Nine things I learned in ninety years
edwardpackard.com
edwardpackard.com
Something society always neglects is that everyone goes through the same thoughts time and time again. We all make mistakes and we learn our own way, but when someone's 90, they really have done a lot of it all before. Even if we think everything is different, human's really are very similar. We all have emotions, we all have desires and we are all deep down social creatures. So I would only encourage more people to step out and try to make an honest, deep, friendship with someone a lot older than you. It can really help give you guidance and perspective.
Not even just done it before, but done it multiple times. This is where experience is forged into wisdom.
While it can be very tempting to say 'we tried that before and it didn't work' - the key is people who can understand why it didn't work, or who can encourage you to make your own mistakes and be there to guide you back when needed.
That is not guaranteed, though. There are many experienced yet unwise people, and sometimes viceversa.
I agree with the sentiment of listening to older people, but age alone is not a good criteria to determine whether they're worth paying attention to. Old people can be as ignorant and unwise as young people, sometimes even more so.
Younger generations live emotionally richer lives. Or maybe thats not the best description, but something along that. I can't talk about deeper emotions even with my parents, the generational gap is absolutely huge. They never talk about theirs, and trying to start the talk ends the talk, they simply are not wired for such introspection. Both proper university educated which is a small miracle given how they and their parents were viewed as potential enemies of communist state.
They lived their whole lives under soviet oppression, never left Europe, don't understand modern world and technologies, they lived their whole lives in single monolithic culture. Critical thinking outward and especially inward is not in their runbook. I live past 20 years away from my home country, travelled the world that changed me (for the better) permanently. i tried psychedelic drugs a bit in the past, also a profound and probably permanent change they never had a chance to go through. I was/still am doing a number of potentially dangerous mountain sports that expose you to fear of death regularly, and one has to overcome that fear and move on, over and over - definitely a personality-changing experience. And so on.
Its hard to find people to talk about ie backpacking travelling to exotic undeveloped remote places even within my peers, who did that. I gathered more life experience living in 3 countries, dating ladies from various cultures, raising my kids in a foreign culture than they ever could. I understand psychology and people way better than them.
The roles reversed some time ago - I am helping them, however I can. As long as they are actually willing to listen, not every topic is like that. I can't talk politics to them, russians did a very good job in subverting public opinions of large portions of population into absolutely illogical self-harming position, and just stating truth leads nowhere.
One example is that psychology - they are just not wired to look at complexities of other people's emotions, origins, mental issues and so on. People are good or bad, weird is a third state for them and thats it. They are trivial to manipulate via emotions, just like their whole generation is.
I mean I talk to them regularly, but its rather shallow talk. Anytime I go deeper ie about my deeper experiences in some remote place and culture, their face goes blank, they don't have much to add. They look at the photos and love those but that's a very tiny part of whole story. I learned over decades what topics work and which are for other people.
Its all fine, apologies if I sounded worse than things are. Parents are just parents, for adults they are not meant to be the closest people in the world, that's rather an indication of some social failure to find and integrate with peers down the line.
This speaks to me. So much of our life circumstances are beyond our control (parents, genetics, geography, society, wider economy, etc.) It's humbling, how much of our success or failure is influenced by pure chance.
We are doing a disservice to our fellow man by not telling them this truth.
Based on what, exactly? I think you have cause and effect inverted.
Quantifying something doesn't explain it, it just... Quantifies it, deeper inspection is needed to understand what the statistics says.
You are prescribing what needs to be done based on something that is, ultimately, descriptive.
Now you need to do the qualitative research to understand what are the causes for it, it could be that marriage is a signal for stable relationships, in that case marrying doesn't matter but a stable relationship does (which is quite self-obvious, it's just an example). Marriage could also have tax implications in some countries, which in turn could help the average to better outcomes, so on and so forth.
The data on this is enveloping much more than just "marriage" as a virtue, or any other moral aspect of it, you are using the data to imply that marriage is virtuous and is the cause for better outcomes which doesn't hold by just quantification...
It's blindness by statistics, it's quite common when ascribing data as the sole truth. Data can guide you to investigate other aspects that will qualify why the data shows what it shows.
I have unfortunately not spent enough time at a university to follow this line of reasoning. Must be wild to be able to follow it. I'm of the yokel type that thinks if all data and tradition we have shows something works, then it's probably best to do the thing that works instead of trying things that we have no reason to think would work.
But in line with tradition, the underclasses in the west has always been the favourite laboratory for the cultural elites in the west.
Exactly, they correlate but there's nothing saying that just because traditionally it has correlated it means that getting married is the reason for it.
Traditionally only marriage was accepted as the means to form a family, even up to this day people will be shunned by their families for having kids out of wedlock, even in a loving relationship, don't you think being shunned by grandparents would also cause worse outcomes? Considering that some of these being shunned are also of younger age, less support from family members would mean worse outcomes.
Your data doesn't even discriminate about age groups, it's a blanket statement "marriage leads to better outcomes", leading to the question (which you could find data for): which groups? Are there other parameters/aspects that lead to better outcomes which are correlating with marriage rates? What about marriage exactly is causing better outcomes? It's not marriage itself since a lot of marriages end in divorce or an unhealthy home environment, so what is it?
Those are the insights that data can lead you into. Your take is just to do whatever has been done because it's been working, without even questioning why it might work, and what can be done to lead to better outcomes without requiring marriage.
> but we should continue to tell people that it's not necessary for them to do these things to have good outcomes as we have not done enough qualitative research to know what almost all of our forefathers have known, and it's best that people experiment more and see if maybe the right combination of unemployment, promiscuity and lack of education could not create equally good outcomes for them.
This is just moral grandstanding without substance, the world changes, traditions change (the tradition of marriage used to be about property, changing ownership of a woman from her father to her husband, for example), just blind belief in traditions is, at best, ignorant, and at worst produces this bigoted worldview.
You'd do much better if you believed in traditions while also questioning the "whys" behind it, at least to understand better why some tradition you believe might have created better outcomes, and how those processes can be applied outside of your tradition.
That is, if you are a good person and want everyone else to also have a better life even if living outside of what your view of morality is, and not only living life the way your morality prescribes to because that's, supposedly, the only way.
That's why I'm saying you have cause and effect in the wrong order: children issues are tied to one or both parents not caring about them, and a symptom of that was having children before marriage, when marriage was "the only way" to a family. Nowadays things are different, and you can totally be a functional family without signing any contract on paper.
but is the modern way better??? or people just don't want to be held accountable if things go south in traditional way????
If we ignore almost all of human history save for the past 50 years, then yes. If we redefine marriage to not mean what most humans that have ever used the word meant by it, then yes.
But why would we do these things? If you call all relations between two human beings marriage, you gain nothing, you just lose a word.
Marriage is a covenant between two people, a man and a woman, with God, and incidentally, this covenant, not a piece of paper, it's also a precondition for two people to live together and in harmony. It's a commitment by both people to focus not on themselves, but on the family unit and the wellbeing of that family unit.
> You can do so without being married and having children, and it's everyday more common.
Children of married parents still have better outcomes, and the lower income people are, the bigger the advantage of having married parents are.
By your definition, are we all unmarried or living in disharmony?
If we consider what the word meant up until about 50 years ago, then yes. If we consider the new definition, of "you signed a piece of paper given to you by the government, and gave it back to the government". Then, sure, you are married.
I'm not trying to insult you or denigrate you, but again, if we use the word marriage for all relations between two human beings, then we gain nothing, we just lose a word.
Do you hold the same position for marriages in other traditions - for example, Shintoism, indigenous belief systems, Hinduism, paganism, etc? Many such religions don't have the same concept of a marriage as a covenant with God, yet have existed for quite some time.
And we don't need to use the word marriage for all of them.
> The legal recognization by a church or government is one version, but not the key ingredient.
The covenant with god has been a key ingredient for centuries.
Flagging is a powerful tool in this small duckpond. Instead of abusing it, you can use HN to learn self restraint, so that when you one day achieve power over other people in real life you have learnt not to abuse it.
That's only the wimps that have nothing worthwhile to add.
In some cultures yes, but pair-bonding is a lot older than the idea of god
But that's the only word we have for "lifetime-committed couple recognized by some authority". The meanings of words change and evolve. Tough luck.
We could use the secular "civil union" for all marriages performed outside of a church. But that would be unnecessarily clunky and pointless ("I got civil union-ed this weekend, it was great!"). And then of course people married under other religious traditions would object to the use of the word "civil" so you'd have to qualify every other union accordingly - "Jewish union", "Muslim union", "Hindu union", etc. Why?
You're basically arguing against free speech. I don't understand who it's helping. If the distinction is that important to you, just spell it out when talking about your marriage ("I was married in a church"). Leave everyone else alone.
Actions have a value which are seven thousand times more worth than words, so the covenant with God is automatic in that situation even if the people are ignorant and have never heard of God.
Yes. That's the kind of attitude that can build toward peace & harmony, and to live & let live instead of the hate against nonuniformity often shown by the religious extremists. Whether they are Christian or anything else. Hate is hate.
When an unmarried couple is completely faithful to each other until death, regardless of any other family, there's no way the average religious marriage can compare in that regard.
Not even close, zero is still a very small number.
Statistics are pretty accurate here. With the rate of divorce and unfaithfulness so rampant in religious marriage, it's only become more of a gamble over decades and decades of direct observation and interacton.
IIRC some cultures have shunned the idea of gambling since prehistoric times.
Others have it inscribed in scriptures almost as old, but not universally adhered to by the "faithful" just yet.
And it's been a while . . .
How strong is your commitment to this? If it's unflagging I think a lot of people can understand your disappointment then.
If you are well-acquainted enough with the USA, you are certainly aware that these have been one and the same for like . . . centuries now here.
Not just 50 years, what have you been doing about that the whole time?
Have you had any successful efforts to completely separate church & state yet, and have you even had 50 years to work on that so far?
It would be good to see a concrete sign that your advocacy is sincere.
If there's nothing so far, that is understandable, but most of us do not have 90 full years to figure this out, so no time like the present to get started.
This seems pretty narrow-sighted and Christian-oriented.
50 years ago was 1975.
I'm pretty sure there are examples of formalized marriage about as old as historic records.
I'd think they would be the poster children for the two-week marriages that Hollywood is notorious for, but they aren't.
Even in the most barren wastelands, flowers can grow.
If a couple lives together in harmony and have children together, they are married.
Picture two scenarios:
1. A loving unmarried couple, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, or child bearing, lives in an affluent neighbourhood, in a rich country, have steady incomes, and decide to have a child. After ten years they decide “I love you so much. I don’t need a piece of paper to prove that, but let’s get married. It’ll be a great opportunity to connect our friends and family, and it’ll give us some legal and financial protection when one of us dies”.
2. In a poor neighbourhood, a woman who was mistreated all her life marries her high school sweetheart, who turn out to be abusive. He not only beats her, he rapes her regularly. Like too many victims of domestic violence, she’s afraid to move away. Eventually she becomes pregnant and has the child against her will.
Which of those do would produce the better outcome?
Being fatherless isn’t in itself the issue, but everything which came before to reach that point might be. There is a huge difference between not having a father because he abandoned you, or because he died, or because your mother as a single affluent woman with the means to do so decided to do in-vitro fertilisation.
I highly recommend “New Family Values”, by Andrew Solomon, to get a feeling for the different types of families which work. It goes way beyond “one mother, one father, married”.
https://andrewsolomon.com/books/new-family-values-audiobook/
Statement: Statistically, seatbelts reduce the chances you’ll die in a car accident.
You: But, what if your car crashes into a lake and you get trapped underwater?
Statement: Statistically, richer people die less in a car accident.
You (or GP): get rich and survive car accidents!
But all that is irrelevant because what I posted above wasn’t an analogy. It was… A thought experiment? A purposefully exaggerated example? Anyway, not an analogy. Analogies compare two different things via a third thing they have in common, but here I used examples which are directly related to the subject matter. The point was to make it clear, via extreme but realistic examples, that correlation does not imply causation.
All sorts of folks have lived in all sorts of places across time. Trappings and environments have varied. Attributing things to luck in and of itself is an illusion. There is nothing that is lucky or unlucky. You play the hand you are dealt.
I'm not denying our moral agency, but it is often constrained by environment. Some people are lucky enough that virtuous choices are easier for them.
If I overstated my point, it's only because I was pushing back against the idea that education, employment, and a traditional family are equally attainable by all, and if someone has failed in any of these areas, it's because they lack virtue compared to other people (many of whom had more advantageous starting points in life, but supposedly that doesn't matter).
Or in simpler terms, "poor people are poor because they're bad and they deserve it". It's a sentiment that's been very useful for the ultra-wealthy class, and detrimental to everyone else, not just the poor.
Now there are many traditions around the world that works. Most cultures have man+women=family (as opposed to some form of polygamy), and there is reason to suspect this is important even if it isn't "in" to study why. (it isn't clear which non-traditional forms also would be fine and which would be a disaster)
Saying "poor are poor because they deserve it" is an accusation that I hear a lot more than I hear people who believe it. Some do believe it, but most accused of it do not and have better explinations of why they do things that the accusers don't like.
Not many people would openly say that poor people deserve to be poor. Those aren't the words that the parent commenter used, and maybe that wasn't even the intention. But this line of thinking can encourage people who feel this way, by giving their feelings a moral justification.
All I mean is, we should be empathetic toward people who have fewer resources than we do, and not be too quick to credit our accomplishments to our virtuous living.
I completely reject the notion that wealth is at all a factor in the intelligence or educational success of a child. Wealth is just a correlation. Neither does national educational systems or policies have more than a tiny effect on education success.
What matters for educational success is the genetical and cultural material of the children. If they are born smart, or are brought up in families who value intelligence or brought up in cultures which value intelligence. Even poverty and schooling become small factors if the child has any of these foundations.
It's obviously always possible to make the best of bad circumstances (and make the worst of good circumstances!) but it's easier to "win" when you're dealt a good hand.
It is not reasonable to tell a child sold into slavery or forced to be a soldier to “make their own luck”, that “society, and the wider economy are for everyone to navigate”. A person in the eye of storm and another in calm waters cannot navigate the same way.
People who firmly believe they above all “made their own luck” are the ones who had such a large amount of it outside their control they don’t even realise how much of it they had, like a fish unable to perceive the water.
If you believe that you are a victim that nothing you can do will make a diference, and therefore don't even try then you will definitely not improve your situation!
Now if you are born in poverty as an albino in Africa, orphaned at a young age, sold to slavery and then to a witchdoctor for organ trafficking are you fucked? Probably but that does not change the point. [I am pushing your reply ad absurdum to highlight that it is not a counter-argument...]
I personally would prefer other formulations, because while I agree with the core, I think this idea should just reduce frustration if you don't succeed, while I am afraid it can be used as an excuse for not trying.
Yes, you need luck, but if you never get out of your room/street/neighborhood/city/country, you might have less opportunities for luck than otherwise.
Often, being at the right place at the right time is more of a matter of predicting the places to be and arriving there in advance of said right time.
But best things in life come from opportunities that you cannot prepare for in advance. Just willingness to accept it.
It's why the quote has survived since 1854.
> "dans les champs de l'observation, le hasard ne favorise que les esprits préparés" ("In the field of observation, chance favors only the prepared mind")
There's lots of similar quotes throughout time, all about what you say in your list line: to be lucky you need to create as many opportunities as possible to get lucky. You can't win at dice if you never roll them.
Show up + embrace awkwardness + be kind and courteous and luck will follow.
My son's Scout troop was lucky this year. They just sold more than $60k worth of pop-corn in two weeks. How? Each kid walked up to hundreds of complete strangers at grocery stores and asked politely - albeit awkwardly sometimes. The exponentially lower-success approach is to sit behind a table waiting for people to hand you money.
The result? Almost 40 lucky kids get 11 all-expenses-paid camping trips and a fun summer camp all for just eight hours of walking and talking. Doesn't matter how much money their families make; every kid gets to fully participate.
Are you saying that no one of color in that era made any worthwhile contribution to the world? Or are you saying that every white person of the era should hold themselves to the standard of achievement of Thomas Jefferson since that is the power of the privilege they held?
For example, would slave women have done the hard work of having and raising slave children if they had the agency to not have them?
Would you work hard at doing something that doesn't scale if you know the federal government will simply reduce the purchasing power of your earnings to maintain asset owners' position in society?
Does it make sense to work hard if there is a high likelihood you will never own land, and hence will always have increasing portions of your winnings taken by a rent seeker? Seems like a bad trade.
It's just silly to paint yourself as this hard worker that got back what you put in, whilst ignoring the ills that you put in. I'm sure he did good stuff because of work he personally did, but it's laughable to think he could get to where he did, if he wasn't born into the planter class.
And no, that doesn't mean if you were culturally disadvantaged you couldn't do anything, it's just a lot harder and you had no free will in that. Every opportunity (and decision, really) is just a consequence of where and when you are, and should be taken not as a personal character assessment. I guess you could argue that means Jefferson is morally fine because that's just the kinda life he was born into so how would he know different, or maybe he just lacks some empathy :P
So all you’ve really done is subsumed any discussion of the merits of the idea itself into a hand-wringing fest about privilege that was inevitable from the beginning and could equally apply to any famous quote from history. I really don’t see the value in this kind of hand-wringing.
In Poker, luck plays an integral role in the outcome of any specific game or match, but skill does show up when collected over a large enough sample (that's why they say you can't prove something is due to skill over chance until you've collected a sample of 10,000 - 100,000 played hands of poker - at least if you're playing online).
You could also be a very good poker player and have bad luck on one important occasion (say in the finals of the WSOP), where the outcome hinges purely on luck. Similarly, you could be a subpar player and "luck out" and strike it big purely because of the right sequence of cards at a big event. But generally, most people who succeed at Poker are not there purely based on luck; you can be lucky once or twice, but you're unlikely to make it through a whole Poker career just by being lucky.
I think similarly in life - you have a certain hand you're dealt, and if you play it to the best of your ability (and make opportunities for yourself), you increase your odds of winning the hand / the tournament / life; but ultimately even with your best efforts the outcome could still be decided by luck.
You get to take swings every day and luck plays a role there. So keep moving forwards, flipping the coin in life.
It's easy to assume it would be in our control, but if you're just tired all day every day because, say, your hormone balance is off and no one can tell you why, you might statistically accomplish less than others.
You can go to the doctor. You can move somewhere with better jobs. You can learn stuff online.
Obviously any of these things are harder or easier for some people, but no matter what level you are at you need to avoid learned helplessness.
Philosopher John Rawls made this a key point for this thinking:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luck_egalitarianism
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rawls#A_Theory_of_Justice
When I see this line of reasoning, it leads me down the road of determinism instead. Who is to say what determines the quality of choices people make? Does one's upbringing, circumstance, and genetics not determine the quality of one's mind and therefore whether or not they will make good choices in life? I don't understand how we can meaningfully distinguish between "things that happen to you" and "things you do" if the set of "things that happen to you" includes things like being born to specific people in a specific time and place. Surely every decision you make happens in your brain and your brain is shaped by things beyond your control.
Maybe this is an unprovable position, but it does lead me to think that for any individual, making a poor choice isn't really "their" fault in any strong sense.
There are children who are actively taught by the people they should be able to trust that belligerence, lying, and stealing will get them what they need in life. On the other side of the coin, there are children who are taught to assume that everyone else has the up-bringing and or at least the natural intelligence needed to enable good choices every time a moral dilemma is presented. Both - it turns out - are equally short-sighted.
What's worse is that many of us assume that others can easily change their entire worldview on a dime. In the middle of my life, I'm coming to accept that I need more years that will be available to me to fix all the broken parts of my psyche and intellect.
I personally know handful of extremely lucky people who spent their entire lives doing the exact opposite of this
There's a sort of "freeloader" problem, though, which is that the ones who get "lucky" don't themselves have to be making positive choices. In fact, being a selfish individual in a group of generous ones can be an easy way to get ahead - as long as you can get away with it without being noticed or punished.
So it works, sometimes, on limited populations.
One can paraphrase the Summary of the Law (Luke 10:25-37) as, Seek the truth; face the facts; seek the best for others as for your self.
Sure there's luck in whether or not you get an opportunity but spending the whole day on twitter complaining about _ isn't going to give you any ....
On the other hand, if you received nothing in return for your work, would you do it?
You’ve written one reasoning-in-absurdum, now write the opposite side.
If you accept that the world is not "just" (just-world-fallacy), then you will also believe that rewards are indeterministic. It follows that rewards are attributed to luck, while effort and results are (by definition) not.
There is no accusation of dishonesty in this argument, and no need to feel accused of scamming.
(One point is that people who persist longer, receive more awards because the "area" under their luck-curve is larger. And people who have lots bad luck in the beginning get discouraged and stop trying ...)
I like the thought experiment of considering how much of your current life's comforts and liberties you would still have if you lived as a hermit in the woods. Nobody tells you what to do there, but you'd quickly find out how much your luck depended on society.
Being able to buy my food at the supermarket instead of having to go hunt and forage for it every day gives me a lot of additional energy and time to exercise other freedoms.
It doesn't guarantee anything, you can still be smart and fucked. But you can _try_ to change things.
But take, for example, smoking. You're flipping where the best outcome is zero, and the worst is cancer. Minimize the number of those flips.
I am naturally pessimistic I think I lost a lot of opportunities because of it. Thankfully I also get those periods where I am blindly all-in on something. Some of those made me very good at useless things but some resulted in very good opportunities and then outcomes.
Energetic optimists who avoid very dumb choices do very well in life in my experience. People who talk about luck a lot usually can't produce a decently long list of things they tried or keep making blunders (smoking, alcohol, associating with destructive and apathetic people).
“Chance favors the prepared mind”
- Jean-Luc PicardI know that quote is reductive, but I do find it is relevant to my life and what I observe in others. The opportunity part is what we usually call luck. Preparation is another matter, though. Many people just aren't prepared to take advantage of situations which present to them.
The just world fallacy is strong in communities, especially for artistic and creative endeavours like writing, art, music, filmmaking, game design, etc.
Does that mean that effort is worthless? Of course not. Does that mean you should just say "well, I'm not successful, I guess that's just life?". Again no.
But you do need to be humble and accept that in some ways, both your successes and failures were affected by external factors as well as your own efforts. That for how tempting it is to look down at people, that it could just have well have been your life circumstances that didn't work out well, your bets that didn't pay off and your efforts that didn't amount to anything in the end.
Also, the research is in. Grit is the single biggest predictor of economic success. Anyone who is lacking in economic success can be reasonably assumed to lack grit. Whether you label that “lazy” or not is semantics.
And how do you become that? Exactly, by being lucky.
Lots of people pass or aren't prepared to do what is neccessary when opportunity presents itself. The people who are, are called "lucky"
I was born from two parents that cared about me. Luck
In a country where most people have a decent shot at life. Luck
I'm lazy, but I was granted a body that never failed me, and was pushed by people around me to try stuff. Luck
I'm lazy, but my laziness is somehow useful in this computer driven world. Luck
All this luck compounds, and thanks to the activities I was pushed to do, the schools I was pushed to go to, I was lucky to meet great friends, an amazing girlfriend, and have a cushy job, a nice house in a beautiful place. Luck. Luck. Luck. Luck
I have no ambition, I was never prepared for anything, but all I've had was luck.
That's what you call luck, and a lot of people try to convince themselves everything good that happens to them is because they somehow deserve it. Because they were "ambitious" and "prepared", and an "opportunity" struck at the right time, and obviously they seized it, and everyone that didn't just didn't deserve it as much as them.
Obviously some people weren't as lucky as me, and actually had to work hard, and managed to seize an actual opportunity that wasn't gifted to them. But that's not all luck, only a little part is. And those people are quite rare.
Classic survivorship bias BS.
The privileged always think the people on top got their through their hard work and ambition, and those on the bottom just lacked the strength of character to succeed and give no consideration whatsoever to the structural / systemic conditions created by those on top to ensure they remain there, and no consideration paid to how said conditions disproportionately negatively impact those on the bottom.
Must be nice to sit all the way up there on high and look down on the world with such a smug sense of superiority.
Jimmy Maher wrote about them recently https://www.filfre.net/2025/09/choose-your-own-adventure/
"Today, it’s all too easy to see all of the limitations and infelicities of The Cave of Time and its successors: a book of 115 pages that had, as it proudly trumpeted on the cover, 40 possible endings meant that the sum total of any given adventure wasn’t likely to span more than about three choices if you were lucky. But to a lonely, hyper-imaginative eight-year-old, none of that mattered. I was well and truly smitten, not so much by what the book was as by what I wished it to be, by what I was able to turn it into in my mind by the sheer intensity of that wish."
The parallels with modern video games are obvious.
The only person who acted impressed by it was my grandmother - who had paid for the C64 - but that was enough for me.
Choose Your Own Adventure - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45337450 - Sept 2025 (80 comments)
When I read something like this now, I ask if the person writing it lived that way most of their lives, or lived some other way and now are looking back wishing they had lived another (untested) way. I've heard too many old people tell me things like, "appreciate your family" when they were always gone working and built up an amazing life for their families. When my mother told it to me, I believed it because that's the way she lived.
Survivor bias, is what it comes down to. Beware successful people that tell you platitudes!
And it’s not too complicated to be a permanent tightrope walker either: just stay calm, still and balanced. While ninjas with ignited swords jump all around you and acid-proof sharks lurks at you from the sour sea waiting your fall.
Sleepwalking, that’s a perfect title for our current Zeitgeist indeed.
Ok, that’s a lot of "witty remark I could make regarding" the text (and avoid doing instead). So, let’s take a bit of these advices in practice. Thank you Edward Packard for sharing with us some final reflections on life after a long one, displaying humility while presenting a vibrantly human figure.
Most practitioners get tiny glimpses of aspects of enlightenment, but to integrate and sustain it all is very rare indeed. I wonder if there even 100 Boddhisatvas in the world
We've done everything before and we will do all of it again.
Every man a monster. Every man a Messiah.
Both are true. Exactly as a Good man can in an instant become a Monster - so too is the opposite exactly true.
Every person possess the innate ability, at a Cellular genetic level, to become a Messiah/Buddha and the ability to become that iteration of ourselves in an instant - bc we already are that iteration anyways. It's all about the point of view.
In the beginning there was only mind, no rules defined, no "alive/dead" - just the pitch black dark blank and empty universe - so, unstructured, unfettered, unbound, chaos as Mind.
Nothing has changed except our point of view. Like a basketball court, with a basketball and players but no rules - all that is necessary for a game to be played in exists already, but until the rules are set, people agree to accept them - no games of basketball can be played.
Only after enormous limits and constraints are placed upon players regarding everything else hey can do while playing - ONLY THEN can players "play" - before they were bound by the rules of the games, they had much more freedom and choices to do what and go where they please.
The Lebron James equivalent to life on earth - maybe isn't that big a deal, this could be like pre-school, we have no idea.
All I know for certain is that there are no rules - to limit is to lose. Do as thou will - the worlds wheel will work all our sins and misconceptions out, to do right is to do best by ourselves, in a very selfish sense, which is learned and understand with time.
So, don't let those 10,000 eons stop you, the worse thing would be to have to endure 10,000 eons again...
Better to be born a Human and live 100 years - it's the best chance at getting out of this trap. Being born a dirty would mean several hundred thousand millennia of divine life - thats going to manifest forgetting, by the end the next rebirth is almost always lower.
Animals have thousands of births per form.
Only a human can be born an ignorant savage animal person and in less than 100 years become a Buddha and transcend existence.
That's a lot of the fish analogies in early Christianity and earlier - we all get out, but it takes forever for some of us, God is always looking for the next one of us that's grown big enough to become "a big fish" - "chosen easily from all the rest"
> It follows, I think, that the luckier you’ve been, the more humility and generous spiritedness you need, and the unluckier you’ve been, the more compassion for yourself you need, and unfair as it may seem, the more you need irrepressible resolve.
I have read psychologists saying that "happiness as default state" is a social construct myth of modern times. You cannot be happy all the time, the fact of being unhappy sometimes is what drives you self-reflect and to chase meaning to your life. To feel pleasure you need to feel some pain.
So content is basically the baseline when no needs are impacting your state-of-mind, and happy would be the consequence of a positive event or result.
Each time you go through a cycle of honest self-reflection, you grow emotionally stronger. When a similar situation arises again, it will not affect you as deeply as it did the first time. After enough cycles, you may reach a point where your default state remains largely unaffected by such events. This equanimity, that comes with a deep inner calm, allows a naturally happy default state to emerge.
That statement is someone's way to describe what they found out to be best for them. Not an axiom for everyone.
And default doesn't mean always, it means that one's general state is happiness. For me, for that statement to make sense, the word "happiness" would be replaced with something like "being glad" (gladness?), as I always feel glad of myself/my life but I see happiness as something more active, like being sad. While I see this gladness as a passive state. But again, that's my personal take.
In my experience, this is largely a force of habit -- I one day found my default reaction to almost any event was to chastise myself, for example. If you can break this habit and return to a more tranquil medium, I think that's as close to being "always happy" as it's possible to get.
But how we handle raw emotions, within interpretation processes, is what makes all the difference.
Actually, an entity that would only go through an indefinitely long flow of pleasant emotions and still end up being depressed and feeling unsatisfied the whole time is perfectly conceivable.
I don't think it's that rare.
Fortunately, the opposite is also true.
While I find that joy is a fickle and fleeting thing, I feel that I am happy most of the time, satisfied that things are as they must be, or at least close enough that the state of affairs does not poorly reflect on my efforts.
Sadness or grief make their appearance, but need not make life a poverty of happiness.
I think probably many people think that happiness and joy are the same thing, thus robbing themselves of happiness in an eternal pursuit of joy. If joy were constant, it wouldn’t be the joyful treasure that it is.
- big things (e.g. someone dies) you cant avoid being sad
- small everyday things (e.g. someone cuts you off at the intersection) you have a choice to smile and treat it lightly or go all passive aggressive and spiteful.
Like why curse a slow driver when you can have a 100% positive attitude?
"You can do it! You can do it! There is a gas pedal. You're almost there, don't give up!"
Joy is more exuberant - but more fleeting. You can't be a person constantly experiencing joy (except maybe as a bipolar during their manic phase)
Happiness is the state of satisfied being devoid of feelings of remorse, emotional pain, grief, or anger. It is a state that accepts joy, that provokes appreciation, gratitude, and satisfaction. It is a generally open and creative state, that gravitates toward the positive.
It is possible to maintain a state of happiness amid unfavourable events and conditions if your mind and actions are guided by a moral framework, and even to maintain a sense of happiness through hardships and injustice if you have built the philosophical structure to separate your mind and sense of self from your circumstances.
I think feeling happy is my default. I still get mad, hurt, sad, bored, etc. But when those feelings wear away, I return to a general state of happy contentment.
Psychologists are what's the actual social construct myth of modern times.
>You cannot be happy all the time
That's not what "happiness as default state" implies though. It's about happiness being the disposition you opt for, as opposed to wallowing in misery and seeing fault in everything as your baseline.
"Default state" precisely conveys that it's not about "all the time". Just what you should strive to start from and return to.
I've had more than one licensed psychologist attempt to proselytize to me. Granted, my location is part of the problem, but it still should never have happened. There are other, less rigorously trained people you can go to for that kind of thing and they're a dime a dozen. It objectively made things worse for me as some of my most major issues directly involve religion(s) pushed upon me as a child.
Ineffectively, if the current state-of-the-art is any indication :(
We are splitting hairs here but since happiness is considered the ultimate goal and state (what's beyond that if its not the end?), I would say aim for being content with your life as a baseline, jump to an actual happiness when stars align and revert back.
Its cool enough place to be and definitely more maintainable long term, and as mentioned a seldom dip to misery is a very valuable correction and reminder to all how fleeting this all is.
Being real is perhaps healthier and more honest than completely avoiding anything that isn't pure bliss or joy.
If others can not feel joy from that in person, you're doing it wrong.
Never forget what it feels like when fate smiles on you, even when it's almost never.
Sometimes I joke about the simple concept that we are all the descendants of a chain of ascendants that manage to successfully reproduce and have children without interruption, through all the evolutionary stages, from homo sapiens to hominids, monkeys, mammals until reaching the first life organisms. And I am not going to be the one stopping that long evolutionary chain ;)
Many people do not want to hear this. Many would point to economic factors as the main problem.
But I think that when people are educated about the risks and responsibilities of parenthood and given the choice of doing so (birth control, abortion, etc.) - the simple fact is that they CHOOSE not have enough kids to meet the replacement rate.
The reason you can see this is because the lowering birth rates aren't limited to one or two countries. It is every industrialized country. Every single one. If the issues were purely economic, those countries with amazing parental leave and better social nets would avoid the problem - but they don't.
I'm not sure what that kind of future for humanity will look like long term. It will be an interesting reckoning in ~100-200 years.
Maybe a good part of this is the risks and responsibilities without a co-operative village to grow families interactively.
What if the lingering problem is one of scale, that has not yet been solved?
Remember this whole thing is from a 90-year old and the smaller the village, the fewer the population of any one age group.
It's really making people think about all kinds of things all over the ball park.
If it's a small enough village you can't end up with a crowd of 1st graders ever, for instance, so age segregation as we know it for any years at a time has no similarity, and across-the-board people of all ages are part of the same group more so. Which means for one thing, if there is a 90-year old among the village, almost every one would be familiar with interacting with them routinely, as they were all growing up no less. An overwhelmingly more abundant number of adults would effectively be taking care of the children from start to finish, compared to how widespread adult influence is not intentionally minimized today, but ends up that way with same-age peers being more influential and naturally less mature.
Counter-intuitively it may even be that humanity, in the body of each family itself, thrives better when there remains satisfying group support for community focus more so than separate individual cocoons, which today are each more like on their own in rapidly changing times.
The villages humans mainly evolved to thrive in are about the opposite of what we have now in the big city.
It's also a good reminder that those of us who are a lot closer to 90 than we are 20 have still got a lot to learn.
So no quitting or you'll never be as wise as this letter shows.
Even with sub-replacement birth rates I don't see humanity at a threat of extinction (from natural population decline!) in the next tens of thousands of years. And even if -- what's the issue? It's only humans who think humanity is this great gift to the universe that needs to be protected and spread.
If the population dips, it won't add any pressure to have more kids, not on an individual level.
And a lot of humanity only works at scale. Global shipping, for example, only really works at the enormous scales we're doing it at. Same goes for communication networks.
If the population dips low enough, things like that start to break down. If we slowly dipped from our current to say, ~500 million, our chance at being a space-faring race is over. You may think that's a lot of humans - more than enough to accomplish everything. But they'd be spread too thin, with too little demand for industry and innovation to make it work.
Humanity isn't some great gift to the universe now. It's full of selfishness and greed and fear and arrogance and ignorance. But maybe, one day, it could be. I want to believe in that future.
I don't feel that's true? I am currently in a massive turmoil at work because my line-manager is breaking all ethics rules, with higher leadership caring little. Because I try to follow my values I've spoken up numerous times and all I got for that is a mountain of stress. Turns out I am not emotionally invulnerable.
The first thought that popped into my head here was, "well I have no kids, so yeah if forced to choose between job and morality I'd just bounce and figure it out later". But if I DID have dependents it's harder.
I will say if the choice is between being imoral and _personally_ poor ... I'd like to think I'd rather just be poor.
edit. Then again this is also on us as people to anticipate and prepare for these dilemmas and not let ourselves be trapped in toxic situations. I suck at this and don't do any real forward planning like having a lot of savings or having a backup plan to getting out of a bad job. But that's on me.
Hope it works out alright for you!
I would like to offer a different perspective for you.
I’ve never been shouted at in my work life. And I also know a few people who complain about being shouted at, at all places of work they’ve had — and it’s difficult for me to empathize with them.
At some point I understood that I never allowed my coworkers or managers to shout at me, and in the rare occasions when their voice was raised, I had made myself very clear, and I quit on the spot had the situation ever happened again. As a result, I’ve always had very pleasant and respectful working conditions, with self-respecting people who I know will quit if abused, so I treat them with respect as well.
On the other hand, people who endure humiliation by imagining contrived moral dilemmas about why it’s good and right for them to continue suffering — suffer for decades wherever they are employed, as they seem to filter out and stick to workplaces where this is acceptable.
Are there really no jobs for your talent where you can be moral, or you’re prepared to endure immorality (and to be faithful employee to such businesses) until you’re old and frail?
Another way of interpreting what you've shared is that what you are stressed about is actually _not quite the value you think you have_, otherwise you would have walked away, self-assuredly, emotionally certain in the rightness of removing yourself. But you haven't. So it isn't a set value. Obviously another value like, "I have to eat" preempts this ethical value being broken at work. I'm not saying this is wrong or not, just trying to help you navigate your stressful environment.
Change jobs.
Personally I find myself often considering how other people might feel too much and end up being a people pleaser, so I need to work on that aspect of my social skills
That sounds simple but the self-constitution part takes years of serious searching and work; some things (good therapists, good meditation teachers, good books, consistent practice, etc.) help the journey along, but there is no quick route.
I wouldn't recommend How to Win Friends and Influence People, it is all about fine-tuning behavior to make a better impression on people, and that doesn't sound like the heart of the issue you described. The heart of that issue _could_ be that one clings to mind-concepts rather than trusting the whole being and feeling a connection with the universe. If so, one must slowly learn to trust the felt experience of life, to know that gut feelings and open-heartedness are just as important as thoughts (moreso in many respects), to trust that one can relax one's whole being and be carried by an infinite love within. It is a gradual progression.
Being focused on how people might think of you is shallow and tastes like narcissism. Even if in your own mind you are “thinking about others” too much you are really only thinking about yourself through their eyes.
Being present in the moment with someone and their feelings involves getting out of your own narrative.
But maybe im an asshole, I genuinely have no idea.
Reminds me of "Try to be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try to live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations" from Monty Python's "The Meaning of Life", just with more quotations.
These are very difficult topics to properly talk about and correctly express all the nuance in the feeling that you try to convey, and many authors are quoted because they nailed a particular description, evocative of the feeling an author is trying to express and that he feels he can’t do a better job at explaining.
Similarly to how you can narrate a story through a sequence of pictures you can narrate an idea through a sequence of raw concepts, encapsulated in quotes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darmok
Meanwhile, I communicate exclusively in Star Trek references.
>>> That I’d survived thus far, scathed but in happy circumstances, was thanks neither to grit, determination, nor wise counsel, but mostly luck.
Would things have been different if he’d lived by his own advice earlier? Maybe. But it’s impossible to know. Pushing back a little: don't underestimate luck. It can be deeply unfair, and it can distort our sense of what is deserved or earned.
This is not to say that principles, effort, wisdom don't matter. But so does the randomness of where, when, and under what conditions we live and act.
Being self-reliant (being able to find happiness even when alone); being self-aware; being aware of others (including others' feelings, motives, perspectives); focusing on the journey; acknowledging that 'luck' has a non-negligible role in one's life; preparing our minds for inevitable death with calm acceptance; so many things the author's view resounded with in my opinion and experience.
I could put the nine bullets into 2 broad buckets.
1) and 6) pertain to being in the ego - but one that is principled, seeking clarity of cognition and be willing to correct self-deception. truth and intellect.
2), 3), 4), 5), 7), 8) and 9) pertain to awareness, being in the here and now, dissolving of the ego, universal consciousness, truth and happiness.
The first bucket posits an ego but one that is principled, and the second bucket seeks to dissolve the ego and attempt to tune into the cosmic energies. yin and yang.
I find it incredibly challenging to come to these ideas without having walked a path which consistently challenges someone who strives to succeed through challenge, without a mentor. Ofc this is just my opinion.
Being able to experience this through practicnng vipassana, after spending a long time being self-centered for a long time, I can speak to the fact that there are a few things to truly come to this level of metaphysical realization
1. A bit of Luck(in finding/stumbling upon these) and psychological safety to try something that can change your mind on abandoning the ego and embracing these values.
2. One cannot be convinced of abandoning the ego(I, me, mine, ours) by merely intellectual explanation of these things(Psychology and Neroscience have yet to be able to explain with evidence why even after experiencing profound things the ego centric view sticks on).
I feel everything follows the Midwit meme progression [1]: at first you use crude, obvious methods because you don’t know better. Later, complexity is alluring, you drown yourself in optimisations and finding the bestest tools and methods. In the end you come back to the same conclusion: simplicity was the most reliable tool the whole time.
[1]: https://medium.com/@obandoandrew8/bell-curve-meme-avoiding-t...
There's a lot of nihilism in the world, and this is the way beyond it, whatever flavour your salvation happens to come in.
That seems like a shallow interpretation. Rather, contemplating death ahead of the event refocuses you on your life at the present and hopefully causes you pause to consider if what you are doing right now is meaningful.
I think both ideas can be true at the same time.
> “But no matter how hard we try to prevent bad things from happening to us, some will happen anyway. Seneca therefore points to a second reason for contemplating the bad things that can happen to us. If we think about these things, we will lessen their impact on us when, despite our efforts at prevention, they happen: “He robs present ills of their power who has perceived their coming beforehand.” Misfortune weighs most heavily, he says, on those who “expect nothing but good fortune.” Epictetus echoes this advice: We should keep in mind that “all things everywhere are perishable.” If we fail to recognize this and instead go around assuming that we will always be able to enjoy the things we value, we will likely find ourselves subject to considerable distress when the things we value are taken from us.”
A third argument put forward by the Stoics is that the use of negative visualizations makes you realize what is truly valuable to you and appreciate it:
> They recommended that we spend time imagining that we have lost the things we value—that our wife has left us, our car was stolen, or we lost our job. Doing this, the Stoics thought, will make us value our wife, our car, and our job more than we otherwise would. This technique—let us refer to it as negative visualization—was employed by the Stoics at least as far back as Chrysippus. It is, I think, the single most valuable technique in the Stoics’ psychological tool kit.
And a fourth argument is the one you highlight, that thinking about death makes us realize how precious life is:
> Why, then, do the Stoics want us to contemplate our own death? Because doing so can dramatically enhance our enjoyment of life.”
(All quotations are from the book “A Guide to the Good Life: The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy – William B. Irvine”, which comes highly recommended.)
The greatest gift my counselor taught me was helping me realize the extent to which I could bullshit myself. I'm not sure I'm necessarily much better at stopping it, but instead now realize that my urge to adapt to a situation can be maladaptive, and my brain will happily retcon a million reasons why it has to be that way rather than chance the ego dying in the face of something unknown.
As someone in their 30s with children, work and a generally busy life, I wonder if anyone can recommend some pieces with more direct application - that is, in this vein, but perhaps an operational / how-to guide. Sometimes, it's hard to translate principles to action.
https://www.onedayyoullfindyourself.com/opening-a-golf-umbre... - Hey! I feel attacked! :D
As an aside, the Internet-driven grindset that everything, even a hobby, should have a point is one to resist with all your might. Think of the times you laughed loudest playing with your kids; I doubt you all were trying to achieve a goal beyond being together having fun.
He liked the Encyclopedia Brown books & Two Minute Mystery books I bought him so I thought he'd like the CYOA books as well since I cherished them as a kid but alas, he never got into them like I did.
I'm hoping he likes Infocom text adventures better when I introduce those to him later.
13-15 or so, Up way too late, hiding under my blanket to muffle the noise from the folding Stowaway keyboard, playing on a glowing green 160x160 LCD display on a Palm VIIx running a Z machine interpreter.
Apparently the author still gets emails now and then to this day about how Floyd’s death affected players. He used to have a personal site but I can’t find it now. A lot of players have written about this moment.
I think the other one I beat was Bureaucracy, by Douglas Adams. Got somewhat deep in Beyond Zork and HHGTTG, but don’t think I completed them.
I remember my father getting excited when he saw those Infocom compilations on Walmart store shelves.
I’ve also considered introducing those to my son. He’s 5 now. Lately having him play Mario RPG, Zelda, and Final Fantasy to practice reading.
—-
“Perhaps the most amazing thing about the creation of Floyd was how easy it was. The entire code and text for the character, if printed out, would perhaps run to ten pages. What’s amazing is not that I was able to create a computer game character that touched people so deeply, but how infrequently the same thing has been accomplished in the intervening two decades.”
Steve Meretzky
All in all, I find "advice" and "what I've learned" tomes by *older* people to be unhelpful. When someone has spent much other their life living contrary to the advice they are now dishing out, I question it. I prefer advice from someone currently living life, learning and adjusting and growing now... not at the end when it doesn't matter.
He spent time to think about what he's learned and decided to put it in writing at 94 years old. He seems to still be avid reader at his age. He still thinks about ideas of living a fulfilling life. It seems to me he's still currently living life, learning and adjusting and growing now. There may even be a lesson there to having a long life: It always matters. What do you consider the end?
These learnings are as helpful as life advice based on the positions of stars.
i understand he has no obligation to give any good reason for his advice, he just felt like giving it, and that’s nice of him. i would just suggest younger people not to waste too much time listening to “successful people” (whatever that means) on advice because it’s usually not applicable anymore or at all and is just entertainment with no real value
This is such an immensely important point. Seeing my current reality, bad and good, have been one of the most essential elements in taking the right decisions and steps.
The point is that if these lessons come off too "woo woo," spiritual, and rooted in philosophy to you, know that the science of the brain (and thus, the mind) supports all of these conclusions, as well. Specifically, the lessons laid out herein are requisite for long-term and sustaining contentment from a scientific perspective, as well.
I am working on software to deliver this knowledge to people along with tools to effectively implement habits that can help them live better (i.e., more content and purpose-driven) lives.
Lastly, if this read sparked something in your mind and you want to read more, I suggest reading "Something to do with Paying Attention" by David Foster Wallace. It's an incredible novella that, as the title may suggest, deals exclusively with Packard's notion "to keep aware and awake."
Nihilism is the devil and we must defeat him.
Anyone know what direction i should look at?
Wisdom is frustrating since to be able to fully absorb it you need to have lived experiences that cements it, it can't be generally taught.
Are there other similar things out there on the web? Anyone can share?
(Wish there are more posts like this on HN)
PDF: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GV-yxI4sBS5gg4belO6hXuFvSFW...
:(
This made me smile:
> Harvard philosopher Christine Korsgaard
It sounds like a honorific title to outline that this person teaches at Harvard, but it's in fact the opposite. It needs to be said she's from Harvard because most people have never heard of her. "Königsberg teacher Immanuel Kant" would be funny.
He quotes Spinoza: "A man strong in character hates no one, is angry with no one... is indignant with no one, scorns no one..." What I'm reading is that Spinoza never met a Donald Trump, even though I know very well he encountered even worse in his life. I'd need to be not just a buddha, but the capital-B Buddha himself, to find relevance in this advice. If I somehow managed to do so, and if everyone else followed my enlightened example in a Kantian sense, things would really suck.
Sometimes we need to hate. Otherwise we wouldn't have the capacity.
Honesty begins with and includes being honest with yourself. There are a great many people who expend great cognitive dissonance mental gymnastics entrenching themselves into and lashing their identity to a particular group or side of an issue, e.g., climate change denial. The only people they are fooling are fools including themselves.
Thanks for sharing this <3
The easiest way to a happy life is to follow the motto "live and let live".
Live - your life to the fullest. Use your liberty to build your own life. Don't sleepwalk into anything.
Let live - don't hurt or interfere with other's liberties. How others live is none of your business.
There is no luck; there is only free will interacting with destiny in some context.