Is the secret to happiness low expectations?

[PLAYER57832]

Digging the exact studies up would take more time than I have for a casual discussion right now.

You ought to make this quote your signature.

Usually, I do provide references.

The trouble is a lot of people here demand "references" for what is really common, public knowledge.. as if quoting someone's opinion comprehensive research makes that opinion more factual.

I think the above is a bit closer to the mark.

No, because there is little distinction in many CC'ers minds between a printed opinion and a proven verified fact.

Also, there seems little attempt to dechiper the research. I have seen even intelligent posters here put forward "research results" -- only to find that the study was utterly misquoted or did not truly exist. Yet... I was the one ridiculed. That is a VERY small "sample", but this attitude is pervasive in the US now.

[PLAYER57832]

Digging the exact studies up would take more time than I have for a casual discussion right now.

You ought to make this quote your signature.

Usually, I do provide references.

The trouble is a lot of people here demand "references" for what is really common, public knowledge.. as if quoting someone's opinion makes that opinion more factual.

If there isn't any research confirming a *insert commonly held view* then I hate to break it to you but then there's a pretty good chance it's because there's no good reason to believe it's true, and the only reason it's commonly held now is because it has been in the past. I never get into an argument about what is popular to think, I prefer to talk about what is true. The argument "800 000 000 people think it's this way so it probably this way" holds no merit to me. So if you want to convince me of something you've got to bring a better argument than "public knowledge".

There is a difference between scientific information and other types of information. However, too many people don't have a grasp on the difference. The internet is great for giving the illusion of offering easy research opportunities because you have so much stuff available. To many people fall into the trap of "I found it on the interent in 50 places, so it is 'verified' ", when all they really found was a repetition of the same basic opinion.

Worse, even when information has science at its base, all it takes is one misquote, one misunderstanding... and suddenly those misunderstandings get perpetuated, not the truth in the original study. I saw that particularly in the more controversial topics like abortion. All the information available really comes from 1-2 studies, yet people coming up with wildly different opinions would each cite that same source. Sometimes they knew and sometimes they did not even realize it. Its a bit Alice and wonderlandish when 2 people arguing against each other both cite very different articles, putting forward not just different opinions, but apparently different facts.. .and it turns out that both articles were referencing the same basic scientific source.

Beyoond that, some things are just too broad to be "proven". If someone says that market economics and democracy go hand in hand, no single source is going to somehow "prove" that point. It is an opinion, but a widely held and largely proven opinion. It is worthy of discussion, interesting to debate (perhaps .. not saying to everyone), but ultimately, it is opinion. The data that someone might bring up can be challenged with references, but not the basic idea itself.

That is similar to the happiness bit. There are a few studies out there, but the ultimate truth is that nothing is firmly conclusive. It is just a point of discussion, opinion. It is a set of ideas. Thus demanding a reference is essentially pointless in that context.

[macbone]

Yeah, it's the only thing I miss about communism. The fact that shopping was so efficient. Back home I'd go into a store and say, "I want pants." They'd ask, "green or purple?" They didn't ask, "what kind?", because there was only one kind. They didn't ask, "what size?" because there was only one size. This year they'd have a choice of green or purple, next year they might have a choice of black or blue. One decision, and the shopping was done.

Duk, I always thought you were born and bred in the great white north. Interesting, man! I read Guy Delisle's Pyongyang not too long ago, and what you're describing is what he experienced when he went to a store in Pyongyang.

Ironically, the opposite is probably more true.

What creates happiness is not so much what you have, its the ability & freedom to actively work towards your own goals.

People who have achieved their goals are often less happy than those "en route". The LEAST happy are those who feel they have little choice in their lives.

This seems similar to what happens on Christmas morning or at the end of Chinese New Year. The expectation leading up to the holidays and the fun of unwrapping gifts and receiving red packet money seems to cause more happiness then sitting there at the end with a pile of stuff and/or cash.

[mrswdk]

Worse, even when information has science at its base, all it takes is one misquote, one misunderstanding... and suddenly those misunderstandings get perpetuated

Which is why it would be helpful if you could back up your claims with some original sources, rather than simply citing 'common knowledge' (i.e. rather than doing the very same thing which you profess to object to).

[PLAYER57832]

Worse, even when information has science at its base, all it takes is one misquote, one misunderstanding... and suddenly those misunderstandings get perpetuated

Which is why it would be helpful if you could back up your claims with some original sources, rather than simply citing 'common knowledge' (i.e. rather than doing the very same thing which you profess to object to).

Except, that is the problem... if there IS a real source and something to truly back up, I generally do so. I did not in the happiness case because I had lost track of the article by the time I posted that . Also, , as I noted, it was not firm and concrete proof, just preliminary findings that "this seems to perhaps be true" -- in other words, an idea, not firm evidence, even if backed by a study. I wish I could find the study for those interested in critiquing it, but the demand really proves part of my point. Having the study might give someone interested in delving into the research more to go on, but it would really not "prove" anything.

Social science is called the "soft science" not just because of the many variables, but also becaues people tend to, just in the course of living, have some varied knowledge already. Its very hard to judge who's knowledge and experience is "better" (or even what "better" is) objectively. A Saudis Arabien, a Tibetan, a Swede, and a Chilean all would describe happiness differently to begin with, never mind what goes into it. This variability is part of why it is interesting to discuss, but there is not a lot of "proof" to be had.

[mrswdk]

if there IS a real source and something to truly back up, I generally do so

So when you don't cite sources, it's safe to assume that whatever you're saying is pure conjecture and speculation?

If you're going to claim to have identified a general rule or pattern then you have to have a better basis for your claims than 'I just think so lol'.

[PLAYER57832]

if there IS a real source and something to truly back up, I generally do so

So when you don't cite sources, it's safe to assume that whatever you're saying is pure conjecture and speculation?

Nothing is so black and white.
You wish to infer there is fact... and then pure conjecture.. and therefore that anything not referenced is ignorable. In fact that means you miss out on a lot of real information and intelligence (not specifically from me, of course... ) Most things fall in between.

If you're going to claim to have identified a general rule or pattern then you have to have a better basis for your claims than 'I just think so lol'.

It really depends on the context. Most of what goes on here is just sharing of opinion. Citing someone else's opinion does not mean your concurring opinion is somehow more valid. Further, since the author of a quote is not available, it limits ability to challenge and discuss. it gives the illusion of providing more proof, but really is just an excuse to pretend that other people's ideas are not worht listening to. It reduces exchange of information and kowledge, rather than expanding it.

If you cite someone famous, say Mark Twain, then its not so much that the basic opinion has more validity, its that the words have withstood the "test of time" and, in pre-internet, means that the words probably went through several publishing filters. Those processes make the words more valid. Find that some reporter from smallt own USA said something doesn't do that.

Little of what is posted here is scientific study or even a verified synopsis of a study. When they are, it becomes clear that most of the responders are not bothering to really read the studies. Were that only a CC phenomena, that would be one thing. That it seems to be a general phenomena, at least here in the US, is pretty scary. That folks as obviously intellegent as you have fallen for the trap is even more scary.

[mrswdk]

No one said you should cite opinion, a reporter or Mark Twain.

Personally, I don't think there's any point trying to answer OP's question anyway.

[PLAYER57832]

No one said you should cite opinion, a reporter or Mark Twain.

Personally, I don't think there's any point trying to answer OP's question anyway.

Aah... but when you ask for a source, it generally is one of the above. And, often that is what is provided herein.

[Army of GOD]

The secret to happiness is having a large penis, which OP definitely cannot relate to.

[mrswdk]

No one said you should cite opinion, a reporter or Mark Twain.

Personally, I don't think there's any point trying to answer OP's question anyway.

Aah... but when you ask for a source, it generally is one of the above. And, often that is what is provided herein.

Then you need to get better sources.

[PLAYER57832]

No one said you should cite opinion, a reporter or Mark Twain.

Personally, I don't think there's any point trying to answer OP's question anyway.

Aah... but when you ask for a source, it generally is one of the above. And, often that is what is provided herein.

Then you need to get better sources.

LOL -- no, I am able to think on my own, without having to always quote a source.

I rely on sources for facts, not ideas.

[mrswdk]

Sure thing.

[notyou2]

No one said you should cite opinion, a reporter or Mark Twain.

Personally, I don't think there's any point trying to answer OP's question anyway.

Aah... but when you ask for a source, it generally is one of the above. And, often that is what is provided herein.

Then you need to get better sources.

Popular opinion is that men love when women argue because they are hoping it devolves into a cat fight.


















I don't need no stinking sources.

[BoganGod]

The secret to happiness is having a low IQ. You don't see many people on special buses worrying about their job prospects, they just get on with being happy.
Though using this logic.
mrswdk licks windows - mrswdk must be happy.

This would be an error in logic. mrswdk licks windows because he likes the taste.

[mrswdk]

WRONG. Stupid people get angry and unhappy too (e.g. people who get all scrunch-faced about immigrants, gay marriage or 'people rooning mah cuwture' are, by definition, unhappy every time they go on a rant about how their country is going down the pan).

WRONG. Windows are sacred in China and mrswdk treats them with respect.

[Gillipig]

No one said you should cite opinion, a reporter or Mark Twain.

Personally, I don't think there's any point trying to answer OP's question anyway.

Aah... but when you ask for a source, it generally is one of the above. And, often that is what is provided herein.

Then you need to get better sources.

LOL -- no, I am able to think on my own, without having to always quote a source.

I rely on sources for facts, not ideas.

Then you're just stupid. An idea not backed up by any form of testable real world observation is just a brainfart. Your mere opinion is completely irrelevant, I'm not particularly interested in what you think, but why, if you can cite good reasons for your opinions I might consider what you want to convince me to think.
You're a poster boy example of someone who searches for information to reinforce his already held views, facts come second, your opinion comes first. If a factual observation doesn't fit your agenda you have no problem overlooking that observation.
You're not interested in how something is, you're interested in how things that are can help further your agenda. As someone who readily changes his opinion based on factual observations that contradict my originally held view (and lack of evidence for certain ideas I used to hold) I have little patience with people whose opinions aren't subject to facts.

[nietzsche]

I'm starting to believe it is. Argue with me why it isn't so. (btw, I have low expectations on this conversation )

Ironically, the opposite is probably more true.

What creates happiness is not so much what you have, its the ability & freedom to actively work towards your own goals.

People who have achieved their goals are often less happy than those "en route". The LEAST happy are those who feel they have little choice in their lives.

Close, but still a little bit confused.

Nothing else than you create hapiness. "The ability to work" you are referring to is the attitude and determination, and that attitude is what happiness is, only that you are placing meaning in a goal, a worthy goal, but you don't need to place the positive meaning in something hard nor do you need to place it on anything, you can just choose to feel the joy, to have the attitude, to be the happy person.

The whole work thing is just the western mentality, imprinted in you and in everyone you see every day, so you think it must be that way.

You can just change what you give meaning to, and that could be to be happy for its own sake. What impedes you to be happy other than your beliefs of when you have permision to be happy or not?

Lets face it, we all were imprinted with our parents (mostly) and society's idea of what is valuable, and when to be happy, when to be sad, when to be angry, etc.

We just need to have the balls to see it, and decide to be a little crazy and be happy whenever we want to. It's all a matter of little introspection.

[mrswdk]

Happiness is most reliably caused by warm sunshine, fresh air and orgasms.

[nietzsche]

Happiness is most reliably caused by warm sunshine, fresh air and orgasms.

Isn't an orgasm the complete absence of thought?

[kuthoer]

Happiness is most reliably caused by warm sunshine, fresh air and orgasms.

Isn't an orgasm the complete absence of thought?

It's the afterglow that counts after the orgasm, which lasts longer than the actually orgasm. This is true happiness......

[PLAYER57832]

No one said you should cite opinion, a reporter or Mark Twain.

Personally, I don't think there's any point trying to answer OP's question anyway.

Aah... but when you ask for a source, it generally is one of the above. And, often that is what is provided herein.

Then you need to get better sources.

LOL -- no, I am able to think on my own, without having to always quote a source.

I rely on sources for facts, not ideas.

Then you're just stupid. An idea not backed up by any form of testable real world observation is just a brainfart.

In science, you are absolutely correct. Facts DO require evidence.. and I provide it. The issue here is that too many people ask for "references" for what are just ideas, as if quoting someone else's ideas makes your own more valid. THAT is garbage.

Your mere opinion is completely irrelevant, I'm not particularly interested in what you think, but why, if you can cite good reasons for your opinions I might consider what you want to convince me to think.

LOL.. nice to not worry about what others think.

Why someone things what they do requires explanation, it generally doesn't require quoting someone else's opinion, unless you simply derive your opinions from other people. When I quote someone, someone of note or someone who has an obscure opinion (mostly NOT my own), then certainly I provide the reference. If I find another person's idea intriguing, then I qoute them and give them credit. But, I don't call other people's opinions my own and therefore do not provide that type of reference.

You're a poster boy example of someone who searches for information to reinforce his already held views, facts come second, your opinion comes first. If a factual observation doesn't fit your agenda you have no problem overlooking that observation.

No, actually the opposite is true. I definitely do cite scientific facts and sources. I am a scientist, I rely very heavily upon proof.

The issue is that a lot of people here seem to think that merely demanding ANY reference somehow makes their words superior. That is absolutely untrue. Also, when the reference is something very preliminary, an indication of a possibility rather than definite proof, then there is little to be gained by citing a study. The study I cited was such. It was enough to say "hey, research is showing that might not be true", but that is very far from saying "this IS true".

You're not interested in how something is, you're interested in how things that are can help further your agenda.

This is pure bull.. or rather, only true if you consider my "agenda" to be dissemination of truth. I definitely have opinions. I am a thinking human being, with a range of experiences. I disagree with a lot of opinions here because of my experiences.

However, I don't confuse opinion with fact. Sorry, but a lot of people here very much do. You just did above.

As someone who readily changes his opinion based on factual observations that contradict my originally held view (and lack of evidence for certain ideas I used to hold) I have little patience with people whose opinions aren't subject to facts.

No one is more subject to facts than I. That is the trouble. I refuse to pretend opinion is fact. A lot of people here don't get the difference.