The article looks at a study that found that that men and women who had had exactly one sexual partner in the past year were happiest. The article concludes that therefore, having sex with more partners will make us unhappy. However, this conclusion is hasty.
Another explanation can be made, based on two correlations that I think are likely: having multiple sexual partners is negatively correlated with having at least one stable romantic partner, and having at least one stable romantic partner is positively correlated with happiness. Given those two correlations, it is easy to see why having multiple sexual partners might be negatively correlated with happiness. The people who sleep around a lot are doing it because they have not found a girlfriend/boyfriend, so they are lonely. Thus, they are unhappy.
If this explanation for the study's results is true, then sex with more partners will not make you unhappy, per se. It just means that you should make sure you have a romantic companion first (hopefully one who is agreeable to your seeking multiple partners). After you have a partner, it is possible that indulging your instincts by seeking even more partners would indeed make you happier.
I also have doubts that the benefit is due to monogamy. Hell, I have doubts that the benefit is due to a relationship. It could merely be because the people have a close companion.
How many friends do you sleep in the same room with, wake up to, go to work with, and have fun with? None, right? The thing is, that situation was the norm for most of humanity. It's not a surprise that so many people are neurotic. It's not a surprise that it makes us a bit happier to have that situation partially fulfilled.
I'd like to see a study comparing the happiness of close-knit, tribal, polygamous communities with close-knit, tribal, monogamous communities.
Or alternatively, that statistics tell us what is likely to be the case were we to pick an individual out of the population at random. They do not tell us about ourselves individually.
It should also be taken with a grain of salt that the conclusion they draw just so happens to fit into several powerful institutions decreed standards of morality.
> it is possible that indulging your instincts by seeking even more partners would indeed make you happier.
Your hypothesis is very interesting but from what I've seen of others, this doesn't work well in the long run. There are spikes of more-than-normal happiness but eventually, someone is jealous, someone gets cuckolded (as hard as it is in such an arrangement!) and you crash hard. Not everyone is so far evolved to avoid these problems.
As a guy, I know I am at my happiest when I have one primary woman and side women that the primary does not know about explicitly. Oddly enough, the vagueness of her not really knowing makes her more attracted. But I still have to treat my primary as if she is the only one. This is the only stable configuration I've found.
It is also possible that indulging your instincts by seeking more partners could have a detrimental on the psychological/emotional well being of yourself or your partner.
The number of arguments for 'sexual liberation' in western society has increased over the years, but my limited life experience has shown me that this only encourages a mindset that leads to behaviors that lead to emotional anguish because people begin chasing their next sexual dopamine rush instead of spending time establishing means to care for their longer term needs.
A monogamous long term partner offers benefits that cannot be achieved any other way, and a lot of it revolves around the physiological validation of value that comes with intercourse. Sex, in a manner of speaking, is the acceptance of a person by another that they are viewed as successful enough to contribute in passing on DNA. You could say it is the pinnacle of biological success. This is where most arguments stop with the conclusion that: Sex = Good so More Sex = Better. By doing so they are failing to see the whole picture.
The above conclusion works for many animals; humans are psychologically far more complex than animals.
Humanity has to balance many other concerns including:
- The well being of other people (primarily their mate)
- their desires to progress a career
- social standing among peers
- emotional distress caused by 'loneliness'
- the rearing of children and fulfillment of personal instinct to see them succeed
- etc
All of these are areas that benefit from a monogamous relationship because the physiological and psychological needs for co-validation can be met which then frees up mental energy to focus on other things that bring more lasting value to life than the intense yet fleeting moments of an orgasm.
Under the functional perspective of sociology, you could say that marriage or a relationship provides safety and continuity. You don't have to go out looking for sex, and the diseases that multiple sex partners could bring. Sex is a basic need, as noted in Maslow's Hierarchy of needs right after air, food, and water. The next need is sex. Having a relationship "guarantees" that this basic need is being met, without stress and having to hunt. At least you'd hope that it guarantees that. I feel very sorry for sexless marriages.
I'm particularly interested in how people receive this piece here, since it directly contradicts many of the goals put forth by YC and SV:
* work really hard so you can cash out (greed)
* build influence however you can (fame)
* ...ultimately, become somebody so you can fill that hole
The poor motives (which I've parenthesized) probably account for much of the fact that the New Boss is no different than the Old Boss that came before. Think about the love of cultural homogeny, or working your ass off (being exploited), or worship of youth, or proving yourself to capital (whether by OSS, influence, or profitable side projects).
Were you born so rich that you can spend all day hanging out with your friends, without worrying about money? Most of us were not.
Many people here (myself included) claim that they are working really hard so that they can get enough money to be able to do whatever they want for the rest of their lives.
For me, at least, the idea of working really hard for a short period of time is way more appealing than some 9-5 job where I show up every day for the rest of my life, regardless of how hard (or not) that I am expected to work.
You aren't getting around the fact that you need money; until you solve the problem of food, housing and medical care for the rest of your life, earning money is going to be a problem that will take time away from finding whatever it is that makes you happy.
Even if working makes you happy, having enough money that you don't need to work gives you a huge amount of leverage and freedom that will allow you to turn down work that isn't conducive to your happiness.
pg, actually, has talked a whole lot about this, and about how maybe we should try to change things so that founders can take out more money early on because of this.
"My second suggestion will seem shocking to VCs: let founders cash out partially in the Series A round. At the moment, when VCs invest in a startup, all the stock they get is newly issued and all the money goes to the company. They could buy some stock directly from the founders as well.
...
In fact, letting the founders sell a little stock early would generally be better for the company, because it would cause the founders' attitudes toward risk to be aligned with the VCs'. As things currently work, their attitudes toward risk tend to be diametrically opposed: the founders, who have nothing, would prefer a 100% chance of $1 million to a 20% chance of $10 million, while the VCs can afford to be "rational" and prefer the latter."
Those certainly aren't my goals, nor the path that I have followed or advised for others. For me, and for the most successful founders that I've known, creation is primarily an intrinsic activity.
Different people are motivated to do the same things for different reasons.
* work really hard so you can cash out
* work really hard so you can build something really cool
Same method, different goals. SV attracts both types, though many people I know believe the balance has strongly shifted from the latter to the former. It certainly does seem like the discussion about post-exit has shifted from "How to found another, even better startup" (e.g. Elon Musk) to "How to retire at 23".
Those goals aren't really personal ones though. If you want to build a successful startup, you pretty much have to work very hard, network, build influence etc. - I doubt YC/SV promotes this as a particular road to self-happiness though, and in that sense it's not that contradictory.
If your primary goal is happiness (both maximisation of, and minimisation of unhappiness), I would lay a fair bet that a start-up is one of the most unlikely to succeed, even in the long term.
"Work really hard so you can cash out" is just a special case of foregoing imminent sensory pleasure for greater pleasure in the future. You can certainly argue that VCs push for too much of that, but the general idea certainly shouldn't be condemned. It's the reason we save part of our paycheck, or pass on the donut, or get shots when we need medicine.
I don't have a problem with seeking wealth or fame, but I think the article gives a pretty clear and cogent warning that if you think it will bring you happiness once achieved then you are sorely mistaken.
For me, startups are all about having control and building something with my own two hands. Of course I want to achieve success in that, but I don't see that as an end. Getting the payout is about being able to fund whatever I want to do next (even if it's not a big money winner), and getting "famous" for me is just about meeting interesting people to work with and growing in my craft.
I am doing a startup because it's the only way I could see myself working mostly with the kind of people I like, respect, and admire, and work for (e.g. customers) cut from the same cloth (developers).
When I promised myself that I would never subject myself to corporate political cutthroat contentious BS ever again, this was what I was left with. It's definitely not monetarily optimal for me.
Some had “intrinsic” goals, such as deep, enduring relationships. Others had “extrinsic” goals, such as achieving reputation or fame.
“If you want to live a happy life, tie it to a goal, not to people or things.” -- Albert Einstein
The author considers "deep enduring relationships" as an intrinsic goal. People are extrinsic too. They can be fickle, move away, die etc. I think intrinsic goals would mean a heavy focus on self improvement. Like developing temperance, patience, forgiveness. Improving self awareness, delaying gratification, having empathy for others, having a desire to contribute and have an impact on society etc.
I'm not entirely sure Einstein meant it the way it reads on the surface. He always came across as a people-focused thinker to me. Consider his other popular wisdom:
"Only a life lived for others is a life worthwhile."
The author is the president of the American Enterprise Insititute. AEI's board are the CEO's of ExxonMobil, Dow Chemical etc. Including the CEO of Enron until he was ousted. They are bankrolled by Ford, GE, Chrysler, AT&T etc.
What is his message to us?
"when money becomes an end in itself, it can bring misery"..."People who rate materialistic goals like wealth as top personal priorities are significantly likelier to be more anxious, more depressed"..."the moral snares of materialism"..."it requires a deep skepticism of our own basic desires"
The majority shareholders of the companies bankrolling his institute own the lion's share of this country's stocks, bonds and other assets, and are continually at war with the workers in the company's they own so that a larger lion's share of money coming in goes to profits and not wages.
So of course in this zero-sum game, the parasitical side is going to tell the workers, the wealth creating side, that they should not be too concerned with money, that wealth isn't everything, that uneasy lay the head that wears the crown, and all this other nonsense. They used to have priests and reverends dress up these ideas with superstitious mumbo-jumbo, but nowadays more people are smart enough to see through that BS ( although he does talk about "Saint" Paul, the Dalai Lama, Buddha, the Love of God ).
This crook is so full of hubris, he wants to lecture me on how to live a better life - that being that I should ask for a smaller piece of the pie that I work to create, and perhaps instead dwell on "the strength to love others - [...] God", the thoughts of "Saint" Paul and other nonsense.
Why doesn't he tell his contributors to stop employing psychologists and Madison Avenue to try to figure out how best to create conspicuous consumption so that people will buy the commodities they're pumping out. The advertising business is one of the biggest forces out there trying to tell people life is more enjoyable if certain commodities are purchased, and he is at the center of that world. He likes quoting the bible? Try Matthew 7:
"Why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."
Since I have seen much of the advice in this article help me live a happier life the conclusion I draw is that the author, and likely many of the CEOs running these companies are likely unhappy and un-fullfilled and that they are missing any wisdom in this piece as much as their employees may be.
He even claims in the article that it is not politically motivated, that it holds regardless of political affiliation (materialism in that case). But given his conservative background, and the fact that what he has 'found' (I haven't checked whatever sources there are for myself) seems to perhaps promote a tempered, conservative life#, I am not so sure that he is completely without political bias in this piece.
#Though that is debatable. You don't have to be a conservative or a liberal to come to your own conclusion that leading a life where you try to temper your immediate desires and seek stability (see: monogamy mentioned in the article) for yourself. Political affiliation is only about what you tell others to do. But this is an opinion article where the author is explicitly promoting a specific way of life, so it might be politically motivated.
The article reminded me of the book "To Have or to Be?" by the German social psychologist Erich Fromm. Fromm believed that the problem of the modern society is that we are too much concerned with having instead of being. It is a good read.
Sounds like a review of the book of Ecclesiastes -- Solomon tried power, fame, pleasure, money, all of it ...vanity ...meaningless. Sun will be red giant in 6 billion years. All of this will be gone...
I think this is why I enjoy working on FOSS projects a lot. At the end of the day, it is really great to interact with users and know you improved someone else's day, even a little bit.
This article reads like a crude and incomplete rehashing of Buddhism's four noble truths, minus the fourth. Humans experience suffering, this suffering comes from desire, to eliminate suffering one must eliminate desire. The difference is that the article distinguishes between 'extrinsic' and 'intrinsic' desires whereas in Buddhist discourse it is generally held that suffering comes from all forms of desire, intrinsic or not.
That's itself a rather incomplete way to explain the Four Noble Truths. Generally, utilizing desire is the only way to make any progress along the Buddhist path. Thanissaro Bhikkhu has written lots about this; here's a quote:
"Most of us, when looking at the four noble truths, don't realize that they're all about desire. We're taught that the Buddha gave only one role to desire — as the cause of suffering. Because he says to abandon the cause of suffering, it sounds like he's denying any positive role to desire and its constructive companions: creativity, imagination, and hope. This perception, though, misses two important points. The first is that all four truths speak to the basic dynamic of desire on its own terms: perception of lack and limitation, the imagination of a solution, and a strategy for attaining it. The first truth teaches the basic lack and limitation in our lives — the clinging that constitutes suffering — while the second truth points to the types of desires that lead to clinging: desires for sensuality, becoming, and annihilation. The third truth expands our imagination to encompass the possibility that clinging can be totally overcome. The fourth truth, the path to the end of suffering, shows how to strategize so as to overcome clinging by abandoning its cause."
So does this mean he's going to push for all companies that fund AEI to give their employees at least 6 weeks of paid vacation a year? Because one of the things that makes people REALLY happy is the free time to pursue their interests outside of the office.
So is the software you build "a thing"? I guess this depends on what you are working on is making a vision a reality, or a CRUD application that you sell for XXXXXX dollars to a customer.
I find the article is too shallow. Loving people can make you really unhappy, or happy, that depends a lot on you and on the people. Sex with just 1 person can be exactly what you want, but if you are really interested in sex then 1 person might just not be enough.
So no, we don't know how to be happy. Citing statistics and applying them blindly to yourself is a sure recipe for unhappiness. Better to explore yourself and find out what makes you happy. You can then use statistics to execute.
"The act of pursuing happiness necessarily implies the current absence of happiness. Make the pursuit of happiness into a habit, and you habitualise the absence of happiness."
I mean this in the most genuine way possible, but you can never be around people for dirt cheap. If you could save up 50k you could by a house in the middle of nowhere for 20k, invest the rest to bring in a couple hundred dollars a month and work online to cover the rest of your expenses. Or become a cross country truck driver part of the year. Etc etc. There are tons of very easy ways to never be around anyone.
You are probably just addicted to the internet and it has caused you to not be able learn the right social skills to enjoy the people around you so you just attach to some idea that you are some "misanthrope". It's like alcoholics that believe they just naturally depressed people when its really just the alcohol.
Like I said, I mean this in the best way possible, but you probably have an internet addiction that is stunting your social growth. You might want to try something like take 1 month and never go online. Get a flip phone and cancel your internet for a month just to find out. And if what I just said about going without a smartphone and internet at home for a month sounds impossible, then that's probably the proof you have an addiction.
[+] [-] roryokane|11 years ago|reply
Another explanation can be made, based on two correlations that I think are likely: having multiple sexual partners is negatively correlated with having at least one stable romantic partner, and having at least one stable romantic partner is positively correlated with happiness. Given those two correlations, it is easy to see why having multiple sexual partners might be negatively correlated with happiness. The people who sleep around a lot are doing it because they have not found a girlfriend/boyfriend, so they are lonely. Thus, they are unhappy.
If this explanation for the study's results is true, then sex with more partners will not make you unhappy, per se. It just means that you should make sure you have a romantic companion first (hopefully one who is agreeable to your seeking multiple partners). After you have a partner, it is possible that indulging your instincts by seeking even more partners would indeed make you happier.
[+] [-] Exenith|11 years ago|reply
How many friends do you sleep in the same room with, wake up to, go to work with, and have fun with? None, right? The thing is, that situation was the norm for most of humanity. It's not a surprise that so many people are neurotic. It's not a surprise that it makes us a bit happier to have that situation partially fulfilled.
I'd like to see a study comparing the happiness of close-knit, tribal, polygamous communities with close-knit, tribal, monogamous communities.
[+] [-] XorNot|11 years ago|reply
It should also be taken with a grain of salt that the conclusion they draw just so happens to fit into several powerful institutions decreed standards of morality.
[+] [-] cheez|11 years ago|reply
Your hypothesis is very interesting but from what I've seen of others, this doesn't work well in the long run. There are spikes of more-than-normal happiness but eventually, someone is jealous, someone gets cuckolded (as hard as it is in such an arrangement!) and you crash hard. Not everyone is so far evolved to avoid these problems.
As a guy, I know I am at my happiest when I have one primary woman and side women that the primary does not know about explicitly. Oddly enough, the vagueness of her not really knowing makes her more attracted. But I still have to treat my primary as if she is the only one. This is the only stable configuration I've found.
[+] [-] JRobertson|11 years ago|reply
The number of arguments for 'sexual liberation' in western society has increased over the years, but my limited life experience has shown me that this only encourages a mindset that leads to behaviors that lead to emotional anguish because people begin chasing their next sexual dopamine rush instead of spending time establishing means to care for their longer term needs.
A monogamous long term partner offers benefits that cannot be achieved any other way, and a lot of it revolves around the physiological validation of value that comes with intercourse. Sex, in a manner of speaking, is the acceptance of a person by another that they are viewed as successful enough to contribute in passing on DNA. You could say it is the pinnacle of biological success. This is where most arguments stop with the conclusion that: Sex = Good so More Sex = Better. By doing so they are failing to see the whole picture.
The above conclusion works for many animals; humans are psychologically far more complex than animals. Humanity has to balance many other concerns including: - The well being of other people (primarily their mate) - their desires to progress a career - social standing among peers - emotional distress caused by 'loneliness' - the rearing of children and fulfillment of personal instinct to see them succeed - etc
All of these are areas that benefit from a monogamous relationship because the physiological and psychological needs for co-validation can be met which then frees up mental energy to focus on other things that bring more lasting value to life than the intense yet fleeting moments of an orgasm.
[+] [-] richardbrevig|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cjg|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] alexthomas|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] mattgreenrocks|11 years ago|reply
* work really hard so you can cash out (greed)
* build influence however you can (fame)
* ...ultimately, become somebody so you can fill that hole
The poor motives (which I've parenthesized) probably account for much of the fact that the New Boss is no different than the Old Boss that came before. Think about the love of cultural homogeny, or working your ass off (being exploited), or worship of youth, or proving yourself to capital (whether by OSS, influence, or profitable side projects).
[+] [-] lsc|11 years ago|reply
Were you born so rich that you can spend all day hanging out with your friends, without worrying about money? Most of us were not.
Many people here (myself included) claim that they are working really hard so that they can get enough money to be able to do whatever they want for the rest of their lives.
For me, at least, the idea of working really hard for a short period of time is way more appealing than some 9-5 job where I show up every day for the rest of my life, regardless of how hard (or not) that I am expected to work.
You aren't getting around the fact that you need money; until you solve the problem of food, housing and medical care for the rest of your life, earning money is going to be a problem that will take time away from finding whatever it is that makes you happy.
Even if working makes you happy, having enough money that you don't need to work gives you a huge amount of leverage and freedom that will allow you to turn down work that isn't conducive to your happiness.
pg, actually, has talked a whole lot about this, and about how maybe we should try to change things so that founders can take out more money early on because of this.
ref:
http://paulgraham.com/vcsqueeze.html
"My second suggestion will seem shocking to VCs: let founders cash out partially in the Series A round. At the moment, when VCs invest in a startup, all the stock they get is newly issued and all the money goes to the company. They could buy some stock directly from the founders as well.
...
In fact, letting the founders sell a little stock early would generally be better for the company, because it would cause the founders' attitudes toward risk to be aligned with the VCs'. As things currently work, their attitudes toward risk tend to be diametrically opposed: the founders, who have nothing, would prefer a 100% chance of $1 million to a 20% chance of $10 million, while the VCs can afford to be "rational" and prefer the latter."
[+] [-] paul|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sliverstorm|11 years ago|reply
* work really hard so you can cash out
* work really hard so you can build something really cool
Same method, different goals. SV attracts both types, though many people I know believe the balance has strongly shifted from the latter to the former. It certainly does seem like the discussion about post-exit has shifted from "How to found another, even better startup" (e.g. Elon Musk) to "How to retire at 23".
[+] [-] ealexhudson|11 years ago|reply
If your primary goal is happiness (both maximisation of, and minimisation of unhappiness), I would lay a fair bet that a start-up is one of the most unlikely to succeed, even in the long term.
[+] [-] baddox|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] dasil003|11 years ago|reply
For me, startups are all about having control and building something with my own two hands. Of course I want to achieve success in that, but I don't see that as an end. Getting the payout is about being able to fund whatever I want to do next (even if it's not a big money winner), and getting "famous" for me is just about meeting interesting people to work with and growing in my craft.
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] hkmurakami|11 years ago|reply
When I promised myself that I would never subject myself to corporate political cutthroat contentious BS ever again, this was what I was left with. It's definitely not monetarily optimal for me.
[+] [-] elwell|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] redmaverick|11 years ago|reply
“If you want to live a happy life, tie it to a goal, not to people or things.” -- Albert Einstein
The author considers "deep enduring relationships" as an intrinsic goal. People are extrinsic too. They can be fickle, move away, die etc. I think intrinsic goals would mean a heavy focus on self improvement. Like developing temperance, patience, forgiveness. Improving self awareness, delaying gratification, having empathy for others, having a desire to contribute and have an impact on society etc.
[+] [-] pestaa|11 years ago|reply
"Only a life lived for others is a life worthwhile."
Is there something I'm missing?
[+] [-] firstOrder|11 years ago|reply
What is his message to us?
"when money becomes an end in itself, it can bring misery"..."People who rate materialistic goals like wealth as top personal priorities are significantly likelier to be more anxious, more depressed"..."the moral snares of materialism"..."it requires a deep skepticism of our own basic desires"
The majority shareholders of the companies bankrolling his institute own the lion's share of this country's stocks, bonds and other assets, and are continually at war with the workers in the company's they own so that a larger lion's share of money coming in goes to profits and not wages.
So of course in this zero-sum game, the parasitical side is going to tell the workers, the wealth creating side, that they should not be too concerned with money, that wealth isn't everything, that uneasy lay the head that wears the crown, and all this other nonsense. They used to have priests and reverends dress up these ideas with superstitious mumbo-jumbo, but nowadays more people are smart enough to see through that BS ( although he does talk about "Saint" Paul, the Dalai Lama, Buddha, the Love of God ).
This crook is so full of hubris, he wants to lecture me on how to live a better life - that being that I should ask for a smaller piece of the pie that I work to create, and perhaps instead dwell on "the strength to love others - [...] God", the thoughts of "Saint" Paul and other nonsense.
Why doesn't he tell his contributors to stop employing psychologists and Madison Avenue to try to figure out how best to create conspicuous consumption so that people will buy the commodities they're pumping out. The advertising business is one of the biggest forces out there trying to tell people life is more enjoyable if certain commodities are purchased, and he is at the center of that world. He likes quoting the bible? Try Matthew 7:
"Why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."
[+] [-] dredmorbius|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JRobertson|11 years ago|reply
Since I have seen much of the advice in this article help me live a happier life the conclusion I draw is that the author, and likely many of the CEOs running these companies are likely unhappy and un-fullfilled and that they are missing any wisdom in this piece as much as their employees may be.
[+] [-] Dewie|11 years ago|reply
#Though that is debatable. You don't have to be a conservative or a liberal to come to your own conclusion that leading a life where you try to temper your immediate desires and seek stability (see: monogamy mentioned in the article) for yourself. Political affiliation is only about what you tell others to do. But this is an opinion article where the author is explicitly promoting a specific way of life, so it might be politically motivated.
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] parasight|11 years ago|reply
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Have_or_to_Be%3F
[+] [-] waynecochran|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] humanrebar|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Afforess|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cyorir|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mbrock|11 years ago|reply
"Most of us, when looking at the four noble truths, don't realize that they're all about desire. We're taught that the Buddha gave only one role to desire — as the cause of suffering. Because he says to abandon the cause of suffering, it sounds like he's denying any positive role to desire and its constructive companions: creativity, imagination, and hope. This perception, though, misses two important points. The first is that all four truths speak to the basic dynamic of desire on its own terms: perception of lack and limitation, the imagination of a solution, and a strategy for attaining it. The first truth teaches the basic lack and limitation in our lives — the clinging that constitutes suffering — while the second truth points to the types of desires that lead to clinging: desires for sensuality, becoming, and annihilation. The third truth expands our imagination to encompass the possibility that clinging can be totally overcome. The fourth truth, the path to the end of suffering, shows how to strategize so as to overcome clinging by abandoning its cause."
[+] [-] MisterBastahrd|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] auggierose|11 years ago|reply
I find the article is too shallow. Loving people can make you really unhappy, or happy, that depends a lot on you and on the people. Sex with just 1 person can be exactly what you want, but if you are really interested in sex then 1 person might just not be enough.
So no, we don't know how to be happy. Citing statistics and applying them blindly to yourself is a sure recipe for unhappiness. Better to explore yourself and find out what makes you happy. You can then use statistics to execute.
[+] [-] asimjalis|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] asimjalis|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] logicchains|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] onedev|11 years ago|reply
I think the general idea that the article was trying to communicate is a good and thoughtful idea.
[+] [-] drivingmenuts|11 years ago|reply
The ideal is to make enough money to not have to deal with people, other than a very select few.
[+] [-] fred_durst|11 years ago|reply
You are probably just addicted to the internet and it has caused you to not be able learn the right social skills to enjoy the people around you so you just attach to some idea that you are some "misanthrope". It's like alcoholics that believe they just naturally depressed people when its really just the alcohol.
Like I said, I mean this in the best way possible, but you probably have an internet addiction that is stunting your social growth. You might want to try something like take 1 month and never go online. Get a flip phone and cancel your internet for a month just to find out. And if what I just said about going without a smartphone and internet at home for a month sounds impossible, then that's probably the proof you have an addiction.
[+] [-] dreamfactory2|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alex_duf|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kevinwang|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] babyturtle|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] hellbreakslose|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] kimonos|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] flatfilefan|11 years ago|reply