Money Can't Buy Me Love

May 7, 2006 9:05 AM

Happiness [pdf] A financial analysis.
posted by onalark (75 comments total)

via a chain of blog links that starts at jdroth's Get Rich Slowly.
posted by onalark at 9:11 AM on May 7, 2006

Martin Seligman's Authentic Happiness is a reasonable place to follow up (he's a psychologist). See also a recent Ask Metafilter post.

Since I'm researching (PhD) in this area, I have a number of related books on my Readling List.
posted by jhscott at 9:20 AM on May 7, 2006 [1 favorite]

Nice post. I like how of all the things, sex is on the list. Maybe that explains my discontent with my living situaiton lately.
posted by SirOmega at 9:27 AM on May 7, 2006

feh. I'll take good old fashioned hedonism.
posted by sswiller at 9:31 AM on May 7, 2006

When I first read this paper, I was reminded of another study I've seen but can't locate again. Can anyone help? Essentially, the gist of the report was that no matter where people live, no matter what their income level, everyone reports about the same level of happiness. That is a poor farmer in Indiana reports being about as happy as a wealthy land-owner in Pakistan — a Kalahari Bushman reports about the same level of happiness as an Italian politician. Except that people at the very extremes in wealth were more unhappy than average: that is, the ultra-wealthy and the ultra-poor were unhappier than the bulk of the population.

I only have vague memories of this study, and have no idea where I saw it. Freakonomics? National Geographic? The web? If anyone happens to know where I could find this info, I'd be very grateful.
posted by jdroth at 10:10 AM on May 7, 2006

@jdroth I think there are multiple studies of that sort, they're mentioned in any book on happiness, to show that wealth is only slightly correlated with happiness. If nothing turns up, send me mail and I'll look in the endnotes of my books?
posted by jhscott at 10:22 AM on May 7, 2006

jdroth, I do remember this bit from the unlinkable South China Morning Post:

BEHIND THE NEWS No price tag on happiness

SIMON PARRY

He might be surprised to hear it, but a poor farmer in rural China is likely to be as happy, if not happier, with his lot in life than a millionaire in Hong Kong, a group of academics have concluded.

Psychologists and anthropologists from the Chinese University of Hong Kong and Harvard University in the US have been researching how economic changes affect people’s levels of happiness.

Studying 48 villages in Shandong province, they concluded that levels of happiness were based heavily on the way people viewed their level of material comfort compared with their peers.

“Put simply, we are happy not because of the amount of wealth we have, but how we see our wealth compared to the rest of our [peer] group,” said Professor Dominic Lee Tak-shing of Chinese University.

“Someone may be wealthy by most people’s estimates but may not be happy, because he may compare himself with Li Ka-shing or Bill Gates. Social comparison explains why people can be wealthy but not be happy, and even depressed.”

People in rural villages on the mainland are less likely to be exposed to such comparison. “They are separate from the rest of the world and they tend to be happier, because if you look at their whole village, they are more or less the same,” said Professor Lee.

“The economic gradient isn’t so sharp and the people are generally happier. If they feel they are more or less the same as the rest of their peers, they are content.”

Does that help?
posted by gd779 at 11:36 AM on May 7, 2006

In my experience following Seligman's guidelines and similar generic guidelines from these economists is that your approach to the issue of happiness is part of the issue.

I'm especially keen on how this PDF says that don't focus too much on the pursuit of happiness, but instead enjoy the moment. Which if you implement properly means, abandon following the implications of this PDF too hard, and focus more on not thinking too much.

I think happiness is an attention-reactive problem, similar to the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle. That by your very attention to the problem, you are affecting the problem itself.

I eventually gave up on a year's worth of happiness-tuned planning for the sake of more solid things that people find in life, like fighting fires in relationships or responding to dips in acceptable work situations.
posted by philosophistry at 12:28 PM on May 7, 2006

jdroth - i think it was a Malcolm Gladwell article in the New Yorker from within the last several months.
posted by docpops at 12:36 PM on May 7, 2006

@philosophistry

My primary research at the moment is how to get people (in the large) to become invested in and curious about their own happiness. I'll eventually be reading a dozen books and probably hundred of studies about happiness, I certainly wouldn't recommend this for everyone - but picking up one book (Seligman's is good because he's a former APA head so he has 'cred') is in my opinion certainly worthwhile.

I see (CS bias) happiness as cognitive optimization. Your brain processes sensory inputs, and you have a lot of sway in how it does. Is stubbing your toe an accident or a sign that God hates you?

Anyway, I agree with you. Ideally, I could produce something where people would just wake up a week later, happier, and not thing twice about it. That's /hard/ though.
posted by jhscott at 12:43 PM on May 7, 2006

docpops - That rings a bell. I'll have to dig through my back issues (or rummage the web site). Thanks.
posted by jdroth at 1:40 PM on May 7, 2006

What's the basis for the theory that happiness is cognitive optimization?

I often feel that when I'm sad, I have a problem that needs to be worked at. And when I solve the problem I'm relieved. Therefore, my drive to happiness optimized my cognitions by making me slow down when something was wrong, and pick up speed when everything's copasetic.

But sometimes, I'm just hungover. Like right now.
posted by philosophistry at 1:50 PM on May 7, 2006

This culture is obsessed with happiness. What's wrong with learning to accept what you really feel, all the time? Striving to become happy will make you just as unhappy as striving for anything else. The "rules" in this paper seem to imply something similar, and maybe the only way to get people's attention is to address them on their own terms, but there's a big difference between "happiness," as in pleasure, and contentedness, as in a state of openness and acceptance of yourself and the world. The latter is not the product of any conscious effort you can devise.

Next time you're feeling unhappy, ask yourself: "What lasting value has happiness ever brought to me?" That thought usually leads me toward acceptance and equanimity.
posted by divrsional at 1:53 PM on May 7, 2006

@philosophistry : I'm not in the business of coming up with new theories of happiness, but rather applying them. Cognitive optimization isn't a theory (yet?), it's just my way of understanding the psychology I'm reading.

Perhaps (probably) I am addressing a subset of happiness, but I think it seems reasonable (I don't have the studies on hand but believe they exist) that positive thinking, generally, leads to a positive feedback loop, while negative thinking leads to a negative feedback loop.

Seligman talks about win-lose versus win-win situations. I think generally there are lots of win-win situations that we convert to win-lose purely by perception and reaction.
posted by jhscott at 2:16 PM on May 7, 2006

@divrsional:

I don't quite understand your argument. Certainly the word "happiness" has a lot of context and baggage (unfortunate). I'm not saying people should be in a state of orgasm /all/ the time (every so often, I think we can all agree, is healthy). Striving towards positive things with a positive outlook (it's the journey not the destination) to me does not seem like a problem. If people didn't strive for endurance, no one would be running marathons.

As for what lasting value has happiness brought me, here's (a subset of) my list:

* Deep strength in dealing with Crohn's disease
* Better relationships with my friends, family, coworkers
* Success in my professional life
* Greater understanding of and respect for women

Asking that question leads me to satisfaction and joy, not acceptance and equanimity. Which would you prefer?
posted by jhscott at 2:22 PM on May 7, 2006

Seligman's research on optimism, including its benefits and a proper definition, is pretty solid IMHO.
posted by philosophistry at 2:23 PM on May 7, 2006

Agreed, which is why I'm not interested in conducting new human subject tests and etc. At the same time, it is true that the same definition is seen differently by different groups. As a theoretician, I like to think about optimization.

But my views will go in perhaps conclusions/forwards/etc. The psychology I plan (hope) to use is stuff from Seligman, Csikszentmihalyi, etc. It's impossible for me to avoid all bias/interpretation, but I hope to minimize it by concentrating on other facets (the interplay between technology and happiness, for example) that I have both more experience with and more marginal advantage at.
posted by jhscott at 2:31 PM on May 7, 2006

Or as Bhudda sez:

The root of all suffering is desire.
posted by sfts2 at 2:44 PM on May 7, 2006

I suggest Buddha get his desires done more often so their roots don't show.
posted by srboisvert at 3:01 PM on May 7, 2006

jhscott - Thanks for your contributions here. I look forward to reading the stuff you've linked to, and to reading some of the books in your reading list. I've read bits of the Flow books. Flow and Finding Flow are both sitting on my "read these sometime, you big idiot" shelf. I have a couple dozen books on that shelf, though, and they're all usually neglected for comic books. Comic books make me happy.
posted by jdroth at 3:03 PM on May 7, 2006

That's interesting. Focusing on optimization comes with it some assumptions. Such as the existence of sub-optimality. What do you consider to be sub-optimal? Optimization also implies some function or goal being carried out for which there are optimal solutions and sub-optimal ones. What's the goal?
posted by philosophistry at 3:04 PM on May 7, 2006

@jdroth

Back atcha, it's very helpful to bounce these ideas off people, gives me good practice for the big cheeses I periodically (like tomorrow) talk to.

@philosophistry

Okay, understand this response is not going to be rock solid science, but instead my views and (initially) methodology.

What's to be optimized is subjective well being. What's sub-optimal is to stub your toe and curse God, or fail a test and think your life is over.

When I considered this through economics, I came up with the concept of "frictionless" - eliminating things that are both unnecessary and unpleasant. Contrast Southwest to Jetblue. Same market, but JetBlue has the website, the leather seats, the DirectTV - a /frictionless/ experience.

As various studies show, once you're making a reasonable amount ($50,000 is a nice round number) more money doesn't make you that much happier. So I think it might be nice if people worked 40 instead of 80 hours a week (see today's thread on EA), spend time with their friends and family, get in touch with what makes them authentically happy, and rock that.
posted by jhscott at 3:14 PM on May 7, 2006

Happiness research tells us that the suicidal are actually the most rational human beings on the planet, everyone else is just being ass-fucked by their brains:

"If we were to experience the world exactly as it is, we'd be too depressed to get out of bed in the morning," Gilbert writes. . . Interestingly, the clinically depressed seem less susceptible to these basic cognitive errors. For instance, healthy people can be deluded into greater happiness when granted the mere illusion of control over their environment; the clinically depressed recognize the illusion for what it is. All in all, it's yet more evidence that unhappy people have the more accurate view of reality — and that learning how to kid ourselves may be a key to mental health.

Mental health and happiness are a cheap chemical parlor trick, your favorite band sucks, God is dead. Have a nice day.
posted by dgaicun at 3:15 PM on May 7, 2006

@jdroth

I have the same problem... the majority of those books are "too read"... and I just purchased The Complete Calvin and Hobbes, The Complete Far Side, and V for Vendetta. Sigh.
posted by jhscott at 3:18 PM on May 7, 2006

@dgaicum

Csikszentmihalyi posits (you may disagree) that there really is no reality outside of what we experience. You've basically proved his point - if you truly believe happiness is a cheap parlor trick, have fun in the cold world. I, on the other hand, will be enjoying myself to no end over here with the happy people :-).
posted by jhscott at 3:22 PM on May 7, 2006

[Would you like to buy a vowel] posits. . . there really is no reality outside of what we experience.

The best justification for exploitation, savagery, ignorance, and Fascism. It's also false, the man is an idiot.
posted by dgaicun at 3:30 PM on May 7, 2006

Optimization seems to be limited to a goal-oriented system. The human experience is recursive, circular, meta. For example, what if I don't care about subjective well-being? What if I don't want to be happy, and just want to work and take care of my family?
posted by philosophistry at 4:08 PM on May 7, 2006

evolution is optimizing gene replication. I'd be curious in seeing a plot between happiness and # of grand-children. I'd guess its a more concave relationship, rather than linear.
posted by nads at 4:16 PM on May 7, 2006

#jdhscott

My questions are not just attempts to deflate your earnest attempt to figure out happiness. It's that my similar earnest attempts at happiness lead me to some problems.

I once made an excel spreadsheet charting my progress toward increasing various scores on subjective happiness measures. I eventually became a master at getting perfect 10s, but I hated the spreadsheet and the system. I did this for 6 months. I would get 10s on responses to questions like "Do I feel happy?" or "How enthusiastic am I about life?" But then in the back of my mind was a strong voice yelling, "Who the hell cares about happiness, who cares whether I'm enthusiastic."

So then I made a second chart, this time listing "What do I care about" from a scale of 1 to 10. At the top was taking a vacation to Japan with a score of 10 for 4 weeks. "Being happy" scored between a 3 and a 6 for the same period. I figured it was then better to go to Japan rather than worry about my happiness measures.
posted by philosophistry at 4:19 PM on May 7, 2006

@philosophistry

I think we both agree that you went overboard. But I think that the general populace has far to go before they reach that stage. I would guess OTOMH that for every one person who makes a SWB excel chart, at least 10 will get bored after half of one book and perhaps get sort of happier.

I see your comments as interesting, and it's good practice for me to answer them (and adjust my thoughts to the points/problems you raise). I'll be perhaps slightly deflated if my experiments fail, no one gets happier, and I can't publish anything. But then I might just go on a vacation to Japan and forget all about it ;).

Thanks much.
posted by jhscott at 4:30 PM on May 7, 2006

@nads

Part of the happiness debate is the split between nature, nurture, and ourselves as concious beings. I'm down with Darwin, but at some point it's not helpful to ascribe /everything/ to genetic selection. Not that I necessarily disagree with you.
posted by jhscott at 4:31 PM on May 7, 2006

@dgaciun

I am by no means supporting Fascism, savegery, or hedonism. I also have no standing to debate relitivism versus absolutism. But I can tell you that the same technology that allows dissidents in China to find information on democracy allows pedophiles to find child porn (see Freenet).

I also don't think that having everyone be 'logical' and/or suicidal will result in less of the ills you mentioned.

Your thoughts?
posted by jhscott at 4:36 PM on May 7, 2006

You are by every means advocating all those bad things (savagery, yadda, yadda) - inadvertently - if you lend any credence whatever to the insipid nonsense that "there really is no reality outside of what we experience". You can't have it both ways. Your cheesy points about the Internet and that silly logic stuff, do not impress me or make your anti-reality Creationism any more respectable.

Take my first post with a grain of salt, but please don't ever try and give me that "truth comes from the guy" or "reality is an illusion" or "lies are necessary and desirable" junk, and expect me to do anything but sneer in disgust and call you an apologist for or facilitator of Tyranny. Because that's exactly what it does.
posted by dgaicun at 4:55 PM on May 7, 2006

@dgaicun

I'm not sure if I'm being trolled. I'm all of a sudden a Creationist? Maybe the implications of my post weren't clear. I'm not saying Csiblahblah is the root of all truth, or that only you (or I) is important in the universe. What I /am/ saying is that your nervous system handles input, this defines the experiences you have as a human being, and that to the extent that you can control your mental processes, you can improve your subjective well being.

Could a serial killer use the same techniques that I use to not feel bad about doing poorly on exams to feel good about killing people? I don't see why not, but I have faith that in the large, humanity is good rather than bad.

If you want to argue the merits of this with me, I'm happy to, because I don't want to end up wearing rose-colored glasses and turn into the next Dr. Phil. But there's only so much sneering in disgust that I'm going to take before I have better things to do.
posted by jhscott at 5:02 PM on May 7, 2006

dgaicun : "Mental health and happiness are a cheap chemical parlor trick"

So's depression and rationality.
posted by Gyan at 5:05 PM on May 7, 2006

dgaicun,
I'm not understanding why you're calling him Creationist. Isn't the relativism you're accusing him exactly what non-religious people are always accused of? On the other hand, belief in an absolute reality with absolute values, as you seem to espouse, seem to imply a religious worldview.
posted by Sangermaine at 6:20 PM on May 7, 2006

I'm not sure if I'm being trolled. I'm all of a sudden a Creationist?

Dude, you can't have it both ways. Either Creationism is just one more reality out of an infinite set of personal realities, or there is a reality and Creationism does not reflect it.

What I /am/ saying is that your nervous system handles input, this defines the experiences you have as a human being, and that to the extent that you can control your mental processes

Then you were not responding to the quoted research. This is also different from the assertion that, and I quote, "there really is no reality outside of what we experience", which is false and deplorable.

So's depression and rationality.

In the sense that consciousness itself is a "parlor trick", but wrong in the sense of the quoted research, where happiness actively subverts truthful perception of reality. "Illusions" being accurately defined as that which subverts truthful perception. So, no, not depression and rationality.

On the other hand, belief in an absolute reality with absolute values, as you seem to espouse, seem to imply a religious worldview.

The subject of ethics was obviously not what the quoted research, or I, were discussing. You are completely wrong that an independent reality outside of your own personal consciousness is a "religious worldview", it is a fact. It is not important what religions say on this matter (and I didn't imply they said anything) only that a denial of reality automatically gives any loony religious, or any other, claim to knowledge, epistemological legitimacy that it has not earned.
posted by dgaicun at 7:16 PM on May 7, 2006

dgaicun : "where happiness actively subverts truthful perception of reality"

Is the determination of this "truthful" perception arrived at, within some sphere other than the consciousness?
posted by Gyan at 7:27 PM on May 7, 2006

Gyan, do you really need to be walked through this? Why don't you first tell me why Creationism is either a lame-ass collection of lies, or just one more arbitrary brain-filtered truth among others, and then we'll talk. But keep in mind, if it's the answer is the former then you have no case, you're being disingenuous. If it's the latter, you are being a schmuck, and you have no business trying to argue anything anyway, as you've denied the very process its legitimacy.
posted by dgaicun at 7:40 PM on May 7, 2006

dgaicun : "Gyan, do you really need to be walked through this?"

Yes.

dgaicun : "If it's the latter, you are being a schmuck, and you have no business trying to argue anything anyway, as you've denied the very process its legitimacy."

The point is that the ascription of facts are subjectively decided, since we humans are all subjects. Some things may be objective facts, but to treat them as such or not, is a subjective enterprise.
posted by Gyan at 7:43 PM on May 7, 2006

For the record, the quote from Csikszentmihalyi is "what we experience is reality, as far as we are concerned." I agree with this quote, am sorry if I mis-paraphrased it, and prefer this quote to my words, fwiw.

I'm with Gyan here - maybe (which is a hint to not jump on me for semantics, please) reality is in some ways quantum, which is not to say that the laws of physics don't hold, but that as observers we color every interaction we have with it.

I'm not particularly religious and Creationism is a flash point and I'm not so interested in discussing it, really. I'm interested in giving people the option to be happier and more content, they can make their own philosophical judgements.
posted by jhscott at 7:44 PM on May 7, 2006

Well, the empiricists would argue that it's impossible to know anything objectively outside our own senses. I mean, this entire conversation on here is probably only happening in my mind.

Which makes me quite happy. :)
posted by MythMaker at 8:01 PM on May 7, 2006

"Subjectivity is objective!"
posted by storybored at 8:21 PM on May 7, 2006

The point is that the ascription of facts are subjectively decided, since we humans are all subjects.

You didn't answer my question. You aren't answering it because you know you're being disingenuous. Creationism: Right, wrong, or none of the above? Explain.

I'm with Gyan here - maybe (which is a hint to not jump on me for semantics, please) reality is in some ways quantum, which is not to say that the laws of physics don't hold, but that as observers we color every interaction we have with it.

Maybe monkeys will fly out of my butt. Tell me how this invalidates the above quoted research, that you folks have objected to so lamely by denying reality?
posted by dgaicun at 8:23 PM on May 7, 2006

dgaicun : "You didn't answer my question"

I don't know whether it's true or not, but I think it's not.

dgaicun : "You aren't answering it because you know you're being disingenuous."

That's rich. So, you "know" that I'm being disingenuous, and you "know" that I "know" it.

Maybe monkeys will fly out of my butt.

Maybe. The notion that reality is subject-mediated is not the same as the notion that reality has no rules.
posted by Gyan at 8:32 PM on May 7, 2006

via a chain of blog links that starts at jdroth's Get Rich Slowly.

Heh. I followed the same chain several months ago (starting from AskMe), and have had the pdf sitting on my desktop since.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:38 PM on May 7, 2006

Also, what is happiness, recently on the Metafilter Network®.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:47 PM on May 7, 2006

That's rich. So, you "know" that I'm being disingenuous, and you "know" that I "know" it.

Yes, because people that deny epistemology know damn well that they have one. The very act of arguing reveals that they believe that things are factual and not factual, not just for them but outside of them. The only time they deny reality is when it shows them things they don't want to believe - in this case the research quoted above. Rather than acknowledge inconvenient facts, the very legitimacy of knowing is denied. Of course this is paradoxical, because making this argument requires the exact assumptions that are being denied.
posted by dgaicun at 8:48 PM on May 7, 2006

dgiacun:

This is getting too "meta" for me. Lets be practical. How many hours a day do you spend worrying about Darfur and Iran? Debating over subjective and absolute reality is something for cognitive scientists and/or philosophers. The research you quote says depressed people make less cognitive errors. Without touching "reality" with a ten foot pole, I'd rather make a few more mistakes and be happy - which my friends will forgive me for, because I am (or attempt to be) kind, caring, and nice.

I cede to you the quoted research, but this conversation has, for me, reached diminishing returns. You're welcome to have the last word, but I'm no longer interested in debating the fabric of reality.

At least some of your posts were thought provoking, so thank you.
posted by jhscott at 8:52 PM on May 7, 2006

stavros: I /did/ post that link in the first comment in this thread (I guess not marked well enough).
posted by jhscott at 8:55 PM on May 7, 2006

As much as I love reading about happiness, the evaluation part is always a little suspect -- the metric is invariably how happy people say they are. (Maybe this is good enough?)
posted by ajshankar at 8:58 PM on May 7, 2006

dgaicun : "Yes, because people that deny epistemology know damn well that they have one."

Who denied epistemology? Read the last line in my prior post.

The very act of arguing reveals that they believe that things are factual and not factual, not just for them but outside of them.

Of course. This statement in no way contradicts my point.
posted by Gyan at 9:00 PM on May 7, 2006

I cede to you the quoted research. . . I'd rather make a few more mistakes and be happy - which my friends will forgive me for, because I am (or attempt to be) kind, caring, and nice.

Ok, this is a much, much better response. Again my post was intended tongue in cheek, I just couldn't stand the unnecessary Po-Mo anti-reality responses to it. (because they are factually untrue)

I do still disagree with your values: always uncomfortable truths before comfortable lies; I believe this is the most congruent with human dignity and good society regardless of its emotional price.
posted by dgaicun at 9:07 PM on May 7, 2006

ajshankar: (former?) UCB Theory TA? Or are there two? If so, I was tearing up 172 back in the day...

Metrics are confusing - but if your hypothesis is that happy people get better grades, you can give half of your sample (selected randomly, of course) instruction on happiness and see who gets better grades.

Lots of work has been done, as you suggest, on self-reported subjective well being.
posted by jhscott at 9:13 PM on May 7, 2006

@dgaicun: it's like this...

Any epistemological system is predicated on a certain set of assumptions. In order for us to talk about scientific knowledge, for example, we have to assume that the human mind is capable of observing the outside world as it exists, and also that the outside world exists at all. We then make scientific claims based on the assumption that what we see reflects reality, and generalize what we see to create patterns, formulas, laws of nature, etc.

I'm not being a "Creationist" when I say that the assumptions we must make in order to develop our scientific understanding of the world are fundamentally unprovable. A lot of actual Creationists will point and shout and say, "Aha! So you admit that science is just another belief system!"

Well... no. You start from point zero (the ignorant chaos in which we must begin to state our assumptions) because that is where you necessarily must start. There is no other place to begin. I believe that this chaos is what jhscott is talking about when he says that there is no reality outside of what we experience.

The point is, then, understanding that at its basest level, reality is fundamentally chaos, what set of assumptions do you choose to make so you can deal with that? If you're a dumbshit, you ask Jesus to explain it all to you. If you want to have some hope of actually interacting with the world in a productive way, you start to make assumptions like the one I discussed in the first paragraph.

And, if that doesn't jive, here's some Buddhist shit: there is an ultimate reality and a conventional reality. The ultimate reality is chaos. The conventional reality is science.
posted by rockabilly_pete at 9:28 PM on May 7, 2006

I would get 10s on responses to questions like "Do I feel happy?" or "How enthusiastic am I about life?" But then in the back of my mind was a strong voice yelling, "Who the hell cares about happiness, who cares whether I'm enthusiastic."

No True Scotsman Fallacy warning here, but do you really feel 100% happy if you have a voice in your head yelling "Who cares about the things I'm doing now. I want to go to Japan!"?
posted by martinrebas at 10:38 AM on May 8, 2006

I went ahead and put up my research for those who might be interested.
posted by jhscott at 9:14 PM on May 8, 2006

I do still disagree with your values: always uncomfortable truths before comfortable lies; I believe this is the most congruent with human dignity and good society regardless of its emotional price.

Not to mention it's the more adult way of approaching the world.

Preach on, brother dgaicun!
posted by beth at 11:55 PM on May 8, 2006

Beth, by this metric would you reject an epidural if you had to undergo major surgery? What about general pain medication? How is taking Tylenol not giving yourself a comfortable lie before an uncomfortable (physical) truth?
posted by jhscott at 8:20 AM on May 9, 2006

I was done with you, but Jesus Christ what a dumb comment. Pain isn't "truth", you ditz, it's an emotion. 2+2=4 is true. Laughing or not laughing at a funny joke is neither true or false, though it might indicate you are normal or abnormal compared to most people.

Do you understand what the naturalistic fallacy is? Do you know the difference between facts, ethics, aesthetics, emotions, states of awareness, etc? I suggest you think about the distinctions a little more carefully before wasting people's time with "arguments" like that.
posted by dgaicun at 3:07 PM on May 9, 2006

dgaicun, you need to learn your history: it's important. The view of reality that you're espousing has been vigorously explored by some of the best intellects in human history - and then it was just as vigorously discarded, relegated to the dustbin of history, because your views of "reality" can't be made to work. It doesn't stand up to close scrutiny. See, e.g., Quine, Two Dogmas of Empiricism.
posted by gd779 at 8:24 PM on May 9, 2006

The view of reality that you're espousing has been. . . relegated to the dustbin of history

What "view" is that gd779? The view that doesn't accept opportunistic, Po-Mo rejections of reality whenever uncomfortable facts pop up? Or the ethical view that truth is more congruent with human dignity than expedient lies?

I am familiar with Quine, and judging by your comment, I can only conclude you haven't followed the exchange here very well.
posted by dgaicun at 9:42 PM on May 9, 2006

What "view" is that gd779?

You seem to me to be advancing or, at the least, implicitly assuming a certain exceptionally naive version of the correspondence view of truth, as notably advanced (in a significantly more sophisticated form) by Russell et. al. early in the 20th century.

I am familiar with Quine.

Unlikely.
posted by gd779 at 11:03 PM on May 9, 2006

Uh, huh. Do you actually have an argument or substantive point to make here, or are these trollish turds a sufficient substitute in your mind? I don't appreciate being told my own thoughts on neo-positivism or what I've "likely" read or not, by someone who can't even be troubled to debate one statement I've made. Engage me properly or piss-off.
posted by dgaicun at 12:12 AM on May 10, 2006

are these trollish turds a sufficient substitute in your mind?

You don't treat others with respect, and yet you expect me to treat you with respect? You really are completely clueless, aren't you?

Engage me properly or piss-off.

Your vitroil is exceeded only by your ignorance.

I suggest that you read (and, importantly, work to understand) this, this, this, this, this, and (believe it or not) this.
posted by gd779 at 5:40 AM on May 10, 2006

and (believe it or not) this.

Hahahaha. Damn this thread has been so weak. I expect more out of MetaFilter. I don't read the odious "First Things" or religious pamphlets, gd779, and even if most of your links were quality, you've given me no incentive to read them besides a vague insinuation they contradict something I've said here - but that's not how debates work. If you want to mouth off like a little bitch, you should at least attempt to isolate the specific statements and ideas of mine voiced here that you strenuously disagree with, for me to defend, or we can't have a conversation. You don't give me a shit load of linked writing and expect me to find to something to disagree with. So again, engage me or piss-off. Stop wasting my time with your empty insult bullshit.
posted by dgaicun at 12:51 PM on May 10, 2006

Now, see, this is a shame, because I've developed some respect for both gd779 and dgaicun's opinions, and I'd've liked to see some back and forth on the nougaty goodness at the centre of the philosophical disputation, here, rather than bluster.

Ah well.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:39 PM on May 10, 2006

You're right, stav. I admit that, on reflection, I'm a little embarrassed by this conversation with dgaicun. I should have recognized the situation for what it was, and I shouldn't have let myself get baited.

Still, since I like and respect you, I'm willing to dance for your amusement.

dgaicun: let's start with your statement that "You are completely wrong that an independent reality outside of your own personal consciousness is a "religious worldview", it is a fact."

Tell me: what is a fact, and how do we know them when we see them? How do we sort facts from false statements? We'll go from there.
posted by gd779 at 6:01 PM on May 10, 2006

gd779, you did not get baited, you jumped in and told me I needed to "learn my history", my response was exceedingly mild, and you came back and called me a liar, which, guess what?, is fighting words.

dgaicun: let's start with your statement that "You are completely wrong that an independent reality outside of your own personal consciousness is a "religious worldview", it is a fact."

So this is the "The view of reality" that has been "vigorously discarded, relegated to the dustbin of history". You have got to be kidding me? I'm sorry, I had no idea that scientists had come to the consensus that you, MetaFilter, WWI, America, the earth, Carrot Top, and all of reality is in fact a Matrix-like illusion being fed into my brain out in the cold vacuum of space-time. What a spectacular thing to know.

I had a religious teacher once dribble this same nonsense at me, that reality and knowledge are chaotic and without justified foundation, therefore all belief - science, math, God, tarot cards, everything - was really religious faith. Which, of course, was his way of saying 'I can believe in whatever crazy shit I want and it's no less "religious" than whatever you believe in'.

Religionists love this stuff, by the way; Hume, Godel, Quine, Kuhn, they butcher and misrepresent every subtle innovation in epistemological philosophy to buttress their intellectual nihilism - the need to decapitate all logic, all evidence, so they can believe whatever they want without justification. But if the foundation of logic is undercut what did they believe they were using to undercut it? It sure looked like they were at least trying to use logic, so the whole effort contradicts itself.

If logic and the foundations of knowing really can be debunked it certainly can't be done with logic.
posted by dgaicun at 9:30 PM on May 10, 2006

I had a religious teacher once dribble this same nonsense at me...

So far, I haven't said anything. I only asked you a question, which you didn't answer.

The thing about "logic," you see, is that it is impersonal. It doesn't care what we think about it. It doesn't thrive in the "debates" that you seem to love (that's more of a "po-mo" obsession, in your terminology). It goes step by step.

You, on the other hand, seem only to want to fight. If you would like to have a reasoned discussion, the way to do that is to go step by step.

For example:

If the foundation of logic is undercut what did they believe they were using to undercut it? It sure looked like they were at least trying to use logic, so the whole effort contradicts itself. If logic and the foundations of knowing really can be debunked it certainly can't be done with logic.

See, you're getting ahead of yourself again. First of all, no one ever tries to debunk "logic." Second, in claims of the sort that you're referring to, no one is ever trying to "prove" anything in a universal sense, but merely to show that a certain worldview is internally incoherent (that is, that a certain worldview contradicts itself). I don't need to make any statements of my own to point out that you have two separate beliefs that, logically, cannot both possibly be true. So there is no logical contradiction is using logic to show that certain worldviews are not logically consistent because 1) everyone recognizes the validity of formal logic (not to be confused with the informal claim that "this makes sense to me, so it must be logical!") at all times and 2) the debunker in your scenario is not actually making any claims of his or her own, except that your claims are incompatible with each other, and that you must choose between them in order to remain logically consistent with yourself.
posted by gd779 at 4:31 AM on May 11, 2006

So, if you don't mind, please answer my earlier question, and let's see if we can't make some rational progress in this discussion.
posted by gd779 at 4:32 AM on May 11, 2006

Oh, and to be clear, I'm not disputing that facts exist (as you seem to believe). Instead, I'm going to attempt to show you that your conception of what a "fact" is, and of how we attain knowledge of a fact, is likely outdated, internally incoherent, and in need of immediate revision if you wish to remain logically consistent with your other beliefs.

But first I have to figure out precisely what it is you think a "fact" is. Hence the question.
posted by gd779 at 8:22 AM on May 11, 2006

So far, I haven't said anything. I only asked you a question, which you didn't answer. . . Oh, and to be clear, I'm not disputing that facts exist (as you seem to believe). Instead, I'm going to attempt to show you that your conception of what a "fact" is, and of how we attain knowledge of a fact, is likely outdated . . . [etc.]

Yes, that's the problem. You've been telling me how absurd and wrong I am from your first post, but never had the courtesy to quote back to me the offending idea or statement. So finally you do quote back to me an ostensibly offending statement of mine, but when I respond you snap back that you didn't disagree [?!]. Well forgive me, I'm not going to babble on until you do find something to disagree with, that's absurd, since you've already expressed strong disagreement, over something I must have already said. What is it? If you don't dispute facts exist, or any assertions of mine in particular, then what do we have to discuss, besides other things you "expect" I believe, but that I never actually discussed or expressed here? You're tilting at your own windmills. To quote my first reply:

What "view" is that gd779? The view that doesn't accept opportunistic, Po-Mo rejections of reality whenever uncomfortable facts pop up? Or the ethical view that truth is more congruent with human dignity than expedient lies?
posted by dgaicun at 6:08 PM on May 11, 2006

I'd just give it up if I were you, at this stage, gd779. dgaicun clearly doesn't want to play. I've never seen someone get so hinky and ranty about epistemology.

Thanks for trying, though.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 2:07 AM on May 12, 2006

Ah, well. Any time, stavros.
posted by gd779 at 5:17 AM on May 12, 2006