meh if you can train your balls to not hurt similar to how monks train certain parts of their body to be strong, would seem easily worth it. Would become like brushing your teeth or shaving after a while. Easy $$
hi
Slayer91 Ireland. October 21 2010 08:01. Posts 8821
On October 21 2010 07:21 ApoNow wrote: I'm not even sure if I'd take 500 Million $ without this nasty drawback. I like my personality the way it is and I'm afraid that I'd turn into a complete jackass being super rich and all. I might take 1/1000th of that sum though, since it wouldn't be enough to feel secure for the rest of your life. Thus, I'd probably donate 99,9% to some charity organization but never would I let some random stranger kick my precious thrice a day.
On October 21 2010 07:28 Ruthless wrote: I love these masked question about money or happiness. People looking for loopholes in the rules are missing the point. Would have unlimited money and everything you want be worth the physical discomfort
Taking this question in principle as you suggest, I probably wouldn't do it.
However, speaking practically, your balls would quickly desensitize to these kicks and it wouldn't be so bad after the first month or so. Under this realistic assumption I would take the money.
I do, however, think that labeling these questions as "money vs happiness" is misleading as money does buy some degree of happiness. It's more a gauge of how deeply you believe unlimited money would improve your life and make you happy.
i love when people who know nothing about the subject spew ignorant opinions. I hope that didnt sound harsh because the word ignorant has a really negative connotation and i didnt mean it in that way
most people just aren't educated very well in positive psychology
money does not bring ANY sort of long term benefits to happiness in people, once past a certain level. And that level is like...18,000 a year? in north america and stuff. The basic idea is that amount should cover your fundamental needs, living, food/water. ( so dont worry about nit picking at the number the idea is to cover your BASIC fundamental needs)
After that level, where many many studies have been done, money does not increase a persons overwell level of happiness for the long term because people ADAPT. You get used to how much money you have and you're not ANY happier than you were before you had that money, this goes for lottery winners, overnight millionaires etc and even comparing people who were born into money with relatively poor/average people.
Of course it brings some short term happiness, but this is very limited and does not affect your overall subjective well being at all.
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
Oh goodness me, FOX tv where do you get your sight? Can't you keep track, the puck is black. That's why the ice is white.
Zakka Netherlands. October 21 2010 08:09. Posts 762
Naaaa its like this greek legend with the man who got a part of his body eated each day by a bird and regenerate at night, its horrible. money not enough for this, immortality, savior maccro, or super power would be ok for me
Last edit: 2010-10-21 08:12:07
TLOBrian United States. October 21 2010 08:11. Posts 453
On October 21 2010 07:21 Precipice wrote: To be frank I think this is a no brainer. Go watch this video and see why I'd take the money.
No brainer? I'd like to see a random person take this for a few years and see how they deal with it. Yeah, yeah 500 million and all is at stake but do you really think you're up for the challenge?
Actually, in the video it states that only repeated blows to the groin causes immunity, so yes..you wouldn't even feel it after a while.
Steven Bonnell II is the friggin man.
Rebornlife Canada. October 21 2010 08:14. Posts 212
On October 21 2010 07:28 Ruthless wrote: I love these masked question about money or happiness. People looking for loopholes in the rules are missing the point. Would have unlimited money and everything you want be worth the physical discomfort
Taking this question in principle as you suggest, I probably wouldn't do it.
However, speaking practically, your balls would quickly desensitize to these kicks and it wouldn't be so bad after the first month or so. Under this realistic assumption I would take the money.
I do, however, think that labeling these questions as "money vs happiness" is misleading as money does buy some degree of happiness. It's more a gauge of how deeply you believe unlimited money would improve your life and make you happy.
i love when people who know nothing about the subject spew ignorant opinions. I hope that didnt sound harsh because the word ignorant has a really negative connotation and i didnt mean it in that way
most people just aren't educated very well in positive psychology
money does not bring ANY sort of long term benefits to happiness in people, once past a certain level. And that level is like...18,000 a year? in north america and stuff. The basic idea is that amount should cover your fundamental needs, living, food/water. ( so dont worry about nit picking at the number the idea is to cover your BASIC fundamental needs)
After that level, where many many studies have been done, money does not increase a persons overwell level of happiness for the long term because people ADAPT. You get used to how much money you have and you're not ANY happier than you were before you had that money, this goes for lottery winners, overnight millionaires etc and even comparing people who were born into money with relatively poor/average people.
Of course it brings some short term happiness, but this is very limited and does not affect your overall subjective well being at all.
I do not have a degree in psychology by any means, but i find it very hard to believe a waitress that scrapes by on tips enjoys her life more than her twin sister who sits on a pile of money, cars, sex and luxuries. I know for myself i would be happier driving to work in a Bugatti Veyron or Lamborghini Reventon than my dodge dakota. I would be happier watching tv shows and movies in my own personal theater with a bunch of people than on my home tv. I would welcome maids cleaning up the mansion instead of me cleaning up my shit in my house.
You get the point, but I do see where you are coming from as many people don't manage their money and personal lives properly, especially "overnight millionaires." They get into family problems and lose friendships over not handling things properly. Other people who have wealth are often idiots (Paris Hilton, etc) who get hungry for fame and whatnot. I believe that if someone is smart about their decisions they make with large amounts of money, they will be happier. It's just most people dont, and because of media, they are the ones you hear about.
On October 21 2010 07:28 Ruthless wrote: I love these masked question about money or happiness. People looking for loopholes in the rules are missing the point. Would have unlimited money and everything you want be worth the physical discomfort
Taking this question in principle as you suggest, I probably wouldn't do it.
However, speaking practically, your balls would quickly desensitize to these kicks and it wouldn't be so bad after the first month or so. Under this realistic assumption I would take the money.
I do, however, think that labeling these questions as "money vs happiness" is misleading as money does buy some degree of happiness. It's more a gauge of how deeply you believe unlimited money would improve your life and make you happy.
i love when people who know nothing about the subject spew ignorant opinions. I hope that didnt sound harsh because the word ignorant has a really negative connotation and i didnt mean it in that way
most people just aren't educated very well in positive psychology
money does not bring ANY sort of long term benefits to happiness in people, once past a certain level. And that level is like...18,000 a year? in north america and stuff. The basic idea is that amount should cover your fundamental needs, living, food/water. ( so dont worry about nit picking at the number the idea is to cover your BASIC fundamental needs)
After that level, where many many studies have been done, money does not increase a persons overwell level of happiness for the long term because people ADAPT. You get used to how much money you have and you're not ANY happier than you were before you had that money, this goes for lottery winners, overnight millionaires etc and even comparing people who were born into money with relatively poor/average people.
Of course it brings some short term happiness, but this is very limited and does not affect your overall subjective well being at all.
Excuse me while I refer you to actual studies rather than just go on a rant and assume you accept what I say as fact.
I was already aware of the general concepts you are explaining, but the income level seems to be considerably higher than $18,000 a year, and there are factors which make it less relevant for this scenario. That sort of money would mean you would never have to work at a job that made you unhappy. It would give you unlimited means to pursue social and educational exploits, which have been proven to promote happiness. It could also fund any expensive medical procedures that you or your family members may need.
Also, you seem to have misunderstood what I was trying to say. These hypothetical questions are formed with the assumption that the vast majority of people believe that money equates to happiness (regardless of how much truth there is to this). Obviously, you believe this to be negligible and your answer to the question would presumably reflect that.
I thought my phrasing ("some degree of happiness") would deflect this sort of arguement but I suppose I was wrong.
Last edit: 2010-10-21 08:38:13
wollhandkrabbe Germany. October 21 2010 08:37. Posts 92
I do not have a degree in psychology by any means, but i find it very hard to believe a waitress that scrapes by on tips enjoys her life more than her twin sister who sits on a pile of money, cars, sex and luxuries. I know for myself i would be happier driving to work in a Bugatti Veyron or Lamborghini Reventon than my dodge dakota. I would be happier watching tv shows and movies in my own personal theater with a bunch of people than on my home tv. I would welcome maids cleaning up the mansion instead of me cleaning up my shit in my house.
Well research suggests that it depends on what you do with the money. The things you describe, luxury defined by aquiring property, will not make you happy, because your expectations simply adapt. To a point where a scratch in your Lambo will make you equally unhappy as not making rent, being kicked out of his apartment and having to go eat at the local welfare soup kitchen will make someone else unhappy. But if you don't buy 'things', but experiences with your money current research suggests it will definitely make you happier. A 5-year trip around the world will broaden your horizon in a very different way than a Lambo will. More here.
Divinek was probably talking about this study that was published a few months ago and well covered in the media.
Edit: Oh well and about the ballkicking: I suppose the constat stress of imminent ballkicking would let you die of a heart attack in your early 30s. I for one would rather be poor and unkicked.
Last edit: 2010-10-21 08:41:17
infinitestory United States. October 21 2010 08:42. Posts 3698
On September 14 2010 12:52 royzizzle wrote: I noticed with the rise of the UFC many american martial artists are completely discrediting the skill of shaolin monks to "flashy wushu moves".
The following video conclusively ends the debate over who will win in an all out fight:
As you can see. This video exposes a critical weakness in the MMA fighter; one that the shaolin monk does not even flinch at.
I would absolutely take the money. It's been proven that with time the pain receptors in your testicles will deaden, and you can in fact take kicks in the nuts just fine. I would spend some money training myself to get to this state as quickly as possible, then remain in it through consistent conditioning.
If I wasn't allowed to do this, I would remove my testicles.
If either of these two aren't allowed, then no, I'm not doing this.
Resolve to perform what you ought. Perform without fail what you resolve. - Benjamin Franklin
Airstrike United Kingdom. October 21 2010 09:08. Posts 50
Store
stroggos New Zealand. October 21 2010 07:59. Posts 1543
Divinek Canada. October 21 2010 08:02. Posts 4016
infinitestory United States. October 21 2010 08:42. Posts 3698
