This series has been most helpful in providing a frame of reference which other life advice can be related to and analysed through (such as the conflicting advice found in self help books you mention). I was happily suprised that the complex information I was looking for was provided through enjoyable metaphors, easy to follow trains of thought and clear descriptions in your articles.
I'm happy Chris Wiliamson recommended your substack.
Thoughts related to what can be deemed important and/or worthwhile pursuits has been on my mind quite a lot the past few years, and this has provided much-needed clarity for me.
Fascinating, helpful and thought provoking, thank you! I kept thinking about the price of non-conformity which obviously has evolutionary disadvantages. If you want to stay alive, you don't piss off your tribe. But isn't the pursuit of truth a higher ideal (kind of sky hook?) that can bring a sense of purpose and contribute to happiness? Science and human progress depend on people like Galileo insisting that facts are real (Eppur si muove!) even when the social group forces them to say otherwise.
The question of whether principled non conformity is worth the social cost seems especially timely now with communities, families and friends being torn apart by political differences. It's definitely real to me personally since social justice dogmatism took over my social circles and workplace. What would Socrates say?
Enjoyed the linked article, thanks! "Scientists may be more rigorous, but lawyers are those best at convincing others." Yes indeed, and where success means popularity the lawyers have the advantage. But what about when success means survival? Surely the one who can build a shelter that doesn't cave in or site the well in the right place will be more likely to pass on their genes than the one who is likeable and convincing but wrong on the facts? We are social animals, but nature is a harsh taskmaster that cares nothing for charm. Thought provoking topic. Looking forward to future posts!
I enjoyed this series. I spend about 20% of my time volunteering and I have often pondered why it feels so rewarding. An evolutionary perspective goes a long way towards explaining the pleasure, but I wonder if it is pleasure in being recognised as a social contributor, or an inwardly derived feeling. I hope it is the latter, perhaps in line with Adam Smith’s observation that “man desires not only to be loved, but to be lovely.”
What a great quote from Adam Smith! I’m going to reuse it. I think it applies to both. Still, for the same reason, with an added layer of communication and persuasion. One effective way to persuade others that you are a good cooperator is to consistently act like one. This eliminates the need to lie or exaggerate your good qualities. In a previous post, I explained how we act as lawyers for our own cause. When we consistently treat others well—even when no one is watching—we build evidence of being a good cooperator. This can help convince others to trust us when we need them to. In contrast, a duplicitous person would have to lie, which can be more challenging and risks being exposed, a dangerous prospect. Therefore, experiencing internal satisfaction from behaving well makes sense, as it reflects the potential long-term benefits of such behaviour. An alternative way of saying this is that “honesty is the best policy” and so it makes sense that we feel good for following this policy.
Really enjoyed this. I came here from Chris Williamson's podcast and couldn't help but draw some similarities between the different facets of personality he's discussed recently (i.e. dopamine Chris, cortisol Chris, and seratonin Chris) with Martin Seligman's three essential components for happiness (i.e. pleasure, flow and meaning). Conceptually pairing these personal 'modes' (e.g. pleasure and dopamine; flow and cortisol; meaning and seratonin) seems like a useful way to think about balancing the components of happiness in day to day life.
Hi Matt, thanks so much for your positive feedback! Regarding your suggestion, I’m not sure cortisol fits within the trio, as it is usually associated with stress.
Fair call! Maybe there's some selective relevance for how moderate and positive forms of stress can influence the feeling of flow - or maybe I'm reaching 😆
Very interesting article- glad Chris W linked to you. Really enjoyed how you framed happiness in the pursuit of long-term pursuits and beginning to crack the code on this sequence questions: "How can I be happy?"; "Why am I happy right now (or not)?"; "Do I want to be happy?"; and ultimately arriving at the question of "What are the beliefs, habits, behaviors that will inform my life's happiness?"
Coming at it from a religious perspective, I think it's interesting that you covered most or all of the seven deadly sins for a reason for life's unhappiness: Greed, Sloth, Gluttony, Envy, Lust. I see these are hedonistic pursuits that end up being futile. Knowing the universe exists in polarity, there has to be an overlay of the inverse of each one. Humility (opposed to pride), kindness (envy), temperance (gluttony), charity (greed), chastity (lust), diligence (sloth), and patience (wrath). I think this gets into incentive-building. You can want the biggest house in the neighborhood, while also wanting to make more money to give more to charity.
Curious to hear your take on how following the inverse of the seven deadly sins (seven heavenly principles) would parlay with following the evolutionary hedonic principles you outlined.
Many thanks for the positive feedback! From a religious perspective, sins might not need explanation; they may simply be regarded as inherently bad. From a naturalist perspective, our intuitions about what is good or bad tend to reflect what promotes success or failure. Explicit cultural norms, including religious principles, can be seen as extensions of these intuitions, codifying them, and placing them within a broader framework that justifies and reinforces their observance. The specific norms that emerge may differ across countries due to historical factors, but they often converge on fundamental principles. For example, the Golden Rule is remarkably consistent across diverse cultures.
With that in mind, I think the deadly sins can be viewed as particular manifestations of principles designed to guide behaviour for successful coexistence in society. The inverse principles you describe indeed seem to align with what would intuitively be recognised as good behaviour.
Hi Lionel, i love the way you express your ideas, one thing that wasnt clear for me, why one shouldnt drown in hedonism if that is the way it can achieve most pleasure
It's because pleasures are "in the moment" but maximising good things in the moment often comes at a cost of good things later (lots of gaming at 15 means a lower income at 25). In the long run, when you reflect on your life, your life satisfaction can be lower if you maximise these pleasures in the moment.
I find this writing very elegant and stringent. Convincing. But it's interesting that as a philosophy of meaning (and happiness), it doesn't "inspire me". No offense meant (I didn't get the sense that you wanted to inspire the reader really) but there's something about "explaining away" our search for meaning scientifically that somehow is less motivating than more "transcendent" ideas. Perhaps the long-term part of our hedonic system is built to respond to things that we identify as beyond ourselves, and illuminating how it's all logical from the perspective of the organism is at odds with that framing.
Perhaps off topic: I wonder if you have an opinion on Martin Hägglund's work in his book This Life: Secular Faith and Spiritual Freedom? I found it a bit messy (or maybe it just went over my head) but it tried to build a philosophical framework of meaning and our commitments to our values from the finitude of life/time. I found it less convincing than your writing here, but also more inspiring.
Hi Vilgot, thanks for your comment. I think there is truth in your statement: "Perhaps the long-term part of our hedonic system is built to respond to things that we identify as beyond ourselves, and illuminating how it's all logical from the perspective of the organism is at odds with that framing."
In my book Optimally Irrational, I discussed why we have deontological preferences—preferences for doing the right thing according to moral rules that we perceive as objective. These preferences can provide us with a kind of commitment to being trustworthy social partners, and such a commitment helps us to be trusted, which is beneficial. This is an instance of the commitment paradox, whereby reducing your options can, paradoxically, lead to greater benefits. With such preferences, we may also experience the feeling that when we do the right thing (typically toward others and our community), we are doing something objectively good, giving our lives a sense of meaning beyond the subjectivity of our individual existence.
It is entirely normal that explaining these feelings of meaning as adaptive—without invoking any form of transcendence—can be uninspiring to some extent. Of course, our feelings have no bearing on the reality out there.
This series has been most helpful in providing a frame of reference which other life advice can be related to and analysed through (such as the conflicting advice found in self help books you mention). I was happily suprised that the complex information I was looking for was provided through enjoyable metaphors, easy to follow trains of thought and clear descriptions in your articles.
I'm happy Chris Wiliamson recommended your substack.
Thoughts related to what can be deemed important and/or worthwhile pursuits has been on my mind quite a lot the past few years, and this has provided much-needed clarity for me.
Thanks a lot for your feedback, Oskar. Much appreciated! It is for responses like yours that I am writing this Substack.
Fascinating, helpful and thought provoking, thank you! I kept thinking about the price of non-conformity which obviously has evolutionary disadvantages. If you want to stay alive, you don't piss off your tribe. But isn't the pursuit of truth a higher ideal (kind of sky hook?) that can bring a sense of purpose and contribute to happiness? Science and human progress depend on people like Galileo insisting that facts are real (Eppur si muove!) even when the social group forces them to say otherwise.
The question of whether principled non conformity is worth the social cost seems especially timely now with communities, families and friends being torn apart by political differences. It's definitely real to me personally since social justice dogmatism took over my social circles and workplace. What would Socrates say?
I’ll talk about these things in my next series, on truth.
We care about truth but not necessarily for the sake of it. I recommend Mercier and Sperber 2011 paper “Why do human reason”. I explain their theory here: https://www.optimallyirrational.com/p/why-reason-fails
Enjoyed the linked article, thanks! "Scientists may be more rigorous, but lawyers are those best at convincing others." Yes indeed, and where success means popularity the lawyers have the advantage. But what about when success means survival? Surely the one who can build a shelter that doesn't cave in or site the well in the right place will be more likely to pass on their genes than the one who is likeable and convincing but wrong on the facts? We are social animals, but nature is a harsh taskmaster that cares nothing for charm. Thought provoking topic. Looking forward to future posts!
I enjoyed this series. I spend about 20% of my time volunteering and I have often pondered why it feels so rewarding. An evolutionary perspective goes a long way towards explaining the pleasure, but I wonder if it is pleasure in being recognised as a social contributor, or an inwardly derived feeling. I hope it is the latter, perhaps in line with Adam Smith’s observation that “man desires not only to be loved, but to be lovely.”
What a great quote from Adam Smith! I’m going to reuse it. I think it applies to both. Still, for the same reason, with an added layer of communication and persuasion. One effective way to persuade others that you are a good cooperator is to consistently act like one. This eliminates the need to lie or exaggerate your good qualities. In a previous post, I explained how we act as lawyers for our own cause. When we consistently treat others well—even when no one is watching—we build evidence of being a good cooperator. This can help convince others to trust us when we need them to. In contrast, a duplicitous person would have to lie, which can be more challenging and risks being exposed, a dangerous prospect. Therefore, experiencing internal satisfaction from behaving well makes sense, as it reflects the potential long-term benefits of such behaviour. An alternative way of saying this is that “honesty is the best policy” and so it makes sense that we feel good for following this policy.
Really enjoyed this. I came here from Chris Williamson's podcast and couldn't help but draw some similarities between the different facets of personality he's discussed recently (i.e. dopamine Chris, cortisol Chris, and seratonin Chris) with Martin Seligman's three essential components for happiness (i.e. pleasure, flow and meaning). Conceptually pairing these personal 'modes' (e.g. pleasure and dopamine; flow and cortisol; meaning and seratonin) seems like a useful way to think about balancing the components of happiness in day to day life.
Hi Matt, thanks so much for your positive feedback! Regarding your suggestion, I’m not sure cortisol fits within the trio, as it is usually associated with stress.
Fair call! Maybe there's some selective relevance for how moderate and positive forms of stress can influence the feeling of flow - or maybe I'm reaching 😆
Hi Lionel,
Very interesting article- glad Chris W linked to you. Really enjoyed how you framed happiness in the pursuit of long-term pursuits and beginning to crack the code on this sequence questions: "How can I be happy?"; "Why am I happy right now (or not)?"; "Do I want to be happy?"; and ultimately arriving at the question of "What are the beliefs, habits, behaviors that will inform my life's happiness?"
Coming at it from a religious perspective, I think it's interesting that you covered most or all of the seven deadly sins for a reason for life's unhappiness: Greed, Sloth, Gluttony, Envy, Lust. I see these are hedonistic pursuits that end up being futile. Knowing the universe exists in polarity, there has to be an overlay of the inverse of each one. Humility (opposed to pride), kindness (envy), temperance (gluttony), charity (greed), chastity (lust), diligence (sloth), and patience (wrath). I think this gets into incentive-building. You can want the biggest house in the neighborhood, while also wanting to make more money to give more to charity.
Curious to hear your take on how following the inverse of the seven deadly sins (seven heavenly principles) would parlay with following the evolutionary hedonic principles you outlined.
Hi Brenden,
Many thanks for the positive feedback! From a religious perspective, sins might not need explanation; they may simply be regarded as inherently bad. From a naturalist perspective, our intuitions about what is good or bad tend to reflect what promotes success or failure. Explicit cultural norms, including religious principles, can be seen as extensions of these intuitions, codifying them, and placing them within a broader framework that justifies and reinforces their observance. The specific norms that emerge may differ across countries due to historical factors, but they often converge on fundamental principles. For example, the Golden Rule is remarkably consistent across diverse cultures.
With that in mind, I think the deadly sins can be viewed as particular manifestations of principles designed to guide behaviour for successful coexistence in society. The inverse principles you describe indeed seem to align with what would intuitively be recognised as good behaviour.
Hi Lionel, i love the way you express your ideas, one thing that wasnt clear for me, why one shouldnt drown in hedonism if that is the way it can achieve most pleasure
It's because pleasures are "in the moment" but maximising good things in the moment often comes at a cost of good things later (lots of gaming at 15 means a lower income at 25). In the long run, when you reflect on your life, your life satisfaction can be lower if you maximise these pleasures in the moment.
Beautiful!
"do pleasurable things that take effort" is my mantra after studying neuroscience of the great, mythical mesolimbic pathway
I find this writing very elegant and stringent. Convincing. But it's interesting that as a philosophy of meaning (and happiness), it doesn't "inspire me". No offense meant (I didn't get the sense that you wanted to inspire the reader really) but there's something about "explaining away" our search for meaning scientifically that somehow is less motivating than more "transcendent" ideas. Perhaps the long-term part of our hedonic system is built to respond to things that we identify as beyond ourselves, and illuminating how it's all logical from the perspective of the organism is at odds with that framing.
Perhaps off topic: I wonder if you have an opinion on Martin Hägglund's work in his book This Life: Secular Faith and Spiritual Freedom? I found it a bit messy (or maybe it just went over my head) but it tried to build a philosophical framework of meaning and our commitments to our values from the finitude of life/time. I found it less convincing than your writing here, but also more inspiring.
Hi Vilgot, thanks for your comment. I think there is truth in your statement: "Perhaps the long-term part of our hedonic system is built to respond to things that we identify as beyond ourselves, and illuminating how it's all logical from the perspective of the organism is at odds with that framing."
In my book Optimally Irrational, I discussed why we have deontological preferences—preferences for doing the right thing according to moral rules that we perceive as objective. These preferences can provide us with a kind of commitment to being trustworthy social partners, and such a commitment helps us to be trusted, which is beneficial. This is an instance of the commitment paradox, whereby reducing your options can, paradoxically, lead to greater benefits. With such preferences, we may also experience the feeling that when we do the right thing (typically toward others and our community), we are doing something objectively good, giving our lives a sense of meaning beyond the subjectivity of our individual existence.
It is entirely normal that explaining these feelings of meaning as adaptive—without invoking any form of transcendence—can be uninspiring to some extent. Of course, our feelings have no bearing on the reality out there.