Betas, why are Americans unhappy?

[discojoe]

I think we're too liberal about what qualifies as art. I think a lot of it is garbage that should be discarded.

[Gilly]

Well there are two interpretations of "art" - the artist's interpretation, and the observers' interpretation. For the artist, all that matters is that he/she is producing something that has personal meaning and gives a kind of catharsis or sense of significance in the process of creation; for the observer, all that matters is that the art resonates in some way, either by actual identification with the artist's projected sentiments, or a confluence of what is concretely represented in the art and what they project onto it. In objective reality these are essentially the same thing, only some people are right and other people are purely projecting. My opinion is, anyone with truly artistic sentiments can tell the difference, even if they "do" both. A lot of modern art, pop music in particular, is deliberately open-ended and essentially a human blank slate, ie conveying a generalized human experience in a way that the maximum number of people can identify with and find aesthetically pleasing.

In my opinion, real art happens when the artist expresses him/herself as genuinely as possible, and another person successfully identifies their own personal experience in it from a subjective standpoint of passive resonance; the less differential between the passive nature of the engagement of experience and the degree of pleasure, the more likely the resonance is "real," because obviously it is requiring less active interpretation (of course it is possible to passively resonate with something and "get it wrong," but I think there is at least a certain generalized/"statistical"-esque differential). Interestingly enough I think the same is true of a certain kind of love, though it's not necessarily romantic love.

In it's essence, art is love for, or at least investment in, the world.

[Gilly]

All that said, I agree with you. People should definitely be, or at least try to be, more like me. It would make things much simpler indeed.

[sarinana]

narcissism has no limits...

[Crispy]

because the self has infinite value to the self

[sarinana]

...never take away the right to believe from the fools....

[strrrng]

If you have to have a definition for what it means to be an artist, you aren't one. Not yet, anyway.

and claiming to be a real artist doesn't imply a definition?

[discojoe]

and claiming to be a real artist doesn't imply a definition?

I think he meant the need to have the definition is what keeps one from becoming a true artist.

[strrrng]

that in itself is a contradiction. it assumes that the definition is being used to define one's self. actually, one can form a definition of what art is and actualize their artistic capacity in a naturally emergent, balanced process. claiming to be a "real artist" is just as flawed as using a definition for it, because they both presume to know the result before the process.

[Gilly]

and claiming to be a real artist doesn't imply a definition?

Only in the most specific sense.

[Gilly]

Saying that being an artist requires a definition of "artist" is kind of like saying that experiencing art requires a definition of "art." Sure, the experience can be defined, but essentially, it is what it is, in the most immediate sense.

[strrrng]

Only in the most specific sense.

exactly! pyramids aren't constructed from the top downward, even if the singular point is envisioned beforehand.

[discojoe]

There be trippy shit in this topic, lol.

[strrrng]

kill the ****** sitting on the bench with the baggage and stench and the haggard who winces when I ravish the infants. god damn opiates.

[strrrng]

dj you just freaked me out. I've been telepathically texting with gilly for the past 30 minutes, and you go and post that right before my random poem.

[crazedrat]

strrrng you're going to need a 12 step program before you know it.

[strrrng]

nah... if I committed myself anywhere, it would be a psych ward, just for experiment's sake.

[discojoe]

nah... if I committed myself anywhere, it would be a psych ward, just for experiment's sake.

For me it would be a brothel.

[Ave]

For me it would be a brothel.

Been there, done that

[strrrng]

aren't you cool

[Ave]

yep.tis legal where I live.

[IEI]

This may hold some answers....

The secrets of happiness
By RICHARD LAYARD
1 There is a paradox at the heart of our civilisation. Individuals want more income. Yet as society has got richer, people have not become happier. Over the past 50 years we have got better homes, more clothes, longer holidays and, above all, better health. Yet surveys show clearly that happiness has not increased in the US, Japan, Continental Europe or Britain.
2 By happiness I mean feeling good – enjoying life and feeling it is wonderful. And by unhappiness I mean feeling bad and wishing things were different. Most people find it easy to say how good they are feeling, and in social surveys such questions get 99 per cent response rates – much higher than the average.
[…]
3 It is true that, within any particular society at any particular moment, rich people are on average happier than poorer ones. For example, 41 per cent of people in the top quarter of incomes are ‘very happy’, compared with only 26 per cent of those in the bottom quarter of incomes. The problem is that, over the years, the proportions in each group who are very happy have not changed at all although the real incomes in each group have risen hugely. This is true of all the main western countries.
4 We also know that clinical depression, assessed professionally through population surveys, has risen in most countries. A survey from London University’s Institute of Education, out this month, shows that as many as 29 per cent of women aged 30 in 2000 reported suffering trouble with nerves or feeling low, depressed or sad; the comparable figure in a similar survey, among those aged 36 in 1982, was just 16 per cent. Researchers disagree over the size of the increase, but nobody believes depression has diminished, despite the much greater ease of our material life.
5 Further evidence comes from comparisons between different countries. These show that, where average income per person is less than $15,000 a year in other words, where many people are near the breadline extra money really does make people happier. But comparing countries where average income is above that level, happiness seems to be independent of income. For example, the average American is much richer than the average Icelander or Dane, but also less happy.
6 Why is this? Clearly people are comparing their income with some norm and this norm is rising all the time. Thus from 1946 86, the US Gallup poll asked people, ‘What is the smallest amount of money that a family of four needs to get along in this community?’ It turns out that, as actual average incomes rose, so did the income that people felt was needed – and in fact this ‘needed’ income grew in direct proportion to actual income. Likewise, when people were asked ‘Are you satisfied with your financial position?’, the proportion who said they were ‘pretty well satisfied’ fell, despite enormous economic growth.
7 Two things drive up the norm with which people compare their incomes. One is the income that they themselves have experienced which habituates them to higher standards of living. And the other is the income that others get, and which they try to rival or outdo.
8 Habituation is a basic psychological phenomenon. It works both up and down: you adjust to good things and to bad. The clearest evidence that you adjust to income comes from asking people with different levels of actual income what income they would consider satisfactory. Typically, the income that people say is satisfactory rises by almost 50p for every extra pound that they have actually acquired. A whole range of studies shows that people adjust their requirements to their recent experience and that they are constantly surprised by this. People overestimate the extent to which the new house or new car will, once they have got used to it, make them happier.
9 People also adjust their requirements in response to what other people have: keeping up with (or trying to outdo) the Joneses. […] When people compare their wages, it is generally with people close to themselves, rather than with film stars or paupers. What matters is what happens to your ‘reference group’ because what your reference group gets might have been feasible for you, while what David Beckham gets is not. Much of the most intense rivalry, therefore, is within organisations and within families. In organisations, calm can often be maintained only by keeping people’s salaries secret. In families, it has been found that the more your spouse earns, the less satisfied you are with your own job. And among women, if your sister’s husband is earning more than your own husband earns, you are more likely to go out to work.
10 Change the reference group and you may well change levels of happiness. In the eastern part of Germany, the living standards of those in work have soared since 1990, but their level of happiness has plummeted. Why? Because the east Germans now compare themselves with west Germans rather than with other countries in the old Soviet bloc. Again, women’s happiness in the US has fallen relative to men’s as their pay and opportunities have improved. The most likely explanation is that women now compare themselves more directly with men than they used to, and therefore focus more on the gaps that still exist.
11 But we do not find the same effects when we ask people about non-monetary benefits. A sample of Harvard graduate students was asked which of two worlds they would prefer: one where they got $50,000 a year and others got $25,000, or one where they got $100,000 and others got $250,000. The majority preferred the first world. They were happier with lower income, provided their relative position improved. Then the students were asked to choose between a world where they got two weeks holiday while others got half that and a world where they got four weeks holiday while others got twice that. Most preferred the second world. In other words, people are much less rivalrous when it comes to leisure. The rat race is for income and when each of us works more and earns more, this imposes a genuine loss of happiness on others. It is a form of pollution.
12 So now we can see why happiness increases so little when countries get richer. People get hurt as their needs rise in ways they did not foresee – a form of self-pollution. And they get hurt by the extra income that others are earning – pollution by others.
13 The policy implications are dramatic. For example, if much of the extra income (say 60p in the pound) brings no overall increase in happiness, we should reduce the incentive to acquire it. It would therefore be efficient to have a marginal tax rate of say 60p in the pound corresponding (on the principle that the polluter should pay) to the 60p worth of pollution caused by the extra pound that is earned. Up to now we have apologised for taxation. The standard economic analysis says that taxation reduces work effort, which is true. But it also says that it is inefficient to reduce work effort, and our analysis shows that, if the aim is to increase human happiness, this is false.
14 Indeed taxation is one of the most important institutions we have for preserving a sensible balance between work and leisure. We should be proud of it and stand up for it. As it happens, 60 per cent is the typical level of marginal taxation in Europe if you allow for direct and indirect taxes. I suspect that, in some almost unconscious way, the electorate now understands that the scramble to spend more is partially self-defeating and that this explains why people are more favourable to public expenditure. But the time is ripe to make the argument explicit […]
[The article goes on to discuss other implications of treating happiness as an important policy goal, then concludes with this paragraph.]
15 The scientific study of happiness is only just beginning. It should become a central topic in social science. But for the moment I would recommend four principles. Don’t apologise for taxes; foster security; fight glaring evils such as depression; and discourage social comparison.
[Professor Lord Layard is co- director of the Centre for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics. This extract from an article in The New Statesman of 3 March 2003, is based on his Lionel Robbins Lectures, given at the LSE on 3, 4 and 5 March 2003. The full text is now available from http://cep.lse.ac.uk/layard/RL362.pdf.]
1,300 words

[Jimbean]

[Gilly]

yep.tis legal where I live.

That totally takes the fun out of it, though.

[Linas]

Fe valuer

[Linas]

It doesn't have to be just Americans, but anyone living in an "America-esque" society, if that makes sense. You could possibly even include Japan, definitely the UK.

Anyway, it occurred to me that most people in America seem unhappy and slightly mad, like they're balanced precariously on the edge of sanity and are trying hard not to notice. It's sort of like a cartoon character that walks off a ledge but does not begin to fall until he notices his predicament.

Also, I'm looking for thoughtful answers, not clichéd anti-American platitudes from dunces in pretend Eastern European countries. I would also prefer somewhat artsy answers from Beta NFs such as strrrng, George, and silverchris.

Please give me your Nietzschean/Freudian insights.

uhh, mister, I was gonna say "WOW!" until the anti-Easter European part, uhh, anyway... yea, I know that's a catch for sandra, but anyways... not nyce, aight!!

well, in short... it's the core thing for this kind of money makin' socioeconomic system. you gotta feel shitty to burst your itty and get up doin' it! you gotta want, to stay alive. sorta... "dirbk, pirk arba mirk" (work, buy or die)... the whole unhappyness thing is the main component of money oriented society system. you gotta live, to be livin'... and you gotta "want", to be alive. if you want something, you gotta achieve that. so you gotta get a job and make some fuckin' money, dawg! to get yourself somethin' shiny, something nice... you know... shiny Cadilac, or Bentley... your bored of your old yellow Hummer? oh, that's ok! factory has a red one! but it will cost another hell of boredom in office for next [one...five months/years/decades(lol)]... so yeah be it. do it! burst a move, get a job! you want it, don't you? funny thing is, as in religion, we don't really know the truth. we have "a want for better future", which is similar to that thing... that you don't see, don't know....


well whatever, gotta leave

[Gilly]

The real answer to this question, though, is that America is in a highly precarious situation: we're at war, our economy is shot, and a lot of us secretly wonder if we will be going to war with China some time in the next 20 years. This creates a ton of anxiety and doubt in people's minds, and they drone on in spite of it because they have to have hope.

In addition America is still as sexually repressed as ever, and our over-sex-focused pop culture is doing nothing but provide a cathectic outlet by stimulating us towards sexual thoughts and attitudes but convincing us all the more that they simply "have their proper place." Americans are over-worked and under-sexed, which is a recipe for stress and anxiety.

Also you are slightly projecting because you have anxiety.

[Gilly]

Personally I try not to worry about whether or not I am feeling good or happy; when I do that, I am automatically unhappy.

[Ave]

That totally takes the fun out of it, though.

Not really. The pussy is the fun.

[Linas]

you have anxiety.

I do actually. (like everyone else in this culture apparently)

[Gilly]

Not really. The pussy is the fun.

Random pussy is so overrated.

[discojoe]

Random pussy is so overrated.

Yeah, not satisfying at all. Better to cum in someone whose mind you've explored.

[Gilly]

Yeah, not satisfying at all. Better to cum in someone whose mind you've explored.

indeed.

[Ave]

Yeah, not satisfying at all. Better to cum in someone whose mind you've explored.

Lol. Such a socionist.

[Khamelion]

the apparent unhappiness combined with the lack of awareness, is your answer. simply put: they know not what they do. but this isn't just because lazy consumers happen to overpopulate rapidly developing cities. it has to do with... the collective unconscious. unfortunately, a full description of this would require too much history for this thread, but there is a gist of it. you have a country founded on libertarian capitalism. this is man realizing that shackles need to be taken off, after excessive conflict -- that he has a will and can use it without the guide of a tablet; the mind is in a state to recreate the expression of archetypes. thus, people are always averse to imposing limiting structures when it comes to 'fresh pastures' ("the baby is precious"). this is because the archetypes become projected in the most simplistic form, starting with that of the mother, and its relationship to the child ('look what she has given us, and what we can produce' -- all human struggle is momentarily eclipsed under the beam of this horizon). the collective psyche believes that man has been excised, and his face turns with grim optimism toward the horizon ahead, ready to make this the most prolific (re)birth. the image of the founding fathers toiling in candlelit isolation symbolizes this perfectly (the period between inception and actual birth, within the womb). the problem arises from the very carefulness with which the 'rules' for such a society are created, because you have to maintain core boundaries without limiting people (the animus (male) archetype is that of giving order -- seemingly demanding, but only firm to strengthen and push forward, not control -- so that people can evolve naturally; this is in stark contrast to the stereotype of a father as being some embodiment of masculine prowess whose authority is unquestionable). those without a true appreciation for the principles behind such a doctrine, always bend the context of the words, or conversely, keep them too literal. these approaches are a devolved left and right, respectively, unconsciously believing that mother nature gave carte blanche based on the memory of the horizon, or that the father/animus's domain will not be undermined (so you have this degenerate condition called: homosexuality, in the first case, and lesbianism in the second). the next problem is resource surplus. a large amount of post-industrial revolution americans are not born into an environment that teaches the essential value of resources. they are actually objectified. this gradually leads to one's perception of tangible life as a holograph, and the evolution of the internet embodies this (now, the pasture is taken for granted with a sterile insolence, because it cannot be felt; a virus is incepted here). the bourgeois state of life is one of blase resignation: 'we know where we've come from, now let us rest' (as if the arduous summer's droplets of sweat were hydration to carry these larvae into the fall; a contradictory attitude of resource stabilization and indulgence comes about, as predicted with blind animals anticipating hibernation season). the only glimmer of humanity left in such a morass, is a kind of liberal innovation, which can sometimes result in ingenious market strategies that make the society's operation much less stressful... at the same time, this goes hand in hand with excessive boredom and indifference (the child archetype's natural growth is being stifled; he is implicitly shuffled into the holograph, and thus at best, can only clarify its lens somewhat, not remove or destroy it; the creators of facebook embody this). the relationship to the mother is no longer one of innocent gratitude, because she has been clouded and ignored (the child is now saying: I know what you gave me, and don't care anymore, because look where I am – it seemingly gives up on what it needs the most); the father is casually scoffed at, because a herd is playing god between fingertips (the most common emotion concerning america's struggle and creation, as embodied in the founding fathers, is one of solemn reverence – as at a funeral; this breeds guilt and childish power games). with the rise of motley consumerism comes a decay of cultural archetypes, because the attitude is: diversity is better (losing touch of the archetypes results in cursory, scattered attempts to retrieve them – and enough pebbles tossed into a pond will cause a greate ruckus on the surface!). this is horribly flawed. art is where the archetypes have to come through in the most distilled form. also, the idea of: free speech, becomes tainted with weasel-shitting degenerates who take it literally (one does not understand that archetypes speak through them, thus assumes complete domain over 'personal expression'), which only amplifies the problem with art, hence how a picture of a fucking soda can (or something trivial like that) made it into an art museum some years back. post-modernism is the youthful embodiment of this resignation; it represents the disconnect from the essential roots, hence positing that everything is a relative effect of an amorphous environment with no meaning. the youth is looking for a guiding force (child archetype mocking its roots, leading to a megalomaniacal state of existence; kids who shoot up schools illustrate this). consumerism breeds liberalism which breeds government leech-feeding (kids: "daddy, give me this!" -- dad: "watch your mouth, just maybe I'll give you a prize" -- kids: "thank you, now I want more." -- dad (frustrated): "ok, here" -- the former becomes a spoiled juvenile, the latter a sado-masochistic despot) which breeds a complete deflation of art that becomes nothing more than a reflection of a reflection -- the latter being humanity's lens after the disconnect, the former being the lens used to 'refine' it. the result of this, is a morass of corporate whores, useless bums, spoiled brats with too much education and too little spine, blights of poverty -- most of which are derived from slaves, and maintain the same puerile defiance -- and select pockets of power (the devolved right trying to maintain some semblance of fundamentals/stability). the archetypes are puddles on a street, and people are spitting into them at every chance they get, hoping it will vaporize and traverse to a plateau where greater forces can turn it into something powerful; and this only perpetuates the cycle.

holy wall of text batman

[Ave]

holy wall of text batman

You read it?

[Gilly]

It's probably the best wall of text that this forum has ever played gracious host to. Talk about giving birth.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

the apparent unhappiness combined with the lack of awareness, is your answer. simply put: they know not what they do. but this isn't just because lazy consumers happen to overpopulate rapidly developing cities. it has to do with... the collective unconscious. unfortunately, a full description of this would require too much history for this thread, but there is a gist of it. you have a country founded on libertarian capitalism. this is man realizing that shackles need to be taken off, after excessive conflict -- that he has a will and can use it without the guide of a tablet; the mind is in a state to recreate the expression of archetypes. thus, people are always averse to imposing limiting structures when it comes to 'fresh pastures' ("the baby is precious"). this is because the archetypes become projected in the most simplistic form, starting with that of the mother, and its relationship to the child ('look what she has given us, and what we can produce' -- all human struggle is momentarily eclipsed under the beam of this horizon). the collective psyche believes that man has been excised, and his face turns with grim optimism toward the horizon ahead, ready to make this the most prolific (re)birth. the image of the founding fathers toiling in candlelit isolation symbolizes this perfectly (the period between inception and actual birth, within the womb). the problem arises from the very carefulness with which the 'rules' for such a society are created, because you have to maintain core boundaries without limiting people (the animus (male) archetype is that of giving order -- seemingly demanding, but only firm to strengthen and push forward, not control -- so that people can evolve naturally; this is in stark contrast to the stereotype of a father as being some embodiment of masculine prowess whose authority is unquestionable). those without a true appreciation for the principles behind such a doctrine, always bend the context of the words, or conversely, keep them too literal. these approaches are a devolved left and right, respectively, unconsciously believing that mother nature gave carte blanche based on the memory of the horizon, or that the father/animus's domain will not be undermined (so you have this degenerate condition called: homosexuality, in the first case, and lesbianism in the second). the next problem is resource surplus. a large amount of post-industrial revolution americans are not born into an environment that teaches the essential value of resources. they are actually objectified. this gradually leads to one's perception of tangible life as a holograph, and the evolution of the internet embodies this (now, the pasture is taken for granted with a sterile insolence, because it cannot be felt; a virus is incepted here). the bourgeois state of life is one of blase resignation: 'we know where we've come from, now let us rest' (as if the arduous summer's droplets of sweat were hydration to carry these larvae into the fall; a contradictory attitude of resource stabilization and indulgence comes about, as predicted with blind animals anticipating hibernation season). the only glimmer of humanity left in such a morass, is a kind of liberal innovation, which can sometimes result in ingenious market strategies that make the society's operation much less stressful... at the same time, this goes hand in hand with excessive boredom and indifference (the child archetype's natural growth is being stifled; he is implicitly shuffled into the holograph, and thus at best, can only clarify its lens somewhat, not remove or destroy it; the creators of facebook embody this). the relationship to the mother is no longer one of innocent gratitude, because she has been clouded and ignored (the child is now saying: I know what you gave me, and don't care anymore, because look where I am – it seemingly gives up on what it needs the most); the father is casually scoffed at, because a herd is playing god between fingertips (the most common emotion concerning america's struggle and creation, as embodied in the founding fathers, is one of solemn reverence – as at a funeral; this breeds guilt and childish power games). with the rise of motley consumerism comes a decay of cultural archetypes, because the attitude is: diversity is better (losing touch of the archetypes results in cursory, scattered attempts to retrieve them – and enough pebbles tossed into a pond will cause a greate ruckus on the surface!). this is horribly flawed. art is where the archetypes have to come through in the most distilled form. also, the idea of: free speech, becomes tainted with weasel-shitting degenerates who take it literally (one does not understand that archetypes speak through them, thus assumes complete domain over 'personal expression'), which only amplifies the problem with art, hence how a picture of a fucking soda can (or something trivial like that) made it into an art museum some years back. post-modernism is the youthful embodiment of this resignation; it represents the disconnect from the essential roots, hence positing that everything is a relative effect of an amorphous environment with no meaning. the youth is looking for a guiding force (child archetype mocking its roots, leading to a megalomaniacal state of existence; kids who shoot up schools illustrate this). consumerism breeds liberalism which breeds government leech-feeding (kids: "daddy, give me this!" -- dad: "watch your mouth, just maybe I'll give you a prize" -- kids: "thank you, now I want more." -- dad (frustrated): "ok, here" -- the former becomes a spoiled juvenile, the latter a sado-masochistic despot) which breeds a complete deflation of art that becomes nothing more than a reflection of a reflection -- the latter being humanity's lens after the disconnect, the former being the lens used to 'refine' it. the result of this, is a morass of corporate whores, useless bums, spoiled brats with too much education and too little spine, blights of poverty -- most of which are derived from slaves, and maintain the same puerile defiance -- and select pockets of power (the devolved right trying to maintain some semblance of fundamentals/stability). the archetypes are puddles on a street, and people are spitting into them at every chance they get, hoping it will vaporize and traverse to a plateau where greater forces can turn it into something powerful; and this only perpetuates the cycle.

You try to say words that 'hit' people, but in reality it comes across as airy, flowery, and ineffectual. Just a bunch of word salad, really- this was. You said nothing. It's amusing but that's all. I did this a little whlie ago just for fun, but I got bored of it.

I would be all 'rose petals die on my nose and walt whitman's assholes speak loudly on the bathtub in the moon.'

[strrrng]

I'm pretty sure you just have a lower level of verbal comprehension than most people here.

[Gilly]

lol