The perspective here is consistently egoistic. It's not even mentioned. It's just assumed that the way one goes through life is as an individual, with one's own interests solely at heart, and one's own state the only thing to be managed. You win by maximizing your own state, by grabbing as many achievements as you can before you die. And even if you're not a dick about it, your concerns are very much limited to your states, health level, and the contents of your inventory.
This is no way to go through life! It leads to suffering and a small view of things. I'm really interested to see, actually, what this community makes of that insight. It will dawn on people eventually—or at least its negative will: that everything we've been putting so much damned energy into isn't making us happy. But this community is so relentlessly introspective, communicative, articulate, well-equipped, and outright successful. And we have so many blogs like this one: so many people actively, sincerely, unabashedly interested in the science of happiness and fulfillment. So the potential there is pretty big. The potential for massive burnout and dissolution or massive reorientation.
I was used to being one of the least positive people about life prospects, now at least in my circles I am one of the most positive people and others are actually spending time with me just to grab some of the positive energy.
If you have a life style to offer that makes me and the people around me even more happy I would be really happy to learn more about it!
Find ways to delight in the well-being and success of others—all others, everybody you know, everybody in the world. And when you feel that you aren't getting your fair share, that you'll miss out—take a long, long pause, really feel into that emotion, and see if self-centered thinking ends up getting you more of what makes you happy or not.
Mind: this is incredibly difficult. It's nobody's fault if they can't or don't do this. Almost every single meme and conditioned habit that's in you and the culture you live in works against this pattern.
I see a parallel with what Joel Spolsky said about operating systems. Windows and Linux are very much defined by the cultures surrounding them, which are radically different. And although I can't say that one is ahem "better", a certain one has many pitfalls, tendencies, and so on.
The article is clearly the product of an apex dominance culture, which is widespread in certain countries (ahem, one in particular).
The core problem with living such culture is that detaches people from the context they live in, which, very easily, deviates into moral corruption.
Think about patent trolls. A patent troll is simply a (a group of) person that specialized into a field, puts above all his own success... and makes it. P.T. are very successful people, generally speaking, and they do it within the law. This is very much a product of obsession with success, and detachment from empathizing with the people you're going to predate.
Think about the finance world - making millions from periods of crysis (there was an article recently on HN). It not an illegal act per se, it's just morally repulsive if somebody makes millions out while people loses jobs, houses, and savings. Yet again, obsession with success and detachment from the others.
There is also the (negative) flipside. What's going to happen when one discovers he's not Steve Jobs? Or hmmm, what's going to happen when one could become the next Steve Jobs... at the expense of other people? At the expense of your best friend[s]? What's better - "greatness" or family?
Another side effect of this narrow perspective is detachment from human nature, from the "self". This can be more practical than one thinks.
If one entire life is spent killing oneself to pursue success... what's going to happen after? Is it really a "comfortable pants +10"? What about burning out and regretting living such a narrow life? Again, there was an article on HN, about Carl Barks, which has been certainly successful. End of the game: burned out to the extreme.
Speaking of which, one certainly doesn't want to waste time with time wasters (bouncing ball on the knee), right? Unfortunaly, many experiences which are, practically, a waste of time, are those who make people interesting, and they are part of the creative, intellectual, emotional development.
How do one know that bouncing a ball on the knee doesn't lead to something more interesting? I think the world would be much less interesting if people in the past wouldn't have bounced balls on their knees.
Making music... a skill? Are you serious?
Of course, let's also take holidays off the charts, as they don't develop any skills. It's pretty much consequential losing interest in other countries (once one accept he's has very little chance to explore them), and not being able to point out the countries that one's government is bombing.
I find really hard to stop.
Obviously I'm not saying that any product of such culture is a monster, but culture is part of the development of the people.
Since you have posed a question in a personal way, I'd tell you that there is a difference, and it's subtle.
Let's say that what I have in mind could be summarized by the Good Will Hunting bar scene:
- [...] I will have a degree, and you'll be serving my kids fries at a drive-through on our way to a skiing trip - Maybe, but at least I won't be unoriginal
:-)
The metaphor in the article does not preclude non-egoistic play, it just suggests a another set of skills in the game: Diplomacy, Activism, Community Organization, Macroeconomics, History. Good-aligned players get Charity and Education skills. Evil-aligned players get Politics and Manipulation. Perhaps players have an additional statistic tracking Influence, and some will care more about it than others. Some statistics improve in groups.
Maybe the rules of life are competitive: you can only increase your score at someone else's expense. The score is either 0-1 or 1-0. (Maybe you're both starving but only have enough food to sustain one person.)
Or maybe they're cooperative: you can both achieve a >= score if you combine resources/knowledge/what-have-you. The score is 3-3 for cooperating or 1-1 for playing independently. (Take insurance, for example.)
In reality, the game is a complex mixture of these two extremes.
Literally every point in every article on how to live a happy life was being made by the likes of Seneca and Aristotle thousands of years ago, and there are good reasons why those writers are still the foundation for philosophy today - they were right.
[1] I would recommend something like "Philosophy For Life (And Other Dangerous Situations)" by Jules Evans or "Consolations of Philosophy" by Alain De Botton as a starting point.
"This crazy Greek drank Hemlock. What happened next will blow your mind."
I would sum this article with such quote:
"It is not that we have a short space of time, but that we waste much of it. Life is long enough, and it has been given in sufficiently generous measure to allow the accomplishment of the very greatest things if the whole of it is well invested. But when it is squandered in luxury and carelessness, when it is devoted to no good end, forced at last by the ultimate necessity we perceive that it has passed away before we were aware that it was passing." On the shortness of life - Seneca
His goal was to make notoriously dense writings accessible to everyday people who are interested in literature.
I think this piece about life as a video game has a similar goal. Just as I would rather learn about Proust through Alain De Botton, I would rather learn about philosophy through the contemporary vehicle of video games.
> At the start of the game, you had no control over who you were or your environment. By the end of the game that becomes true again.
This implies that you have some sort of control between the start and the end - which is completely untrue, because:
What genes you get from your parents and in what environment you are put will determine everything that will happen in your head. And everything that happens in your life, has its inception in your head (over which you could never have the slightest control).
This is also the reason why whe should all have the same rights (and wealth), independently of the fact of how well we were (and therefor now are) "equipped": There is no such thing as a "free will".
Everything in your life is nothing but a function of 2 variables:
1) Your inherited genes
2) Your inherited initial location
It means we can never be judged by anyone.
EDIT: The above is not based on any beliefs (as in "religious" beliefs), it's pure logic. (So, when I wrote "is completely untrue", I meant "is completely illogic".)
EDIT II: Sorry, I can't recommend any literature for this. It's all based on my own thinking.
But actually, you don't need any book, because I can't call this a "worldview", I can only call it: "100% pure logic". (Meaning: no cultural/religious/otherwise arbitrary beliefs allowed.)
So, if you can think logically and are willing to do some mental work, you - and everybody else who does it - will automatically get there. That's kind of the beauty of logic - it's the only thing/law in the universe that seems to be an absolute/unquestionable truth, everything else being invented by somebody.
My main issue with it is it seems to discount random events - and at a quantum level, it seems like there are genuinely random events, like radioactive decay. So it's not really accurate to say there are only two variables, there are really countless ones, and even small changes (like a few atoms splitting here and there) could lead to something like cancer in a friend or relative, having a serious impact on one's life. Still isn't an argument for the existence of free will though.
A reasonable disagreement is pointing out you're assuming zero randomness in the universe (which includes in your head, and everyone elses head, I'm not a mind-body dualist) so no development of unique new ideas, or having unique new experiences or perceptions, both of which feed on each other to generate new echos of randomness long after something interesting happens. Also it assumes no social interaction with others however distantly linked to "interesting random people" even if the individual and their direct contacts are in fact really boring (aka effect of arts in general).
That is a much more productive form of disagreement than hitting the down button.
(Edited to add I think you're getting downvoted because of a cultural-linguistic meme or bug that whenever someone in the USA spins a story with "can't or don't judge" that usually means its a known and obvious statement of fact that they did something they and everyone else knows is wrong, and they have no better spin option. Last (modern) refuge of a scoundrel. Thus the downvotes)
You're just saying you believing in destiny.
I believe the inverse. And we will never know the truth so please don't start with a "which is completely untrue" when it's just an opinion.
I think that inherited genes and location only plays a smaller part - but it depends on the person. For a normal western person my personal belief is that it is less than 10%.
I am a strong believer in free will and it's what makes us so different than animals. Animals have insticts and very little free will.
The thing is that if you believe in free will you have more free will as you will change your way of thinking. At least I believe that.
Back in 2007 I wrote an essay "Life As a Game of Chess": http://www.jimwestergren.com/life-as-a-game-of-chess/
That is, why shouldn't people with genes more suited to the environment they live in enjoy more success?
To answer that question, you have to assign some values to things, which is not a strictly logical process.
Can you recommend one?
Rationality is the main principle of "exact" science too, and is a good tool to work within what we know.
Unfortunately, it's also a limitation, and maybe what's preventing us from transcending our bonds[1].
is a great summary of Seneca and Aristotle's stoic perspectives. It's not a long book and gives a nice overview of the highlights of stoicism.
http://www.amazon.com/Stoic-Philosophy-Seneca-Essays-Letters...
But then again, you don't need books for that. If you have the luxury (or curse) of being rational, you're 10 (5 maybe) and you're already having fatalist/whateverist thoughts. Then the next day you think about it, and realize it doesn't change anything in your life, and you move on. Then 10 years later you finally get to study the concept (or read it on a blog) and, well, it still doesn't solve or introduce any problem in your reality.
People who think/act irrationally aren't sensitive and don't find revelation when they read or hear about those principles, only confirmation where they can. There are things that happen in life that can shake you up and change you, but from a piece of text you'll only assimilate what's aligned with your views, IMHO.
What the philosophers are good at, is helping the reader come up with a logical method for making value judgments about those recipes. Its (mostly) not "here's a great piece of source code" its mostly more like "and this is why OO design is better (or not)".
“There are at least two kinds of games. One could be called finite; the other infinite.”
It's "I'm so irritated that I already knew what you just told me and I learned it from a better source that I want to assault you!! Why don't you read the same things I read!!?"
There is biking aphorism that comes to mind, if you stare at that stump you WILL hit it.
Graphics: 9/10 Pretty good, shadows and lighting effects portrayed quite well. Some really strange pixelation going on though. It's on a very small scale, but still noticeable with the right instruments and upsetting to the general public.
Sound: 6/10 Fantastic variety. Only works well for the first 2/3rds of the game or so, then becomes quite buggy.
Story: 2/10 It's not obvious if there is really a story going on here. Most players experience relatively little classical narrative, and that which does exist seems quite randomly or recklessly placed, possibly completely contrived from otherwise non-storylike events.
Multiplayer: 5/10 A wide variety of things to do with others, but many of them are considered quite boring or uninteresting. The gameplay mechanics sometimes seem to encourage active hostility or selfishness between players, which seems clearly suboptimal.
- Multiplayer is the only option you can select.
- There is no pause button.
- Your character is truly random selected so expect anything.
- There is only one map which is way too big, I haven't had time to go most of the places yet but not complaining.
- You only have one chance to survive the game, no 'save the state' option.
It is a unique game with unique rules. I like it!
Actually no, it's more like PRNG. Which stands for Predictably Random Natural Genetic.
Lack of save state is really bad though. Also humans are hard to grasp. Really poor UI.
It tries to quantify every aspect of life (or rather: disregards any aspect that can't be quantified) and therefore leads to a view of the world that is completely mechanic.
What's worse are it's dogmatic undertones. It kind of suggests that these are general rules that apply to everyone. And if you don't want to be a loser you have to play by those rules.
Games have winners and losers. Who is to become a winner or a loser is decided by some arbitrary rules that are predefined and can't be changed. Is that the kind of mental mindset that you want to equip yourself with? That you will be either a winner or a loser, by the standards of other people? Please, we already have a high chance of getting burnout in our profession. You don't have to forcefully increase it.
So as a little comic relief, here is a quote form the article:
> When your willpower is low, you are only able to do things you really want to.
By contrast, here is a quote from Bob Dylan that I happen like:
> A man is a success if he gets up in the morning and goes to bed at night and in between does what he wants to do.
So if you want to be a success by the standards of Dylan, you know what to do ;)
That's not to say game play doesn't provide a very good analogy. Life makes much more sense when you relate to it like a variety of games each with their own rules. When you know the rules, everything becomes more clear. What you do with it is still up to you, but it's better than being in the dark.
Having a more playful approach to life and finding the fun in the most trivial of activities is rewarding. But unlike what the author emphasizes the in-the-moment experiences matter more than the milestones one reaches for the sake of reaching milestones.
> All players die after about 29,000 days, or 80 years. If your stats and skills are good, you might last a little longer. There is no cheat code to extend this.
Wouldn't that be a great hack, to extend this number indefinitely, and share the exploit with everyone else? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methuselah_Foundation et al. are working on it...)
Umm... right. Seriously? That's all the advice this guy has on the first 15 years of life?
Reading the rest, it doesn't look like he has much of use to say about anything else either.
1. It's a long post 2. Most of my readers are presumably >15 yrs old 3. I honestly think most people up to age 15 have limited control over their lives
I decided to trim it down. Obviously I am not literally saying that a 14-and-11-months year old has no influence over their destiny but a 15 year old does. But superfluous precision is the enemy of effective writing; you end up with a legal document.
It's just a blog post that attempts to be fun. As much as can be expected is few nods and smiles while reading it, and a few seconds pause to think about it at the end. And that's it, it's not like author pretends he's Seneca or Aristotle or semeone else.
Sure. There's plenty of blogs like that, aside from fluffblogs. Almost no one will agree with any given collection but here's one anyway. Mrmoneymustache for personal finance and any generic paleo blog for food, health, and fitness (robb wolf used to be the center of that world, seems he's being out-SEO-ed by competitors now). How much money will improve your life is debatable nonetheless you've got the zerohedge and thehousingbubbleblog. I tend not to agree with them, but thousands (millions?) of religious bloggers at least think they're improving lives, even if I think they're generally doing the opposite. If you allow podcasts (close enough to blogs, read a blog post out loud) there are uncountable educational lecture podcasts (I have listened to about a dozen history related ones, why are history podcasts so popular?) and the survival podcast (which is almost surely not what you think it is, its sort of a how to prosper being a very small scale homesteader, basically this is how to be a non startup non tech non govt handout entrepreneur)
There's probably a difficult and complicated challenge for a startup to categorize blogs as either deep or fluff. In the spirit of PG, everyone thinking its too hard means its a great startup idea.
The point is that the human body if treated well in the ideal conditions is meant to live 120 years or so. Over time, litte damages we do to it like not get enough sleep, drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, eat trans fat, take drugs, stress at work add up to years off.
No one is perfect, and just about everyone will end up taking a decade or two off this max even if their goal is not to. But living to 100 while still enjoying life should be everyone's goal. Remember that having a 100 year life span gives you 25% more life than 80. That's a really big difference and enhances your perspective greatly. I don't feel that life is over at 35, in fact it's pretty much just getting started.
And this is all not counting any technological advances that may enable us to drastically increase our lifespans. I hope Mr. De Gray and Kurzweil are correct. But even if they aren't, you should shoot for at least 100.
What is the main goal? Some may think that it's getting better at something to get a raise and more money. First there is a school, then there is the 1st job, the you try to get a better one and you are trying and trying and trying to get higher. In my opinion, that's not the main point and it's just a side-effect of the life.
Article suggests that 1st 15 years of life is a training or a tutorial, but I disagree. They are as much as important as any other time period. Person should do what makes he or she happy. If it's playing video-games or spending time with friends at a bar, it's okay. Of course, it won't affect your skills on getting a better job (so more money), but if it makes you a happier person, do it! Life is all about being happy and doing what you love to do.
There is no magic-prize at the end of the life, only memories. What will be the point of having much money and good CV in you will sacrifice your happiness on it.
In my opinion, this video[1] nicely shows what I'm talking about.
There is a default meaning to our life, and it's merely survival. I believe there is a balance between giving into ones emotions and not; doing many great and small things which accumulate into mattering in the grand scheme of it all, determining ones worth.
You're lying on your death bed and you ask yourself; how meaningful were my actions to this universe?
Maybe I'm just becoming old, but I already hate this kind of arrogance.
Man, I don't want to get old.
On a completely different note, a lot of us grew up without fathers, or many adults paying attention to us. When I entered the world as a young adult, all I knew about making moves and talking to people was what I learned playing RPGs. And I wish I was kidding.
A very minor nitpick, but this has been proven false so many times. If "rich" means $1M+ during the mid-life period (I think this qualifies as rich if you are willing to live outside of major cities), plenty of people have accumulated that level of wealth by working for others. Go work for a big tech company, save/invest all your bonuses (of which there will be many), and save/invest a good portion of your salary, and you could potentially be a millionaire in only 10 years (for a programmer with just a bachelor's degree, that could translate to early to mid 30s).
If "rich" means $10M+, then that is indeed quite a bit harder to do (unless we're talking about age 65+, in which case the above person will easily achieve it). It can still be done by joining the right pre-IPO company, working on Wall Street as a trader (admittedly, a very demanding career--but not "impossible"), achieving partnership at a major law firm, or working your way up the corporate ladder (Satya was making $8M/year before being promoted to CEO).
* We all have to play in hardcore mode - death is permanent, no saves or restarts.
* Difficulty level is chosen for you at birth, and you can't change it during the game.
Addendum: Article also forgets to mention the University stage, otherwise known as LFG.
I expect perhaps there may be a few more like me, upvoting the article because they enjoyed it, but then leaving it at that. There's not much to discuss when you realise the true purpose of the article.
Negative comments seem to come from people who took it a bit too seriously, in which case it becomes easier to generate discussion points.
Also a long list of things I like is boring and not worth talking about, and probably about the same list for most of us. For example I liked his graphics arts style/technique and the story pacing cannot be improved, and I suspect I'm not alone in those opinions. This guy certainly knows what he's doing WRT those topics. Wasn't that boring to read? I'm sure he would feel better if every post was "dude, love your font choice" fawning, but if he wants blind unconditional love, he should buy a dog, not get submitted to HN.
Somehow nobody has brought up ties to the classic Hasbro "Game of Life" which is the very first thing I thought of when I saw the article. Now that is an observation of something weird happening. I can't be the only HN reader to have played the hasbro game and gotten a mild nostalgia kick...
If an obscure artist makes some music you don't like, nobody cares. But if that artist sells a million records, you'll see an online explosion of rage.
It seems we're wired to react when our tastes don't match those of the groups we hang around in.
BTW, the negative commentors need to work on building up their "humor" skill XP.
I'm not saying the article is good, but it's enjoyable and the comparison to life with a video game is fun to read. What most of the comments here fail to see.
People might get a sense of comfort in thinking that life has a recipe, that it has some sort of inherent quest you must conquer. But there's isn't. Religion, technology, culture and art are our way to deal with that.
Life is open for you to make whatever you want of it. And this is the beauty of it all. Do you want to make it a game? Go ahead, lay some rules, build a strategy, get your achievements. But I think there's more to life than following rules and managing your resources. I wouldn't be surprised if the rules changed without warning or if my resources were suddenly depleted without apparent reason. Because life doesn't care about the rationalizations you came up with.
Life is a unique experience that, fortunately, cannot be framed within a metaphor. There are many ways to live (life as a game, life as a movie, life as a story, life as a poem, life as a checklist, life as a tough math problem) and all of them are right. So maybe we shouldn't bother too much about living the right way and instead just enjoy the ride.
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-th...
Hidden handicaps can hinder some level progression (like jobs, social acceptance) may really frustrate some players. No mention of the luckless that spawn in unfortunate terrain/hostile environments.
Compared to similar players I feel like I need to level grind more than those that spent the same amount of time on it. And that's how I discovered the game is not balanced, which is sometimes rather depressing.
Open to suggestions.
Depending on how you're counting, that's about 15% of the world population.
Why not make it interactive, and let the user choose who they are? Or add more variation to the images? Or talk about getting on with people who "aren't like me"?
Good fun piece though.
I don't think anyone is actually going to catch the joke that generally speaking, entrepreneurs and ladies magnets are not actually "something bigger" at all.
But this is an awesome way to teach some valuable lessons to kids. The analogy of life to a game is something that is clear, simple and pretty intuitive for a growing kid. Since most of the kids these days have played some games or other.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4f9zR5yzY
Of course you can't end up a person of color. Oh heavens no, anything but that!
crosses fingers
Not all the people in the world live such mechanical, predictable lives.
Trying out different strategies to be more effective in reaching your goals - perfectly ok
Convinging yourself that you have complete control over what's happening to you and becoming too serious about the game - big mistake..
You should always allow a good doze of doubt and be open to the unknown, because ultimately .. we have no clue what a fuck we're doing here...
Cheat codes: There are no cheat codes.
Or if you want to be controversial-
Cheat codes: - Find a rich partner - Win a lottery - Get born in a rich family (random)
A lot of people try to figure out things by themselves, and some things have to be understood by oneself. But a lot of things can also be understood in books, or by listenning to the experiences of others that have failed where you are trying to suceed hundred of years before you.
Only 19,345 days remaining in your life (assuming there's no way to extend life beyond 80 in my life time and still be solid) how depressing is that? The only thing that now makes sense is go full out Skyrim, raids and pillaging, indulging in hedonism and a senseless pursuit of scarce material goods.
On another note, this site seems like a personal therapist. When I read one article I just feel calm and excited depending on the article. It's a freaking goldmine of life hacks.
I clicked, but just because I wanted to make sure I don't miss an easter egg or something.
