I will share my two cents, how I overcome my depression. It sounds deadly simple, and it sort of is.
1) regular excercise. Make some small, daily routine (I prefer running) and stick to it. The endorphines work wonders. The body starts feeling good after a few days.
2) (and this will be maybe controversial due to The religious undertones) regular meditation. While excercise clears your body, meditation clears your mind. Maybe it's not "really" doing anything and it's just a placebo, but frankly, it doesn't really matter. What I do is zen meditation (of soto school), which is basically just staring to wall for 20 minutes a day.... and it helps wonders.
So yeah.... those two commandments help me. Your mileage may vary.
I really don't get the anti-religion sentiment here. If you find in religious teachings a way to live happily, productively, in a socially positive way, why is that a problem or anything to apologize for?
As a person who is still kind of atheistic, I can understand that sentiment.
Basically, scientific thinking forces constant verification of everything and encourages questioning, while religious thinking (even with buddhism) has far more dogmas and forces acceptance and, to a certain degree, discourages questioning.
What drove me to zen-buddhism is the fact that the religious part is kept rather small and it is far more focused on daily practice.
Because I cannot really believe in a higher power. I don't believe in ghosts and try not to ve superstitious. I think most of the religious texts (even in buddhism) is bullshit. I constantly try to question everything.
And yet I ended up in a zen group, basically a religious organization. (A little like Ivan Karamazov.)
> I think most of the religious texts (even in buddhism) is bullshit. I constantly try to question everything.
Doubt is the beginning of wisdom, not the end.
Most of the religious texts aren't bullshit. Especially the bible, which is anchored in a very old tradition and way of thinking.
Theology is really an interesting body of knowledge. Out-of-context quotes of the bible, it is almost always cited like that, aren't relevant and detrimental.
Running from judeo-christian tenets to a softened-up "occidentalised" Buddhism isn't more enlightening.
Context: I am an atheist, my mother is a protestant pastor, her husband is a die-hard science chemist and that make for some interesting and heated winter evening discussions :)
No doubt buddhism in the west is "softened up", but you know what, maybe it works better that way.
Christianity never made sense to me, with its insistence on guilt. You are supposed to feel guilty for what Adam did, guilty for what people did to Jesus, guilty for your inner thoughts, guilty for your supposed sins that the Satan put there.
> Christianity never made sense to me, with its insistence on guilt. You are supposed to feel guilty for what Adam did, guilty for what people did to Jesus, guilty for your inner thoughts, guilty for your supposed sins that the Satan put there.
That's certainly a way that many people approach Christianity, but I would say its not the best understanding of Christianity. Certainly, it is central to Christianity to acknowledge responsibility for sin as part developing humility, understanding the necessity of both human forgiveness and divine grace, etc.
But an excessive focus on "feeling guilty" moves away from that and into the sin of Judas, despair. OTOH, some people take a lot to get to the point of accepting responsibility, so what for some people is excessive for other people is simply necessary, not in terms of the point they need to get to, but in terms of the presentation it takes to get there.
Because those same set of teachings often differ very slightly from someone else's and usually ends in a war, or at the very least, a great deal of wasted bloodshed. See history for examples.
Why you're supposed to apologize is because your religion - no matter which particular mythology you subscribe to, has likely caused an immeasurable amount of sorrow for many others.
In modern times perhaps. But they were Christian for a thousand years before that. Majority atheist nations have existed for only a fraction of an instant in historical terms (unless you count the Buddhists as atheists). The first was probably the USSR.
I just think it amusing that his example of atheist nations are countries with crosses on their flags. You can't separate the history of the West from the history of Christianity without committing ahistorical absurdities.
P.S. I'm not separating the West and Christianity. Just pointing out that today, in my opinion, the countries of Scandinavia can be considered to be peaceful, prosperous, and (mostly) atheist.
Indeed, religion makes you happier[1], so its strange the author left it out of his ten points
""[9] and a review of 498 studies published in peer-reviewed journals concluded that a large majority of them showed a positive correlation between religious commitment and higher levels of perceived well-being and self-esteem and lower levels of hypertension, depression, and clinical delinquency.[12] A meta-analysis of 34 recent studies published between 1990 and 2001 found that religiosity has a salutary relationship with psychological adjustment, being related to less psychological distress, more life satisfaction, and better self-actualization.[13] Finally, a recent systematic review of 850 research papers on the topic concluded that "the majority of well-conducted studies found that higher levels of religious involvement are positively associated with indicators of psychological well-being (life satisfaction, happiness, positive affect, and higher morale) and with less depression, suicidal thoughts and behavior, drug/alcohol use/abuse."[14]"
I'd try an hypothesis that religion gives a huge fixed amount of happiness, at the cost of a small amount of unhappiness that slowly accumulates through the entire life, and even through generations.
Looks like the most logical outcome for me, but I don't know how to test it - or even if there is enough data in the world to test it now. Anyway, the usual correlation is not causality applies here.
Given that the vast majority of all people that have ever lived have been religious, your hypothesis is going to be very hard to test. Now what do we call untestable beliefs?
In this case the distinction between correlation and causation is actually very important. The alternative causal chain, that happy people are more likely to become religious, is highly plausible. Further, there are myriad plausible confounding variables. In many cases correlation can be taken as evidence of causation, but in this particular case it really should not be.
Religion isn't necessarily something you can believe in if you're set up to reason in certain ways. Someone whose response is going to be, 'Where is the evidence and to how many places?' is not going to be able to create such a belief.
By the time people are adults, if they haven't grown up with religion, I suspect the response to such a commandment would be something along the lines of 'That instruction set isn't implemented on this architecture - and I'm not sure I can, or would like, to become the sort of architecture where it can be.'
So, that might be one line of thought as to why it was left out.
I guess it's the same reason why the top recommendations in places like this for feeling better when you're down is things like exercise: the effects of exercise is well-documented and fairly reproduce-able. You put activity in and then you get dopamine out. You get to talk about your well being as a (seemingly) easily measured and to a degree manipulable brain chemistry. As soon as you start to wander into territory where the effects are harder to measure and the science behind it (if there is any empirical schience behind it) is not as hard as sciences like biology, like psychology (or, god forbid, self development literature), all of a sudden that's too "wooey" and shrinky.
As for religion; if they don't believe in it, then it's just some placebo-like effect if you get anything positive out of the "wooey" practices. And placebos are even more finnicky and is (by it's very nature) not something that you're well served trying to find the cause and effect for.
Because most religious teachings are horrible at best. Most religious people don't even read their religious texts, yet they try to force them onto everyone.
Meditation is actually different from religion, since it demonstrably works, there are scientific studies. Sam Harris, for instance, strongly supports it.
I wouldn't say there's anything fundamentally religious about meditation, other than as an accident of history. As far as I can tell, it's just an exercise for the executive-function part of your brain.
There are two great things about this advice. First, it's based on personal experience. Second, it's limited to only a few suggestions which are either implemented or not, rather than a laundry list of vague suggestions.
It's surprisingly often that both of these things are missing.
I heartily agree -- I went through a really bad depression and found that regular meditation and exercise made a tremendous difference, far more than medication.
Just a few quick notes: Aerobic exercise helped me more than strength training, so, if you're depressed, I'd recommend running, swimming, and/or bicycling.
Diet has been very important, too. Everyone is different, but I find a mostly vegetarian diet, low on processed foods, to be the best for me overall.
I think meditation helped the most. It's been a tremendously useful skill that has helped me in many areas of my life. I found Vipassana and Zen-style meditation, as
2/ Only surround yourself with brilliant and positive people.
I partly agree with this rule. People who are negative drama-creators who regularly make bad decisions can really drag you down. They can cause you to spend an excessive amount of time worrying about pointless problems that only exist because of someone else's immaturity.
But I'm also a teacher. I work with at-risk children who are immature and sometimes make bad decisions -- exactly the kind of people this rule says to stay away from, only they're 9 years old instead of 35. And being around them makes me very happy -- because of the difference I can make for them. I find it unfortunate that people sometimes fear "negativity" and "immaturity" so much that they let themselves be scared away from rewarding opportunities.
I think the author is talking about people you choose to have in your life, people you would consider taking advice from and talking about your problems with. The 9 year olds in your profession probably provide very rewarding relationship, and they are people you can help. But they are hardly your "friends."
If you were to surround your self with a bunch of 30 something neurotics who all needed your help, and it was not part of your job to help these people, then you would be in trouble.
In a pure meritocracy, the best academic students are admitted, since college has an academic purpose. Most of these academically-oriented students are going to be the driven-to-succeed type. It benefits a school not at all to have an unhappy bottom quarter who feel driven to succeed yet are outclassed academically by the rest of the cohort. However, it's impossible to help the bottom quarter in general because there always must be a bottom quarter by definition.
Instead, pioneered by Harvard, the "Happy Bottom Quarter" philosophy argues that for the sake of fundraising, reputation, and the self-esteem of students, schools should admit people specifically for the bottom quarter[1]
I don't like this, as a rule. The author warns of its shortcomings pretty well:
>Of course, if you care about them, then you owe it to yourself to transmit your positive attitude to them.
I've found that who you surround yourself with is quite often outside of your control. Sooner or later, you're bound to care about someone with negative qualities that you don't want to see in yourself. I do not believe that is justification for cutting them out of your life!
Value brilliance and positivity in people, and avoid participating in negativity is a better rule, for me.
made me think of George Washington's rules of civility[1] (# 56):
Associate yourself with Men of good Quality if you Esteem your own Reputation; for 'tis better to be alone than in bad Company
I was hoping that you were going to critique the need to surround yourself with "positive people".
There's obviously a lot to be said for not surrounding yourself with pessimists, but (in the US, anyway, and silicon valley, in particular), the default personality type tends to be "optimism to the point of delusion". It's just as problematic to overdose on positive thinking as it is being surrounded by pessimists.
Optimism is like sugar: it's great and you need it, but if you eat too much of it you'll only get sick. And just like sugar, the average US diet already has plenty.
We're talking about a nation of people who, by far, believe they are stuck with the life they were given, with no means of control. Sure, they hope that one day they'll be able to achieve their dreams and desires, but by far, the majority of the country(outside of Silicon Valley) has the opinion that the only way to live, is to slave it out for someone else doing something you don't like. Hell, you hear half as much in comedy routines, frequently(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ph9I-qPQ6FU, and I've heard several others make the same comment, including Chris Rock, Louis CK, and Ricky Gervais).
But the attitude silicon valley seems to foster in people- that if you work hard at something you believe in, you have a chance at being successful in ways you never could have dreamed? That's the only way an economy is going to work in the future. That's the only way when the majority of manual labor jobs can be eliminated by automation. Being able to teach, develop, and put yourself to good use in something you're proud of is gonna be the only way we've got left.
Pessimism isn't worth shit, and we've got too much of it in the US. At least with optimism, people try things. Sure, their dreams of success might be delusional- but they still have value, in that they'll try, and in trying, better themselves. The other option is that they just keep living a life of misery or mediocrity, and that way leads only madness.
If you don't live here, then you have no idea what I'm talking about.
Look, there are obviously pockets of this country where people feel stuck. I'm even a firm believer that many people in the US actually are stuck in place by forces beyond their control. But in general, a lack of optimism has never been a problem in this country.
Survey after survey tells us that, on average, Americans believe that we're smarter, more capable and harder working than our peers. We believe that if we work hard, we'll be rewarded proportionately. We believe that the rich/poor gap is much smaller than it is. We believe -- in ridiculously large numbers -- that we all have a realistic chance of becoming wealthy. It manifests itself in thousands of ridiculous ways, from our abysmal savings rate, to the way our political system tends to reward the wealthy at the expense of the average.
There's a human bias toward optimism, but Americans really take it to the next level:
There's a difference between optimism, arrogance, desperation and ignorance. Some of the things you described I wouldn't label with the word "optimism".
Realize the effect you have on the people around you. If you're are negative, you will make the people around you feel negatively, if you are positive, you will make them positive.
It's more powerful than advice telling you to cut people out of your lives. You will have a better effect on the world.
To me, blaming the people around you for your own negative feelings is part of the 'blame others for your own problems' negative cycle of excuses. Make the people around you positive by being positive, by being a good friend: listening, inspiring, generally caring.
In a sense it almost puts relationships in a transactional context. And people who do that are often assholes.
I think it's important to seek out people with whom you value spending time with, as well as to distance yourself from people who are not good friends and aren't deserving of your time or energy, but that's a much more complicated topic than can be summed up in a handful of words.
I do agree with you guys. In the article I make the distinction between people you care about or love (read: family, close friends, your students, people you decided to help) and the others. Specifically, what I find to be dangerous is when you are not aware of the bad influence someone else has on you, and when you are only surrounded by these type of persons who believe that nothing is worth doing/living, then you might end up thinking the same way. It's funny that some comments are about people in the Silicon-Valley being too optimistic or even delusional, because I live in France and I commute frequently to the Bay Area. I find that when I leave to San Francisco, I always feel very morose and when I come back I am always in a fired up mood! But slowly, this mood disappears because the average french is pessimistic about almost everything.
I enjoyed the post but there is one sentence I can't understand:
> 2/ Only surround yourself with brilliant and positive people. Negative and mediocre people are everywhere and their influence on you can be devastating.
The thing is that I'm potentially one of those "mediocre" people and I don't see why my influence should be devastating.
For instance, what is wrong about being negative? Not that my days are about it but, when I find myself thinking about the society we've built, I feel depressed and helplessness. Our society runs on poverty, climate change, INC governments, wars. We got to a point where some perpetuate violence on people and animals for living.
Not only that but from a certain perspective, I've a reason to think about myself as a mediocre person, cause I managed to get lot of good things from life, including a fun job but I'm not the "cool kid" and, as such, I think I'm quite a mediocre guy.
So my question is as follows, what are you suggesting here: the best way to avoid any negativity get to you, is to eliminate these gloomy people from your life ?
This may be based on Law 10 of the 48 Laws of Power.
"You can die from someone else’s misery. Emotional states are as infectious as diseases. You may feel you are helping the drowning man but you are only precipitating your own disaster. The unfortunate sometimes draw misfortune on themselves; they will also draw it on you. Associate with the happy and fortunate instead."
if you havent read it, He also did The Art of Seduction in a similar 'rules through historic case-by-case basis' style, but focused on relationships. its every bit as icky, and definitely just as good.
Robert Greene always reminds me of the quote by Sandy Lerner I heard on NPR somewhere:
"the first rule of any game is to know you're in one"
I've always liked Law 9 'Win through your actions, never through argument'. It's good to remember most arguments won are Pyrrhic victories.
hah yeah thanks. I'd been lurking for years before I realized this was a community to stay with (and build reputation with) on the internets. I always think of how much I'd read it in college (graduated 09), and kick myself for not grabbing my name then. I think it was a year or two of following before I knew what y-combinator was :).
I've spent most of the day talking with different people about this book. There's a lot of really great wisdom that often gets overshadowed by the few manipulative techniques.
Globally speaking, there is less poverty and warfare than there has ever been in human history, or to put it another way, humanity is more prosperous and peaceful than it's ever been. By all objective measures except environmentally, 2013 is shaping up to be the greatest year in human history. Really, the greatest issue facing humanity today is climate change, not the other stuff you mention.
The human mind is so great that it came up with all modern society, and so irrational that it chooses to be miserable about people dying of famine and in wars on the other side of the world when there is nothing that the person can do about it and his life is devoid of any remotely immediate tragedies. What is wrong about ignoring (really, not so much ignore as simply not watching the news) things that you will do nothing about (most people will only help the proverbial children in Africa for the odd fundraiser) anyway, and instead focus on the fact that you are living a life that is much more pleasant and prosperous than what the news chooses to focus on? Ignorance truly is bliss.
Are you sure the people on the other side of the world, living in famine, also consider your ignorance bliss? What is more irrational: Choosing to ignore grave suffering that we have the resources to end, many times over, for the sake of avoiding bad feelings, or at least acknowledging the suffering of others? I think the latter is an essential step in bringing modern society to a state that can truly be called civilised.
I was specifically talking about people that wallow in the idea of suffering of others, while doing nothing about it. "Acknowledging" without actions helps no one. By consuming a lot of the fear inducing news, people are acknowledging the suffering of such a large amount of people, by such diverse groups, that they have absolutely no hope of making a meaningful impact on the suffering of all those groups. But instead of researching a particular problem (anything from the local homeless shelter to mosquito nets in central Africa) and giving something like a tithe of their income to that cause, additionally getting a little involved to make sure their money and efforts make an impact, most people would rather shake their heads and "raise awareness" on social media, and still have to have people literally coming to their front doors to socially cajole people into giving them money (because apparently all that 'awareness' that they got through the news weren't enough to get them to donate solely by their own accord).
Great advice, but... "Don’t compare yourself to others" I've repeatedly found this to be near-impossible. It's just that no matter what standard I've set for myself, just the fact that I see someone doing better automatically makes me think I'm doing something wrong and/or I'm not good enough. That may not be the case, but that's the default thought for me and only after do I actually look into it.
What's worse is that not only is it totally the wrong attitude, I know that it's the wrong attitude. It's very disheartening.
I do feel like a lot of these articles tend to tell you to do stuff you already know you should, but provide very little insight into how to go about doing it--don't compare yourself to others, embrace failure, don't be afraid to disappoint others...this is all easier said than done. I know all this. I need strategies to help achieve them.
That said, just being regularly reminded that these are things to strive helps internalize them. This will help us keep an eye out to catch ourselves and try to correct when we compare ourselves to others.
I've had similar problems and saw a talk by Heidi Halvorson that reframed it a bit: Instead of trying to stop the "compare to others" behavior, replace the behavior instead with "compare to my own past performance". I've found measuring and hacking your own improvement is a more useful feedback loop.
I don't like "Don't compare yourself to others." To me it has little meaning other than making people feel good. If you are starting at the beginning of just about anything, you occasionally need to compare yourself to the "pros" in order to grow. All things in moderation.
There is nothing wrong in finding inspiration in someone else who is better than you, to help build a better version of yourself. There is a subtle nuance between this and feeling jealous or envious.
The main reason why I used the verb 'compare', is because we are taught to think in terms of adversity/competition when it comes to learning in almost any field. I strongly believe that learning should only be about learning. And it turns out that if you learn the right things and if you work hard, for the sake of being good at something, then you will likely be highly ranked. But that should not be the goal.
2/ Only surround yourself with brilliant and positive people.
this really touched me, most of my friends are always negative and angry and sad to say but my family is also dysfunctional which at times leads me to being stressed and upset as well. It's hard to cut people off who are your family and friends though.
There are a lot of blog posts out there, many of which refer to peer-reviewed literature (or at least to news articles about peer reviewed literature).
That list contains a lot of good advice. However, I did pause at:
3) Money isn’t going to make you much happier. It might make you unhappier.
It's true that above a certain point, money doesn't correlate much with happiness. People are terrible at affective forecasting, so most rich people don't spend their money on things that will make them happy.
I always think being grateful for what you have is a major ingredient for happiness. Alvin's story really made me reflect on all the good things in my life.
While many of these common-sense things do really have peer-reviewed research behind them, most of the others do not. Pretty much everything that is under-defined, vague or unintuitive is wrong. Fear of failure, comparing yourself to others, surrounding yourself with positive people and so on - these are bullshit in general with no scientific backup. There is in fact more evidence that if you isolate yourself in your happy place with everything positive and no fear of failure, you will eventually have to confront reality very hard at some point in your life. The only reason they work in the short to mid term is because they are sort of a religion-substitute.
I understand the difference between advocating something and stating facts or results of a study objectively.
For example, you refer to this blog where religion is mentioned which can be considered as both avoidance of reality and ignorance. I am not saying you or anybody advocates it.
And I just want to point out that many of these "happiness recipes" have no science behind them or at best some misinterpretation of a study. But I still agree that there are some legit studies as well (which are common-sense anyway though).
Some points from memory -
Pets are good (Dogs beat cats).
Wage matters.
Friends beat family (Not sure if this talk mentions this)
Money can buy happiness by buying experiences(Not things) and when you spend it on others.
Long commuting time to work is bad. (IE A big house in the suburbs sucks)
Your values have nothing to do with evidence, reasoning and/or facts. You can change your opinion, increase your knowledge, admit you were wrong about facts but this won't change your values.
Of course it does. One's values can be affirmed by evidence, or shown to be based on untruths. For example, I might have competition as one of my values, believing that its always good to be competitive and do one's best and strive to win. Then one day wake up and take stock of the accumulated evidence and realize that maybe this wasn't a good value to have held after all. It's nonsense to say values have nothi to do with evidence.
This disagreement is a result of using the single word “value” to mean two different types of values. The values you describe are “instrumental values”. The values brugidou describes are “terminal values”. Here is a description of each: http://lesswrong.com/lw/l4/terminal_values_and_instrumental_...
Until someone showed strong evidence that those relying on preconceived notions were right more often than those relying on evidence. Then one'd be stuck ;-)
Graham Greene said: "Point me out the happy man and I will point you out either egotism, selfishness, evil - or else an absolute ignorance."
This world isn't built for maximising happiness of humans, this is true whether you follow scientific rationale or religious faith. When you pursue happiness, you are working against the system. There in nothing wrong with it, however it does tell you why Graham Greene concluded the above.
I wouldn't paint him as either egotistic, evil or ignorant. I consider myself an atheist and his books have significantly changed the way I view the world.
Life is built to maximise survival, I suppose. Note that Life is not the World (I refer to the physical non-biological things as world). I would say, as far as science can probe, world isn't there to maximise anything.
From my experiences, these spring up as the big ones I'd mention:
1. Learn to be happy with your own company before you seek a relationship. People who want to be your emotional crutches are generally bad for your growth in the long run, and being able to be happy on your own will help you get out if the other person becomes abusive.
2. Don't have a totally unbalanced investment in any one person, group or activity. Doing so makes you very vulnerable and makes failure in that area devastating for no commensurate increase in happiness.
3. Find people you can listen to, and who are interested in some of the same sort of things that you are. Listen to these people if you honestly trust them or leave them if you don't. If your friends are honest, sometimes they'll hurt you in warning you off of things or people. This is worth it - don't get so lost in your own ego that you lose all tough with reality, in the long run that will hurt more.
4. Get enough high-quality sleep. Not all sleep is good, even if you manage to pass out. Silence and as near to total darkness as you can get are pretty much prerequisites to waking up refreshed. A comfortable bed that properly supports you is also worthwhile. I've had friends who've gone off of depression medication by virtue of changing their beds and buying some blackout blinds. Just -- check that sort of thing first if you're having problems.
5. Do things with others. Archery, dancing, swimming, martial arts, paint-balling, painting, singing, etc. It gives you a chance to discover new passions and gets you in contact with a wider variety of friends in situations where you can form lasting relationships.
6. Smile at people. A smile is a gift you give to everyone around you, and it's free to the giver. It also seems to be linked to areas of our brains that make us feel happy even if we don't really feel that happy inside at the time. And seeing people smile back is nice.
7. Learn to look for the potential positives in things and phrase everything that you can in terms of positives rather than negatives. Few people like little storm-clouds dooming and glooming over them - in my experience, even in my own head, having a different spin on things makes me happier. You can make yourself very lonely just on the strength of choosing a specific phrasing.
8. This may not be for everyone, but: Teach. Not necessarily in a school environment. It can be incredibly rewarding to see a younger girl smile at the program she's just written, celebrate her first job, or (I gather from my boyfriend,) a young man make his first bit of woodwork.
9. Learn to recognise when you're boring people. This is, I gather, initially a rather depressing skill - but if you persevere you can find people who actually like being around you, or moderate your egoism somewhat, and that tends to be more rewarding.
10. Caring for others can let you be at least partially happy about some things that you might be sad about. A social form of hedging your bets. When the weather is blisteringly hot, for instance, I remind myself that Ellen (one of my friends) likes putting her washing out and sunbathing on the weekends and that makes me smile.
One concept that I think is hard to grasp, and makes taking this sort of advice hard to apply, is just how much our default happiness is biologically hard coded.
For this reason I view the point about exercise and eating healthy to be the most important one on the list.
I have read a book on this subject: http://www.amazon.fr/The-How-Happiness-Approach-Getting/dp/0.... The author wrote that happiness was defined at 50% by our genes, 10% by circumstances and 40% by intentional activities. I guess that's a non-negligible proportion we could act on.
I'd add - Understand the cost of fitting in. Being truly outstanding at what you do sometimes means you need to do it by yourself. Fitting in is comfortable, and will rarely lead to excellence and deep personal satisfaction.
I agree with every one of those things. Especially #2, but in a reverse effect: I've noticed that if I'm in a negative mood, the people I care about the most suffer from it. In the same way that you shouldn't surround yourself with people who are negative, you should attempt to be the same way yourself as much as possible. It'll make you a better person to be around.
1) We're social creatures -- we will inherently derive feelings of success from certain comparisons with others. Why should I forcefully negate this natural channel for happiness?
2) Only surround yourself with brilliant people. Negative people can be great.
3) Don’t be afraid to fail. Failing is not the best thing that could happen to you.
4) Find your vocation and have pleasure doing it (if vocations are you thing).
I wouldn't mind the list so much if you wrote "this is MY best tips for happiness and success." Because then it wouldn't contradict many studies on the subject which finds that very different variables cause happyness and success.
I click on every link similar to this one, and I've started to see the same things over and over again. This article was refreshing and different. Thanks for sharing.
There is no mediocre people???? Unless you like to be a ranking jerk with no friends. Seriously some of the most amazing people I have meet were "mediocre"
I disagree with the dichotomy between living a "default life" and being happy[1]. Maybe in America where society is so atomized and culture is so dead this is true, but this is not true everywhere. It is an American sickness that says you must work your way to happiness, that happiness comes at the end of a chain of accomplishments.
What more is needed to be happy but friends, family, and enough to get by? Honestly, I think living in a culture with a strong sense of itself and its purpose is more important than any of the author's points, but people living in America wouldn't know what that feels like.
All of what makes America terrible and most of what makes it successful is the puritan ancestry of its institutions. More and more Americans are skipping having families. Why? Because it would interfere with their career. Translated: they want to work more. In an effort to work their way into heaven, they ignore heaven's gifts.
I know a lot of people that follow the author's advice, or try to (I can guess which cultural milieu this is coming from). They are all stressed out trying to save the world or something and nervous about failing (commandment number 3 is like saying "don't get cold in the winter").
FWIW, I grew up in a third world country, waking up everyday fearing that I or someone I care about will die in a bomb attack (search for Algerian Civil War: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_Civil_War) and having all sort of daily issues (no water for a week, no electricity for days, etc.), and I can tell you this for sure: this didn't prevent us from wanting a life that's above average, from pursuing happiness and from questioning whether we loved what we were doing or not.
Also, I am not sure where you are reading that you should be solitary or not have any family. I take care of my parents, a depressed brother who threatens to suicide every now and then, I am married and would love to have children. What's wrong with having that and aspiring to work on something that you find enjoyable instead of settling on a boring job?
1) regular excercise. Make some small, daily routine (I prefer running) and stick to it. The endorphines work wonders. The body starts feeling good after a few days.
2) (and this will be maybe controversial due to The religious undertones) regular meditation. While excercise clears your body, meditation clears your mind. Maybe it's not "really" doing anything and it's just a placebo, but frankly, it doesn't really matter. What I do is zen meditation (of soto school), which is basically just staring to wall for 20 minutes a day.... and it helps wonders.
So yeah.... those two commandments help me. Your mileage may vary.