[brabel]

She fell into the trap of thinking her business was her life and gave equal weight to both. Quite sad to see... even if she becomes a billionaire and her business an unicorn, when the end comes, will she be happy for what she accomplished? Hardly. It's a pretty universal sentiment that what makes people happy is actually close relationships, friendships, family and helping others (not in exchange for something, like in a business, mind you - but helping for the sake of it). People like her and even the greatest in the field, like Steve Jobs, may lead extraordinary lives in our imaginations, but inside, they almost always feel horrible most of the time (the stress so high they grind their teeth to the point of damaging them as the article mentions) and end up dying sad and lonely.

[fairity]

> It's a pretty universal sentiment that what makes people happy is actually close relationships, friendships, family and helping others.

There isn't one path to happiness. Yes, close relationships and helping others in close proximity can feel good. So can wealth, social status, or building a business that positively impacts millions of people. It depends on your values, and your ability to align your actions with your values.

> People like her and even the greatest in the field, like Steve Jobs, may lead extraordinary lives in our imaginations, but inside, they almost always feel horrible most of the time.

I believe you are actually the one romanticizing here. Most people do not have this type of success, and therefore, tend to discredit the lives of those that do in order to protect their self-image.

The story of the outwardly successful CEO who is inwardly emotional distraught is a great Hollywood story, but it's an exception. If you actually follow the lives of most successful entrepreneurs, I think you will find that they are quite happy - enjoying their wealth and social status in their free time.

Yes, the day to day work of a CEO is very stressful. But, when they have time to step back from it all, knowing that they gave it their all and made an impact can be deeply satisfying.

Again, the key is to not assume everyone shares the same values. Family and friendships are one thing to value. Impact, contribution, wealth, and social status are other values. No value system is better or worse, objectively -- as long as you are capable of fulfilling your values.

[renewiltord]

I think this view is best established in The Remains of the Day by Kazuo Ishiguro. It's a fairly traditional view but well described there.

For what it's worth, I think it depends on the shape of the thing. "What actually" is not a fixed concept like that. For instance, "what makes a good vacation?". One could say "not having faeces on your nose for the whole time" since, after all, it is unlikely that having faeces on your nose the whole time is likely to make a good vacation even if you're on the most lovely beach surrounded by all you live. But that's a baseline that's easy to meet. So what _actually_ makes a good vacation? The truth is: ∄ an activity or characteristic X such that ∀ vacations V that have X, V is a good vacation.

So what "actually makes people happy"? No one knows. We know things that can make you unhappy (faeces on the nose, not having any relationships) and we know that there exists a baseline happiness we have (the Hedonic Treadmill, etc.). But really, not much more.