Might be useful to ask a different question: What makes people happy?
It's things like relationships, satisfying work, accomplishment. (and many, many more)
Then the real question emerges: How many of those happiness 'sources' are made better by intelligence? What percentage?
Relationships? Seems like no. Work? Also seems like no, lots of work doesn't make use of a high IQ that people enjoy nonetheless. Accomplishment? Strikes me as most likely of the three, but it's also very relative.
And another thought,
Asking why smart people aren't happier is a bit like asking why people who can jump high aren't more empathetic. There's no direct link between the two, you have to dip out to the material conditions. Like: someone who can jump high is fitter > fitter people are healthier > healthier people have more mental time to be empathetic with > people who can jump high are more empathetic.
For intelligence, we say smart people are happier. Same thing, happiness is not directly correlated. Instead: Smart people are better able to create the outcomes they want > They select outcomes that make them happy > Their environment makes them happy > Smart people are happier.
(These are illustrations of the idea, not actual logical chains or claims.)
As I heard someone say, happiness is your reality minus your expectations.
Smart people see more variables that could be changed, more components that could be modified, and are less likely to accept things as they are. This creates a false sense of ease by which reality could be modified, and thus higher expectations for the world around them.
I suspect this misplaces happiness and contentment, but the two are also very strongly correlated for many people.
I think smart people are told much more often as kids how bright of a future they have. So they build up expectations of "succeeding" in some sense (becoming a doctor, getting rich, etc.). These are the sort of expectations you mention in your quote. Not only is there often pressure put on you if you're smart, you adopt those expectations yourself. Or at least hold yourself to that standard. Of course, being smart doesn't automatically equal success, there are so many other factors. So people often fall short of expectations and feel shitty about themselves and are unhappy. Then there's also the fact that high achievers often hold themselves to unrealistic standards even if they "succeed", so they also struggle to be happy.
For me this has 100% been the main source of unhappiness in my life. I wish nobody had ever told me how smart I was as a child. The reality was that I was above average but in an unremarkable collection of kids mostly. I’ve done fine in life academically and career wise but I’ll never live up to the expectations that were planted in my head.
Thankfully you can get over this/yourself and let go of ego, ambition, achievement and all that unnecessary crap.
What's interesting to me is how all of it is true. You were and are in an elite tier, the measure is purely how we care to slice it.
Reminds me of the aphorism "whether you think you can or can't, you're right." I find this saying really insightful and true. Others may find it flippant and void of any meaning.
The sports analogy of what you shared is: "there are levels to this". At any given level-child, minor, high-school, college, division of college, semi-pro, overseas, pro, olympian, elite-pro, champion- it seems legitimate that the praise is bound to the context.
And getting to the next level requires more growth and effort to think it's even possible. Maybe you won't, but whether you think you can or can't...
A great number of people believe they can when they can’t, the reverse is less frequent. Which is likely the outgrowth of saying to anyone “you can do it” being much easier and safer than a more realistic assessment.
Instead I like to say “that will be a lot of work” which is generally true, can help someone succeed by focusing on something productive, and even failure at the given goal often results in something positive. Hard work simply pays better dividends than dreaming about what comes after success.
Very true. Many comments in this overall post arrive at the nuanced stance that it's the effort that is key to focus on and relate. Everything else there is no way to connect to causality.
I want to add that "belief" in yourself, though as you say is rather a biased pathway, is still to me so essential and valuable. Because it is the thing that in some socioeconomic circles is taken for granted and in others is completely assumed in the reverse. So from a humanist perspective I'd rather people fall short of their dream than to never even be able to dream at all.
I guess I am saying it is the lived experience that counts. If you are blissfully naive then is it a better life? iono maybe! but that's reminds me of beautiful animals. And the difference between humans and animals, so far as we come to believe, is that we can choose to suffer. and understand happiness and in that be so utterly unhappy. hah
This gets to the heart of why visualization works. When you’re conscious mind visualizes outcomes, around say work or sport performance or really anything, your subconscious mind can’t differentiate it from reality; the better you are at visualizing the harder it is for your subconscious mind to tell this. It is why visualization is such a powerful performance technique. Negative self talk is really bad for you.
This is more or less the basis of a lot of western esotericism and ceremonial magick. Consider it a weaponization of the placebo effect, or the closest thing to creatio ex nihilo one can personally experience. Dialogue with the purveyor of negative self-talk is another modality in this space.
The coolest thing about the placebo effect is that it works even if you know it’s a placebo so the more you believe in science the more you can pick some random bs and be like “This will help me because I think it will, and the placebo effect is real” And it will actually. fkn. work.
There is a HealthygamerGG video where he talks about gifted kids as special needs kids bc of this factor. I found it really enlightening. I definitely had to confront it in my own life.
Same thing happened with me. By the time I was halfway through high school, everything was so boring I couldn't focus enough to actually do any work. Most days I would just skip class and I rarely did any homework at all.
The principal told by parents "we have nothing else to offer your child", so I dropped out and started working fulltime. As much as I know I should be advocating to stay in school, I don't regret it for one second. As soon as I turned 18 I already had enough money to move out on my own and never looked back. Never went back to school.
As far as work qualifications goes... writing software, I have always gotten work based on my experience alone, nobody that I actually wanted to work for ever cared about some piece of paper, only what I could do.
There is also one where he talks about how about half of his suicidal patients are not delusional and don't have some mood disorder, but are correctly recognising that their lives objectively aren't worth living.
If people would not tell you how smart you are, you would blame your unhappiness on low esteem and on the lack of support in your childhood.
Which one would you prefer?
It's all postfactum explanation attempts, that create links that usually are not there.
Another, internally happier, positive and more cheerful person would be the exact opposite - would always find ways to spin things around for the positive.
I think you’re right that I’m a negatively biased person, so the praise may have been received differently if I was a more positive person. However, the outcome of the praise was that I was never self-confident and had/have low self-esteem. I think what I received was closer to “you’re the smartest kid” and that set me up believing I was destined to be the _most_ successful adult even if I never felt capable of achieving that.
I think easier said than done. I was similarly labelled as "gifted" as a child and have struggled my entire life with being ok with where I was, in academics, career even romantic relationships.
Looking at what I've accomplished and obtained, they're objectively better than average along pretty much every dimension. But, I still struggle to be satisfied. I know this is a me issue, but I also don't know how to change it.
There are a lot of mediocre therapists out there. And even if you do get a reasonably good one, they might not click with you in terms of personality/approach/cultural background.
I think most kids in this situation eventually hit a wall where things become difficult and being "smart" on its own is not enough. And people hit that at different age, maturity and availability of support. They need to transition to working hard and that is tough.
The reality as well is being smart 'enough' isn't truly all the rare. No matter how smart one is, there is always someone smarter. Thus, I believe it's important to value and cherish other abilities as well. For what is being smart worth without creativity, charisma, empathy, etc.?
Yep, I’ve hit this a couple of times. I think it’s the reason I left academia at the end of my PhD - that was a way of escaping the discomfort of the required hard work. The second time was as my tech career progressed and my field (ML) grew. There was less low hanging fruit and more competition and the only way to continue was to work harder. That wasn’t until my late 30s though!
Isn’t there a danger though of running into differences between oneself and others and concluding that the cause is oneself being “weird” and not the inherent difficulty of bridging the intelligence gap and correspondingly different ways of thinking? Like I could see a very bright kid ending up with low self esteem due to being different if they aren’t told that the differences may be due to their intelligence. Like someone with average intelligence may have difficulty understanding and modeling someone with two or more standard deviations above average intelligence, and all social groups are definitionally numerically weighted towards the mean and away from the edges so absent some filtering the very bright kids will be unusual.
Do you mean that there may be some harm in "hiding" from children their intelligence? I can see that maybe at early ages, but certainly they'll eventually catch on with grades and such? I don't know when different parts of personality manifest, maybe some child psychologist can chime in. But my hunch is that maybe not saying anything until grade 2-3 could potentially help. Above all, I think the key is to tell them that it's trying hard that leads to getting what you want. Obviously that's a bit of a lie, but I think acceptable until a later age.
I don’t think grade 2 or 3 grades will paint the picture for them. Elementary school grades saturate quickly, there isn’t enough dynamic range. What IQ do you need to get perfect marks in elementary school? Sure, you’ll know you are above average, but the social experience for someone with a very high IQ is extremely different from someone with a slightly above average IQ.
I think the real problem is not providing enough challenge, so they get used to succeeding without trying and never learn the emotional side of trying and failing, until they can’t keep up anymore, which for really bright kids may not happen until they are basically adults.
If you praise for doing what they can do without trying, you get this problem. If you meet them at their level and actually challenge them from a young age, while also praising them for being clever, I suspect you won’t see this problem.
By analogy, is it harmful to tell a kid he’s naturally good at soccer, while providing the resources and coaching necessary to take advantage of the potential? I imagine the dynamics should be similar from the skill acquisition angle, the difference is just how the activity to perform is generated.
One thing I loved from Osho (spiritual guru) is the notion that everyone thinks they are "extraordinary" but actually the happiest person is the person who is ordinary. Being ordinary and just eating breakfast and sleeping and doing a job is - in fact - extraordinarily rare.
The same Osho who ran an expensive cult in the 70s and 80s?
Putting that aside, it's hard for me to associate simple with happiness. That's the opposite of motivation, from my unenlightened perspective. It's hardly a rational or smart choice since not being challenged also makes one a bit narrower when it comes to seeking out new experiences. But even if you take the intellect out of it, it 'feels' wrong. And some things are challenging to achieve and bring fulfillment.
I used to really have a problem understanding why people hold peace as some ideal. It's not that i want violence, it's that if i expand on the idea of peace, I always end at "nothing". Like the idea of heaven, it's pure peace, it's… the lack of all these challenges and struggles and pains on so on. it's nothing! How does that even make sense to strive for a state of nothingness?!
This bothered me for so long until at some point, I just grew up. Peace is not nothing in the sense of null. It's nothing more in the sense of empty. I got this from some buddhist writing: emptiness is not the same as nothingness.
We are vessels and such. I found this tremendously helpful. Peace is like… space for being.
And so simple happiness, I'd say is not rudimentary, it's more like essential? The more I think on it, it's hard not to see the "core" happiness-es as quite profound. Like happy to exist. To experience each sense and such. I'd say that's quite amazing to get to that level of happiness. and we wouldn't call that "complex" happiness?
Expectations are planted in you in school and linger for entire life? I don't remember anything like that. I was told how smart I am, but the exact citation is "don't solve all problems, let other kids solve some too". Maybe I was obedient and did what I'm told without asking for more pressure.
Sounds familiar. I did fine in my career, but it never felt like enough and I missed a couple of major opportunities, so I'm not even sure how smart I was. Just high IQ, high test scores, yadda, yadda, yadda. Just wanted to really "kill it" just once, but so far no and now I'm 52.
I wouldn't have believed this at all till I met people who fell into that trap, after which I'm genuinely curious how common it is.
It's interesting how different personalities (innate or learned -- probably doesn't matter here) interact with the same stimuli. It's easy for some people to wholeheartedly believe authority figures telling them that being smart and hard-working is all it takes to succeed, and it's easy for others to recognize that those qualities are neither sufficient nor necessary. The externalized thinking our elders do for us no doubt shapes our lives, but the impact of that shaping is more personalized than I ever used to give it credit for.
> Then there's also the fact that high achievers often hold themselves to unrealistic standards even if they "succeed", so they also struggle to be happy.
Can attest to this. By most accounts, I've "succeeded" much better than I expected, even as a former "gifted" kid. But I'm far from happy, either with myself, with my jobs, or with the fact that I'm not doing more for the world. I've left jobs that looked great on paper because they left me unfulfilled intellectually, only to end up in jobs that were worse.
I'm at a stage at which I actively fear my next job changes because 1. I'm getting close to the ageism barrier, which will limit my choices, especially in the current job market; 2. I suspect that working on something too boring could drive me to suicide.
Most smart people I know already do not link "success" to "happiness": relationships, experiences, family and health is usually the driver of their happiness or lack thereof.
The only change is that the baseline for unhappiness is higher (so not just food on the table and roof over your head, but a decent career and mid-class lifestyle is sufficient).
This is bloody true for myself. One of the main ingredients of unhappiness in my life is this false sense of expectation, because somewhere in my mind I have been told that I'm capable and I should be keep trying!
Your experience is one that the internet identified long ago under the moniker "special snowflake" as a derogatory. Derogatory because you are not special or unique even though someone conditioned you to think so.
That said, do you go so far as to accuse an entire generation of parents of conspiracy to brainwash their kids? Have you ever considered that the advice they gave was appropriate? For a while in the 80s and 90s, pretty much all white collar jobs had multiple specializations within each job, such that it made sense to expect your kid would need to find some unique niche.
Instead, the subsequent decades demonstrated that specialized knowledge was being centralized behind corporations, and corporations would use the same technology available to individuals to centralize even more. It's not hard to see the internet and global connectivity as disruptors of 'old' normality.
I guess the point is that the advice given to you was fresh but went stale fast due to the world changing.
Yes, and also, being able to perceive the world in high resolution when everyone else is blind has its own challenges.
Less intelligent people may be asking you to step in front of a bus because they don't see the bus and you cannot convince them that the bus exists because they're looking in the same direction as you and they don't see anything there. They don't trust your judgement, especially when others who also have equally poor vision agree with them and side against you.
The majority of people have poor vision and so they see the same vague blurry shapes as each other. Because of this, they will often agree with one another and side against intelligent people; who are a minority.
Moreover, it's easier to form consensus over blurry/vague concepts. This is the principle behind fortune-telling. Intelligent people will tend to disagree about details. Because they can see much more detail, there are more contentious points to argue about. It's harder for intelligent people to form consensus.
Being intelligent is a source of unhappiness because it is isolating to not be able to discuss what you see with others. It's like living alone in a parallel universe. You can see lower dimensions but you can't communicate to anyone else about the extra dimensions that exist in your reality because they are incapable of comprehending them. Plato's Allegory of the Cave comes to mind.
I feel this way whenever anyone on here downvotes me when I rail against socialism and communism. Like, hey, maybe some people have some lived experiences that are counterexamples, just maybe?
Probably. My parents are relatively well-off and their experience of reality is very different from mine and keeps diverging more. It's getting to the point that I can't explain my situation because of how bad it is. What happens to me, my bad luck, sounds far-fetched to them and they think I must be doing something wrong... But I work 24/7, day, nights and weekend and everyone around me tells me I'm competent... How can it be?
It had some interesting ideas, and one of the things that stuck with me is the idea of your brain being a "difference engine" in that the variation is what matters. If we don't experience pain, we can't experience pleasure.
It seems a bit simplistic when stated that way, but I think there is something to it.
Another thing I have come to believe as I have aged is that our western (American especially) society places too much emphasis on happiness, in that we think happiness is (and should be) the prime goal of every human. I have come to believe that less and less, and think something like satisfaction, contentment, and purpose are much more important as life goals than happiness. Happiness is an important part of life, and is important for reaching the other goals I mentioned, but it is not the end goal (to me). I think most of us somewhat intuitively understand this, although our response is often to redefine what happiness is rather than concluding happiness isn't our end goal.
If happiness was everything, we would be much more accepting and encouraging towards hedonism than we are. A heroin addict who has a good clean supply and no responsibilities would be the ultimate dream life if we truly believed pure happiness was the most important thing.
You say "redefine what happiness is", but I'm not sure there's any "re"-definition necessary, it can just be about how you define it. I wouldn't say that the things you mention (satisfaction, purpose, etc.) are alternatives to happiness, but rather that they're particular forms of happiness. And maybe the hedonism of the heroin addict is another form.
I'm not entirely sure it's incorrect to say that the heroin addict's life isn't a valid and desirable form of happiness in theory. The problem is that in practice pursuing that type of happiness has a high risk of plunging into extreme unhappiness. The same might be said of various other forms of happiness that we see as at least somewhat less objectionable. For instance, people who do BASE jumping may find a sense of satisfaction and fulfillment from doing it, but still many people might view that skeptically as a path to happiness, because again it has high risks of bad outcomes.
I tend to think in terms of aiming for what I call "robust happiness", which means a form of happiness that's resistant to changes in circumstance, and in particular to the awareness of other people's happiness. When you're happy in a way where you can look at other people being happy and not wish to have their life or their form of happiness instead of yours, your happiness is robust in a certain sense.
>It seems a bit simplistic when stated that way, but I think there is something to it.
I think this is pretty uncontroversial and you can observe it everywhere. Even in music, if you want the beat to hit harder, take it away for a short period, and when you bring it back it will feel like it hits harder and with more energy even though it's exactly the same volume as it was before.
Though it doesn't really explain how some people are continuously more or less happy. If the brain only cared about change, you could only ever be an average amount happy. Clearly something about continuous discontent and negativity still impacts you even if it might dull.
What I struggle with is that it’s hard to derive meaning from purpose when the best I can hope for is improving the lives of others until they are at the same level of comfort as me: struggling to find meaning and happiness.
We can all derive purpose from trying to improve eachothers lives, but if none of us end up happy, what makes that work actually meaningfull?
At some point we need something that is good in and off itself. That’s what happiness is meant to be I think
I'm not sure hedonism in that sense isn't a valid desire provided it can be safely sustained. Imagine there was a substance that made the user happy, without any of the negative side effects or tolerance. I'm not sure that would be a bad thing to take. The issue with the drugs today isn't so much their pleasurable aspects, but the physical dependency, risk of overdose, eventual tolerance etc.
"Smart" tends to be used such that includes intelligence (rate of learning) and knowledge (how much is known).
Satisfaction comes from accepting what is outside our control (accurate expectations), and making continuous progress/improvement on what is within our control (our own perceptions and actions).
Intelligence and knowledge maybe don't correlate as much with wisdom as one would expect. I have met people who learn slow and don't know much but are very wise, and satisfied.
Lastly, happiness is always fleeting. Happiness can't be enduring, but it can be blocked by ego and high expectations. Satisfaction can be enduring, but correlates with virtuous actions, not intelligence.
> As I heard someone say, happiness is your reality minus your expectations.
I don’t think that’s true, e.g. from my personal experience, I’m far more optimistic than my wife, but even though she has far lower expectations she still takes negative things with far more disappointment than I do when we face the same hardship. So generally I’m a much happier person despite having higher expectations.
This is independent of intellect too for us, she would readily admit I’m more intelligent.
I don’t know whether it’s a innate thing or something learned but the key seems to be that I am always primed to look on the bright side, like my brain automatically weights positives much stronger than negatives, whereas hers does the opposite.
For both of us this seems to be self-reinforcing too because we always have confirmation bias because I’ve focused on the positives and can say “see it wasn’t that bad” and she will be like “see, I thought it would be bad” for the same thing.
Polymaths in particular could be good or great at many things. It’s a matter of choice and opportunity. But they can’t be great at absolutely everything. So one choice closes another. And the grass is greener on the other side.
Particularly if a school of knowledge is at all dangerous. To the body or the mind. For instance trying to cure an infectious disease, which is both every time you fail.
There’s a great book by Arthur Brooks called From Strength to Strength which has a slightly different take on “reality minus expectations”: think of it as a fraction, where what you have is the numerator and what you want is the denominator. If you keep ratcheting up what you want (which is what the hedonic treadmill is all about —- you reach a goal and enjoy it for a nanosecond and then suddenly you need an even bigger achievement to satisfy you), you push happiness further away. And conversely, if you learn to want things that are actually in reach, you become happier as you achieve them.
I'd heard "happiness is reality minus expectations" before but never thought much of it. I had high expectations of myself in certain areas of life and worked hard towards them and I thought that they were realistic, so despite not having achieved them I still had hope.
And now over time reality has caught up to me and I've become sadder because I've realized that my expectations were indeed higher than my circumstances. I was just a naive oblivious idiot and life has now shown me that. It's sad but I now have just let go. I still am working towards stuff just playing to my strengths and inclinations instead of my wants.
That's a good quote, but it suggests that unhappy people are those who overthink and have unrealistic expectations, whereas truly happy people have expectations that match their reality. so in the end, maybe smart people are those who are better at setting their expectations compared to others (maybe more ambitious type A folk)
> whereas truly happy people have expectations that match their reality
By your hypothesis people who are poor, at the bottom of society, and told that they have no chance in life are the most happy ones.
Additionally, it imples that a great way to make people happy is to brainwash them all the time that they have no chance in life, and additionally suppress them so that their expectations match their reality.
This whole idea feels deeply wrong and dystopian to me.
Yes, it feels wrong and dystopian but I think there is a hint of truth there? We're all happier when we're brainwashed by mindless feeds on our phones. Then, once we snap out of it, we're supremely unhappy when we realize that what's in our feeds is not our reality.
Computers are just electrons moving. Biology is just phyics. See how little that explains?
The whole is greater than the sum of its parts, even if it's still encoded in the parts.
I get the sentiment though. Happiness is a mix of the right hormones firing, so the question is: how does intelligence affect different types of hormones, if at all. Given how sensitive our hormones are, it would be difficult to control only for “intelligence”.
By that logic, "How does loved one dying affect different type of hormones, if at all. Given how sensitive our hormones are, it would be difficult to control only for 'loss of a loved one'".
If you have depression or another condition affecting your affect and your emotions, sure. Otherwise it's pretty obvious to anyone that concepts on orders of magnitude higher levels than hormones being correlated with happiness, or if you prefer, those concepts having a significant effect on the overall action of those hormones.
Loss of a loved one is a very specific event, intelligence is a very broad idea that isn't even well defined. I have no idea what this means: "concepts on orders of magnitude higher levels than hormones". I guess your intelligence is just much higher than mine.
Putting aside that they are not optimized but just happen to have an effect, would you claim that these are the only things that affect happiness/its relevant chemicals?
I'm sorry, but I don't think that makes sense, and that it's pretty obvious that it doesn't.
I don't have experience with cocaine, but as a Bavarian I made plenty of experience with alcohol. I've never been addicted, but I had my fair share of Oktoberfest and beer garden visits. And yet you don't see my optimizing my life around it. In fact, nowadays I have a beer every few months if even, simply because most of my hobbies don't work well with alcohol.
As for cocaine: As I said, no experience, but it appears to me that even very wealthy people who probably consume it also still do other things in life, despite not having to for income etc.
In my experience that is the case. I haven't gone to the gym for a few weeks now, because after years of doing it, I no longer feel anything. I go to Walmart every day and buy Apple juice and Kit Kat, and that does very little, incomparable to taking pleasure-optimized drugs.
You just get used to chemicals as well and need more and more, and stronger ones. Alcoholics are not happy when drinking, they are miserable if they are not drinking. That's a completely different world.
The widely held notion that happiness (or lack thereof) is simply the result of chemical (im)balances is one of the greatest PR victories of the pharmaceutical industry.
Happiness chemicals are the end result, and end result we cannot cause directly, anyway. What leads you there, how the process involves your particular brain and environment, and how it acts as a feedback loop are a higher concern.
Even if one day you could just squirt the cocktail directly into your receptors or otherwise trick them, there's more to happiness as a part of life than turning yourself into a vegetable, but I digress.
But then there's cases where an intelligent person can devise a perfect plan to reach happiness. Do the right habits, sleep, diet, exercise, relationships, therapy, medications, do everything according to science that should make us happy. But still never be "happy" or feel "satisfied".
Are you not aware that many psych drugs that modify brain chemistry fail to work for people? Even when they are tested to have adequate or high levels?
chemicals are released by one part of the brain and interpreted by another. the parts of the brain that release those chemicals release it when that part of the brain is stimulated. this kind of mental stimulation can be heavily reliant on quality of life.
"Asking why smart people aren't happier is a bit like asking why people who can jump high aren't more empathetic. There's no direct link between the two"
- I disagree. If we consider happiness, as we should, as something that can be achieved and not simply granted (for example, the ability to walk is granted, it is not something that humans, apart from pathologies and special cases, have to develop through conscious effort), there should be a positive correlation between intelligence and happiness.
To jump higher than you currently can, assuming there is no coach to develop a program, you need to understand what the limiting factors are and train to improve the functioning of the “mechanism,” for example, by losing weight, increasing maximum and explosive strength, using the correct jumping technique, etc.
I believe that often the most intelligent people tend to enjoy thinking more than doing, and thinking too much does not lead to being happier or jumping higher. The limiting factor, more often than not, is not thinking, assuming sufficient intelligence, but the execution part.
I remember reading on Twitter a few years ago about an academic researcher explaining how they had come to the conclusion that exercise would improve their quality of life. They cited a series of articles, reasoned in terms of life expectancy and biomarkers, and concluded that exercise would be a net positive factor in their lives. A lot of neurotic reasoning that needs to quibble over the obvious before taking action.
I agree with this. I quibble with the wording "enjoy" thinking. It's probably also true, but it's not always the enjoyment of it, but a general propensity to overthink or dig into the weeds more, with the resulting less actual doing.
And if you dig into the weeds enough, you can find alternatives and counterarguments which can lead to analysis paralysis.
I add that most problems are solved, assuming possessing the average (maybe even sub-average) intelligence needed to execute on them.
Think about weight loss: it's a solved problem, except in extremely rare cases of particular pathologies. Or think about being more attractive to the people we want to attract.
But you can't help but notice that the smartest people are the ones who invoke the laws of thermodynamics and the problems that arise from them, that a calorie is not a calorie in humans, for example, instead of simply eating less, as many less intelligent people intuitively know they should do, and do.
The most intelligent are those who refer to the findings of evolutionary biology, or to largely irrelevant social trends and mores, when pondering why they cannot get laid, instead of working to be more assertive, confident, outgoing, and fit, as the less intelligent are more likely to do, without thinking about it too much.
Or the endless conversations and debates, mostly online because in real life basically nobody cares, about God and religion and atheism, leading, as usual, to nowhere, while the less intelligent intuitively believe or not and that works for them.
As usual, there are selection effects at play, and we notice what we want to notice, ignoring, for the most part, other portions of the distribution of outcomes.
Nowadays, it is fashionable to say "you can just do things". And what some of the intelligent people miss is that they can just be happy. "But how can I be happy if nobody looks at me?" -- See above.
I can tell you I do not enjoy thinking. I hate it. It is a compulsion that I cannot avoid. I know that it makes most interactions in my life more difficult. I know it's a source of unhappiness. I cannot stop thinking.
I want to do. Not think. I fail to do. I think about failure.
Two things. First, not all smart people are overthinkers and not all overthinkers are smart.
Second, I find that a great way to change one's self-damaging behavior is, rather than the therapy that is often recommended, to try to be as much as possible, relatively speaking, in the company of people who behave the way we would like to.
For the person who wants to exercise, but for some psychological hang-ups, can't, the company of people who exercise tends to be much more effective than finding out the root causes of the behavior. The same for thinking too much, eating too much, not being able to talk to other people.
Meditation teaches that your thoughts are uncontrolled expressions of your subconcious; as are your worries, your fears, your anxieties.
To meditate is not to stop thinking thoughts, but to observe them as they spontaneously appear, and - just as quickly - disappear. To recognize that you are not the thinker of your thoughts. To view them from a place of detachment and curious observation, instead of a place of investment and worry.
May I recommend an alternative to Eastern Meditation practices?
The alternative is Autogenic Training (AT), a method invented by Dr. Schultz a century ago. It is a well-tested scientific approach, and the outcomes are generally very positive, if not life-changing.
AT does not involve interpreting obscure texts written thousands of years ago in other languages and referring to ways of life that have long been forgotten.
AT does not require silent retreats or attending workshops and seminars at the end of which you are more confused than before. It is simple and just requires following the steps outlined by Schultz and his students.
I am surprised that it is not popular at all, but its strengths are also its weaknesses. Most people long for the esoteric and unexplained, while AT is clear, easy to understand and practice.
Like people refer to meditation and don't explain all the process involved in one of the traditions because there is a wealth of information available, I would much prefer to answer to specific questions on the practice instead of copying and pasting from Wikipedia, which I am doing now.
"The technique involves repetitions of a set of visualisations accompanied by vocal suggestions that induce a state of relaxation and is based on passive concentration of bodily perceptions like heaviness and warmth of limbs, which are facilitated by self-suggestions.Autogenic training is used to alleviate many stress-induced psychosomatic disorders"
The formulas are six: heaviness, warmth, heart beating regularly and strongly, calm breath, warm solar plexus, and cool forehead.
There's no vocal suggestion (the Wikipedia article is wrong in that regard), the formulas are repeated silently. It's a much more effective practice of the hocus-pocus that is often meditation of the Eastern tradition, especially the bastardized variety adopted in the West, and there are plenty of books and papers available on the results of scientific studies that measure the effect on soma and psyche of AT.
> Asking why smart people aren't happier is a bit like asking why people who can jump high aren't more empathetic. There's no direct link between the two, you have to dip out to the material conditions.
I think the reason to expect a correlation is simple: Intelligence should produce a better ability to recognize patterns and identify the most useful ones. In a chaotic world, the things that can lead to a desired outcome are not always clear. It takes time and reasoning to cut through the noise and figure out how to get things done. There is absolutely a reason to suspect that reasoning faster and abstractly would make this easier, and thus produce more overall rewards.
Anytime intelligence is not associated with something, I interpret that to mean the topic is likely not a "hard" min/max problem.
Turns out, most of the human aspect of life is not a hard min/max problem.
I'd take a different answer to this question: philosophy. In times before Abrahamic religion developing or adopting a life philosophy was seen as a practical obligation for a man. This is where you saw the rise of everything from the Pythagorean to the Stoics. It seems that the rise of Abrahamic religions is what largely brought an end to this and mandated a sort of one-size-fits-all philosophy for everybody.
Now in modern times many people have moved away from religion, yet most aren't replacing that philosophical void with anything comparable. And I think this naturally leads to things like hedonism which is completely unsatisfying over time, or even nihilism which is even less satisfying. One could even argue this issue is directly related to the collapse of fertility in developed nations.
I think that a personal life philosophy is absolutely critical for having a contended life. And I use contended instead of 'happy' as part of my own philosophy of life. I don't think happiness is or should be a goal. Happiness is a naturally liminal emotion. And seeking to extend it is only likely to leave one 'unhappy', so to speak. So instead I think we should pursue contentedness. Being satisfied or pleased with one's life does not mean one is necessarily happy, but it certainly means you're content with it.
Or maybe we've made life so expensive (in time or money, but "time is money") for people even before having kids that they don't want to or feel they can't take on the extra load of being parents.
Edit: this isn't a very different take from yours, TBH.
I think that is a significant factor as well - we can debate how related or not it is. I think in this case, there was a gradual ratcheting effect of how much work is extracted from people who would otherwise be contributing to childcare i.e. "the village" of elder people and women. No doubt this has a separate negative impact on the fertility rate. All IMO though, these are speculations without rigorous quantitative backing.
IMO, the birth rate drops to replacement level when women are freed. It's additional pressures that collapse it from replacement (or a slow decline 1.9) to South Korean levels.
People overwhelmingly view the ideal number of children to have as way more than we're having. [1] So people are likely choosing to not having children for other reasons.
Here [1] is a poll on desire to have children. The percent of Americans that do not want children is negligible, about 6%. So asking about the ideal number of children to have and comparing that against the number of children that people end up having is a very valuable datum. Because it may be that somebody sees the ideal number as e.g. 3, but only expect for themselves to be able to have 1.
I'm not sure if you cited that because it's the first to come up in a web search but the fact that "undecided" was not an option is a red flag in my mind.
"When asked about having children, 51% of young adults who are not parents say they would like to have children one day. Three-in-ten say they’re not sure, and 18% say they don’t want to have children."
The survey questions [1] have more details than the article. They offered a 'no opinion' choice which was rarely taken. As for what you linked to, you have to be aware of studies of small samples. The number I gave (about 6% not wanting kids) and what you referenced are probably not incompatible. It's just that when you filter down to people aged up to 34 with no children, you're obviously going to artificially inflate that percent because you're excluding everybody having children.
In other words, imagine if 70% of people that want to have children have had at least one child by the age of 34. So we start with e.g. 100 people where 6 don't want to have children (appealing to the 94/6 ratio from the older study). Then we remove 70% of the 94 that do and we're left with 28 that do and 6 that don't, so now the 'don't want' group make up 18% of the total sample. And I think 70% of people that want to have children, having had at least one child by 34, is a very reasonable ballpark.
Check out the questions [2] they asked, in the study you linked, and you can see that you end up with a highly unrepresentative sample of society: 33% live with their parents, 19% are unemployed, 44% receive financial assistance from their parents, and they're democrat:republican at a near 2:1 ratio.
I will day that I'm struggling to align these survey questions with human nature as I understand it.
I have a friend who "wants kids" and two different women, when they reached a certain age in their 30s, signaled they wanted to marry him and have kids.
But they both exhibited red flags that caused him to decline. One woman didn't act like she liked him, even though she was also saying she wanted to settle down together.
The other woman was unwilling to discuss how they'd raise the children given the fact they were from different religious backgrounds.
Given he's now in his 40s he'll likely never have kids.
I suppose if he was super passionate about kids he'd enter an unhappy marriage and make sure he got some kids out of it, before possibly ending up divorced.
So wanting children was more a conditional thing than a binary thing, and I don't know if these surveys can capture that.
I can't say too much about that exact scenario, but I think a practical issue for people is waiting for the perfect conditions. And in general, those perfect conditions never come, yet the years fly by so incredibly fast.
And for women this is particularly true. Because in practical terms you're going to have at least a couple of years between kids. At the minimum this is because their cycle is suppressed while breast feeding, and then it generally takes a number of months to get pregnant, even moreso if somebody is in their 30s, let alone 40s. And so if you want to have 3 kids, it's a practical necessity to start very early - that's pushing towards a decade of time.
So modern society is really rather a lie in this regard, and I think that's been quite harmful. Because this lie is encouraging all of us (male and female alike), to push parenthood out later and later. And that dramatically increases the odds that 'later' eventually becomes never.
The miniscule amount of written work that survives to the present really makes it difficult to do any more than speculate about the philosophies broadly held in the times before Abrahamic religion.
Abrahamic religion didn't really became a major factor in the world until Constantine. So for instance for the entirety of Ancient Greece and the majority of Ancient Rome, Abrahamic religions had no meaningful influence, and there are extensive writings from this time. But while I think it's useful to consider their views, I again think the real goal is to develop one's own philosophy.
We all have different perspectives on life. For instance many things that people all value like freedom and security, are mutually exclusive at extremes. In ancient times one could also see a wide array of philosophies that all sought a similar end of 'happiness' or contentedness, yet they took radically different perspectives on the way to achieve such - e.g. stoicism vs epicureanism.
But these are issues that many people simply never stop to even consider what they think about, and so they drift somewhat aimlessly which I think is going to make it very difficult to find contentedness and direction in life.
I think it's fair to say that "Abrahamic Religion" here means specifically "Christianity and Islam". Judaism arguably encourages exactly the sort of philosophy you're talking about, and other Abrahamic offshoots like Druze are not influential.
That said I'm not actually fully convinced that Christianity and Islam discourage personal philosophy in the way that you say. The Greek philosophies you mention were largely the playground of the Greek elite, and plenty of parallels exist in the Middle Ages and beyond. I don't know that personal philosophical enlightenment from a random subsistence farmer is any different between the two eras.
Fair point, though I'm not entirely sure the shape that Judaism took in its relatively early days. But one thing I'd say is that the same remains true to this day. The people suffering for lack of meaning and direction, and casting aside religion, are not the people working the fields. Such work provides a sort of meaning and comfort all its own, as the work is inherently virtuous. It's people with relatively leisurely and highly compensated but completely meaningless and unnecessary (and even socially detrimental) work, that are left to search for meaning in it all.
I think happiness is an inevitable byproduct of honestly following your innate sense of self. Intelligent people can be dishonest with themselves, not know themselves and be (more) capable of lying to themselves and coming up with justifications to do what they mentally want (rather than following their innate sense), thereby trapping themselves in endless dishonest but justified loops.
This tracks with what I've seen. Greater "capability" can imbue a greater ability to lie, cheat, deceive oneself, or others, and generally create all sorts of complicated problems, be them internal or external
You could also say that the hedonic treadmill runs faster. Getting a result that takes a smart person a day instead of lets say a week means repeating that 7 times (successfully) to feel like the week was well spent.
>Asking why smart people aren't happier is a bit like asking why people who can jump high aren't more empathetic.
I laughed at this. However, I have to slightly disagree. I think there is a connection. I find the smarter people I know are actually happy, but they tend to be people who read books, who follow the news, and who care about the world at large and that is something that can easily make you sad. I'm not saying you need to be extra smart to do those things, I'm saying that smart people tend to do those things more than others.
> It's things like relationships, satisfying work, accomplishment. (and many, many more)
Thats absolutely wrong and this is the reason why nothing works and being happy became and endless quest in the western culture.
In the eastern spiritual tradition they found the exact ways of managing body, mind, emotions and energy to reach highest peaks of bliss and ecstasy, and I speak from my own experience, its possible to feel so good that no amount of money, relationships, fame, power, whatever other things you can imagine will make you ever feel.
Because the real thing is happening inside, all the outside things you use to try to provoke inner experience, but it only works for a little bit.
> Might be useful to ask a different question: What makes people happy?
This is the age old question. For me at least, the quest for meaning lead me to reason. Reason and logic, then led me to two choices. First is there is no meaning, no purpose, and life is what you make or not make of it; this is more commonly known as nihilism. The second choice is a literal leap of faith; this argues that humans are incapable of understanding of the purpose of life and we need to have faith in the existence of a benevolent God. The leap of faith ultimately leads me back to the question of what is God? Catholic tradition defines God as the source of caritas also known as agape.
It might be the case that the nuance is insufficient (false dichotomy).
Suppose someone asks the [emotionally loaded] question:
"Is abortion wrong?"
Technically this is a yes or no question; a binary.
One can quite easily answer that it depends, and then all the nuances can try to be enumerated in more detail. The fact is that the information presented was not actually nuanced enough to answer yes or no despite being worded as such.
You performed some similar gymnastics here. You assume it must be the case that it is one or the other when it may not be. Maybe meaning is local. Maybe it is real but subjective. Maybe it isn't a meaningful term (lol). Maybe it contains an intrinsic paradox!
A perhaps alternative question might be: "What is it that wishes to know the answer to that question?"
Figuring that out might be a necessary prerequisite.
It is morally wrong as you are destroying life. If you widen the frame, the question is who should be making this choice. I would argue the mother should make this choice even if it is morally wrong. It is morally wrong because I took a leap of faith that human life from birth to conception is precious.
Reason and logic lead you to only two choices, where one choice immediately begs you to abandon reason and logic and just believe what feels right? I think reason and logic can take you further than that. We can explore a spectrum of ideas without committing immediately.
The point is that you actually cannot explore a spectrum of ideas without committing immediately because you are forced to live and living forces you to commit and make moral decisions every day.
I subscribe to the notion that morals are emotion based propositions and thus aren't quite as grounded in pure logic. As in there is not an objective morality, just things we know to be good and bad that are abstracted away from direct experience. Nothing wrong with that, but as feeling beings, we don't need to hugely ponder the vast spectrum of ideas to determine within ourselves what is "good" and what is "bad". Always worth thinking about second and third and x order effects of a certain moral judgement, and this is where logic comes in to the picture, but definitely trust your intuition in the meantime and don't put yourself into a box. You're welcome to not commit to a concrete worldview until you're comfortable, while still being a decent person.
I think you've hit on something important with work and accomplishment. I've heard software developers say over and over again they don't feel like they've actually accomplished anything when they complete some coding task. It's not just bug fixes, but tasks in general. Some of them take up hobbies like woodworking, where the results of your work are something tangible you can see and touch. But it's not just software development, a lot of jobs involve work that seemingly produces nothing despite the time and effort spent. It's not hard to see why so many people find their work miserable.
Yeah I mean literally cleaning my house, watching dirt suck up, and reorganizing can be much more satisfying than fixing some stubborn backend systems bug that takes years of knowledge to have the mental tools to fix - lol
> How many of those happiness 'sources' are made better by intelligence?
Well, theoretically all of them, depending on how you define "intelligence" and, oh boy, if the last 3-ish years have taught me anything, it's definitely not that.
I think there is some value in being able to live in the moment, like say a cat: one moment you have a death scare, the next you're kind of hungry or sleepy. I feel that smart people see a lot more in the past, present and future, all the things themselves, and the things behind the things, and it's a whole lot harder to live in the moment and not ruminate and dwell on things.
Alternatively, maybe it's just that overthinking that is driving some aspect of what we call intelligence; the ability to plan and see things in complex layers.
Good amounts of happiness surely require some selective blindness.
Don't most people have their own base level of happiness? Some people are just always happier than others, regardless of circumstances. It's a personality trait.
It also varies during one's life. During my twenties, internal/intellectual stimulation was 90% of what I was seeking. After 35~ the need for family, social bonding, overshadowed that pretty much completely. I still need and like intellectual growth, but only after the other needs are taken care of. Being smart for its own sake kinda hurts now.
Technically, it's hormones. What makes brains produce them is the perceptions of external world, but the details are different for every culture and then different for every individual.
Now, proverbially, more knowledge brings more sadness^W stress, so perceptive people must have extra hurdles to overcome than blissfully ignorant ones.
Smarts can impact all thos heavily. Relationships get complicated after years of exclusion and jealousy, work might not be as satifying if you see all the problems and solutions and things that are accopmplishments might not feel like they are.
These are very common and well documented issues among gifted people.
There are explanations for the equal happiness stats other than the validity of IQ tests. People’s top goal might be something other than happiness. Happiness and other goals might trade off. Happiness reports may be relative to an expected baseline that’s higher for smart people.
Yep, and the logical chain itself can often be pretty clear where the discrepancy lies. In order for it to have a noticeable effect, you'd need to be looking at people smart enough to correctly identify circumstances that will make them happy in advance and then be able to influence things in average more than factors outside their control influence them. I don't think most "smart" people are more smart than life is random, without even getting into how common the requisite level of self-awareness is.
> It's things like relationships, satisfying work, accomplishment. (and many, many more)
That's the point. Smarter people tend to have more stable relationships, satisfying work, accomplishments. ( and many, many more ).
> How many of those happiness 'sources' are made better by intelligence?
All of them. You get better jobs with intelligence. You achieve greater accomplishments via intelligence. And your relationships tend to be better because you are in a far better position intellectually, socially and financially.
> There's no direct link between the two
You are contradicting yourself here. There is a direct link to the criteria you listed - relationships, satisfying work, accomplishment.
> Smart people are better able to create the outcomes they want > They select outcomes that make them happy > Their environment makes them happy > Smart people are happier.
No. The problem is that intelligent people eventually realize that all of it is fleeting and utlimately meaningless - relationships, work, accomplishments. (and many, many more).
Yeah, I suspect the reason the author didn't find a relationship between IQ and happiness / life satisfaction is probably because those studies were overcontrolling for intermediate variables. If money makes us happier and people with high IQ make more money, you will underestimate the relationship if you control for income.
> These are the only types of meaning that matters
They may or may not be the only types of meaning that matter. Regardless, the fleeting nature of those moments ultimately make them meaningless and most people are not happy about it.
> and its fleeting nature is why we need to appreciate and savor them.
We can appreciate those moments. We can savor those moments. But we can't be happy about the fleeting nature of it. For most people, the fleeting nature of those moments are a source of sadness. It's why smart people invented religion or other means of rationalization to bring permanence and meaning to the impermanent and meaningless.
Smart people tend to realize this and hence are sadden by it. Some accept it. Some use religion/rationalization as a form of escapism. But the truth is the truth.
I have an opportunity to try this, and I am absolutely horrified at the prospects. I've just got a bad feeling about it. Plus, I am on a medication that is quite dangerous to mix with it, so that further complicated matters.
I think its much simpler. Look around at your country, at the world. Who is most celebrated, who is biggest achiever, who gets most ladies/men (stupid metric but works fine on our animal side and we are still animals deep down). People celebrate that piece of sh*t musk for ffs because he is a good manager/sales guy, while ignoring deeply flawed amoral person behind.
Its very rarely a smart decent person (and most smart folks are decent), those end up as quiet grey mouse in some lab or university position, seldom recognized for their added value. Extroverts, aggressive (to certain point at least), self-centered narcissistic egomaniacs seem to take the cake since ancient times. Those (and worse) are true decision makers, those people shape the world and its to their liking, which usually far off from what smart folks prefer seeing.
Another reason - once you are way above the crowd, you realize how stupid people often behave, how easily is to manipulate those via emotions like hate, envy, fear or inferiority complex(magas are a prime example but such folks are everywhere). If they destroy just their lives with their stupidity who cares, but since everything is connected in societies and we have ie elections, it permeates everybody's lives and you have little defense. You know the situation - clearly a stupid decision that shoots off one's foot, yet crowds cheers and yell for it, willing to fight for it. And smart decent folks are dragged along whether they like or approve it or not. It can be on a small scale but also national/global level. Who wouldn't be frustrated, continuously, during their whole lives?
Also warfare, almost always a supremely stupid move that is a loss for mankind as a whole while very few benefit. Yet look around. We should be reaching to the stars, fixing our environment properly so we can actually look in our children's and grandchildren's faces without a deep shame, yet look where world is heading steadily.
To be happy these days, you have to have lowish IQ or be an utter ignorant, or both. I can find some smaller pieces of joy like kids, hikes or other sports in mountains and so on, but I have to keep ignoring big picture continuously, how powerful do harm all of us.
It's things like relationships, satisfying work, accomplishment. (and many, many more)
Then the real question emerges: How many of those happiness 'sources' are made better by intelligence? What percentage?
Relationships? Seems like no. Work? Also seems like no, lots of work doesn't make use of a high IQ that people enjoy nonetheless. Accomplishment? Strikes me as most likely of the three, but it's also very relative.
And another thought,
Asking why smart people aren't happier is a bit like asking why people who can jump high aren't more empathetic. There's no direct link between the two, you have to dip out to the material conditions. Like: someone who can jump high is fitter > fitter people are healthier > healthier people have more mental time to be empathetic with > people who can jump high are more empathetic. For intelligence, we say smart people are happier. Same thing, happiness is not directly correlated. Instead: Smart people are better able to create the outcomes they want > They select outcomes that make them happy > Their environment makes them happy > Smart people are happier. (These are illustrations of the idea, not actual logical chains or claims.)