

The 11 Rules of Happiness - dhotson
http://blog.gism.net/?p=310

======
sinzone
I would add the 12th: Once you are happy, spread and share it all over the
world, don't keep it just for yourself.

------
ErrantX
The only massively useful one is about remembering names. I've always been
naturally good at this (and remembering birthdays, anniversaries and other
random shit about people).

It opens _lots_ of doors.

------
cpach
Dupe: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1168969>

------
RyanMcGreal
It will be interesting to see how much the author still agrees with this on
reaching 2^6 years of age.

------
lionhearted
This article is (1) a dupe, and (2) not particularly insightful.

Heck, I outright disagree with half of them.

> 4: Always squeeze the hell out of the other guy’s hand while shaking it.

BS. Hand-killing is how weak people try to assert themselves. The highest
quality people are very gentle when shaking hands. Bill Clinton and Richard
Branson, for instance, are both known for very loose handshakes. When I meet a
hand-killer, I file him into "weak and powerless person desperately trying to
assert himself in the world" category mentally. I used to be a hand-killer,
but started shaking hands more gently and loosely once realizing this.

> 7: Do not seek the spotlight. Only idiots want to be famous, and they get
> ripped apart by said fame.

Martin Luther King? Gandhi? Ben Franklin? Idiots?

> 10: Have goals. If you have a goal, you will achieve it eventually. You
> simply need to have that goal.

Fuzzy positive thinking. Have the goal, _and works towards it!_ Contrary to
romantic comedy wisdom, goals do not magically happen without effort on the
part of the goal-seeker.

Some of his points aren't bad, but none of them are particularly good or
insightful or new. "Think positive! Have goals! Be happy! Be nice to people!"
We can find better articles to submit and upvote and spend our time with.

~~~
cookiecaper
>Martin Luther King? Gandhi? Ben Franklin? Idiots?

I don't know if I'd say MLK, Gandhi, or Franklin really "sought the
spotlight". Their fame was mostly incidental of their deeds and wasn't
particularly sought after, as a movie starlet or other pop-culture would-be
icon might seek after fame.

Full disclosure on this, I guess, is that I also can't see much appeal in
fame. All semblances of privacy are lost, constant rumor-flinging about the
lives of yourself and your family, etc. There are much better ways to get
recognition than becoming a household name, imo.

~~~
lionhearted
> I don't know if I'd say MLK, Gandhi, or Franklin really "sought the
> spotlight". Their fame was mostly incidental of their deeds and wasn't
> particularly sought after, as a movie starlet or other pop-culture would-be
> icon might seek after fame.

I picked those three examples carefully - they're all men that heavily,
actively courted attention and exposure, sometimes in very radical ways. Now,
they did it for good reasons and put their fame to good usage, but they all
were incredibly self promoting. Franklin was prolific at writing, debating,
negotiating, and promoting his works and opinions. He even wrote about himself
humorously in the third person under pseudonyms, making ridiculous claims at
times. Gandi wrote 60+ letters per day to the most famous people in the world,
including almost all world leaders, and actively courted press, especially for
his hunger strike when he was almost constantly surrounded by media. MLK of
course staged many demonstrations and gave many prominent speeches, going out
of his way to break laws and get arrested in the name of civil disobedience.

All three of those men actively courted attention and media coverage, and thus
fame - now, if the argument was, "don't seek fame for fame's sake", or "only
become famous if you have a good reason to aside from pride" - I could buy
that. But it's not what the author said. He said only idiots want to be
famous. I'm rather certain Franklin, Gandhi, and King all knew what they were
getting into and wanted to be famous. I also think none of those guys were
idiots.

> Full disclosure on this, I guess, is that I also can't see much appeal in
> fame.

I feel the same way personally, but I don't think intending to get famous is
stupid. The more people who know who you are, the bigger potential impact you
can have. Actually, that's a pretty hard consideration I've made - some of the
things I want to do would make me rather famous if I succeeded. I mean, hell,
I spoke at a small conference once in a big city, and I was greeted 5-6 times
while going about my day for the next week. That's a little scary, y'know? So
I see it as a hard tradeoff, but it probably makes sense for a lot of people.

Edit: Didn't expect to be downvoted on this one - did I make a factual error?
I know fame is commonly associated with degeneracy, but I think that's
mistaken - saying "Benjamin Franklin actively wanted to get famous, and did
so, and used his fame for good" - is that incorrect? I think the same of MLK
and Gandhi. Actively wanted to get famous, and did so, and used their fame for
good. Agree? Disagree?

~~~
RyanMcGreal
I don't know why someone voted you down, but I voted you up. In fact, I was
going to post a similar argument if you had not already done so.

Here's another example: Rosa Parks, who after more than a decade of
involvement in the civil rights movement decided to put herself into the
spotlight to challenge discriminatory seating practices in the Montgomery,
Alabama bus system. It's important to note that she was not acting in a vacuum
but as the public face of a large, broad-based social justice movement.

Her disobedience and subsequent arrest sparked an organized bus boycott and
related direct actions that lasted over a year, spurred a federal legal
challenge and ultimately resulted in a court order striking down the bus
policy.

Side note: a young Baptist minister at the time, Martin Luther King got his
start as a civil rights activist through his participation organizing the Bus
Boycott.

