to avoid."

"Enough is an abundance to the wise." -Euripides

If you want to be happy, let go of your ego. Love or be kind to other people without expectations of reciprocity - even the a*holes.

This is portrayed as being about social recognition. Is it? The facts talk about deeply anti social behaviour. This is about chasing a flow state

And other people make the conscious choice to be happy. More or less in the epicurean style.

Should definitely read I don't want to talk about it by Terrance Real which dives into this.

important read for the hacker news crowd

It's not a choice. It's a disease. No one chooses to be miserable.

Corollary to this, though: you can (with a lot of caveats) choose to be happy. Or, at least, commit to finding and pursuing the path(s) that will get you closer.

It can (and does) take a lot more work than sitting in the familiar rut of misery. Sometimes, this involves doctors and pharmaceuticals, but, either way, requires a lot of work on the part of the individual.

The process of starting this work when you are already overwhelmed is a big problem. Try to rig the game in your favor and be realistic about whether you can benefit from outside help.

Edit: formatting.

Well, the article makes it look like striving for accomplishment necessarily makes you miserable, and makes the comparison to alcoholism. If so, it's a very deeply buried, unconscious misery: alcoholics wake up and go to sleep feeling horrible and will tell you out loud that they're miserable whenever they're sober and wish that they could stop feeling so awful. Pursuing excellence doesn't (in and of itself) ravage your body or destroy your sleep.

I'm fascinated by computers, and I like to spend time learning more about them. This doesn't make me miserable, it makes me happy (and, lucky for me, I can turn this into money too). It does make the people around me uncomfortable: they figure that if they were reading a book about programming computers, they would be miserable, so they try to talk me out of "punishing" myself.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com