80% of People Quietly Despise Their Lives | Hacker News Reader

80% of People Quietly Despise Their Lives

howtosplitanatom.com

141 pointswavephorm87 comments

There's truth here, but it's almost too obvious to point out that this is highly anecdotal and almost emblematic of all sorts of bias problems.

Selection bias is chief. Very few people are socially in touch with anything representing the general population. The author doesn't mention where he's initiating these conversations, but happy people do not hang out by themselves at bars very often or necessarily avail themselves to strangers in line at Starbucks. Many of them spend most of their socializing in families and tight knit groups of friends. It's very easy to interact with a certain strata of mildly depressed middle class people and think you're dealing with a diverse slice of society.

The other big one is projection. If you're a contemplative/philosophical person, especially a smart one, there's a good chance that you can tap right into people's ennui and disillusionment. People of a more manic bent can engage just about anyone in a fast-paced, neurotic conversation. The happier people I know are often under the impression that most people are more or less satisfied with their existence. Again, be careful.

Finally, most people also have a strong propensity to see themselves at a fundamental advantage to most people ("I'm doing good, everybody else is struggling."). I wish I remembered the name for the term.

It's an interesting conversation, but these kind of conversations need to proceed with a high-level of self-awareness that's somewhat absent here.

I agree. As the physicists would say, this little psychological observation is "not even wrong".

Not only does it matter who you ask and in what context, but the very wording of the questions is significant. By priming you properly (e.g. perhaps by asking you to name a bunch of extremely happy and fulfilled people and only then asking you if you feel happy and fulfilled yourself) I can probably make the results come out however I want.

> Finally, most people also have a strong propensity to see themselves at a fundamental advantage to most people ("I'm doing good, everybody else is struggling."). I wish I remembered the name for the term.

The Lake Wobegon effect I assume. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Wobegon_effect

1) People crave stability.

2) Stability breeds contempt.

>> A will and desire awakens to go off, anywhere, at any cost; a vehement dangerous curiosity for an undiscovered world flames and flickers in all its sense. 'Better to die than to go living here' - thus responds the imperious voices and temptation; and this 'here', this 'at home' is everything it had hitherto loved! A sudden terror and suspicion of what it loved, a lightning-bolt of contempt for what it called 'duty', a rebellious, arbitrary, volcanically erupting desire for travel, strange places, estrangements, coldness, soberness, frost, a hatred of love, perhaps a desecrating blow and glance backwards to where it formerly loved and worshipped.

-- Nietzsche

Can somebody explain to me why we allow philosophers to make explicitly positive claims about the mind and psychology without empirical evidence, when were they to do the same thing with regards to, say physics (claiming perhaps that "the sun has a will to orbit the earth"), we'd rightly reject them for lack of proof?

Well, first, there might be some things about human psychology that we can figure out a priori. Notice I said "might". I don't think it's obvious that we should rule out the possibility, at the very least.

More generally, it's just not true that all scientific work (including physics) is done completely by means of empirical research. See Wikipedia's entry on "Thought experiment" for some good cases[1].

I'm not arguing for or against this particular bit of Nietzsche, but I think HN sometimes overvalues empirical or statistical study above all else.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_experiment

That Wiki link needs to be editied. EX:

consequences:In terms of their theoretical consequences, thought experiments generally:

challenge (or even refute) a prevailing theory, often involving the device known as reductio ad absurdum,

Hmm, you could replace device with logical falicy but then it does not say what they thought it did...

Reductio ad absurdum is not necessarily a fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

There are different disciplines within the field of philosophy. The scientifically-minded philosopher might be interested in Metaphysics & Epistomology, or roughly, "what we know and how we know it". A standard approach in these fields is to address the Skeptic; someone who logically disagrees with the fundamental assumptions of the philosopher. This is where you get someone like Descartes writing "I think therefore I am" as a starting point for further arguments.

Other disciplines are less concerned with Truth (big "T") so much as they're focused on practical lessons on how to live life.

Yeah, it's almost like there are truths that aren't empirically verifiable!

Oops, I forgot: reductionism is the modern dogma. Carry on.

No answer you get to this will possibly contain empirical evidence or any scientific rigor, and yet you asked it hoping for information. Philosophy isn't science. It's not much more than unusually thoughtful literature. But that's still useful sometimes.

Just ask yourself if it's true for you. If so, it's highly likely it's true for the general population.

> If so, it's highly likely it's true for the general population.

I'm like me, therefore everybody is like me?

If true, that should scare the bejesus out of all of you.

I suspect your parent was simply mocking philosophers.

Relevant:

"At this point of his effort man stands face to face with the irrational. He feels within him his longing for happiness and for reason. The absurd is born of this confrontation between the human need and the unreasonable silence of the world."

-- Camus (who was heavily influenced by Nietzsche)

I understand the Nietzsche quote but not how the one from Camus applies?

Aren't they talking about two very different things?

Camus is talking about Absurdism. [1] How it's related to the Nietzsche's quote depends on how you see it. (Nietzsche was a kind of absurdist himself)

It is a broad theory. It says life is basically absurd because the world is meaningless and indifferent to man's desires/prejudices/beliefs. The world just doesn't care about man and we can't apply any universal laws to human life. Life is full of randomness/surprises. Loss/defeat/death can come anytime in any form but man continues to be in denial about them. This makes man vulnerable to boredom/pessimism/nihilism. I think this situation is what the article's 80% of people represent.

The solution Absurdists give is, man should create his own meaning in life and live for it but by being constantly aware of life's absurdity. Instead of denying it or seeking permanent happiness in some supernatural world or after life, we should embrace this life and all its absurdities. This attitude makes us live life to the fullest and as Nietzsche says it leads to the 'celebration of life'. I think the article's 20% of people fall under this.

[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absurdism

Also see:

The Myth of Sisyphus - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_Sisyphus

Eternal Return - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_recurrence#Friedrich_Ni...

Amor Fati - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amor_fati

Maybe I am projecting, or misinterpreting because I lack context, but I actually find the quote posted by angrycoder to be (by Nietzsche's standards, anyway) rather uplifting, and not about absurdism or a fundamental lack of meaning in the world. My take on it is quite the opposite - that he was expressing something noble and almost 'hyperreal', namely the triumph of curiosity and exploration over the safe and familiar.

I may have totally missed the point, of course. Thanks for replying - I'll definitely check out your links.

I think I didn't explain properly. Your interpretation of Nietzsche's quote is correct and Absurdism says exactly that. It says instead of seeking a 'safe life' and striving for a life that is 'acceptable' by the society, we should make our own meanings and choices no matter how crazy they might appear because we're not answerable to anyone but ourselves. All novels of Camus contain this same theme. Some of the Nietzsche's famous quotes like "live dangerously" and "become what you are" also contain this sentiment.

Remember that both Nietzsche and Camus refused to belong to any particular philosophical school of thoughts but many of their thoughts overlap. So I'm just trying to link both.

"Heaven and earth are ruthless, and treat the myriad creatures as straw dogs."

-- Lao Tzu

I agree that it's a pretty weak article. However, I 100% absolutely and totally believe it.

What I feel like I've come to realize is that pride is at the center of it all. Pride is what makes people "quiet" about it , because people don't like admit that they aren't happy. People don't want to spend $500 on a phone, be locked for 2+year, and then admit its a POS (yes, some people do, but far from the majority). People don't want to admit that they hate their job to their closest friends and coworkers unless it's clear everyone else feels the same way.

People lie to themselves (although, they certainly know they are doing it), so that they don't have to admit that they aren't perfect...it's ego...and it's silly (it's the same thing that makes people buy a 2nd car, or a bigger house, because their friends got a 2nd car or their brother bought a new house..)

There's also a certain amount of practicality. Better to be cheerful about your POS phone you're locked into for 2+ years than bellyache about it for 2+ years.

True..and I'm probably a glass-half-empty sorta guy.

But in my own experience, pride does still play a part in it, it isn't about trying to be positive, it's about not wanting to seem like a fool and getting fleeced.

Maybe pride is just the reason I'm not happy, and not everyone else's reason :)

Well, for what it's worth, I think you're 100% correct.

What shocked me was...

1) it's almost impossible to talk with someone about themselves, about mistakes they've made or about things they could do better (unless they brought it up).

2) almost nobody cares about "the truth". They only care about what makes them happy.

Those two may as well be laws of nature.

This isn't intended as a response, but actually the opposite of those two are like the defining characteristics of me.

I came to the first one after reading journal articles about 'inherency' (debate jargon for the reason a problem continues to persist), where I started think much more in terms of external causes of problems I had rather than internal ones. That's also made me much more empathetic

The second one came to me through an old debate coach, my first mentor. I've actually found that 'seeking the truth' is a really fantastic experience, and contagious too; its the reason my roommate comes home from class and reads academic studies about fitness and nutrition.

1) it's almost impossible to talk with someone about themselves, about mistakes they've made or about things they could do better (unless they brought it up).

People usually aren't seeking validation or criticism from others, especially if they don't know or work with these people. Offering these apropos of nothing is kind of rude.

2) almost nobody cares about "the truth". They only care about what makes them happy.

What does this mean? Who is the arbiter of "truth," then?

Cognitive dissonance. Dan ariely talks about it in "predictably irrational". It's the same reason people don't often change dentists because changing dentist after putting up with all the pain and discomfort that comes with a dentist means you made a wrong decision. Same thing with hazing etc for Frats, sororities. You go through it and because it was so miserable you equate the end result to having more value and justify the hazing. Great book for entrepreneurs as you can really see just how often our ego comes into play with our decision making.

The first part of what you talk about sounds like post purchase rationalization. It's a bias much less nefarious than mere ego.

The second part is the poisonous way most live their lives. Relatively - i.e. the core determinant of many people's happiness is relative and not absolute income.

The second part is the poisonous way most live their lives. Relatively - i.e. the core determinant of many people's happiness is relative and not absolute income.

If this theory is correct, we should discourage people from discussing income distribution. Whenever a reporter writes an article about rising income inequality, they are contributing to the problem.

That's open to debate. Inequalities of income distribution are pretty visible anyway: whether discussion of the topic exacerbates people's unhappiness with the situation depends whether discussion of the topic helps them reconcile themselves to the normality of being unable to keep up with the Joneses, or whether it makes them feel angrier and more impotent than they actually are.

I have come to the conclusion that following or pursuing goals and dreams is not the key to happiness. Yes, it is something worth doing, but it is not a magic pill.

Running a business, or working on a creative project can also cause a lot of unhappiness and misery. I've been pursuing my goals and dreams for a couple of years now and I don't think it has made me happier at all.

I've found these things to be much more important:

-Maintaining a calm, relaxed state as much as possible. Not suppressing anger but not letting it destroy you either.

-Physical and mental challenges; doesn't mean you have to quit your job and pursue some grand scheme though

-Socializing

While I like 'socializing', I'd qualify it more as a distraction - the 'reading Hacker News' type of distraction - that takes your mind off the problems. It usually doesn't solve much, but makes you happier for a while.

It makes you happy for a while, but also overall. When I think back, the happiest moments have been those spent with good friends, not those hacking away all night.

My happiest moments, when I think back, are a mixture of both.

I don't want to make the sort of assumptions about your life required to suggest this observation necessarily applies to you personally, but:

if 'socializing' is perceived as simply a 'distraction' from a litany of minor complaints about paid employment, its quite possible the root cause of unhappiness lies not in the job but in a lack of compensatory enjoyment of social and leisure situations outside the workplace.

You have not yet found the right people with whom to socialize, I think.

(It's also possible you are just very different from me and from most people I know; but I used to feel similarly; and I still don't like to socialize a lot, but with the right people, every now and then? it can be pretty great.)

Brene Brown is a researcher who believes that true happiness can only be found in establishing meaningful, deep connections that leave you vulnerable. She has a popular ted talk here:

http://www.ted.com/talks/brene_brown_on_vulnerability.html

I think I didn't expressed exactly what I meant, so to respond to all comments under the parent post:

I do love spending time with people. I'd say, I like to do it too much sometimes. However, I also found it to be a super-effective way of escaping from harder problems, not only my-job-sucks related, but general my-life-sucks related. What I meant to say in previous comment is that (for me) it has similar 'signature' as escaping problems by reading / discussing on HN. It's not a waste of time, but I know for myself that I could spend here much more time that I should. Ditto for socializing. Sometimes you actually want to solve your problems instead of complaining about them to other people.

I feel the same way but I also think we're a minority. For me, I want to connect in meaningful ways with people. I dislike bar buddies, or casual hangouts with people I know casually. I also feel if you lack any sense of purpose, or a mate, and you keep socializing casually with other guys, it makes me feel worse.

What helps with point #1, let go of the things that are out of your control. No, let them go, completely. Don't let them infect your thoughts at all. If you limit yourself to worrying about things that are under your immediate control it's a lot easier to maintain that calmness. Most of what anger is, is the realization that we don't have control over something that we wish we did.

I'm 30, about to get divorced (for the first time) and move out of the house carrying only a couple of books and a plasma TV, and the startup I've been working for the last 18 months is about to run out of money (that would be my second failed startup that I've worked for in the last 5 years). Do I "quietly despise" my life? Nope. Do I have moments when I think that life is hard as hell and when I'm trying to gather all my forces to make it through the night? Absolutely. I wouldn't be human if I didn't have those moments, I would be just a machine.

What makes me go with it? I don't know. Maybe thoughts like "if I'm not going to do this cool and useful project then nobody else would". Or the few people that from time to time tell me "hey man, that's a very cool project you've created, it really helped me". And I'm not talking projects that bring me money, I'm talking about stuff that help other people make better sense of the world we're living in and about our surroundings.

Also, by chance I've just recently read Seneca's "On the Shortness of Life" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Brevitate_Vitae_%28Seneca%29), it really helped me put things in a different (I'd say better) perspective.

Leave the TV.

Ditto.

"It might take you 20 years to write your novel, but put a sentence or two on a page every day."

I think this is the wrong advice. Writing a novel like this will give the impression it will never be done. If, after ten years, you'll read what you have so far, it'll be sh.t because, in ten years your style and your way of thinking will change a lot.

My current idea is, if you want to achieve something, focus and do it quickly. Otherwise you will run out of steam and finally be frustrated. Being frustrated a few times results in the impression that you cannot get anything done.

> If, after ten years, you'll read what you have so far, it'll be sh.t because, in ten years your style and your way of thinking will change a lot.

I saw an artist on TV the other day that said she throws away any song that takes more than 30 minutes to write. Because her mood and thoughts will change if she spends too much time writing the song.

Yeah, horrible advice. Paul McCartney would have to have released "Yesterday" with its original lyrics

"Scrambled Eggs / Oh, my baby how I love your legs"

Whoooo, does that mean, the Stones earned a fortune by, say, working between 24 and 40 hours in their career :o).

I'm always skeptical of people who contend that teenagers/children are happier without seemingly any data other than their personal rose-colored memories.

I personally have grown happier every year since age 6 or so (prior to that I don't remember, but I imagine I was the typical bipolar child joyous at one second and in the depths of despair the next). Mainly because of increased personal autonomy, long term goal fulfillment, and knowledge/experience increase.

This is also my experience.

I think misery is fairly normal for children and teenagers. They have no control over their life, and they are surrounded by jerks. I mean, come on; nearly everyone is an asshole at 16. God knows I was. And when you are 16, you are mostly around other 16 year old assholes, and you are treated like an asshole by adults, because, well, you probably are one.

For me, when I was that age, my favorite part of any day was going to my part-time IT job, where I helped county workers (mostly 40+) with their windows problems. The contrast between interacting with adults who treated me like a real human being that had something to offer and the rest of my life was extreme.

And really, I don't think my life was that unusual. I mean, besides the after-school IT job.

Counterpoint, I think my happiest days were in childhood. Adulthood, at least for someone who's being responsible for himself and family, is far from being the magical "freedom" that kids and teens imagine it is.

Yeah, different people have different experiences.

I find adulthood to be very free. I mean, I'm sure it would be different if I had children, and maybe even if my spouse couldn't support herself, but as is? I pretty much do whatever I feel like doing. I mean, there are tradeoffs, and I have to live with the consequences of my mistakes, and I do need to work a certain amount every few days to avoid destroying the lifestyle I've set up, but beyond that? I can make my world be what I want it to be. I can easily work more and have a larger company, money for cool gadgets or future time off, or alternately, I can work less. Heck, my employee is good enough now that if I really want to I could almost completely stop work (or get a regular full-time job and have lots of money for gadgets.) and let things coast until he gets sick of it and leaves.

If I find a particular task tiresome or unpleasant, I can, generally speaking, pay a small fee and have someone else deal with it, or I can organize my life such that it doesn't have to be done. I go to sleep when I feel like it, and I wake up when I want to.

Nobody is riding me to learn skills that are both difficult and useless. Really, nobody is riding me to learn anything; When I feel like it, I can go learn new things that I find interesting and/or useful. I can challenge myself as much as I like, or I can stay home for a few days and read Asimov's complete foundation series. Heck, if I want structure, I can build my own, or ask others to impose it on me. This is one of my current projects; designing and then implementing some structure in areas where I think structure will make me happier.

But, I value this freedom highly, and I'm willing to pay for it; I jumped from highschool to overpaid programmer/sysadmin gigs in '97, and have put a large part of the difference between the upper middle class salary paid to someone with my skills and the amount of money someone like me actually needs to live towards starting my own business (or rather, towards mistakes I made while starting my own business.) I mean, even now, with my business going fairly well, I'm earning slightly less than the nationwide median per-capita income while living in an area where the local median per-capita income is about twice that, so I've made some sacrifices for that freedom. But it was my choice, and really, I'm pretty happy with how it has turned out. Over the last year or so I've been rather less productive, and I'm focusing on ramping up my productivity for the next year or two. I've made some pretty good progress this month, which is satisfying. but again, this is my choice.

Being an adult is wonderful.

I mentioned this in another thread earlier today, but, I lost my job a couple of weeks ago. I'm not even sure where I'll be living in a month. But damn am I happy to not be there any more.

I find it funny that it's a surprise most people don't like furthering other's agendas more than their own most days. It's silly that most people would. (Or just lucky that so many can find a way to make money doing something they actively enjoy.)

Most men lead lives of quiet desperation and go to the grave with the song still in them. - Henry David Thoreau

beat me to it!

The problem with this article is it comes across (based on the title) as statistical, but it's not: "This isn’t a statistic, it’s a casual observation..."

I think it's compounded by confirmation bias and the like--by believing that most people are unhappy, the author notices more unhappy people reinforcing his belief.

I felt immediately betrayed by the author and didn't want to believe anything else he had to say. It is fine if the goal was to not have my trust, but I don't know why that would be the case here.

"immediately betrayed"? Get a grip!

Ironically, I've found that trying to realize dreams and side-projects in my spare time doesn't help at ALL with long-term happiness, especially the sort that would be apparent to a casual observer. I get short-term highs and satisfaction from completing bits and pieces but unless I complete a project that can be shared, sold, or used personally it winds up being a drain on my life. Yet another unfinished ambition to add to the pile, like the accumulation of smelly worn out clothes in my closet that I keep meaning to sort out.

I'm inclined to agree with the premise that "large numbers of people quietly despise their lives", but I think it's generally a weak effect. Most of us will, especially if questioned, find regrets that make us despise our lives; "years lost to path dependency" is probably the most common regret type.

I doubt, however, work life is the nexus of this problem. It would certainly seem so if work is life to you, but I suspect that most people aren't like that. Jobs are an inconvenience or, more likely, a neutral segment of their lives. People can (and do) push their down time into working hours, saving energy and engagement for later.

I wouldn't be surprised if the coulda-woulda-shouldas make most people despise their lives off-and-on, yielding a continuous churn of momentary depressives. I also doubt this a problem unless the length of bouts is high.

For me this is rubbish because I find it has very little to do with my personal circumstance and very much to do with my own brain and personality. I've learned to be content with my malcontentedness. In every stage of life I have always wanted to make changes and to progress. In the past I was a poor student and was miserable. Now I'm a rather well to do working chump and only slightly less miserable. If I were to happen upon a million dollar deal tomorrow I'm sure I would find something to take issue with. It's in my nature and I accept it.

Instead of 80% of the people I would say 100% of the people, but 80% of the time. Everybody has phases when their whole life just sucks and phases when they feel great and super successful.

Oh come on. Everybody complains. All the time. Depending on who and where you are, you'll complain about hunger or about that annoying co-worker down the hall, but you'll complain.

This is all right. I'd say that taking what you have for granted and complaining about what you don't is human nature. But it does not mean that people despise their lives. It means they like to complain.

Asking people, as a stranger, about "their careers" gives them a cue to complain. This makes the results even worse.

Not a very convincing article, you'd need way more than one reporter to get this kind of information. He also bases this off of what he thinks other people think just by talking to them (not saying this article isn't true, just saying the validity is off)

I take the view of differentiating life from life situation (from the Power of Now.) There is a fight for survival, and the threats to life to me are not so much a bad job, but the putrid environment we live in, from food, to air to water and a body full of heavy metals and past traumas, to which none realizes they have and to which none can do anything about - they then blame their job.

At the same time, I am super grateful I can function as a typical human can, and not bound up with some terrible disease or insurmountable physical challenge, and not living in the third world. The grass is always greener until you have none.

Revealed preference generally agrees with the author's point. If we regard the degree to which people value their lives in terms of how much money they'll pay to avoid an x% risk of their life ending the numbers are, in general, shockingly low.

Of course we can talk about how inconsistent people's preferences are all night.

My hypothesis is that people are unhappy mainly when they have few allies (people with similar values). I believe that there are certain physiological reactions that take place when you are among those you identify strongly with and that if this never or almost never happens a general malaise is the result.

Like Christopher McCandless (upon whom the book and movie "Into the Wild" is based) rightly said: "Careers are a 20th century invention".

Not saying everybody should do what he did, but I have come to increasingly believe that everything should be questioned when it comes to choosing a livelihood - even the assumption that one needs to work for a living - since its going to be a big part of your life.

This is horoscope writing. A less fashionable, but equally true example might be: 80% of People are Secretly Satisfied with Their Lives

"The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation. What is called resignation is confirmed desperation." Henry David Thoreau from /Walden/

According to the Pew Research Center, 89% of people who are not self-employed report being "completely" or "mostly" satisfied with their work; the percentage for the self-employed is even higher, at 95%.

http://pewsocialtrends.org/2009/09/17/take-this-job-and-love...

I have my doubts about this - as a previous poster mentioned, ego is a huge part of it, so my suspicion is that you are going to get a pretty extreme bias when you let people self-report on this.

Around me, I do not believe 9 out of 10 people I know are "completely" or "mostly" satisfied with their jobs. The number if substantially less.

"...you are going to get a pretty extreme bias when you let people self-report on this."

How else are you going to find out if someone's happy with their job?

I've worked for my self in the past and now I'm working for a company; doing web dev (Drupal). I'm happier working for a company than when I was working for my self. Sure I don't have the crazy flexible hours anymore but then again no one else did either so it was hard to take advantage of that aspect of it; plus if I really need to do something I can usually take a 3 hour break in the middle of the day. (I'm single so this might change if I where married with children).

The nice thing about working for a company is the whole thing is not 100% riding on me & there are other dev's who can "cover" for you. I can also focus more on what I like to do vs when I worked for my self where I did everything; even the parts I sucked at but the clients like you so much they insist that you be the one doing it.

Long story short, I like working for "the man" and am quite happy with where I'm at.

But you have seen both sides of it (so have I). For everybody else faraway hills are green: "Oh if only I wasn't working for the man, then things would be great". So this guys article just completely ignores what some people discovered thousands of years ago, namely that most people need to get a grip on themselves and "make up their minds to be happy".

People are always most likely to discover their own thoughts and beliefs in the reactions of other people - so unhappy people do. A sorrow shared is a sorrow halved, even if it means to lie to yourself.

I strongly believe that the one reason for unhappyness, bad personality, and even physical sickness is -not trying- to reach what you wanted to reach.

According to Dr. Susan Turk Charles, a psychologist at the University of California in Irvine, the opening assumption of the article is invalid.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/People-Get-Happier-as-They-Ge...

Two different definitions of old - the author seems to be saying as people get older while still in the working realm [so maybe, 20-65 or so] while the study talks about the elderly/seniors. So not necessarily conflicting [and it might make sense that a person gets more and more dissatisfied as they get older and opportunities slip away until they finally let go of those regrets and become satisfied with their lot]. More on age/happiness:

http://www.slate.com/toolbar.aspx?action=print&id=230055...

It was better as a song than a blog post:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mATf3SAqj30

(Avenue Q)

True. Easy problem to fix. Modern man isn't grateful; it's not difficult to become grateful.

80% of People who use statistics make them up

including yours?

I only make up 30% of them

The other 20% loudly despise their lives?

Bullshit title. Happiness is not Boolean.

Pssh, whatever man. My happiness can be modeled as: enum Boolean { TRUE, FALSE, SOCKS_NOT_FOUND };

Relevant design pattern:

http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/What_Is_Truth_0x3f_.aspx

Note that much of "society" tells people that they have it rotten as part of a "you'll be so much better off if you {buy our soap, vote for our candidate}".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com