Well... external factors, such as a dead mother, are not - #87023889 added by mcismyname at Sadness

Reply +3 123456789123345869

(03/18/2013) [-]

I agree with this graph.
Happiness is harder to attain when you are intelligent, or observant and analytical at least. Intelligent people, simply put, notice too much to be happy.
They are too self-aware. They see their own faults, their problems, the burdens tomorrow and the day after will bring.
They see the behaviors of their surrounding brethren, and are saddened, angered, by senseless debauchery, because they themselves are capable of being better and in turn expect this of their peers.
Intelligent people also place much higher expectations on themselves. Aware of the extent of their capabilities, their personal definition of success, whether consciously realized or not, is greater than that of a less intelligent person. This means they have to work harder, achieve more, to feel the same sense of satisfaction as someone else.
The result? A small percentage of people who are insecure, angry at the people around them without knowing why, and constantly sad - the hollow, empty sadness that indicates something is missing.
There's a reason the overconfident jock and timid nerd stereotypes exist - because, to some extent, they are true. Physical types are far more appreciated because intelligent people are less inclined towards self-celebration, all too aware of their own mental and physical flaws.
So take your pick. Ignorance is bliss, not for the romanticized idea of worldly innocence, but for the vision that allows its user to see into another world, one where deception and self-interest reign beneath the surface of goodwill, silver linings only hide grayer clouds, and the most horrifying spectacle lies within one's self.

#157 to #143 - biguglyface **User deleted account**

+1 123456789123345869

has deleted their comment [-]

#162 to #157 - mcismyname

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(03/18/2013) [-]

Well... external factors, such as a dead mother, are not related to being intelligent or not.
Assuming these factors affect both intelligent and less intelligent people equally... I think it's safe to say as a general statement that intelligent is detrimental to happiness

#153 to #143 - anon id: 285abe69

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(03/18/2013) [-]

Stop trying to sound smart and go look at the scholarly research first.

#159 to #153 - mcismyname

Reply +1 123456789123345869

(03/18/2013) [-]

I'm not trying to sound smart. I like writing, and this topic seemed particularly interesting.
If you think I'm trying to sound smart it's because you think I sound smart and you don't like that, so you convince yourself that I'm "trying to sound smart" because that makes it less likely that I do sound smart.
And what research would you like me to see?

#168 to #159 - anon id: 285abe69

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(03/18/2013) [-]

No. Just no. There you go doing it again. I don't think you sound smart. I think you're using wording to convince others that you are. But here you are, making all these claims about how you know all about how people work etc.

When the evidence, the scientifically deduced evidence, the empirically observed evidence, will tell you that everything you just said is complete ********* because there is either no correlation, or a slightly positive correlation between happiness and intelligence.

Or you could, you know, ignore all the science and just go with how you "feel" about it.

#180 to #168 - mcismyname

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(03/18/2013) [-]

I'm all ears. Show me this 'empirically observed evidence'.
How I write is how I write. I don't use certain words to make myself seem smarter.
I use certain words because those words are the ones that come to mind when I want to convey my message clearly, a product of what I've read and heard over seventeen years.
Just because you think they sound smart to the general audience does not mean I am trying for that.
So make do without baseless accusations and present your 'scientifically deduced evidence', which, if it exists, implies there is a quantifiable way of measuring happiness.

#185 to #180 - anon id: 285abe69

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(03/18/2013) [-]

You obviously still haven't even bothered to go see for yourself. You also clearly don't know much about the topic at all if you didn't even know that. I'm not going to waste my time going and fetching the links for you. Find them yourself. You're a "smart" guy.

#192 to #185 - mcismyname

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(03/18/2013) [-]

I've seen all the intelligence vs happiness surveys.
If that was your 'empirically observed evidence', it's not all that impressive. I don't believe you can determine someone's happiness simply by asking them if they are happy. A person can believe they are happy and not actually be happy, and it works the other way around.
It seems all you cared about was making snide implications about my character to boost your own ego instead of making a valid point, so no great loss.

#193 to #192 - anon id: 285abe69

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(03/18/2013) [-]

"oh no, the science disagrees with my beliefs, better start rationalizing!"

#209 to #193 - mcismyname

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(03/18/2013) [-]

My point exactly. Snide remarks over logical statements.

For a guy who values science, you're pretty irrational yourself, which suggests that it is just a facade. You blindly believe 'science', ignoring bias, logic, and simple common sense just because people have told you that science is infallible.
It is, but only when the experiment is accurate and free from subjectivity. How much more subjective can the question "How happy are you?" get?

You rely on science to prove your point while being unable to exhibit its most basic lesson: critical thinking.

Philosophy exists because certain measures cannot be quantified and have no calculable answer. At the moment, there such thing as a human happiness index.

#204 to #193 - relentlesspoop

Reply +1 123456789123345869

(03/18/2013) [-]

Shut up meg

#202 to #193 - luciferiam

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(03/18/2013) [-]

Wasn't going to post until you said this. Just calling stuff science doesn't make it science. :| Let alone that any loyal follower of science worth their salt would claim theories are infallibly. Statistics (which mostly result from studies) tend to lie. One must examine the actual content to find the hidden truths.

#214 to #202 - mcismyname

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(03/18/2013) [-]

I was typing my response when you said it for me.
You cannot use science as a claim and not use scientific thinking to analyze results.
Otherwise, you are just another blind, deluded fellow calling on a higher power, like this poor anon over here.