One thing I wonder is that - assuming no extreme personal calamity - I would be just as happy/sad/depressed no matter what life I had led. How much of our inner sense of well being is determined by outward life circumstances. Living in the first world and working in the tech industry, I live better than 99% of the people that ever lived, including all my ancestors. What’s really crazy is that I’m not insanely happy all the time with my incredible good fortune. It seems that no matter what I got from life - I’d calibrate back to where I am now.
I largely agree with the post, but less because people near death don’t know what’s important, but rather because reports of these are self-help, currated to appeal to audience and get clicks. When I’ve had meaningful conversations with e friends and family memebers near death, I’ve found they have a real capacity to help you moderate your perspective and make better life decisions. Of course the specific individual personality plays a big role in this.
Per the article suggestion, follow the happiness reasearch.
The study, which appears in the current issue of Science, was led by Daniel Gilbert, professor of psychology at Harvard and author of the 2007 bestseller “Stumbling on Happiness,” along with Matthew Killingsworth and Rebecca Eyre, also of Harvard, and Timothy Wilson of the University of Virginia.
“If you want to know how much you will enjoy an experience, you are better off knowing how much someone else enjoyed it than knowing anything about the experience itself,” says Gilbert. “Rather than closing our eyes and imagining the future, we should examine the experience of those who have been there.
One thing I think that can help in this is trying your identity to being someone who strives to be as open minded and introspective as possible. You can turn changing your mind into a psychological reward, rather than an ego loss.
Doesn’t that assume that the production isn’t for export. For instance, if the EU and US export their industries to low wage, high population countries you would see their per capita numbers drop and overall leveling out. However, the damage to the climate would be equal. Essentially, you need to look at a lot of factors and think holistically about the problem.
I don’t think the data supports that it is possible for the majority of people. On traditional diets, Between 80 and 85 percent of those who lose a large amount of weight regain it. Source: https://stanfordhealthcare.org/medical-conditions/healthy-li....
Well, it's possible for the majority of people, it's just that the majority of people can't keep up with the things that make it possible. It's a ton of work (and money!) to keep up with a good diet, walk thousands of steps per day, and exercise 4-5x per week. Between needing to drive to do everything and making food as addictive as possible, we've designed everything about contemporary life to work against being healthy.
I just mean it's physically possible, it's not like we as humans are physically unable to and require a drug to do it for us. But most people aren't willing to grind through the beginning phase that is physically and emotionally difficult to get to the part where training becomes beautiful. I've had moments on psychedelics where I've just cried from gratitude that I found my practices and disciplined myself to root out the deep fears and insecurities that held me back. I didn't want to live with them anymore and wanted to see what this body is capable of in this lifetime. It's ridiculous what out bodies are capable of. It's like getting handed a lambo and instead we keep it parked in our garage all the time. But those first 6 months were extremely difficult, literally bloody from injuries, and required a commitment that every week I'd go train 5 times, no excuses.
I think pretty much anyone can find 5-6 hours in a week to go train something, it's really not much time at all.
I think equating censorship and intellectual property is not a good comparison. Copyright laws do not restrict sharing of ideas or opinions just specific textual instances of those opinions. Under copyright, you are free to paraphrase or quote the text to share the core idea. Political censorship prevents you from communicating specific political views, which limits dissent. I don’t see how copyright does that.
That’s a fair point. I think “censorship” was really a poor word choice. I should have used “refusal” to emphasize that this is from an LLM.
It’s really a sign of my poor writing that the ensuing thread is arguing about something other than my main point, which was really just a simple observation about how refusals can tell us something about laws and values of a society.
I think the challenge is that no matter the circumstances our minds are designed to adapt to the situation. This is often called the hedonic adaption. If you live in a modern western country, your life is likely significantly better than the wealthiest and most powerful people from the 14th century. Most likely if you're prone to depression, you will reset to a negative viewpoint even if societal issues are addressed. Below is an excerpt from article discussing research into lottery winners and paraplegics.
"In 1978, a trio of researchers at Northwestern University and the University of Massachusetts attempted to answer this by asking two very disparate groups about the happiness in their lives: recent winners of the Illinois State Lottery — whose prizes ranged from $50,000 to $1 million — and recent victims of catastrophic accidents, who were now paraplegic or quadriplegic. In interviews with the experimenters, the two groups were asked, among other things, to rate the amount of pleasure they got from everyday activities: small but enjoyable things like chatting with a friend, watching TV, eating breakfast, laughing at a joke, or receiving a compliment. When the researchers analyzed their results, they found that the recent accident victims reported gaining more happiness from these everyday pleasures than the lottery winners.
This is how the study is usually written about, in a “gee whiz, ain’t that counterintuitive?” kind of tone. But what’s really striking when you look at the results reported by the researchers is how close their answers actually are: On average, the winners’ ratings of everyday happiness were 3.33 out of 5, and the accident victims’ averaged answers were 3.48. The lottery winners did report more present happiness than the accident victims (an average of 4 out of 5, as compared to the victims’ 2.96), but as the authors note, “the paraplegic rating of present happiness is still above the midpoint of the scale and … the accident victims did not appear nearly as unhappy as might have been expected.”
This is partially because of what’s become known as the hedonic treadmill, or hedonic adaptation, that annoying tendency humans have to get used to the things that once made them happy. I particularly love how the authors of this 1970s paper phrased it:
Eventually, the thrill of winning the lottery will itself wear off. If all things are judged by the extent to which they depart from a baseline of past experience, gradually even the most positive events will cease to have impact as they themselves are absorbed into the new baseline against which further events are judged. Thus, as lottery winners become accustomed to the additional pleasures made possible by their new wealth, these pleasures should be experienced as less intense and should no longer contribute very much to their general level of happiness."
The hedonic treadmill also helps to understand why wealthy people--regardless of how they acquired their wealth--seem desperate to increase their fortunes. They have more money than they could ever need, yet they want more. See Elon Musk and the $50 billion pay package.[1]
I feel like this happens a lot with creative people as well--an artist can become successful and widely respected, but still become deeply unhappy if their skill or audience declines, regardless of financial success. It is the first thing that comes to my mind when I hear about celebrity suicides--Robin Williams, Naomi Judd, Anthony Bourdain.
If there's no increase in wealth or station, there's no dopamine. And that is depressing.
This idea of economic war doesn’t make sense. It’s not zero sum. Growth in the US should contribute to growth elsewhere in terms of trade, tourism, etc.
Is this just a factor of how the human brain works? My wife has stage 4 cancer and one of my strategies to help my kids have more memories is to build uniqueness into our activities, so years from now they can go, do you remember that time we went to x or did y with Mom? I think the human brain is much better at recalling unique events - whether they are bad or good
