Hacker News Reader

Comment by acabal | Hacker News Reader

I don't like these kinds of posts, because they suggest that happiness is something just within our grasp, if only we did the exact right thing to grasp it. In this case, it's suggesting happiness comes in part from questing to find major change X in your life that will change everything.

But I think that's actually the cause of a lot of unhappiness. It's a perpetual "grass is always greener" situation. Say you go on this quest to find the best city to live in. You find a good one, and you're not unhappy. But you'll always have that doubt: "What if I had quested just a little more? Would I have found an even better city?" And that'll bum you out. It becomes the anxiety of "what if".

Happiness is being content with the moment you're in. Having good health, a not-empty stomach, and a roof over your head is already a big step above a significant portion of the world's population. Now this doesn't mean you have to become a mindless lump, barely moving from the couch and uninterested in even the slightest change; but it's a suggestion that perhaps learning to be happy with what you have, where you are, and with what interests you, is, in the long run, precisely what will make you happy.

View on HN

I agree completely that happiness comes from within.

And yet there is a duality that has always struck me as important, though hard to explain: it's easiest to be happy when you're striving toward a goal you believe in. But you need to keep your sense of self, your ego, non-attached to the outcome of the striving.

That is, you need to invest yourself 100% into doing things that are important to you, but remain detached from whether you ultimately achieve what you wanted to achieve.

I think Buddhists call this "skillful attachment".

"Skillful attachment", what a wonderful expression! Doesn't seem that widespread, google-wise, but it definitely goes in my decidedly not very Buddhistic list of rules to live by.

Agreed. The idea is to act as if the outcome of what you were working on was the most important thing in the world to you, but to place no value on the actual outcome itself.

I think this can be put as "enjoy the process".

So, I should work to be a great spouse (say), but not care whether I actually achieve that outcome?

Why not work to achieve things of value precisely because they are of value to you?

Because you won't always achieve them. If you value the end result, it will be all the more disappointing if you fail to achieve it.

Well, it's a paradox.

If you are fixated on the goal, rather than being present performing the actions that will get you to the goal, you are actually less likely to reach the goal successfully. Thinking about the goal obsessively is counterproductive.

Maybe "detach from the outcome" is a better word. Anchor your happiness and well-being on performing the actions within your control that you believe will take you to that outcome, and do not make that happiness and well-being conditional on reaching that outcome.

A similar principle in poker (which has many lessons for life in general) is that as long as you keep making the correct decisions, in the long run you will win. If you invest emotionally in the prize you will likely make the wrong decision.

> A similar principle in poker (which has many lessons for life in general) is that as long as you keep making the correct decisions, in the long run you will win. If you invest emotionally in the prize you will likely make the wrong decision.

Excellent point. A bad outcome realized through a correct decision making process is painful, but is still a "better" result than a good outcome realized through a flawed decision making process. When poker players go "on tilt" they start breaking their process and it shows in their long run results.

There are few places where this is more on display than in high stakes poker tournaments.

This is the main philosophy of the Hindu scripture the Bhagavad Gita which says :

"Your right is only to work, and never to its fruits. Don't be motivated by the fruits of work. Nor should you be attached to inaction."

Marc Aurel:

If something in the exterior world makes you discontent, then it is not that object which troubles you, but rather your judgement of it; yet to blot out this judgement instantly is within your power. And if your dissatisfaction is based on the condition of your soul, who can prohibit you from correcting your views? Likewise, if you are discontent because you are not doing what seems reasonable to you, why not be active rather than discontent? "But something stronger than me is obstructing me." Still, do not be discontent; for the cause for your inaction is not within you. "But life has no meaning for me if this is not done." Well then, end your life, as calm as if you had succeeded; but don't forget to forgive your adversaries.

Words that strike me in their simplicity and depth every time I read them, but that's Marc Aurel for ya :)

Who is Marc Aurel? I found one link making it seem that "Marc Aurel" was actually "Marcus Aurelius" and had a citation referencing Meditations. But google could not find that quote in any translation for Meditations. The "that's Marc Aurel for ya" makes it seem that he is a well known writer/thinker so maybe I am way off base thinking its Marcus Aurelius.

> The "that's Marc Aurel for ya" makes it seem that he is a well known writer/thinker so maybe I am way off base thinking its Marcus Aurelius.

Why would you think that you're off base? From what I gather Marcus Aurelius is a well known* thinker/writer - just ordered a copy of Mediations for myself after reading this post and comments.

* edit

Because I never heard anyone refer to him as Marc Aurel in any of my philosophy classes and could not find any references to "marc aurel" on the internet. The familiarity of the statement made it seem like "marc aurel" was a household name. I also could not find the sentence in any copy of Meditations I found on the internet.

Fyi: you can grab a copy of Meditations from a number of classics sites on the internet:

http://classics.mit.edu/Antoninus/meditations.html

Ah, yeah. I suppose I'm taking a leap of faith in assuming that they are one in the same and that the Marcus to Marc was just bad translation.

Thanks for the link, might be good for some light reading until I get the physical copy.

I heard recently that there is a new translation which is rather good for the modern reader. (http://www.amazon.com/The-Emperors-Handbook-Translation-Medi...) I think I heard about it on the excellent "History of Philosophy: Without Any Gaps" podcast, but I'm not certain of that. It can seem silly to spend money when you can get the ideas for free, on the other hand, the style of translation can easily get in the way with ancient writers and old translations. I've quit reading a couple of dry translations of the Meditations when they would put me to sleep rather too fast during bed-time reading. I've got the new one on my Xmas wishlist and plan to buy it in the new year if someone doesn't get it for me.

So maybe check it out if you find the old versions slow going.

Ah, this is the exact copy I ordered, this is good to know. Personally, I prefer to spend a small sum to own a physical copy of the book - I'm a bit old fashioned in that way.

I'm similarly old fashioned, only now I'm moving house again, and regretting the half a tonne of books I'll have to lug around.

"could not find any references to "marc aurel" on the internet."

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22marc+aurel%22

"Mark Aurel, auch Marc Aurel oder Marcus Aurelius"

Not in the first three pages for me.

It's an alternative spelling in German, sorry for the confusion.

"Google could not find that quote in any translation for Meditations"

That's because I translated it into English from a German translation of Meditations ^^

here's the same thing without that extra step:

http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_aurelius_bkvii...

If therefore it be a thing external that causes thy grief, know, that it is not that properly that doth cause it, but thine own conceit and opinion concerning the thing: which thou mayest rid thyself of, when thou wilt. But if it be somewhat that is amiss in thine own disposition, that doth grieve thee, mayest thou not rectify thy moral tenets and opinions. But if it grieve thee, that thou doest not perform that which seemeth unto thee right and just, why doest not thou choose rather to perform it than to grieve? But somewhat that is stronger than thyself doth hinder thee. Let it not grieve thee then, if it be not thy fault that the thing is not performed. 'Yea but it is a thing of that nature, as that thy life is not worth the while, except it may be performed.' If it be so, upon condition that thou be kindly and lovingly disposed towards all men, thou mayest be gone. For even then, as much as at any time, art thou in a very good estate of performance, when thou doest die in charity with those, that are an obstacle unto thy performance.

You know what, I think I like my version more :P

Thank you for the education. Is dropping the ius/us (I forget the term high school latin was a long time ago) a common way of translating roman names to german?

To be perfectly honest I don't know.. I had latin as well, but I gleefully forgot most of it :)

It seems to be common in English too. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_poetry

Ovid, Virgil, Horace...

Thank you for your translation -- the project of personal translations of great words is one of my favourites, despite the risks of misrepresenting. It is not enough to be accurate, one should seek also to be a poet.

I directly disagree with this post and take a naturalist approach. People aren't unhappy because they want more; they are unhappy because their basic needs aren't met. And by needs I don't mean material needs, but basic self realization needs.

We actually need very little to be happy, but people now live their lives in way they were not designed to be. As a primordial tribesmen, all people needed were the love and camaraderie of their fellow tribesmen (ie work with close friends), enjoy the thrill of going out on a hunt and being recognized for success (self driven accomplishment and social status), find a mate and raise a family without being a wage slave (adequate free time, no boss), and other aspects of life where you are free to choose.

Today's corporate world has none of these simple aspects. You don't get to choose your colleagues and often don't have anything in common with them. Your work is often assigned to you, and both recognition and reward is shifted towards the company or boss. You have a boss. You make money but all your time is taken away.

You might argue we are materially better off, but biologically our brains our programmed to be happy in the old tribal way.

Some of Paul Graham's essays talk about the same issues.

While I'm no expert on the matter that sounds like an awfully rose-coloured view of the life of a typical "primordial tribesman".

Yes it is, I'm glossing over what could have robbed the primordial tribesmen of the same satisfaction, such as a dominating chief, subjugation by neighbors, failure to contribute to your tribe and thus be demoted, environmental changes causing a hunter to resort to farming...

There were challenges, but generally you had the opportunity to overcome them as the default path. Today the default path does not necessarily lead to self actualization.

Many of us who post here happen to want the same thing: freelancing, side project income, small business, start up. This can't simply be a coincidence, and in my view what they have in common is the autonomy and accomplishment needs we have.

Perhaps, but I recently read something which suggested they (to be precise, Native Americans) really were happier than the European settlers of the time:

"All of the white people who joined Indian tribes loved it and refused to go back to white civilization. All the Indians who joined white civilization hated it and did everything they could to go back to their previous tribal lives."

http://squid314.livejournal.com/340809.html (There's a lot more on the subject than just the bit I quoted.)

I don't think that being recognized for success is a basic human (psychological) need. It certainly isn't mine. Sure, I like to be successful in what I do, but I only need internal recognition for that, i.e. people using something I built and being happy using it, not external (people actually thanking ME for having built it).

I think longing for external recognition is a sign of a deeply wounded soul, of a person lacking the most fundamental self-love and self-esteem.

I think you're correct, that internal happiness is incredibly important but being recognized by others is a basic human need. In fact, it's listed in the Esteem portion of Maslow's Hierarchy of needs. Esteem is one of the primary layers, and within it are both self-esteem and respect from external parties. It's a basic human desire to be accepted and valued by others. If you've gotten over the need to have acceptance by others, that's awesome. However, that doesn't mean it isn't a basic desire.

I agree with you completely. The simplicity required for a peaceful life is really difficult to find in today's world.

Additionally, it's a common misconception that primordial man was a poor wretch that scrounged for food, fought larger predators and generally lived a life in constant fear and hunger.

I once read an article on Mark's Daily Apple (http://www.marksdailyapple.com/about-2/who-is-grok/#axzz2ENJ...) that paints quite a different picture of a paleolithic lifestyle.

From the article, the paleolithic man, "...leads a life of relative peace, consistent rhythm, adequate sleep, and little stress. There are times of scarcity, to be sure, but his body is adapted to generally weather their strain."

As an entrepreneur, my goal is to earn enough to allow me live more simply and get back into the proper rhythm of life. How much money is that? I don't know yet, but the primary goal isn't to get rich, it's to get free.

I have the same reasoning as you. The number will be whatever amount that generates the income to support your desired lifestyle. This could be in investments or low involvement business income. Thus the number for me is 2.5 million based off of 4% dividend for a 100k income (about single engineer middle class Bay Area only because dividends are taxed lower). Or a number of side businesses that add up to that income.

I love the idea of "a number of side businesses that add up to that income". Small, simple businesses that generate enough to make the ideal lifestyle possible. That's a strong goal. It's especially good considering your dividend-based alternative. I'm sure you've noticed that dividend stocks are getting hammered right now. :)

Yeah, both fortunately and unfortunately I expect myself to be able to sooner build small business income to 100k than amass 2.5 million. Not that either is easy of course. Or even a reasonable expectation.

I wouldn't worry about stock price as you hopefully never have to sell a good income payer. But if you are buying, at some point a good dividend payer will fall until it's cheap enough for a good return, ie wait for the next crash. I think the dividend stocks are being sold off now because of uncertainty over tax rules in 2013 for dividends, and also since money has been chasing yield and made those stocks overbought.

I agree. This blog post is a typical young adult way of looking at the world. Always chasing the new best way to live. Whether that is the best city, the best neighborhood, best car, best phone, best career, best company.

This does not lead to happiness. Happiness is internal.

If you become happy first from examining yourself internally, then you will naturally make decisions that will lead you to your goals.

For example, if by looking inward and realizing that your goal for the next few years is to become a successful musician, you will probably gravitate to one of the major musical cities, LA, New York or Nashville.

However, if you realize that being a family man and creating a healthy family is your real goal, then having a decent job in a nice suburb is probably where you will end up.

After graduating with an engineering degree in a field I enjoy, and taking my first job, I soon began asking myself what's next. I grew up alongside many kids whose parents funneled them into the typical "dream careers": doctor, lawyer, finance (and other people who got there on their own). After quickly hitting my head on the (relatively low) glass ceiling, I wondered if I hadn't missed out on huge opportunities in life.

I reconnected with one of these friends, and he told me his life wasn't perfect. He hadn't reached some state of perpetual bliss that I'd imagined. And he envied that I got to work on creative problems that provided constant challenge. Then he paid for lunch and drove off in his Porsche. If everyone can be happy or unhappy regardless of material things (as long as their basic needs are met), is it better to be rich and happy rather than middle-class and happy?

It's better to be happy than not happy. Rich/not is something different. I know many people in varying degrees along that scale and their happiness does not seem to be correlated to their wealth. Many in the lower end of the scale believe their happiness is tied to it, though.

This recent Princeton study found that income and happiness are correlated until $75,000, after which happiness is flat.

http://wws.princeton.edu/news/Income_Happiness/

When you say that happiness does not seem to be correlated to wealth do you mean that having a larger salary does not seem to be correlated to wealth or that having a more savings/less debt (to some extent this is two scales, to some extent it is one scale) does not seem to be correlated to wealth.

I find it hard to think of someone whose annual income is in the 200k+ range but who is in massive debt as rich or wealthy. Similarly, someone whose annual income is below 50k but who has no debt, owns their own home free and clear and has massive savings could easily be thought of as wealthy. Of course, "massive" when talking about money is relative to income and debt/savings are likely to be orthogonal to happiness to a large extent. With regards to money and happiness, I think the Micawber principle states it best: "Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen pounds nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery."

The secretary problem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_problem

Not heard of that before, thanks for the link - interesting problem!

Are we reading the same post? I think you've missed the point entirely, or you made a conscious decision to ignore everything he wrote just so you could respond critically.

He says nothing about trying to find the best of everything or making sure to squeeze every ounce of happiness out of every decision you make. He's saying people who are unhappy should stop and think about whether or not they're pursuing things that might make them happy in the major aspects of their lives (location, career, friends, hobbies, etc.).

I don't buy into your BS about "learning to be happy with what you have" because it glosses over the whole "what you have" part, which is the crux of the issue. That's like asking miserable people "Have you tried being happy instead of being unhappy?" Brilliant. I'm sure you'll be a top contender for the Nobel Happiness Prize this year.

I definitely agree. As a recent graduate, I was constantly plagued with thoughts like that. "Did I choose the right company? Area?" etc.

It all comes down to, as you've alluded to, having perspective. I set a goal early in my undergraduate career to be in the very position I'm in today: working for a stable company with a lot of job security, and the ability to use it as a stepping stone in the event I'd like to take on more risk. It's when I remembered the fact that I set that goal and accomplished it fully that I regained the perspective that while the grass may be greener, my grass is already as green as I had always wanted it.

my grass is already as green as I had always wanted it.

Which becomes its own struggle. Once you've hit an optimal shade of green, there is nothing left to do. Half of the enjoyment comes from actively working to make your proverbial lawn grow to be so green. Do you rip it up and start over to relive that enjoyment, or sit back and watch it grow?

The serial entrepreneur types tend to go make another lawn :P

I like to imagine that career development is sitting back and watching it grow. Maybe adding a shrub here or there.

(I'm not an entrepreneur, just a software engineer.)

I have known a few people driven to distraction by this sort of thinking.

"I will be happy when I get promoted/I buy a house/I move area/Some other future event happens", seems to me to be some sort of mental defence to justify being unhappy now, because obviously you can't be happy now because X hasn't happened yet. The event that's due to happen never makes them happy when it does happen though, they just make another event to pin their supposed future happiness to, all the while missing that life is happening now, friends and family and good times are around now.

Perhaps it's part of the human condition.

I've been struggling with this since graduating college. It's been 5 years now and it hasn't gotten any better until I reheard a John Lennon quote: "Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans."

Some things are awful and you should get out -- but I imagine for a lot of us on this site we can chalk it up to first world problems and not living more in the moment.

I can agree with this statement.

I once read (I wish I could remember where, I'm reaching back 10 years here) that if happiness is your goal then you will never achieve it. You will be so busy "looking" for happiness that you will never realize that you are happy.

Instead of making happiness you goal, a person should instead make tangible, achievable goals. Using your example of finding the best city to live in, you could define things that makes a city the best city for you. Good coffee shops, good people, lots of meetups, bars, schools.. the list can go on.

Here are some great ted talks surrounding the topic: http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_the_paradox_of_ch... http://www.ted.com/talks/martin_seligman_on_the_state_of_psy...

A good read on this is [0], he calls it the hedonic treadmill, where you are always thinking that thing that will make you ultimately happy lies in your next goal achievement.

[0] http://www.amazon.com/The-Joyless-Economy-Psychology-Satisfa...

> I don't like these kinds of posts, because they suggest that happiness is something just within our grasp, if only we did the exact right thing to grasp it.

Also, it is written by somebody who purports to understand happiness for a sizable fraction of people.

At least he causes happiness in a large number of people who laugh heartily at such a self-centered approach.

> it is written by somebody who purports to understand happiness for a sizable fraction of people.

Why does that seem strange? There is a large body of research into human happiness. I haven't looked into it closely, but I would be surprised if it completely failed to generalise. It seems completely reasonable to me that someone could suggest "if you act like this rather than like that, you'll be happier" and be right about a majority of people.

See for example: http://lesswrong.com/lw/bq0/be_happier/

(This is a seperate question from whether the author of this particular article knows what he's talking about. I do not take a position on that.)

Well said. Although I think part of the article is saying that as people, we shouldn't be afraid of stepping outside of our comfort zones to try something new, even if on the surface it doesn't immediately look like it's gonna be "greener pasture".

I think another thing to remember is that no matter how hard we try, it's not really possible to guarantee that our lives will always be "improving". Somewhere sometime we would all be better off learning to take the good with the bad - this will free us up to experiment and try new things without being completely reckless. As a result, I believe we'll all live more fulfilling lives.

Agreed. There's this sense that because a situation feels wrong, something actually IS wrong. But one must apply some rational checks to those notions, and see if the problem is really within rather than without.

"Say you go on this quest to find the best city to live in. You find a good one, and you're not unhappy. But you'll always have that doubt: "What if I had quested just a little more? Would I have found an even better city?" And that'll bum you out. It becomes the anxiety of "what if"."

I actually have 10 years experience with this. I've somewhat settled in one city (Rio) after all those years searching and moving. It's the best fit I've found but not the best in all categories. I think that's the best one can hope for, without turning it into a 20-yr quest...

These blog posts appeal to people looking for a "magic elixir" that will turn them into the ninja coder or elite haxor or bullet-dodging movie star that everyone wants to be. It's unrealistic, and comes from unambitious people who want to get the reward without completing the quest.

Most of us can't just find what we're really looking for in life. It doesn't exist yet. We have to make the future, and that's a lot of difficult work.

There's a great Ted talk by Shawn Achor that shares that point of view: http://on.ted.com/Achor

> Say you go on this quest to find the best city to live in. You find a good one, and you're not unhappy. But you'll always have that doubt: "What if I had quested just a little more? Would I have found an even better city?" And that'll bum you out. It becomes the anxiety of "what if".

It's like looking for the 'perfect distro'. Just pick one and learn to love it.

Exactly. Furthermore, thinking that way prevents people from investing themselves in their current situation, so of course that situation is never fulfilling.

As Buckaroo Banzai says: No matter where you go, there you are.