An update on recent technical problems and more from the admin: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/250292/on-technical-difficulties-mod-coverage-and-other-things/p1?new=1
Options
If you're happy and you know it...
ALocksly
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15907232/
How much control do you, as an individual, have over your own happiness (not merely the pursuit but the actual achievement of). The article linked suggests that individuals may have more control that previously though (by the scientific community anyways) which would be good news, but what do you think? My friends and acquaintances have labeled me as a somewhat upbeat fellow and I would concur but I cannot definitively attribute this to my upbringing or to my genetics (software vs. hardware). Is your own default happiness level preset at birth or can you tweak it?
I’m going to lean towards the latter, with some caveats. I know that despite my best efforts, coming back from a severe blow, like a breakup, is mostly a matter of time. If I am simply having a bad day however, I have had some success in “deciding†on an optimistic outlook and not allowing it to affect me.
There's no shortage of advice in how to become a happier person, as a visit to any bookstore will demonstrate. In fact, Martin Seligman of the University of Pennsylvania and colleagues have collected more than 100 specific recommendations, ranging from those of the Buddha through the self-improvement industry of the 1990s.
The problem is, most of the books on store shelves aren't backed up by rigorous research, says Sonja Lyubomirsky, a psychologist at the University of California, Riverside, who's conducting such studies now. (She's also writing her own book).
In fact, she says, there has been very little research in how people become happier.
Why? The big reason, she said, is that many researchers have considered that quest to be futile.
For decades, a widely accepted view has been that people are stuck with a basic setting on their happiness thermostat. It says the effects of good or bad life events like marriage, a raise, divorce, or disability will simply fade with time.
We adapt to them just like we stop noticing a bad odor from behind the living room couch after a while, this theory says. So this adaptation would seem to doom any deliberate attempt to raise a person's basic happiness setting.
As two researchers put it in 1996, "It may be that trying to be happier is as futile as trying to be taller."
How much control do you, as an individual, have over your own happiness (not merely the pursuit but the actual achievement of). The article linked suggests that individuals may have more control that previously though (by the scientific community anyways) which would be good news, but what do you think? My friends and acquaintances have labeled me as a somewhat upbeat fellow and I would concur but I cannot definitively attribute this to my upbringing or to my genetics (software vs. hardware). Is your own default happiness level preset at birth or can you tweak it?
I’m going to lean towards the latter, with some caveats. I know that despite my best efforts, coming back from a severe blow, like a breakup, is mostly a matter of time. If I am simply having a bad day however, I have had some success in “deciding†on an optimistic outlook and not allowing it to affect me.
Yes,... yes, I agree. It's totally unfair that sober you gets into trouble for things that drunk you did.
ALocksly on
0
Posts
But anyway, I like everyone else have my really bad time periods, and my times where I'm in a euphoric state. Usually after I find out I've done well in a Uni test or exam, I'll feel great. But some little things can really get me down, and I'll stay down for weeks sometimes. Usually it's because of women, but also it's because of Uni.
I swear most of peoples depression could be avoided if we all had loving partners, and we all didn't have to worry about failing our classes
I failed a test in high school, and thus had to resit 6 months later. The bad result wasn't the most depressing result, it was seeing my friends who had succeeded. Having experienced this I make sure that if I attempt something I fucking go for it. So that if I do fail, and others succeed, I am still happy because I know that my talents lie elsewhere and I gave it my all.
Seriously, there is nothing worse than knowing you have failed via lack of effort. It lingers with you for years.
What? It's not like the book is actively cheering you up or something. It's not like, they are sad and then do a line off of the book and are magically happy or something. The book gives them advice, it is up to the individual to act on that advice and help themselves with it.
The point of self help in any form, is to give out (supposedly expert)advice and methods for achieving specific personal goals. Hapiness books provides psychological and behavioural methods for improving your perspective on life, Do it yourself books tell you how to plaster a wall. It's the same principal.
But what if you are doing it for science?
XBL: Aspis 9
Lotro (Landroval): Cleomenes [Champion], Ilithano [Captain]
I had two friends in HS who were always kind of "dark" both got labled as goth/ emo. Now one of them had a family history of clinical depression. His father and grandfather had both died by sucide, a fate which he wanted to avoid. The other simply made a big point out of wearing dark makeup ranting about how the world sucks and how she was so depressed.
In this case my guy friend didn't want to be depressed but generally was anyways and my gal friend generally acted depressed but was maybe just doing it for the attention.
That's actually untrue. There is research, it's just been conflicting and inconclusive. A lot of researchers have mistaken this absence of evidence for evidence of absence - concluding that if we can't find the factors by which individuals can affect their own happiness, then they must not exist.
This is not a consensus opinion by any stretch of the imagination.
Therapy's much the same way. Lots of studies have been done about the effectiveness of therapy and, interestingly enough, the education level of therapists (MD vs. PhD vs. Masters, etc.) has no statistically significant effect on success rates. Neither does the style of the therapist (except that cognitive-behavioral therapy is slightly more effective than all other styles) or the demographics of the therapist.
The largest indicator of success in therapy is the client's dedication to recovery. A client who has a mediocre therapist but sticks with the program is statistically much more likely to recover than a client who half-asses therapy but has a good therapist. (I don't have web links to back this up but it's covered pretty well in the books Beware the Talking Cure and House of Cards).
Careful, you're treading dangerous correlation/causation territory with the word "affecting" there.
I've suffered from depression at various points in my life. I've even been on antidepressants at one point in time, when I was suffering from a medical condition that exacerbated it. I know I have a genetic disposition towards it - both of my parents and at least two of my grandparents (one on each side) suffered from it.
That said, I had a realization some years ago that everybody I'd ever met who was happy had made a conscious decision to be happy. This implied both working externally to improve one's circumstances in life, and working internally to improve one's attitude towards it. When I found myself at a point where I was powerless for various reasons to properly treat my medical condition, I started making the decision to be happy and I gradually started to feel happier. And I have a million anecdotes of people who did or did not choose to be happy and how it affected their outlook. I could fill up this thread with them.
We experience happiness as the reacton to external stimuli - my car got broken into so I'm unhappy; I just got laid so I'm happy; etc. - but what happens between point A (stimulus) and point B (response) isn't really well understood scientifically. I personally think that the path from point A to point B is largely under each individual's control. Most people just don't realize it because it seems as automatic as a reflex.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
At best, one could show relationships between particular factors, but any individual is likely to be composed of a very large number of factors that can counteract each other.
That and people tend not to actually understand themselves all that well, so can't communicate it easily.
So the difference in loving it or hating it was not, at least overtly, physiological but psychological. If you decided that you enjoyed it you interpreted the sensations as a "rush" If you decided that you did not enjoy it you interpreted the sensations as terror.
It's all down to the individuals interpretaion of the experience.
this leads back to my origional ponder; are some folks hard wired to have a more positive interpretation than others and that's it or is it a matter of concious decision (or both)?
edit: frequent or prolonged "terror" response wears down the immune system and ultimatly is physically detrimental, frequent or long term experience of a "rush" sensation does not bring the same effect. Despite both of them producing the same initial physiological response.
Simply; if you are incurably terrified of roller coasters and are forced to ride one every day it will wear you down, if you love roller coasters it won't, even though your body produces the same chemicals in response to both.
This must be why I'm depressed all the time!
:roll:
The actual categories are:
Physiological
Safety
Love/Belonging
Esteem
Self-actualization
You can read about Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs here.
The more I learn about the human brain the more I discover that the phrase "hard wired" belongs nowhere near it.
Even if there were a biological component to happiness (which I'm certain there is) it would still be malleable. It's possible that there's a genetic predisposition to happiness (and, again, I'm certain that there is) but at most this would be an influencer, not a determinant.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Basically, like old age, the ultimate answer is "Depends."
I just say "hard wired" because it's easier to grasp than "genetic predisposition towards but still malliable within a certain range" I suppose I could say "plastic wired" but then someone would surely tell me that I am a silly rabbit and wires aren't plastic.
That's actually the viewpoint that I'm leaning towards. I suppose the next big question is what is the range of malliability concerning ones "happiness quotient"
No, he's quoting Carlin. (I think)
If the answer to how to a live a happy life was simple enough to be found within a single book or even a few books, then there wouldn't be any self-help books at all.
If the answer to how to be fit, healthy, and attractive while only changing your diet were simple enough to be found in a single book or even a few books, then there wouldn't be any diet books at all.
If the answer to how to be successful in business were simple enough to be found in a single book or even a few books, then there wouldn't be any business books at all.
What I based this on? The same people who bought this month's self-help/diet/business books are the same people who will buy next month's self-help/diet/business books. They're so busy looking outside themselves for answers that they never look at their everyday lives critically and/or commit to significant personal changes to seriously impact their lives.
Maybe it's because I got a bitter selling Atkins and then the South Beach Diet and then the next Atkins fad to the same fat people over and over again (who would then eat 6 sausages but scrupulously avoid pasta and say that they were eating "healthy" and wonder why they weren't losing weight). Maybe
It just makes you feel like your blood stream is made of cottage cheese, so it's impossible to stay on.
It is, however, -very- good for dropping a few pounds before hitting a simple calorie diet.
--
Really though, Self-Help books are largely just a substitute for a good friend or a really really good shrink (which are nearly the same thing).
Notably, last I heard, the people who did the self-help Marriage books had a higher rate of divorce than the national average.
I've seen some pretty massive change in people, but I've also seen people who are just predisposed to finding misery and surrounding themselves with it. I probably side with the idea of a happiness range for people by predisposition, but with the exception that in some cases extenuating circumstances can place someone outside of that range for an extended period of time.
Actually, I disagree. The answers to each of these questions are very simple. They're also difficult and require daily devotion. Simple =/= easy.
Do you want to be fit and healthy? It's simple, I can sum it up in seven sentences: Eat fewer calories than you burn. Decrease your portion sizes and eat at least five meals a day including breakfast. Eat complex carbohydrates and polyunsaturated fats instead of sugars and saturated fats. Get 30-60 minutes of cardio three times a week. Do some resistance training. Go to the doctor once a year and get your checkups. Now stick with it for the rest of your life.
Do you want to succeed in business? Simple. Find something you're good at, that you enjoy, and is in demand. Have enough humility that you can comfortably take orders from superiors and customers but enough pride that you don't let yourself get taken advantage of. Show up on time for your appointments. Work hard, but not too hard. Now stick with it until you're ready to retire.
The problem is that people don't have follow through. They don't have the patience to stick with something even on days or weeks that they don't get results. Losing weight the right way is hard - people like shit like Atkins because it allows them to see quick gains without sacrificing cheese and hamburgers. They like Rich Dad Poor Dad because that book tells them that they don't have to work hard and show up on time for the next thirty-forty years, they just have to get good at flipping real estate.
So many of life's big questions can be solved just with patience and follow-through, but those are the very qualities so many people lack.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I should have prefaced all of them with the following: "Assumes one does not want to make major changes and/or sacrifices in one's life."
I only put it in the second one. Apologies. I pretty much agree with you, except that the books don't appeal/sell to people who have that daily devotion and willingness to sacrifice.
Those people tend to succeed anyway and don't need the books. The books are usually marketed toward those who want magic bullets and easy solutions.
Like he said above, the real problem being that any solution to these problems (however simple in execution) will require a sustained effort and that is where folks fall down.
edit: beat'd
I think there's a lot of truth to this. However, I think this 'ideal' can be divided into two sides. Some people are unhappy because they aren't, don't have, can't have, or can't be. This is the selfish side to it. On the other hand, there are people who genuinely get depressed because they see ideals, have dreams, feel compassionate.
In the first case, I think the only solution is to start focusing on others, become more selfless. In the latter case, perhaps the best solution is to accept and act upon these ideals to your best ability.
Either way, it's probably not good to seek this out as the root of unhappiness in yourself, or those around you. Mainly because it's not really possible to change intelligence, other than actively trying to be simple (which could work...).
In those interesting cases around me of people who are both happy and quite intelligent, it appears that the selfless, keep-it-simple approach works best. I'm almost certain those people do have a deeper core that is continually restless and unhappy though.
Case in point. One of my best friend is one of the most complex, depression-prone people I know. She's also very intelligent, as well as hypersensitive (more than anyone else I know). Her solution is elegant, even though it often bothers me. She lives a very simple life, and goes to great lengths to help others, to be selfless. I could not imagine limiting my dreams and aspirations the way she does, but it really does seem to make her happier, as well as those around her. I, on the other hand, tend to be an idealist as well as an activist. The result is restlessness, and often friction with people around me. In my case, that's a conscious choice, and walking the tightrope of 'lightening up, getting perspective' and 'pushing myself and those around me to do the most/best' is just something I consider part of life.
Note that I'm using the word 'intelligent' as it is described in the quoted passage.
Uh, Yar's talking about the major correlates with subjective wellbeing. The Hieracy of needs has nothing at all to do with that. Also, Maslow talked out of his arse a lot.
I don't think simple to say equates to simple to achieve. For starters, I know that you know those seven sentences aren't any gurantee of physical health or fitness. And even as a good recommendation it's still not as simple as you lay it out. Not everyone has the ability to calorie count, although it's a lot easier these days than it used to be. It's not a simple task to determine the exact amount of carbohydrates, fats, vitamins, minerals, proteins and good vibrations they should be putting in themselves every day, partly because it changes from person to person and partly because the world is filled with experts who disagree on the subject. People mess around with diets (using the word in the nutritional sense) till they find something that works most effectively with their lifestyle, but it's not a simple process. And that's why different methods of expediating the process (whether they're books or government advisories of that crazy vegan lady at the health food store) are so popular.
Unfortunately, the type of depression I get is not especially treatable with medication, which tends to center around anxiety. There are behavioral tricks I've found that help some - going through the motions of being "happy" does help some (I forget the term - behavioral therapy or slef-reinforcement or something).
When I was in school, I read a lot of small-raft Buddhism, which seems to largely concern itself with pinning down the specific nature of suffering and happiness. Its central premise, which is that suffering is caused by unfulfilled desire, is, in my experience, helpful in many instances, but not really complete. Then again, it doesn't really promise to create "happiness" so much as to obviate suffering through facilitation of some measure of contentment and disconnect, which is kind of the state I was trying to gravitate away from.
I'm familiar with it, there is little science to it, and those are needs, not happiness.
yup.
I'd expect financial and/or professional success (or failure) to contribute to happiness as well. Although how you perceive your standing in society might fall under the "companionship" category.
By "Health" do you mean "human physiology" or do you just wave your hands and say "depression is a mental disease and therefore falls under "health""?
Because then how do you define the spectrum of depression, from tendency to full-blown bipolar?
Financial & professional success/failure seems to be part of the things you quickly adapt to, much faster than what people expect while pursuing it.
From the evolutionary psychology standpoint, our feeling that we'll be happier if we achieve this or that is only a trick to get us to achieve more and more, which favored survival and replication in our past. However, the burst of happiness quickly subsides and then we're off to achieve another goal, which, we believe, *will* make us enduringly happy; we don't learn because, well, we're "designed" not to learn.
I haven't read the book, but apparently it's the main subject discussed in Gilbert's "Stumbling on Happiness", that is, how we fail at predicting how various events will affect our happiness.
(Note that I'm talking about getting a promotion or a raise. Actually doing the job, if it's something you enjoy, does make you happier.)