Ophis
Magister
Posts: 176
Reputation: 6.07
Rate Ophis
 
|
 |
Being poor ain't what it used to be
« on: 2003-08-14 13:35:53 » |
 |
I came across this article today http://babelogue.citypages.com:8080/bsmith/2003/08/14 where the author talks about the "psychological" poorness of today's poor in America as opposed to what it meant to be poor 40 years ago.
At some point in the article, the author mentions the need for strife and challenges as a mean to attain a "rich" (as in meaningful and ultimately happier) life.
I couldn't help but relate this to Eliezer's "fun" theory of the future according to which, out future will be more enjoyable because there will be some much more challenges and opportunities that we can tackle.
I tend to agree with both the article and Eliezer's "fun" theory. The more enjoyable (and certainly memorable) parts of my own life were usually when I was up against some larger obstacles and challenges.
What do you guys think? Is the sense of achievement and the struggle to achieve a major sourse of happyness for you?
|
|
|
|
|
David Lucifer
Archon
Posts: 2642
Reputation: 8.53
Rate David Lucifer
Enlighten me.
|
|
Re:Being poor ain't what it used to be
« Reply #1 on: 2003-08-16 10:16:56 » |
|
I remember reading that the trick to designing a fun game was to make it very challenging, but not too challenging. This seems to indicate that for any given player there is an optimal level of challenge that would maximize the game's fun quotient. This would of course also apply to the game of life.
|
|
|
|
|
prometheus
Magister
Gender: 
Posts: 37
Reputation: 6.83
Rate prometheus
Where's the fire?
|
|
Re:Being poor ain't what it used to be
« Reply #2 on: 2003-09-02 10:44:35 » |
|
Quote from: Ophis on 2003-08-14 13:35:53
I came across this article today http://babelogue.citypages.com:8080/bsmith/2003/08/14 where the author talks about the "psychological" poorness of today's poor in America as opposed to what it meant to be poor 40 years ago.
At some point in the article, the author mentions the need for strife and challenges as a mean to attain a "rich" (as in meaningful and ultimately happier) life.
I couldn't help but relate this to Eliezer's "fun" theory of the future according to which, out future will be more enjoyable because there will be some much more challenges and opportunities that we can tackle.
I tend to agree with both the article and Eliezer's "fun" theory. The more enjoyable (and certainly memorable) parts of my own life were usually when I was up against some larger obstacles and challenges.
What do you guys think? Is the sense of achievement and the struggle to achieve a major sourse of happyness for you?
|
I would answer a strong yes to this query, Ophis.
I have even noticed that once I have achieved a goal that I have striven to achieve that there is a feeling of emptiness. The challenge itself seems to provide to sense of purpose and happiness more than the achievement.
The question becomes. Is this normal or is it an aberration?
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4289
Reputation: 8.50
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Being poor ain't what it used to be
« Reply #3 on: 2003-09-02 12:08:32 » |
|
It's why the pursuing is frequently more fun than the screwing...
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
|
|
Author
Logged
