You may think you have lost everything but there is still one more thing. Your humanity, your capacity to be a friend to another, even to all of them and the universe that made it all possible. And then everything is not lost. Because this is how it starts again and wins this time.

It made the news. Granted, not first page, but this particular non-telling non-gem of investigative journalism made the news because it is an oddity. Most people just carry on.

Happiness is relative and is a function of our expectations. No one ever expects themselves to go bankrupt, so when happens, it creates a emotional shock. Despite death being part of life, no one expects their loved ones to pass away. We are programmed to yield joy from our loved ones because we're selected for protecting and nourishing those who have most closest genes to us.

I wasn't aware that the internet had found another planet. This is very exciting!!! I never expected to meet someone from a world so different than the Earth. What else does your planet have that is completely different than my planet?

I'm mostly hoping that your sandwiches have the meat on the outside and the bread in the middle. That would be totally radical.

Did you have a conversation with yourself before posting? If so, I might have missed it.

No. I assumed that you must have visited some place where people don't expect bad things to happen, such as loved ones dying, and where dogs have genes that make them closest to humans in a family.

You don't think happiness/sorrow is a function expectations? What would make you feel worse: Having your wallet stolen, which had $100 in it (and nothing else), or losing $100 with QQ vs AK ai pf?


Domesticated dogs have no one else to love if they live no other dogs. Not to mention that dogs and humans have a mutualistic, evolutionary history. As for other animals humans domesticate, e.g. birds, cats, humans treat them as their own children/siblings, projecting the strong evolutionary forces to protect and love on to these animals.

It is definitely not a function of expectations.* IF we were going to run a multiple regression, it might show up as the third or fourth component in the function.

I lost a very significant sum (to me) a few days ago. It is expected that I will do so on a fairly frequent basis (once or twice a year, at least, on average). My expectation is that these losses are a certainty, yet I felt exactly like I lost a very significant sum of money.

I've also, just like everyone else who isn't very young, lost people who I knew were going to die and people who I expected not to die anytime soon. Both have been equally distressing, just ever-so-slightly different flavors with the same intensity.

That has nothing at all to do with them having the closest genes to us. I've had multiple dogs who were siblings, and I can assure you that I was their favorite. I've also had a spouse (I suspect that she was closer in genetic relation to me than the dogs, given that she is of the same species) that I loved somewhat less than the dogs.

*A complete non sequitur, but there is some research that shows our prediction of how we will react to things (both positive and negative) is extremely inaccurate

I'd expect that the amount of negative in our lives would play a part in our reaction to the positive and vice versa.

Much like how one guy in our office can't wait to get into work in the morning because he recently had a child, while the rest of us can't wait to get out.

If you play a basketball game to 13 with evenly matched teams and you're winning 11-6 but end up losing, that's way more painful than losing when the game was close. Likewise, losing a close game is way more painful than losing a game where you were already down 5-10.

I know I'm not the only who feels this, so why is this? If the game is evenly matched, you have 0.50 equity to start, and if chance of winning when you're up 11-6 is 0.9, you have 0.9 equity. If you lose when you're up 11-6, you lost 0.9 equity in a short amount of time, verses in a close game, you lost ~0.5 equity. And in the case when you're down 5-10, you gradually lost 0.50 over the entire game, whereas if the game were tied up until the very end, you would lose 0.50 equity in an instant (i.e. shock).

Once of twice a year is a rare event. Let's say the amount is $100. If you lose this on average once per year, that's an average loss of $0.27/day, so the gap in your expected loss and actual loss on the day you do loss is $99.73, which is very close to the full $100.

If you flip for $100 every morning, losing a $100 in the flip should be far less painful than when losing the $100 in the scenario above.

You are equating "it is somewhat of a factor" with "it is the main factor."

If you 100% expect that I will fry you in oil,* you will be more perturbed by being fried in oil than you will be perturbed by losing $100 in the most unlikely and unexpected way.

That doesn't remotely resemble the situation. Try 5-20% of net worth. That it is well-known to me that it will happen on a frequent basis doesn't affect my mood.

*boiling you in oil is just silly. If someone ever threatens to boil you in oil, then you can rest assured that they are a silly person.

Edit: I wasn't threatening you.

It probably plays a part. I'm not really sure whether it contributes positively or negatively.

One of the all-time favorite conversations I have had was with a guy who was literally in tears because he now had to live 3 blocks from the beach in San Diego. In a mansion. He also whined excessively about how bad the traffic is on weekends when he wants to take his yacht out. He was fun to have shots of tequila with, so there is that.

One of my all-time favorite people lived in a ****ing cabin out in the woods of central Pennsylvania. Not a log cabin. Basically a shed. Granted, it was a really nice shed. In my entire life, I've only had two sheds for gardening implements that were smaller and less decked out, so there is that. He was pretty happy much of the time, except for occasional complaints when his prosthetic arm and one or both of his prosthetic legs got water-logged. Dude was kind of like a super-hero of hunting and fishing. Worthless at dragging a deer back to camp though. Dude wasn't much of a drinker, but I guess that is because of all the missing body mass.

I've also been around people with no problems to speak of who were happy and people with loads of problems who were miserable.

He is just tired, man. Having a kid is sometimes the opposite of not having a kid, but mostly it is just parallel as far as happiness goes, I think.

$100 is merely a number or piece of paper if I can't spend it, so yes, losing $100 wouldn't mean anything in that situation. Also, the $100, along with the rest of my net worth and anything I cherish in life was lost as soon I as I found out I was going to be fried in oil.

Another thing to consider: why do people enjoy themselves more on Fridays than Sundays, despite having to work on Fridays and not Sundays? The answer: not only is happiness a function of expectations, but we even discount future happiness into our present happiness, sort of like computing discounted cashflow to come up with NPV.

It was just an example.

You can keep your entire net worth* and everything you cherish will be fine.**

What makes you really sad is that it really ****ing hurts to be fried in oil. Expectations aren't even the slightest bit of a factor. I mean, even with no experience, you'd have perfect expectation of it really being a bad sort of day.

So, again, expectations are a small factor, but not at all the most important factor.

Everyone should, according to your model, really enjoy Sundays since they nearly always exceed expectations. Fridays rarely exceed expectations since, well, you are working.

Anticipation (a different thing than variance from expectations), can be good or bad. Has nothing to do with the results though, since it is really hard to have feelings of anticipation for something that has already occurred or is occurring. You aren't actually enjoying Saturday on Friday, or miserably experiencing Monday on Sunday.

Understood, but it seemed like you were offering it as some sort of example of a rule.

*you will be a bit crispy and dead, of course.

**they will mourn you nearly exactly the appropriate amount.

Living the good life because he's intolerant of anything less?

OR

He's intolerant of anything less because he's always lived the good life?

OR

He's incapable of living the good life because he's a downer?

All sorts of questions must've been racing through your mind.

A Ron Swanson kind of man. A man's man.

Envious of this type. Always been useless practically, and not much interest in solitary living or nature in particular. It is growing on me slowly though, but too slowly for my lifetime I expect. I need all action, all stimulation, all the time. It's problem.
Health and adequate sleep seem important. Some will always have a more serious disposition as well. Them, I don't envy.
No doubt he's tired, and tiredness doesn't gel too well with happiness.

You didn't get it. Your money is worth nothing if you can't spend it.

No. If you consistently "exceed expectations", then expectations get revised up.


You might be in the minority, as most people do feel down on Sundays. You're also in the minority if you feel equally happy on Mondays as Thursdays (assuming no special plans or events take place on these days). You're also in the minority if you would feel equally good on a Saturday night as a Sunday night (assuming 0 plans on the weekend).

The main one, at the time, was "how can I make him understand what true suffering is?"

I don't think you understand his nature. He was all about stimulation. The kid just never stopped.

Speaking of Nick Offerman, . You are welcome.

Health is not really required. Well, stable health might be, I guess. New health problems attract attention to a great degree. Old hat stuff is old hat.

Disposition seems to be a thing. I'm actually not sure about it though. It might just be a feedback loop thingamajig that, with a proper change of environment, it might not be stable. I don't envy the serious either, so there is that.

Understanding parenthood when you aren't a parent is like understanding orgasms before puberty. Well, except that parenthood is nothing like an orgasm.

Or, maybe a bit more clearly, try to imagine describing red to a blind person.

The things I care about can easily spend it.

For some, I guess this is true.

I wasn't describing me. I was describing the person who fits your model.