Happiness, Inc.
Don’t trap yourself in the need to define everything. Don’t confuse others with opinions you have no solid reason to project.
Personal Preferences
If you broadcast on Twitter, you are responsible for the insights you share there—assuming you have any to share.
Whenever people share their opinions on social media, it often reflects their individual preferences and perspectives. This is a subtle influence, not always obvious. You hear news or another opinion from someone you’re supposed to follow, and here we are, your first emotional reaction is spontaneously formed. Sooner or later, everyone feels the urge to speak out. Yet, as we know, emotions are mostly irrational.
Vaccines and COVID19
“Fear, fear drives the mills of modern man.” —Roger Waters
The vaccine campaign in recent years triggered a firework of opinions, making it a good case to illustrate my point.
One of the main reasons people don’t trust vaccines is personal insecurity: 'I’m healthy, so why the hell do you want to inject me?' Additionally, injections carry the connotation of a more significant intervention compared to, say, pills. People take pills daily, often with far more complex side effects. The COVID-19 pandemic worsened this perception. While mRNA technology accelerated the much-needed vaccine development due to advancements over the previous decade, people misunderstood it: they labeled vaccines as experimental drugs, genetic modifications, Big Pharma conspiracies, man-made poisons, and more. Yet, as Eric Topol said, we very lucky that 'incredibly effective and safe vaccines' were developed in just one year
And as per Scott Adams “the smartest happiest people are those who did not get the vaccine ... and still alive”. You’re relying on available, spotlighted data to make such a disappointing and irresponsible statement, as Scott did. The millions who weren’t vaccinated and died can’t voice their side anymore. The millions who survived because they were vaccinated don’t always realize it. People who survive don’t record videos praising vaccines—you can’t see what isn’t shown.
I agree that some measures, like massive lockdowns, were questionable at times. However, one clear and important benefit was easing the burden on hospitals during peak infection rates. I also believe (and there are facts to support this) that direct casualties from the virus far exceeded those caused by the vaccine, though the public often misunderstood this. Vaccines saved millions of lives, even though I acknowledge that widespread vaccination may introduce risks we aren’t yet fully aware of.
Returning to hidden motives, such as insecurity, let me ask: why would a reasonable, educated person oppose vaccines? I tend to believe it's often situational. For instance, you’re young, healthy, and live in a rural area. Your social circle is small, and your exposure to the virus is low, so logically you feel safe, and perhaps subconsciously you're opposed to any form of intervention. But that reasoning seems trivial, so with a load of self-esteem, you present a more profound explanation on Twitter. Are you a virus expert? No. Do you have a medical degree? Also no. You're simply projecting your personal preferences in a non-obvious way. You just want the officials with their protocols and prescriptions to leave you alone. Do you care about elderly people at risk? Probably not.
Similar to the situation with vaccines, we observe other opinions on key points, often reflecting personal preferences:
— 'Academia is a fraud.' Your situation: you never graduated from any institution.
— 'Cities are not for humans.' Your situation: you’ve always lived in the countryside.
— 'Debt-free is the only way.' Your situation: you don’t have a family and are still fine living with your parents.
— 'Having kids is the only way.' Your situation: you have a family and are deeply focused on it.
— 'Being childfree is the only way.' Etc.
I’m suspicious of people who bluntly blame academia. I’m suspicious of people who bluntly blame anything. I’m not saying it’s impossible for academic institutions to be corrupt. I believe arguments and facts can be found to support both sides, depending on the place and time. However, I think that people who aren’t professionals in that specific field tend to express their personal preferences, whether it’s obvious or not, rather than objectively describe the situation or prove their point.
Modern Confusion About Life Goals
Modern times bring new complex patterns in society, where reasoning is often obscured, because of branding, for example. Rogue branding is when you sell old things as new, pretending they are yours. Nassim Taleb wrote a few popular books, including the deep Technical Incerto, yet the antifragility is essentially just a cryptic brand name for a book about everything. The idea itself isn’t new: you become antifragile when you can gain from disorder. You don’t just resist impact, you benefit from it. This concept was explained in much simpler terms in the Bible:
“As unknown, and yet well known; as dying, and, behold, we live; as chastened, and not killed; As sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, and yet possessing all things.”
—2 Corinthians 6:9-10
Beyond that, Taleb introduces another idea—minimizing losses—within the broader concept of via negativa.
“[Taleb] says that one should strive not for maximum profit, but for minimizing losses. It's a bit of a servile theory, or as Dostoevsky would say, a lackey's theory, but for business, it's quite reasonable and relevant. We really should think not about how to win more, but about how to lose less in case our plan fails.”
— Dmitry Bykov about Nassim Taleb's book Antifragile
Taleb’s formula works well for corporations, especially in manufacturing, where minimizing losses—such as waste, downtime, and redundant actions or moves—is crucial for maximizing productivity. The confusion arises when people attempt to apply Taleb’s business optimization principles to humans across practically all areas:
Happiness isn't about maximizing things that make you happy. It's about removing things that make you miserable. You maximize happiness by removing misery.
— Paul Portesi
I’d argue that if you can define your state of happiness—what truly makes you happy—you’re already in trouble. Humans are irrational: they fall in love, sacrifice, do silly things, and hold onto ideals. If you focus solely on minimizing losses, you might never have kids, or you could end up resenting them for the rest of your life. That, to me, is the real misery.
But even for more trivial forms of joy, it does not always work. “The true joy in life is not being miserable.” It’s like saying that the true joy of driving is avoiding fines.
So why do people choose to claim otherwise? Again, I tend to believe it stems from personal preferences and confusion, like in this example, caused by Taleb’s books in particular. Modern man is constantly searching for definitions, recipes, and formulas. But when it comes to happiness, it's often the case that to be truly happy, you need to give more than you intend to keep or receive, not exactly the most attractive formula:
I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete. My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.
—John 15:11-13
And this confusion is a great irony, because sacrifice is the ultimate form of antifragility: you can exploit ruin and death to benefit others.
