Are you Happy?

[yogi]

@surio, " I've seen this with my own father post retirement, and with his many 'cohorts' who retired with him... They've all been making their lives and the lives of their near and dear miserable since their retirement"
My grandfather's about 90 and he's missed work every day since he had to retire in his 70s. He was a store owner. I think he honestly liked his job and feeling productive. He doesn't know what to do with his free time. He drives my aunt and grandmother crazy trying to boss them around all day
Glad your feeling better mentally since leaving the job. Hope things work our for you.
By the way, could you clarify what you mean by "I did that one myself recently, and I too would heartily recommend that route brother. "
PS. Good luck on getting your sorceror badge

[Surio]

@yogi,

My grandfather's about 90 and he's missed work every day since he had to retire in his 70s. He was a store owner.

That's something universal amongst all small business people (trader joes, so to speak). They truly get a thrill out of all those (mostly nice) social interactions, the smell of the store, the sense of "doing things" in a tangible manner...the touchy feely nature of things... I've asked several old shopkeepers and got those same responses ... I too used to do "Are you happy" surveys in my own way
By contrast, my father was a "desk jockey" in a bank when he retired.
Re-reading this entire thread before posting, two things jumped out...
Like @S and @Mo, I am a naturally happy person... A lot of people I interact with (including a professor !) have wished for my spring in their step. I knew things were going south once I stopped humming/whistling a tune in my mind... And for my close family around me as well, it was becoming apparent that I was going downhill in a jet-ski over the few years...
I too realised like Jacob, 'the self-promotion/"professional" part' combined with becoming a daily witness to the Gervais Principle at my workplace, and being actively prodded to participate in mindless dribble because I am an "extrovert", therefore I should be in the "thick of things" and "mentoring" and "steering" and "spend 35 hours a day in that stupid cubicle to 'add value to my job' since I am a polymath"... I think I will stop, just writing brings back "the horror, the horror...."!
Give me shopkeeper any day!!
You needed me to clarify: I will clarify it as a two part question, wtarting with the second part, since my own response was for the soecond part.

[.....] trying to lower my expenses so that money isn't too much of a concern

My remark was in response to that part of your last paragraph specifically. Before I did put in my papers, over the period of one year, DW and I set up a ironclad budget/rules and lived on the absolute minimum, reduced any outflow that can be, pared everything ruthlessly and saw what was possible with minimum amounts of money. We got to know our "true discomfort levels", not the "feeling discomfort". So much so, we saved a significant nest egg(*) to start the path to 1/4 FI (YaY!). So, please do put the time and effort and understand "your real and absolute minimum". Then when you choose to walk out, that knowledge that you now have is a certainty that will outweigh many other things, and will keep you happy, like it does to me, even when I know I am not FI yet. Good Luck and GNU-Cash (as in God-speed) on that one.
(*) But, my father went into intensive care in August, and had a triple coronary bypass - two months of hell (that was another reason I went off the blogs and missed the inaguration of the forums), the insurance was not enough to cover him, so we had to dip into that nest egg... Oh well, no regrets... After all, there is only one dad that you get to have in your life, and he did buy us a dog when we asked
Now, the first part:

I wonder if I should just be looking for a job that I find more interesting [......]

No, no, No......NO..... (and many more NOS) please banish that type of thinking, that type of wording, that type of feeling/sense out of you.... That would be like opening the first door to misry! Instead of writing why and why..., I will provide you a pointer to an earlier write up on the same topic (by yours truly). Many months ago, I had a war of words going in the Financial Samurai blog on Sam's choice of words in a throwaway comment form along the lines of "Stop whining and find the job you love...." Here's the post in question, and I am still "Surio" there. I am not plugging myself here, far from it actually. Indeed, even out there in the blog, the common refrain was, "Surio, I simply cannot understand what the heck you are saying!", and many other ERE regulars who were there had to bail me out by writing supporting comments ! What was more touching to me, was that one of the commentators there, Ryan Martin not only got the gist of my rant, but left a comment on my blog that he "got it" and then was inspired enough to go ahead and create a post around my comments. Now, that's nice. So, if the first one becomes a "Surio overload on your CPU" (nice one, Jacob - Surio's DW), I will suggest Ryan's study guide instead. Now that's a plug I am honoured to make. For it made me realise I wasn't shouting from the soapbox in vain.
OK. That's from me. But before I go: You know, I didn't realise it when you said "Good luck on getting your sorceror badge", but looks like dearly beloved cult-leader's actually gone and made me a "Sorcerer"! Heh! Heh.... Now that looks really swell!!! !

But I know why I got that word on my mind while writing that edit about the "Apprentice". This is the line that came to my mind when I wrote that line: Wahooo... It will be really cool to be an "Apprentice Sorceror" (with funny spelling to satirise) as opposed to being a "Sorcerer's Apprentice" (see link). But I like the original spelling too, so Thank you Jacob ..
Best (and Good Night from me),

Merlin.... ooops =)
Yours truly....

Surio.

---

[B]

I've come to the realization that I unconsciously seek recognition, admiration, distinction, or something like that. This was while reflecting on my decision to leave academia to start a career as an engineer. I realized that even as a child, I want to be seen as "gifted".
The limited amount of recognition/respect (or rather, whatever the feeling I got when I perceived myself as respected) I got never left me satisfied. And it felt as though this precious respect was to be jealously guarded. It made me miserable (and paid peanuts!).
I don't know if it was my true nature to desire recognition, but seeking it did not make me happy. So now I'm working on changing what I think will make me happy. I hope it's possible.

[yogi]

@Sorceror Surio,
Sorry to hear about the situation with your dad. I'm sure that was tough. Hope things are better now.
And thanks for the link to the "Gervais Principle". I actually hadn't heard of that before. It was fun read. I hope there's not too much truth to those theories though. With the growing size and influence of corporations, I sure as heck hope they aren't mostly run by sociopaths!!! I'm hoping the word "sociopaths" in those theories has differnt meaning than the standard psychological definitions. Kind of like "losers" had a very specific definition.
And thanks for the clarifying your previous statement. You seem to object to my looking for a more interesting career. What if I become a shopkeeper?!
I'm mainly considering pursuing a more interesting career because if I didn't have to do anything then I probably wouldn't. I don't know if that would make anyone happy long term. But maybe I'm wrong. Anyone out there doing mostly nothing each day and loving it?
I read Sam's blog and your response, but in my tired state can't decifer a good argument against finding an enjoyable career. If you have time feel, free to clarify your objections here. If not, hopefully I'll be less tired tomorrow and will be able to decifer it
Have a good one, and try not to enchant any brooms.

[yogi]

@ B
If you figure it out, let us know. By the way, many years ago I read a book called "The Art of Happiness" by the Dalai Lama and Howard Cutler M.D. It gave me some peace at the time, but your mileage may vary.

[jacob]

The problem about finding an enjoyable career or being "passionate about work" is that it sounds good in theory, but it's hard in practice.
The argument against "just finding an enjoyable career" is a bit like solving people's lack of exercise as "finding an enjoyable sport" or their bad diet as "finding a healthy food they like".
That's not really a solution for people who prefer playing pool and eating cake. Correspondingly sometimes what people are passionate isn't paid that well... or the jobs are hard to get. How many "passionate bloggers" can make a living blogging for instance? Only a handful in each niche.
Hence work becomes a compromise: You don't get to do your passion, but you find something you tolerate well enough because you HAVE to have the income. In other words, you don't get to self-=actualize, that is, reach the top of the Maslow hierarchy until you satisfied your need for food and shelter with a job.
There's a politically correct drive towards giving the appearance of being passionate about work whatever you do. People drink the kool-aid, but someone claiming to be passionate about administrative work, say, ain't fooling nobody when they leave at 16:00 sharp.
The Gervais principle is extremely helpful to understanding how this goes down. Note that it's only applicable to hierarchial systems like careers where there is a power structure and gatekeepers. It doesn't work for independents or workers who fall outside the power structure.
If we go with thr Plato's cave analogy of the book, the sociopaths are the ones pulling the strings. The clueless are the one's being passionate about the shadows of the wall. The losers are the one's who are aware that the shadows are shadows and that there are people manipulating the shadows but they don't do anything about it other than trying to spend as little energy as possible. The 4th kind which tries to break free is not covered by the Gervais principle.
I'm a former clueless person who believed in the meritocracy and that if only I worked hard I'd be rewarded. Finding this not to be the case and knowing that I don't have what it takes to be a sociopath, I became a loser. Finding that I felt I was wasting my life being a loser, I broke out.

[EMJ]

@yogi

Interesting that you equate "neutral, tending toward pessimistic" with seeing things more clearly.

People who are "neutral, tending toward optimistic" would probably say the same about themselves.

[jerry]

I've had 4 jobs in my life and I enjoyed going to work at each of those jobs most days. Most of the people I worked with did not enjoy coming to work most days. I have been retired for 6 weeks and I like this also (although I am "working" as hard as I ever did).

For me at least, retirement has had little impact on my happiness/contentment with life.
I think the key to happiness is minimal attachments to both material things (you can enjoy them as long as you don't need them) and even immaterial things like concepts.
Physical well being is also very helpful. A low fat no refined carb diet will give you an incredible feeling of well being. 20 to 30 minutes a day of moderate exercise will add to that feeling of well being. Typical American diet will bring you way down.

[veganprimate]

Jacob said, "I think happiness is best defined as when you are behaving according to whatever your nature is."
That is what I have been doing for my entire life, although I couldn't articulate it until the last few years.
I am totally on board with that definition. As such, there are things about work (ALL work...i.e. the concept of working) that go totally against my nature. So, I surmise that when I no longer have to work, I'll be happier b/c I can spend more time doings things in accordance with my nature.
Amazingly enough, at 41, I'm STILL discovering things about myself.
I'm not so sure that I agree that happiness is lack of negative emotions. First of all, I don't agree that one can be completely rid of them, and I also don't think that a negative emotion is entirely bad. For example, mourning. In order to rid oneself of mourning, one would have to have a psychological condition whereby one doesn't care one whit about anyone. When a loved one dies, one is sad. And that's OK.
And there is also some evidence that one can control ones feelings to a degree. For example, something that one person would consider a disaster is for another person simply an irritation. In that case, happiness, if defined by lack of negative emotions, would be more within a person's control than previously thought.

[George the original one]

> When a loved one dies, one is sad. And that's OK.
If the death was preventable, one is sadder and often madder. That's drama that doesn't need to exist.

[Surio]

@Jacob,

Thank you very much for putting into words that "mirage of the interesting job" for yogi's benefit. Very crisp - as always, if I may say so.
@yogi,

If you couldn't follow the original "war of words", try Ryan's post that I also included. He brings his own spin to the proceedings.... in a nice way.
Please notice the wording I used: "Give me shopkeeper any day".. I wished to convey a case of "lesser of the two 'evils'". It was not a case of "Mmmmm.... Shopkeeping..... Yummy"
I've never watched "The Office" even when I lived in the UK. Couldn't stand it. I think it was a moment of genius for Venkatesh Rao to put into so many words what most "Neos" already sense. Plus, he's tied it around a famous sitcom, so it's become more digestible.. I have a hard time following the rest of "the Office" analogies as I don't know Toby from Andy or Rachel from someone else
My MacLeod breakdown..... [Thanks for mentioning yours Jacob.]

---------------------
In my first job in London, the sociopath founders of the organisation groomed me to become another sociopath... Even though I was a good one at that (spent 3 years at it :-/), I did not want to be that... so I moved out to do a PhD. In my second innings of jobs after PhD, the sociopaths on the top became a little insecure around me, despite my clearly giving out messages that I was not interested in becoming one....EVER, the clueless couldn't stand me for I was not them, and ipso defacto I was made one of the losers (We don't want you, they don't want you...so down you go the chute, matey ;-]). The losers rejected me, (for they saw too much sociopath in me - and would say so... "You ought to be up there with them, you know!") and I totally, definitely did not want to waste my life being a loser, as Jacob also mentioned, so I walked out....
Best -- or in keeping up with that Sorcerer in-joke,
Broom.....Brooooom.....Brrrrroooooooooooooooooommmmmmm (I know...... Corny! But don't tell me you didn't smile? )
Surio.

---

[slacker]

@surio: pardon me curiosity, but I couldn't help but notice, you are apparently neck-deep in ERE literature-you sure know what this entails, have walked out already from the race, yet are not FI- as you seem to have suggested in some post, somewhere here??!!!
So, I was wondering...what's the deal?
Wouldn't you be assuming a little too much risk- that of trudging back to the cubicle farms (only slightly better than swimming out to shark infested waters IMHO). I've heard it's infinitely more difficult to go back..this time knowing perfectly well what you're walking into..
There's 'entrepreneur' in your profile. Isn't that a the-odds-are-stacked-against-me kind of proposition. Would that route be robust enough to not worry about ever having to un-ERE?
just curious is all....

[slacker]

hmm...am i happy? *rolls eyes*
what makes me unhappy? megacorp and just about everything else nowadays..I'm perched a little too high up on the pessimism scale if you must know. And I'm totally with 'finding the right job is not the solution'..I've changed 3 jobs, in the last 8 months..and have humbly given up as far as 'finding the right job' is concerned. My 2 cents: you're either cut out for THE JOB or you're not.And FYI, there are universally-acknowledged-as-fun jobs, but then there's powerball. Same odds, take your pick!
what am i doing about it? well...nothing much! I'm socking away a larger part of my income. I am hard-wired to have very few needs that cost money- a little lucky that way,but have paid my dues in other ways. What takes most aspiring EREs considerable effort to effect in their lives, I've found to be second-nature. It's just a question of not doing anything stupid now, like say getting married (unless DW is the ERE-type as well), and then kids.
However,if you knew me well, you'd also know that I'm liable to switch off the thinking part of the brain for considerable lengths of time, in which period, great acts of stupidity may easily be carried out. So...I'm not sure. To be ERE in the DW- and-kids-scenario, I'll need to get very lucky in my stock- market foray. It's possible..but not robust enough to even merit a mention in the robustness-is-everything ERE board.

[rufousdog]

@EMJ: I remember reading a finding that people who are marginally depressed tend to see things more realistically in life. It isn't based upon what those who tend to be more optimistic would say about themselves. However, (if I remember some of what was in Gilbert's book) the tendency toward introversion (or for that matter a neutral or less than purely positive outlook) is not valued by society. Most of what is seen as normal (or more desirable) in society is reflected in the expectation of a bright, bubbly sales pitch.
My larger point is that having a neutral (or calm or reserved) outlook is no longer seen as being normal or desirable. Just look at any commercial message: everyone is smiling and trying to generate excitement about their product. The mode is one of being marginally manic (in contrast to being neutral or marginally depressed). This is useful in salesmanship, and it is the current expectation, certainly in the business world. Being exclusively positive, extroverted and optimistic all lie above a baseline of being neutral, if we view the baseline as having the extremes of mania and depression at either end of the spectrum.
A lot of this hinges on how one defines happiness. To some it is being in a hyper-stimulated state approaching giddiness (which I would call marginally manic) and trying to maintain that state. To others it can be quiet contentment and satisfaction with what one has and what one IS.
When a consumer driven society constantly prompts us to believe that we will attain happiness by acquisition of more material goods, and that we should constantly press ourselves to compete and achieve more and more, it can result in feelings of inadequacy. This drive is useful to corporations and governments who depend upon the masses for support. It amounts to the generation of insatiable desire and anything less than that mindset is seen as an abnormality. It also amounts to the expectation that working harder and attaining more will bring happiness. But unexamined and left unchecked, it becomes an unattainable illusion.

[M]

@rufousdog:
I think one of the reason's that society tends to encourage us to display manic happiness, especially in relation to business, advertisements, etc, is that people tend to rub off on other people, so to speak, and more and more people are afraid of giving off a bad impression.
Being happy and smiling among business associates has just become another tool to get ahead via leaving a good impression on others. People are more inclined to do business and/or hire someone who is perceived as being happy. It's no different than having a nice resume, attending a nice college, etc. Just another tool to trick people into giving you more money.

[yogi]

@jacob
Good post. I see your points. However, I'm considering lowering my expenses (and adjusting my investments) until I'm FI or close to it. That should allow me to take a "job" or "career" without much regards to compensation.
Also, I find it hard to believe that most organizations are run by sociopaths. At least, not according to my understanding of the word as described in "The Sociopath Next Door" by Martha Stout. My guess is there would only be a small percentage of true sociopaths in any organization (1-2%). I think it highly unlikely that all of that small percent make it to the top of the hierarchy. The odds are that most sociopaths aren't clever enough. Or they have different goals other than moving up the corporate ladder. But again, maybe those theories reference a different definition or the word.
That being said, I do know from firsthand experience that you will encounter true sociopaths in companies. Years ago I worked for one. He was a middle-manager. It was the way he talked when he offered to promote me that first clued me in. Needless to say, I moved out of his group fairly quickly. Within a few years he got fired after some of his unethical acts had been discovered. I encountered a lady I suspected of being a sociopath last year. She only lasted with the company for a few months.
I will agree though that many of the decisions that corporations take to make money end up hurting people.
So maybe it's not so bad to try to find a job or career that is interesting/enjoyable assuming the following conditions:
1.) The job is taken not for money but because you find it more interesting or enjoyable than not working. If it doesn't pay enough, then get FI or close to it first.
2.) The organization is not run by sociopaths (LOL). Or there is no power structure involved.
3.) You're not afraid to leave at any time you find your job is continually bringing you more suffering than joy -- or that you find the job/company is causing more harm than good.
Actually, you are kind of doing this now if I'm not mistaken. Aren't you a writer, sailor, etc.?

[yogi]

@EMJ -

"Interesting that you equate "neutral, tending toward pessimistic" with seeing things more clearly.

People who are "neutral, tending toward optimistic" would probably say the same about themselves."
Well, first let me say, I would not recommend that people be pessimistic. Optimists are healthier and happier. I consciously try to be more optimistic.
Most people are optimists. However, there are numerous studies that show that optimists tend to overestimate their own abilities and their control over events. Pessimists tend to more accurately judge their abilities and understand better what they have control over.
Again with that being said, I think it's still better to see the glass half-full. That is unless you enjoy being depressed
By the way, I could be forgetting, but I don't remember Dan Gilbert being particularly interested in this topic. I think Martin Seligman is more interested in the whole pessimist vs optimist thing.

[rufousdog]

@M: FWIW I grew up in a world where there were no hired "greeters" at the entrances of Wal-Marts. (There were no Wal-Marts back then, but there were plenty of other department and discount stores. It just wasn't an expectation.) I know that being upbeat is meant to be a social lubricant, but I go to a business establishment to conduct business, not to engage in recently ritualized pleasantries.
But the point is that being neutral or merely businesslike is no longer good enough. Now we are expected to put on the pretense of acting happy, even if we are not. We're all expected to be effervescent salesmen and elated consumers now.
I remember a line I heard once: "It's a good thing money can't buy happiness. If it could, we wouldn't be able to stand the commercials."

[yogi]

@Surio
Yes, I do confess that "Broom.....Brooooom.....Brrrrroooooooooooooooooommmmmmm" made me smile

[jacob]

@yogi - Sociopath is not meant in the usual pathological sense. Neither is loser meant in the typical disparaging sense. The clueless are only clueless about certain things. You could say that the profiles are compartmentalized to the job.
Sociopaths know how to power talk. Thy spend a lot of time networking and getting themselves connected. They are good at implying something else from what they're saying. They know something that the clueless don't namely that it's more important who you know than what you know. Sociopaths won't think twice about hassling other people. A good example are those pesky "I only check my emails once a day auto-responders that make you jump through hoops if you want to communicate with them."
The clueless miss the metalevel. They haven't realized that it's who rather than what. When they talk about productivity, etc. it's their own productivity... how much they worked today. How much they got done. The clueless are proud of how effective they are. They have no idea that the sociopaths are taking advantage of them. That's what makes them clueless.
The losers are either not smart enough to be clueless or they are too smart to be clueless but have no desire to be sociopaths. The loser word is seen from the perspective of the sociopath. Losers are expendable. So are the clueless, but unlike the clueless, the losers know this and act accordingly.
====
Optimists might be happier simply because they're self-reporting themselves to be happier. In the US they may be healthier simply because they fit better into the culture which in the US tend to be optimistic and bubbling; but try fitting that attitude into Finland. My guess is that it's mentally challenging to be an optimist when you're surrounded by realists.