Kevin Beal

Don't Feed the Trolls! An appeal to your love for truth and your fellow (wo)man - by Kevin Beal What are Trolls? By "troll", I mean a person who speaks with the intention that you believe they are interested in the truth and personal integrity in order to advance an agenda which is anti-rational. Someone who benefits from your commitment to the truth while making up the rules of a debate as they go along (i.e. a philosophy counterfeiter). You care about the value of money, which is why counterfeiting is so profitable. Counterfeiters want you to believe that they are providing value when they are actually robbing you blind. Similarly, trolls want you to believe that they are providing value in the form of rational debate, but this is not the case. "How can we know such a thing?" you may ask. It's not necessary to be able to read minds; you can tell from their behavior. You can know these people by paying them back in the coin they pay you in. If you use their own arguments and apply it to them, and they reject it, don't want to have anything to do with it, then you know that they are arguing in bad faith, just as you know when a counterfeiter doesn't want to get the same bills back (s)he paid you in, they know that the bills are fake (or at least suspect it without telling you first). Stef has a great series about this (easily one of my favorites): Despair The Zen of the Zeta Jones's Ass - Email of the Year End Counterfeiter Payback! Here are some possible motives that I think all have merit, because I have been guilty of each one, in the past: Maybe they are narcissistically using you to reinforce their own rationalizations. Maybe they have regressed to a time in the past where someone they knew bullied them and some part of them believes they are defending themselves in the present moment. Maybe they have a powerful dislike for you and want to ruin your day, and have it in their mind that dishonesty is justified because you really are that bad a person. Maybe they are taking out some displaced anger on you; anger that is more appropriately targeted at someone who was/is in an unshakable denial from their past. [insert your own experience of a troll here] Combating Denial In any case, it is some false self aspect of their personality acting out. They are in a little bubble reality, unaware of the world outside their distorted version of reality. And when people criticize that distortion, it is itself seen as denial, if not hostility. Their denial has been upgraded to the status of projection. To take a silly example, if you told me that I'm not a human at all, but actually a very human looking feline and you were trying to convince me of it by coming up with elaborate arguments, then I would not in any way believe that you were arguing in good faith, that you actually believed this or were open to looking objectively at the question. Something, anyway, is seriously wrong with the interaction, and it's not me that is the source of it. You are not going to convince a troll that they are wrong. But it's worse than that, because now they have developed sophisticated rationalizations in response to your arguments, fantastically false premises that make them more effective trolls in the future. It may even be that the better your arguments, the worse they get. The sharks now have developed the taste for humans. War of Attrition You are at a disadvantage. Trolls are really only ever talking to themselves because (at least in the moment) they are not really seeing anyone else. And their unwavering conviction in believing irrational things is the degree of the self doubt they themselves feel. It's something they live with and need to manage regularly. They have a lot of experience managing it. And if you treat it like your appeal to reason is going to slap some sense into them, then I really don't think you get just what you're dealing with. If you are about the truth, then you are going to crack far sooner then they will. You have 3000 years of philosophy weighing down on you and they have incredibly strong rationalization muscles. Good luck! And they don't want their workout to end, so they have a fantastic way to get their hooks into you: they will misrepresent you or the things you value. That is, they will appeal to your commitment to the truth. Not because they care about the truth, but because they know that you do. Reasons to Engage I've heard a lot of reasons that people have as to why they engage trolls, even after being aware that the person is a troll. The more I observe them, however, the more convinced I am that there is never any good reason. (Although there is a very funny example of Stef trolling a troll in the video series I linked above). Reason #1 - "They are misrepresenting me and I need to set the record straight" I don't think I've ever seen this one work out for anybody. It seems to always escalate, from what I've seen. And that presents a problem, logically for the person offering this reason to engage: if your claim is to achieve X and you repeatedly achieve the opposite of X and continue anyway, then either you are insane or you are only claiming to care about X. Reason #2 - "I need to alert other people by exposing the troll by engaging them" This is similar to reason #1. But I don't think that gives other people very much credit. Do you think that other people cannot see what you can see? Maybe not, but I think you should get some evidence that other people don't see it first. The degree to which you don't care about evidence that other people have been duped is very interesting, I think. Reason #3 - "Trolls are good sparring practice" How is this not like saying that playing chess with someone who breaks all the rules makes you better when it comes to the real deal? It will certainly make you better at having pointless "debates" with trolls in the future, but I'm not convinced that this is a good skill to have. Why not have debates with people who actually care about the truth, where things can actually be productive?! There are more reasons than just these 3, but these are the most common ones I've heard. Punishment There are infinitely better things to do with one's time than engage in something futile and endlessly frustrating, so why then? I think it's because we want to punish them. It reminds me of dysfunctional romantic relationships where they claim it's over, but the more they want to punish their partner, the more you get the sense that it's not over. Or when you go on a date with someone fresh out of a breakup and they want to talk about how terrible their ex was. You immediately get that something there is unresolved. When you are truly done with a relationship, you are just simply done, and that's all there is. You have no desire to enact punishment. When we engage trolls, I don't think we are really seeing the person on the other end of the internet. Maybe we are displacing our anger, just the same as the troll. And maybe are at risk for our own rationalizations. I notice that for myself, I have a loud part of me that would love to just say "to hell with admitting fault! Not if I'm dealing with a troll!" As soon as you start justifying your own lack of integrity, I don't think there is any meaningful difference at that point. And there is a lot of energy pulling a lot of people in that direction. If you were raised in a family that had bullies and trolls, then I think it's something you need to be especially careful of. Admitting Fault One of the most important realizations I got out of FDR was that you can accept all of the premises of a bad argument and it will still fall. It's actually a great way to show just how bad an argument is by playing along with it. 6oodfella does this very well, especially in this hilarious video. Accepting your opponent's premises can actually make your case much more compelling. This same principle applies with admitting fault. Instead of resisting admitting fault, or putting in qualifiers like "but it doesn't matter" or "but you are even worse" is only shooting yourself in the foot. Apologize without reservation. At least, when you have done something which is lacking integrity. By doing so, you don't prove they are right. You are only accepting a premise, or rather, that you are capable of being wrong. If they continue to give you shit for that, then they are revealed as jerks and you come off sympathetic. What's more, that is having integrity which is the whole point in the first place! You do not lose anything by having integrity. Just because the other person doesn't have any is no excuse for anything. Conclusion That is not to say that you can't engage trolls. Just be aware that there are consequences. It's not harmless. And I think we all kinda get this instinctively; I just want to remind you of what you already know to be true. I'm not proving anything. It's not that you should accept the conclusions I've put forward so much as you should take it seriously. It matters who you interact with and how you do it.

When you feed trolls, you make it worse for the next person who interacts with them. It's not harmless. Please, cut that out.

Do you hang out with a lot of neo nazis? Where do you live? You're telling me that every time that politics comes up, white people say that they deserve something because of the color of their skin? I don't believe you.

I told someone that I was smarter than them and soon after, the universe showed me proof that I was on the right path

Oh, haha. I just got it. Sorry. I can be dense sometimes.

When you say "all the time", how frequently are we talking? Every week? Month? Year? I've never met a white person who openly expressed that they deserved something because they are white.

It is an argument, actually. Specifically, it's a counter argument. The (implicit) proposition being rebutted is that because what I say does not constitute proof of my claims, it is therefore fallacious. I attempt to argue against this claim by pointing out the implicit conclusion, and by referencing a valid argument that openly rejects any requirement for proof. If one does exist, then automatically the standard is demonstrated to be insufficient, at best. That is, if you accept that arguments can be valid yet not constituting syllogistic proof, then the requirement that conclusions be proven true in order to be valid arguments is proven false. There are arguments floating around everywhere. Or at least parts of arguments, severed in half via non-sequitur. We just miss them because most of the premises used to support people's conclusions are implicit. If they are simply unstated and not implicit, then yea, probably not an argument. But people love to imply things, sometimes in bad faith; like how sometimes you just want to say to people "what are you getting at?" and they respond with something like "nothing, I'm just stating a fact" when you get that they are implying things in order to have people draw a conclusion from it. I think that people are sometimes a little too quick to pull out the sword of Not an Argument, personally. Something can be a bad argument and still be an argument. An argument is just "if you accept these premises, then you should accept this conclusion".

I think they might be referring specifically to the woman in the audience who says that "you kinda get the sense that things belong to you" which, I assume (having heard this sentiment before) means that white people feel entitled because they are automatically part of the in-group. Maybe not what she meant since there was no context beyond the words "white privilege" displayed on-screen. If so, I think she's probably only talking about herself and pretending it also applies to other people via projection. Personally, I don't trust MTV to do anything which might get politically correct bullies beating down their door. Maybe I'm too cynical, but I don't expect that the discomfort that the white people felt is going to be used to promote anything sympathetic in the way of "white people can be targets of racism too". Rather, I would expect that they take it as further evidence that "white privilege" is a thing and that the discomfort is just having to do with those pesky social justice warriors exposing the undeniable truth! I don't know, though. All I have to go on is 1 minute and 15 seconds of video and the fact that some people have taken exception to it as race baiting.

Welcome to the boards! I laughed when you said "pleasant and displeasing". I think I know what you mean. That's awesome you and your girlfriend can explore this together. Reevaluating relationships under the lens of real principles and emotional insight can leave people feeling pretty isolated, which is really unfortunate. I think there are a lot of people who can relate to that in this community. It doesn't look very active, but there is a meetup group in Warsaw (http://www.meetup.com/Warsaw-Freedomain-Radio-Meetup-59068112ZtNfaEvN/). You might shout out to them and see about having another meetup.

I think it depends on what exactly this person is trying to gain clarity about. Neglect and abuse take so many forms. FDR862 Parents Using Children Using Parents - A Listener Conversation This one is good and unlikely to raise people's defenses too quickly, especially if this person comes from a religious background. FDR1814 The Moral Clarity of a Lonely History - A Listener Conversation You can guess from the title that it's about loneliness, a lack of connection and how parents are culpable in situations like that. These aren't listener conversations, but related: FDR1633 How Many Children Are Abused? FDR728 Death by Neglect - on the rage hidden behind neglect FDR692 Mommy's Letter - on the culpability of the "good" parent 'But They Did The Best They Could' A Moral Examination of Historical Parenting - on "we did the best we could with the knowledge we had" FDR2542.5 Oh God I Circumcised My Son! Now What? - on "I didn't know any better" on important questions Freedom (Part 1) (Part 2) (Part 3) (Part 4) - leading up to part 4 which is about parents and how much you owe them (and other things freedom and parents) Unearthing Crimes (Part 1) (Part 2) - on working backwards from symptoms of abuse (poor audio quality, unfortunately) FDR589 Examining the Family... - on why moral clarity about parenting matters so much The best resource on this topic, however, is On Truth, in my opinion. That was the one that kicked my ass the hardest into being honest with myself about my family.

I've heard this too with things like self awareness and emotional insight, like "I've done more work on developing my sense of self, therefore..." Yea, it's really disappointing. It's usually in place of any kind of argument. I'd rather see this wisdom demonstrated. To me it's either immediately dismissed as boloney, or it's like a ninja master who says how great they are at martial arts, but won't show off his moves. >sad face< (Usually it's the first, for me though). And it's not unimportant that there is such a thing as the Dunning-Kruger effect which causes people to over estimate their competence in something with the degree that they are ignorant of it. Knowledge makes humility. ------------------------- I've had this experience a bunch of times (apparently unable to learn my lesson) where I think to myself that I'm this amazing programmer. Then I stumble across entirely new areas of programming knowledge where other people's knowledge makes me look like an infant in comparison. I both know and easily forget just how little I actually know. And, really, even if that person is smarter, it doesn't make what they are saying true. Some of the stupidest things I've ever heard have come out some of the most sophisticated minds. On a philosophy forum, it shouldn't really mean anything to say that this person or that person is smarter, what matters is reasoning up from first principles. Also, ...please don't feed the trolls. They only get more sophisticated in their trolling when you do that.

I've been dismissed many times for committing the "not necessarily" fallacies which don't actually have anything to do with the logical form of arguments, as if the two are the same thing. I find that annoying and people who are new to philosophy and logic are inclined to make this mistake. Like Patrick said about the ad hom; it's not proof of anything, but if we were constrained only to providing proof and dismissing all other forms of argumentation, then that would be an impossible standard and beside the point of philosophy. It's not necessarily true that if you've been divorced 7 times that you can't be a good marriage counselor, but come on! It's not irrelevant, or trivial. The only thing that it isn't, is proof. (That's a real example). If rather, someone points out how something I say doesn't actually follow logically, then that is great! But most "fallacy!"'s I see thrown around don't have anything to do with the logical form of arguments, but rather equate to: "your evidence isn't proof, and even though you never claimed it was proof, I'm going to dismiss it because I've decided what you said belongs to the category 'fallacy', which is bad" Maybe I'm too cynical... lol

I don't like that either. And he's not the only one. I'm sure there are people who think that of me, though. I think that's what trolls do best, is they reveal what other people are avoiding talking about. That social humiliation is an opportunity, I'm convinced (assuming I've understood your meaning). I don't think it's something to be fought. At least, not by the target. I'm not necessarily only talking about trolls/bullies, but if someone has successfully sniffed out something I'm avoiding (some people are pros at this) then I give them what they want. I try and take everyone at face value, especially if I suspect they're arguing in bad faith. People who are looking for a fight over a forum by instigating and provoking people talk as if what they want is for their target to admit some fault. And probably, some part of them does really want this, even if who they are really talking to is their own parental introjects. I'm okay with admitting fault, big or small. I have to do it on a regular basis. But it is not expected, especially by bullies. They generally don't know how to respond, so they usually don't. It's like what Stef says about bad arguments: go ahead and accept all of their premises, a bad argument is still going to fall. In fact, it often just makes it even more apparent how bad the argument really was when you do that. I find that when you take people being immature, or clandestine, or bullying and give them what they want, they are revealed as being a bully, and you look very mature and reasonable in comparison. That's the approach I'm starting to use and have some success with. And if I'm wrong and they were being honest, then I also win there because I admitted fault where it was not only due, but relevant. What I saw was that he was revealing where people become reactive. People show a different side of themselves when things get tough, and ugly. That's a side of people I want to see, and not remain ignorant of. He is very skilled at provoking people and I find some significant value in that. It's probably a big part of the reason that he's attracted as many allies as he has. My problem with him is not that he provokes people, or that he's an asshole at times. My problem is that he's dishonest, hypocritical and doesn't care about logic, all the while claiming to represent a healthy psychology and be a philosopher. I haven't read even half of what he's written on the boards, but my perception was that the dishonesty was relatively new. If you saw it way back then, then I can imagine why it would be frustrating for you.

The jokes were my favorite part. I didn't think there were too many, no. My favorites were the "cis scum" bit, the Benjamin Button/convict bit, how Paula lived 120 years ago in a crack house, and everything that showed that in addition to everything else, the comic is just bad story telling. Although, I did appreciate you mentioning the average household income and the part about unemployment, so I could get some perspective on how poor is poor. And I also thought it was worth mentioning the bit about the poor girl being a girl and how that's probably done to draw sympathy. So maybe some combination of jokes and facts to put things in perspective are good. I don't know. I think whatever your gut tells you is probably best.

I loved the commentary! Evil white cis scum! Lol. I read the comic first, then your commentary, and something seemed really wrong with the picture, but then it made a lot more sense when I realized that Paula was from soviet Russia. I grew up in a house that sometimes didn't have any food in it, infested with cockroaches for like a year, wore tattered hand-me-downs, would probably be considered to be in Paula's position by most people. Someone once helped me get a job for a couple months in my teens (bourgeois connections FTW!). Still, I feel pretty damn privileged to live in a time, that despite the worst economic depression in almost a 100 years, I was still able to develop the human capital enough to bring myself out of poverty into relative comfort, and my prospects are quite good. Some of the hardest working people that I know grew up with parents who were "doing ok". Those are some of my favorite people.

Because morality is a feature of god's software programmed into us humans. He gave us our sense of right and wrong. Because evolution is a blind force without conscious deliberate purpose, any atheistic morality that would exist as a feature in our software would be similarly blind and purposeless. It would not be morality because it's existence was not created within us in a principled way. To say it was principled would be like saying that raindrops are art (which of course it is, but by god and not by the rain itself). Morality would also then not be binding upon people to adhere to because there is no god to enforce this bind. I don't actually believe this, but this is at least one religious perspective on "atheistic morality". (Software is used as an analogy here, since we are gods flesh robots). In this view, morality is a feature of an object, rather than an epistemic matter. Morality is inserted into us, rather than something discovered, the way that mathematics or the laws of logic were discovered. With free will, we can defy our programming and thereby spit in the face of our holy father programmer.

I've re-read this thread a couple times to make sure I wasn't missing anything, and the only thing I can see that I was wrong about (that I didn't already concede and thank you for correcting) was saying that you hadn't read the entire thread. I don't remember why I thought that, but it seems I was wrong about that. For that, I apologize, specifically for assuming to know how much you read, implying with that that you were prematurely drawing conclusions. That was me prematurely drawing a conclusion, presumably via projection. I'll be careful to more honestly balance trusting my gut with getting evidence first. I can't imagine an apology this late would be very satisfying, but certainly I was wrong about that. I also regret being snarky about Josh's comments about me. I don't feel sorry, but it's not how I want to present myself. I'm assuming to know what you are referring to (looking at post #82?), and if I'm wrong then I'm still assuming things, wrongly. Specifically, I'm assuming what the false accusation you are referring to is. Even if I'm right, I still don't know what you were right and me wrong about, unless it was about having read the whole thread. All I have to go on are these two sentences. If you meant something else, I ask that you elaborate enough that there would be no confusing your meaning.

In the video, the presenter discusses how difficult it is to define good and evil without god. And he's right. It is really difficult. When you no longer have "god did it", it opens up a lot of important questions that we don't necessarily have answers for. But, "god did it" still isn't answer. I'd prefer to be confused and wonder, than to pretend to myself that I already have an answer, when actually I don't.

What specifically do you think warrants an apology?

Contradictions are: the sense in which it is true is the sense in which is it not-true. A contradiction is not a paradox or two opposing perspectives on an issue which both have some merit. A contradiction is asserting the thing you reject (simultaneously and in the same respect as shirgall rightly points out). If you say that A is B and also, in the same respect that it is not B, that is a contradiction. If particular statements include multiple simultaneous assertions that require a contradiction to be true, then you are simultaneously asserting and rejecting something. In other words, you yourself are the one who is saying that what you are saying is true – is not true. If I require that in order for gods to exist that this god be both all-knowing and all-powerful, the sense in which something is all-powerful is that this god can literally do anything, without restriction. The sense in which this god is all-knowing is that it knows literally everything, including what actions this conscious agent will take in the future. There is a contradiction here as both assertions require the other to be not-true in order to be true. Put plainly, if this god knows what she will do next and can change it, then she's not all-knowing because she was wrong about what action she would take next. If she can't change that action, then she is not all powerful because there is something which she cannot do. It's hard to draw an analogy for exactly how insane saying that the law of non-contradiction is "bullshit" is. It's more asinine than saying that the atomic theory of matter is false to a physicist. It's more psychotic than saying that life does not exist to a biologist. If we accept that the law of non-contradiction were "bullshit" then this entire debate means absolutely nothing because there is no standard by which conflicts in philosophy can be resolved. It is saying that philosophy itself is "bullshit". Philosophy becomes mysticism. True is false, up is down, shit is ice cream. If the law of non-contradiction is bullshit, then so is science, objectivity, philosophy, everything which is true and real. It's staggeringly just how wrong that statement is, that it can hardly be put in words.

I have no idea. It's an interesting dream, for sure. I'm not sure there is enough information here to produce a meaningful analysis, but I do have some questions. What happened the day before? Why were you in the fetal position? You mentioned you were scared the knock at the door was your parents, but you were already in a fetal position. What in your life right now (or whenever you actually had the dream) is a primary source of fear? Have you been afraid of something and had some other recent event exacerbate that fear? Is that thing something you feared while living at home with your parents? Something overwhelming enough to put you in the fetal position? Being that you are in an apartment in the dream (the same one you live in now?) then that could indicate that whatever it's trying to tell you about is something from your present (as opposed to the future or past). You fear the person outside, but I take it that when the door actually opened and they entered the apartment that it wasn't negative. Being pet or caressed can be nice. Is there anything recently in your life that you thought would be negative but wasn't? Or is there something which you think could go either way in terms of being positive or negative? The fact that the person opening the door pets you on the back is already treating you kinda like a dog, so that theme seems to carry over to the second part. Being a dog seems to be important in the dream. I don't know why, but I get a sense that dogs here represent some kind of innocence. All those breeds are smaller, cuter breeds, and they are your favorites. Dogs don't pretend to be something they aren't. Dogs are very transparent about what they like and dislike. Dogs are very loyal and affectionate. There is no actual reason why you would have to be a dog if she were a dog, but you thought this in the dream, which is interesting. And it's how the dream ends. Is there something you need to acknowledge about yourself? Also, I think it's great that you guys are doing therapy and taking care of business.

That's an interesting theory. I have no idea how true it is, if at all, but I remember very clearly in my early childhood when the topic of gods came up and I had never been taught anything about religion at that point. This is purely anecdotal, but I remember thinking just how ridiculous it sounded to me to believe in magical things that we cannot see. I could also sense how defensive people were about the topic, which made me even more certain. I just told my friend that I didn't think that what he was saying was true, and that there were in fact no gods. There was never any evaluation of any character. I never thought "what a cruel world he hath created for me". I never considered it unfair or felt any resentment toward anyone's gods. It would have made as much sense as being upset with Santa Claus. I also watched my niece who was not raised with any god beliefs and I remember the first time a classmate told her about god, and she told us about it with a confused look, as if to say "how could any thinking person believe this claptrap?" My observation with people who were never raised with propaganda about gods is that they never hear about it and have it make sense to them. It's a completely weird and foreign concept, like "what are you trying to pull here?" Maybe it's true that a number of atheists who were raised with propaganda around gods had psychological motivations to reject that propaganda. Certainly is possible. In any case, psychological motives don't make it false. Nor does it say anything about the actual existence of gods or devils or demons or unicorns.

I agree that it is irritating that so much time is spent on trivial crap like that. Ok Google is a google product that tries to anticipate as much as it can about what you would want out it's search services. Things like considering your location, what you're currently looking at, etc. If you get to work, it's aim is be more job focused, versus home which is more whatever else focused. It's using deep neural networks (and probably sparse distributed representation soon) to be a relevant as technologically possible to as wide a range of tasks as possible. They want you to be able to literally say "ok google, wash my car". This is not a secret. This is a feature that you can turn on/off. They alerted me today to it's existence with a little popover while searching. They showed me all the privacy settings I could manage, including this one. And it makes total sense for the product. I'm a big fan, personally. My concern is not with what Google knows, but whether or not they're sharing it with the NSA. Seriously. What's Google going to do with it?: Make smarter, more personalized services. I don't give a fuck if they know I watch porn or visit anarchist sites. Maybe I should and I just don't know what evil things they are doing with it (I doubt it). If the NSA, however, could come up to me and whisper in my ear "I know you've been watching tranny porn. Best you vote Hillary 2016, huh?" then yea. I got a problem with that. Haha. Or if they can strategize in some really unfair to fuck people over, like being able to see a whole map, when we only get to see the lit Starcraft circle. I would have a problem with that too. Personally, I just operate from the assumption that if someone looks hard enough, they can know anything about anything I do. That's why I don't bother with pseudonyms.

Another thing that I think is worth considering is that personalities are highly contagious and they work their way in through agreement and sympathy. The personalities that take up residence in our psyches should ideally be working toward the same goals. They get internalized, integrated. A mecosystem that has parts who are invested in your failure can produce negative self esteem; thinking like "who are you to do X?", "people want to achieve that are dumbies". It's that sort of quietly operating in the background inner critic who is more than happy to help you sabotage yourself. If I think that it was okay for my mother to angrily get up in my face for telling her that I had a bad day at school when I was 7 "you're a kid, your feelings don't matter!"; that's going to produce rationalizations. Rationalizations which at best say it's okay for people to treat me that way, and worse that I deserved it. Nobody deserves that, and any person who is for themselves and their own rational interests would never allow it. Logically, they must have a low regard for themselves. That's one consequence of agreement and sympathy. One way anger really helps in cases like these is that it help denormalize that behavior, make it not okay. Anger is an externalizing force. If you aren't at any risk for agreement or sympathy with anti-self thinking, then anger may not be necessary. If you don't feel anger, then maybe that's totally okay. Maybe it's sufficiently denormalized at this point. I think it's tricky business, though. These internalized parts are often very quiet, whispering propaganda into your ear. Often people are not even aware that they are depressed until well after they've experienced the symptoms. I remember you said you read the Six Pillars of Self Esteem, so, you know the answer is increased awareness and acceptance of what is real and true. Be mindful of what you tell yourself and you'll be able to notice those parts, if what they are saying is valid, and maybe whether or not anger is going to be helpful.

Happiness is kind of broad category which can describe quite a few different emotional states, from surprise to joy to satisfaction to ecstasy to serenity, etc. There are different causes for each one. When I think of being happy with life in general, I think of joy specifically, so I'll operate from that assumption. ------------------- In Nathaniel Branden's work on self esteem, those actions which contribute to a sense of self regard ("I am worthy") and self efficacy ("I am capable") contribute to a healthy self esteem, and one way we know someone has a healthy self esteem is if they enjoy life. They take enjoyment out of the use of their body and their mind toward their goals. Nathaniel invites us to look at self esteem as the health of the mind. A human who thinks rationally and acts according to rational values is going to be a person who is going to be better adapted for life, in an evolutionary perspective. It could be that our minds are wired to notice those behaviors which produce self esteem or negative self esteem so we can have some kind of internal gauge; letting us know how much we deny reality by producing negative self esteem symptoms like depression, and conversely produce feelings of joy and satisfaction when we do those things which raise our self esteem. Our bodies reward us with dopamine hits when we do things that would have contributed to our survival, like eating sugary things or having sex. Our bodies haven't adapted to the reality that sugar is plentiful yet, but I'm betting that this self esteem gauge and reward is similarly wired into us. Except that it's a lot more sustainable than the high from sugar and sex, because those conditions don't stop being satisfied like finishing a candy bar and ejaculating are basically the end of those behaviors which produce the feelings. ------------------- You living independently and achieving your goals are things which are going to raise your self esteem. You can tell by the buzzy relaxing feeling that fills your whole body and puts a smile on your face. I'm betting that's the sort of happiness you are feeling. One thing that I think is worth noting is that if you come from a childhood where you were put down or humiliated, or made to feel small in whatever way, there are things that we do that sabotage our self esteems. I have a habit that, if I'm not paying attention, I can suck the joy out of something great. I achieve something I worked hard at, and it's recognized as being great, and then I'll have these sorts of automatic thoughts that I'm only barely conscious of (often after the fact) where I tell myself "but this that and the other thing about it are terrible though". Or it's a thought about myself, like "but they wouldn't think so highly of me if they knew X". I think that working on developing a healthy self esteem includes doing those things which raise your self efficacy, but also it involves being very aware and conscious about the things that we tell ourselves so we can challenge it (or work on it if it's a valid criticism). I'd highly recommend Nathaniel Branden's books. They are fantastic. ------------------- Hope that was helpful!