Daria Ermolenko is a life coach specializing in relationships and happiness. She holds a master’s degree in psychology and manages the quality of teacher training provision at the University of Buckingham. She also writes and speaks on psychology and happiness. In this discussion, she describes her approach to coaching, which is based on reason, free will, and examining one’s ideas, feelings, and premises.

Thomas F. Walker: Thanks for joining me. Why did you decide to get into psychology and coaching?

Daria Ermolenko: Although my qualifications are in psychology, it’s important to stress that I’m a coach, not a professional psychologist. I decided to specialize in coaching because I think it’s important to think about life in ways that have a demonstrable practical benefit for human flourishing.

In psychology, we sometimes present models for people to consider that are oversimplified and out of date. The newest research in neuroscience certainly hasn’t landed in psychology yet. I think a lot of the assumptions psychologists make about the brain are completely mistaken. But if we know that a certain psychological approach leads to flourishing, such as the Positive Emotions, Engagement, Relationships, Meaning, and Achievement (PERMA) approach, why wouldn’t we try to use it to help people? Coaching is a practical way of bringing psychological research into people’s lives.

Walker: Do you have an example of how psychology hasn’t caught up to neuroscience?

Ermolenko: If you read the latest research in neuroscience, the idea that very distinct areas of the brain are responsible for certain functions is essentially untrue. It’s partially true sometimes, but if you read studies on people who have certain areas of the brain removed or damaged and how their brains adapt, and all the research on neuroplasticity, the brain is capable of essentially reassigning other areas to keep certain functions going. But if you open many of the psychology textbooks that people are using today in universities, it won’t reflect that realization. Many of these books are ten or more years old, and a lot of their content simply isn’t accurate anymore because we know so much more about the brain. In many cases, the evidence is accumulating in the opposite direction to the models that were developed by the founding fathers of psychology.

Walker: Psychology is the newest science essentially, and it does seem like it’s still in its infancy. It’s also heavily influenced by philosophy. The philosophic premises you accept, whether you accept a deterministic premise or a behaviorist premise affect your approach to it. How much would you say your philosophic ideas influence how you approach coaching and training?

Ermolenko: Well, if I were in a university exam, I would say that my philosophic approaches aren’t influencing the way that I coach clients at all, because the established thinking is that they shouldn’t affect my choice of approach. The idea is that you want to be as curious as possible—you want to study all the different fields of psychology in as much depth as you can because you want to have the choice when working with a client as to what might help him or her best. I might think that cognitive behavioral therapy approaches are too rigid, but if I’m working with someone who prefers that rigidity, who’s asking for it essentially, then that’s what I might use. Other people are more artistically inclined, more curious, more philosophic, so with them you might apply a bit more of a mix of things—you might invite them to consider a character from a novel or something abstract as a model for habit formation or behavior change. I think the idea is to know as much as you can and to be creative.

I would say that my philosophic beliefs do influence my coaching where that’s in the best interest of the client—for example, my belief in free will. That’s very controversial. But also my beliefs more specifically on the matters at hand in a particular client’s scenario do influence how I coach. That’s why we have what’s called the “chemistry session” at the start of the coaching relationship, in which we ask ourselves, “Do I have beliefs that would prevent me from working with this client with integrity?” If yes, I say, “I’m not the best person to help you. I’ll refer you to a colleague because I don’t believe that the outcome you want is in your best interest, and I can’t in good conscience help you achieve it.”

Walker: It seems to me that without free will, coaching and psychology become meaningless anyway because you can’t change anything.

I saw a psychodynamic therapist for a while, and I eventually noticed that we had a fundamental incompatibility because he had this nonjudgmental attitude almost as an axiom wherein psychology is only about understanding who you are without judgment. He would resist my efforts to try to judge and change my own behavior, ideas, and feelings. Would you say you encourage clients to question and judge themselves and treat ideas, emotions, and premises as things that can be actively shaped and controlled by people making choices?

Ermolenko: Absolutely, I believe that wholeheartedly. I wish people believed that if you don’t believe in free will, why engage in the process of therapy or coaching?

I definitely think that people can shape their feelings. People can shape how their feelings develop in response to certain stimuli and triggers, which is essentially one of the biggest parts of coaching. This is another area wherein the latest research doesn’t map on to certain schools of thought in psychology. For example, people who believe that we shouldn’t challenge feelings have a mistaken view of how feelings arise. They think feelings simply exist, that we are compelled to follow them. But if you understand that sometimes feelings arise from something as simple as the fact that the temperature of your body has changed by half a degree, and suddenly in a situation in which you would usually be very calm you’re now angry—if you’re conscious of how your feelings arise, you stop seeing them as uncontrollable.

All of what I do is about challenging people’s feelings and challenging the origins of their behavior, thoughts, and impulses, and trying to shape those in line with how they’re motivated to live. That’s the point of it all. Believing that you are in the driver’s seat of your life, able to shape it, able to shape everything that goes along with it, to me is fundamental. It’s the life force that propels you because if you believe you’re passive in all of this, then why be curious? Why develop your brain? Why do anything, essentially?

Walker: You’ve hit on another philosophic premise there, which is mind-body integration. Not only do our physical sensations affect our moods, but our moods affect our bodies as well. We hold tension in our muscles. I’ve dealt with that a lot. Would you say that treating the mind as though it’s some kind of floating entity separate from physical reality is a premise that often comes up in coaching and psychology as well?

Ermolenko: I think so, but again, it depends on what the point is. If the point is to develop or disabuse yourself of certain beliefs, then treating the mind as a separate floating entity might be helpful to that particular end in a delimited way. However, if that’s the only framework you have, and you’re refusing to engage with basic science, that’s not going to work. For example, this often comes up in debates about treating depression, such as when somebody is not engaging with the basic ways to live well. If someone isn’t eating healthily, exercising, or going outside every day, then there’s no point going any further. Those are core physical ingredients that impact how the neurons in your brain interact with each other. You need a combination of everything. I think whatever issue makes logical sense to address in the moment is what professionals with integrity should address.

Walker: You ended up focusing on relationships specifically in your work. How important would you say relationships are to a person’s overall ability to flourish? Do you think they’re something we need for our happiness, or is it particular to each individual whether he or she needs a romantic partner, a big group of friends, close family connections, that kind of thing?

Ermolenko: I think so, based on what the research says and what I’ve observed with my clients: The importance of the specific number of connections you have varies in relation to people’s personalities. Clearly, some people are extroverted, and some are more introverted, but your perception of the extent to which you are succeeding in that domain is quite crucial. For example, if you want a romantic partner but you don’t have one, your opinion of your own well-being will be lower than someone who is accepting of the fact that these things take time, and you need to find the right person. It’s the expectation versus reality. At the same time, people who live longer, people who are healthier in old age, are the ones who have close, loving relationships. But I think there are individual differences, and clearly some people are self-sufficient and comfortable—if they find like-minded people they’re happy, but if they don’t, they almost would prefer to simply be self-sufficient. It’s all about identifying and managing each person’s expectations.

Walker: It sounds as though self-esteem’s the key concept here because, on the one hand, if a person’s struggling with self-esteem, he can become very dependent on other people for validation. That apparent “need” of having lots of friends or a partner can be an expression of something that’s missing internally. How does self-esteem enter into the question of how to coach people on relationships? Do you see relationships as key to self-esteem, or do you think self-esteem needs to be right first before a person starts trying to sort out his or her relationships?

Ermolenko: I think somebody’s self-esteem should ideally exist independently of his or her romantic relationships, because then you’re entering into relationships for the right reasons. I do a lot of work on self-esteem. I mainly try to point out to clients the long-term cost of relying on external validation for self-esteem, which is that they usually end up in mediocre relationships that they’re not happy with because they’ve received what they felt they needed in the immediate term, which is validation. But perhaps that real connection, that mutual respect, isn’t there. If you have low self-esteem and you’re relying on external validation, the way you come across to your partner is also influenced by that. You come across differently from somebody who is self-sufficient and would be able to be resilient should his or her partner leave. So, I think self-esteem is crucial, especially for people trying to find their path in this whole relationship game. If you’re trying to be comfortable walking in the light of the truth and identifying where perhaps things are suboptimal and need to change, then the higher your self-esteem, the more likely you are to make the right choice.

Walker: Do you find that all this is true for non-romantic relationships, such as friendships, as well?

Ermolenko: Because friendships and other relationships form earlier in life than romantic relationships, I think it’s actually much more the case with friendships. I work with certain clients exclusively on friendships, identifying, for example, what the problem is with simply telling somebody that you don’t want to go for a drink. To me, that’s really difficult to understand, so I have to be curious and ask things such as, “Why is it difficult to tell somebody exactly what you want?” Then the low self-esteem comes up, the childhood experiences, being left out at school, all that stuff that needs working through. Because we generally have more friends than we do romantic partners, the potential for self-esteem to be eroded further is even higher if you’re relying on validation from friends. In such cases, you’re inevitably going to be led to some sort of lowest common denominator there if you don’t have your own confidence and your own clear path in life and you’re merely relying on other people to pivot you wherever they wish to.

Walker: It’s almost a stereotype in psychology that everything goes back to your relationship with your mother or your father. How often do you find that that actually is a big element in why somebody’s not finding happiness in romance or in friendships?

Ermolenko: I do find that sometimes. I don’t find it as often as pop psychology suggests, but what I find is that the way people interact with their parents as an adult influences or is related to the way they interact with other adults. It’s almost like a formula, which obviously harks back to childhood. I’m interested to know why grown-up young adults who are otherwise successful and self-sufficient struggle to interact with their parents in a productive way, even when there’s been no severe childhood trauma or pathology. When they have unhealthy interactions with parents—when they lie or evade certain things to protect their parents’ opinions of them, for example—that then maps on to how they see themselves in the world as a partner, as a friend, as a colleague. I think parents are really important, and changing the way you interact with parents when you grow up is a good idea from what I’ve observed so far.

Walker: If you could give one piece of advice to a reader who’s getting started thinking about their relationships and life choices, what would it be?

Ermolenko: I would say that the easiest thing for the average person to grasp is that relationships are no different than any other domain. Because romantic relationships are carried out with one person at a time, they have considerable weight in someone’s life. Nowadays, people generally feel that they can have a variety of careers. They can pivot easily. I don’t think anyone’s worried that they have to stay in the same job forever anymore. It’s the same with friends—people can switch friendship groups or simply move. But I think with romantic relationships, we spend so much of our youth waiting to find that good relationship that’s going to carry on, and when we find a relationship of any kind, we almost want to put it into that category regardless of whether it truly fits.

Most of the work I do with clients is disabusing them of the notion that they should stay in a relationship that’s mediocre, one in which there’s loads of compromise. They would describe it as hard work, for example, when there’s underlying resentment but nothing’s radically wrong—most people would consider that to be a good relationship. But I have to explain to them that that mediocrity, that lack of self-actualization you feel, the lack of respect you feel for each other on a deep, mental level—that is enough for that relationship not to be healthy, because you’re engaging in it to the detriment of all other opportunities in a way that you’re not with friends or family or colleagues. So, the idea is to spot that mediocrity and analyze it and ask, “Why are you content in a situation in which you don’t want to invest in the relationship? In which it’s not driven by a positive impulse, but it’s a burden?” I investigate that and try to give people the tools they need to feel confident enough to walk away from situations like that so they can find ones in which they’re flourishing.

Walker: I find that a lot of people, especially in older generations such as Generation X and higher, tend to settle and compromise with somebody who’s clearly not their ideal. Do you find that people are so driven to find a partner that they will not wait and will choose security, stability, and validation over taking the time to find somebody who’s right for you? Which, if you’re an interesting and complex person, often requires looking overseas, looking in specific places; it requires being really patient and willing to search. You’re not going to find that person in your office, which I think a lot of people expect to.

Ermolenko: Yes, absolutely. It’s almost as if we may as well not be in the twenty-first century because people really do settle so quickly. Even though they don’t make things official quickly, and the social norms have changed, it may as well still be like it was in the past. The story I often hear (and, of course, the people I talk to have relationships that are mainly suboptimal because otherwise they wouldn’t come to a relationship coach, so you have to take what I say with a pinch of salt) is, “If there’s no reason not to, I will take the next step. If there’s no reason not to go on the second date, I’ll go on the second date. If there’s no reason not to make things official, I will.” There’s this passivity. Rather than it being a conscious choice to move toward something that they value, they’re thinking, “Well, I should be in a relationship, and there’s nothing wrong with this one. We only argue every night, but that’s OK because everyone else does that; my friend Sally and her partner do that, too.” But that’s merely because she wants to believe that she’s also in the right. People validate each other in this wrongness, and I’m trying to fight against it as best I can and equip people with self-esteem. They need to be able to exist outside of the romantic relationship realm until there’s a reason to enter it, rather than the other way around—this mindset of having a relationship at all costs. Why would you want a mediocre relationship even if there’s nothing badly wrong with it? Why would you not want the best relationship you can have? I think my job is to equip people with the understanding that they can have the best relationship possible to them, but they can’t do that if they’re not in it for the right reasons.

Walker: If people are interested in finding out more about what you do, where can they find you?

Ermolenko: People can find me on Life Coach Directory and on my website, dariaermolenko.com. I offer relationship coaching based on rationality, tailored to your personal needs and situation. I always have a consultation session, and if I’m not the right person to help you, I will let you know straight away. The idea is that I will challenge your thinking. I will challenge your assumptions and beliefs. I will challenge all the advice your friends have given you before you’ve come to me, and I will try to work with you to put you on a path on which you are flourishing and in a relationship that’s fulfilling, that you are fully actively engaged in rather than passively going through the motions and simply settling. Ultimately, I try to put people in the driver’s seat of their personal lives.

Walker: Thank you very much.

She had everything she needed to become an Olympic champion. But first, she needed to quit.

In 2026, Alysa Liu became the first American woman to earn an individual figure skating gold medal at the Olympics in twenty-four years. Though her performance alone communicates a lot about her beautiful attitude t…

Read more

Author’s note: This article contains spoilers for Richard Bach’s Jonathan Livingston Seagull and for Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.1

Can a seagull inspire you to strive for excellence, intelligence, and skill? This one can.

The life of Jonathan Livingston Seagull, the eponymous bird protagonist of Richard Bach’s novella, is a powerful meta…

Read more

During his brief but influential career, actor James Dean starred in three acclaimed films that left an indelible mark on the movie industry: East of Eden, Rebel Without a Cause, and Giant. Becoming the caliber of actor who was able to do this took a lot of work and inspiration. In the early 1950s, on the re…

Read more

From everyone at The Objective Standard to everyone who thinks, produces, trades, and thereby creates the values on which human life and happiness depend: Thank you.

Thank you, profit-seeking businessmen, for producing and selling everything from groceries to computers to automobiles to electricity. Your work—although often condemned—is, in fact, supremely noble and heroic.

Thank you, scientists and engineers, for discovering and harnessing the elements and laws of nature, thus making possible the countless processes and goods—from air-conditioning to chemotherapy to fracking to fighter jets—that enable us to live and flourish.

Thank you, rational philosophers (especially Aristotle and Ayn Rand), for discovering, clarifying, and communicating crucial facts about the nature of reality, of knowledge, and of the good. Without your thought and work, people would still be in the Dark Ages.

Thank you, American Founders, for establishing a country based on the principle of individual rights and infused with checks and balances that have kept even the barbarians within our gates substantially at bay.

Thank you, rational economists, for elucidating the nature of free markets; the social conditions required for maximal production, trade, and prosperity; and the practicality of capitalism.

Thank you, rational parents, for raising your children with logic and love, and encouraging them to choose and pursue their own creative aims and courses in life.

Thank you, rational teachers, for helping students to learn the essential skills and facts they need in order to become life-loving, independent adults.

Thank you, rational workers of all stripes, for providing the countless specialized services—from janitorial to managerial—that make production and trade possible.

Thank you, military men and women, for protecting the innocent, defending freedom, and eliminating the savages who seek to kill us.

Thank you, rational artists, for producing great literature, movies, music, and all the arts that challenge our minds and fuel our souls.

And thank you readers of TOS for your business and support; we couldn’t do what we do without you.

Have a wonderful, joy-filled Thanksgiving.

Author’s Note: This article is adapted from a talk given at LevelUp 2025 in Orlando.

Read more

Author’s Note: This interview is an excerpt from an episode of the Reason for Living podcast.

Read more

Austin, TX: Greenleaf, 2025
300pp., $24.95 (hardcover)

If one of your close friends offered you a large sum of money specifically for the purpose of maximizing your happiness and asked only for a detailed plan of how you’d spend it, what would you come up with?

This is the offer education entrepreneur Carl Barney extended to the people who have added signi…

Read more

Thomas Walker-Werth, the managing editor of this journal, has written a clear, practical guide for living a wonderful life.

(Full disclosure: I not only employ Walker-Werth at both The Objective Standard and Objective Standard Institute; he is also a dear friend. Nevertheless, this review expresses my objective assessment of his book.)

Eschewing the vague…

Read more

Author’s note: This is chapter 6 of my book Reason for Living: A Rational Approach to Living Your Best Life (Reason for Living Ltd., 2025). The book is a guide to using reason to identify your values, achieve your goals, and live a flourishing life.

“Virtue is an active condition.” —Aristotle

If building a better life for yourself according to a rational …

Read more

I’ll just come out and say it: I love trains.

Needless to say, growing up with such an interest, I was the victim of a great deal of bullying. At school, other kids shouted “choo-choo” when they saw me, called me Thomas the Tank Engine (and many worse names), made up nonexistent types of train and asked if I liked them, relentlessly pressed me on why I f…

Read more

On May 4, 2024, “Woodstock for Capitalists” took place in Omaha, Nebraska. This is the nickname for the annual meeting of shareholders of Berkshire Hathaway, the company led by legendary investor Warren Buffett. Despite being a corporate event, it’s characterized by a festive, informal, and welcoming atmosphere similar to that of a comic book convention. However, in 2024, the mood was marred by a notable absence: Charles “Charlie” Munger, Buffett’s key partner for almost five decades, had died in November 2023. Although he was much more reserved than Buffett, his influence in the business world was no less significant. In fact, Bill Gates described him as the “broadest thinker I have ever encountered.”1

A Berkshire Hathaway investor once asked Munger to sum up the secret of his success in one word. He answered, “Rationality.”2 Indeed the rationality of many of Munger’s ideas makes them useful not only for investors but for anyone—and in many areas of life, from everyday things (studying, working, sleeping) to deciding on a career path.

Munger’s Life

Munger was born in Omaha in 1924. In the early 1940s, he studied mathematics at the University of Michigan but chose to leave early to join the U.S. Army during World War II. After his military service, he entered Harvard Law School (following in the footsteps of his father, who was a lawyer) and graduated in 1948. From there, he embarked on a successful career as a real estate lawyer in California.3

Subscribe now

He met Buffett in 1959 during a dinner hosted by a mutual friend.4 In that first meeting, both men discovered how aligned their views on life and business were. Influenced by Buffett and eager to become a money manager like him, Munger decided to leave law and dedicate himself to investment management. Between 1962 and 1975, he ran his own investment firm with extraordinary results—in the first year, he earned around $300,000 (in 1962 dollars) from one real estate deal. Then, in 1978, at Buffet’s insistence, he joined Berkshire Hathaway (BH) as second-in-command, which began a collaboration that would transform the financial world.5

When Buffett acquired BH in 1960, it was a failing textile business. But he transformed it into a diversified holding company with a wide range of assets and investments. Munger added a fresh perspective to BH using an investment approach based on grasping the factors that drive the long-term market performance of a given stock, share, and other asset. This approach boosted the company’s growth enormously. In 1978, BH’s market capitalization (the total value of a company’s shares) was $819.6 million (in 2023 dollars); in 2023 it was $775.65 billion.6 In other words, in his forty-five years of comanagement, the company’s value increased almost a thousandfold.

Munger also accumulated great personal wealth. When he died, he had a net worth of approximately $2.2 billion.7 This could have been even higher, but throughout his life he donated billions to various causes he deeply believed in, such as higher education and medical research.8

What was the key to his success? The answer is value investing, an approach developed in the 1930s by Columbia University professor and fund manager Benjamin Graham.9 Munger put his own stamp on this investment approach, making it deeper and more personal.

What Is Value Investing?

Value investing is based on the premise that the market price of a security (e.g., a stock) does not always reflect its long-term profitability potential, which value investors call its “intrinsic value.”10 Unlike traditional investing, which often focuses on short-term price movements, value investing emphasizes identifying securities that are undervalued relative to their fundamental worth, providing an opportunity for long-term gains.

To determine this long-term profitability potential, investors analyze factors that strongly influence its performance and its financial statements: income statement, balance sheet, and cash flow statement. This is called “fundamental analysis.” Like a detective, the value investor analyzes these “fundamentals,” which indicate the company’s ability to generate solid cash flow.

Imagine that Walmart stock is trading at $60 a share. An investor uses fundamental analysis to determine that, based on its fundamentals, people should value the stock at about $140. The difference between this so-called intrinsic value and the current market price is the “margin of safety.” This margin would be $80 ($140 minus $60)—the amount by which the investor estimates the stock is undervalued. If he is correct, and the market adjusts accordingly, he stands to make considerable gains. A large margin of safety indicates a relatively low risk to the investor.

Understanding the margin of safety helps explain how different types of investors react to changes in stock prices. Now suppose that a value investor and a “traditional investor” both buy Walmart’s stock at $60. Then the stock falls to $50. The average investor would likely panic, seeing this as a loss. The typical value investor, however, would likely remain calm because he knows that—assuming his original valuation of $140 was correct and no drastic changes have occurred—this price drop represents a temporary loss on paper, not a permanent reduction in the stock’s “intrinsic” value. Moreover, it increases the margin of safety for any additional shares purchased at the lower price. So, the value investor might even see this as an opportunity to increase his holdings, as the stock is now even more undervalued than before.

This undervaluation creates opportunity for the investor to profit because he has acquired a share at a lower price than he believes its profitability warrants. In this sense, as Munger points out, “All intelligent investing is value investing: acquiring more than you are paying for. You must value the business in order to value the stock.”11

Value investing is about finding undervalued companies—companies whose stock price is lower than the fundamentals of its business warrants. Although some shares in the market cost less than $1 (so-called penny stocks), these are typically attractive to speculative traders looking for quick gains rather than to value investors. They do not rush to buy them because they are looking for shares in solid companies with good financial prospects or, as Munger himself said, “buying wonderful businesses at fair prices.”12

The Objectivity of Value Investing

Value investing is based on objectively understanding both the investment world and the economic role of the investor.

Shortsighted investors, particularly those unconcerned with a company’s fundamentals, often misidentify its value. Those with more foresight, especially those who grasp the underlying causal factors that drive a business’s success, can thereby capitalize on these mistakes. Whereas those in the first group are prone to succumb to the “groupthink” pressures of crowd psychology, value investors are not. Thereby, they not only profit but help to “correct” market prices. Looking at the average price over time, we can imagine that “Mr. Market” (as Graham metaphorically called it) tends to become more rational, leading to better alignment between stock prices and the real value of companies. Setting the metaphor aside, the truth is that the most rational investors cause this alignment by putting their money where the demonstrable value is—and thereby profiting.

During the 1997–2001 dot-com bubble, there was a dizzying increase in the share prices of internet companies. This phenomenon was driven by investors who—seduced by fantasies of the supposed profitability of startups based on the then-new technology of the internet—bought shares at increasingly exorbitant prices without carefully evaluating the fundamentals of these businesses. Unlike value investors, who focus on long-term stability, these investors followed a speculative approach, driven by hype and short-term profit expectations. The reality was that most of these companies weren’t able to generate stable revenue, and they soon went bankrupt. As a result, investors lost significant amounts of money and confidence, sold the stocks en masse, and thus triggered a massive market correction as the overvalued stocks crashed back down. Tellingly, Munger and Buffett stayed out of this frenzy, and time proved them right.

Munger’s Thought Method

The ability to recognize the profitability potential of a business, even in the face of market fluctuations, is not an act of random intuition. It requires a rigorous analytical approach that enables the investor to discern relevant facts from distractions. Munger developed just such a method of thinking, one that anyone can benefit from, whether or not they do any sort of investing.

Munger called this system “practical thinking,” and it is based on five elements. Although he developed it to guide his decision making in the financial realm, it offers a useful model for tackling complex problems in any area of life.13

Simplify Problems14

Munger approached problems systematically, starting with the most obvious aspects. For example, when asked for advice on achieving financial security, he would strip down the issue to its most fundamental principle: “Spend less than you make; always be saving something.”15 By focusing on this simple principle, rather than proposing complex strategies or speculative investments, Munger made the path to financial stability clear and accessible for anyone willing to follow it. As he put it, “Buffett and I don’t leap seven-foot fences. Instead, we look for one-foot fences with big rewards on the other side.”16 This strategy was key to his success, “making the world easier” for him.

It also aligns with a fundamental truth about human cognition: Our conscious minds can only handle a limited amount of information at any given time. Whether dealing with sensory perceptions or abstract concepts, individuals must focus their attention on manageable pieces of reality. The cognitive power of human beings lies in our ability to reduce a vast amount of information to a minimal set of meaningful units, which facilitates decision making.17 By tackling the simplest, most critical parts first, Munger’s method reflects this principle, facilitating decision making while avoiding unnecessary complexity.

For example, imagine someone who wants to adopt a healthier lifestyle but feels overwhelmed by the complexity of diet plans, workout routines, and wellness trends. Instead of trying to change everything at once, he could simplify the process by focusing on the most fundamental actions: Drink more water and walk thirty minutes a day. Once these habits are in place, he can gradually build on them, making long-term progress without unnecessary stress.

By breaking down problems into their essential elements, whether in finance, health, or daily decision making, Munger’s approach helps individuals take meaningful action rather than getting stuck in analysis paralysis.

Numerical Fluency

The ability to handle mathematical concepts with ease and precision and to apply them to a wide variety of situations is numerical fluency.

Numerical fluency does not require the skill of a great mathematician, but it does mean mastering the fundamentals of arithmetic, algebra, and statistics. Munger said that it was enough to understand basic mathematical operations to effectively solve most problems. In a talk addressed to BH shareholders, he explained Coca-Cola’s business model and success using simple mathematical ideas, graspable even for an elementary-school child.

Munger observed that numerical fluency helps us approach problems more clearly—leading to better decisions in all areas of life, not just in investment and business. “Without numerical fluency,” he argued, “in the part of life most of us inhabit, you are like a one-legged man in an ass-kicking contest.”18

For example, imagine you’re at the supermarket on a very tight budget, and you need to buy groceries for the week. If you have a clear idea of prices and can do quick calculations in your head, you can decide whether it’s better to buy one large bag of flour or two small ones, or whether the “3 for 2” deal really saves you money. You can also shop around at other supermarkets and estimate which is more convenient.

Reverse Thinking

Munger stated that it was not enough to think forward about problems (i.e., to look at the steps or actions that will get you from the current situation to your desired goal). For example, if your goal is to improve your health, then the steps to follow are exercise, eat better, get enough sleep, and so on.

Munger held that you should also reflect on the mistakes or situations you want to avoid. He called this “reverse thinking.”19 In an investment context, instead of focusing solely on which stocks to buy, Munger might ask: What common errors do investors make that could lead to significant losses, such as chasing speculative trends or neglecting thorough research? By identifying these pitfalls, he could steer clear of risky decisions and make more rational investment choices.

This principle can also be applied more broadly. In the context of improving your health, instead of focusing only on what you should do, ask yourself: What actions would harm my progress, such as skipping workouts, eating poorly, or not getting enough sleep? By identifying and avoiding these behaviors, you can create a more comprehensive plan for success.

Instead of adding to the excessive enthusiasm of the dot-com bubble, investors like Munger relied on fundamental analysis to evaluate internet companies. They examined whether these businesses had the financial stability and profitability to justify their skyrocketing stock prices. Applying reverse reasoning, Munger also asked, “What factors could lead to these companies failing to deliver long-term value?” The answer was clear: Despite being built on fascinating ideas, many early internet companies lacked solid financial fundamentals, making them unsustainable and highly speculative investments. For Munger, this combination of analysis and reverse thinking highlighted that investing in such companies would be a bad idea. He dedicated himself to studying them objectively, focusing not just on the reasons to invest in a company but also on the reasons to avoid it. Instead of starting with optimism about potential returns, Munger asked, “What are the reasons you should not invest in this company?” By identifying potential risks, weaknesses, or flaws in the business model, he avoided decisions driven by enthusiasm alone and ensured that only the soundest opportunities made it into his portfolio.

Routinely Use the Basic Concepts of Different Disciplines

Munger was famous for using what he called “multiple mental models.” By “mental models,” he meant the concepts and ways of thinking that people use in different fields of study.

The concepts of different disciplines are not isolated entities, but in Munger’s opinion can and should be integrated into a latticework that enables us to understand the world in general and a given area, such as the stock market, in particular.20 Such integration requires connecting and organizing ideas into a coherent, comprehensive view of the world, observing how they relate to each other and form an interconnected whole. This process leads to a deeper, more complete understanding of reality and thus a stronger ability to make good decisions.

Consider an investor who uses mental models not only from economics or finance but also from a discipline such as psychology to assess an investment opportunity from multiple perspectives. Grasping and applying insights from psychology enables the investor to understand, for instance, the emotional factors that influence investors’ behavior, such as loss aversion or overconfidence. Likewise, a journalist familiar with history could use examples from that field to improve his analysis of current events.

This latticework strategy takes advantage of the fact that knowledge is contextual and is more useful when it is integrated, as opposed to being a disconnected mass of compartmentalized information. For example, a chef who focuses solely on cooking techniques without considering the nutritional value of ingredients or the cultural significance of certain dishes may create delicious meals but miss the opportunity to promote healthy eating or provide diners with a richer experience. By integrating knowledge from nutrition, culture, and culinary arts, the chef can enhance dining experiences and make a more meaningful impact on his customers.

Similarly, a teacher who understands not only his subject matter but also principles of psychology and communication can be far more effective than one who doesn’t. A math teacher, for example, who applies storytelling techniques from literature can make abstract concepts more engaging and memorable for students. Instead of simply explaining the Pythagorean theorem with numbers and formulas, he might tell the story of ancient Greek mathematicians and how the theorem was discovered, making the lesson both educational and captivating.

Identify “Lollapalooza Effects”

Lollapalooza effects occur when multiple cognitive biases, incentives, and psychological tendencies combine, amplifying their impact. The term comes from the Lollapalooza festival, which symbolizes the convergence of diverse forces into a single event.

For instance, consider a Tupperware party. At such events, several psychological principles come into play. First, there’s reciprocity, which suggests that people are more likely to make a purchase because they feel they are engaging in a mutually beneficial exchange with the hostess. Second, liking bias plays a role; we tend to respond more positively to requests from people we like, such as friends or neighbors. Finally, social proof increases the likelihood of a purchase when we observe others buying as well. These factors combine to create a powerful influence, significantly raising the probability that you’ll make a purchase at the party.

Lollapalooza effects exemplify the complexity and interaction of multiple factors in decision making, where different psychological or environmental influences combine to amplify each other and significantly alter behavior.21 To identify these effects, look for situations where multiple biases or influences are at play simultaneously, such as social proof, reciprocity, and liking bias in the example of a Tupperware party. Once you recognize these factors, you can use this understanding to anticipate how people might behave in similar scenarios and even influence decisions in your own life—whether you are selling a product, persuading others, or simply trying to avoid being swayed by manipulative tactics. Essentially, by recognizing Lollapalooza effects, you can make more informed decisions and avoid being caught off guard by the power of multiple forces acting together.

Conclusions

Unlike many other thinkers, Munger did not leave an extensive written legacy. Our knowledge of his thinking comes primarily from his talks and from books that were written about him. Yet, his wisdom extended far beyond finance. Whether you’re deciding which car to buy, which career to pursue, or how to think more clearly, Munger’s principles of rationality, mental models, and disciplined decision making offer invaluable guidance. More than just an investor, Munger was a thinker who shaped businesses, influenced countless investors, and indirectly impacted the lives of millions. His legacy is not just in wealth creation but in the way he taught people to approach problems, decisions, and life in general.

This article appears in the Spring 2025 issue of The Objective Standard.

New York: Portfolio/Penguin, 2024
244 pp. $15.99 (Kindle)

It doesn’t take much probing to discover that in the knowledge work environment, when it comes to the basic goal of getting things done, we actually know much less than we’re letting on (12).1 —Cal Newport

In his latest book, Slow Productivity, career development expert Cal Newport aims to answer a s…

Read more

New York: Routledge, 2024

172 pp. $23.70

This book is the latest in a series called “Why It’s OK: The Ethics and Aesthetics of How We Live,” which the publisher says is intended to “offer compelling arguments for widespread and established human behavior,” as opposed to the “unpopular positions” to which many contemporary philosophers devote their energie…

Read more

Editor’s note: This piece is republished from the On Solid Ground blog at TOS’s sister organization, Objective Standard Institute.

Why do some people excel in life whereas others stagnate? Many factors are at play, but none is more powerful than free will.

We can choose to think or not to think, to exert mental effort or not to do so. That’s our fundamental choice. And choosing to think—along with choosing to act in accordance with our best judgment—are the fundamental ingredients in a successful, happy life.

Consider how this fundamental choice applies to work and the difference it makes. An allegory, told by Benjamin Hardy, illustrates the point beautifully:

A certain farmer had become old and ready to pass his farm down to one of his two sons. When he brought his sons together to speak about it, he told them: The farm will go to the younger son.

The older son was furious! “What are you talking about?!” he fumed.

The father sat patiently, thinking.

“Okay,” the father said: “I need you to do something for me. We need more stocks. Will you go to Cibi’s farm and see if he has any cows for sale?”

The older son shortly returned and reported, “Father, Cibi has 6 cows for sale.”

The father graciously thanked the older son for his work. He then turned to the younger son and said: “I need you to do something for me. We need more stocks. Will you go to Cibi’s farm and see if he has any cows for sale?”

The younger son did as he was asked. A short while later, he returned and reported: “Father, Cibi has 6 cows for sale. Each cow will cost 2,000 rupees. If we are thinking about buying more than 6 cows, Cibi said he would be willing to reduce the price 100 rupees. Cibi also said they are getting special jersey cows next week if we aren’t in a hurry, it may be good to wait. However, if we need the cows urgently, Cibi said he could deliver the cows tomorrow.”

The father graciously thanked the younger son for his work. He then turned to the older son and said, “That’s why your younger brother is getting the farm.”1

I love this allegory.

And I’ve shared it with my colleagues at Objective Standard Institute (OSI) and The Objective Standard (TOS), all of whom are “younger sons.” They don’t just do what they’re asked. They think, question, initiate, innovate. They make good things happen and get good things done. That’s why they work at these organizations. It’s why they love working here. It’s why they love working together. And it’s why whenever OSI or TOS is hiring (which is always), we look for other “younger sons” to join our teams.

If you want to be fully alive and fully engaged in living a beautiful life, bear in mind the difference between the older and younger son—and choose to be the latter.

James Clear makes a similar distinction that I find helpful as well. There are “3 Levels of Employees,” he observes:

Level 1—You do what you are asked to do.

Level 2—Level 1 + You think ahead and solve problems before they happen.

Level 3—Level 2 + You proactively look for areas of opportunity and growth in the business and figure out how to tap into them.2

Countless people fall into the first category. They operate, in effect, as robots who do what they’ve been programmed to do.

Many people fall into the second category, which, granted, is way better than the first. They do some thinking, and it makes a difference.

But why not choose to be in the third category? Why not “proactively look for areas of opportunity and growth in the business, and figure out how to tap into them”? Why not make your work life interesting, challenging, rewarding?

Why not be a younger son?

There is much more to being a younger son than making a single choice to adopt a proactive approach to work. To successfully implement that choice, you must create systems, environments, and habits that will enable you to follow through on that choice and to correct course as necessary along the way. But these too boil down to choices—choices to exert mental effort: You can choose to look for systems that work, and you can choose to implement them. You can choose to arrange your physical and social environments so that they are conducive to your success. You can choose to read books, listen to podcasts, and gather information about how to form and maintain good habits. And so on.

It all comes down to free will.

As Ayn Rand observed, free will “is your mind’s freedom to think or not, the only will you have, your only freedom, the choice that controls all the choices you make and determines your life and your character.”3

The key to being a younger son—and to succeeding in life more broadly—is to recognize that you have free will and consistently choose self-interested actions.

For more on this subject, see Ayn Rand’s The Virtue of Selfishness (New York: Signet, 1964); my article “Purpose, Value Hierarchies, and Happiness” (TOS Summer 2014); and my book Loving Life: The Morality of Self-Interest and the Facts that Support It (Richmond: Glen Allen Press, 2002). Also check out OSI’s courses on philosophy for flourishing, at ObjectiveStandard.org.

And, if you are interested in working with OSI or TOS to advance rational, life-serving philosophy, let us know. We’re always looking for younger sons.

Editor’s note: This piece is republished from the On Solid Ground blog at TOS’s sister organization, Objective Standard Institute.

Once I knew only darkness and stillness. Now I know hope and joy. —Helen Keller.

In 1882, when Helen Keller was nineteen months old, an illness left her blind, deaf, and consequently dumb. For the next five years, she lived essentially as a wild animal in the home of her loving but desperate parents, who had no idea how to deal with her condition. She was unable to form concepts (e.g., “fork” or “water”), unable to communicate thoughts (beyond wordless expressions of desire, anger, pleasure, or pain), unable to understand the world or her needs, unable to become a functional human being. Her future looked bleak. But she would go on to live a life of success and happiness.

How?

When Helen was six, her parents hired a remarkable educator, Anne Sullivan, who taught her language. Under Anne’s tutelage, Helen learned to “hear” (via the manual alphabet), speak, read (braille), and write—and she went on to graduate from Harvard University and to enjoy a happy, fulfilling career as a writer and activist.1 She argued for, among other things, equal rights for women and blacks, the legalization of birth control and abortion, and (unfortunately) socialism (about which she knew far less than we know today). On the whole, Helen lived a purposeful, fulfilling, happy life. And she did so against all odds.

The story of how Anne Sullivan engaged with Helen Keller and taught her to communicate is portrayed beautifully in the 1962 film The Miracle Worker, which I highly recommend. The philosophic significance of Sullivan’s teaching methods is examined in Ayn Rand’s essay “Kant Versus Sullivan” (in Philosophy: Who Needs It), which I emphatically recommend as well.

My focus here is on Keller’s prescriptions for loving life. She is, to my knowledge, among the few people in history to explicitly and succinctly identify the fundamental actions that an individual must take in order to flourish.

In a 1933 article titled “The Simplest Way to Be Happy,” Keller reflected on what happiness is and how to achieve it. Although I don’t recommend the entire article (its flaws include paeans to selflessness), Keller makes several incisive points:

Happiness is not the work of magic. Happiness is the final and perfect fruit of obedience to the laws of life. . . .

I know no study that will take you nearer the way to happiness than the study of nature—and I include in the study of nature not only things and their forces, but also mankind and their ways, and the molding of the affections and the will into an earnest desire not only to be happy, but to create happiness.

A happy life consists not in the absence, but in the mastery of hardships. Happiness is not for wild animals who can only oscillate between hunger and repletion. To be happy we must exercise our reasoning faculty and be conscious of our will and powers. In other words, we must have learned the secret of self-discipline. To be happy we must do those things which produce happiness. . . .

The surest proof that this is the law of cause and effect is, we may try every other conceivable way of being happy, and they will all fail.2

These truths are rich. They’re also broad and highly abstract. And Keller packed them all into a few short paragraphs. So, let’s unpack and concretize the main points, which boil down to five prescriptions. Along the way, I’ll suggest some books, movies, and TV shows that demonstrate or elaborate the core ideas and can help us to further integrate and apply them in our lives.

1. Study Nature, Including Human Nature

Nature is the environment in which we exist. It includes the raw materials that surround us, such as dirt, water, plants, and animals; the natural conditions and events that affect us, such as weather, earthquakes, and viruses; human beings, who play an enormous role in our lives; the things people create or do, which also play an enormous role; and the natural laws that govern it all.

Because we exist in nature, if we want to live and thrive, we must work to understand this place. We must observe that everything in nature is something specific; everything has properties that make it what it is; everything has a nature. This is the law of identity: A thing is what it is. (Water is water. A person is a person.) We must also observe that a thing can act only in accordance with its nature. This is the law of causality, which is the law of identity applied to action. (Water can flow but cannot walk. A person can walk but not on water.)

We can see the relevance of these ideas to our life and happiness in every sphere of concern, from material and biological to conceptual and spiritual. Raspberries, for instance, have an identity, including that they grow on bushes and are edible. Belladonna berries have an identity, too, including that they grow on bushes and are deadly if consumed. Likewise, knowledge has an identity, including that it is a mental grasp of some aspect of reality and that it enables us to think, plan, and pursue our values. To the extent that we gain knowledge of the world and our needs, we are better equipped to thrive. To the extent that we are ignorant, we are ill-equipped to thrive. Similarly, happiness has an identity, including that it is a state of consciousness that arises from the achievement of our values. To the extent that we achieve our values, we achieve happiness; to the extent that we don’t, we don’t.

The scene from The Miracle Worker in which Helen Keller finally discovers language illustrates these truths from multiple perspectives. (See the video clip below.)

Over the course of several weeks, Anne Sullivan had been spelling out words in Helen’s hand, trying to help her grasp the relationship between words and objects. But Helen wasn’t making the connection. Then, in a pivotal scene, Anne pumps water onto one of Helen’s hands while spelling W-A-T-E-R in the other—and something clicks. Helen grasps the link between the identity of the thing and the word that represents it.

She becomes ecstatic. She falls excitedly to the ground and pats the dirt, urging Anne to name this thing. Anne spells G-R-O-U-N-D in Helen’s hand. Helen spells it back. Smiling, she returns eagerly to the pump and pats it, asking Anne to name this thing. Anne spells P-U-M-P. Helen spells it back. She runs to a tree and pats it. Anne spells T-R-E-E. Helen spells it back. She runs to the stairs . . . and finally to the porch bell, which Helen rings elatedly. Her parents rush outside and hear the news. “She knows!,” Anne exclaims. Helen’s parents rejoice, hugging and kissing her . . . But Helen breaks away from her parents and feels her way back to Anne. Now, somewhat out of breath yet calm, she pats Anne, asking the name of this. Anne spells T-E-A-C-H-E-R. Helen spells it back.

This is how Helen discovered language. And by means of this achievement, she became a conceptual being, a rational being, a being capable of thinking and communicating. Consequently, she became capable of setting and achieving life-serving goals. She became capable of achieving happiness.

As she later wrote:

It would have been difficult to find a happier little child than I was as I lay in my crib at the close of that eventful day and lived over the joys it had brought me, and for the first time longed for a new day to come.3

I recall many incidents of the summer . . . that followed my soul’s sudden awakening. I did nothing but explore with my hands and learn the name of every object that I touched; and the more I handled things and learned their names and uses, the more joyous and confident grew my sense of kinship with the rest of the world. . . .

I learned how the sun and the rain make to grow out of the ground every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food, how birds build their nests and live and thrive from land to land, how the squirrel, the deer, the lion and every other creature finds food and shelter. As my knowledge of things grew I felt more and more the delight of the world I was in.4

Before Helen was able to identify things and conceptualize them in accordance with their natures, she was in a living hell. After she acquired this ability, and as she developed it, her days and years blossomed into a lifetime of happiness.

Grasping the natures of things and acting accordingly is fundamental to flourishing. This is every bit as true for you as it was for Helen Keller.

Do you want a career you will love? If so, you must learn about the nature of a career, its role in life, the alternatives you could pursue, and the actions necessary to create such a career. Do you want to engage in exciting or interesting recreational activities? If so, you must learn about the natures of your options, try some out, and pursue the ones that fire you up. Do you want financial wealth? Soul-fueling friendships? Deep romantic love? If so, you must learn the natures of these things and act accordingly.

This brings us to a specific aspect of nature that is supremely important to our happiness: human nature—the essence of the kind of beings that we are.

Human nature includes the essential characteristics that make us human as against some other kind of animal. The most basic characteristic that makes us human and distinguishes us from other animals is our capacity to form and use concepts: our reasoning faculty.

We perceive the world with our senses (however many we are fortunate to have), as do all animals. But we also possess reason, which enables us to mentally integrate our perceptions into concepts (e.g., “water,” “tree,” “teacher,” “happiness”), generalizations (“water is wet,” “good teachers can improve lives”), and principles (“water is a requirement of life,” “happiness is a consequence of achieving one’s values”).

By means of reason, concepts, generalizations, and principles, we can transform nature to suit our needs. This is what makes possible all of the values on which our lives and happiness depend—from agriculture, engineering, and entertainment to careers, recreation, and romance.

If we want to live and be happy, we must study nature, including human nature. We must learn the identities of things, including human beings. And we must act accordingly. (We’ll see another angle on human nature below.)

Two books that elaborate these truths in clarifying and helpful ways are Philosophy: Who Needs It and The Virtue of Selfishness, both by Ayn Rand. I especially recommend the essays “The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made” and “Causality Versus Duty” in the first, and “The Objectivist Ethics” in the second.

2. Exercise Your Reasoning Faculty and Your Free Will

We gain knowledge by perceiving reality with our senses, forming or learning concepts on the basis of our perceptions, and building an integrated network of ideas grounded in perceptual reality. This is what Helen did, first by learning concepts such as “water,” “ground,” “pump,” “tree,” and “teacher”—and then by grasping and using countless other concepts throughout her life. We are conceptual beings. Our minds work by means of concepts. And, as Ayn Rand observed, “No mind is better than the precision of its concepts.”

This points to the fact that we can err in our thinking. We can embrace ideas that are not grounded in perceptual reality, or ideas that contradict the laws of nature, such as the notion that you can achieve happiness by means of sacrificing (giving up greater values for the sake of lesser values), or that certain races are morally superior, or that socialism is conducive to human life. But insofar as we gain real knowledge, we do so by deriving ideas from perceptual reality and keeping our ideas grounded in observable facts.

Because reason is our means of acquiring and validating knowledge, it is our basic means of living and thriving. As Keller observed, if happiness is our goal, we must “exercise our reasoning faculty.”

The alternatives to going by our reasoning faculty are:

• Going by our emotional faculty, which, although vitally important to our life and happiness, is not our means of knowledge;

• Going by the opinions or expectations of others, which entails relinquishing our means of knowledge and becoming a virtual puppet;

• Going by faith, which is the acceptance of ideas that are not supported by evidence or that contradict known fact (if we accept ideas on the basis of evidence and noncontradiction, then we are going by reason, not faith).

Many people default to some mixture of these—going partly by reason, partly by emotion, partly by the opinions of others, and partly by faith. But if we want to maximize our success and happiness in life, we must recognize and embrace the fact that, in reality, our only means of knowledge is our reasoning faculty.

I might feel that I can lose weight by gorging on cake and ice cream, but that doesn’t make it so. A college professor might say that “reality is an illusion,” but if I step in front of a speeding truck, that “illusion” will kill me. Someone might have faith that “God” will solve his problems and make him happy, but if he doesn’t adhere to the laws of nature, including the law of cause and effect, his life will be a miserable mess. (More on the law of cause and effect below.)

Of course, there is nothing wrong with embracing someone else’s ideas, so long as we understand through our own use of reason that the ideas in question are true. Whatever the source of an idea, our only means of checking its validity is our own reasoning mind.

Closely related to our reasoning faculty is our free will, which is our capacity to activate our mind by an act of choice—or not to do so. Although some people deny that we have free will and claim that we are determined to act as we do by our environment or genes or other factors beyond our control, the fact is that we can introspectively observe that we have free will. We directly experience the fact that we choose either to exert mental effort, or to relax mental effort, or to cease it altogether. In Helen Keller’s words, we can “be conscious of our will.” (You can be conscious of yours right now by choosing whether to think about this fact or not to do so.) And if we want to live and be happy, we must be conscious of our will. We must acknowledge the fact that we can choose to exert mental effort or to refrain from doing so. And we must exert the mental effort necessary to understand the world and our needs so that we can achieve our goals and thrive.

We have the power of choice. We have the power to use our reasoning faculty. We can observe that we do. These powers constitute the essence of human nature. And they are our fundamental means of flourishing.

The aforementioned Philosophy: Who Needs It and The Virtue of Selfishness elaborate on the natures and uses of reason and free will. Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged is all about the role of reason and free will in human life. And Carol Dweck’s Mindset: The New Psychology of Success addresses our powers of reason and choice from a psychological perspective. Dweck focuses on the distinction between a “fixed mind-set” and a “growth mind-set,” which is essentially the difference between someone who mistakenly believes that he doesn’t have the ability to activate his mind or make a difference in his life, and someone who understands that he does have this capacity and acts accordingly.

3. Learn Self-Discipline

Life is full of options and distractions. We are constantly bombarded with alternative ways to spend our time and energy—and we can’t pursue them all. We must choose. If we want to achieve our most important happiness-producing goals, we must commit ourselves to achieving them. We must stay focused. And we must follow through.

We all know people who talk a lot about what they are going to do but never do it. “I’m going to write a book . . .”—I’m going to start a band . . .”—“I’m going to take up scuba diving . . .”—“I’m going to quit this job I hate and create a career I love . . .” People who want such things yet fail to act accordingly are wasting the one and only life they have. They are spending their time doing things that maintain the status quo and do not serve to maximize their happiness rather than doing things that could and would transform their lives from mundane to magnificent. If they continue on this course, then, one day, they will die—having never really lived.

One key to really living is, as Keller wrote, self-discipline. And the secret to self-discipline is twofold:

Essentializing your goals and projects in life so that you can focus your time and efforts regularly on what really matters most to your happiness.

Forming good, life-enhancing habits, and breaking bad, life-throttling ones.

These processes are complex and require focus and effort themselves. But if you spend some time learning about them and put your knowledge to work, you can make a lot of headway fast.

Two extremely helpful books on these subjects are: Essentialism: The Disciplined Pursuit of Less, by Greg McKeown; and Atomic Habits: An Easy & Proven Way to Build Good Habits & Break Bad Ones, by James Clear.

4. Learn to Master Hardships

In addition to being full of options and distractions, life is rife with challenges and difficulties. Occasionally it even delivers hardships that seem impossible to overcome. Hellen Keller’s story is a case in point. So, too, is Bethany Hamilton’s.

In 2003, while surfing in Hawaii, thirteen-year-old Bethany was attacked by a shark that took her entire left arm.

One month later, she returned to the water and has been surfing ever since.

If you’ve never surfed, you might not realize how difficult it would be to do so with only one arm. For an indication, consider what happens when you paddle a surfboard with only one arm. Yep. You go in circles. Now imagine paddling out through large waves—which is a prerequisite to catching one—and somehow making it to the take-off zone on the far side of where the waves break. That “somehow” is just the beginning of the difficulties involved. Then there is getting up and staying up.

Even so, after losing her arm, Bethany went on to win several major surfing tournaments and to place in many others. She also has written several books, made or participated in a few movies, and helped many other people who have suffered similar hardships. Further, she has married the man of her dreams and is raising two sons, with whom, of course, she surfs. In short, Bethany is enjoying a robust and wonderful life—which appears only to be getting better.

How has she managed to deal with such hardship and nevertheless thrive? By deciding to accept her new context and make the most of her resources, assets, and opportunities. Is this easy? No. But, as she puts it, “I don’t need easy, I just need possible.”

Like many people who pull through hardships, Bethany credits “God” for her perseverance and success. But the credit in fact all goes to her. She decided to commit to her goals. She did the thinking and exerted the effort necessary to achieve them. She made her life what it is, despite the massive hardship that life dealt to her.

When we suffer hardships, we have a fundamental choice: We can either choose to marshal all the resources available to us and work to make the best of our situation—or we can choose to do something less. For instance, if you lose your job, or your relationship fails, or your house burns down—or, god forbid, your arm gets bitten off by a shark—you can either wallow in your sorrows and wish your hardship would go away; or you can accept your new context and embrace the principle that “A happy life consists not in the absence, but in the mastery of hardships.”

Some of the best books for learning to master hardships are biographies, autobiographies, and true stories about people who have mastered them. These include Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, by Frederick Douglass; Frederick Douglass: Self-Made Man, by Timothy Sandefur; Infidel, by Ayaan Hirsi Ali; Unorthodox: The Scandalous Rejection of My Hasidic Roots, by Deborah Feldman; In Order to Live: A North Korean Girl’s Journey to Freedom, by Yeonmi Park; and Alexander Hamilton, by Ron Chernow.

Movies that portray people heroically overcoming hardships include The Miracle Worker; Bethany Hamilton: Unstoppable; Something the Lord Made (about the men who pioneered open heart surgery); Men of Honor (about the first black man to become a master diver in the U.S. Navy); and October Sk y (about a 1950s coal miner’s son who perseveres to become a NASA engineer).

Finally, I want to single out my favorite work of art in this genre, Dae Jang Geum, a TV series based on the true story of an orphaned girl in 15th-century Korea who, in the process of overcoming a constant onslaught of hardships and setbacks, rises from her servant-class beginnings to become the first woman physician to the king.

5. Recognize the Law of Cause and Effect, and Produce Happiness

Every effect has a cause (or a set of causes), and every cause has an effect (or a set of effects). In the realm of human values, this means that if we want to achieve an effect, we must enact its cause. If we want a fulfilling career, we must take the actions necessary to create one. If we want a wonderful romantic relationship, we must take the actions necessary to build one. And, more broadly, if we want a lifetime of happiness, we must take the actions necessary to make it so. (Rand’s essay “Causality Versus Duty” is all about this fact.)

Practically everyone wants to be happy. Relatively few are willing to produce happiness. But producing happiness is the only way to achieve it. And the surest proof that this is an instance of the law of cause and effect is, as Helen Keller put it, that “we may try every other conceivable way of being happy, and they will all fail.”

Happiness is a consequence of the achievement of our values. When we advance in our career, or complete a marathon, or catch a perfect wave, or begin to develop a meaningful romantic relationship, we experience some degree of happiness. And (catastrophes aside) when we pursue such values regularly—allowing that we will sometimes miss the mark—we achieve many of our goals. This process of consistently pursuing our values and goals is how we create a lifetime of happiness.

Look at the people you know (or know of) whom you regard as genuinely happy. Observe how they live their lives. Do they relentlessly pursue their values? I think you’ll find that they do. Do they occasionally fail? Yes—perhaps even frequently. But they keep moving forward. They keep leaning into life. They keep pursuing values—and happiness follows. This is not a coincidence. It is not mere correlation. It is causation. It’s an instance of the law of cause and effect.

The key here is to figure out what kinds of achievements would make you happy, and then pursue them with all you’ve got. What do you want in your life? What do you love doing? If you don’t yet know what you want or love doing, what do you like—or sort of like—or dislike least? Pursue that goal. Engage in that activity. See what happens.

Contrary to popular misconception, you do not have to be passionate about something in order to enjoy doing it or to derive happiness from it. Passion rarely if ever comes before action and experience. Action and experience almost invariably precede passion. When you take actions toward a goal, you learn more about what is involved in this particular activity. You learn what you may or may not like about it and whether this is something you might come to really enjoy. In time, you develop skills that make the activities you do start to like even more interesting and more enjoyable. This is how you begin developing passion.

It is also the road to happiness.

When you engage with the world and act to achieve goals—and when you allow for failures and setbacks along the way—you will achieve some goals, and you will experience some enjoyment. This will motivate you to engage further, to achieve more, and to reach even higher levels of enjoyment. It’s a virtuous cycle. It’s a causal cycle. Achievements cause some happiness, which psychologically motivates you to achieve more—which, in turn, causes more happiness . . . And so on. In Keller’s words, this is the process of “molding your affections and your will into an earnest desire not only to be happy, but to create happiness.”

Whatever your level of passion—or lack thereof—the key to loving life is action. Decide on a goal you might enjoy pursuing that is within your power to achieve—and dive in. Take action. Start a blog. Start a Dungeons and Dragons group. Start an online store selling T-shirts with inspiring quotations. Create an online course teaching people how to do something that you know how to do—yoga, accounting, knitting, cooking. Take dance lessons. Learn to ski, sew, or surf. Just take action. The “what” matters less than the “do” (so long as the “what” is a life-serving, rights-respecting endeavor). And the time to do it is now.

A few great books that can help you to get the ball rolling are Don’t Do Stuff You Hate, by Isaac M. Morehouse and Mitchell Earl; Forward Tilt, by Isaac Morehouse with Hannah Frankman; and I Could Do Anything If I Only Knew What It Was: How to Discover What You Really Want and How to Get It, by Barbara Sher.

Whether Helen Keller would agree with my elaborations on her five keys to achieving happiness, I don’t know. But in those few paragraphs from “The Simplest Way to Be Happy,” she identified the basic actions required for personal flourishing—and these are the same basic actions prescribed by rational egoism, the moral framework I’ve used to elaborate her prescriptions.

I love that Helen Keller left us such rich ideas to contemplate. And I love that they integrate so beautifully with reality-based, life-serving philosophy.

“To be happy we must do those things which produce happiness.” That is a law of life drawn from a lot of experience. It’s a law to live by.

You may have heard of Virgin Atlantic, Virgin Mobile, or Virgin Galactic, but how much do you know about the mastermind behind all the Virgin companies—a man whose entrepreneurial spirit earned him the nickname Dr. Yes?

Richard Branson first went into business at the age of fifteen when he started the magazine Student, despite the fact that he was dyslex…

Read more

Hertford, NC: Crossroad Press, 2019

162 pp. $21.45 (hardcover)

In the introduction to the twenty-fifth-anniversary edition of The Fountainhead, Ayn Rand wrote of man worship and the joy of realizing one’s potential, saying:

It is an emotion that a few . . . men experience consistently; some men experience it in rare single sparks that flash and die without…

Read more

My friend Joe Kroeger, a long-time supporter of The Objective Standard as well as a copyeditor and proofreader for the journal, died on October 18.

Joe was a delightful man. He was extremely intelligent, highly productive, and enjoyed a long career in the technology sector. He helped design the first microprocessors and earned two patents in the process.…

Read more

Television host Mike Rowe (b. 1962) has accrued millions of fans for his work glorifying “dirty jobs.” Novelist-philosopher Ayn Rand (1905–1982) has likewise gained millions of readers by depicting the sorts of hardworking men and women who could fit perfectly into one of Rowe’s shows. What could explain their popularity? In large part, their fans yearn…

Read more