Scientists Say Smart People Are Better Off With Fewer Friends 206
HughPickens.com writes: Christopher Ingraham writes in the Washington Post that a new study finds that when smart people spend more time with their friends, it makes them less happy. "The findings in here suggest (and it is no surprise) that those with more intelligence and the capacity to use it ... are less likely to spend so much time socializing because they are focused on some other longer term objective," says Carol Graham, a Brookings Institution researcher who studies the economics of happiness. According to Graham you should think of the really smart people you know. They may include a doctor trying to cure cancer or a writer working on the great American novel or a human rights lawyer working to protect the most vulnerable people in society. To the extent that frequent social interaction detracts from the pursuit of these goals, it may negatively affect their overall satisfaction with life. (More, below.)
Hugh Pickens continues: Kanazawa and Li's theory of happiness starts with the premise that the human brain evolved to meet the demands of our ancestral environment on the African savanna, where the population density was akin to what you'd find today in, say, rural Alaska (less than one person per square kilometer). Take a brain evolved for that environment, plop it into today's Manhattan (population density: 27,685 people per square kilometer), and you can see how you'd get some evolutionary friction. "Our ancestors lived as hunter–gatherers in small bands of about 150 individuals," Kanazawa and Li explain. "In such settings, having frequent contact with lifelong friends and allies was likely necessary for survival and reproduction for both sexes." If you're smarter and more able to adapt to things, you may have an easier time reconciling your evolutionary predispositions with the modern world. Accordingly smarter people may be better-equipped to jettison that whole hunter-gatherer social network — especially if they're pursuing some loftier ambition. "Whatever the explanation might prove to be, this obviously doesn't mean smart people don't like having friends," says Emma Cueto. "But it does probably mean that they don't enjoy having too many — after all, keeping track of lots of people does usually involve, you know, talking to them. So if you're naturally more of a loner, congratulations! It might be a sign of intelligence."
Probably true for everyone (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Probably true for everyone (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, however, setting aside the number of friends, the more interesting matter of concern is how much time you spend with the friends you have.
Some people get a significant chemical payoff when engaging in recreational activities with their friends. So, doing a lot of that maximizes their satisfaction with life. Other people get significant chemical payoff from cultivating their mental abilities (studying and/or applying those abilities towards a meaningful goal). Such people can enjoy (and need) some recreational time with their friends, but not nearly as much. Too much and they will start to feel like they are wasting time and falling behind schedule (even if there isn't a schedule). They maximize their happiness by spending less time with friends (and family).
It is popular to portray such people as selfish, and usually miserable because of their selfishness. This meme is a cultural troll; it is nothing more than one group insisting that their tastes are superior to the tastes of another. It is also defensive, seeing as how people who spend more time focused on the acquisition and utilization of intellectual skills tend to accomplish more and make more money than people who just watch football all day. These attitudes should be seen as pedestrian, and flatly rejected.
Re:Probably true for everyone (Score:5, Informative)
It seems to me (as a confessed introvert) that the dominant culture in the USA - and hence one of the most popular cultures in most of the developed world - is strongly extravert. To stereotype mercilessly, most Americans are seen as energetic, conscientious, achievement-oriented team workers. This is especially so in corporate and government environments, for fairly obvious reasons. Since all human strengths have (indeed, are) complementary weaknesses, this entails being somewhat superficial, outer-directed, over-sensitive to consensus, and averse to solitary thought or study. One consequence is that introverts often find themselves feeling excluded, undervalued, or even (in extreme cases) considered as suffering from mental illness.
That's unfortunate, not only begans introverts have just as much right to live their own lives in the way they prefer as extraverts, but also because a lot of progress depends on introverts. Not to say that extraverts can't accomplish a huge amount too - but often the really big breakthroughs, which require focused attention for many months or years on end, have been made by introverts. It would be great if we could ever adjust our social perceptions to accept the whole spectrum of introversion/extraversion.
For a good introduction, anyone unfamiliar with the topic should try http://www.ted.com/talks/susan... [ted.com]
Re: (Score:2)
the dominant culture in the USA - and hence one of the most popular cultures in most of the developed world - is strongly extravert.
No, they're just more outgoing about it :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Sampling bias (Score:2)
To stereotype mercilessly, most Americans are seen as energetic, conscientious, achievement-oriented team workers.
And how are stereotypes formed?
- Peoples' personal experiences with the subjects of the stereotype, followed by their communicating about it.
- Media presentations.
And what sort of sampling bias does this introduce?
- Extroerts will be out interacting with others and going to other places while introverts are tooling away in private or small groups.
- Media productio
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Probably true for everyone (Score:4, Insightful)
Surely "emotional intelligence" is rather a new concept, and not one that is rigorously defined? That may seem like quibbling, but I think it's actually very important - indeed essential. Because the definition of a sociopath includes being charming, manipulative and very convincing. In other words, if you see a sociopath as a black box, he behaves exactly like someone with superb emotional intelligence. You may argue that it's not real, that he doesn't have the genuine emotions or empathy - but if the practical outcome is exactly the same, what difference does it make?
Re: (Score:2)
You may argue that it's not real, that he doesn't have the genuine emotions or empathy - but if the practical outcome is exactly the same, what difference does it make?
The difference is the sociopath is, even unconsciously, trying to manipulate the people around them so they get their supply of others suffering. An emotionally intelligent person has no need for such a supply, their actions may not be altruistic however they aren't designed to cause suffering.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
An emotionally intelligent person's actions, however, are completely about trying to manipulate the people around them so they get their supply of whatever it is that they want.
As I said, their actions may not be altruistic. Achieving goals is different from wanting to make people suffer. The important distinction is empathy and the effect of having it usually because of suffering adversity themselves.
If you've ever experienced the destructiveness of a sociopath you would understand the difference.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't have to have an anxiety disorder as you describe (feeling like they're wasting time when they're not).
They might still be happier when doing something intellectual than they are the second or third hour "hanging out," without any discontent in either situation.
Re:Probably true for everyone (Score:5, Funny)
Some people get a significant chemical payoff when engaging in recreational activities with their friends ;D
Come one, name it as it is: beer or wine! Sometimes even Whiskey
Re:Probably true for everyone (Score:5, Interesting)
I hate to use the old phrase "quality time" but it comes to mind here. I have a handful of very good friends with whom I interact regularly but not constantly. I don't need or want more than that, and they don't either. So when we do get together, it's terrific. I think there would be rapidly diminishing returns if we got together more and more often.
Email is fine to stay in touch day to day (which doesn't necessarily translate as 'daily' in all cases). We are all really busy, like-minded people, which is probably why we're friends.
I don't understand the idea of calling and talking on the phone for hours daily, or the modern equivalent of texting every other minute. Now, many people do that. I'm not being critical. To each his or her own. Whatever makes you happy.
Drinking beer and watching football at the bar with buddies doesn't do it for me. And, lest you accuse me of being judgmental (when I just said above that I'm not!) --- this puts me outside the mainstream, and many if not most of those football/bar people do judge me for not being "social" enough.
It took me way too long to learn this: When you're outside the mainstream, don't expect acceptance and understanding to be reciprocal.
Re:Probably true for everyone (Score:5, Funny)
It took me way too long to learn this: When you're outside the mainstream, don't expect acceptance and understanding to be reciprocal.
Don't worry, everyone posting here is outside the mainstream and coincidentally also proves that just because you're introverted doesn't mean you're smart.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Probably true for everyone (Score:5, Interesting)
Yours is an excellent post and contains much food for thought. I do however view things much differently, but I don't want to seem to "attack" what you've said, as it provides valuable insight.
Perhaps I have a different idea of what it means to be an introvert or extrovert. In my case, introversion displays as difficulty in starting relationships. However, the ones that do "make" it (that sounds terrible, I know) become very deep and indeed extremely "fault tolerant." I accept and navigate friends' "flaws" because I realize that they are simply part of who they are. They extend the same tolerance to my flaws and faults. It's not at all a matter of limiting time together because of fault intolerance, so to speak.
So I go back to the OP's idea that my group of introverts is simply very busy and wants to get lots of things done, and so we treasure our time together but none of us want it to be so extended that our goals are diverted. In that manner we're supportive of each other. (It might help to know that in my case, my friends are mostly other writers.)
I want to go back, though, and briefly elaborate my unrelated side point: that the bar/football "mainstream" crowd is non-reciprocal. That is, while I can see that those folks enjoy the bar/football experience, and I'm not at all critical of their choice, they will not extend the same tolerance to me and my own choices and interests, which they criticize openly. Example: I once told one of the bar/football people I was going to compete in the American Crossword Puzzle Tournament. He gave me a disdaining look and said, "Is there something wrong with you?"
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Example: I once told one of the bar/football people I was going to compete in the American Crossword Puzzle Tournament. He gave me a disdaining look and said, "Is there something wrong with you?"
That's what comes from starting conversations in the men's room with total strangers.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not convinced you've got a good grasp on introversion vs. extroversion, based partly on my observations and experience. While your behavior may have changed, I have doubts that you went from introvert to extrovert and back. Without actually knowing you, I'd suspect that you're somewhere in between.
The introverts I tend to hang around with tend not to be easy to offend, and very accepting of differences between people. The extroverts I know tend to be somewhat less concerned with the differences of
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Probably true for everyone (Score:3, Interesting)
Different for everyone. I know people with tons of friends who think it odd I have few and even then don't really like hanging out. One friend has even gone so far as to say my way isn't healthy. Well I'm happy. I'm also happy when socializing with friends in the moment. But when I think about whether I'd like to hang out with friends or go to the forest, beach, trail, or do yard work by myself or with my significant other. I'd much rather be by myself or with my SO.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure it's necessarily the quantity of friends but how you interact with them. As I've gotten older, I've been able to maintain high quality interactions with them without a lot of frequency, which enables a higher number of friends without sacrificing quality.
Groups seem to take on their on dynamic. I've known people I liked individually but wouldn't have gotten much out of in a group. And groups (especially younger groups) often feel like they take on a competitiveness as their numbers go up. P
Re: (Score:2)
I think Woody stole that line from Groucho --
http://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/04/18/groucho-resigns [quoteinvestigator.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I like and interact with lots of people. I do not really consider them friends - not necessarily. I'd call them friends because there's no better word for it. They're not mere acquaintances. A friend doesn't need to knock before coming in - but, due to my lifestyle, there's lots of people in that position.
Ah - a friend comes upstairs and uses your bathroom off of your bedroom while you're still sleeping - and then jumps up and down on the bed until you get up and wrestle with them. A friend does that even i
Re: (Score:3)
Ah - a friend comes upstairs and uses your bathroom off of your bedroom while you're still sleeping - and then jumps up and down on the bed until you get up and wrestle with them. A friend does that even if your girlfriend is still in the bed with you.
WARNING - They're not friends - they're KIDS. And they will come into the bedroom at the worst times possible. That's why you need vaseline - put some on the door knob and the kids will go "EWWWW" and leave you alone :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Meh, I just walk around naked in my bedroom. Now that they've fled the nest, well... I'd walk around naked now but I have people here still - except now there's only three extras and the missus and I.
So, there's a lock on the door. I use it. 'Cause I like being naked.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm very well-off (Score:5, Funny)
Scientists Say Smart People Are Better Off With Fewer Friends
I'm doing very well.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. I can drink my bottle of wine in the corner in the dark and not have to share it with anyone and no one tries to talk me back into rehab.
Re:I'm very well-off (Score:5, Insightful)
Better dumb and happy than smart and without any friends.
At least that's what people who are dumb and happy think... 8-)
Re:I'm very well-off (Score:5, Interesting)
"It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question."
- John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism (1863)
http://www.utilitarianism.com/... [utilitarianism.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Dumb people never get the feeling that they're working with a bunch of idiots all the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Dumb people never get the feeling that they're working with a bunch of idiots all the time.
Amen. It's a constant source of stress and frustration for me.
That's the problem when you leave school with no qualifications because you were so clever you got bored and disruptive and are now working cleaning public toilets.
Dilbert (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Dilbert (Score:4, Interesting)
Also this cartoon [dilbert.com].
I just this week found this one, cut it out and pasted it on the wall of my office.
I've been telling people for months "I don't do drama" and it's not helping.
Re: (Score:2)
I've been telling people for months "I don't do drama" and it's not helping.
You went off the rails at "telling people" in the first place. No, when they provide you with unwanted drama, you just need to stop telling them things, or listening to things they say. The only time you would tell them that you "don't do drama" would be after you've already stopped talking to them and they want to know why.
Smart people more likely working on their hobby... (Score:4, Insightful)
... then wasting time socializing on bullshit topics likes (un)reality TV, soaps, social media, etc.
That's not to say they don't check social media like /. or Reddit -- they do -- but they would rather be creating then socializing the majority of the time.
--
"Stop telling your big dreams to small minded people"
Re: Smart people more likely working on their hobb (Score:2)
Re: Smart people more likely working on their hobb (Score:4, Insightful)
Most intelligent people soon learn that knowledge is useful, so they tend to learn as much as they can. Not all, but most.
On the other hand, people who know a lot are not necessarily intelligent.
Conflating smart people and introverts (Score:5, Interesting)
It sounds like this article is mixing up “smart people” with “introverts.” What about the really smart extraverts? Richard Feynman was very extraverted, he had lots of friends, hung around with them a lot, and was very successful.
Re:Conflating smart people and introverts (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe they're not "mixing up" anything, maybe they found a correlation?
I recommend actually reading all of Feynman's memoirs. He had great charisma and liked people, but he was also somewhat introverted. He doesn't talk about having a lot of friends, though he does talk about meeting people and having an interest in meeting different sorts of people from different walks of life.
He actually describes spending most of his time alone, working on various math problems.
Being a good public speaker and enjoying people-watching doesn't really make him an extrovert. If you understand the technical difference between introvert and extrovert it becomes obvious; he didn't care about the "social environment," he cared about his own thoughts and feelings. For example where he talks about uniforms, and social expectations to "look like a professor." Those really expose where he is on that spectrum.
Introvert doesn't mean hermit; a charismatic introvert can be a great public speaker, and famous as a "people person." It doesn't keep them from spending the weekend working on a project, though. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
It's also possible to be an introvert and have loads of friends. You don't need to rely on others to have friends. You can be outgoing and bubbly and still be an introvert. Chances are, those people are a source of comfort and help for extroverts.
I'm not sure why people think introverts are isolationists who do not associate with others. That's not what introvert means. It does, to some extent, help you identify those who are but it's certainly not exclusionary. I don't really need a lot from other people,
Re:Conflating smart people and introverts (Score:5, Informative)
It sounds like this article is mixing up “smart people” with “introverts.” What about the really smart extraverts? Richard Feynman was very extraverted, he had lots of friends, hung around with them a lot, and was very successful.
Introverts can act in a not-introverted manner. Feynman's bongo obsession should be enough to confirm him as an introverted autist that got placed in a lot of social situations. From the FBI files on Feynman:
...the appointee's wife was granted a divorce from him because of appointee's constantly working calculus problems in his head as soon as awake, while driving car, sitting in living room, and so forth, and that his one hobby was playing his African drums. His ex-wife reportedly testified that on several occasions when she unwittingly disturbed either his calculus or his drums he flew into a violent rage, during which time he attacked her, threw pieces of bric-a-brac about and smashed the furniture.
A minor correction (Score:5, Insightful)
There are a lot of things wrong with this article. The idea that doctors spend their time curing cancer - hmmm, maybe one in ten thousand. Great writers don't tend to be highly intelligent (if they were, they'd get work that pays better). And I have yet to meet any lawyer IRL who was both intelligent AND spent all their time doing civil rights cases.
I also don't buy the "evolutionary" or sociological explanation. The population density of our ancestors might have been tiny, when measured over a whole country. But because they stuck together, it was clearly much higher in the groups they lived in. Since it took much more effort to build a house, they tended to be small and close to each other (within the village walls).
I would suggest that one reason that intelligent people would have fewer friends is the difficulty they would experience in finding like-minded individuals to be friends with. It wouldn't be very fulfilling for someone with a brain the size of a planet to spend all their time with people who only talked about soaps and sport.
Re: (Score:2)
Great writers don't tend to be highly intelligent (if they were, they'd get work that pays better).
Stephen King wrote several novels or so while working as a teacher during the school year and the laundromat during the summers. Most were rejected. His first published novel, "Carrie," earned him a $2,500 advance. The paperback rights got him $200,000. The rest was history.
http://mentalfloss.com/article/53235/how-stephen-kings-wife-saved-carrie-and-launched-his-career [mentalfloss.com]
It wouldn't be very fulfilling for someone with a brain the size of a planet to spend all their time with people who only talked about soaps and sport.
I used to put people to sleep by discussing why Adolf Hitler attacking the Russians and opening a second front during World War II led to h
Re: (Score:2)
Stephen King wrote several novels or so while working as a teacher during the school year and the laundromat during the summers. Most were rejected. His first published novel, "Carrie," earned him a $2,500 advance. The paperback rights got him $200,000. The rest was history.
What is the life story of one author (who has his fair share of detractors when it comes to his literary prowess) meant to indicate?
Re:A minor correction (Score:4, Interesting)
What is the life story of one author (who has his fair share of detractors when it comes to his literary prowess) meant to indicate?
Stephen King is a great writer who became wealthy through luck and circumstances. If his wife told him to put away his typewriter to get a Real Job to support his family, the literary world would be a sadder place.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, "great" is subjective, but regardless, I don't see what one particular author's route to fame and fortune has to do with the assertion that "Great writers don't tend to be highly intelligent (if they were, they'd get work that pays better)."
Re: (Score:2)
You essentially just described WWII in a sentence.
If I explain that one sentence to you for three hours, you will be falling asleep.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem was (and I've had this very discussion with people) not him invading Russia but not letting those he asked to plan invasion stick to their plans.
If you've read Hitler's Panzers East you would know the author showed that before the six week halt outside Moscow, the Wehrmacht had achieved every single goal it had set out to do, in some case ahead of schedule. Further, at that point there was no significant, organized Russian resistance.
However, as the author relates, Hitler's mentality (such that
Re: (Score:2)
There was significant, organized, Soviet resistance at that time, and the German objectives were not met. The remaining Red Army was considerably stronger than the pre-invasion planning had suggested. You need to read a few more books on the topic.
Hitler wanted to continue the destruction of the Red Army, while his generals tended to want to keep driving east. One of the problems with Operation Barbarossa in 1941 was that there was no overall strategy. I think the Germans would have done better if Hi
Re: (Score:2)
It's more complicated than that. The idea was that the campaign would be over before winter. As winter approached, the Germans had advanced so far that their supply lines were long and overtaxed, and the Germans could use all the military supplies they could get. If the Germans shipped winter equipment forward, they were sending less ammo, and the German Army would have more difficulty attacking Soviet cities and finding better winter quarters.
Re: (Score:2)
That really depends on the "you." I happened to spend a great amount of time studying history - especially WWII history as it is one of my favorite subjects. I'd listen for several hours so long as you were willing to accept interjections. Unless it was a formal lecture. If it were a discussion, it could go on for days. If it were a lecture and you knew what you spoke of then I'd probably listen for a few hours. However, no... Not conversationally, I'd not.
I suspect I'm just making clear (to me, at least) w
Re: (Score:2)
"Great writers don't tend to be highly intelligent (if they were, they'd get work that pays better)."
Maybe they've realized that you can't take money with you when you check out, and they've decided to pursue a longer-term impact.
Re: (Score:2)
"Maybe they've realized that you can't take money with you when you check out, and they've decided to pursue a longer-term impact."
Maybe but then... didn't they realize that you can't take long-term impact with you when you check out either?
Re: (Score:2)
The whole point is that it's something you give, not something you take.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Some people believe that you only truly die when your name is uttered for the last time."
Some people also believe an old white-bearded Man of Sky opened the Red Sea waters for another old white-bearded man to pass through, so go figure!
Re: (Score:2)
Great writers don't tend to be highly intelligent (if they were, they'd get work that pays better).
What you say may sound reasonable and obvious but it is based on the assumption that money is a good motivator for creative behavior which has been scientifically proven to be factually incorrect. Take a look at this TED Talk by Dan Pink for an easily digested explanation: On Motivation [ted.com].
In a more global context, the fact that monetary rewards stifle creativity could explain many deep, systematic problems in our society. Perhaps it is unwise for us to put people who are strongly motivated by monetary r
Re: (Score:2)
Great writers don't tend to be highly intelligent (if they were, they'd get work that pays better).
Pay doesn't determine intelligence. If you are intelligent and use that for money, then you will certainly earn a lot.
But there is more to life than money, it is well known that passed a certain point, more money doesn't make you much happier. And a trait of intelligent people is that they can do what they like the way they like and still manage to make a living, even if it isn't millions.
Re: (Score:2)
Great writers don't tend to be highly intelligent (if they were, they'd get work that pays better)
Money isn't everything.
Case in point, the novelists, essayists, philosophers, poets and journalists, among others, whose work has been chosen for preservation by the Library of America. [loa.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would suggest that one reason that intelligent people would have fewer friends is the difficulty they would experience in finding like-minded individuals to be friends with. It wouldn't be very fulfilling for someone with a brain the size of a planet to spend all their time with people who only talked about soaps and sport.
True. What happens is that a person has a particular interest or passion or finds others who share that same interest or passion and then proceed to interact on that basis.
I have zero friends who are fully capable of understanding all of me or even dealing/accepting all of me. I have a few friends that I share interests with and can discuss various topics with. Honestly, I suspect that is all many of us can hope for. We are all so radically different that fully understanding someone else, even a dullard, ma
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
By the time Lincoln stole the election (had less than 40% of the vote, the people didn't want a damn Republican ruler), that thug had no choice but to be swept away by the tidal wave created by the Democrats.
Democrats were pro-slavery and the Republicans were anti-slavery in the 1860's. That changed in the 1960's when the Democrats became pro-civil rights and the Republicans became anti-civil rights. Many white racists left the Democratic Party to become the Republicans in the 1960's. These are the same people who are rallying behind Donald Trump today. They lost in the 1860's and the 1960's, and will lose again in 2016.
Re: (Score:3)
Democrats were not pro-slavery you pukianz azzhole.
You must have fallen asleep in social studies class when the Civil War was being discussed.
Re: (Score:2)
Donald Trump was a democrat until the late 80's and donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Clintons.
If you bothered to read your link, Donald Trump donated to both political parties. That's a smart business strategy considering the political fortunes of each party tends ebb and flow between political cycles.
wrong priority for intelligent people ? (Score:5, Interesting)
Much of the summary assumes that happiness is important. And that it's important to smart people.
I propose that the desire for happiness is inversely proportional to intelligence. I have no statistical proof, only personal and historical experience. As one learns about the discerning and creative people around them and the ones that they read about in biographies and historical documents, one must consider how often did these people sit around to chat with neighbors and chums. If they interacted with other people, it was probably in pursuit of some greater purpose.
On the other hand, I will be meeting with 5 'developmentally disabled' people this morning who are very happy and who value that state of being very much. What's your experience in this regard?
Re: (Score:2)
One thing I'd say is that I'm constantly surprised by the truly immense amount of written correspondence that the great thinkers carried out with other people throughout their years.
Re: (Score:2)
This explains the explosive intellectual development that resulted from the introduction of Twitter. Or, for that matter, Usenet.
Waxing a bit more serious, written correspondence does afford the opportunity for depth, precision, complexity, and refinement. Unfortunately, it in no way enforces them.
Re: (Score:2)
Happiness is a very misunderstood concept, I think. We confuse it with the feeling we have during a peak moment. In truth, most of the time we don't feel that way. And it's through no fault of our own, or anyone else. Moods come and go for reasons we often don't really understand.
If I'm "happy", great. If not, I keep on living regardless.
I aspire more to "satisfaction" than "happiness". Though it may be just a matter of different terms, I really don't know how to make myself happy (Though a direct increase
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I see happiness as a scattershot phenomenon and not so much a spectrum thing.
There are hundreds of tiny things that make me happy every day (your socks comment is a perfect example of one). There at least as many things that make me unhappy every day.
There will never be a time when there are 0 points on either side. The trick is to get all of the happy points concentrated together and the unhappy points scattered and alone.
I would never describe myself as a happy person. But I am not an exclusively un
Re: (Score:2)
Happiness is a recent concept.
In the middle ages people faced either survival or death. Survival was generally preferred and so people worked hard and suffered difficulties in an effort to stave off death. There was no such luxury as TV, books or even a day off. No time to contemplate the infinite universe (but for a few monks, nobles, etc). And no glimmer of what happiness might consist of.
Even before the Middle Ages, the Greeks, Egyptians, Chinese and Mesopotamian people may not have understood or valued
Re: (Score:2)
Your historical analysis is way off. Here, for instance, is what one writer says about Medieval Europe:
Plowing and harvesting were backbreaking toil, but the [medieval] peasant enjoyed anywhere from eight weeks to half the year off. The Church, mindful of how to keep a population from rebelling, enforced frequent mandatory holidays. Weddings, wakes and births might mean a week off quaffing ale to celebrate, and when wandering jugglers or sporting events came to town, the peasant expected time off for entertainment. There were labor-free Sundays, and when the plowing and harvesting seasons were over, the peasant got time to rest, too. In fact, economist Juliet Shor found that during periods of particularly high wages, such as 14th-century England, peasants might put in no more than 150 days a year.
Re: (Score:2)
Your historical analysis is way off. Here, for instance, is what one writer says about Medieval Europe:
Plowing and harvesting were backbreaking toil, but the [medieval] peasant enjoyed anywhere from eight weeks to half the year off. The Church, mindful of how to keep a population from rebelling, enforced frequent mandatory holidays. Weddings, wakes and births might mean a week off quaffing ale to celebrate, and when wandering jugglers or sporting events came to town, the peasant expected time off for entertainment. There were labor-free Sundays, and when the plowing and harvesting seasons were over, the peasant got time to rest, too. In fact, economist Juliet Shor found that during periods of particularly high wages, such as 14th-century England, peasants might put in no more than 150 days a year.
Interesting - but a Reuters news story does not a meaningful historical analysis make. Here is a good counterpoint to this (very misleading) thesis [adamsmith.org].
OTOH, it is well established that (from actual observation) surviving hunter-gatherer societies have more leisure time. This is partly due to the lack of a compulsion to "make stuff" (maintain a more complex dwelling, clothing, tool requirements, etc.).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Extroversion is a fairly stable personality trait. It has nothing to do with adapting behavior to circumstances, which everyone does.
Re: (Score:2)
I really doubt that the desire for happiness is less in intelligent people. They often derive happiness from different things. If I had to sit around and chat with neighbors and chums all day, I assure you I wouldn't be happy. If some other people had to sit around and work on intellectually challenging problems all day, they wouldn't be happy.
Well this want hard to predict (Score:4, Insightful)
intelligent or not, having goals takes focus (Score:3, Interesting)
I wouldn't be talking about a level of intelligence specifically but I want to point out that anybody who is focused on a goal will feel irritated when detracted from the task in front of them that works towards that goal and having friends invite you to various social interactions is taking time away from those tasks. I know it first hand, I had to decline quite a number of invitations over the years because I do not have time for this, I am busy and what I am busy with is part of my overall goal.
My life must be perfect, then... (Score:2)
Just saying.
But, but, but... (Score:2)
But everyone *knows* that if you want to do something alone it means you have a mental disorder! I went on a trip to the Caribbean once (there were several couples and we all went together). First day we were headed down to the beach, I brought a book plopped down in a chair and started reading while everyone else went in the water. At least two others came by and asked me if I was OK, and if I was feeling well. I'm like, "yeah, this is awesome!" The silly thing is they were mostly psychologists, but t
Misleading Headline (Score:5, Informative)
Or just keep our mouths shut around the dumb ones. (Score:2)
I find I have three circles of friends. inner is people I can talk about anything with, middle I can stay smart around, outer, I just nod and smile when they say stupid shit. Just let them be wrong and smile, it's not worth correcting them. Just hand them another budwiser while they make fun of your fancy pants dark beer.
Re: (Score:2)
Contempt (Score:3)
Re:Alternative theory (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Then you have your work cut out for you, Slashdot is usually overrun with idiots and assholes.
When I first got started on Slashdot in 1999, it was overrun by trolls and goatse.
Combining (Score:2)
Smart people can read people, and choose not to waste time with those who have little or nothing to offer; and/or those who are jealous or controlling. This naturally dictates a small circle of friends.
Also, there are only so many interesting things going on in life. Hanging out with more people doesn't make life more interesting. It merely dilutes the interesting stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
People in sales not only need to know their product well they need to be able to answer questions on demand and often to those that know very little.
You forgot the part about sales people being pathological liars. I had a friend who sat next to me when he did a sales call. Told the other person on the phone that he was married (lie #1), had two kids (lie #2), owned a big house (lie #3), and, he then grabbed my leg, that his wife was sitting next to him (lie #4). We stopped being friends after that.
Re: (Score:2)
if you want to be able to converse with others about various subjects you need to know what you are talking about ......... You will be required to remember names, locations, relationships, experiences, events, etc... quickly and accurately.
The extroverts I have come across make up their "general knowledge" as they go along, and mostly get away with it because they sound plausible to those who know nothing. Politicians are a good example : when one of them starts spouting about a subject I happen to know about it is obvious BS, yet their many admirers lap it up like it is coming down from Mount Sinai. The second part of your statement however, remembering names etc of those in their circle, is more accurate however, and extroverts are good a
Re: (Score:2)
People with people skills tend to get paid more because they can manipulate those who control the paychecks better. No need to make up stories about it.
Re: (Score:3)
It doesn't say that. It just says you'll be happier if you stay in the basement than you would be if you went out and found other pantsless losers to "hang out" with.
Re: (Score:3)
It also does not speculate on the happiness of the person they might go hang out with nor does it speculate on the happiness of others who might have occasion to witness the spectacle.
Re: (Score:2)
At first glance, the title reads like it might be from an Onion article - like Jock Scientists Discover Gay Gene in Carl [theonion.com].
Re: (Score:3)
The study was done by Satoshi Kanazawa, so take it with a grain of salt:
That is an ad hominem attack. Attack his arguments if you think they are wrong, or just say nothing..
Re: (Score:2)
From Wikipedia: An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attack on an argument made by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, rather than attacking the argument directly. When used inappropriately, it is a logical fallacy in which a claim or argument is dismissed on the basis of some irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or the person being criticized. Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallaci