[crux]

This is a charming article. But it's somewhat sad to read. Because it operates on the nearly universal assumption that life is a game, or a battle, or a scavenger hunt—and the way to win is to maintain a high 'state' and get lots of 'achievements'. The reason this gaming terminology is so appealing to us is that it overlays nicely on the way we already think about life: you're constantly making some grade or another; you're constantly doing better or worse than your peers. A generation ago business was the most appropriate metaphor. But whether our obsession is with who's giving us a raw deal and who we're getting over on, or where we have advantages and where we have disadvantages (what am I at +1 for?), the basic sensibility doesn't change.

The perspective here is consistently egoistic. It's not even mentioned. It's just assumed that the way one goes through life is as an individual, with one's own interests solely at heart, and one's own state the only thing to be managed. You win by maximizing your own state, by grabbing as many achievements as you can before you die. And even if you're not a dick about it, your concerns are very much limited to your states, health level, and the contents of your inventory.

This is no way to go through life! It leads to suffering and a small view of things. I'm really interested to see, actually, what this community makes of that insight. It will dawn on people eventually—or at least its negative will: that everything we've been putting so much damned energy into isn't making us happy. But this community is so relentlessly introspective, communicative, articulate, well-equipped, and outright successful. And we have so many blogs like this one: so many people actively, sincerely, unabashedly interested in the science of happiness and fulfillment. So the potential there is pretty big. The potential for massive burnout and dissolution or massive reorientation.

[erikb]

Sorry, I couldn't find the alternative in your approach. Please reformulate for me what approach to life do you actually suggest. I'm really interested to see another point of view. My last years were mainly spent from switching to just living life to the style mentioned in the article and just everything feels so much better since. I am happy to go to work in the morning. I am happy to write my thesis. I am sometimes even happy to be critized by other people. And my social life also increased drastically since, containing more meaningful relationships to other people on all levels. And heck, I'm even doing sport because I know it ups my motivation, health and happiness.

I was used to being one of the least positive people about life prospects, now at least in my circles I am one of the most positive people and others are actually spending time with me just to grab some of the positive energy.

If you have a life style to offer that makes me and the people around me even more happy I would be really happy to learn more about it!

[crux]

Sure. The one liner is: spend as much of your free time and energy focusing on giving and helping others rather than enriching yourself.

Find ways to delight in the well-being and success of others—all others, everybody you know, everybody in the world. And when you feel that you aren't getting your fair share, that you'll miss out—take a long, long pause, really feel into that emotion, and see if self-centered thinking ends up getting you more of what makes you happy or not.

Mind: this is incredibly difficult. It's nobody's fault if they can't or don't do this. Almost every single meme and conditioned habit that's in you and the culture you live in works against this pattern.

[DennisP]

That approach seems compatible with the article's main points. For example, if you drain your energy by not taking care of yourself, you'll likely end up sitting around watching TV instead of helping people.

[ptmx]

I agree that it's compatible, and further that taking care of yourself is crucial to being able to effectively help others. The author might agree too, but in that case it's rather peculiar that everything in the article has an egoistic bent to it. Even if it wasn't the author's intention, I think it's worth pointing out that any mention of altruistic behavior is conspicuously absent from the article.

[pizza234]

I see a big problem in perspectives like this, and most importantly, the culture they develop in.

I see a parallel with what Joel Spolsky said about operating systems. Windows and Linux are very much defined by the cultures surrounding them, which are radically different. And although I can't say that one is ahem "better", a certain one has many pitfalls, tendencies, and so on.

The article is clearly the product of an apex dominance culture, which is widespread in certain countries (ahem, one in particular).

The core problem with living such culture is that detaches people from the context they live in, which, very easily, deviates into moral corruption.

Think about patent trolls. A patent troll is simply a (a group of) person that specialized into a field, puts above all his own success... and makes it. P.T. are very successful people, generally speaking, and they do it within the law. This is very much a product of obsession with success, and detachment from empathizing with the people you're going to predate.

Think about the finance world - making millions from periods of crysis (there was an article recently on HN). It not an illegal act per se, it's just morally repulsive if somebody makes millions out while people loses jobs, houses, and savings. Yet again, obsession with success and detachment from the others.

There is also the (negative) flipside. What's going to happen when one discovers he's not Steve Jobs? Or hmmm, what's going to happen when one could become the next Steve Jobs... at the expense of other people? At the expense of your best friend[s]? What's better - "greatness" or family?

Another side effect of this narrow perspective is detachment from human nature, from the "self". This can be more practical than one thinks.

If one entire life is spent killing oneself to pursue success... what's going to happen after? Is it really a "comfortable pants +10"? What about burning out and regretting living such a narrow life? Again, there was an article on HN, about Carl Barks, which has been certainly successful. End of the game: burned out to the extreme.

Speaking of which, one certainly doesn't want to waste time with time wasters (bouncing ball on the knee), right? Unfortunaly, many experiences which are, practically, a waste of time, are those who make people interesting, and they are part of the creative, intellectual, emotional development.

How do one know that bouncing a ball on the knee doesn't lead to something more interesting? I think the world would be much less interesting if people in the past wouldn't have bounced balls on their knees.

Making music... a skill? Are you serious?

Of course, let's also take holidays off the charts, as they don't develop any skills. It's pretty much consequential losing interest in other countries (once one accept he's has very little chance to explore them), and not being able to point out the countries that one's government is bombing.

I find really hard to stop.

Obviously I'm not saying that any product of such culture is a monster, but culture is part of the development of the people.

Since you have posed a question in a personal way, I'd tell you that there is a difference, and it's subtle.

Let's say that what I have in mind could be summarized by the Good Will Hunting bar scene:

- [...] I will have a degree, and you'll be serving my kids fries at a drive-through on our way to a skiing trip - Maybe, but at least I won't be unoriginal

:-)

[gcv]

Be the change you want to see, and all that — right?

The metaphor in the article does not preclude non-egoistic play, it just suggests a another set of skills in the game: Diplomacy, Activism, Community Organization, Macroeconomics, History. Good-aligned players get Charity and Education skills. Evil-aligned players get Politics and Manipulation. Perhaps players have an additional statistic tracking Influence, and some will care more about it than others. Some statistics improve in groups.

[valtron]

It depends on the rules of the game.

Maybe the rules of life are competitive: you can only increase your score at someone else's expense. The score is either 0-1 or 1-0. (Maybe you're both starving but only have enough food to sustain one person.)

Or maybe they're cooperative: you can both achieve a >= score if you combine resources/knowledge/what-have-you. The score is 3-3 for cooperating or 1-1 for playing independently. (Take insurance, for example.)

In reality, the game is a complex mixture of these two extremes.

[prostoalex]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wu_wei