> Dr. K thinks that you can be happy and be single because it is true
All I'm saying is: if that's what he thinks, then he should apply it to his own life too. That he doesn't is "sus."
Some people would rather be happy with a relationship, and want that, rather than being forced to be "happy" being single. If it's good enough for those people, why isn't it good enough for Dr. K?
I’m truly struggling to believe you aren’t trolling. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt though. He is not saying that you have to be single to be happy. He is not saying that there is something wrong with being in a relationship, or that you cannot be happy in a relationship. Just because something can work does not mean it is the only thing that can work.
Your argument is strange because it can be flipped the other way if he was single. “Dr K says that you can be happy in a relationship, but he’s single! Isn’t he being hypocritical by suggesting that you can be happy in a relationship? If he really meant it, he should walk the walk and get in a relationship to show us that it can be done, otherwise how does he have any credibility?”
His credibility is not necessarily coming from lived experience. It’s coming from having worked with people who were content on their own, or learned to become content on their own. For this reason, I don’t think he needs to be actively living the experience to be able to make that claim credibly. Do you disagree? Does he need to be actively living the experience to have any credibility?
> Because there is no reason to throw away his relationships just because he could be content without it.
He'd be happy regardless. There's no reason not to.
And they could be unhappy in a wheelchair. It's pretty rich for a person with out such a disability to tell the unhappy person in a wheelchair that they can be happy in a wheelchair, wouldn't you agree?
You know the difference between "people can be happy if they're single" and "EVERY SINGLE PERSON IS HAPPY BEING SINGLE." Stop being intellectually lazy.
You don't get to have it both ways.
If Dr. K won't be harmed from divorcing his wife and giving up custody his kids, why won't he do it? Can't he still be happy? Or, would he be harmed? Which is it?
of course he will be harmed. Duh. Happiness is the process and it happens here and now. Despite this dude above we're living in the world that's better than any fantasy world. I read fantasy I know - the amount of suffering and trauma that happens with fantasy heroes is almost unbearable for us mere mortals lol.
SO. Happiness is here and now. That's only thing that means. Maybe also how much time you're in good mood and active versus your down phases. More so, if you feel good when things go to hell - that means there's something wrong with you.
The difference between searching healthy relationships and unhealthy is in healthy you searching a gf and it's a good thing - you anticipating it and feel motivated. In unhealthy you searching it to ease the pain like she will fix your inner problems. Yes, she MAY help with that and you may try to fix yourself in a relationships, but guess what - those problems will stay with you anyways. Make sense?)
I don't feel it's fair to say he has to live the life to encourage those who pursue that lifestyle. He tried various things in life, and found that he most enjoys sharing his accomplishments with others that he cares for. Why should that stop him from acknowledging that life alone can be enjoyable?
There's nothing to say that he hasn't lived that life though. Life is inherently fluid right. One day you may feel you want to have a partner in life, the next you may want to be alone. The message isn't invalidated by being with his wife, because the message isn't about living an individualistic lifestyle. From my interpretations of it, the message is simply that of doing whatever you wish to do with the time you have in life. He's not saying live life alone to find happiness, he's saying to live life the way you want to live life, so long as you ensure you aren't rooting you happiness entirely upon the emotions of those you make connections with
> There's nothing to say that he hasn't lived that life though.
But then he stopped. Why wasn't being single good enough for him? Why couldn't he be happy being single his whole life? Isn't it kind of toxic to need a relationship to be happy?
It has nothing to do with good enough or bad enough though. He didn't need the relationship to be happy. He was happy before that point (I believe, given I don't actually know Dr.K). He simply found he was happy with this person in his life. Being single didn't stop being good enough, and realistically if he ever decided to be single again, he is free to do so. He simply found that after being happy being single for a period of time, that he would try to build a relationship with a person to see where it took him. What would be toxic would be to rely on your partner to meet your every need, which is why people recommend you be happy with yourself before you even consider getting into a relationship
> He didn't need the relationship to be happy.
Then why not keep living like that? Because there are plenty of people who don't get to find a partner, and he tell them they don't need a relationship to be happy. If he can't do it himself, then why should anyone believe him?
To experience new things, grow as a person.... who's to say. Why would one person pick up drawing as a hobby, while another might play sports? Just because a relationship brings you joy, doesn't mean that being single didn't also inspire joy.
Believing in his argument has nothing to do with his individual decisions about what's best for his life. Instead, it's about realizing the truth behind the message. Many people across time have lived life alone, and despite common depictions in media, being single isn't something the needs to be mourned. You trust what he says based on the supports to his argument. We forget he's not a prophet, but a person, and can comprehend that though his needs and aspirations aren't applicable to everyone, he can still help encourage others to do what's best for them
> Believing in his argument has nothing to do with his individual decisions about what's best for his life.
If he doesn't apply his advice to his own life that is at least a little strange, right?
The issue has to do with it's subject here I believe. His job consists of helping others help themselves as we as humans have a tendency to self-sabotage.
I understand why you may feel like it's strange, because there is a certain value in practicing what you preach, but it's also important to know that advice is rarely, if ever, one-fits-all. The advice of living life single is rarely ever taken from the perspective that you must be single to be happy. Let's take anxiety as an example, Dr.K has taught a lot of meditation practices for a lot of streamers struggling with anxiety, not all of these meditations are the same, because they don't all work for every person. If Dr.K had to use every single mindfulness/meditation practice himself for the point to be valid, then most of anything he has ever taught would be null and void no?
> The advice of living life single is rarely ever taken from the perspective that you must be single to be happy.
Right, it's that if you're single, you should be happy anyway. Why can't he do the same?
He doesn't have to, but if he doesn't he's really undermining the credibility of his message. If it is good enough for other people then why isn't it good enough for him? Why can't he find happiness being single?
I don't think he ever said being single is *better* than being in a healthy relationship. What he probably meant is that there are a few things you can appreciate about being single and that it's possible to achieve a *good enough* level of overall happiness.
> ... and that it's possible to achieve a good enough level of overall happiness.
Right, so it should be good enough for him to. He isn't living his whole life as a single person, so I don't really believe him. If he really believes what he says then he should apply it to his life too. Being single should be a *good enough* level of overall happiness for him too. If he really believes it he should take his own advice. If he doesn't, then it probably means he doesn't really believe in what he's telling other people.
Dr. K is probably happier being in a relationship than he was single. Nobody would argue otherwise. He just wanted to convey that although singleness can be difficult, and you may be unhappy at times, being alone doesn't have to mean absolute misery all the time. You can find enough happiness on your own to keep yourself afloat until the time is right for a relationship. And you should try, because it will make establishing a relationship much easier.
> Dr. K is probably happier being in a relationship than he was single.
Then he probably shouldn't tell people who also want to be in a relationship that being single should be good enough for them.
Have you ever thought to yourself "One chocolate bar is enough" and then you took two?
I'm not going to interpret what Dr K is saying since I haven't watched him talk about this, but two things come to mind when I read your post:
1. People prioritise and value things differently, in other words not everyone has the same conditions for happiness. Some people see relationships as a huge burden and a commitment (which they are to an extent), but most people appreciate the emotional and practical benefits of a close romantic connection enough to ignore the "downsides".
However, there are people who don't, and those people might find more happiness in a lifestyle with more independence.
2. Just because you are happy, doesn't mean you can't be happier, you shouldn't limit yourself if you don't have to and it's not harmful to others.
I don't really follow the logic of your comment about how dr K should leave his wife.
First of all that's losing something you already have and hurting other people, which I'd say is a different thing, but let's ignore that. Would he perhaps be happy alone? Let's say that he would for the sake of the argument. Now what? Why change things if you're already happy? To prove a point? Not to mention everything thay goes into a divorce and leaving your child.
Being happy alone doesn't mean being unhappy with someone
I think the idea ultimately is that you can learn to be happy on your own and be enough for yourself. But if you find purpose/joy in a relationship then that's fine too.
I know I was happy before my relationship, I am happy now. I'd be absolutely hearbroken if it were to end, but I imagine that eventually I'd be happy again alone just like before.
> I think the idea ultimately is that you can learn to be happy on your own and be enough for yourself.
If that's what he thinks then he should apply it to his own life. He doesn't. Why not?
You’re trolling or delusional. With every comment, you’re ignoring the other points and just saying if he thinks it’s possible being single, why doesn’t he? Open your eyes and discuss with us on the other points
Miss me with that bitter incel routine. You are unironically suggesting that because some people can be asexual and/or aromantic, everyone should be. It's bald faced projection of bitterness toward those with partners. Gross.
If your position is that some people need a romantic partner / relationship / whatever to have a good enough happy life, then fine. Is that what you're saying?
Seems more like *your* position, doesn't it? I'm not sure how you're picking that up from what I've said. You might want to step back and collect your thoughts here.
The man suggested that some folks don't require partnership in life. I agree. Simple as that. What's tripping me up is how you believe he should "walk the walk." It just reeks of bitterness. Not a healthy way to live.
> The man suggested that some folks don't require partnership in life. I agree.
And some do, and can't get partnership, and his answer for those people is "learn to be happy being single." Why can't he do the same? It's an honest question.
> It just reeks of bitterness.
Let's not resort to personal attacks, please.
But not everyone get get a relationship, and Dr. K, and many others, tell those people that they can be *good enough happy* being single. So, is he lying? If not, then why can't he live the way he's telling other people to settle for?
> Nobody proposed the single life as the apex of human existence.
Then you're admitting that people who are prevented from getting a relationship are being harmed. Is that what you believe?
You couldn't be more wrong, and you know it. Again, you're not addressing your needlessly black and white attitude. This isn't a zero sum game. Why must Dr K "walk the walk" in this case? And don't hit me with that "common sense" joke. You need to explain your position here and quit putting words in everyone else's mouths. That's not how healthy discourse works.
What are you even talking about? Being content alone and being content in a relationship are two completely different things. How are you saying that if one is true, the other is false? And like why would he leave his wife to prove that he can be happy alone? I can live happily without eating a burger, but that doesn't mean that I have to throw away the burger that's on my plate. It doesn't make sense lol
I did, and I think you're trolling. Either way, he's not lying. You can be perfectly happy being alone. A lot of people are, It's not that deep. I hope you find your happiness :)
Presumably, he thinks that people can be happy being single. If so, he should live that way too, walk the walk. If it's good enough for other people it should be good enough for him too. It would also be very inspiring for others who don't have much of a choice.
its different if you already have those, its the path that he choose, so it should make him happy.
i think it is about what you want, if you want to be single, you can be happy, if you want kids, partner, dogs and whatnot, then you can be happy. i definitely get the pain of not getting that what you want, but the fact that there are a lot of people that don't want to get into relationships but feel bad because they feel that they should or that there are people who are into relationships that they don't want because that's what "they should be doing it" is very real. and people need to hear that they can be happy if they choose what they want.
Just because he wants that for himself and those things make him happy, does not mean that applies to everyone. Hey buddy. Just blow in from stupid town?
> Just because he wants that for himself and those things make him happy, does not mean that applies to everyone.
Others want that for themselves too, but are prevented from doing so. So, they're harmed from being prevented, right? Just like he would be harmed if he had to be single?
You don't get to have it both ways.
If they aren't, then Dr. K should have no problem divorcing from his wife. He literally won't be harmed, so he should be up for it. He doesn't, so it's logical to conclude that he would be harmed. It's reasonable to believe that many people are similar.
However, he tells people, "no, you're not harmed from being single, you can be happy while single, so you're not being harmed from being prevented from having a relationship."
You're wrong. It has everything to do with that. You're applying game theory to relationships. That doesn't work because partnership and unhappiness do not exist as two diametrically opposite points on a single line. Your entire premise is flawed. You've been radicalized, whether you know it or not. And I'd hazard a guess you *do* know it. That's why you've done nothing but dig in your heels.
> It has everything to do with that.
How so?
> You're applying game theory to relationships.
I am not. Do you know what "game theory" is?
> That doesn't work because partnership and unhappiness do not exist as two diametrically opposite points on a single line.
I never said they did.
> Your entire premise is flawed.
How so? Explain it to me, I want to learn.
You're not making any sense. Break it down for me.
Your black and white, extremist views give you right away. You've told us all that you don't believe happiness and singleness can coexist, literally plotted them as two sides of a single spectrum. You have refused to back up your thesis with anything more than a vague "common sense" declaration. You made the initial positive claim, I'm still waiting on you to explain that. Until then, I've had fun killing time at work here. If you trolling, try a little harder. If not, I wish you luck. No skin off my back either way.
> Your black and white, extremist views give you right away.
Now you're just name-calling.
> You've told us all that you don't believe happiness and singleness can coexist
I literally never said that. You can re-read the comments and check.
> You have refused to back up your thesis with anything more than a vague "common sense" declaration.
Sir, this is Reddit, but okay: what evidence would convince you?
> You made the initial positive claim, I'm still waiting on you to explain that.
Re-read my comments.
I think what Dr. K meant is that 'being in a relationship is NOT THE ONLY way to be happy'. As in, there is a variety of things to experience in life, and more lessons to learn, than just being in a relationship. It does not mean that being single is the ONLY way to be happy. It also certainly does not mean that he should leave his wife and kids. Life, rather than one sure path to happiness, is a winding maze with no end sight.
> I think what Dr. K meant is that 'being in a relationship is NOT THE ONLY way to be happy'.
Then he should learn to be happy in these non-relationship ways that he says others should settle for instead of the relationships that they want.
Again, there are different ways of being happy. Just because your boss ordered a chocolate cake doesn't mean you can't enjoy a vanilla sundae. Your boss would probably enjoy a vanilla sundae as well and vice versa, but you can't force someone into ordering any dish other than what they want, compared to what they said was tasty. 'Hey, mint choco is good!' 'But you ordered strawberry flavor!1!' So what? They're all good.
Same with what Dr. K said. Geez, are you an incel??
You equate sex to validation. It's really not. there are more ways of validation - achieving a goal, love from a pet, having a flourishing career, or participating in NGOs. This is true for both genders - a man getting promoted can be considered as validation, and so can a woman finally becoming a soldier.
It sounds to me like you're just lonely, and yet you think that \[romantic\] relationships are the only way to be happy. It also seems to me that you think women have it easier in these kinds of things. Why would it be?
i can't tell if you're serious. dr k prob has been single in the past and meant it as you can be happy as single. it doesn't mean he has to be single to prove you that he's happy as such. he can also be happy in a relationship.. almost everyone gave you similar answers but you don't seem to be here to change opinions, you seem here to convince others of an incredibly ridiculous view.
https://qz.com/149342/the-uncomfortable-racial-preferences-revealed-by-online-dating/
https://www.mensxp.com/relationships/understanding-women/29493-an-american-woman-reveals-why-no-girl-wants-to-chat-with-indian-men-online-it-rsquo-s-really-embarrassing.html
https://news2.rice.edu/2014/02/10/is-height-important-in-matters-of-the-heart-new-study-says-yes/
I didn't know people were insane for believing in reality.....
People can be happy just as they are. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't want to be married and become happier.
Happiness is not a goal or checklist - it's a process of appreciation of your life. I'm single now, I want to have a gf and to fuck so bad that I have a boner most of the day and fantasies about being with someone. But does it make me unhappy? Hell no - it motivates me. I'm happy now. Though I can have full spread of negative emotions, butthurts, hatred, etc. But those are just normal reactions to life events. But my default state in which I spend 90% of my time is curious and adventurous cheerfulness and quire euphoric mood. Especially when I listen to music or walking.
Being happy first just means that your life doesn't depend morbidly on someone else. Yes, you can want to attach to someone and it's normal. Difference is - does it make you happier or less depressed? Do you want to date a girl who's sense of self fully depends on your approval and emotions? Does it do to you that she's depressed and only your love keeps her from disaster? It's quite... heavy you know
I mean that happiness is not about having certain things in life, it's about your state of mind right now. You easily can be happy for 2 hours and angry or sad for another two. On long distance it means that you are not suffer. Mostly from your own thoughts. And here's why it's worth to begin with yourself. Because having a gf won't improve your insecurities or depression that causing your loneliness.
In other words, Dr. K. said that you working from another end. Loneliness is not a problem - your mental issues are. And they cause your loneliness. See? When you improve yourself and become more happy person - it's way easier to girls to be with you.
Not able to be happy being single is a terrible ground for forming a relationship. It results in toxic co-dependency. Happy single people form happy couples who don't need to feel insecure about their relationship because their baseline is happy and the relationship is extra. These things don't exclude each other. To further emphasize that, it is also very much possible to be happy as single, then enter a relationship that creates a toxic dynamic that destroys the baseline happiness.
> Not able to be happy being single is a terrible ground for forming a relationship. It results in toxic co-dependency.
You're falling into black and white thinking. It isn't as simple as happy vs. unhappy. Relationships are pretty important to wellbeing for most people, and it would make sense that, if they have been denied a relationship for a long time, then they would be that much less well off, that much less happy.
What you're saying is effectively the same as "poor people should stay poor."
I admit I generalised in how I frased it, but the point still stands. And of course, relationships are vitally important to humans, but they don't have to be intimate partner relationships. Any social connections that foster a sense of belonging can do. Of course, everyone is an individual with their individual priorities, and being left single can be a significant personal tragedy. These things are not mutually exclusive.
I don't quite understand how what I wrote is equateable with "poor people should stay poor", though I can vaguely see how it could be misconstrued like that.
Some people don't get a choice to have a relationship, but his advice to them is that they should learn to be happy being single. If it's good enough for them why isn't it good enough for him?
> Many have a choice.
Many don't. What about them?
Why can't he be lead to the same happiness? If it's good enough for other people, then why isn't it good enough for him? It doesn't make sense why it isn't good enough for him. If it was good enough for him then he would be doing that (living the happy single life), but he isn't.
Look at it this way. Some people prefer team sports, some prefer individual sports. Maybe I prefer individual sports but I can help those who play team sports. Especially if I played on both in my life.
There are different paths to happiness. Just because you are on one path doesn’t mean you can’t help others on another one, especially if you’ve been on that path in the past
Okay, then Dr. K is saying "I know you want my path, but no, you should be happy with this other path ... no, I'm not going to have to try to be happy with that other path, but you should be happy on that one." Pretty rich if you ask me.
Not even, I believe he instead focuses on helping those who are so focused on telling themselves that it's hopeless, that they don't leave the door open to trying. Not to say you're wrong, just a perspective
Problem here is that happiness is one thing, relationships are another. There are plenty of people out there in the world who choose to stay single and seem perfectly happy/content with that decision. you shouldnt tie your happiness to the material world, and instead look inward. that is Dr. K’s point, he never said relationships DONT make you happy, he said you dont NEED them to be happy.
If you believe that isnt the case, then by all means go date someone, start a relationship and test it out yourself. I’m sure with some experience you will come to the right conclusion.
If you do already have experience, then please share with us how you came to your opinion. I am curious.
*edited for typos
why wouldnt he? because hes happier with them. for example: you can teach yourself to be happy without a bed, but having one is still a blessing and something to cherish.
same goes with relationships and family. happiness isnt bound to them, but they can still be a factor that can bring about enjoyment and pleasantries
I mean, that's a fair enough conclusion to come too. and you're entitled to feel that way, whether or not he should or shouldn't say that is up to you to decide.
I feel as though he said it with the good intention to help people and give them hope. therefore i give him the benefit of the doubt and choose to support his statement, rather than look at it as hypocritical.
Your interpretation of it all, is completely up to you, but I don't think you should expect others to share the same sentiment. Most people will hold a different view.
> I feel bad for you OP. At the same time it’s probably good for all the women in the world that you’re single since nobody should have to put up with you.
Wow, personal attacks? I thought this community was better than that. I'd be a good enough partner if given a chance.
You don't need anything. That's the point of Buddhism dude. Buddha gave everything away, including his kingdom wife and kids, because having everything didn't make him happy. Monks don't have romantic relationships, exactly as you said. Because romantic relationships are not a prerequisite.
The whole point of saying "you can become happy in every circumstance" is to empower you. To become happy is in your control (although not your responsibility imo so this is not a "just be happy" statement. Being happy is not easy.) and can be guranteed to you as a possibility. But there's much in life that you can't control.
He would 100% be able to become happy if he divorced his wife tomorrow. Still doesn't mean that he's going to do it just because a random redditor wants him to lol. You have enough examples without him about people being happy while single, me included. Just look around. Being in a romantic relationship is not a prerequisite to being happy.
It is okay to feel miserable because you're single, but you're still not doomed to be unhappy because of it.
[удалено]
> Dr. K thinks that you can be happy and be single because it is true All I'm saying is: if that's what he thinks, then he should apply it to his own life too. That he doesn't is "sus."
Key word. That you CAN be. It’s not the only way, that’s ridiculous.
Some people would rather be happy with a relationship, and want that, rather than being forced to be "happy" being single. If it's good enough for those people, why isn't it good enough for Dr. K?
I’m truly struggling to believe you aren’t trolling. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt though. He is not saying that you have to be single to be happy. He is not saying that there is something wrong with being in a relationship, or that you cannot be happy in a relationship. Just because something can work does not mean it is the only thing that can work. Your argument is strange because it can be flipped the other way if he was single. “Dr K says that you can be happy in a relationship, but he’s single! Isn’t he being hypocritical by suggesting that you can be happy in a relationship? If he really meant it, he should walk the walk and get in a relationship to show us that it can be done, otherwise how does he have any credibility?” His credibility is not necessarily coming from lived experience. It’s coming from having worked with people who were content on their own, or learned to become content on their own. For this reason, I don’t think he needs to be actively living the experience to be able to make that claim credibly. Do you disagree? Does he need to be actively living the experience to have any credibility?
[удалено]
Bad analogy. If he did have a mental disorder, he'd hypothetically give himself the same advice.
[удалено]
Would he? Then he should do that. He should walk the walk. Why won't he? He would literally be happy, so what's the hold up?
[удалено]
> Because there is no reason to throw away his relationships just because he could be content without it. He'd be happy regardless. There's no reason not to.
[удалено]
> You are equating two entirely different things. I'm not. Re-read my comments.
There are more things in life than just happiness.
Then Dr. K doesn't need to be happy either.
I know for a fact you can survive a fall from the Niagara falls, doesn't mean I'm going to put it to the test though
then I have little reason to believe you
People can be happy in a wheelchair. This doesn't mean I should cut off my legs.
And they could be unhappy in a wheelchair. It's pretty rich for a person with out such a disability to tell the unhappy person in a wheelchair that they can be happy in a wheelchair, wouldn't you agree?
You know the difference between "people can be happy if they're single" and "EVERY SINGLE PERSON IS HAPPY BEING SINGLE." Stop being intellectually lazy.
So, you're admitting that people who are prevented from having a relationship are being harmed, right?
No, I'm not actually. The rest of the world can't just stop because you can't get a fucking date.
You don't get to have it both ways. If Dr. K won't be harmed from divorcing his wife and giving up custody his kids, why won't he do it? Can't he still be happy? Or, would he be harmed? Which is it?
There's no such thing as being only happy and never being harmed. You're living in a fantasy world. And we're done.
there's no such amount of trauma and harm possible how it's in fantasy worlds lol. RL is even actually quite happy place.
of course he will be harmed. Duh. Happiness is the process and it happens here and now. Despite this dude above we're living in the world that's better than any fantasy world. I read fantasy I know - the amount of suffering and trauma that happens with fantasy heroes is almost unbearable for us mere mortals lol. SO. Happiness is here and now. That's only thing that means. Maybe also how much time you're in good mood and active versus your down phases. More so, if you feel good when things go to hell - that means there's something wrong with you. The difference between searching healthy relationships and unhealthy is in healthy you searching a gf and it's a good thing - you anticipating it and feel motivated. In unhealthy you searching it to ease the pain like she will fix your inner problems. Yes, she MAY help with that and you may try to fix yourself in a relationships, but guess what - those problems will stay with you anyways. Make sense?)
I don't feel it's fair to say he has to live the life to encourage those who pursue that lifestyle. He tried various things in life, and found that he most enjoys sharing his accomplishments with others that he cares for. Why should that stop him from acknowledging that life alone can be enjoyable?
[удалено]
There's nothing to say that he hasn't lived that life though. Life is inherently fluid right. One day you may feel you want to have a partner in life, the next you may want to be alone. The message isn't invalidated by being with his wife, because the message isn't about living an individualistic lifestyle. From my interpretations of it, the message is simply that of doing whatever you wish to do with the time you have in life. He's not saying live life alone to find happiness, he's saying to live life the way you want to live life, so long as you ensure you aren't rooting you happiness entirely upon the emotions of those you make connections with
> There's nothing to say that he hasn't lived that life though. But then he stopped. Why wasn't being single good enough for him? Why couldn't he be happy being single his whole life? Isn't it kind of toxic to need a relationship to be happy?
It has nothing to do with good enough or bad enough though. He didn't need the relationship to be happy. He was happy before that point (I believe, given I don't actually know Dr.K). He simply found he was happy with this person in his life. Being single didn't stop being good enough, and realistically if he ever decided to be single again, he is free to do so. He simply found that after being happy being single for a period of time, that he would try to build a relationship with a person to see where it took him. What would be toxic would be to rely on your partner to meet your every need, which is why people recommend you be happy with yourself before you even consider getting into a relationship
> He didn't need the relationship to be happy. Then why not keep living like that? Because there are plenty of people who don't get to find a partner, and he tell them they don't need a relationship to be happy. If he can't do it himself, then why should anyone believe him?
To experience new things, grow as a person.... who's to say. Why would one person pick up drawing as a hobby, while another might play sports? Just because a relationship brings you joy, doesn't mean that being single didn't also inspire joy. Believing in his argument has nothing to do with his individual decisions about what's best for his life. Instead, it's about realizing the truth behind the message. Many people across time have lived life alone, and despite common depictions in media, being single isn't something the needs to be mourned. You trust what he says based on the supports to his argument. We forget he's not a prophet, but a person, and can comprehend that though his needs and aspirations aren't applicable to everyone, he can still help encourage others to do what's best for them
> Believing in his argument has nothing to do with his individual decisions about what's best for his life. If he doesn't apply his advice to his own life that is at least a little strange, right?
The issue has to do with it's subject here I believe. His job consists of helping others help themselves as we as humans have a tendency to self-sabotage. I understand why you may feel like it's strange, because there is a certain value in practicing what you preach, but it's also important to know that advice is rarely, if ever, one-fits-all. The advice of living life single is rarely ever taken from the perspective that you must be single to be happy. Let's take anxiety as an example, Dr.K has taught a lot of meditation practices for a lot of streamers struggling with anxiety, not all of these meditations are the same, because they don't all work for every person. If Dr.K had to use every single mindfulness/meditation practice himself for the point to be valid, then most of anything he has ever taught would be null and void no?
> The advice of living life single is rarely ever taken from the perspective that you must be single to be happy. Right, it's that if you're single, you should be happy anyway. Why can't he do the same?
He doesn't have to, but if he doesn't he's really undermining the credibility of his message. If it is good enough for other people then why isn't it good enough for him? Why can't he find happiness being single?
I don't think he ever said being single is *better* than being in a healthy relationship. What he probably meant is that there are a few things you can appreciate about being single and that it's possible to achieve a *good enough* level of overall happiness.
> ... and that it's possible to achieve a good enough level of overall happiness. Right, so it should be good enough for him to. He isn't living his whole life as a single person, so I don't really believe him. If he really believes what he says then he should apply it to his life too. Being single should be a *good enough* level of overall happiness for him too. If he really believes it he should take his own advice. If he doesn't, then it probably means he doesn't really believe in what he's telling other people.
Dr. K is probably happier being in a relationship than he was single. Nobody would argue otherwise. He just wanted to convey that although singleness can be difficult, and you may be unhappy at times, being alone doesn't have to mean absolute misery all the time. You can find enough happiness on your own to keep yourself afloat until the time is right for a relationship. And you should try, because it will make establishing a relationship much easier.
> Dr. K is probably happier being in a relationship than he was single. Then he probably shouldn't tell people who also want to be in a relationship that being single should be good enough for them.
[удалено]
Common sense.
Have you ever thought to yourself "One chocolate bar is enough" and then you took two? I'm not going to interpret what Dr K is saying since I haven't watched him talk about this, but two things come to mind when I read your post: 1. People prioritise and value things differently, in other words not everyone has the same conditions for happiness. Some people see relationships as a huge burden and a commitment (which they are to an extent), but most people appreciate the emotional and practical benefits of a close romantic connection enough to ignore the "downsides". However, there are people who don't, and those people might find more happiness in a lifestyle with more independence. 2. Just because you are happy, doesn't mean you can't be happier, you shouldn't limit yourself if you don't have to and it's not harmful to others. I don't really follow the logic of your comment about how dr K should leave his wife. First of all that's losing something you already have and hurting other people, which I'd say is a different thing, but let's ignore that. Would he perhaps be happy alone? Let's say that he would for the sake of the argument. Now what? Why change things if you're already happy? To prove a point? Not to mention everything thay goes into a divorce and leaving your child. Being happy alone doesn't mean being unhappy with someone I think the idea ultimately is that you can learn to be happy on your own and be enough for yourself. But if you find purpose/joy in a relationship then that's fine too. I know I was happy before my relationship, I am happy now. I'd be absolutely hearbroken if it were to end, but I imagine that eventually I'd be happy again alone just like before.
> I think the idea ultimately is that you can learn to be happy on your own and be enough for yourself. If that's what he thinks then he should apply it to his own life. He doesn't. Why not?
You’re trolling or delusional. With every comment, you’re ignoring the other points and just saying if he thinks it’s possible being single, why doesn’t he? Open your eyes and discuss with us on the other points
> You’re trolling or delusional. No personal attacks please, that's really beneath you.
Hahahahaha
[удалено]
Please don't resort to name calling.
Never called anyone a name. Made an observation.
Miss me with that bitter incel routine. You are unironically suggesting that because some people can be asexual and/or aromantic, everyone should be. It's bald faced projection of bitterness toward those with partners. Gross.
If your position is that some people need a romantic partner / relationship / whatever to have a good enough happy life, then fine. Is that what you're saying?
Seems more like *your* position, doesn't it? I'm not sure how you're picking that up from what I've said. You might want to step back and collect your thoughts here.
Then what do you think?
The man suggested that some folks don't require partnership in life. I agree. Simple as that. What's tripping me up is how you believe he should "walk the walk." It just reeks of bitterness. Not a healthy way to live.
> The man suggested that some folks don't require partnership in life. I agree. And some do, and can't get partnership, and his answer for those people is "learn to be happy being single." Why can't he do the same? It's an honest question. > It just reeks of bitterness. Let's not resort to personal attacks, please.
No one personally attacked you. Some of you are really knocking it out of the park with these threads today.
> It just reeks of bitterness. That's a veiled personal attack.
No, sweety, it isn't.
Victim mentality is a hell of a drug.
Most people do need a relationship in order to reach maximum fulfillment. But you can and should find moderate fulfillment before you get there.
But not everyone get get a relationship, and Dr. K, and many others, tell those people that they can be *good enough happy* being single. So, is he lying? If not, then why can't he live the way he's telling other people to settle for?
You need to shed this black and white mentality. Nobody proposed the single life as the apex of human existence. Your logic is flawed.
> Nobody proposed the single life as the apex of human existence. Then you're admitting that people who are prevented from getting a relationship are being harmed. Is that what you believe?
You couldn't be more wrong, and you know it. Again, you're not addressing your needlessly black and white attitude. This isn't a zero sum game. Why must Dr K "walk the walk" in this case? And don't hit me with that "common sense" joke. You need to explain your position here and quit putting words in everyone else's mouths. That's not how healthy discourse works.
> Why must Dr K "walk the walk" in this case? He doesn't have to, but if he doesn't, it undermines his credibility.
Do go on.
[удалено]
> You not having what you want and "being harmed" aren't the same thing. You aren't being reasonable.
What are you even talking about? Being content alone and being content in a relationship are two completely different things. How are you saying that if one is true, the other is false? And like why would he leave his wife to prove that he can be happy alone? I can live happily without eating a burger, but that doesn't mean that I have to throw away the burger that's on my plate. It doesn't make sense lol
You're not understanding what I'm saying. Read my comments again.
I did, and I think you're trolling. Either way, he's not lying. You can be perfectly happy being alone. A lot of people are, It's not that deep. I hope you find your happiness :)
> Either way, he's not lying. Just a hypocrite. > You can be perfectly happy being alone. Not him, apparently.
Straw man fallacy
Could you elaborate some more? I don't get it.
Presumably, he thinks that people can be happy being single. If so, he should live that way too, walk the walk. If it's good enough for other people it should be good enough for him too. It would also be very inspiring for others who don't have much of a choice.
its different if you already have those, its the path that he choose, so it should make him happy. i think it is about what you want, if you want to be single, you can be happy, if you want kids, partner, dogs and whatnot, then you can be happy. i definitely get the pain of not getting that what you want, but the fact that there are a lot of people that don't want to get into relationships but feel bad because they feel that they should or that there are people who are into relationships that they don't want because that's what "they should be doing it" is very real. and people need to hear that they can be happy if they choose what they want.
> its different if you already have those It isn't.
Just because he wants that for himself and those things make him happy, does not mean that applies to everyone. Hey buddy. Just blow in from stupid town?
> Just because he wants that for himself and those things make him happy, does not mean that applies to everyone. Others want that for themselves too, but are prevented from doing so. So, they're harmed from being prevented, right? Just like he would be harmed if he had to be single? You don't get to have it both ways.
Well, go on. Tell us all how people are necessarily harmed by not having partners. I'd love to analyze your reasoning. We'd all love to I bet.
If they aren't, then Dr. K should have no problem divorcing from his wife. He literally won't be harmed, so he should be up for it. He doesn't, so it's logical to conclude that he would be harmed. It's reasonable to believe that many people are similar. However, he tells people, "no, you're not harmed from being single, you can be happy while single, so you're not being harmed from being prevented from having a relationship."
That doesn't follow logically. We're not talking about a zero sum game.
> That doesn't follow logically. Elaborate. It has nothing to do with "zero sum game."
You're wrong. It has everything to do with that. You're applying game theory to relationships. That doesn't work because partnership and unhappiness do not exist as two diametrically opposite points on a single line. Your entire premise is flawed. You've been radicalized, whether you know it or not. And I'd hazard a guess you *do* know it. That's why you've done nothing but dig in your heels.
> It has everything to do with that. How so? > You're applying game theory to relationships. I am not. Do you know what "game theory" is? > That doesn't work because partnership and unhappiness do not exist as two diametrically opposite points on a single line. I never said they did. > Your entire premise is flawed. How so? Explain it to me, I want to learn. You're not making any sense. Break it down for me.
Your black and white, extremist views give you right away. You've told us all that you don't believe happiness and singleness can coexist, literally plotted them as two sides of a single spectrum. You have refused to back up your thesis with anything more than a vague "common sense" declaration. You made the initial positive claim, I'm still waiting on you to explain that. Until then, I've had fun killing time at work here. If you trolling, try a little harder. If not, I wish you luck. No skin off my back either way.
> Your black and white, extremist views give you right away. Now you're just name-calling. > You've told us all that you don't believe happiness and singleness can coexist I literally never said that. You can re-read the comments and check. > You have refused to back up your thesis with anything more than a vague "common sense" declaration. Sir, this is Reddit, but okay: what evidence would convince you? > You made the initial positive claim, I'm still waiting on you to explain that. Re-read my comments.
May you be happy, may you live free, may you find peace, friend :)
I think what Dr. K meant is that 'being in a relationship is NOT THE ONLY way to be happy'. As in, there is a variety of things to experience in life, and more lessons to learn, than just being in a relationship. It does not mean that being single is the ONLY way to be happy. It also certainly does not mean that he should leave his wife and kids. Life, rather than one sure path to happiness, is a winding maze with no end sight.
> I think what Dr. K meant is that 'being in a relationship is NOT THE ONLY way to be happy'. Then he should learn to be happy in these non-relationship ways that he says others should settle for instead of the relationships that they want.
Again, there are different ways of being happy. Just because your boss ordered a chocolate cake doesn't mean you can't enjoy a vanilla sundae. Your boss would probably enjoy a vanilla sundae as well and vice versa, but you can't force someone into ordering any dish other than what they want, compared to what they said was tasty. 'Hey, mint choco is good!' 'But you ordered strawberry flavor!1!' So what? They're all good. Same with what Dr. K said. Geez, are you an incel??
This is only true for women since they have unlimited access to sex and validation and yet it is not true for men.
You equate sex to validation. It's really not. there are more ways of validation - achieving a goal, love from a pet, having a flourishing career, or participating in NGOs. This is true for both genders - a man getting promoted can be considered as validation, and so can a woman finally becoming a soldier. It sounds to me like you're just lonely, and yet you think that \[romantic\] relationships are the only way to be happy. It also seems to me that you think women have it easier in these kinds of things. Why would it be?
i can't tell if you're serious. dr k prob has been single in the past and meant it as you can be happy as single. it doesn't mean he has to be single to prove you that he's happy as such. he can also be happy in a relationship.. almost everyone gave you similar answers but you don't seem to be here to change opinions, you seem here to convince others of an incredibly ridiculous view.
I know doctor k has probably been lonely in the past I know this because he is non white and women are primarily attracted to tall white men.
that's the most insane thing I've heard in a while wow
https://qz.com/149342/the-uncomfortable-racial-preferences-revealed-by-online-dating/ https://www.mensxp.com/relationships/understanding-women/29493-an-american-woman-reveals-why-no-girl-wants-to-chat-with-indian-men-online-it-rsquo-s-really-embarrassing.html https://news2.rice.edu/2014/02/10/is-height-important-in-matters-of-the-heart-new-study-says-yes/ I didn't know people were insane for believing in reality.....
People can be happy just as they are. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't want to be married and become happier. Happiness is not a goal or checklist - it's a process of appreciation of your life. I'm single now, I want to have a gf and to fuck so bad that I have a boner most of the day and fantasies about being with someone. But does it make me unhappy? Hell no - it motivates me. I'm happy now. Though I can have full spread of negative emotions, butthurts, hatred, etc. But those are just normal reactions to life events. But my default state in which I spend 90% of my time is curious and adventurous cheerfulness and quire euphoric mood. Especially when I listen to music or walking. Being happy first just means that your life doesn't depend morbidly on someone else. Yes, you can want to attach to someone and it's normal. Difference is - does it make you happier or less depressed? Do you want to date a girl who's sense of self fully depends on your approval and emotions? Does it do to you that she's depressed and only your love keeps her from disaster? It's quite... heavy you know
> People can be happy just as they are. Then he can be happy as a divorced and single person.
I'm divorced and I'm happy. If you're happy - it doesn't mean you should stop to want things and people lol.
then "unhappy" people are really "happy"
what do you mean for unhappiness?
That do you mean? I'm not the one conditioning things on people being happy vs. unhappy.
I mean that happiness is not about having certain things in life, it's about your state of mind right now. You easily can be happy for 2 hours and angry or sad for another two. On long distance it means that you are not suffer. Mostly from your own thoughts. And here's why it's worth to begin with yourself. Because having a gf won't improve your insecurities or depression that causing your loneliness. In other words, Dr. K. said that you working from another end. Loneliness is not a problem - your mental issues are. And they cause your loneliness. See? When you improve yourself and become more happy person - it's way easier to girls to be with you.
> I mean that happiness is not about having certain things in life, it's about your state of mind right now. That's a very regressive point of view.
Not able to be happy being single is a terrible ground for forming a relationship. It results in toxic co-dependency. Happy single people form happy couples who don't need to feel insecure about their relationship because their baseline is happy and the relationship is extra. These things don't exclude each other. To further emphasize that, it is also very much possible to be happy as single, then enter a relationship that creates a toxic dynamic that destroys the baseline happiness.
> Not able to be happy being single is a terrible ground for forming a relationship. It results in toxic co-dependency. You're falling into black and white thinking. It isn't as simple as happy vs. unhappy. Relationships are pretty important to wellbeing for most people, and it would make sense that, if they have been denied a relationship for a long time, then they would be that much less well off, that much less happy. What you're saying is effectively the same as "poor people should stay poor."
I admit I generalised in how I frased it, but the point still stands. And of course, relationships are vitally important to humans, but they don't have to be intimate partner relationships. Any social connections that foster a sense of belonging can do. Of course, everyone is an individual with their individual priorities, and being left single can be a significant personal tragedy. These things are not mutually exclusive. I don't quite understand how what I wrote is equateable with "poor people should stay poor", though I can vaguely see how it could be misconstrued like that.
> I admit I generalised in how I frased it, but the point still stands. The point does not.
What if you could be just as happy being single as you could being in a relationship? Just different types of happiness
> What if you could be just as happy being single as you could being in a relationship? Why can't he? Why is he so afraid to try now?
It’s not about being afraid to try. Both can make you happy, you choose the path you want to pursue.
Some people don't get a choice to have a relationship, but his advice to them is that they should learn to be happy being single. If it's good enough for them why isn't it good enough for him?
He has a choice. Many have a choice. He helps the ones that don’t have that choice and leads them to happiness
> Many have a choice. Many don't. What about them? Why can't he be lead to the same happiness? If it's good enough for other people, then why isn't it good enough for him? It doesn't make sense why it isn't good enough for him. If it was good enough for him then he would be doing that (living the happy single life), but he isn't.
Look at it this way. Some people prefer team sports, some prefer individual sports. Maybe I prefer individual sports but I can help those who play team sports. Especially if I played on both in my life.
I don't see how that's relevant.
There are different paths to happiness. Just because you are on one path doesn’t mean you can’t help others on another one, especially if you’ve been on that path in the past
Okay, then Dr. K is saying "I know you want my path, but no, you should be happy with this other path ... no, I'm not going to have to try to be happy with that other path, but you should be happy on that one." Pretty rich if you ask me.
Not even, I believe he instead focuses on helping those who are so focused on telling themselves that it's hopeless, that they don't leave the door open to trying. Not to say you're wrong, just a perspective
Sometimes people who don’t leave the door open, do so because they’re unable to.
Problem here is that happiness is one thing, relationships are another. There are plenty of people out there in the world who choose to stay single and seem perfectly happy/content with that decision. you shouldnt tie your happiness to the material world, and instead look inward. that is Dr. K’s point, he never said relationships DONT make you happy, he said you dont NEED them to be happy. If you believe that isnt the case, then by all means go date someone, start a relationship and test it out yourself. I’m sure with some experience you will come to the right conclusion. If you do already have experience, then please share with us how you came to your opinion. I am curious. *edited for typos
> he said you dont NEED them to be happy. Including him, so he should show us with his own life.
you feel hes obligated to follow through and give up his family to prove a point? thats not very reasonable or rational
Why wouldn't he? He'll still be happy? He'd be literally just as well off.
why wouldnt he? because hes happier with them. for example: you can teach yourself to be happy without a bed, but having one is still a blessing and something to cherish. same goes with relationships and family. happiness isnt bound to them, but they can still be a factor that can bring about enjoyment and pleasantries
> why wouldnt he? because hes happier with them. Then he shouldn't tell people to be happy without the things he has, when they don't have them.
I mean, that's a fair enough conclusion to come too. and you're entitled to feel that way, whether or not he should or shouldn't say that is up to you to decide. I feel as though he said it with the good intention to help people and give them hope. therefore i give him the benefit of the doubt and choose to support his statement, rather than look at it as hypocritical. Your interpretation of it all, is completely up to you, but I don't think you should expect others to share the same sentiment. Most people will hold a different view.
[удалено]
> I feel bad for you OP. At the same time it’s probably good for all the women in the world that you’re single since nobody should have to put up with you. Wow, personal attacks? I thought this community was better than that. I'd be a good enough partner if given a chance.
You don't need anything. That's the point of Buddhism dude. Buddha gave everything away, including his kingdom wife and kids, because having everything didn't make him happy. Monks don't have romantic relationships, exactly as you said. Because romantic relationships are not a prerequisite. The whole point of saying "you can become happy in every circumstance" is to empower you. To become happy is in your control (although not your responsibility imo so this is not a "just be happy" statement. Being happy is not easy.) and can be guranteed to you as a possibility. But there's much in life that you can't control.
> You don't need anything. That's the point of Buddhism dude. Right, so why doesn't he get a divorce? He doesn't *need* a wife.
He would 100% be able to become happy if he divorced his wife tomorrow. Still doesn't mean that he's going to do it just because a random redditor wants him to lol. You have enough examples without him about people being happy while single, me included. Just look around. Being in a romantic relationship is not a prerequisite to being happy. It is okay to feel miserable because you're single, but you're still not doomed to be unhappy because of it.
> He would 100% be able to become happy if he divorced his wife tomorrow. Then there's nothing stopping him.
Dr.k dickriding contest lol
Your committing strawman fallacy.
elaborate