Comments on: Mysteries of life

By: Andri

Andri — Tue, 19 May 2009 21:28:01 +0000

That some of a group of 268 men of great privilege and wealth had varied and fascinating lives is surprising? This study seems to mix voyeurism with the romantic fancy of finding the ‘success factor.’ That it awes Mr. Brooks is telling: it’s an awesome conversation piece for the sermorati.

By: LFC

LFC — Mon, 18 May 2009 23:00:27 +0000

The post makes a good point. I would add that the Schenk article, which I read quickly yesterday, suggests some ways in which Vaillant’s own background and life history, not surprisingly, might have influenced his interpretations of the data. This is not directly relevant to Henry’s point, but I thought it was one of the most interesting parts—actually the most interesting part—of the article.

By: Patrick S. O'Donnell

Patrick S. O'Donnell — Mon, 18 May 2009 12:42:02 +0000

There’s knowledge and there’s “knowledge:”

The statement presumes or assumes that the knowledge being spoken of here is of the evidentiary sort that would satisfy social scientists and others insofar as it arises from a (more or less) detailed examination of the relevant empirical data. In other words, thousands of years ago, any such claim to knowledge of this sort would have lacked the requisite empirical evidence (if only becaus the means and methods of modern science were not available) to render it plausible or persuasive according to the standards of post-Enlightenment science.

By: PGD

PGD — Mon, 18 May 2009 04:46:37 +0000

“We have known for over 150 years that an individual’s life and death are patterned according to social class: the more affluent and better educated people are, the longer and healthier their lives.

Actually, “we” have known this for thousands of years.

By: James Kroeger

James Kroeger — Sat, 16 May 2009 03:16:48 +0000

Henry:

Feel free to argue – but on the specifics of the argument.

Such a reasonable request…

By: nnyhav

nnyhav — Sat, 16 May 2009 02:28:44 +0000

DSM-IV? is that IM abbr for dismissive? in turn a compression of disrespectful missive? which is what commentboxing is?

By: Walt

Walt — Sat, 16 May 2009 02:14:04 +0000

Only people with borderline personality disorder insist that we argue only on the specifics of the argument. You can look it up in the DSM-IV.

By: Henry

Henry — Sat, 16 May 2009 01:59:32 +0000

Thanks all, but we will please leave our armchair psychiatric diagnoses of other commenters outside the door. Feel free to argue – but on the specifics of the argument.

By: James Kroeger

James Kroeger — Sat, 16 May 2009 01:38:36 +0000

Kroeger here is a whole new kind of crazy.

Pitkin here is very familiar...a victimizer who seeks to declare the virtues he perceives in himself indirectly through his attack on some third party. We are left to infer---and we do so easily---that he must necessarily be free of the faults that he points out in others and that he deserves credit for it. He [again implicitly] invites you to join in his ridicule so that you may also pat yourselves on the back for your great virtues. This indirect method of expressing praise for yourself is widely embraced within our culture. Certain political parties habitually depend on these kinds of group comparisons to get themselves elected. They define themselves indirectly, by heaping scorn and ridicule on their political rivalries. It is an inspiration that leads to much evil.

By: lemuel pitkin

lemuel pitkin — Sat, 16 May 2009 00:23:23 +0000

Kroeger here is a whole new kind of crazy.

By: James Kroeger

James Kroeger — Fri, 15 May 2009 22:06:51 +0000

From Shenk’s article:

How is it that children are often found to be a source of “negative affect” (sadness, anger)—yet people identify children as their greatest source of pleasure?

Happy people are happy not only because they are experiencing a lot of need-satisfaction (little or no need-deprivation), but also because they expect much need-satisfaction in the future. This is a very, very important aspect of the Happiness Equation, the fact that we spend most of our mental lives in a state of anticipation of the future.

If we expect to experience the pain of need-dissatisfaction in the near future, or if it appears that a once-hoped-for need-satisfaction moment is not likely to occur, we will not be ‘happy’, no matter how much need-satisfaction we might be experiencing at the present moment.

So it is probably fair to say that we have a ‘need’ to be able to expect need-satisfaction in the future (or that need-deprivation will be avoided in the future). If this need is satisfied, we are rewarded with ‘psychic pleasure.’ If it is deprived, we suffer the pain of fear.

As needs go, this need for ‘hope’ is one that can provide compensating mental pleasure that is able to ameliorate to a certain degree the pain that we might otherwise be experiencing. This is why sick people can be comforted by the reassuring words/actions of those who are caring for them, who tell them that pain relief will be coming in the future.

Children give us a great deal of pleasure—-in spite of the pain they bring to us—-because we anticipate that our sacrifices are actually investments that will eventually be rewarded with the pleasure of need-satisfaction (displays of gratitude). If/when the time arrives when a parent no longer anticipates that her sacrifices will be eventually rewarded with gratitude, she will no longer be ‘happy.’

By: Chris

Chris — Fri, 15 May 2009 20:36:47 +0000

Start from the now-recognized fact that bullies enjoy high levels of self-esteem and then understand where they get their self-esteem from: the many moments when they have castigated others for perceived imperfections.

Hmm, I would attribute this to exactly the reverse: since they have such high opinions of themselves, they don’t hesitate to cast the first stone at others. I.e. self-righteousness as a driver of aggression.

Could be a vicious cycle, too.

By: gabe

gabe — Fri, 15 May 2009 20:36:24 +0000

I’ve been reading Bourdieu again recently, and he certainly is guilty of implying that there are huge psychological benefits to being in the ‘dominant class’ (see also Bauman, Beck, Sennett). So I think on a charitable reading, this is what the article could be getting it (i.e. – where sociology stops, psychotherapy starts).

By: Currence

Currence — Fri, 15 May 2009 18:04:16 +0000

21: Hmm, I would have thought that perhaps this suggests that suicide isn’t the bogeyman it’s made out to be; that living a good and fulfilling life, by one’s own lights, isn’t necessarily incompatible with also wanting to have and actually exercising control over one’s demise; that people commit suicide for many reasons other than “I am unhappy”, e.g. conceptions of a “good death”, the importance of autonomy and willingness to tread one’s own path, etc. But I guess not, that’s crazy talk!

By: marcel

marcel — Fri, 15 May 2009 17:30:08 +0000

Preachy Preach at 8 above: Replace your 2nd line with the ones below: Do you get a funny feeling, When you bounce 'em off the ceiling?