Slashdot Mirror
Researchers Crown Buddhist Monk the World's Happiest Man
concealment writes in with a story about a man who has been crowned the world's happiest. "Tibetan monk and molecular geneticist Matthieu Ricard is the happiest man in the world according to researchers at the University of Wisconsin. The 66-year-old's brain produces a level of gamma waves — those linked to consciousness, attention, learning and memory — never before reported in neuroscience. The scans showed that when meditating on compassion, Ricard's brain produces a level of gamma waves — those linked to consciousness, attention, learning and memory — 'never reported before in the neuroscience literature,' Davidson said. The scans also showed excessive activity in his brain's left pre-frontal cortex compared to its right counterpart, giving him an abnormally large capacity for happiness and a reduced propensity towards negativity, researchers believe."
when reading this, my brain produces a level of gamma waves — those linked to consciousness, attention, learning and memory — never before reported in neuroscience!
...but the complete opposite. On a more serious note, this is the kind of story that will make me take a second look into meditation. Cant wait to enjoy massive gamma waves myself!
Tomorrow is another day...
Can one not be happy during the process of helping others?
Nobody should be overly happy, not when there are so many sad things happening in the world. Instead of being happy, why not help those who aren't. Instead of feeling compassion why not make the sacrifice to act on it? If you are happy, you are probably at least a little selfish. Of course what I have said will anger many people, but it's truth. There are many things you can do to help others in your neighborhood, in your state, country, or planet that you aren't doing.
But the (horribly selfish, but nevertheless realistic) question is "why should I?"
I'm a nice guy in general. People seem to like me. But, I don't do it for the sake of it - I do it because being a nice guy is the best way to get those around me to be nice back, which makes me happy.
I contest that every human being is either inherently ENTIRELY selfish, or have something wrong with them (i.e. insanity). Even those ultra-religious types that beat themselves violently in repentance for sins are doing it on the promise of eternal happiness in heaven. If they truly believed that there was no afterlife, or that they'd suffer for all eternity; they wouldn't do it.
I've yet to see a convincing argument otherwise, including from the "I help others selflessly" crowd - they do it because the act of helping others makes them happy. If helping others made them miserable, they'd stop.
My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
This research has practical uses. It's a shame it was filed under "idle".
Understanding how happiness in the human brain works could lead to new ways to treat depression and other mental illnesses. It could also lead to the development of a tasp like device.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I find pretty much all religion abhorrent. Buddhism however, while still abhorrent for believing in mystical ideas that go against the simplest (and therefore best) definitions of reality, is definitely less abhorrent than the others. I've seen a lot of quotes from the Dalai Lama that I really appreciate and can agree wholeheartedly with. This is something I can't often say for religious leaders of any other faiths.
What I'd really like to see is some good scientific research put in to this sort of thing, stripping away the associated mysticism and getting right to the core of it. Based on the rather limited article, it appears this might not be too difficult as he may already be keeping the mysticism to a minimum.
My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
Most people prefer being surrounded by happy people instead of being surrounded by suffering unhappy people. Thus working to create more happiness in your surroundings is entirely rational even for a perfectly selfish person.
Absolutely, and that's essentially my reasoning for "being a nice guy" as stated. It's also one of the reasons I'm more "left" leaning politically - I want society to take care of the lesser fortunate people so I don't have to deal with as much poverty (and associated crime) in my surroundings.
However, I was arguing against the "don't be happy, because you're not helping people" angle that the OP seemed to be going for. To me, that's senseless.
My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
I know when I can get Enlightenment to compile I am very happy, too.
http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2569 ... :-)
Helping others can in fact make you feel miserable and often does. For example try helping refugees who have been raped and been through hell. Trust me you will feel miserable. Or go to a camp where there are thousands of people and you can hardly make a difference. You will feel like shit. Yet people do it. Even atheists do it.
You are assuming that people are motivated by the same things as you. There are many serial killers by the way, who believe in God and "know" they are going to suffer in hell, but they still keep their behavior .. maybe it's a selfishness against their future self. But anyway I know for a fact there are people who believe they are going to hell but don't care.
Happiness is the natural result of not identifying with a self that is separate from others. Selfishness is the antithesis of happiness.
In Buddhist terminology, true compassion is the sense of you-are-the-same-as-me that automatically moves one to act alleviate the suffering of another (because it hurts the helper almost the same). It's not the same as pity, which may not be sufficient to motivate helping. Paradoxically (to people unaccustomed to practicing compassion), feeling the suffering of others who are sick, dying, aging, in war, etc. actually increases one's happiness as it diminishes one's feelings of alienation.
It isn't about ignoring the negative in life. It is changing your mind so that you react to life (whether its good or bad) in a healthy, positive way. Does a negative experience send you into a crushing depression, or do you find a way to move on (or even find within that negative experience seeds of motivation to improve your life)?
The article itself hints at the applications - the research focused on emotional balance. We have a growing problem with depression in the US. If we can find a reliable way to alter brain chemistry through meditation - that provides a very compelling alternative to medication. Even if the impact isn't strong enough or reliable enough to use instead of medication - it might improve one's prognosis when used in tandem with medication or traditional therapy. Exciting research with practical use.
Happiness = Perceived Life / Expected Life
Perceived Life = Actual Life x Perception
Therefore, to be happy, either a) improve your life, b) reduce your expectations or c) change your perception. Looks like this guy went for a mix of (b) and (c). At least that's my take on it.
Feeling bad about the sad things happening in the world solves nothing.
"Ricard donates all proceeds of his books to 110 humanitarian projects which have built schools for 21,000 children and provide healthcare for 100,000 patients a year."
Given this (taken from the article), it sounds to me like he certainly sympathizes with those in unfortunate situations and does what he can to help make their lives better.
www.gaiageek.com
> Happiness comes about from satisfaction and being content, why get satisfaction and feel content if you have failed in helping others?
You're starting off on the wrong foot, there. If you accept your first statement, you won't find happiness.
Happiness is its own reward, it's its own before-and-after. There's no prerequisite for it other than consciousness.
Knowledge that shit happens in the world and you can have very little effect on that is part of it - acceptance of your part as a small piece of all reality. Attempting to rationalise what doesn't have prerequisites or conditions will always lead you down a path away from it.
So - be happy. trust. let go of a set of rules someone taught you (through words or actions or whatever) and you'll find that discovering your own happiness without putting caveats on your experience of it ("I must help people a certain amount" to "I must earn so much" or whatever) will make you all the more useful as a help to others.
It comes naturally, effortlessly, and is kinda surprising when it does - and it's oddly inexplicable too. But there it is
(fwiw I used to be like you - unconsciously I thought the same way. Then I noticed how I thought, then I made some changes, and then they accelerated to the point I found happiness and contentment and it never left me. 38 years of hell, followed by four years and counting of bliss - and being just plain happy has a profoundly positive effect on people I come in contact with, and makes me all the more responsive to their needs.)
Nobody should be overly happy, not when there are so many sad things happening in the world. [...] Of course what I have said will anger many people, but it's truth.
"Angry" doesn't even begin to describe it. I've seen people I loved so down that they tried to kill themselves. Do you want to know what I think about people who deny others happiness? They should be taken out back and shot. Twice. Right now.
You are making a dramatic, serious and inexcusible mistake there. You confuse happiness with apathy. You think that people who are happy have no desire of helping others. You think that compassion means feeling horrible because someone else does. You think that people who are happy don't care about others.
And nothing could be further from the truth. People who are unhappy are the ones who stop caring about others. People who are depressed are more likely to fall into apathy than people who are in joy. People who share the feelings of others too much are less likely to be able to help them and more likely to drag them down even further.
Now you will probably argue that you said "overly", but that's a strawman. Who is going to decide on what level of happiness is fine and which is too much? You?
If everyone would be as happy as this dude, the world would be a much better place. Sure, we'd still have hurricanes, but we'd have a lot less war, poverty and inequality.
Now, please take yourself out back and put you out of your misery. We have way too many people like you on this planet, who begrudge other people's happiness.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Happiness = Perceived Life / Expected Life
Perceived Life = Actual Life x Perception
Therefore, to be happy, either a) improve your life, b) reduce your expectations or c) change your perception. Looks like this guy went for a mix of (b) and (c). At least that's my take on it.
I think you're probably right. It'd be interesting to see if it's possible to get the same results with (a) and (c); which is what I generally strive to do. I think perhaps (b) is significantly easier than (a); but since I enjoy a challenge, I may as well get the most out of that little boost of happiness there than taking the easier path.
My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
It's because he's not married :).
I contest that every human being is either inherently ENTIRELY selfish, or have something wrong with them (i.e. insanity). Even those ultra-religious types that beat themselves violently in repentance for sins are doing it on the promise of eternal happiness in heaven. If they truly believed that there was no afterlife, or that they'd suffer for all eternity; they wouldn't do it.
This is the sort of libertarian nonsense that leads philosophers and psychologists to utterly detest randoids.
The problem with egotism, is it rests almost entirely on tautology. When almost any action can be "explained" by a circular reference to "because its in my self interest" (Why? Because I want to? Why do I want to? Because its in my self interest, ad nauseum) its a theory with no predictive powers, and frankly it runs completely at odds with everything we know about psychology and neuro-biology.
We know we have other drives other than self interest, and they are not underwritten by "self interest" either, just biology and if you explain biology by motive, you end up with mystical reification of processes. Just because we have evolved in our reproductive interests that is not the same as the claim of *intentions*. A mother throwing herself in front of a car to save her child might be acting in her species self interest, but she's not under any circumstances acting INTENTIONALLY in her OWN percieved self interest .
We have extensive networks of mirror neurons that give us the ability to empathise with others.
We have deeply wired structures in our brain that cause us to give up comfort for our children.
We are succeptable to ideological configurations that lead us to place the national interest over our own, and no dying in a kamikase attack in no way advances our personal wellbeing, because our brain design (for want of a better word) allows us to decide that the interest of the nation is more important to our personal interest.
And no, claiming that this is "irrational" doesn't help us here, because if rationality can only be defined (by the egotist creed) as self interested behavior, and self interested behavior is that, according to the randian, which is rational (by the same creed) then we are back into tautology territory again.
I could go on.
So we are stuck with a situation of a thesis about human behavior that can't be justified philosophically without committing fundamental logical errors. We can't justify it psychologically without engaging in fundamental ignorance of over a century of psychological research. We can't justify it scientifically because the evidence directly contradicts the thesis.
And to be honest, the hardest task, is to justify it politically because it seems to demand behaviors that go against everything we know about the proper running of a civil society.
Why do people persist in believing such hogwash? Its mystical solipsist randian nonsense.
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
This is a sort of Ayn Rand-ish argument. The problem with this sort of argument is it sort of dissolves the whole concept of selfishness and altruism. Just because being altruistic can have selfish rewards, does not mean altruism does not exist and everything is selfishness.
Yes, the world is a rather selfish place and most people are rather selfish. That doesn't mean they are ENTIRELY selfish. Non-selfish acts do occur. People help others expecting nothing in return and sometimes getting nothing in return as well.
So, because this occurs, people are not entirely selfish.
Secondly, just because you get something in return for being non-selfish at points does not mean you were being secretly selfish. For example, you can give someone a present and get in return a good feeling. The good feeling is selfish, but the giving of the present was altruistic. They don't cancel each other out and leave only selfishness. Both exist.
__
Big apple, new Yorik, undig it, something's unrotting in Edenmark.
>I disagree that the (majority of) people doing such things feel "completely" bad about it if they continue doing it. They may feel bad for the people and even cry themselves to sleep every night; become depressed; or otherwise be miserable - but then they either stop doing it (i.e. they realised it doesn't make them happy) or continue doing it (because they also get positive feelings from helping; OR are batshit insane (as I already mentioned as an option))
False dichotomy - which excludes the obvious third possibility (the one most of us who do such thing will give): they have a sense of responsibility toward other people.
That is a perfectly reasonable explanation - which lacks any major flaws and is well supported by "lower down" harder science (there is a strong theory that human acts of heroism - including sacrificing of lives to save non-related lives - is a result of what biologists call "overcommitment" - which itself is simply an extension "descendent privileging").
The hard sciences actively SUPPORT the conclusion that many (perhaps most) people have an innate sense of responsibility toward other people (though the degree of that sense varies and it's probably not universal to ALL people) and at least sometimes act in certain ways because they believe they are SUPPOSED to act this way - they feel COMPELLED to do do so. They may explain this compunction through the eyes of religion or morality but it's quite possibly much more base than that- those may well be rationalizations of what is effectively an instinctive drive to TAKE responsibility.
This is common across all social species. Rats adopt the babies of other rat mothers that die - just like we do - but not just childless ones, they add them to their existing litters - thus possibly reducing their own gene's chances of survival to increase those of the species.
Many humans extend this instinct even across the boundaries of species (animal and pet lovers - in their most extreme form you get PETA level thinking which takes this to an insane degree).
So why do people go and help at refugee camps even though it makes them feel absolutely horrible and has ZERO satisfaction to offer in most cases (and no recognition either usually).
Because we are compelled by our very nature as a social being, to take responsibility for the welfare of those in need. It's a defining attribute of all social species and we are decidedly social.
While there are solid and rational reasons for it, it's the the rational of evolution "the species survives better if it's members act this way" - not the rational of "I have personally made a logical choice about this".
You're looking for the rationality in the wrong PLACE. It exists, but you are checking the wrong source. If you look in the right place, it's perfectly obvious - many of those who do this see that rationality, see WHY the evolutionary path works, and sees that as a reinforcement that what their "gutt" tells them is the right thing to do really IS right.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
The psychological research on this is pretty clear (sorry no refs to hand). Below a threshold of income, happiness & material wealth are pretty tightly correlated. Above that threshold, however, the correlation drops rapidly to zero. What that threshold is is open to question - I believe some posit that the threshold is at subsistence level, others maintain its higher, perhaps higher even than median income levels. And of course, Matthieu Ricard, while he is provided with clothing & food, as a monk probably has no income or possessions (other than, traditionally, robes, begging bowls & a few ritual items).
For example try helping refugees who have been raped and been through hell. Trust me you will feel miserable. Or go to a camp where there are thousands of people and you can hardly make a difference. You will feel like shit.
If you feel miserable, it's probably because you expect something, like saving their souls or some other magic thinking.
Helping others is not about helping them materially, but helping them to change their point of view.
When somebody has been raped, the task is not to deny the rape, but stop their feeling of being a victim, or more exactly accept the past and continue their life.
It's a difficult task, because everybody identifies himself with his body, so a physical rape is considered as a rape of the whole being.
When you start to realize that your body is only a small part of you (no, I don't believe in God), rape becomes just an event in your life.
Some recent techniques, like EMDR, work well on PTSD.
Quote: I've yet to see a convincing argument otherwise, including from the "I help others selflessly" crowd - they do it because the act of helping others makes them happy. If helping others made them miserable, they'd stop.
I worked at a church sponsored food bank for a few years. I filled the role most others didn't want to, the interviewer. I asked existing customers how they were doing, and signed new people up. I asked everyone the same question, "How is it going?" Keep in mind most would have been waiting at least an hour in exchange for $10 worth of food. For some, time is food, not money.
Very often it wasn't going well. I would try and console and offer to pray, which I did many times (I'm a "devout" atheist...). Holding someone hands and pleading for a kid to get off drugs or survive a medical situation, or for the heat to stay on in February, would bring tears to both of our eyes.
Was it fun? No, it was hard, tiring, and depressing. No one "wanted" to interview and it took me a couple of months to both get comfortable doing it and to appreciate it.
What did I get out of it, why did I do it for several years? Because it gave me an incredible sense of humility and a true understanding of what I have in life. And it felt good to, on some minimal level, help someone feel a bit better.
Why did I stop? My wife had twins. We no longer have time to even keep the house very clean.
BlameBillCosby.com
Why drag that into this?
Why are you so unhappy that you wish to make others unhappy?
Measuring something does not cheapen it, only those who have frail faith think so. Everything is chemical, deal with it. Even the feelings you get from discussing and practicing your religion. Again, that does not cheapen it anyway.
You are unable to see the obvious selfishness in your claimed selfless actions. Suffering for future gain, be it on earth or the afterlife, is banking on future gratification and is thus selfish.
Donating money to a cause, and getting no direct benefit from it, is probably motivated by the idea of having done good, so giving begets gratification. Even people doing long term detrimental stuff are chasing short term gratification.
Fulfilling a want or desire is the human motivator. I don't think it matters when the sought gratification comes to pass. Now or in the future or even after death. The motivator is getting the gratification.
In the extreme case of flaggelants, they are seeking religious fulfillment. Even if the Deities would have said they liked the flaggelants actions, but despite doing good, flaggelants were to go to Hades, I suspect flaggelants would still do it, because they receive gratification from knowing they please the Deities.
# touch universe # chmod +rwx universe #
After a couple of decades of not being happy with anything, you have to start to realize that perhaps the cause of the problem... is you.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Once you start thinking that improving your life is the key to happiness, you'll never be happy. Anything can always be improved, whether it's your annual salary or how much your kids love you.
This is irrespective of the assumption that it is either possible or desirable to be happy in the first place.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
I know that god hates me and wants to burn me forever.
You could of course stop believing God hates you. Your notion of God hating you stems from giving credence to an ancient "holy book". (Nevermind the religious fundamentalists pounding leviticus, all the while treading these laws with their feet themselves.) Truth is that that book is an odd mix of historical facts, plain old fantasy and selective editing over multiple centuries. Most of all, that book is a product of man. It didn't fall out of the sky in its final form.
God doesn't hate you. People do because of their own small minded fears/insecurities and their desire to be better than the rest in the hope to get a spot in heaven (whatever and where ever that may be). Stop hating yourself, start loving yourself and start listening. God tells you a lot, but you need to listen and you need to get used to his/her humor.
# touch universe # chmod +rwx universe #
Buddhism's great, you just need to kill the Buddha (lose the hero-worship and the mysticism).
A mother throwing herself in front of a car to save her child might be acting in her species self interest, but she's not under any circumstances acting INTENTIONALLY in her OWN percieved self interest .
But here you're twisting what I was saying. I believe the mother IS acting in her own interest - completely selfishly. She derives happiness from the safety and wellbeing of her child. She knows she'd be devastated if the child were killed.
But deriving happiness from the safety and wellbeing of others is, by definition, not selfish.
You are making a fundamental error in assuming that because something somehow relates back to your self that it is selfish.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Scientists at the University of Lubbock, TX, reported that Richard Small, a Microsoft sales engineer, to be the world's angriest man. When he was shown Nate Silver's projections of Romney's chances for victory, while thinking about his name and how it matches his employers name his brain emitted Delta waves at levels never reported in neuroscience before. The delta waves are said to measure the level of anger.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Remember, Buddhist monks can't have sex with a woman or even touch a woman.
Tanzan and Ekido were once traveling together down a muddy road. A heavy rain was falling. As they came around a bend, they met a lovely girl in a silk kimono and sash, unable to cross at an intersection.
"Come on, girl," said Tanzan at once. Lifting her in his arms, he carried her over the mud.
Ekido did not speak until that night when they reached a lodging temple. Then he could no longer restrain himself. "We monks don't go near females," he told Tanzan, "especially not young and lovely ones. It is dangerous. Why did you do that?"
"I left the girl there," said Tanzan. "Are you still carrying her?"
Indeed. It's the Hedonic treadmil. Research suggests that no matter how much (a) you do, your happiness (or lack thereof) will return to your baseline level over time. If you don't adjust that level, you'll forever be chasing improvement.