Comment by derekp7 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by derekp7 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

What you just described is actually the other type (eudaimonic) of happieness. You spent a lot of time and effort to cultivate those friendships and getting into that good community -- it isn't something that you just turn on one afternoon and it goes away the next day. Which is what makes this type of happiness so powerful -- it is like accumulating a lot of stock in a company that pays really good dividends on a regular basis. The dividends for the work (and time) cultivating those friendships and community connections are the punctuations of instances of hedonic happiness that are a direct result from it.

Just like learning to play an instrument -- it isn't just possession of a hard-earned skill that makes you happy, it is knowing that you can put that skill to use to make music that you enjoy listening to, and performing for others. That impromptu guitar or piano performance at a random cocktail party may be hedonistic, however it is only made possible by the longer term commitment to the craft.

Oh, and it doesn't really need to be hard work. A lot of musicians are in it purely for the joy of the craft. Personally, I get a lot of joy getting better at creating things, whether it is writing computer code or crafting furniture projects using my woodworking tools. And although it takes a time commitment, it is something that I just sit down and do for fun.

And possessions can work this way too. Our house is chock full of stuff, but it's stuff that we have acquired during extensive travel around the world. Every tchotchke reminds us of some place we've been and the experiences we had there. The stuff is meaningless to everyone else but full of meaning for us.

Case in point: I have a cheap stuffed animal in the shape of a lobster. Out of context it's a piece of junk. But when you know that I bought it to commemorate the very first ad ever placed on Adwords (I was the lead engineer on that project back in 2000) -- a company called Lively Lobsters -- it takes on deep significance.

Eudaimonic and hedonistic happiness both seem wrong to me, as you can't desire happiness - well you can, but then you won't find it, as you can only stumble upon it.

Like in Harry Potter and the Philosopher Stone, when Harry is forced to stand before the Mirror of Erised, the mirror recognises Harry's lack of greed for the stone and deposits it into his pocket.

Life is like the Mirror of Erised: if you have a lack of greed for happiness, life will bestow you with happiness - which is what makes it so hard to get!

I don't really agree. I think you can know what ingredients are more likely to make you happy, and you can direct your life towards them.

With your outlook what does one do? Just sit there and wait for happiness to appear?

> I think you can know what ingredients are more likely to make you happy,

How do you know you know for sure? Are you positive you know everything that can make you happy?

It's a knowledge/discovery problem.

> With your outlook what does one do? Just sit there and wait for happiness to appear?

No, we can use your approximation indeed, but after the facts (ex-post) instead of before (ex-ante): you need take sample of the multidimensional space then try to do gradient descent.

The sampling part has to be random - so you randomly try things. Some of things will make you happier, and sometimes much more than they should, so you tweak one parameter, try again and see if you are less happy or more happy.

That's just using algorithms on actual life.

Pretty disruptive to try out big changes on a whim though such as different jobs or living location, and those kinds of changes are the ones I would think are most likely to have a large effect on happiness level.

First, you are assuming the size of the change to be proprotional to the change in hapinness level - that's a questionable first assumption! Maybe it's the opposite?

Or maybe it's uncorrelated? By default, to play it safe, keep the randomness and don't preselect for a big change!

A random change would be of any size: say, randomly try a different food today?

Then go to a aerobic class instead of a boxing class (or vice versa)

Or try swaps: if you often to go vacation on the same place you enjoy, have you tried swapping it to your main residence and work remotely?

That should be less disruptive, through all change is disruptive!

> Happiness from friendships and community it is like accumulating a lot of stock in a company that pays really good dividends on a regular basis.

What a bleak way to view things. A very neoliberal zeitgeist indeed.

The intention wasn't to compare wealth with happiness, but was to draw a comparison between two different domains, with one that some people can objectively understand. The idea being that in finance, you can for example buy an object (collectable, gold, virtual currency, ...) and it just sits there collecting dust. It may go up in value, but to realize that value you have to sell it, then you don't have it anymore. Whereas investing in something that generates value (dividend paying stock, education, tools for your business, ...) gives you returns without having to sell it. Although in most cases you still have to put in work (you have to work at education, and work to utilize it, and you have to apply work to your tools to generate value).

Same is true for other non-financial areas -- it takes work to make the connections and maintain friendships, and there is effort that continuously goes into the processes that give you rewards for those friendships (you can't just be one-sided, take but not give, and there is not magic formula, you just muddle through it the best you can).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com