
The Age of Absurdity: Why Modern Life Makes It Hard to Be Happy (2010) - rublev
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/feb/21/the-age-of-absurdity-foley
======
karma_vaccum123
There is an entire industry dedicated to making you feel inadequate and
unhappy: advertising. We are bombarded with messages telling us we are not
good enough as we are, but certain products and services can make it so.

Don't worry though, it will all be better once you sit down with your Bay Area
Mercedes Benz dealer to talk about financing options on the fantastic new S
series featuring blah blah blah.

~~~
aianus
Until it becomes socially acceptable to bring a tax return and 401k statement
on a first date, nice clothes and a nice car are going to remain the only way
to demonstrate success to a stranger.

~~~
karma_vaccum123
If that is what it takes for you to demonstrate attractiveness to a
prospective mate...maybe you should hit the gym more.

"I liked her because she liked me because of my car"

said no one ever?

~~~
sliverstorm
The idea isn't that you have a nice car and that makes you attractive. It just
gets simplified to that for caricature.

The idea is, no matter who you are as a person, the version of you that is
healthy, fit, and clearly never has to worry about money, is one of the more
attractive versions of you. She's not a gold digger, she just wants to be with
someone who is financially secure.

~~~
jazzyk
The context here is "first date".

There are far more important things to think about on first date such as "Do I
like this guy?", not how expensive his car is.

------
tuna-piano
"As time went by, the settlers from Europe noticed something: No Indians were
defecting to join colonial society, but many whites were defecting to live in
the Native American one."

The passage shocked me, as it is extremely surprising, and speaks to the core
of our societal growth over the past few hundreds of years not leading to
maximum happiness. The passage is from this David Brooks column (which I think
is definitely worth the three minutes to read):
[http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/09/opinion/the-great-
affluenc...](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/09/opinion/the-great-affluence-
fallacy.html)

The core thought is that people trade up for comfort (including privacy), but
that they lose out on the overall bonds with other people that are what really
makes us happy.

One extremely clear choice: Do you work from home (more comfy) or an office
(more social)?

The work from home choice seems extremely relevant to me. Is it actually bad
for happiness in the long term to do something that's so much more comfortable
(no commuting, no dressing up, feeling of being at home, etc)?

When I think about the best times in my own life, they were the times when I
had a close group of people I lived and hung out with (college, summer camp,
etc). I assume it's the same for many others reading this. So why do we not
live more like that into our adult years?

~~~
yankeehue
I work from home. If I were single or if the kids had moved out of the house
and my SO worked, your comment would probably be true for me (better to be in
the office). But, I've had a chance to see my young children grow up in a way
that couldn't have happened had I been in the office, all while doing
significant meaningful work. Certainly that's more social with a closer group
of people (family). So, it probably depends on circumstances.

~~~
KurtMueller
What meaningful work did you do?

------
mixmastamyk
Around the turn of the century _cough_ I became aware of the concept of
"affluenza" (a portmanteau of affluence and influenza), watched a PBS show on
the topic, and read the book "Your Money or Your Life," which changed my life.
Before that time I was a materialistic kid, gathering as much stuff as I
could.

The TL;DR to these is that once you get _enough_ anything more produces
rapidly diminishing returns in the happiness department:

\-
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affluenza](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affluenza)

\-
[http://www.pbs.org/kcts/affluenza/show/joe.html](http://www.pbs.org/kcts/affluenza/show/joe.html)

\-
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs)

The movie Fight Club also came out around this time with a similar message and
was the "knockout punch" to my consumerism, haha. Not long after this I'd sold
most of what I owned, quit my job, and took a trip around the world. Have been
much happier ever since, with new expectations and goals.

Another thing I learned on that trip, I did not miss TV one minute while I was
gone, and found a lot of the garbage (consumerism, superstition, Britney news,
and petty politics) in my mind had cleared. The main purpose of TV news and
advertising is to drive fear and desire, which I now liken to a cancer, but
one that can be beat.

Yes, we have netflix and itunes because there are some great shows, right? But
commercials and mainstream news sources---fuck no---life is much better
without them.

~~~
rogerdpack
So would you say reading the book affected you more? How has your life changed
since the first bout?

~~~
mixmastamyk
Well, the book gives you one way to financial independence (though it is a bit
outdated now), that may be important to you. The movie gives background on why
consumerism does not fulfill us.

------
fallingfrog
Come on! We live in a world which is specifically designed to make us unhappy.
I mean most of us don't even have the option to be less materialistic; most
jobs that pay enough that you could spend less time at work don't give you the
option of doing so. So the only freedom left to people is the freedom to
choose how their money is spent. Human relations are constantly being squeezed
out and replaced with business deals. And I keep seeing these articles blaming
the victims. Folks, this is not some unintended side effect of capitalism-
this is the way the system is supposed to work. You're not supposed to be
happy.

~~~
DominikR
> most jobs that pay enough that you could spend less time at work don't give
> you the option of doing so.

In most countries outside of the West jobs pay much less and you'll be forced
to work much more to merely survive. Want to trade with them?

> Folks, this is not some unintended side effect of capitalism- this is the
> way the system is supposed to work. You're not supposed to be happy.

So an economic system where private enterprises produce goods and services
based on what they believe will make profit (and not through coercion) and
where you, the consumer, as a result have more options to choose from is
somehow designed to make you unhappy?

What would make you happy? "Democratic Socialism"? Would you prefer to work in
forced labour camp? Because that's how Socialism inevitably ends every single
time. Even in case of the poster child of Socialism, Venezuela, which recently
passed a forced labour law.

~~~
merpnderp
I often wonder if anyone who believe that the freedom to sell your goods and
services is a bad thing can be rationalized with. Where do you even start with
someone who disagrees with free trade? I mean their stance is basically that
slavery (to the state) is a good thing. That's such a philosophical starting
point based on intrinsic values, where do you start?

~~~
randomgyatwork
Doesn't a disagreement with free trade mean that you think products from other
countries should be taxed? If thats the case than local goods have a
completive advantage in price, thats a good thing for a community isn't it?

Free trade is an advantage to these who have the capital to move around, and
to the idea of consumerism because unnecessary goods can be cheaper.

~~~
merpnderp
I meant free market.

------
ErikAugust
Just read "Meditations" by Marcus Aurelius, and "The Myth of Sisyphus" by
Albert Camus.

This article hints at both - and they were my biggest eye-openers on the
question of how* to live.

~~~
reifnir
Same here. Meditations is fantastic, though for a more complete look into
Stoicism, I can't recommend A Guide to the Good Life (The Ancient Art of Stoic
Joy) by William B Irvine enough!

~~~
stryan
I too recommend "A Guide to the Good Life" but saying its a "more complete
look into Stoicism" seems a little exagerating. Irvine covers a lot of of the
major topics and offers a many excellent ways of integrating them into modern
life but underplays one of the most important aspects of Stoicism: living a
virtuous lifestyle. He instead heavily plays up the tranquility aspects which
I find a bit disingenuous. He also neglects many of the metaphysical aspects
of Stoicism which, even if you don't believe/agree with them (I certainly
don't), makes it more difficult to understand the background of a lot of Stoic
teachings and practices.

It's best to take Irvine's book as a guide to his own modern philosophy
heavily based off Stoicism. Take that as you will, but I would recommend
Stoicism and the Art of Happiness and some of the original Stoic classics;
Enchiridion by Epictetus (it's short and _very_ direct) and Seneca the
Youngers Letters.

------
bbctol
What is it about "modern" life that makes us less inclined to Stoicism,
though? This smells of noble savagery--I'm doubtful anyone who refers to
ritual body mutilation as preferable to playing Everquest has been mutilated.

~~~
throwanem
> I'm doubtful anyone who refers to ritual body mutilation as preferable to
> playing Everquest has been mutilated.

"You might be surprised," he said, and was himself surprised when people took
it as a joke.

------
sakopov
Jason Silva put it quite nicely in one of his videos [1]:

> The very same quality that make us these majestic creatures that soar above
> the heavens and transcend their boundaries has made us perpetually
> dissatisfied, neurotic beings living in urban centers drowning in
> consumption in an over-capitalist bloated system that can no longer satiate
> us always wanting something else until we're overwhelmed and overweight and
> immobilized by how spoiled we've become and yet we enjoy very little of it.

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzAFCU4RCnM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzAFCU4RCnM)

------
orky56
We are moving away from the satisfaction in the action to glamorizing all the
other parts such as the result, or even worse the ability to avoid the action
altogether. Our values are more aligned with pride and the communal
recognition of success rather than the individual notion that you put your
full effort and must live with the consequences.

On a separate note, we are seeing a gradual disappearance of the middle class
resulting in desperate attempts to rise in status whether superficially or
explicitly. In either case, we are losing some self-worth and putting our
happiness in the hands of society and rules we don't control.

------
merpnderp
I once saw a bumper sticker that said "You will die. I will die a marine." I'm
guessing the modern version of being drug out to the desert for "ritual body
mutilation" had given that person a sense of pride and happiness at his
service. Certainly something to be feel better about than hours spent on
Everquest.

~~~
projektir
This may very much be the source of the happiness the author is lamenting
about, though.

Status is always there, and it never went away, and I'd posit that it is is
something capable of making a person feel miserable even if everything else in
their life is great.

If your happiness is strongly tied to status, that is problematic, since
status is almost necessarily zero-sum. For it to be significant that one is a
Marine, Marines must be rare, and the comparison point would need to be some
non-Marine. And, in the past, communities were smaller, you weren't comparing
yourself to billions of people. If status is zero-sum or near-zero-sum, and
when you can no longer stand out just by contributing to your community as the
guy who makes tables or something, because there are quite a few people making
better tables than you, so what happens to your status?

~~~
merpnderp
It never occurred to me that he was social signalling anything other than
pride in what he accomplished. It's not like "look at my Porsche, I'm rich."
It's more "look at the callouses on my hands, I accomplished something real."

~~~
projektir
"Proud to be a marine" is one thing. "You are worse than me" is another.

~~~
mwfunk
Some people are both, it's just easier to project bad qualities onto some
expressions of pride than others. There are plenty of people for whom their
nice car is just a nice car that they enjoy, and there are plenty of people
who take pride in their sacrifices but that pride manifests itself as a
feeling of superiority over others.

------
grillvogel
"Imagine a society that subjects people to conditions that make them terribly
unhappy, then gives them the drugs to take away their unhappiness. Science
fiction? It is already happening to some extent in our own society. It is well
known that the rate of clinical depression had been greatly increasing in
recent decades. We believe that this is due to disruption of the power
process...The entertainment industry serves as an important psychological tool
of the system, possibly even when it is dishing out large amounts of sex and
violence. Entertainment provides modern man with an essential means of escape.
While absorbed in television, videos, etc., he can forget stress, anxiety,
frustration, dissatisfaction"

5 points to whoever can guess what this quote is from

~~~
ewhanley
That's old Teddy K

------
evo_9
In recent years I've gotten into the Greek philosophy of Stoicism and find it
a great mental tool even in our modern times. I'm partial to the book A Guide
to the Good Life by William Irvine.

Summary: [http://becomingeden.com/summary-of-a-guide-to-the-good-
life/](http://becomingeden.com/summary-of-a-guide-to-the-good-life/)

~~~
fsiefken
Thank you for this practical summary, I had the book but didn't read it yet.

------
WhitneyLand
Is the author mostly describing this?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill)

------
squozzer
Also check out The Screwtape Letters. Lots of commentary about the tedium of
pleasure-seeking.

~~~
wiremine
One of Lewis' best works.

"Prosperity knits a man to the world. He feels that he is finding his place in
it, while really it is finding its place in him."

------
Clubber
It's easy to be happy. Read a book about life in a WWI trench, read a book
about a former slave, read a book about the plague. Go visit an old folks
home. Read about parents who lost their kids in a tragic accident. Just
remembering those things make me realize that I should be happy with what I
have.

~~~
r00fus
Sounds like a recipe for happiness guilt. I did a stint with my audiobooks
during commute - read a lot of SF dystopian future.

Guess what? It didn't make me feel better. I just felt sad.

Listening to music or reading less depressing books lifted my gloom. YMMV.

~~~
ajeet_dhaliwal
Same, seeing or reading about more misery never makes me happier, just worse.
Watching happy things makes me happy. It's the only reason I watch a stupid
show like Ballers on HBO or Bollywood movies. Not necessarily deep but they
are happy and fun.

------
mizzao
I haven't read the book, but is the article arguing that rampant individualism
leads to unhappiness, or the lack of detachment and focus on "communities"? It
seems to mention both.

For those who haven't seen it, this article also argues the former:
[http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/20/opinion/the-fragmented-
soc...](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/20/opinion/the-fragmented-society.html)

------
auganov
Do we have any decent evidence of raising unhappiness? Say looking at proxies
like suicide rates does not suggest any particularly strong trend in either
direction?

------
xyzzy4
You can be equally happy in any culture. You don't need anything external to
be happy. It's just a mentality.

~~~
FussyZeus
This. Choosing to be happy is extremely difficult (and is fought hard by any
number of other factors, like your diet, your lifestyle, your current economic
status, etc.) but the simple fact is being happy is a choice. Hardly ever an
easy choice but a choice nonetheless.

~~~
projektir
There's a point in that where the word "choice" seems rather meaningless. A
choice is supposed to be a simple thing, it's merely a decision, not an end
goal that takes an inordinate amount of energy. At that point, that's a goal,
that's a direction, etc., but it's not exactly a choice since the level of
difficulty necessarily implies that you are quite likely to fail, which also
means most people will fail.

If anything, your statement would imply that happiness is absolutely not a
choice and something most people will never achieve, just like people can't
simply "choose" to become an Olympic athlete or the President. The definition
has been pulled too far from its original purpose.

~~~
FussyZeus
Becoming an Olympian involves having talent for a given event that attracts
the attention of an investor, the investor's resources in getting you trained,
nearly the exclusion of all other activities for a good portion of your life
and dedicating all time and energy to your event and maybe, you MIGHT get
there.

Being president requires membership of one of the two strong parties, having
name recognition enough to be nominated, have vast resources either at your
disposal or willing to be invested in by others, all that again for the actual
election, and being able to win over one of the most fickle voting populations
on the planet.

Being happy...is just a change in how you think. It really is that simple, it
requires commitment and self-policing to a great degree but in the end anyone
can do it. I wouldn't say it's anything like those other two things.

~~~
projektir
Note that I'm responding to a specific comment that implies being happy is
extremely difficult. Those two things are in my book of "extremely difficult",
and I'm bringing them up as examples of the fact that goals are not choices.
You can choose to train, but you can't choose to become an Olympian. But I
can't figure out if you agree or disagree with happiness being extremely
difficult to achieve.

> It really is that simple, it requires commitment and self-policing to a
> great degree but in the end anyone can do it.

I don't think I can make sense of this statement... if something has many
requirements, and something to a great degree, how can you say that it is
merely a choice, and that anyone can do it? Again, a choice is a decision, not
a goal. There's no difference between "I'll try really hard to be happy" or
"I'll try really hard to be an Olympian", they're both goals with no
guarantees that you can fail at. What is great? The average person, by
definition, is not great. So why are you saying anyone can do it, in the end,
that anyone can be great? Simplicity is not relevant here. Winning a race is
simple - just run faster than everyone else.

This seems to be along the lines of losing weight. It's simple, but so many
people fail at it. If people, in large numbers, greater than average, fail at
doing something universality perceived as good, I posit that that means it's
not available to most people for whatever reason, because nobody in their
right mind would choose a bad outcome for themselves.

If your interest is in making a large proportion of people happy, rather than
making a few chosen individuals happy, it's a more interesting question as to
why so many people "choose" to not be happy or some other universally positive
thing. I'd say the word "choice" is being horribly misused. People struggle
and fail, that's what's happening.

What made you decide that changing how you think is simple, easy, and readily
available?

~~~
FussyZeus
> Note that I'm responding to a specific comment that implies being happy is
> extremely difficult. Those two things are in my book of "extremely
> difficult", and I'm bringing them up as examples of the fact that goals are
> not choices. You can choose to train, but you can't choose to become an
> Olympian. But I can't figure out if you agree or disagree with happiness
> being extremely difficult to achieve.

I would say difficult, but not extremely difficult. Your examples require a
lot of external resources and material goods to achieve, and the services of
others. What we're talking about is possibly altering your food intake, maybe
a supplement or two, and other than that it's just your own self discipline.

> I don't think I can make sense of this statement... if something has many
> requirements, and something to a great degree, how can you say that it is
> merely a choice, and that anyone can do it?

Because everyone has a brain and a will and those are in the vast majority of
cases all you need to do it.

> The average person, by definition, is not great. So why are you saying
> anyone can do it, in the end, that anyone can be great? Simplicity is not
> relevant here. Winning a race is simple - just run faster than everyone
> else.

I would say the gateway to happiness is realizing that you are in fact _not
great_ , that you are not destined to be famous or wealthy, and to embrace
just being the best you that you can be. Embrace average, buy better beer,
enjoy the luxuries you can afford instead of pining for the ones you can't.

> What made you decide that changing how you think is simple, easy, and
> readily available?

Well again I said no such thing, I said in comparison to becoming an Olympian
or being elected President that this was easy. There are a lot of other things
that are easier than those two things. Altering the way you think just
requires self discipline, self policing, and commitment. There's no magic
solution or program or book, it's not self help tapes or a twelve step
program. It's something you decide to do for you with the resources you were
born with.

I've made radical changes to how I think in the last few years and in so doing
have greatly improved the quality of my life, and the first step on that
journey was realizing that I was just a regular guy, I would never be a
celebrity, never be very wealthy, never be famous and never be some massive
achiever, and that there was nothing wrong with that. It hurts at first
because our society tells us to a large degree that that is how you succeed in
life, but after awhile, you learn to appreciate average. Since then I've never
been happier.

~~~
projektir
> Your examples require a lot of external resources and material goods to
> achieve, and the services of others.

I find it interesting that you think this about becoming an Olympian, but not
about being mentally stable and happy. Are you sure you are not simply
labeling the thing you are unable to do as something requiring a lot of
external resources, and then labeling the thing you are able to do as
something not requiring such?

Because I would certainly argue that becoming purposefully happy seems
sufficiently out of reach for most people that it probably requires some
external resources. Like a good social influence, for starters. Someone at
least needs to be there to even tell you about such things.

> What we're talking about is possibly altering your food intake, maybe a
> supplement or two, and other than that it's just your own self discipline.

That's quite a caveat. Self-discipline is a fairly nebulous thing, how are you
going to evaluate it? What is it chemically? Why do some seem to have less and
some more? At what point would you stop saying: "Just get more self-
discipline" towards a problem?

Why is self-discipline not recommended for people with depression, anxiety,
etc., if what you're saying is true?

> Because everyone has a brain and a will and those are in the vast majority
> of cases all you need to do it.

This looks like a claim, but I'm not sure what you're supporting it with. Some
people have very poor brains, where does that fit in in your hypothesis?
Should this have been prefixed with "healthy, standard brain"? Because that
cuts out a pretty big chunk of people.

> I've made radical changes to how I think in the last few years and in so
> doing have greatly improved the quality of my life, and the first step on
> that journey was realizing that I was just a regular guy, I would never be a
> celebrity, never be very wealthy, never be famous and never be some massive
> achiever, and that there was nothing wrong with that.

I think the main problem with this thinking is that it's very unlikely that
you're an average guy, and I'm curious as to when was the last time you've
seen a truly average person. Or how about below average person. Chances are,
that by all standard metrics - intelligence, social skills, income, health,
etc., you're not average. You're not a celebrity, either, but I don't know why
you're so concerned with the top 1% when there's 49% in between you could be
in.

The core question here is this: if it is all so available, and so
straightforward, and open to everyone, and requires one to simply be human
with a brain and nothing else, why is it, then, that nobody does it? Why do
people choose to be unhappy, why do they choose to be fat?

~~~
FussyZeus
> I find it interesting that you think this about becoming an Olympian, but
> not about being mentally stable and happy.

Now hold on, you never said anything about mental state, we're talking about a
healthy person choosing to be happy here (or at least I was). If you have
depression or stress disorders or anything of that nature then yes, obviously
more is required. The flip side of that: Someone who is otherwise in a fit
mental state can choose to be happy in the way we've discussed.

> That's quite a caveat. Self-discipline is a fairly nebulous thing, how are
> you going to evaluate it? What is it chemically?

Why do we need to evaluate it?

> Why do some seem to have less and some more? At what point would you stop
> saying: "Just get more self-discipline" towards a problem?

I think a lot of it has to do with how you're raised and the values you're
given in your developmental years, but like anything else it's something
that's practiced and honed. I'm not perfect by any stretch, I have down days
like anyone else.

As to when you stop, I feel like that's connected to this:

> This looks like a claim, but I'm not sure what you're supporting it with.
> Some people have very poor brains, where does that fit in in your
> hypothesis? Should this have been prefixed with "healthy, standard brain"?
> Because that cuts out a pretty big chunk of people.

And:

> Why is self-discipline not recommended for people with depression, anxiety,
> etc., if what you're saying is true?

Which yes, I am talking about otherwise mentally healthy people but I'd
disagree with you that such a statement excludes a lot of people. I think a
lot more people are what we would say are "normal" than not.

> The core question here is this: if it is all so available, and so
> straightforward, and open to everyone, and requires one to simply be human
> with a brain and nothing else, why is it, then, that nobody does it? Why do
> people choose to be unhappy, why do they choose to be fat?

Well speaking as someone who's also working on being way too fat for my own
good, it's because that's what we're programmed to be. Growing up poor food is
the only luxury you really have so every celebration, the good times, are
built around big meals and as such I have an issue with comfort eating. It's
getting better but just like cultivating happiness it's something that takes
constant self policing. The nice thing is, the happiness went first, and that
makes comfort eating less necessary by itself.

As has been said elsewhere in the thread, advertising, a huge part of all our
lives is built on the idea of convincing people who otherwise wouldn't be
aware of a product that they need that product to be happy. Is it such a
logical leap that this constant barrage of messages would make people unhappy
if they weren't consciously aware of the message and why it's being used that
way?

------
projektir
This article doesn't do the work. It does not provide good arguments, nor does
it provide evidence. It simply repeats some fairly popular platitudes and jabs
in hopes that it will make people agree and go buy the book. But nothing is
really being properly explored in the article and I would not give it any
credit.

The book is another matter but that will need to be analyzed separately.

~~~
onetwotree
It's just a book review.

~~~
projektir
But it's been linked here, with the intent of discussing it, no?

~~~
mcphage
Or it's been linked here, with the intent of getting us to buy the book.

------
SFJulie
Lol, his thesis is a song that is sang to kids in Elsass to remind them that
you are always unsatisfied when only focused on what you want and not what you
have.

D’r Hans im Schnòckeloch hät àlles, wàs er will ! Un wàs er hät, dess will er
nit, Un wàs er will, dess hät er nit. D’r Hans im Schnòckeloch hät àlles, wàs
er will !

D’r Hans im Schnòckeloch sajt àlles, wàs er will ! Wàs er sajt, dess dankt er
nit, Un wàs er dankt, dess sajt er nit, D’r Hans im Schnòckeloch sajt àlles,
wàs er will !

D’r Hans im Schnòckeloch màcht àlles, wàs er will ! Wàs er màcht, dess soll er
nit, Un wàs er soll, dess màcht er nit. D’r Hans im Schnòckeloch màcht àlles,
wàs er will !

D’r Hans im Schnòckeloch geht ànne, wo er will ! Wo er isch, dò bliebt er nit,
Un wo er bliebt, dò gfàllts im nit. D’r Hans im Schnòckeloch geht ànne, wo er
will !

Jetzt het d’r Hans sò sàtt Un isch vom Eland màtt. Lawe, majnt er, kànn er
nit, Un sterwe, sajt er, will er nit. Er springt züem Fenschter nüss, Un kommt
ins Nàrrehüss.

------
eli_gottlieb
Forgive my heresy, but this book sounds like Yet Another Stoicism Book. Oh,
you can be satisfied with life by never wanting anything! What an insight? For
once I'd like someone to quote a famous philosopher like, since he was
mentioned, Marx, not to say we should want nothing, but instead to point out
that we have very real needs which _must_ be met before we can want nothing.

Preach to me of Stoicism when you've housed all the homeless and fed all the
hungry!

~~~
beachstartup
well, there is this:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs)

but you'll probably dismiss it as new-agey handwavey woo woo crap about self-
actualization.

all this existential stuff is kind of ridiculous, just like life, so you kind
of just have to take it at face value.

~~~
antisthenes
Maslow's hierarchy is way too generalized to be of any use.

I would argue that it's not really a pyramid hierarchy, but more of a pool
from which happiness and satisfaction is drawn, where some segments can
compensate for others. The only indispensable one is the physiological one.

Even Maslow himself states:

>Maslow states that while he originally thought the needs of humans had strict
guidelines, the "hierarchies are interrelated rather than sharply
separated".[5] This means that esteem and the subsequent levels are not
strictly separated; instead, the levels are closely related.

Like all psychology of the mid 20th century (its essential infancy), it was
merely an attempt to categorize some societal patterns without any actual data
or studies, but from empirical observations of an extremely narrow view of a
westernized society.

