Blog

As humans, we like to believe that we are always incredibly deep and everything is meaningful and that every action and motivation is incredibly complicated.

But in the end, we just want to feel good.

Obviously there are many ways we go about feeling good, and feeling good in the short term often comes at the expense of feeling good in the long term (eating something tasty but bad for you, drinking, watching TV, etc.).

And, of course, perhaps some things feel good in different ways. Some things may be deeply fulfilling, while others may just feel like passing pleasure.

Yet just about anything we strive for, we do so because we believe it will make us feel good. Even for things like charity or volunteering; we think that we’ll feel good about ourselves if we do it. And that’s probably rightly-so!

But what if we just dropped the pretense and admitted that basically everything we do is an attempt to feel good? That’s literally how our brains work.

Even the most deeply selfless acts are most likely always the result of someone choosing the way in which they think they’ll feel best; often the resulting choice between intense emotional anguish or brief physical harm and maybe even death.

Now, you might be thinking, “I know people that are always trying to feel good, and that kind of hedonistic pleasure-seeking leads to a bad life.”

And this is where I think it’s important to note the difference between being impulsively drawn to short-term pleasure and carefully planning to feel good long-term.

I’m starting to think that it’s better to plan – virtually always – to maximize how you feel long-term.

So let’s look at a common example: drinking.

Drinking is famously enjoyable in the short (when done in moderation). But what about the long-term?

It would seem that even relatively small amounts of drinking have a pretty serious, lingering, negative impact on mood and other measures of well-being.

At the risk of being overly analytical, if you were to graph how you felt over time, the purpose of life (or at least the unavoidable aim as mammals) is to maximize the integral; the area under the curve.

While most people are probably decent at doing that for the next… 15 minutes, they are not so good at doing it long-term. And that’s what I want to focus on.

Sure, I want my highs to be high. But I don’t want my lows to be so low, and I certainly don’t want to be feeling bad most of the time.

Yet that’s where I think most people are. They live in an unhealthy way, they work too much, they spend too much, they don’t communicate, their priorities are off, they drink, they don’t sleep enough, and in the end they might have some moderately high highs, but most of the time they are very low.

And I don’t want that.

So going forward, I’m going to think a lot more about this concept and use it to reevaluate things like drinking and see if it wouldn’t be better to just give it up completely.

I need to focus on the things that will maximize the area under that curve at all times. Even at the expense of other activities, like working.

Pretty much anything that is “healthy” falls under this category. I don’t think total deprivation is necessary, but I do need to focus my efforts where they will be most beneficial.

I feel like it’s easy in today’s day and age to live and die but we call “science”. While I’m a whole-hearted believer in science, I think that it’s really important to acknowledge its shortcomings and recognize that we are often applying the results of studies far too broadly.

Nowhere is this more pronounced than it is in long-term studies of health and wellness.

At least how it’s done today, these studies aim to follow huge groups of people with diverse backgrounds and see whether a given aspect of how they live is beneficial or not.

But here’s the problem: everyone is different. What works for one person may not work for another. Some things that may be useless for one person may be life-changing to another.

Much of the time, we have no way of seeing behind the scenes to understand what’s going on or why some things work great for some people but not others.

But I’ve had an example lately where that’s not the case.

I’ve seen YouTube videos that champion the idea of “mouth taping” at night to force people to breath through their nose. Proponents claim that their live was completely changed by this simple thing.

Now, I suffer from obstructive sleep apnea. In my case, I stop breathing whether I’m breathing through my mouth or nose. Simply taping my mouth closed is not going to accomplish anything.

Likewise, many people have no problems breathing only through their nose at night, even without taping their mouth shut.

I suspect that the only people who would benefit are people who:

• Suffer from mild sleep apnea but only when breathing through their mouth
• Can tolerate mouth-taping

I would venture a guess that this is not a large group of people. And anyone outside of this narrowly-defined group would probably see little-to-no benefit from doing this.

If they were to do studies on mouth taping, I suspect that they would find that it’s ultimately quite negative overall and they would say that you shouldn’t do it.

And yet, some people would get significant benefit from it.

Or let’s say they did a study about diet and concluded that grains are bad for you and decrease a number of measures of health.

It may be the case that many people truly are intolerant or allergic to gluten and that these people are weighing down the results. If you were to exclude them, you may find that the remaining participants in the study are actually far healthier eating grain.

I’ve generally heard that vegetarians tend to be healthier overall, but I suspect there are variables at play that either can’t be adjusted for, or aren’t even known.

For example, it might be that many people who become vegetarian and stick to it actually have some problem digesting meat. I had a roommate that claimed even a tiny amount of residual meat on clean dishes would make him quite ill, and would insist on using only his own dishes and never mixing anything.

I’m quite incredulous of that claim, mostly because I saw him on numerous occasions using my knives or other dishes that had just been used on meat, and he was fine. Nevertheless, it’s likely that many vegetarians do truly have problems digesting meat, and may see huge benefits to their health by remaining vegetarian that others would not have.

Weight loss is an interesting category. “Studies” have shown that aerobic activity actually makes people gain weight, and that “diets” don’t work for losing weight. Not all studies have shown that, of course, but taken with the populace at large, these things supposedly are not effective.

And yet… They work. If you hang around weight training and bodybuilding circles, there is no mystery whatsoever about gaining or losing weight. If someone expressed doubt that reducing their caloric intake would result in losing weight, they would be laughed at and mocked.

And what they are saying is not only true, but most people in this space don’t seem to have too much trouble gaining or losing weight.

So where’s the disconnect?

I’d argue that the average person has little to no agency in terms of affecting change in their life. They follow a script and rarely deviate from it. They do what they feel like.

You can’t tell them to just “eat less” because they won’t.

Someone who is a bodybuilder has probably already demonstrated that they do not fit this mold at all. They are capable of doing difficult, even painful things in order to improve themselves. For them, eating a little less is no great challenge.

These are all just examples. They may be flawed in parts, but the main point I’m making is that just because some research has determined something doesn’t work, doesn’t mean that it should be discounted entirely.

Obviously pseudo-science and outright falsehoods abound, but I suspect there are tons of things in this world that are not supported by consensus in the modern scientific community, yet may be tremendously beneficial for specific individuals.

Or if you look at people who are top performers in just about anything… It’s easy – especially when looking at high-earners – to simply point to survivorship bias. To say that they didn’t do anything to get there, and that the vast majority of people doing what they did failed.

We may look at their habits and routines and point to evidence that says those things do not work, and it would be supported by evidence.

But what if a given routine just doesn’t work for most people? 

The vast majority of people could not handle most of the tactics bodybuilders don’t even think twice about.

I have to believe that there are tons of things that would be tremendously beneficial to individuals either of unusually-high intelligence or self-discipline. I think I need to be completely open to that possibility, and not write-off things just because the previous studies haven’t found them to be beneficial among the general population.

The general population isn’t capable of tons of things that are helpful. I may find considerable value in places others have written off.