Do We Need To Know Why People Are Gay?
Monday, August 18th, 2008So, I’m reading this very good, thorough article by Neil Swidey of the Boston Globe about what makes a person gay. It cites the limited research that has been done (mostly on men, lesbianism is less studied) and concludes that no one knows for sure why, but it looks like genetics and uterine environment play a part in creating homosexuality.
This is a tricky subject. In fact, it pains me to even write about it. I have gay friends who I love very much. I don’t want them harassed or hurt. I remember two boys from High School who were clearly homosexual and they weren’t persecuted, thankfully. It was bad enough to see their relative social isolation. I have had friends who have made themselves sick by staying in the closet.
Conversely, I know men who have selfishly gotten married, because they wanted the legitimacy of heterosexual marriage and/or wanted children, and have given their wives STDs or left their women feeling like they were defected because of non-interest. These angry fellas eventually came out, but blazed a destructive path along the way.
It has been my experience that there is very little that can be done about who a person is attracted to. I know two very religious men who struggle with this whole deal. They feel the homosexual act is morally wrong, but I suspect that neither one is winning the war of the flesh. Maybe I’m wrong. I don’t know.
And yet, it seems that for the sake of society’s health, a line needs to be drawn around the ideal. By doing that though, some behavior is outside the lines. The ideal, for a healthy society, has been a monogamous heterosexual relationship where destructive things like alcohol, drug, and sex abuse, gambling, and other addictions don’t enter relationship. That would make homosexuality outside the lines.
Given that, does it matter why someone has a certain sexual orientation? There have always been, and always will be homosexual people. (Unless the hope of all this research is to find a genetic magic bullet to engineer non-gay children.) Some will resist homosexuality behaviorally for moral or social reasons. Some will enter the lifestyle because to not live that way feels unaligned with one’s true self. No matter, homosexuality is outside the ideal religiously, societally and even evolutionarily speaking.
To me, this is where tolerance enters. While certain behaviors might not be preferred, proscribing them would cause greater harm. In a free society, people have a right to self-determination. There should be a lot of latitude given to people to define what that means. The rest is between man and Maker.
I Could Make Everyone Fat Today If I Wanted To
Thursday, August 7th, 2008Turns out, everyone is fat, myself included, or nearly everyone is fat, and will for sure be fat in forty years. Women and minorities are hardest hit. A scientist says so, and I believe scientists implicitly because scientists use the scientific method therefore making them scientific:
The new projections, published in the journal Obesity, are based on government survey data collected between the 1970s and 2004.
If the trends of those years continue, the researchers estimate that 86 percent of American adults will be overweight by 2030, with an obesity rate of 51 percent. By 2048, all U.S. adults could be at least mildly overweight.
Weight problems will be most acute among African-Americans and Mexican- Americans, the study projects. All black women could be overweight by 2034, according to the researchers, as could more than 90 percent of Mexican-American men.
Well, let’s get this disturbing business over with right now. I’ve decided that the BMI for both men and women should be a healthy “5″. There. Now, everyone is fat. In fact, everyone is morbidly obese.
Please. Sometimes I think the pointy heads are too smart by half. There will be preternaturally skinny people. They exist. We all hate them. These are the people who can eat a whole fattened water buffalo with grease on the side and not gain an ounce. I’m guessing that in 40 years, these freaks will still exist and be loathed even more then. Or maybe, they’ll be so rare, that we decide as a culture to worship them–put them in special castles and prostrate our fat bodies before them in awed supplication.
There’s another thing. People are living freaking forever now. Fat, globular, rotund people are living to a ripe old age and driving around on their scooters to the Mall. I see them. So, for all the disgusting fatness, is it a big problem? It’s kinda like Global Warming (or Climate Change). It’s getting hotter, but who says it’s a bad thing? Who knows?
And why should the government give a fat grandma’s ass if the citizenry prefers to look like corpulent amoebas rolling from one place to another in their XXXXXXL clothes? Do they propose a fat tax? Do officials deem the waste produced and the food consumed by fat people to be problematic? I can see environmental implications here and a vast array of ways for the government to manage American’s lives. If these crises keep getting manufactured, the government will get to control everything, including the food you eat, from cradle to grave.
For thousands of years, people have been skinny because they were starving. Now, scientists are bitching because people are fat. There are worse problems than fatness.
Cross-posted at RightWingNews.com
Autism Isn’t Real: Michael Savage Is The Brat Who Continues To Act Out
Tuesday, July 22nd, 2008Here is what quasi-crazy talk show host Michael Savage says about autism (via Cassy Fiano):
I remember when my intelligent three year old son started melting down. It was after three years of never crying. He would scrape his knees, be bleeding profusely and not feel it or not express how he felt. I was never sure. He didn’t cry when he was hungry. He didn’t ask to get out of his crib. He swayed. He got “lost” in music, specifically Sarah Brightman who he seemed to love. He was sweet and docile and satisfied to be entertained by sunlight sparkling on the carpet.
And then the fits came. His “fits” seemed like utter frustration and exhaustion. I later realized he was trying to learn to talk and simply could not say the words. Now, if Michael Savage, who has the biggest New York mouth on talk radio, was forced to be mute, he would be throwing a fit inside of five minutes. Hell, what’s his excuse now? He has all his abilities.
My son’s “symptoms” are myriad at age 11. It’s not readily apparent to look at him, but a teacher in a classroom figures it out within minutes.
To say that autism is overdiagnosed or just the trendy diagnosis like asthma for tax reasons is insanity. First, many parents resist the diagnosis because they don’t want the label. I can understand why. Once the child gets the diagnosis, the schools are off the hook about making sure the child receives an education. Second, Autism is not ADD. The ADD kids would, to a kid I’ve met, benefit from a couple things: more structure, more discipline, better diet, more physical activity and less TV and videogames. ADD will evaporate in these circumstances. ADD is a tenuous diagnosis, I’ll grant him that. American kids are overmedicated. That’s a given. Still, all these behavioral changes can be made for any child, including an autistic child, but for the autistic child, it won’t be enough. I know. I’ve tried.
A severely autistic child will “self-stim” non-stop. That means he’ll spin, or spin things, flick fingers, rock, bang his head, moan, all sorts of things to express excitement, frustration or just to feel better. Try it some time: if you’re feeling stressed, stand up, sway back and forth with your eyes closed. Better yet, sit in a rocking chair. The repetitive rocking motion is calming. But why is an autistic kid always stressed or overwhelmed with emotion in general and needs to be calmed? That’s the million dollar question.
Michael Savage demonstrates his ignorance on this issue. So, he’s not backing down. He’s not apologizing. Oh well. I don’t really give a flip what Michael Savage thinks, except to the extent that he is, for some reason, lumped in with the conservative movement. I’ll admit it. I listen to the guy sometimes and I take him for what he is: an entertainer in the Howard Stern mode of shock jock. I imagine his outrage at the Fairness Doctrine and being “muzzled”. Oh, he’d throw a fit alright, but he can’t seem to get a child who knows what’s happening but who cannot adequately express himself or comprehend emotions or lacks the coordination to ride a bike.
Michael Savage is a blowhard, narcissistic, manic-depressive if I had to diagnose. And on autism, he is wrong.
Cross-posted at Right Wing News
Nobody’s An A@@hole Anymore
Friday, June 20th, 2008Sorry, folks, that’s rather raw, but whatever. A friend was telling me about her troubles with her man and suggested that the guy had “manic-depression”. I responded, “How about, he’s just an a@@hole?” I mean, come on. Why the need to pathologize everything and everyone?
Ace points to this research that men with this “dark triad” get more women:
A “dark triad” of unpleasant personality traits lie behind James Bond’s success as a womaniser, say researchers.
Two studies suggest that men who are narcissistic, psychopathic and Machiavellian tend to have large numbers of sexual conquests.
****
Narcissists are self obsessed and manipulative, psychopaths are impulsive, thrill-seeking and callous, and people with a Machiavellian nature are deceitful and exploitative. There is evidence that the traits have an up-side – they lead to men having a prolific sex life and fathering more offspring. As a result, they have not been “weeded out” by natural selection.
Oh, and the research subjects were 200 college-age men not 50 year old 007 types. You know, the dudes who have sex with as many women as possible, will say anything to get laid and just generally seek conquest are at first worshipped, then they are viewed as dicks, and then they end up being viewed as just plain lame. I mean, it’s one thing to be that guy in college. It’s another thing to be, well, an old dude hanging out at the bar this way.
Narcissistic? Psychopathic? Machiavellian? How about pathetic a@@hole? Forget the elaborate research and diagnoses. Some people are just jerks. The need to pathologize is the need to shoe-horn anti-social, jerk behavior into evolutionary theory. These guys mess up the theory. They’re uncooperative. They’re self-seeking. So, in theory their behavior would open them up to harm because they are, well, a@@holes who no one likes and no one wants to help.
But the researchers miss the obvious. These thrill-seeking dudes can channel their testosterone into noble roles–killing lions, making heroic treks, winning feats of strength. So these guys spread their seed, but they were often warriors and maybe even general protectors like 007 even if they didn’t commit to one unit to protect. So they’re jerks, but maybe they have some redeeming characteristics which is why they have yet to be weeded out of the gene pool. Ace says:
Shock: Dicks Get More Tail.
Psychopathy? Really?
It actually sounds like this is just extroverted sociopathy or even just plain old being a bastard. They really seem to be overselling the “dark triad’ thing with that “psychopathy.” Isn’t it enough to be sociopathic without wanting to butcher people and wear their genitals as hats?
Nerdy researchers, I have a newsflash: These guys survive and will continue to thrive. Psychologically “normal” guys often finish last. It sucks, sorry.
Cross-posted at Right Wing News
Women Say No To Science and Yes To Gay Porn
Tuesday, May 20th, 2008Hey, I could be a headline writer for The New York Times. I’m just that good. Well, what do you know? Women are free. Finally, after years of oppression, women are making their choices, even really smart, scientifically gifted women, and choosing what researchers think they shouldn’t like: “soft sciences”. Oh, and some women are turned on by gay porn and they’re (shhhhh) heterosexual and female. Can a woman be any more free?
I don’t think so.
Women are free and yet they prefer, for reasons researchers cannot fathom (oxytocin, brain differences, biology?) professions that were once and still are, the domain of….women. Shit. That just sucks. Women should be donning goggles and peering through microscopes with all the fervor of the typical knobby headed man-geek. And some are doing just that–just not enough to make everyone happy. Huh. Imagine, a woman claiming her right to choose and she’s not choosing feminist enough, but feminism is all about choice. Oh, the irony:
The results were striking. The lower numbers of women in IT careers weren’t explained by work-family pressures, since the study found computer careers made no greater time demands than those in the control group. Ability wasn’t the reason, since the women in both groups had substantial math backgrounds. There was, however, a significant difference in one area: what the men and women valued in their work.Rosenbloom and his colleagues used a standard personality-inventory test to measure people’s preferences for different kinds of work. In general, Rosenbloom’s study found, men and women who enjoyed the explicit manipulation of tools or machines were more likely to choose IT careers – and it was mostly men who scored high in this area. Meanwhile, people who enjoyed working with others were less likely to choose IT careers. Women, on average, were more likely to score high in this arena.
Personal preference, Rosenbloom and his group concluded, was the single largest determinative factor in whether women went into IT. They calculated that preference accounted for about two-thirds of the gender imbalance in the field. The study was published in November in the Journal of Economic Psychology.
It may seem like a cliche – or rank sexism – to say women like to work with people, and men prefer to work with things. Rosenbloom acknowledges that, but says that whether due to socialization or “more basic differences,” the genders on average demonstrate different vocational interests.
“It sounds like stereotypes,” he said in an interview, “but these stereotypes have a germ of truth.”
I’ll just speak for myself here. I’m a sucker for aptitude/personality/psychological testing and have taken many, many of them. One of the best is called Johnson-O’Conner an aptitude assessment. That means, not only do they study personality, they study a persons talents–such as fine motor, gross motor, music memory, spacial reasoning, verbal reasoning, etc. Well, the kind mentor who funded this testing for me was deeply dismayed at my results. He was an engineer and prided himself in his mathematical ability. Lo and behold, I scored higher than him in both higher mathematical ability and spacial reasoning. My aptitudes skewed toward engineering…..until my personality was factored in. That threw a monkey wrench in the works. I was so people-oriented, so verbal (I know, who would have thought it?), so excessively so, that no engineering job wouldn’t work for me because the isolation and task-orientation, verses people-nature of the work, would make me crazy. In short, I’d get bored.
Alas, I ended up in alternative medicine, not unlike the women in the study. While I’m pretty good at reading an x-ray thanks to my spacial ability, my satisfaction comes from helping people. I know, I’m a disappointment to women.
Now, let’s talk about the poor fellas for a minute. Dr. Helen notes that while women have more choices, the nerdy dudes might have less:
So men who are skilled at math may have less flexibility to branch out and go into other areas that involve dealing with others. If women must be equal in terms of pursuing hard sciences, wouldn’t it also be fair that men should have to be equal to women in terms of verbal skills so that they too, could have more job flexibility?
But that’s just it. I don’t think everyone needs to be stroking out about women in hard sciences. Women choose. Men choose. And while there probably aren’t as many, there are some amazingly verbal men who are scientists, I have a reader (you know who you are Kevin), who is a technological genius while possessing the verbal skills of a politician. To say that he enjoys a rewarding career and that the world is his oyster is an understatement. Should there be all sorts of research as to why most poor men are not as verbal and don’t enter other professions like teaching, say (and there are amazing exceptions here, too)? Oh, pish-posh. People choose. There are biological reasons for this. We can beat the discrimination drum into eternity but estrogen and testosterone do change brains and therefore, change career choices. That’s just life.
Is it possible to acknowledge that men and women are different and it’s okay? And that individually, people can choose to be whatever they choose to be. And there will always be exceptions.
Oh, and Rand Sindberg says this in his snarkily titled post, “Math is Hard” (very funny, Rand):
Even if there is tremendous variation among individuals within genders (which there clearly is) it doesn’t follow that there won’t be average differences in traits between genders. For instance, when it comes to math, what Larry Summers noted (and lost his job over after some of the mature, rational, scientific women present got the vapors and had to hie to their fainting couches) was that in fact men have a much greater standard deviation than women. They have both more geniuses, and more morons, when it comes to higher mathematics, whereas women have more of a tendency to stay near the mean. And there are brilliant (individual) woman mathematicians and hard scientists. But that doesn’t mean that we can therefore conclude that there are no statistical differences in these traits between men and women. And the fact that there are allows us to draw no conclusions about any particular man or woman (if I call Ms. Barnett illogical, it is because she conveys illogic, and has nothing to do with her genital configuration.) It remains perfectly reasonable, on a statistical basis, to make some broad statements about the genders (“men are like this and women are like that”) without having to infer that every man is like this and every woman is like that.
Indeed. The man is correct. Using myself as an example yet again. Among women, I am in the higher 90th percentile for engineering. Super. But when men are added to the mix, my abilities suddenly get more average–somewhere in the 60%. So, that means that I’m better than the average guy engineering-talent wise, but not much. So there are gender factors here, too. Now, maybe I work my ass off and outperform my co-workers due to sheer sweat. That happens, too, but an equally hard-working, more gifted person, male or female, will have an easier time of it–at least as an engineer.
Oh, this is such painful stuff, unless, like Rand says, you look at each person as an individual. And that’s the key. There will be gender trends, but in real life, it matters not. Forget skin color and gonads, what are you good at and more important, what do you want to do? Thankfully, we all have choices. Yes, women have choices now and they’re choosing. The feminists just need to suck it up and accept that this is what success looks like.
Men (NOT) At Work
Saturday, May 17th, 2008Some people think men are opting out of society because society isn’t kind to men. Maybe. I had been thinking it was the economy and worried that women in the work world just deflated a man’s need to provide or something. Stupid idea, but I just threw it out there musing aloud. Turns out, there’s an economic answer that makes a lot of sense. The economic slump (I don’t think anyone is calling it quite a recession anymore, because how can a quarter of growth, no matter how slight be considered going backwards?) has not affected women in the same way it’s affected men because they men are concentrated in certain job sectors. Aha! Now, that makes sense to me. But there’s more, it gets worse, so sayeth Peter Coy of Business Week:
What’s going on? Simply put, men have the misfortune of being concentrated in the two sectors that are doing the worst: manufacturing and construction. Women are concentrated in sectors that are still growing, such as education and health care.
This situation is hardly good news for women, though. While they’re getting more jobs, their pay is stagnant. Also, most share households—and bills—with the men who are losing jobs. And the “female” economy can’t stay strong for long if the “male” economy weakens too much. (h/t khankrum)
Long term, it seems to me that even education and health care will slow. People need money to pay for college and health care. Around here, the census at the local hospitals is low. Yes, we’re out of flu season, but people will put off elective or even needed procedures if they think they can get away with it. I’ve always been amazed how people will care for their cars, but not their bodies. Without health you can’t work to even fix the car. But still, people can survive and be pretty sick for a long time and lots of people do. We’ll know the economy is really bad when people start yanking out their teeth with pliers and college enrollments drop.
Speaking of college, is a four year degree worth anything? In some areas, I really don’t know. There are a few years between now and my kids deciding their futures, which is a relief. To me, anything soft–history, literature, poly sci, etc.–is worthless. Not because those areas of study are worthless, to the contrary, our students don’t get enough. However, most curricula you read these days doesn’t inspire confidence and colleges filled to the brim with revisionists inspire less confidence. A four year degree seems like four years of brain washing and what’s the result? A worthless degree that gets a grad no solid job. However, a degree in engineering, science, mathematics, etc. will definitely land a grad a job.
In addition, even if a person wants to be a writer or a more artsy fartsy generally, it’s almost imperative to have a knowledge of technology. The world gets more complex and a foundational science knowledge helps with everything. So a four-year degree in something “hard” seems valuable. The rest of it, people can learn if they have a love of reading. Most of my history and literature understanding has come in my adult years just reading and being interested in things that didn’t used to interest me.
Bird Behavior
Tuesday, May 13th, 2008How well do bird studies apply to humans? It’s interesting. Whenever biologists note a certain species’ tendency, that evolutionary trait is immediately transferred to humans when there may or may not be applicability or the animal studies themselves may be incomplete:
It is an arms race—and a matter of adapting and counter-adapting, explains Dr Welbergen. The better the cuckoo disguises its eggs and itself, the more host birds improve their ability to spot the impostor. Although such an evolutionary dynamic may seem like something that exists only in the wild, it is possible for it to happen in human society as well—between cuckolds and their cheating partners, constantly driving men to be better at detecting adultery and women to be better at getting away with it.
As one commenter says,
“The most rudimentary behaviours come about by growth of neural networks in our most basic brain structure. In times of stress, overload, or intensely quick decision making we revert back to them because that is the lowest energy discharge for the result of making a decision. I don’t think its turpitude, really.To your point however, Man never evolved from these game species, so the link is definitely inaccurate. “
And yet, from a global perspective, don’t you see animals exhibit traits that can be applied to humans? I don’t think you have to be an evolutionary biologist to see shared traits.
Stop It Already With The Antibacterial Soap
Monday, May 12th, 2008Tigerhawk has a smart sister and she says:
The active antibacterial agent in question is triclosan. The only real question that can result from numerous scientific studies about triclosan is whether or not its potential negatives are strong enough to stop using it. (Indeed, the only piece (opinion) questioning the validity of the research showing both potential resistance problems and toxic byproducts of triclosan (Swofford, 2005) was written by a member of the soap industry.) However, given unambiguous results showing that soap containing triclosan is indistinguishable in its effectiveness against bacteria as regular soap (and, frankly, given that most illnesses most household users of antibacterial soaps are concerned about are actually caused by viruses, which do not respond to antibacterials) any potentially negative side-effects of its use should be unacceptable.
Here is the problem. Humans are dumping all kinds of chemicals into our (and other organisms’) water supply, that are not removed during sewage treatment (even when the water properly goes through sewage treatment). Among these is triclosan (Gomez et al., 2007), which has been found in large proportions of human urinary samples (Calafat et al., 2008). Not only do we know nothing about how ingesting all these various chemicals may be affecting us over the long term, we cannot begin to know the complex ways in which they are interacting with each other to create new, and potentially more toxic compounds. Both laboratory (DeLorenzo et al., 2008) and field research (Kinney et al., 2008) suggests that triclosan bioaccumulates, which means its concentration could increase up the food chain (the same phenomenon responsible for the crash of bald eagle populations a few decades ago, due to DDT). Other laboratory studies suggest that it reacts with light and chlorine (ubiquitous in our drinking water) to form types of dioxin, a toxic compound (Sanchez-Prado et al., 2006). These studies are just scratching the surface of potential interactions between triclosan and other ubiquitous pharmaceuticals such as painkillers and sex hormones from birth control. Laboratory studies have also demonstrated that bacteria such as E coli and Salmonella can become resistant to triclosan (Yazdankhah et al., 2006).
Use soap and water people. Wash your towels regularly. Wash your hands before prepping food. Wash your hands after bodily functions–including blowing your nose. People forget that one.
Quarantine sick people. Don’t go to work when sick. Don’t go to school. Don’t beg for antibiotics. Don’t use medications that are unnecessary. Rest. Hydrate. Stay warm. Let the fever do it’s job.
Antibacterial soaps are stupid. Stop using them. Now.
"Science is a wonderful servant and a terrible master."
Wednesday, May 7th, 2008Dan Collins said it well. Technology and science gallops without bit, without restraint. Restraint used to come in the form of Christian ethics, but as society becomes increasingly secular, restraint is being cast off. So what force will guide the horse?
I have written before how science is so politicized, and I’m not talking about by crazed right-wingers intent on stopping the march of progress. No, the politicization of science is at the hands of leftists intent on forcing outcomes that are politically correct. Here is the essence:
Levin summarizes the liberal promise this way: “The past was rooted in error and prejudice while the future would have at its disposal a new oracle of genuine truth.”
Science as “genuine truth”. Color me terrified.
Let me tell you some things that were accepted as “genuine truth” in the field of medical science and have since been debunked:
Frontal Lobotomies: A personal story here. And look at what intellectuals bought into it.
Sensory Deprivation for Autism: A personal view here.
Hormone Replacement Therapy for menopausal women. Oops! Causes cancer.
Arthroscopic Knee Surgery: Uh oh, it’s just a placebo.
The list is long. I’m sure you could come up with more. I could, I just decided to stop. My point is that science is evolving. What is scientific “truth” today is tomorrow’s discarded notion.
Christianity, on the other hand, has fixed principles that form the foundation of ethical behavior. I am taking, as a premise, that what we view as modern day ethics are Christian ethics. That’s an easy one to prove–substitute Muslim ethics or Hindu ethics. They’d be a wee bit different, no? But I’m not going to get into that right now.
What the liberals hope for is ideological purity and science can form the foundation for that purity. That’s why the Global Warming zealots are so zealous. They bring the same fervor to idealizing modern science that the zealous bring to worshiping The Ideal. It’s a tad disturbing. Science will change tomorrow. A new notion of truth will come along because new science will reveal a more complete picture. But the liberal zealots assume that the picture they currently see is the only one that will ever exist and make decisions based on today’s knowledge. It’s the height of vanity.
Unrestrained by overarching principles, science can go anywhere and will. Some will embrace this, but science unrestrained by ethics takes mankind to dark places as Michael Gerson notes:
These arguments are seriously made, but they are not to be taken seriously. Does anyone really believe in a science without moral and legal limits? In harvesting organs from prisoners? In systematically getting rid of the disabled?
This last question, alas, does not answer itself. In America, the lives of about nine of 10 children with Down syndrome are ended before birth. In Europe, about 40 percent of unborn children with major congenital disorders are aborted.
All of which highlights a real conflict, a war within liberalism between the idea of unrestricted science in the cause of health and the principle that all men are created equal — between humanitarianism and egalitarianism.
Already, decisions are made in the name of science, but are they ethical? And what are the implications for the future of those who don’t measure up or those who refuse the scientific ideal?
There are questions science can’t answer. The modern American’s unwillingness to make these decisions is a decision. That leaves the decisions left in the hands of the scientists. There’s a reason for the mad scientist cliché. We should all be paying more attention.
Happiness Is….
Monday, April 28th, 2008Two kinds of ice cream, ala Charlie Brown? See if you can follow these findings:
Larsen and McKibban then calculated the extent to which people want what they have and have what they want. Their findings show that wanting what you have is not the same as having what you want. While people who have what they want tend to desire those items, the correlation between the two was far from perfect.
The researchers found that people who want more of what they have tend to be happier than those who want less of what they have. However, people who have more of what they want tend to be happier than those who have less of what they want.
So, happiness is two things: wanting what you have and having what you want.
Being happy means knowing yourself well enough to know what you want. Hold on. That’s not as easy as it sounds. Too many people have no idea what they want and are dissatisfied all the time. It is far easier to articulate what you don’t want than it is to articulate what you do want.
And then, when a person gets what he wants, what he really, really wants, the key to happiness is being appreciative of what he has so that the happiness doesn’t wane. Or, he can just sell what he doesn’t want anymore and buy what he does want.
Happiness is about being authentic and about being grateful. Which brings to mind one of my favorite books which I haven’t shared for a while, but is worth bringing to your attention again.
H/T Hotair
