What is the key to lasting happiness and emotional security?

[Nev]

I refer to the UK governments's desire to discover the roots of human happiness and why the UK is so low on the list in the happiness 'stakes'.

I see happiness as being dependent on two major factors, emotional security and the capacity to give to others, especially one's family. For people in work, job security is vital for peace of mind and the best recipe for job security is a booming economy, as in 1961, when there were just 275,000 unemployed in England and Wales and employers were desperate for labour and keen to hold on to their staff. There is also comfort in knowing there is cash in the bank for a 'rainy day' and anyone with debts he can barely afford to repay has little or no peace of mind. But the main source of emotional security is a caring and loving family, whether one is in work or retired, or simply a housewife at home. There is no greater security than knowing there is always someone to turn to in a crisis, that someone in most societies being a member or members of the same family.

I submit it is the widespread breakdown of relationships in the UK which is the main cause of emotional insecurity and therefore so much unhappiness in our society, where a third of the population now live on their own, some almost completely isolated from their fellow human beings! Partly due to our pressurised system of education and its emphasis on personal achievement, we have become a nation of self-seeking individuals, with far less devotion to the needs of the family than in times past and where relationships seem to be based more on superficial attraction than on the love known as 'true love', which comes to us all in our teens. If such love was widely successful, the family bond would become the main source of emotional security for both young and old, as is the case in many happier, less prosperous societies. To have someone to turn to, especially one's family, in time of need, is a huge boost to a person's emotional security and thereby one's prospects for lasting happiness.

Finally, the capacity to give is a gift we are all given at birth and derives from the natural instinct to return some of the love we receive from our family, especially our parents, in early life. Love lies at the heart of the nature of all human beings, however twisted and torn we may be by ill fortune or hurt and made 'monsters' by a 'lack of love' as we journey through life. For those who are fortunate enough to find the love inside, which resides deep down in us all, there is nothing quite like the joy which contributing to the happiness of others inevitably brings.

 

[pallidin]

Happiness is most definitely dependent on personal emotional security, but has nothing, necessarily, to do with giving to others.
I have met some people that are so arrogant and wrapped-up into themselves that they are quite happy, and don't give a damn about anyone else.

 

[DanP]

Happiness is pretty much genetic. Happy events or sorrow events will merely make you oscillate near your threshold. Pray for good genes :P

Stress (or lackthereof), not happiness, is dependent of security, status and dominance. Higher you status is, lower your stress is , and this apply in most social hierarchies in this world.

 

[DanP]

Finally, the capacity to give is a gift we are all given at birth and derives from the natural instinct to return some of the love we receive from our family, especially our parents, in early life. Love lies at the heart of the nature of all human beings, however twisted and torn we may be by ill fortune or hurt and made 'monsters' by a 'lack of love' as we journey through life. For those who are fortunate enough to find the love inside, which resides deep down in us all, there is nothing quite like the joy which contributing to the happiness of others inevitably brings.

We are also born capable of utmost hate, not only love. Of anger and levels of aggression comparable to any other predator in the animal kingdom. We are equally capable of cooperative and competitive behaviors. Going from self-sacrifice to the remorseless killing of another human.

We are interesting :P

 

[Major_Energy]

For what it is worth, the US founding fathers made it clear from the start that the government does not PROVIDE happiness, it simply allows the freedom to do whatever makes you happy. Ben Franklin put it best;

"The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself." - Benjamin Franklin

So I would argue, it is not a government's job to provide for people's happiness.

 

[pallidin]

Well said, Major Energy. Oh, and Ben.

 

[brainstorm]

For what it is worth, the US founding fathers made it clear from the start that the government does not PROVIDE happiness, it simply allows the freedom to do whatever makes you happy. Ben Franklin put it best;

"The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself." - Benjamin Franklin

So I would argue, it is not a government's job to provide for people's happiness.

But the government could make it its job to identify and eliminate barriers to the pursuit of happiness. For example, if research found that people had trouble making friends because of high-standards of material consumption that prevented lower-income people from feeling self-confident because they couldn't afford the things they believed they needed to impress others, then the government could do something to disassociate high-status consumption with social-likeability, for example by having informational campaigns about snobbery that portray elite materialism as anti-social and unfriendly. Or perhaps the reverse could be done as well; i.e. show examples of friendship between people who appear to have different class-status identities. Of course this would probably only result in teasing and bullying of people who imitate the behavior shown in the campaigns, causing people to avoid inter-class contact that much more strongly. I'm not sure what else could be done to reduce class-based denigration of self and others. You can't simply provide everyone with elite class-status consumption, because that just encourage more superiorism on everyone's part that leads to more mean behavior on the basis of status.

 

[apeiron]

Happiness is pretty much genetic. Happy events or sorrow events will merely make you oscillate near your threshold. Pray for good genes :P.

Pretty much...as in perhaps 50 percent.

Positive psychology researchers would argue that it is then 10 percent life circumstances and 40 percent mental attitude - positive thought habits that can be fostered.

Of course, living in a society based on social inequality and junk values might make it hard to cultivate a healthy mental outlook.

 

[Astronuc]

True happiness comes from having a sense of inner peace and contentment, which in turn must be achieved by cultivating altruism, love and compassion, and by eliminating anger, selfishness and greed.

Dalai Lama

 

[AlephZero]

The Jewish version is shorter than the Tibetan:

Happiness is not having what you want. It is wanting what you have.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I don't think one can apply any simple rule to all people. Some people seem to be unhappy for reasons beyond their or anyone else's control. Some people never get beyond tramatic events in their lives. For example, I knew or knew of former Vietnam vets who never really recovered from their experiences - PTSD destroys lives. Other people seem to have chemical imbalance problems. I have an aunt who, for the last 30+ years, has been through countless psychiatrists and a never-ending list of antidepressants. If medical science has something to offer her, we have yet to see it. She has been miserable for 30 years.

Other people are caught in miserable circumstances or have serious health problems. Many women esp seem to struggle with hormone problems during middle-age, that cause dramatic mood swings. Other people may have chemical addiction problems that are likely genetic, that destroy their lives. Others are people who fall victim to severe problems in someone they love. It is difficult to overcome the trauma of a shattered life.

For what it's worth, around the year 2000 I was in a terrible state of depression. Slowly I began to understand that for years I had surrounded myself with people I didn't like - people who really made me miserable just to be around. My sense of family duty and personal loyalty had completely undermined my ability to be happy. So I cleaned house. I [essentially] told one family member and some long-time "friends" to take a hike. It was soooooo liberating! I don't think my father ever forgave me, but you know what, I don't care! And that was the secret. My life isn't perfect but it made a huge difference. Now, if someone seems to be dragging me down, I ditch them with hardly any effort at all. And that was the final part of the equation: The realization that all things in life are transient and fleeting, and people change, so don't be afraid of change. Lose the baggage.

So I am convinced there is no single path to happiness. It depends on the person and the circumstances. I also believe that one reason we have so many unhappy people is that we now have lives that allow the time to worry about it.

 

[Digitalism]

I was reading an interesting article earlier about a Dr. Candace Pert who discovered peptide T and wrote a book on the subject called Everything You Need To Know To Feel Go(o)d. She argues that happiness comes from a subjective sense of bliss that comes about through a subjective sense of experiencing god. You can find the article on google by searching for emotional physics. It is the second link down. I actually agree with her, though for me the experience is more of a subjective feeling of everything being ok and just as it should be.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I was reading an interesting article earlier about a Dr. Candace Pert who discovered peptide T and wrote a book on the subject called Everything You Need To Know To Feel Go(o)d. She argues that happiness comes from a subjective sense of bliss that comes about through a subjective sense of experiencing god. You can find the article on google by searching for emotional physics. It is the second link down. I actually agree with her, though for me the experience is more of a subjective feeling of everything being ok and just as it should be.

What would you say to someone who is depressed because they have suffered a crisis of faith?

 

[Digitalism]

This may sound silly or insane, but it helped me so I'll share it. Express your anger and grief to the god you no longer believe in. It is cathartic and necessary so that you can grieve. Secondly, don't isolate. Part of that feeling of connectedness comes back by connecting with real people in your everyday life and ultimately with the world around you (but, this is much easier if you start by sharing your hopes, dreams, and fears with other persons). Next, learn to forgive. See all the people around you as a small manifestation of this force in the world that is trying to find happiness but just feels unequipped to see it at the moment and so lashes out in pain and frustration. After that, realize that just as you can view persons as just seemingly inanimate random (and capricious) processes you can view the inanimate world as filled with love if only in your appreciation of it. Poetry helps. Then imagine that just maybe even now you are surrounded by this love and that everything is going to be ok.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This may sound silly or insane, but it helped me so I'll share it. Express your anger and grief to the god you no longer believe in. It is cathartic and necessary so that you can grieve. Secondly, don't isolate. Part of that feeling of connectedness comes back by connecting with real people in your everyday life and ultimately with the world around you (but, this is much easier if you start by sharing your hopes, dreams, and fears with other persons). Next, learn to forgive. See all the people around you as a small manifestation of this force in the world that is trying to find happiness but just feels unequipped to see it at the moment and so lashes out in pain and frustration. After that, realize that just as you can view persons as just seemingly inanimate random (and capricious) processes you can view the inanimate world as filled with love if only in your appreciation of it. Poetry helps. Then imagine that just maybe even now you are surrounded by this love and that everything is going to be ok.

The thing is, in my experience at least, the feeling you describe is also fleeting. I have watched any number of people struggle for years in hopes of finding a spiritual happiness pill - a way to always feel that connectedness of which you speak. Even Mother Theresa struggled with her faith. In her later years, she never felt the the spiritual connection that she felt in her youth. You might say that she took her faith on faith. Imo, faith is much more subtle than a warm fuzzy feeling. It is a philosophy one adopts in spite of the frequent if not permanent loss of connectedness. The real trick is to believe it even when you don't feel it.

It is hard for me to believe that the rates of depression are not linked to the loss of spirituality. To some extent, I think we have rationalized our way out of happiness.

 

[DanP]

Of course, living in a society based on social inequality and junk values might make it hard to cultivate a healthy mental outlook.

Is social equality desirable ? We are not born the same. Not as phenotype, nor socially. Some have a permanent drive to improve and gain more social power, others do not. Then why should out society be based on social equality ?The only important equality is before the law IMO. The maximum extent to which social equality should be imposed.

 

[apeiron]

Is social equality desirable ?

Studies across cultures say a lower gini coefficient correlates with reported levels of happiness.

Using the Gini coefficient as one possible indicator of happiness, we find that the countries with the most evenly distributed wealth are Denmark (0.247), Japan (0.249) and Sweden (0.25). [Source]

At the other end of the scale are Sierra Leone (0.629), Lesotho (0.632) and in last place, Namibia (0.743).

http://www.squarecirclez.com/blog/database-of-happiness/1080

As you seem to agree, the essential dynamic of societies is competion~cooperation. So if equality is being read here as co-operation, then I wouldn't be arguing that complete equality is desirable. Instead it would be a balance between individual striving and social outcomes, so a reasonable financial equality would seem the goal.

Doesn't Denmark sound like utopia ...

Danes do have one potential complaint: high taxes. The happiest people in the world pay some of the highest taxes in the world -- between 50 percent and 70 percent of their incomes. In exchange, the government covers all health care and education, and spends more on children and the elderly than any country in the world per capita. With just 5.5 million people, the system is efficient, and people feel "tryghed" -- the Danish word for "tucked in" -- like a snug child.

Those high taxes have another effect. Since a banker can end up taking home as much money as an artist, people don't chose careers based on income or status. "They have this thing called 'Jante-lov,' which essentially says, 'You're no better then anybody else,'" said Buettner. "A garbage man can live in a middle-class neighborhood and hold his head high."

Indeed, garbage man Jan Dion says he's an eight out of 10 in terms of happiness. He said he doesn't mind collecting garbage for a living, because he works just five hours in the morning and then can spend the rest of the day at home with family or coaching his daughter's handball team. Dion says no one judges his choice of career, and he actually loves what he does because he has many friends along his route. It makes him happy when he sees the children who wave to him and the old ladies who bring him cups of coffee.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=4086092&page=1

 

[Digitalism]

to IvanSeeking, things are only unhappy until they're not and it takes a world full of troubles to make an intelligence into a soul

 

[M. Bachmeier]

Happiness is strictly an individual thing. Become an individual and you'll likely be happy.

 

[apeiron]

Happiness is strictly an individual thing. Become an individual and you'll likely be happy.

It would be nice if you could back up this statement with the evidence of research.

You might be thinking of Maslow's model of self-actualisation here. Or you could be talking about the idea of mastery. There are certain ways that "being individual" can indeed be related to life satisfaction.

However there is a big difference between theories based on trans-personal psychology (where the individual becomes content by rising beyond the here and now of either/both physical and social environment) and theories that stress an equilibrium balance (where the individual is "at one" with their physical/social environment).

So transcendance or harmony? Which is your poison here?

 

[pallidin]

Yeah, I think that social equality should exist only with respect to opportunity as, like you said, people are different and have different values of personal success.

 

[DanP]

However there is a big difference between theories based on trans-personal psychology (where the individual becomes content by rising beyond the here and now of either/both physical and social environment) and theories that stress an equilibrium balance (where the individual is "at one" with their physical/social environment).

I believe transcendence is miss-adaptive. You basically build an illusory ivory tower and seclude yourself in it. Monks come to my head every time I hear of transcendence.

Mastery of environment is much more plausible. It's highly adaptive.

... which in turn must be achieved by cultivating altruism, love and compassion

Is it ? Or is it not ?

We live in a world where social interaction causes powerful stress responses. Stress responses which damage in time our bodies, and may facilitate onset of depression or
unmanageable levels of anxiety. Generally, higher you are in a social hierarchy you are less likely to be exposed to stress factors. Luckily the complexity of our social world allows one to be part of multiple hierarchies, and report differently to each one of them.

So then you can ask: is for example a mountain rescue team an example of highly altruistic individuals, or simply another hierarchy composed by individuals who found the mastery of the environment here and adhered to this hierarchy where they rank high simply because it allows them to manage stress responses ?

Love , compassion are both important. But can a member of an advanced western society be happy even if he is full of love and compassion when he barely earns enough to feed his family ? I think not. Again, less stress, less impact on you, more likely are you to float near your genetic threshold of "happiness". Status and access to resources (** relative to your in-group** ) does help.

 

[M. Bachmeier]

It would be nice if you could back up this statement with the evidence of research.

You might be thinking of Maslow's model of self-actualisation here. Or you could be talking about the idea of mastery. There are certain ways that "being individual" can indeed be related to life satisfaction.

However there is a big difference between theories based on trans-personal psychology (where the individual becomes content by rising beyond the here and now of either/both physical and social environment) and theories that stress an equilibrium balance (where the individual is "at one" with their physical/social environment).

So transcendance or harmony? Which is your poison here?

Neither, I express my opinion only. I don't believe that happiness can be quantified in any consistent long term way (happiness is highly subjective). I don't think you can find happiness at the top of a hierarchy of needs, you might find contentment, but even that I'm unsure of.

The most common descriptions of happiness I've observed come from people engaging in activities they like. We all must conform to the social system we are in (to some extent), but to be happy, people must do things and find work that allows them to express their individuality, or pursue their individual desires.

 

[DanP]

The most common descriptions of happiness I've observed come from people engaging in activities they like. We all must conform to the social system we are in (to some extent), but to be happy, people must do things and find work that allows them to express their individuality, or pursue their individual desires.

Sure, if you look in Higgins's self discrepancy theory of the self, we see that behaviors in contradiction with the so called ideal self generate powerful feelings of sadness (ideal self is very much what you would like to be, without social constrains. For example, compete at top level in athletics ... you name it). Working towards the ideal self will generate happiness. In contrast, behaviors in contradiction which the so called ought self (what the society believe you should be) generate anxiety, or when you meet the expectations you are merely contempt.

But there is a catch: powerful genetic and social constrains operates on the individual. You may wish to compete at the top of athletics, but sub-par genetics will make this task prohibitively hard, or you may wish to make a living as a person saving whales, but the social circumstances may make it impossible. Eliminating as much as possible from constrains will make the task easier. So this is why being ranked high in a social hierarchy and having access to resources will greatly ease those tasks. How many ppl you think can afford to pursue their ideal self when they are buried under mortgages, they are at a lot of stress at work 10 hours a day, and have kids which must be fed ?

It;s simply impossible to say to become an "individual", since a big part of the self is social in nature. A human individual is inherently a creature modeled by social.

Flow itself, a state of intrinsic motivation where automatisms meet any behavioral demands, is not becoming a individual, it's basically a form of de-individualization.

And besides that, I've heard psychologists saying that spikes in happiness/sadness are transitory. Inheriting a large amount of money, will make you happy for a while, but youll fall back to the threshold in time. So with very sad events. You will feel sorrow, maybe even depression, but in time you will get back to your normal state of affairs. (clinical cases of depression not withstanding)

 

[M. Bachmeier]

How many ppl you think can afford to pursue their ideal self when they are buried under mortgages, they are at a lot of stress at work 10 hours a day, and have kids which must be fed ?

It;s simply impossible to say to become an "individual", since a big part of the self is social in nature. A human individual is inherently a creature modeled by social.

I don't entirely disagree with you and I should not have tried to oversimplify the subject. People need to pursue many avenues of individual happiness and must be both realistic and adaptive in pursuing those goals. However, people are not strictly modeled by their environment either.

Myself for example. I had planned to open my own greenhouse operation employing Integrated Pest Management techniques and my own theory, Least Measures Criteria. After the technologies crash (1999-2000) it was no longer possible for me to pursue that goal as I defined it, so I have a personal greenhouse where I can experiment, learn and get a sun tan in the winter. Bear in mind it's not my only goal in life and I have to negotiate and bargain with myself and the world around me in order to pursue my individual happiness.

One other thing I should have said is that their are no absolute guaranties of happiness no matter how great the effort, but pursuit of such goals also provides rewards of its own. Pursuit of one's goals may introduce many hardships that are unpleasant at the time, but provide satisfaction when completed and enhances one's perception of happiness when and if the goal is completed successfully.

 

[apeiron]

Neither, I express my opinion only. I don't believe that happiness can be quantified in any consistent long term way (happiness is highly subjective). I don't think you can find happiness at the top of a hierarchy of needs, you might find contentment, but even that I'm unsure of.

The most common descriptions of happiness I've observed come from people engaging in activities they like. We all must conform to the social system we are in (to some extent), but to be happy, people must do things and find work that allows them to express their individuality, or pursue their individual desires.

I'd agree that we are not really talking about maintaining a constant state of ecstatic bliss here. That is unnatural - the nervous system couldn't sustain it. But being "happy" would be being generally contented, positive, engaged - not unhappy.

What I would seriously question is the common presumption in this thread that being happy results from loudly and visibly expressing your individuality. This is an ideological position (we can recognise it from laissez faire economics) rather than scientifically supported.

Being an individual, and so apart or beyond society, is actually an unhappy place for most people. Being engaged with society is what makes most people content. And as the OP states, being part of societies based on the cult of individualism makes for much discontent.

 

[apeiron]

Sure, if you look in Higgins's self discrepancy theory of the self, we see that behaviors in contradiction with the so called ideal self generate powerful feelings of sadness (ideal self is very much what you would like to be, without social constrains. For example, compete at top level in athletics ... you name it). Working towards the ideal self will generate happiness. In contrast, behaviors in contradiction which the so called ought self (what the society believe you should be) generate anxiety, or when you meet the expectations you are merely contempt.

But are top athletes happy then as your reasoning suggests? Often they sound pretty screwy because they are constantly driven by a fear of failure. It is what they do wrong, rather than what they do right that motivates them. Plenty have the genetics to succeed, but fewer have the need not ever to lose.

And again. you talk about ideal selves and social conformity. The irony is that "being an individual" is the exact cultural script that you are responding to. Where else could any self ideal come from? Do you think humans invent their own ideal selves?

It is like everyone rebelling by wearing jeans or spiking their hair. Non-conformity is the modern conformity. Everyone wants to look and sound like they are doing it.

You are right that modern society causes many people stress. But again that is the point here. Traditional societies with a better balance between individual competition and social cooperation are less stress, more flow. By traditional, I mean hunter/gatherer as I would agree things probably did start to go downhill with the invention of agriculture and settlement .

 

[DanP]

t are top athletes happy then as your reasoning suggests? Often they sound pretty screwy because they are constantly driven by a fear of failure. It is what they do wrong, rather than what they do right that motivates them. Plenty have the genetics to succeed, but fewer have the need not ever to lose.

My reasoning does not require that they are happy. It's just an example to illustrate genetic constraints.

And again. you talk about ideal selves and social conformity. The irony is that "being an individual" is the exact cultural script that you are responding to. Where else could any self ideal come from? Do you think humans invent their own ideal selves?

The difference between the two selves in this theory is subtle yet important. To paraphrase prof. Lieberman's words "You do not aspire in your life to take out the thrash
from the kitchen but you are supposed to do it. You won't feel happiness for taking out the trash, at most you will feel content and sure that your wife won't nag your head". Vary the scale accordingly, this is a very domestic example.

Otherwise put it, if you decide to engage in a sport for example, there is no conformity pressure from the society to participate in either 100m sprints or 5km races. But you may aspire to only one of those, it's your ideal. Its not something you ought to do, to be a runner or mountain biker or whatever.

But you ought to respect social norms, or else you may face rejection from society, or parts of it.

And this theory bodes well with evolutionary psychology theories which maintain that anxiety in small doses is adaptive. It;s basically a signal to stop miss-adaptive behaviors, and don't risk further injury to self (of various natures), and Higgin;s studies showed that discrepancies against ought self generate powerful anxiety.

You are right that modern society causes many people stress. But again that is the point here. Traditional societies with a better balance between individual competition and social cooperation are less stress, more flow. By traditional, I mean hunter/gatherer as I would agree things probably did start to go downhill with the invention of agriculture and settlement .

Im not very sure they are. Sapolsky of Stanford goes as much back as primates. He talks about baboons:

“Baboons, like humans, have the luxury of making themselves sick with purely psychological stress,”

You think that hunter-gatherers are much better than baboons ? Perhaps such a society will have lower levels of stress, but is purely because they don't have yet banks, mortgages, credit cards and whatever else. Not because the individuals there won't **** into each others head.

 

[apeiron]

Otherwise put it, if you decide to engage in a sport for example, there is no conformity pressure from the society to participate in either 100m sprints or 5km races. But you may aspire to only one of those, it's your ideal. Its not something you ought to do, to be a runner or mountain biker or whatever.

If you consider the history of sport, there is a strong and explicit cultural justification. English schools invented games that would toughen kids up, while teaching them to be "sporting" about it. Volleyball was invented because other alternatives like basketball were getting too rough. How can you do martial arts without feeling the weight of various cultural beliefs behind each one?

So every sport is in fact highly "conformist". It harnesses a biologically-evolved enjoyment in play and flow to socialised ends, bound by utterly explicit rules and moral codes.

Participation may be optional these days perhaps. It certainly wasn't when I was at school.

And your point about an individual having some free decision about which sport or event might be their ideal is very weak. It does not illustrate a lack of social thinking but a narrowness of mind that would be very odd. How many jocks do you know who don't aspire to be good at every sport - while realising that the need to put in 10,000 hours of practice, let alone have the required physical talents, are indeed severe constraints.

You think that hunter-gatherers are much better than baboons ? Perhaps such a society will have lower levels of stress, but is purely because they don't have yet banks, mortgages, credit cards and whatever else. Not because the individuals there won't **** into each others head.

Humans are clearly different from baboons - naturally less hierarchical and more communal. This is clear from males and females being similar sized. We are not designed as a harem social creature.

I'm not arguing that even the best adjusted hunter-gatherers are free of stress responses. Stress is natural, and even a little enjoyable. But you have to argue carefully if you want to use the baboon example.

Google what Sapolsky had to say about his Forest Troop after its dominant males were wiped out by disease.

The social con*se*quences of these changes were dra*matic. There remained a hier*ar*chy among the For*est Troop males, but it was far looser than before. Com*pared with other, more typ*i*cal savanna baboon groups, high-ranking males rarely harassed sub*or*di*nates and occa*sion*ally even relin*quished con*tested resources to them. Aggres*sion was less fre*quent, par*tic*u*larly against third par*ties. And rates of affil*ia*tive behav*iors, such as males and females groom*ing each other or sit*ting together, soared. There were even instances, now and then, of adult males groom*ing each other—a behav*ior nearly as unprece*dented as baboons sprout*ing wings.

This unique social milieu did not arise merely as a func*tion of the skewed sex ratio (with half the males hav*ing died); other pri*ma*tol*o*gists have occa*sion*ally reported on troops with sim*i*lar ratios but with*out a com*pa*ra*ble social atmos*phere. What was key was not just the pre*dom*i*nance of females but the type of male who remained. The demo*graphic disaster—what evo*lu*tion*ary biol*o*gists term a “selec*tive bottleneck”—had pro*duced a savanna baboon troop quite dif*fer*ent from what most experts would have anticipated.

 

[DanP]

If you consider the history of sport, there is a strong and explicit cultural justification. English schools invented games that would toughen kids up, while teaching them to be "sporting" about it. Volleyball was invented because other alternatives like basketball were getting too rough.

True, but its not relevant in this case. The society at large will not really care whatever you are involved in 100m sprint or 1 mile races. There is no social pressure in general towards either of this probes. (Sure, if your mom and pa where both sprinters they may make pressure on you, but those are isolated cases). Yet you may find one to be your dream, and enjoy the speed rush in 100m.

How can you do martial arts without feeling the weight of various cultural beliefs behind each one?

A Judo throw effectiveness does not relay on knowing any cultural believes. It simply resides in the expression of various bio-motor abilities in the technical movement. More practice, less worry about the weight of Japanese cultural believes.

So every sport is in fact highly "conformist". It harnesses a biologically-evolved enjoyment in play and flow to socialised ends, bound by utterly explicit rules and moral codes.

There is no social pressure as I said to get involved in a specific sport. If you know an actual culture where you ought to be a soccer player no matter what, pls tell me.

And your point about an individual having some free decision about which sport or event might be their ideal is very weak. It does not illustrate a lack of social thinking but a narrowness of mind that would be very odd. How many jocks do you know who don't aspire to be good at every sport - while realising that the need to put in 10,000 hours of practice, let alone have the required physical talents, are indeed severe constraints.

We are not talking here about what event if ideal for your genetics. We are simply talking about what you see yourself aspiring to do. If your aspirations are to run 100m, you simply doit. And doing it will generate a small amount of happiness. You may suck big time at it, but it doesn't matter as long it's your ideal.

Genetics and countless hours of training are important if your ideal is to be competitive in the sport. Make it to national level, international whatever. But all those have little importance if you just see yourself running and you simply doit.

Humans are clearly different from baboons - naturally less hierarchical and more communal. This is clear from males and females being similar sized. We are not designed as a harem social creature.

Humans are actually somewhere middle way between a tournament species and a pair bonding species. There is still strong sexual dimorphism in humans. We are not sized similarly. Females are clearly smaller than males in our species.

And about the fact that you say that we are less hierarchical, I don't know. Look at just about every social structure created by humans. They are all hierarchical. Everywhere you have 2 humans, sooner or later one has to be the boss and the other the subordinate.

Companies ? Hierarchical. State structure ? Hierarchical. Family ? Hierarchical. School ? Hierarchical. Just about every social construct we invented is hierarchical.

I'm not arguing that even the best adjusted hunter-gatherers are free of stress responses. Stress is natural, and even a little enjoyable. But you have to argue carefully if you want to use the baboon example.

Frankly, I don't believe in the "noble savage". I believe that hunter gatherers where as adept as we are and as baboons are at making each others life a "hell".

Google what Sapolsky had to say about his Forest Troop after its dominant males were wiped out by disease.

Yeah, its gone soft :P So ?

 

[pallidin]

"Happiness" is simply a "state of mind"
What it means to one person is not necessarily what it means to another.

 

[WhoWee]

The thing is, in my experience at least, the feeling you describe is also fleeting. I have watched any number of people struggle for years in hopes of finding a spiritual happiness pill - a way to always feel that connectedness of which you speak. Even Mother Theresa struggled with her faith. In her later years, she never felt the the spiritual connection that she felt in her youth. You might say that she took her faith on faith. Imo, faith is much more subtle than a warm fuzzy feeling. It is a philosophy one adopts in spite of the frequent if not permanent loss of connectedness. The real trick is to believe it even when you don't feel it.

It is hard for me to believe that the rates of depression are not linked to the loss of spirituality. To some extent, I think we have rationalized our way out of happiness.

As you pointed out earlier - people come and go. Spiritual happiness is something you either find and accept or reject and dismiss. The cup is either full or empty.