Registered: Dec 2005
Posts: 4

Anolgy: an atom is to positively charged as a person is to "in a bad situation or happy"

If an atom is neutral, it does not gain nor lose. But, if it gives away one of its electrons, it becomes positively charged or "happy". Like if a person does something bad to someone else to make himself happier, he becomes positevly charged. And just like in an atom, when something is positevley charged, it attracts electrons. Therefore, when a person is positvely charged, he is now attrcted to bad situations to neutralize himself. But just lke when an atom has an excess of electrons it becomes negatively charged and tries to rid itself of electrons. So in short, something bad happens to you, something good is going to happen to you.

So the answer to happines is when something good happens to you, to something bad to yourself to make somebody else happy so you are in control of the situations your in. But if you work for something and you get it, you earned it so your already neutral. Intrested in more? just say the word.

__________________
Dag

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2004
Posts: 78

This theory won't work. If you do something bad to yourself, they think it's good for you, or else why would you do it to yourself? - and they will send more good of the same kind, which is in fact bad, and you know it. So, despite your fundamental idea being true, it's hard to take advantage of it intentionally. This happens every time when you discover the law of nature and try to exploit it to your own benefit: it will resist. E.g., you may discover the way of making money by trading on NASDAQ, but as soon as you attempt to apply your strategy, it will stop working, although on paper it worked beautifully. This is because, when you come up with a theory, this theory itself becomes a part of reality, which was not taken into account in your original deliberation; sometimes the emergence of new factor (theory) changes the setting so dramatically that you can't any longer distinguish even between good and bad, which really happened to marxism and some other seemingly promising teachings.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2004
Posts: 78

I can further substantiate my claim by the following example.
When they assemble a group of 10 programmers to work on some
project, there always emerges someone who undertakes to do
most of the job by himself (that's why they need 10 programmers:
to make it statistically likely that among them emerges
someone who will really do the job, but they don't apply
this strategy intentionally, because I never made my theory
public) - so, this guy will work long hours and weekends
writing code like crazy; others, seeing his enthusiasm,
readily delegate their own work to him, because they think
more work is really good for him; in fact, however, work by
itself is hardly good for anybody: the guy just follows your
false theory, trying to inflict bad to himself in the hope
to attract good in the form of career or fortune,
but this never works: when it comes to bonus, just anybody gets
it except our hero, because everybody rightfully assumes he
was rewarded generously enough by letting him do exactly what
he likes - i.e., working long hours and weekends and writing
tons of delirious code.
Hope this helps.

Last edited by Vasily Shirin on 12-19-2005 at 04:01 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged