Hacker News Reader

Comment by buckbova | Hacker News Reader

> Seriously, your car/house/clothes are too nice, and you have them because society makes you feel less successful if you don't.

Stuff makes me happy. Moving from a tiny apartment with a small everything to a spacious house made me much happier. It's comfortable. I now have a wonderful kitchen to cook, which I enjoy doing, that I just couldn't do as well before. I have a view out my large bay windows. It's great.

Driving a nice car is awesome, especially if you commute longer distances or like road trips. I enjoy a comfortable luxury sedan with power.

I'm much happier with nice things. Society isn't telling me I like my large flat screen tv. I am because it looks stunning on my wall.

I agree with what others say here about debt though. Don't go into debt to buy yourself a bunch of crap you don't need.

View on HN

What really makes you happy is the experiences the stuff affords you. Movies and sports are enjoyable. staring at a nicely mounted TV that isn't showing any content is a fleeting novelty. The kitchen isn't enjoyable on its own. It's only wonderful because it allows you the experience of cooking. A two year old Infiniti G37 the same price as a new Honda Accord, but it comes with all wheel drive, and 330hp. Maybe its not the same status symbol as a BMW or Mercedes, but you'll have plenty of time to look at those two cars in your rearview mirror.

I think this gets to the heart of form vs. function. Don't buy things because they look cool on your wall, or in your driveway, or in your kitchen. Buy things that make it enjoyable to watch movies, comfortable to drive on long trips, and enjoyable to cook with.

Favor function over form.

You're probably about as happy as you were with less/different stuff (unless you were poor enough to be anxious about making ends meet), but maybe you're unusual. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill

On average, happiness peaks at age 20, declines until age 50, and then starts to inch up again ( http://www.economist.com/node/17722567 ).

A lot of the decline in happiness is related to starting a family. Average happiness is lower with kids (there are much higher peaks because of them, but also lower lows http://www.ted.com/talks/rufus_griscom_alisa_volkman_let_s_t...) because of all the chaos related to kids.

Average happiness sounds absolutely preposterous.

What about it sounds preposterous? Certainly happiness isn't easy to measure, but it seems like asking "On a scale of 1-10, how happy are you with your life?"(or something like it) is a really important question... And as a society, we'd like that number to be broadly high and climbing as we move forward... No?

I mean judging your own happiness against the mean or median of 300 million people who live in vastly different locations and climates, with different population densities, prevalence of poverty and opportunity, availability of social services, access to education and medical services, etc, is a meaningless exercise.

I don't think anyone was comparing happiness against other people here. It's happiness against yourself. Are you happier now than you were last year? Average happiness in this context doesn't mean the average happiness of the world, or a community. It's just how you would deem the average happiness of your life at a certain era. Yesterday I had a terrible day, but I would still say I am happy on average, I just was not happy on that particular day.

Amen. I wish I had realized at a younger age the importance of investing in nice clothes. Not only does it make a person more confident, it is literally the difference in many cases between getting a good job and a spouse and being totally ignored. Despite what your teachers and parents told you growing up, dressing well is critical to success.

Besides, why does it even matter if we enjoy something nice because society tells us it should make us happier? Yes, when I go out I DO want society to notice me and reward me. That's the reality of life- people have more respect for those who present themselves well. If the respect of others is something we value, then it makes sense to do what we can to gain that respect. Pretending that you're somehow above the rules of society is both naive and counterproductive. The bottom line is that if it makes us happier or more successful then it was a good investment.

"when I go out I DO want society to notice me and reward me"

reward you for what exactly?

Manipulating their perception of you by taking advantage of social cues.

I'm fine with people wanting to dress nicely as long as they realize it's total bullshit that people are judged by their clothes, but want to take advantage of it anyway. It's just human hacking.

I do feel a bit bad when dressing nicely, because I worry that I am contributing to the continuation of the practice of judging people by their clothing.

I don't understand this line of reasoning. When you go on a date, do you pick up the check for your SO? When you go to a bar do you buy a drink for your friends occasionally? Surely you'd rather save that money, but you have to "hack" society's rules so that they will like you.

Maybe you "hack" HR policies that reinforce the use of proper grammar by refining your resume. Or hold the door open for somebody who is behind you when you'd rather just be on your way. Society is full of norms and social cues, and I don't think it's deception to control your behavior to align yourself with them. To not do so out of some notion that we should combat human instinct is rather naive.

I think Benjamin Franklin put it best: "Eat to please thyself, but dress to please others."

It's human hacking when you recognize that the cues you're leveraging are inane and meaningless. Many people believe that the cues themselves are somehow meaningful or significant, and get caught up in the act.

How, exactly, is it naive to try to overcome illogical biases and ways of being manipulated?

Well I guess the fundamental disagreement is that I don't think these biases are best classified as illogical. Yes, if you are being completely objective, two job applicants should be judged solely on the basis of their qualifications. Yet, the one who is more polished is going to get the job ten times out of ten. Perception is simply a fundamental part of decision making, and I think the naivety lies in thinking that any of us are above catering to that perception or that we can somehow convince people to not rely on their perceptions.

It's not total bullshit. It's grounded in evolutionary psychology. We like people who are attractive because that shows that they have good genes and are therefor worth either a) mating with, or b) keeping around for other reasons. Nice clothes help make a good impression if you're in relatively good shape and your body is well proportioned. If you're 100lbs overweight, that tailored tux just makes you look like a penguin.

So you're telling me it's not total bullshit to hire someone for a coding job based on how attractive they are/seem?

Just because we have evolved heuristics for something doesn't mean those heuristics aren't stupid and irrelevant in some contexts.

"Besides, why does it even matter if we enjoy something nice because society tells us it should make us happier?"

If you REALLY enjoy it, that's great. But most of the research on the relationship between stuff/trappings and happiness finds that there isn't really any correlation. You're trained by evolution, society, and marketers to want these things, but (unless you're anomalous), they don't impact your happiness.

Meanwhile, 20% of households spend more than they make, unemployed millennials spend ~$800/month on discretionary spending, and half of american households save no money at all.

> people have more respect for those who present themselves well

If presenting yourself well means driving a luxury car, or having an expensive home, then no, I don't respect these people more than others. There are no such 'rules of society' except for materialistic people.

The subconscious mind is a very powerful thing. Even if you say you don't respect those people more than others, it doesn't mean that you don't.

Generally I respect people less for ostentatious displays of wealth (though a significant proportion of them have earned their money doing things I respect despite the sports car and bedrooms that outnumber even the guests).

Inverse snobbery is a very powerful thing too ;) But I'm probably an outlier

This is like saying "I don't respond to advertising." It sounds good in theory but pretty much falls flat on its face in reality.

Dressing nice, clean and decent is different from dressing according to the latest fashion trends. Get people to respect you for who you are, if they don't, Do you want to care about them ? do you want such people to dictate your life?

But all pleasure comes with pain/attachment/fear, the two are inseperable.

Now your decisions in life are dependent on making sure you still have those comforts that make you happy. You will miss out on adventures because you are scared that you won't have a comfy kitchen. What you own owns you too.

What about the hedonic treadmill? You say you're happy with your big TV, but wouldn't you be even happier with a still bigger TV? You like your luxury sedan for commuting, but wouldn't you be even happier if you had a Ferrari to drive on the weekends?

I like to think of it as a recursive function instead of a treadmill.

You get a TV that fits your house. But you want a bigger house. Then, the TV seems too small, the house seems bare, and your car is not nice enough for the neighbhorhood. So you get a bigger TV and fancier car.

Now, you have too much stuff in your house, it is too small again! So, you get a bigger house...

Yeah but what's the termination condition?

Death.

On the other hand, how much of your time are you willing to spend for that house, car, and TV? Because time is the commodity you're selling.

Despite enjoying my work for the most part, I'm willing to trade less than 25% of my time.

Typical hours worked in a year: 2000

52 weeks - 2 weeks vacation/sick/holiday (most have more) * 40 =2000 hrs

2000 / (365*24)=.228

Seems fair.

Probably ought to math that out with waking hours. And add in your commute. And 2000 hours = 38/week. I don't know many folks who work that little, though I supposed vacation days ought to factor into it (the average american takes 4.1). Let's nudge it up to 2400 or so.

2400 hours worked + 260 hours commuting (US avg. is 25.5min - probably average higher in startup cities?) Let's say 17 waking hours (even though people who get 7 hours of sleep are proven to be less effective on a lot of fronts, it's certainly plenty common).

(edit: average hours worked/week in US for salaried workers is 46: http://www.prdaily.com/Main/Articles/Most_employed_Americans...)

2660 / 365*17 = 43%

Why 2400 hours - that's 46 hours a week! Maybe a founder is working that much, but generally they over-work and it's proven more than the tenuous 7 hours of sleep a night thing that 45+ hours a week is bad. e.g. http://legacy.igda.org/why-crunch-modes-doesnt-work-six-less...; etc. I think it's totally reasonable to work 45+ hours a week in your first year or maybe even 2. But after 3 if you're working 45+ hours a week you have a major, major problem.

Most average people are expected to work 2080 or 2087 hours a year. Seems a little disingenuous to bump it all the way to 2400 - if you're working over 45 hours a week on average you're over-working, which is far worse for your health.

Even still, using the 17 hour mark and 2087 hours it's 33.6%.

Sorry, should have referenced a source-- I edited my comment to include the source for the 46 (which is the exact average for salaried workers in the US).

That's crazy. I don't know why people do that :-(

I don't know that I would take their numbers as gospel but to be fair in the tech industry it's probably more accurate when I think of it.

I don't understand it either. I negotiated my salary for 37.5 hours a week of work. I'm happy to work a bit more when the work is interesting, but I'm going to show up late or leave early the next few days to make up for it. Alternatively, you can pay me more.

That's the deal. My work/bosses are happy with it. My co-workers seem to begrudge that they're freely giving up extra time and I'm not. I keep suggesting they stop doing that...

House can be worth a lot of time investment. It is, after all, where you live every day.

How about food? I would love to invest zero time into food, but I have to eat.

Soylent? I haven't got my shipment though.

> I'm much happier with nice things

Have you ever traveled on a shoestring in S/E Asia, Africa or South-America? I bet you're going to be a lot happier with smaller versions of your "nice things".

My second bed is part second-hand, part Ikea. My first bed was ten times as expensive. However, after some traveling I consider my second bed to be luxurious.

No thanks, a good bed and a good chair are sacred. With food, housing and all the basics covered, they should be pretty high priority. I don't understand how some people can buy a 500€ smartphone and then sleep in a shitty cheap bed.

>Stuff makes me happy

The definition of irony. Happiness will exist regardless of circumstances. No one can take it away from you. Maybe you meant, "stuff brings me pleasure"?

For your own sake, keep track of how long your happiness lasts before discontentment sets in.

I think you're confusing happiness with pride.

I'm unsure they are different for everyone.

They are. Whether everyone realises it yet or not.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com