Guidelines to Happiness

[Genady]

6 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Present your facts, as they relate to the topic, please...

Immediate examples coming to mind:

for the first claim, Robert Phelan,

for the second, Richard Feynman.

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Genady said:

Immediate examples coming to mind:

for the first claim, Robert Phelan,

for the second, Richard Feynman.

So, your version of a fact is something a famous person said; were they happy?

[Genady]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

your version of a fact is something a famous person said

Unfounded generalization based on a single example.

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Genady said:

Unfounded generalization based on a single example.

Indeed, now do you get it?

[Genady]

23 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

So, your version of a fact is something a famous person said; were they happy?

Two more examples:

for the first claim, Vlad Asinov,

for the second, Rosalie Arshak.

[dimreepr]

6 minutes ago, Genady said:

Two more examples:

for the first claim, Vlad Asinov,

for the second, Rosalie Arshak.

Apparently not... 🖖

[Genady]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

something a famous person said

I've mentioned these three persons:

 

2 hours ago, Genady said:

Robert Phelan

 

1 hour ago, Genady said:

Vlad Asinov

 

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Rosalie Arshak

Why do you call them "famous"?

[Steve81]

10 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Every professional think they're noble, even those from less than noble profession's (for me, the most ignominious of which is insurance).

It depends on what the physician is pationate about?

So long as a person thinks he's serving society in a useful way, he may consider himself reasonably noble. I don't know what insurance salesmen think of their jobs, but insurance does serve a purpose. OTOH, if you do dishonest/fraudulent things like Bernie Madoff or Jordan Belfort, your opinion of yourself may lower. One may note that the former committed suicide, and the latter was a known drug abuser. 

Re: The physician, as I stated before, I passionate about what he does, i.e. helping people get healthier, repairing injuries, etc. May not apply to male gynecologists who just like to stare at lady parts all day long 😛

[Genady]

9 hours ago, dimreepr said:

So, your version of a fact is something a famous person said; were they happy?

Oh, yes, regarding the fourth person,

 

9 hours ago, Genady said:

Richard Feynman

As I said, they were

 

9 hours ago, Genady said:

Immediate examples coming to mind

Him being a famous person was not important for my examples. To avoid this confusion, I strike him off the examples and replace with Ramin Machmudzade.

To summarize:

You have claimed,

10 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Every professional think they're noble ... 

you can't teach other's something, if you don't fully undersatand the topic... 

and I gave you two counterexamples for each of these two claims:

for the first claim, Robert Phelan, Vlad Asinov,

for the second, Rosalie Arshak, Ramin Machmudzade.

The counterexamples refute the claims.

[mistermack]

20 minutes ago, Steve81 said:

OTOH, if you do dishonest/fraudulent things like Bernie Madoff or Jordan Belfort, your opinion of yourself may lower.

It seems to me that you're projecting your own attitudes on other people. What do you know of Bernie Madoff's true thinking?  He might have been proud of the way he used his wits to defraud some very savvy people, and well aware that it would come to an end one day. He might have decided years before that he would kill himself when it finally all came crashing down, rather than do time in prison. He seems to have been a logical sort of person, and that would make sense to a realist. Many people with psychopathic tendencies regard their own lives as expendable, just like the lives of others.

[Steve81]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

He might have decided years before that he would kill himself when it finally all came crashing down, rather than do time in prison.

Apparently I was mistaken in any case, misread the Wikipedia article; his son died of suicide. 

Many people with psychopathic tendencies regard their own lives as expendable, just like the lives of others.

What exactly does that tell you about their self-worth?

Edited August 24, 2023 by Steve81

[mistermack]

3 hours ago, Steve81 said:

What exactly does that tell you about their self-worth?

It tells me it's something that they don't value, but they are low on empathy in general, so your list isn't likely to make them happy either. 

Self-worth will depend on what you value. Someone who doesn't value the things that you feel are positive won't get a boost out of them. If Bernie Maydorf valued screwing a sucker, then his self-worth will rise, when he rips someone off.

[Steve81]

4 hours ago, mistermack said:

It tells me it's something that they don't value, but they are low on empathy in general, so your list isn't likely to make them happy either. 

Self-worth will depend on what you value. Someone who doesn't value the things that you feel are positive won't get a boost out of them. If Bernie Maydorf valued screwing a sucker, then his self-worth will rise, when he rips someone off.

It rather depends on whether their issues are genetic, or environmental. If genetic, and they neither get no neurochemical releases when performing acts of kindness nor experience shame due to a genetic defect, then my guidelines can't help. These individuals will need medication or institutionalization to mitigate their issues. Of course, our treatment of the mentally ill (at least in the US), is a whole other ball of wax.

Edited August 25, 2023 by Steve81

[dimreepr]

15 hours ago, Genady said:

Oh, yes, regarding the fourth person,

 

As I said, they were

 

Him being a famous person was not important for my examples. To avoid this confusion, I strike him off the examples and replace with Ramin Machmudzade.

To summarize:

You have claimed,

and I gave you two counterexamples for each of these two claims:

for the first claim, Robert Phelan, Vlad Asinov,

for the second, Rosalie Arshak, Ramin Machmudzade.

The counterexamples refute the claims.

You haven't explained how it refutes my claims, not that I claimed them as facts, I also asked how it relates to the topic at hand?

you can't teach other's something nuanced (like the difference between happy and content), if you don't fully undersatand the topic; much like you can't understand advanced physics if you can't speak the language. I hope that clarifies my point for you. 

15 hours ago, Steve81 said:

So long as a person thinks he's serving society in a useful way, he may consider himself reasonably noble.

I'm sure they do, but we live in a society that doesn't, and that's bound to impact on their self worth; which in turn will impact on their state of mind vis-a-vis their peace of mind.

My point is, contentment is the launch pad that allows the happy and the sad, to flow.

15 hours ago, Steve81 said:

So long as a person thinks he's serving society in a useful way, he may consider himself reasonably noble. I don't know what insurance salesmen think of their jobs, but insurance does serve a purpose. OTOH, if you do dishonest/fraudulent things like Bernie Madoff or Jordan Belfort, your opinion of yourself may lower.

This too is covered by the "good books" re, karma etc...

[iNow]

11 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

you can't teach other's something nuanced (like the difference between happy and content), if you don't fully undersatand the topic

I reject this point on at least two distinct fronts:

1) We CAN, and very often do, teach things to others about a topic even when lacking a full understanding ourselves. It happens all of the time and every day across the world. We teach the parts we DO understand even if our own understanding is limited... even at the university level this is true (case in point: we don't "fully understand" blackholes nor QM, either)

2) I posit that there is no such thing as "full understanding" and that there is ALWAYS room to learn more and grow and add to our existing knowledge. The wisest students recognize that the more they learn the more they realize they don't yet know. Our understanding is always fractional and provisional, so your threshold criteria for teaching here is itself impossible to achieve.

[Genady]

49 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

You haven't explained how it refutes my claims, not that I claimed them as facts, I also asked how it relates to the topic at hand?

you can't teach other's something nuanced (like the difference between happy and content), if you don't fully undersatand the topic; much like you can't understand advanced physics if you can't speak the language. I hope that clarifies my point for you. 

My response was focused on the two claims, which I think are incorrect, and I've said so.

One claim was, "Every professional think they're noble". To refute this claim I've mentioned two friends of mine, RP and VA, both professionals in different fields, and both not thinking that their professions are noble.

The other claim was, "you can't teach other's something, if you don't fully undersatand the topic". To refute this claim I've mentioned two teachers of mine, RA and RM, who taught us a lot, while being fully aware of limits of their knowledge and understanding.

[mistermack]

7 hours ago, Steve81 said:

It rather depends on whether their issues are genetic, or environmental. If genetic, and they neither get no neurochemical releases when performing acts of kindness nor experience shame due to a genetic defect, then my guidelines can't help. These individuals will need medication or institutionalization to mitigate their issues. Of course, our treatment of the mentally ill (at least in the US), is a whole other ball of wax.

Every time I've pointed to people who might not share your values, you've characterised them as having mental issues. 

I'm not talking about mentally ill people, just people who don't and wouldn't get satisfaction from doing the things on your list. Not all people are well meaning, or care about the greater good. That's not mental illness, it's not even a behaviour disorder. It's human character with all of it's flaws. There are plenty of psychopaths who don't go serial killing, or run massive ponzi schemes. Many of them live successful lives. They're not ill, they are just of a personality type, one shade of grey out of many. Same with narcissus types etc. Really, your list is a personal list, just like mine would be, but don't expect it to make everyone else happy.

[Steve81]

6 hours ago, iNow said:

I reject this point on at least two distinct fronts:

1) We CAN, and very often do, teach things to others about a topic even when lacking a full understanding ourselves. It happens all of the time and every day across the world. We teach the parts we DO understand even if our own understanding is limited... even at the university level this is true (case in point: we don't "fully understand" blackholes nor QM, either)

2) I posit that there is no such thing as "full understanding" and that there is ALWAYS room to learn more and grow and add to our existing knowledge. The wisest students recognize that the more they learn the more they realize they don't yet know. Our understanding is always fractional and provisional, so your threshold criteria for teaching here is itself impossible to achieve.

Exactly. I didn’t know that much about black holes for example compared to guys like @Genady. I learned something new by asking him, and he’s been generous enough to share with me. I can explain it better now (though I still need to read more to fully grasp the full concept). 
 

My therapist (a Ph.D., not a hack), actually largely agreed with my self-assessment that I posted elsewhere. The only note that he had was that my mania is exhibited by my passion, and not related to my ADHD symptoms. He’s not overly concerned, since I haven’t decided to go out and get another tattoo or buy a house.

My thoughts on wealth inequality haven’t drawn any criticism yet, so it seems to be passing iNow’s famed peer review process thus far. I don’t expect everyone here to be an economist/accountant, but it’s gotten 108 views without a single comment one way or the other. That’s not too shabby for a guy who doesn’t claim to have a bachelor’s degree, never mind a Ph.D. in anything (at least IMHO).
 

My only real talent is that once I have a decent idea of how a system works, I’m pretty good at diagnosing and engineering a solution to the issue. I just happen to have an idea of how several systems work due to circumstance, and a passion to learn new things.

 

4 hours ago, mistermack said:

Every time I've pointed to people who might not share your values, you've characterised them as having mental issues. 

If you don’t ever get any pleasure at all from helping others, you might. This isn’t to say I’d enjoy cleaning toilets for a living, but there’s no reason for that person not to be proud of their labors. Society at large just doesn’t seem to value that contribution, but I bet they would if the maintenance workers of the world all went on strike.

Edited August 25, 2023 by Steve81

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Steve81 said:

My thoughts on wealth inequality haven’t drawn any criticism yet, so it seems to be passing iNow’s famed peer review process

Or they were deemed to be so ridiculous as to not warrant wasting time responding. 

[Steve81]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Or they were deemed to be so ridiculous as to not warrant wasting time responding. 

When has that stopped anyone 😛

[dimreepr]

22 hours ago, iNow said:

I reject this point on at least two distinct fronts:

1) We CAN, and very often do, teach things to others about a topic even when lacking a full understanding ourselves. It happens all of the time and every day across the world. We teach the parts we DO understand even if our own understanding is limited... even at the university level this is true (case in point: we don't "fully understand" blackholes nor QM, either)

2) I posit that there is no such thing as "full understanding" and that there is ALWAYS room to learn more and grow and add to our existing knowledge. The wisest students recognize that the more they learn the more they realize they don't yet know. Our understanding is always fractional and provisional, so your threshold criteria for teaching here is itself impossible to achieve.

I agree with everything you say, a teacher can teach a class by being a chapter ahead of them; but within the contex of this thread, as I tried to explain to @Genady my contention is, the op is reading from the wrong book, so to speak; it's like a misogynist comedian trying to get a laugh at a feminist convention.

[iNow]

29 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

the op is reading from the wrong book, so to speak

That makes sense and I’m glad you clarified, but even the idea of a book being “wrong” is just like… one opinion, man. /thedude 

[dimreepr]

7 minutes ago, iNow said:

That makes sense and I’m glad you clarified, but even the idea of a book being “wrong” is just like… one opinion, man. /thedude 

Indeed, but I'm just saying a word is wrong; no wonder the sermon on the mount got a mixed revue... 🙏

[TheVat]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

That makes sense and I’m glad you clarified, but even the idea of a book being “wrong” is just like… one opinion, man. /thedude 

Walter Sobchak: 

Say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it’s an ethos.

 

/the dude abides 

[mistermack]

Happiness is Happiness is Happiness is Happiness is