Most Events that Happen to us do not Matter! An amazing talk by TED

[Pietro]

This is an amazing talk from ted.com:

 

Dan Gilbert: Why are we happy

 

Essentially the main message is that when we are given a choise, that we cannot change, we are going eventually to be more happy than if in the choise we could change the result at any time.

 

It also shows how most of the events that happen to us REALLY MAKE no difference to our level of happiness.

 

Now according to traditional taoism (as was teached to me), 99% of the events that happen to us do not matter, and only very few, say 1%, matters. Funny that Taoism got it right, in a topic which is so counter intuitive.

 

I have seen this talk many times, and I am still absorbing what does this mean.

What does it really mean in terms of how should I change my way of living, thinking, acting, following those results.

 

Please do not just read this message, see the video. It is only 18 minutes long.

It is worth to spend 18 minutes for something that might change your whole life philosophy!

 

I'd love to hear what the other members of this community have to say about this!

Edited November 9, 2008 by Pietro

[MASTERforge]

The level of satisfaction is also gained in the amount of choice we have! More choice does not always equate to more satisfaction! But the quality of choice does!

 

I love this website and haven't been on it for a while.

 

The speech for me is business related. For example you can sell a person a new car and offer a preservative wax wash. If they don't buy it, when it rains, they will be wishing they had. So send out marketing materials at the right time and you stand a good chance of making a sale.

 

On a relationship level. Giving choices is always better than ultimatums. For example 'you cannot do this because' always elicits negative reaction whereas 'you can either do this, or that' consistently gives better results. Even though you have still ruled out what the person is trying to achieve.

 

Pretty basic NLP really.

[wuliheron]

Neurolinguistic programming is a bit dated, but still quite useful. Taoism emphasises relativism which means happiness and unhappiness are relative terms. What one person says makes them happy another says makes them unhappy even if they are statistically rare. Just because they might be statistically rare does not invalidate their feelings anymore than enlightenment being a rarity invalidates the enlightened.

 

A more modern relativistic view is "Relational Frame Theory" and its offshoot, "Acceptance and Commitment Therapy". Imagine an alien from mars lands on earth and, unknown to us, their eyes see red when we see blue and vice versa. Although we may never realize this difference between us we can still have perfectly useful converstations about colors.

[Anabhogya-Carya]

This is an amazing talk from ted.com:

 

 

 

Now according to traditional taoism (as was teached to me), 99% of the events that happen to us do not matter, and only very few, say 1%, matters. Funny that Taoism got it right, in a topic which is so counter intuitive.

 

 

 

 

Logically, in effect, discovering Taoism, your meditation/cultivation, potential enlightenment does not matter.

 

A simple modus pollens :

 

Premise 1: if events happen, 100% of them don't matter

Premise 2: events happen, life is a series of events

Conclusion: nothing matters.

 

What do you mean by 'events' ? or 'matter' ?

[Mal]

[Anabhogya-Carya]

Cheers for posting, TED collects such GREAT speakers.

 

The pursuit of happiness might actually be obtainable regardless of the circumstances you find yourself in right now.

 

 

 

i can agree with that.

[ddilulo_06]

To me, this is more proof that nothing outside of your Self can make you happy for long. It's cool to see it scientifically validated!

 

So a lot of people are still chasing after the 99% of the things that don't matter eh? Well, what's that 1% that matters? What choices matter? Is it the choices that make you face yourself?

[de_paradise]

Thanks for posting this Pietro,

 

I was thinking about the information yesterday, and it even made it into my dreams last night--a good indicator of some serious subconcious-level change.

 

I have had my own anecdotal evidence, as well as the sayings of Zen etc, but this kind of presentation can really shore up a vague belief, and allow one to fearlessly evaluate choices in a better way.

 

I think it isnt the whole story though. I think for example there is happiness/life value in the dynamic of doing something new, breaking one's patterns. Combine the two beliefs for some really powerful motivation: no matter if I take a risk or not, succeed or fail, I'm still going to be happy.

[Yoda]

Pietro,

 

That rocked out, thanks!

 

Your pal,

Yoda

[Seth Ananda]

Thanks Pietro, that was great.

 

It has some interesting political ramifications: Take their Freedom but keep them entertained and happy.

 

I Love your mention of the 99% thing. I try to really live by that one.

 

Seth

[picnic]

i'm happy!

[Pietro]

Thanks to all who have commented. Especially to those that hae commented and also saw the movie. It was mentioned that some people had difficulties in getting the video. Please consider that the video is also available in mp4 format. The link is on the webpage of the video.

 

Also from the same author there is a book (stumbling on happiness), and an audiobook (same title).

For those with a relaxed ethics regarding copyright, the audiobook is available from gigapedia.

 

From when I saw the video the first time, I have thought a lot about it.

 

I personally do not agree that saying that only 1% of the events matter brings in a relativistic point of view. Nor that Taoism brings in a relativistic point of view. This is not what was transmitted to me, nor what I got from this video. In this I am with ddilulo. Most of what happens to us does not matter because, although it happen to us, it does not happens to the depth of our consciousness.

 

I would say two things would surely matter.

Enligtenment would matter.

And a state of continuous stress (of any kind) that would seriously hinder enlightenment (like death ?).

 

Let us get some examples and try to ground ourself on them. As I said I have thought a lot about it, and often I would compare experiences (mine or others) against the measure of "does this really matter?".

 

Here is, for example, the story (true or fictitious) of a man who went to jail for a crime he did not commit. He was eventually freed from jail, and had to rebuild himself a life after a past in jail, with an history of being repetively raped in jail.

 

I don't know if the story is true or not. But let's us assume that it is. So, does the fact of going to jail matter? Is it part of the 1% or of the 99%. Well, according to the video we saw it should be part of the 99% (after all wasn't one of those happy happy people someone who passed most of his life in jail?). But what if you are raped in jail? What if you are consistently raped, tortured and humiliated. Some people use this for their spiritual practice (not the rape, but the shock that comes with it). Leaving aside the incredible strength and braveness of those people, there is also a technical element.

 

You need to know how to do it, to be able to use shock for spiritual purpose. One person out of 1000 might do it. 9 might know how to do it, and not be strong enough to do it. But the remaining 990 will not even know how to do it.

 

There are multiple stories of kids who got bullied or worse, and suddenly overnight transformed themselves from happy kids, into silent depressed kids. Often in those cases it was not just a single act. They got bullied (or raped) over and over.

 

The video says:

99% of the times, what has happened 3 months ago does not matter.

 

But what about what keeps on happening.

 

Again. Take someone who had a bad experience. I don't know, take a trauma, any trauma. His (or her) life can be miserable not because of the trauma, but because of the fact that he or she might keep on replaying the tape of the event in his or her head. As a man who went to jail and was their beaten repetively by the guards, once said: -the wounds will heal, but the animal they have awaken in me wants blood. Wants their blood, and that will take longer to calm down. (I paraphrase it from memory).

 

But the same man, if he knew how to, could have calmed the beast, and then also the beating and the humiliation would have become unimportant.

 

So it seem that although it is not subjective what is important, it is also not totally independent on the person. Some people can take more, just because they are able to dissolve, and let go of more.

 

And then wonder about crimes. Think about theft, for example. I bet each of us have stolen something in his career of juvenil delinquent. Eventually we learn that it is not ok. We are not ok when we do it. So imagine, you steal something (or do something else which is clearly against your internal ethics), and then you feel your soul rotting from the inside.

 

Does this matter? Is this part of the 99% or of the 1%.

 

I suppose remaining alive is important. Eating is important. What you eat is less important. Sleeping is important. When you sleep is less important.

 

If knowing how to practice is important, still how you learned it, where did you got the money to learn it, all this is less important.

 

So now I want to leave you with a game. A phrase that I will start, and then each of us can continue, as he sees fit.

 

the phrase is either:

"if 99% of what happens to me is not important then ..."

or:

"if 99% of what happens to me is not important then I will ..."

or finally:

"if 99% of what happens to me is not important then I will not ...".

 

I give my solution, but I will appreciate if other people would write theirs too.

 

if 99% of what happens to me is not important then I will stop complaining about what happens to me.

if 99% of what happens to me is not important then I will focus on what is really important

if 99% of what happens to me is not important then I will have more fun

if 99% of what happens to me is not important then I will concentrate in understanding what is important from what is not

if 99% of what happens to me is not important then I can stop worrying about what I did to other people.

 

Now is your turn, how would your life change if you approach it from this point of view:

 

 

if 99% of what happens to me is not important then

if 99% of what happens to me is not important then

if 99% of what happens to me is not important then

if 99% of what happens to me is not important then I will

if 99% of what happens to me is not important then I will

if 99% of what happens to me is not important then I will

if 99% of what happens to me is not important then I will not

if 99% of what happens to me is not important then I will not

if 99% of what happens to me is not important then I will not

[Yoda]

It reminded me of Victor Frankl's book: "Man's Search for Meaning" about his time in a concentration camp. The prisoners who were able to survive in those conditions were the one's who were able to give the ordeal some sense of purpose and were in a minority. There, they didn't have the physical vitality to feed any animal rage so they just became lifeless zombies and died if they couldn't deal.

[Pietro]

It reminded me of Victor Frankl's book: "Man's Search for Meaning" about his time in a concentration camp. The prisoners who were able to survive in those conditions were the one's who were able to give the ordeal some sense of purpose and were in a minority. There, they didn't have the physical vitality to feed any animal rage so they just became lifeless zombies and died if they couldn't deal.

 

Yes. I remember reading a woman from a concentration camp saying: once you have an internal life, it does not matter which side of the bars are you standing.

Also there is a prison in the US where prisoners who have life sentences, the one that will never ever come out, maybe have even more than one life sentence, are sent. They become zombies there, too.

[Yoda]

I always ask well travelled people who the happiest people on the planet are.

 

The answers I get are all over the map, but I'm always impressed by how high some very poor nations do in my little survey. Every country has their own espirit de corps independent of externals, but I wonder if the countries that have less economic freedom in the sense that it is quite easy for any American to make millions if they really apply themselves but much more challenging to do the same in Haiti... if that lack of possibility lends itself to greater inner peace at some level?

 

I think the professor on the vid was measuring the degree of tension vs relaxation with relaxation as the source of happiness.

[Pietro]

I always ask well travelled people who the happiest people on the planet are.

 

The answers I get are all over the map, but I'm always impressed by how high some very poor nations do in my little survey. Every country has their own espirit de corps independent of externals, but I wonder if the countries that have less economic freedom in the sense that it is quite easy for any American to make millions if they really apply themselves but much more challenging to do the same in Haiti... if that lack of possibility lends itself to greater inner peace at some level?

 

I think the professor on the vid was measuring the degree of tension vs relaxation with relaxation as the source of happiness.

 

What many studies seem to conclude about the level of happiness, respect to the level of wealth, is that there are two measures. If you do not have enough to eat, to shelter yourself, in whort below a certain level, money does indeed make a difference. But above that level, it seem to be totally irrelevant.

 

There are many people around who are trying to do what you are doing (finding the most happy people), so you might want to look atthe work of those people. We use to measure a nation with the GDP (amount of transactions inside a country) and the Gini Indicator (how much is the wealth spread equally).

 

Now there is an incredible number of other indicators that take account the level of declared happiness, number of people who suicide, length of life, respect for the environment.

 

GPI (Geniune Progress Indicator) is one but there are many other happiness index.

 

I think the one you probably shouldlook at is:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisfaction_with_Life_Index

 

But also at the links at the bottom of this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_of_life

 

This World Happiness Map was created with data of Satisfaction With Life Scale from a paper by Adrian G. White using data from a metastudy.[1] It is an attempt to show life satisfaction (subjective life satisfaction) in different nations. In this calculation, subjective well being correlates most strongly with health (.7), wealth (.6), and access to basic education (.6)

This is an example of a recent trend to use direct measures of happiness, such as surveys asking people how happy they are, as an alternative to traditional measures of policy success to GDP or GNP. Some studies suggest that happiness can be measured effectively

 

http://www.le.ac.uk/users/aw57/world/the%2...0well-being.bmp

 

 

(image stolen from: http://www.le.ac.uk/users/aw57/world/sample.html )

Edited November 14, 2008 by Pietro

[Yoda]

thanks!

[picnic]

Re: GDP GNP and so on; I think it was the king of Bhutan who said we measure GNH, Gross National Happiness.

 

I saw most happiness in india, vietnam, very much in Lao, cambodia, a lot in thailand. Less in the states, uk, australia. Happiness is after all from within; happiness gained from outside is transient, and we all know the difference there in those nations. One lot chase the external world, and one lot radiate from the inner. Even those with seemingly very little have a wonderful outlook and don't crave anything else, at least if they do, it is not to the detriment of the there and then.

 

My wife is the happiest person I know, she keeps life simple, knows what matters, understands the way, and warms people.

[Pietro]

Re: GDP GNP and so on; I think it was the king of Bhutan who said we measure GNH, Gross National Happiness.

 

I saw most happiness in india, vietnam, very much in Lao, cambodia, a lot in thailand. Less in the states, uk, australia. Happiness is after all from within; happiness gained from outside is transient, and we all know the difference there in those nations. One lot chase the external world, and one lot radiate from the inner. Even those with seemingly very little have a wonderful outlook and don't crave anything else, at least if they do, it is not to the detriment of the there and then.

 

My wife is the happiest person I know, she keeps life simple, knows what matters, understands the way, and warms people.

 

Many people say that some people in India are happy with little.

As I said we need to differentiate between having little but enough (food, clothing, basic education, etc), and having just not having enough. The huge crowd that lives with less than 1 dollar a day will feel the need for money in a different way than the crowd that lacks their second SUV.

 

You might think that at all those indices are using only external indicators, but they are not.

They are often using subjective indicators like asking people how much are they happy.

 

You say those people you saw are the happiest in the world.

 

Now I need to ask you:

a.) did those people had enough to leave or where below that threashold limit

b.) in the society where you saw those people, was happiness widespread through all the people in the same conditions, or you just had one wise happy fellow (maybe still very poor, but somehow happy), with all the others not so happy. Because you might be right, but that one wise happy fellow might not be statistically relevant.

c.) if you were to ask them "how happy are them" would they say that they are happy or not?

 

Because in the statistics there seem to be a correlation between wealth and declared happiness when you are below a certain threashold. Above that, this is not the case anymore.

So for poor people, money does indeed mean something. For rich ones, not anymore.

 

If you think about it this is how it is with all basic needs. Once the need is unfulfilled you will not be very happy. If you cannot breath you are not going to be happy. If you cannot eat, likewise. If you are lonely, same story.

 

But once you have some friends, once you some food, once you are able to breath... then to have more is not that important.

 

Now this is what the statistics of going to those places, and asking to people there how they feel about their life, tells us. Now you might disagree with them about how much are they happy. But is this telling us something about them... or about you?

Edited November 15, 2008 by Pietro

[picnic]

This rework of a saying seems to fit...

 

"If the (financially) rich and the poor man both lose all they have... who suffers more?"

[Pietro]

This rework of a saying seems to fit...

 

"If the (financially) rich and the poor man both lose all they have... who suffers more?"

It surely does.

 

Could you please still answer the questions.

 

Thanks,

Pietro

[picnic]

It surely does.

 

Could you please still answer the questions.

 

Thanks,

Pietro

I tried but it became very long winded so i deleted. I will perhaps try again soon.

[Pietro]

I tried but it became very long winded so i deleted. I will perhaps try again soon.

Thank you; you see, I really put a lot of effort in trying to convey the message, with example, data, and so on.

I think it is a very important discussion, because both positions (mine and yours) are well estabilished in society, but I never saw them speaking to each other. So I was really curious of how the interaction would play out.

And then to receive an ironic line, was quite a loss.

 

Looking forward to your answer,

Pietro

[picnic]

I would say that to boil it down to basics, we would say that buying a car or iPod is a transient non-lasting form of (not real) happiness.

 

Happiness could well be living in the moment, grabbing a bunch of friends, eating well together, sharing fun with strangers who pass by.

 

That is only achievable for the large portion of the population in a (so called) developing nation. Mr average could not do that too often in the UK but mr well-below-average could do that almost daily in india.

[Pietro]

I would say that to boil it down to basics, we would say that buying a car or iPod is a transient non-lasting form of (not real) happiness.

 

Happiness could well be living in the moment, grabbing a bunch of friends, eating well together, sharing fun with strangers who pass by.

 

That is only achievable for the large portion of the population in a (so called) developing nation. Mr average could not do that too often in the UK but mr well-below-average could do that almost daily in india.

I agree that the ipod is irrelevant respect to happiness.

 

And the data agrees with us. You go and ask people who have enough money to eat, if they are happy, and they will tell you that they are happy (as much, or at least comparable, as people with ipod). So having or not having an ipod is irrelevant.

 

But then you make a jump. You have done it before, and you are repeating it here. And I am always just nailing you on this jump. On this one detail:

are people who have less than enough (to eat, to shelter, the real poor), more happy, less happy, or happy the same.

 

And you claim that they are more happy. (because their life is simpler)

 

Sorry, with what authority do you say so?

Because when we ask them to rate their life, they say that they are NOT happy.

 

This is the same question as before.

 

How can you say that those people are more happy when everytime people went there and asked them, by and large they said that their life sucked?

 

You are making a nice reasoning, but the data are against you.

 

They say that they are unhappy, not me. For me, I wish you were right. But there is 1 billion people over there telling me that they really need more. Not would like, but need.

 

Or maybe you are speaking about people who do have enough, but not much (or any) superfluous. SO not the poor poor, but just the poor, but enough. Then yes, those people tend to rate about the same. In fact it seem that at that level what really changes their feeling is their philosophy of life. Which I think is really interesting.