Book: The Power of Brevity

Summary by DeepSeek

The Power of Brevity

This book, "The Power of Brevity - The 101 of Reality," introduces and explains the revolutionary Great Unified Theory of Philosophy (GUTOP). The GUTOP represents a complete break from classical philosophy by providing a pragmatic model for interpreting our complex reality. It argues that traditional logic and argumentation fail in complex systems, where truth cannot be "proven" but must be navigated through an understanding of key influencing factors and their interactions.

The book's innovative method uses approximately 300 quotes from historical thinkers as efficient mental catalysts. Each quote is analyzed to demonstrate how the GUTOP model works, assessing its truth content and identifying common errors (e.g., era-specific bias, overgeneralization, or misjudging complexity). The core thesis is that our brain, driven by emotions and existing associations (the "BraiTrix Trap"), filters information to maintain happiness and coherence, often rejecting challenging truths. Real learning and philosophical progress therefore require a slow "reprogramming" of these mental associations.

The Introduction, through its analysis of quotes from Hauschka to Einstein, establishes foundational GUTOP principles: the brain's associative and emotional nature; the social conditioning of thought; the reality of the world as a complex, not "insane," system; and the necessity for flexible, non-dogmatic thinking. The subsequent chapters, as outlined in the table of contents, apply this model to diverse domains—from nature and genetics to brain science, truth, religion, society, and ethics—offering a unified tool for generating consistent, adaptable answers to life's fundamental questions.

The ultimate goal is not comfort but a clear-eyed understanding of the world as it is.

The
Power
of
Brevity

The 101 of Reality

A proverb is a short sentence,
based on long experience.

Miguel de Cervantes, Spanish writer, 1547-1616

Arndt-Michael
Meyer

Contents

1 Introduction 6

2 Nature and Genetics 16
2.1. Nature 16
2.2. Genetics 23

3 Brain and Emotion 26
3.1. Brain 26
3.2. Emotion 34

4 Truth 40
4.1. Emotional Reasons Distort Truth 40
4.2. Generalizing from All to One 50
4.3. Truth Concealed by Complexity 53
4.4. Not Everyone Has the Marshal's Baton in Their Knapsack 58
4.5. Traditional Argumentation (Before GUTOP) 62

5 Philosophy 70

6 Physics 75

7 Religion 82
7.1. Stupidity 83
7.2. The Impact of Religion 85
7.3. Emotional Desire for Religion 87
7.4. Modern Religion 88

8 Thinking 90
8.1. We Damage Our Brains 91
8.2. Analyzing Thinking Ability 96
8.3. How Thinking Works 100
8.4. False Perception 106
8.5. Thinking in Complex Systems 109
8.6. When the Question Is Too Complex 110

9 Complex Systems 113
9.1. Systematic Approach 114
9.2. Recognizing the Characteristics of Complex Systems 117
9.3. Flexibility Is Required 122
9.4. Good and Evil 126
9.5. Pragmatism 129

10 Life 132

11 Culture 140

12 Morality 143

13 Ethics 146

14 Society 153
14.1. Form of Government 153
14.2. Society's Own Dynamics 155
14.3. Economy and Administration 157
14.4. Possible or Utopian 159

15 Humor 162

16 Quotes by the Author 164

17 Index of Authors of the Quotes 166

1. Introduction

This book attempts to convey the GUTOP (Great Unified Theory of Philosophy). The GUTOP was introduced in April 2004 through the book "The BraiTrix Trap." The German translation is titled "Die Gehirn Falle" (The Brain Trap). The GUTOP represents a milestone in the way we think, specifically regarding philosophical topics and, in general, interpreting our environment.

A revolution is usually noticed. However, the revolution introduced by the GUTOP usually goes unnoticed. The reason lies in the functioning of our brain. The brain usually does not notice how it works. Only when a person understands how their own brain functions do they have the opportunity to analyze and improve their way of thinking. This is a very slow process that usually does not make people happier. Changing one's way of thinking only makes sense if we are interested in the truth. This change will only be successful if we make no a priori demands on this truth. Making no a priori demands is usually impossible for a human being.

This book undertakes this nearly impossible endeavor by interpreting approximately 300 quotes from well-known "thinkers." This approach allows the reader's brain to anchor hundreds of "images" in the brain within a very short time. The presence of these "images" will, over time, automatically and imperceptibly change existing "false" associations.

By using many quotes, one increases one's claim to scholarship, decreases one's claim to originality, and what is scholarship compared to originality? One should therefore only use quotes where one truly needs foreign authority.
Arthur Schopenhauer, German philosopher, 1788-1860

To achieve the goal of this book, we indeed need this foreign authority. But not because this foreign authority reflects the insights of the GUTOP. The reasons for using these quotes are as follows:
• The ability to present a subject matter within a few lines.
• The subject matter described by the quote is usually based on centuries of experience. Therefore, it is mostly accurate.

The selection of quotes was independent of whether they confirm the GUTOP or not. The quotes were selected to clearly and concisely explain the GUTOP based on the subject matter. Of course, the wit of the quote also played a role, albeit a minor one.

While reading this book, the reader will certainly think many times: "Why does the author have to dissect this beautiful quote and thereby destroy the magic of these words?" The author thought the same very often while writing this book.

But precisely this "human way of thinking" has prevented the world from being interpreted in a realistic manner for centuries.
Each individual can decide for themselves how much they want to be a "realist" and how much a "human." A slight schizophrenia often works wonders here, as it allows participation in both worlds.

The "perfect philosopher," however, has no choice. In the correct practice of their profession, they must never be "human." Just as an engineer should not build a gearbox out of wood due to an emotional aversion to metal, the philosopher must not be driven to a specific statement by emotional reasons in their considerations. The philosopher's sole "material" must be the truth.

The reader who expects human warmth or psychological help from reading this book will most likely be disappointed. The sole intention of the book is to explain the GUTOP. The GUTOP is the theory that explains the world in which we live. All things in the GUTOP are as they are. This can sometimes appear brutal and cold. The GUTOP does not aim to explain a specific worldview. The GUTOP is nothing other than an analysis of our "world."

A quote usually describes and interprets an observed fact. However, not all quotes represent the fact correctly.
Various errors can occur in a quote. Several errors can also appear combined in one quote.

Among others, the following major errors are made:
• The quote was made in a different era and is therefore only limited or not at all transferable to our time.
• An observation is not representative and therefore not generally meaningful.
• The model of the world that the author of the quote uses in their head does not correspond to reality. This leads to a false statement.
• The complexity of the system described by the quote is too high to be clearly described in the brevity of the quote.

In this book, each quote analysis will indicate its truth content in percentage and the type of error. Due to the imprecision of language and the complexity of reality, the truth content rarely exceeds 95%.

Although "reason" and "memory" are strongly interdependent, the following quote contains much truth.

Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory.
Leonardo da Vinci, Italian polymath, 1452-1519

This is precisely why the author chose the form of conveying the GUTOP presented in this book. A quote from an authority is presented, interpreted, commented on, and corrected if necessary. The efficiency of this approach is impressive.

The quote creates an image in the reader's mind within seconds. This image will generally not be the same but similar for different readers. It is important that this image is already known to the brain and therefore evokes many associations. Subsequently, this image is commented on within a few lines. Information can hardly be conveyed faster and better. It is important to know that precision is not the key. The key is quantity with sufficiently high quality. Additionally, the brain must know how good the quality of the information is. This helps the brain in its intuitive thinking to weight the various pieces of information.
The reader should note that the GUTOP represents a complete break with classical argumentation, classical thinking, and the classical way of learning.

What does this break consist of?

We know that when we leave simple and completely defined systems and consider complex systems, we have no, and truly no, possibility of proving anything. What we can do, and often do intuitively, is describe the interrelationships of various influencing factors. This often allows for a fairly good prediction of the system's future behavior.

The GUTOP masters this problem by pragmatically building a model of the "world." The most important influencing factors and their interactions are defined. If this model is good, it raises no contradictions and serves to flexibly generate an answer to every conceivable question. Inflexible standard behavior usually leads to poor results in a complex system.

Most books leave behind nothing but quotes. Why not just write quotes from the start?
Stanislaw Jerzy Lec, Polish satirist, 1909-1966

Absolutely right! So, let it begin.

Whoever wants to hear the truth should first be asked whether they can bear it.
Ernst R. Hauschka, German aphorist, 1926
Truth Content: 60 %
Error: Lack of knowledge about how the brain functions.

It seems as if our brain were defenselessly exposed to a lethal truth. Because Mr. Hauschka is a kind person, he recommends that the "teacher" or "narrator" ask the owner of the brain beforehand whether they want to hear this truth.

This is kind, but not necessarily necessary. The brain is so "clever" that it simply does not accept information it cannot handle. The brain does this because it does not understand the information and, in its current state, cannot understand it even with the best will.

This often useful functionality of the brain, however, is not implemented in a specific location, for example as a filter in front of the brain. This functionality results implicitly from the way a brain functions.
The brain does not store its knowledge in specific brain cells but through associations with other associations. Associations are also directly or indirectly linked to emotions. Associations are also linked to senses (eyes, ears, smell, etc.) and to executive organs (muscles, organs, etc.).

The brain is thus in constant flux. All the things we know are based on other things we know. Knowledge here is not something static. We always react to accessing knowledge in our brain in a "situation-dependent" manner.

Even when we do nothing, our brain automatically changes existing associations.
• For example, if we sit in a library and read something, this can cause increased brain activity. But we say nothing, or we speak softly, because one should be quiet in a library.
• If we heard this same information during a discussion with friends, we might voice our thoughts aloud, or stand up, or gesture wildly.
• If we heard this same information in an argument, our reaction would be entirely different.
• If we are dreaming and access this same information, our brain will also do something with this information. It will try to make a consistent picture from the "adjacent" associations. Of course, many, if not all, associations must be changed for this.

Thus, we do not know the thing (the information) itself, but we do what we are forced by our brain to do in a specific situation upon the arrival of this "thing" (information).
The most important thing a brain wants to do is to be happy. Happiness comes from the "fulfillment" or "activation" of basic emotions. These basic emotions "pull" or "push" the associations in our brain in certain directions 24 hours a day. Newly arriving associations (information) "draw the shorter straw" when they encounter too many contradictory associations.

Consequently, a piece of information has no prospect of "penetrating" the brain if too many associations are against this information. Truth is also information. If the brain rejects this truth because too many existing associations prevent the penetration of the truth, then the brain is sitting in the BraiTrix Trap (Brain Trap). It usually feels very good to sit in this trap.

Often, a truth (but also a lie) slips into a brain and gradually, over a long time, usually completely unnoticed by the owner of the brain, changes the necessary number of associations. At some point, it goes "click," and from that moment on, the owner of the brain tells everyone that they have always thought exactly that way.

The interesting thing is that the owner actually believes this. Only if they had written down what they thought before could they notice themselves that they have changed their opinion. The "transformation" or the "sneaking in" of a thought occurs so slowly that we do not notice it ourselves. The fact that the brain does not set timestamps in its way of thinking and its views usually ensures that we are unable to notice changes in our way of thinking. We often say that we have become wiser with age, but we are rarely able to clearly structure this growth of our wisdom.

Usually, people who know us notice changes in us better than we do ourselves. These people perceive the slow process of transforming our thoughts as an abrupt change in our opinion from one meeting to the next.

Few are able to calmly express opinions that deviate from the prejudices of their environment; most are even incapable of arriving at such opinions.
Albert Einstein, German physicist, 1879-1955
Truth Content: 90 %
Error: none

The environment shapes our thinking. Furthermore, people are normally "harmony beings" or social beings. That means when several opinions are expressed, a person will see the opinion that lies approximately in the middle as the correct one.

There are strong connections between thinking something (arriving at such opinions) and saying something (calmly expressing it). The most important connection is that if our environment does not consider other opinions relevant, our brain begins not to think these other opinions at all.

Here it is very important to understand that a prohibition of an opinion stimulates the brain to think about this prohibition and the opinion—often unconsciously.
Deadly for the survival of an opinion is the harmonious and latent absence of this opinion in the person's environment.

Wanting to be reasonable in an insane world is in itself a contradiction.
Voltaire, French writer and philosopher, 1694-1778
Truth Content: 60 %
Error: Misjudgment of the world as a complex system

Voltaire's problem is that he wants something from the "world," or rather from his environment, which the environment cannot give him. Every single person could perhaps be convinced by Voltaire's reason. But the world is such a complex system that it is practically impossible for the world as a whole to run harmoniously. This is true even if every single person behaved "perfectly." Life in an evolutionary world is a constant "struggle."

We can note:
• The world is not insane. The world is a complex system.
• Every single person as well as every single animal tries for themselves in their environment to follow their emotional compulsions.

Voltaire would only have had to realize how his environment functions. Then he would have had to change his behavior so that he could lead his desired "reasonable" life. If the desired (Voltaire's reasonable behavior) and the achievable diverge too far, Voltaire is of course right.
We must never make the mistake of thinking we stand at the center of the world. Our actions are influenced and limited by the reaction of our environment.

What a real professor learns already as a lecturer: To adapt the corset of his spine to the conditions of his career.
Martin Kessel, German writer, 1901-1990
Truth Content: 95 %
Error: none

This is precisely the reason why the GUTOP did not originate from academic philosophy departments. A revolution in thinking, like the GUTOP, cannot arise from brains marching in lockstep.
Of course, the reader who has not yet understood the principle of the GUTOP assumes that the person who wants to find something new can also find it by thinking. But this is not certain.

The GUTOP revolution requires a reprogramming of the brain. This is a very lengthy process. The one who takes this path first has a very hard time. For the followers, it will become easier and easier.
Note: The solution to the question of the origin and structure of the universe will most likely also only be possible through a reprogramming of the brain. The structure of the universe has nothing to do with human thought structures. Only if the brain "thinks" in a different way will it be able to find and understand the structure of the universe.
Details on this are probably not to be expected before 2010. The development of artificial intelligence expected in the distant future could make a major contribution here. Machines with artificial intelligence can be programmed much more flexibly for the necessary thought patterns. Furthermore, in such a machine, human emotions can be replaced with artificial emotions. These artificial emotions can be designed in such a way that their highest goal is to achieve the logical analysis of information. The machine is thus interested in nothing other than the truth.

Long is the way through teaching; short and effective through examples.
Seneca, Roman poet and philosopher, 4 BC to 65 AD
Truth Content: 95 %
Error: none

The reason for this lies in the functioning of the brain. For the brain to learn something, we must implant a new subject matter into the brain. This new subject matter must already contain many known associations in the brain. The new subject matter may contain only very few new and independent details. New and independent details are immediately "strangled" by old associations.

Only if a new subject matter is defined by the joint activation of various already known associations can the brain, usually unconsciously to the owner of the brain, generate the many other, still missing associations itself.
This is what real learning consists of.
Most people learn by sorting information into an already existing "framework." Real learning constantly restructures the "framework."

The youth of today love luxury, have bad manners, and despise authority. They contradict their parents, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.
Socrates, Greek philosopher, 470-399 BC
Truth Content: 95 %
Error: none

It seems to be a "law of evolution" that children contradict their parents. The question that arises is: "For how much longer?"
Can this "law of evolution" continue like this forever? It is likely that after a certain degree of freedom for children is reached in a society, this degree cannot be increased further. Education will then fluctuate around this specific degree of freedom in the future.
Fashion, music, sports, sex, drugs, and other leisure activities will hit certain limits. These limits can be pushed forward by new technologies and materials. But also only up to a certain point.

The drive of the child, as well as that of the adult, depends on their emotional compulsions. The satisfaction of these compulsions is limited and conditioned by the environment. The child tries to sound out how much is allowed to them. The older the person gets, the weaker this drive to "sound out" the environment becomes.

The completely normal genetic programming of humans ensures that they love luxury and freedom. Since parents largely determine the luxury and freedom of their children, this behavior will practically always lead to a conflict between parents and children.

In old age, one regrets above all the sins one did not commit.
William Somerset Maugham, British writer, 1874-1965
Truth Content: 90 %
Error: none

The quote is primarily witty.

But the real reason behind it is that in old age, one does not have much time left. Therefore, one lives more and more in the past. Missed opportunities are of course something sad. One has no chance to do these "sins" again.
For the completely convinced believer, however, this quote is not quite true. They have an infinite span of time ahead of them. The believer therefore does not need to "sin" against the past. They still have the whole future.

There is no great genius without a touch of madness.
Aristotle, Greek philosopher, 384-322 BC
Truth Content: 95 %
Error: none

It is of course difficult to define what "madness" is. But regardless, one can say that someone whose brain produces "ingenious," i.e., often new and not "normal" thoughts, does not only produce "sensible" thoughts.
An "ingenious" brain produces millions of associations non-stop. Most of these associations are immediately discarded. These usually do not even reach the stage of a thought, let alone the mouth or the pen (keyboard). Still, it is certain that the thoughts that tumble out of the mouth are often not yet refined.
Therefore, people who move in the vicinity of such "ingenious" people will often call them mad.

Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. But about the universe, I'm not quite sure.
Albert Einstein, German physicist, 1879-1955
Truth Content: 50 %
Error: Not all people have the same goal

If our goal is to get to the bottom of something, then this quote by Mr. Einstein is correct. But we must not make the mistake of assuming that all people derive their feeling of happiness from solving a difficult task. Most people get their feeling of happiness from things like "laughing in a group," sports, sex, drugs, tenderness, children, violence, physical exertion, physical superiority, dependency, etc.

If a person, for example in school, has experienced that there is always an "Einstein" who knows better, then this person will automatically seek other forms of attaining a feeling of happiness. It does not matter whether other people consider these other forms good or bad. The only thing that is important is whether the respective person experiences a feeling of happiness.

We can imagine that Mr. Einstein trained his brain for at least 20 years. If these 20 years of learning did not bring Mr. Einstein any joy, then he was the stupid one!
It is, however, very likely that Mr. Einstein felt great pleasure or a great feeling of happiness when his brain was working.
It would be pointless, as it cannot really be answered, to analyze whether Mr. Einstein could have chosen other forms of successful personal fulfillment.

Alternatives for Einstein could have been: playboy, athlete, movie star, teacher, construction worker, farmer, politician, soldier, pastor, etc.

For every profession, we could try to estimate how happy Mr. Einstein would have been. Had he become a successful athlete, he would have given interviews, and many viewers on television might have said to themselves:

"How stupid that Einstein is. He can only run fast, nothing else."
Einstein would have gone to the hotel after the interview.

In bed, he would have said to his attractive companion:

"Darling, I can say that I am relatively happy. At least compared to my competitors, whom I have defeated."
His companion would have replied: "That's your theory."

Thus, Einstein would have discovered the theory of relativity in any case.

2. Nature and Genetics

Over 4,000,000,000 years were necessary to impregnate practically all substances on the Earth's crust with organic matter. This presence of organic matter ensures that the eradication of "nature" without extreme external events is out of the question in the foreseeable future.
Whether humans still "roam" the Earth for another 100 or 100,000 years is irrelevant to "nature."

2.1. Nature

By allowing humans, nature has committed much more than a calculation error: an assassination attempt on itself.
Author unknown
Truth Content: 30 %
Error: Nature does not evaluate. We humans do.

Nature makes no mistake. Nature has no goal. Nature is what happens. Nature does not calculate, so it cannot make a calculation error.

Humans have defined that nature is something to do with life. Therefore, it is correct to say that humans, as natural beings, could end nature prematurely—for example, through total nuclear war.
However, humans often underestimate the strength or invulnerability of the mechanisms that led to the emergence of "nature." This stems from the fact that humans do not accept "nature" without humans as nature.
But nature could most likely also produce something "living" in a radioactively contaminated environment.
For the universe, it is all the same what happens.

When the spirit still dwelled in caves, it was unnoticed but free.
Bertolt Brecht, German writer, 1898-1956
Truth Content: 50 %
Error: Mr. Brecht believes that cavemen already had our mind/spirit.

It is a fallacy that humans thousands of years ago were free.

The caveman had to submit to the many constraints necessary for his sheer survival. He had few thoughts as we modern humans know them. Instinct prevailed.

The modern human no longer has to worry about sheer survival. However, the thoughts humans have are almost entirely determined from the outside. That means the modern human would have the external possibility of intellectual freedom, but they do not use this freedom. Intuitively, we might now think: "How stupid is this modern human." But this human is not "stupid." The human is embedded in their environment. They will usually unconsciously do and think what their environment allows.

People like Mr. Brecht would have the opportunity to think freely. They are financially independent. They are also independent of external influences. They would even be encouraged by their audience to produce new thoughts. Unfortunately, the characteristic of the human brain is a natural freedom-prevention machine. Therefore, even actually independent people do not succeed in freeing themselves from internal and external influences.

Eating and intercourse are the two great desires of men.
Confucius, Chinese philosopher, 551-479 BC

Men only have two things on their minds. Money is the other.
Jeanne Moreau, French actress, 1928
Truth Content: 99 %
Error: none

Everyone knows these two quotes are correct. However, our upbringing tells us that men must not be like that. Therefore, every human brain finds its own individual explanation or even excuse as to why this instinctive behavior is not present, and if it does arise, why it must be controlled.
Women complain most of the time about intrusive and career-driven men. However, they fail to recognize that women, when the man behaves in a career-driven and intrusive manner at exactly the right moment, will choose him as a partner. We see that in 99% of cases, the woman will perceive the man as a "selfish and horny bastard." But in 1% of cases, she will find exactly this behavior fantastic and lie at his feet.
The successful man must have the "staying power" to endure the 99 times he gets a "rejection." Because what counts is that "one time."
The "clever" man will, of course, not only try with his "beloved." That would mean he would have to wait for 100 opportunities to get a chance.

Prostitution, the oldest profession in the world.
Male popular wisdom
Truth Content: 95 %
Error: Genetic predisposition can be temporarily overlaid or repressed by cultural constraints and rational considerations.

Most people have long understood how instinctive genetic programming works. Unfortunately, this quote, as well as the whole "male/female" topic in general, arouses immense emotions. Therefore, this topic can practically not be discussed rationally.
From an evolutionary biology perspective, we can assume that the female used (and still uses today) the weapons of womanhood for practically all things she wanted to achieve. This is instinctive behavior. It can be overridden by cultural constraints or rational considerations, but usually only briefly or in the medium term. What the female does not have but wants, she will generally try to obtain by using her sexual attributes.

As always in evolution, there is a corresponding male behavior to female behavior. The man does practically everything to get his hands (and other things) on the "prostitute."
The quote is usually used by men. The man usually uses it when speaking disparagingly of a woman. But that doesn't have to be the case. As a person who walks through the world with open eyes, we can observe this female behavior practically daily. We will hardly change it, as it is our instinct that produces this behavior.

As with all instincts, this behavior naturally corresponds perfectly with the male behavior of "chasing after every skirt." If men were to stop almost losing their minds to sexual stimuli, then women would no longer gain any advantage from their "prostitution."

Thus, males and females would fight against genetic predispositions with rational means. This fight would have to be waged for so many generations until this genetic predisposition is driven out of the human genetic pool, or until perhaps males can also successfully use this strategy of prostitution. This, however, would require a totally different selection criterion in partner choice. Such a thing is practically impossible, as humans cannot change the system, which has existed for hundreds of generations, "overnight."

Only through a selection behavior that only favors females who do not prostitute themselves and males who do not respond to prostitution would, after several generations, the genetic tendency for this behavior be driven out of the human genetic pool—but never disappear completely, as it is always added (replaced) but never deleted.
In our world today, we can rule out that this happens. However, in a society where we can all satisfy our desires, including sexual ones, through virtual reality, this selection criterion could fade after many generations.

Strict moralists say: To be happy, one must banish all passions from oneself. This advice is about as good as telling someone who complains about tight boots to amputate both feet so that he no longer has any trouble with the cobbler.
Johann Nepomuk Nestroy, Austrian comedy writer, 1801-1862
Truth Content: 90 %
Error: Thoughts can, albeit rarely, condition people.

For the normal person, Mr. Nestroy is right. Passions are the driving forces in people's lives.
However, there are a number of people who have such a strong will or faith that they can cushion or even destroy all instinctive passions by linking them with learned knowledge and morality.
Usually, this only succeeds for shorter or longer periods. When a moral apostle prepares his affair, his brain invents justifications for it that deactivate the moral reasons specifically for this particular affair situation.
Anyone who doesn't believe this only needs to analyze the behavior of people whose faith or situation forbids passions. Some people last for years, others only weeks or days. Substitute satisfactions are also sought and, of course, found. The brain is very flexible when it wants to receive its desired ration of its body's own drugs.

Even if one wishes to remain virtuous, one day one discovers that the truly happy moments were those dedicated to sin.
Sacha Guitry, French writer and director, 1885-1957
Truth Content: 90 %
Error: There are, albeit very rarely, other body-own drugs.

Sin is practically synonymous with sex. The nice thing about sex is that the effect lasts a very long time. If we have had good sex, we are often willing to wait days, weeks, or months to regain this same good sex with the same person.
This behavior was very successful in human evolution. It enabled the formation of partnerships based on trust and good knowledge of the partner. Such a partnership allows for optimal upbringing of offspring.
There are also non-sinful situations that can give us a feeling of happiness. However, generally, men will more often perceive a sinful moment as a moment of happiness than women.

All living beings except humans know that the main purpose of life is to enjoy it.
Samuel Butler, English writer, 1835-1902
Truth Content: 50 %
Error: Instinct does not mean knowing.

The main purpose of a living being that is not extinct is to ensure that many strong (strong and flexible enough to survive) offspring remain after its death.
In principle, the living being does not know why it does something. Humans generally know a tiny bit why they do something.

Since the steering of successful actions by living beings is achieved through pleasure or enjoyment, the living being strives to enjoy life.

If one now looks at this living being from above, one can certainly observe that many of the living being's actions lead to a bad situation for it. But since in every, even the worst, situation, the living being strives for pleasure, it will always chase this "carrot." Thus, it is "sub-optimally" happy.

Now, humans have a really tricky situation. They are capable of thinking ahead. So their task is to understand how they can be made happy. Then they must assess their environment and their possibilities and make the right decision.

That seems simple, but it is not.
The reasons for our difficulty in finding "happiness" are:
• Happiness is not static, because happiness is used by nature as a natural "carrot."
• We do not know ourselves well enough to know exactly what makes us happy.
• The environment is so complicated that we can hardly foresee everything.
• Unfortunately, our natural "carrot," unnoticed by ourselves, influences many of our activities. These instincts delude us with spontaneous fulfillment of happiness. Whether this is achieved is uncertain. And whether this spontaneous fulfillment of happiness also leads to a lasting feeling of happiness is questionable.
The conclusion is: Humans are not so different from animals. Humans try to use their reason to predict the reactions of the environment in order to achieve their desires. Because the environment is very complicated, this is usually not crowned with success.

Persistent ill humor is an all too clear symptom that a person is living against their destiny.
José Ortega y Gasset, Spanish philosopher, 1883-1955
Truth Content: 70 %
Error: Mr. Ortega does not know how happiness is implemented in humans.

In principle, this quote is correct. If a normal person in a normal life is always in a bad mood, then a change in their life could make them happier.
However, it must be considered that there are people who are genetically (neurotransmitters) equipped with a low sense of happiness. Others simply have repeated bad luck in their lives. A few are equipped with a low sense of happiness and also have bad luck. But that is quite rare.

If we want to contribute to increasing our feeling of happiness, then we must try to change our behavior and way of thinking so that we have situations that make us happy as often as possible.
Correct in Mr. Ortega's quote is that we are unhappy when our instincts drive us to always behave in such a way that the environment gives us a negative answer. In this case, we have an instinctive behavior that is not compatible with our environment. To improve this situation, it is usually better to change the environment than to try to fight against our instinct. That is, for most people, almost impossible.

Whoever constantly lets themselves be guided by reason is not reasonable.
Charles Tschopp, Swiss aphorist, 1899-1982
Truth Content: 0 %
Error: The quote calls for reflection on our actions. However, the quote is inherently false.

One should follow one's feelings. But only if it does not lead to a situation that brings us unhappiness.
Reason is very often determined by ethics, morality, culture, and environment. If these influencing factors are too strong, then it can be that the person who lives reasonably receives little emotional satisfaction. In such a situation, Mr. Tschopp's advice is very helpful.
The true logical reason why this quote by Mr. Tschopp sounds so peculiar is, however, very simple: The quote is constructed in such a way that it is inherently false.
• In the first half of the sentence, "reason" is something unreasonable.
• In the second half of the sentence, being "not reasonable" is something reasonable.
In philosophy, this type of quote is used very often. It is very suitable for confusion and "proving" any statement.

The more men adapt to the wishes of women, the less women can do with them.
Camille Paglia, American humanities scholar and writer
Truth Content: 80 %
Error: One must distinguish between rational and emotional behavior.

If we view humans as emotional and instinctive beings, then Ms. Paglia's quote is correct. The woman will forgive her provider, protector, and father of her children practically every mistake and stand by him.
The man who does "everything" for the woman would make the woman, in her role as mediator, "unemployed." The woman would generally view such a situation with discomfort. She will feel out of place.
However, we can assume that in modern times, women also think rationally about their relationship and their possibilities in life. This rational thinking will generally lead to achieving a partnership-based coexistence. Here, the man must accommodate the woman and sometimes make compromises.
It can be assumed that emotional influences account for about 80%. Rational influences account for the remaining 20%.

We women need beauty so that men love us; stupidity so that we love men.
Coco Chanel, French fashion designer, 1883-1971
Truth Content: 99 %
Error: none

This female behavior is genetically pre-programmed. It corresponds perfectly with male instinctive behavior.
The man looks, chooses, and loves. For this, the "beauty of the woman" is very important.
The woman chooses from the men who show interest in them.
After her choice, the woman must, at least until the offspring are viable, accept the man with all his quirks. For this, the "stupidity of the woman" is very helpful.

War with women is the only one that is won by retreat.
Napoleon, French Emperor, 1769-1821
Truth Content: 80 %
Error: One must distinguish between nature and modern society.

In nature, before the introduction of moral and cultural constraints, there was no necessity for the man to retreat. If the man felt no urge to see the woman, he left her.
The woman, of course, was eager to keep the man as her "survival insurance." Therefore, she behaved in such a way that the man felt an urge to stay with her and her children. He would generally have brought food, and she would have taken care of his basic male needs.
Then came culture, ethics, morality, and social constraints. Now much changed. The man became less and less the master in the "nest." He could no longer alone decide how he wanted to behave. Society forces him to stay with the woman, no matter how the woman behaves towards him.

The woman notices that she has more freedoms and changes.

Note: The fact that there are so many quotes about man and woman shows the importance that mating behavior occupies in the human brain.

2.2. Genetics

Compared to animals, it is much more difficult in humans to separate genetic influences from learned influences. One reason for this is that our instinctive behavior can be greatly altered by upbringing. However, this also applies, albeit to a limited extent, to animals.
The main reason for the difficulty we have when trying to separate instinct and rational behavior lies in the human's ability to align their actions according to their desires.
It is very important in this context to point out that humans often do not notice that they are following an instinct. Humans often believe that they perform a specific action for rational reasons. But this is often not true. The human follows their instincts and then is presented with the "rational" reasons by the brain. These reasons are then also the reasons the human gives to their fellow humans and to themselves. "We love to lie to ourselves most of all."

Military marches - music to produce holy awe. Even chimpanzees, when they incite themselves to social attack, produce rhythmic sounds.
Author unknown
Truth Content: 95 %
Error: none

Rhythm, music, or more generally expressed "auditory impressions" sensitize our senses. The sense of hearing developed many millions of years ago as a constantly active sense that can warn us of dangers even in sleep.
This sense was then used by Homo sapiens for group formation. The sense of hearing is one of the best means to keep many members of a group together.
A well-coordinated and controlled group is extremely strong. This does not have to have anything to do with aggressiveness. Thus, communal singing leads to an increase in harmony within a group. This is good for the cohesion of a group in times of peace.
Communal noise-making, drumming, shouting is used for more aggressive actions.
One can still observe both behaviors very well in the communal life of people.

I do not believe in collective guilt. The guilty are guilty, but the children of the guilty are children.
Elie Wiesel, Jewish writer, 1928
Truth Content: 50 %
Error: Behavior and behavioral patterns are genetically predetermined.

It would be nice if we were all the same. But this is not so. Unfortunately (or fortunately), our basic behavior is embedded in our genes. We can only do a little bit against this genetic predisposition.
Our genetic predisposition, of course, was not designed for our modern life. We react to our life circumstances in a specific way. This can mean that we are gentle or aggressive. It can mean that we react quickly or slowly. It can mean that we remember things for a long time or only very briefly. It can mean that we accept an authority or that we always rebel against it.
If the parents are genetically predisposed not to submit to any social structure, then the offspring will generally also have this predisposition.
We must not now demand that a child be punished for the crimes of its ancestors. What we could do is advise this child so that it can lead a life where conflicts with the "incompatible" society are as minimal as possible. This is, of course, highly complex and therefore almost impossible.
A statistician can, of course, calculate how much higher the probability of a specific behavior of the child is, based on the examination of the genetic pool. Whether this is ethically correct or not plays no role in a scientific consideration.

When one is happy, one should not want to be even happier.
Theodor Fontane, German writer, 1819-1898
Truth Content: 50 %
Error: The pursuit of happiness is part of our genetic programming.

Without knowing how the brain functions, Mr. Fontane gives us the very good recommendation to exercise moderation.
One of our strongest emotional compulsions is to do things better in the future. This instinctive compulsion has made the human race the currently most successful race in nature. Happiness is therefore not a static quantity. Rather, the search for happiness is our drive for life.
There are now different manifestations of innate happiness perception. Those who can never have enough will generally be put in their place by their environment. They will then not be happy about that.
The "reasonable" person will use their rational thinking to control themselves and not become excessive.

Whoever is not satisfied with what they have would also not be satisfied with what they would like to have.
Berthold Auerbach, German writer, 1812-1882
Truth Content: 95 %
Error: none
The comment aligns with that of the next quote.

Whoever is sad without reason has reason to be sad.
Françoise Sagan, French actress, 1935-2004
Truth Content: 95 %
Error: none

Studies have shown that the degree of happiness is practically independent of external circumstances. So, whoever notices that they are always sad has indeed been dealt a bad hand in life.
Fortunately, we can arrange our lives so that many natural drugs are released. We only need to understand what triggers the release of these drugs in us. We then have to engage in these activities more intensively.
Activities that require the presence of other people are a bit problematic because we are dependent on these people.
Extreme sports and extreme hobbies are also activities that make us happy. They also stimulate the production of internal drugs.

The worse alternative is to pep up our feeling of happiness with external drugs. There are several reasons for this. For one, we often do not find the right measure. But it is also problematic that we usually need more and more drugs.
The best method to be happy is the constant increase of our internal feeling of happiness. This increase happens only very slowly and is usually associated with an increase in our abilities. This autonomy leads to us having many (often small) successes through our own activities. Every success is like a small dose of happiness.
All methods used to administer these drugs to the body, of course, also work in a naturally "happy" person. Thus, they always have an advantage over the "grouch."

3. Brain and Emotion

When we imagine a brain, we think that it thinks quite logically and gives us exactly the answers that are logical.

The reality, however, is that this is a fallacy. The more we engage with the structure and functioning of a brain, the more we understand that it is simply wrong to assume that we think logically.

Our brain drags us with its blind emotional pleasure-seeking in those directions that promise the most satisfaction. Conclusions like "I knew it," "yes, that's exactly what I think," "my partner or friend is right" generally lead to a release of happiness drugs. It is irrelevant whether what we think to arrive at this conclusion is logical or not.

We watch this activity of our brain unconsciously and are practically always satisfied with what our brain produces. That's no wonder, as our satisfaction comes directly from our brain.

3.1. Brain

Only modern insights into the functioning of the brain finally allow us to correctly analyze our behavior and find the reasons for it.
However, many people have correctly recognized the behavior of the brain for many thousands of years.

Every truth goes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed, then it is violently attacked, and finally it is accepted as self-evident.
Arthur Schopenhauer, German philosopher, 1788-1860
Truth Content: 99 %
Error: none

When a fundamental novelty meets a brain, the brain often cannot do anything with this novelty. There are no associations with this novelty. The brain will now store this novelty by creating associations (G). The first thing will be that something was heard that makes no sense. It will thus not be taken seriously. The novelty will therefore be "ridiculed."

In the brain, there are few associations that can support this novelty. Existing associations can be the heard words, the person who said these words, a certain relationship to a word that appears in the formulation of the truth, the sound of the words, etc.

Although few associations exist for this novelty, it is registered in the brain. Unless it is immediately displaced from short-term memory or it is perceived in a completely altered way. Each time the brain now encounters an association that addresses this novelty (G), the novelty and everything already stored in the brain (G) are compared. After some time (generally days to months), the brain will have incorporated the novelty into many of the associations. A few emotional and rational ideas that the brain has established due to genetics or experience and has continually reinforced throughout life will now "defend" themselves against this novelty or against the insights formed from the novelty. The novelty will thus be "violently attacked."

The brain will now wage this "war of thoughts" within itself. We often notice something of this war because we ask ourselves and others many questions. After some time (generally months to years, and in many cases not during the brain's lifetime), the novelty will have won.

However, since our brain sees itself as a single, indivisible object, it generally cannot recognize that it previously held a different opinion. The brain can indeed place events in time in the past. But it has difficulty remembering what it thought in the past. Therefore, it will accept this accepted novelty as "self-evident."

If the novelty was a truth, it is more likely that in the "war of thoughts" in the brain, the novelty will win. But this is not necessarily the case. Often, the complexity of the novelty is so great for the brain that the emotional "reasons" prevail.
Of course, the quote also holds for a half-truth, i.e., a statement that holds in some situations and not in others. That makes it so difficult to recognize whether it is a truth* or not.

One is always active with a certain noise. Effecting happens in silence.
Peter Bamm, German writer, 1897-1975
Truth Content: 95 %
Error: none

The brain is always working, but especially at night, the major "remodeling work" is carried out. The successful activity must be to lay the right foundations during the day and in full consciousness. The brain then, hopefully, assembles the right thought structures in dreams. But we cannot prevent our brain from building dream worlds.

It is in the nature of things to think rationally and act illogically.
Anatole France, French writer, 1844-1924
Truth Content: 30 %
Error: Misjudging the complexity of the environment and little knowledge of the brain.

At first glance, this quote appears true. In any case, the quote is interesting. When one starts to think about it, the quote becomes confusing. One doesn't even know what it wants to say.
The statement is that we think well but then do the wrong things.

Is that correct?
I would vehemently deny this.

The entire web of thinking, acting, willing, intuition, rationality, etc., is very complicated and must be broken down for analysis.
When we think, we process information that our brain has absorbed or generated itself. This thought process is subject to the emotional compulsions of our brain.

However, the thought process is also subject to the complexity of a topic. As we know, it is practically impossible to arrive at a (perfect) solution for a complex system.

Thus, our brain has arrived at a view distorted by emotions and a suboptimal answer due to the complexity of the topic.

Now we must act. The more we come into direct contact with our environment, but primarily with other people, in our actions, the harder it is to enforce the things we have set out to do.

What is interesting here is that the decisions we make in the proximity of people are usually the right ones for our spontaneous and intuitive satisfaction. That is also quite natural, because when thinking was not yet "in fashion" (more than 100,000 years ago), humans lived according to exactly this principle, and as we can see from the continued existence of the human species, our ancestors were very successful with it.

The conclusion is: With our thinking, we arrive at a suboptimal decision. When we want to enforce this decision, human, often emotional, compulsions arise. Considering these compulsions generally gives us a (short-term) good feeling and is often the best for the people involved.

Opportunity knocks more often than you think, but usually nobody is home.
Will Rogers, American writer, 1879-1935
Truth Content: 95 %
Error: funny and perfect

Here we must distinguish two fundamental situations.
The first concerns our thinking. We hear, see, and read many things. Unfortunately, our brain is so presumptuous that it presumes to pick out the "interesting" things for us. Often, however, the "uninteresting" things are the ones that are correct and could advance us.

The second concerns our human coexistence. Unfortunately, we cannot accept every opportunity we receive. For example, if we get the chance to take an interesting position abroad, choosing this opportunity would practically change everything we know. We are not as free as a diver in water here; rather, we feel like a person walking in honey.

Work is something unnatural; only laziness is divine!
Anatole France, French writer, 1844-1924
Truth Content: 10 %
Error: False view of the natural way of life of humans.

Doing something is in the nature of humans. Whether we call it work, sports, traveling, raising a family, playing boss is irrelevant. The fact is: "Humans must do something."
If a human shows laziness, they will generally not survive long. In any case, in nature, they will not be as successful as the human who pursues the normal urge to do something.

Laziness is a characteristic that can practically only develop on the back of a social society. The human learns that they get more feelings of success when they are lazy than when they are active.

For the brain, the two mechanisms are not so different. The only difference is that laziness generally benefits no one.
For this reason, due to the lack of feedback, the lazy person cannot constantly improve. Thus, their brain will become less and less capable over time.

Only the wise are in possession of ideas; most people are possessed by ideas.

Samuel Taylor Coleridge, English poet, 1772-1834
Truth Content: 80 %
Error: Also, many wise people are possessed by their ideas.

The problem is recognizing who is wise. For the observer, it is impossible to recognize whether a wise person is insisting on the truth or a "human" is possessed by an idea.
If one knew whether the person is wise, then the quote would be perfect.

If you want to build a ship, do not drum up men to gather wood, prepare tools, assign tasks, and divide the work, but teach the men the longing for the vast, endless sea!
Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, French writer, 1900-1944
Truth Content: 90 %
Error: A bit of organization is also needed.

This is exactly the success motto of humans. One does things together. If you give the group a common goal, then you do not have to constantly give instructions to everyone. The concept of a common goal is used successfully practically everywhere.

The more practical problem is that to optimize a group working according to this principle, some experienced "bosses" must be present and also accepted.

Perfection is achieved here when the optimal balance between initiative and command execution always prevails.

Humor is self-distilled mental resilience.

Sigmund Graff, German aphorist, 1898-1979
Truth Content: 60 %
Error: Humor is not only psychological help.

If one assumes that every person constantly needs mental resilience in life, then this quote by Mr. Graff can be accepted. One thus softens the harshness of life through a kind of gallows humor.
However, one must assume that a person can also be completely neutral and cheerful. In this situation, humor is then the ability to surprise oneself and others. Good humor requires a very free mind. Because only a free mind manages to produce many often strange associations.

The reason why laughter holds such a high place in human behavior could have evolutionary reasons. If we imagine that one only learns through mistakes, then one can assume that people who have an environment where they are allowed to make mistakes learn more. How can an environment encourage someone to do new or funny things?

That's quite simple. The one who does the funniest things is the most popular. Therefore, everyone will try to do new and even funnier things. Such a constellation is a perfect selection criterion.
Regardless of why we laugh, one can say that laughing is also, for physical reasons, very good medicine. Laughing together is also a very positive social activity.

Stupidity is useful more often than it is harmful. That's why the smartest people usually pretend to be stupid.
Sigmund Graff, German writer, 1898-1979

Be wiser than others if you can, but don't tell them.
Gilbert Chesterton, English writer, 1874-1936
Truth Content: 95 %
Error: none

The connection is, of course, much more complicated than these two quotes describe. But in principle, these two quotes hit the nail on the head.
Because of the importance of this fact, we must examine this topic more closely.

In principle, we can say the following:
If we consider a social group, then there is a hierarchy in this group, even if it consists of "friends." So we have a competitive situation. The brain automatically becomes attentive when a person who is below or at the same hierarchical level can do something better.

The brain will generally not, or only with great difficulty, accept that a person at the same hierarchical level can do something better.
If, however, this person does not belong to our social group, then we have less difficulty accepting their superior knowledge.

If we consider intelligence or stupidity as a quantity detached from human emotions, then we can classify people separately by subject area. We can conduct tests that allow clear statements that a person can learn or do something faster, longer, more often, etc.
If we then ask how good abilities can be advantageously used in our complicated environment, we see that, of course, the one with better abilities has advantages, but these advantages are very small in relation to advantages we can gain through fortunate circumstances in life.

The most important advantages, however, are had by the one who accurately and quickly recognizes the human component.

A big mistake is often made when a successful person is asked why they were successful. Although one is naturally more successful the better and more flexibly we react to the environment, one should not take detailed tips from these successful people too seriously. Usually, about 100 other people who showed similar behavior were not successful. That is the characteristic of complex systems. In complex systems, one cannot describe a "red carpet to success."

Except perhaps the following sentence: "Be attentive, flexible, and adapt quickly to new things."

One day, machines may perhaps think, but they will never have imagination.
Theodor Heuss, German Federal President, 1884-1963
Truth Content: 0 %
Error: Never say never

Actually, one should give this quote's truth content 1% or 2%. That would pay tribute to and respect the complexity of the human brain.

The incredibly great and very often underestimated problem of artificial intelligence, even by well-known scientists, lies in the fact that one must create a structure or an electronic machine that functions only as a whole. One can, of course, analyze and understand the components of the brain separately. But the problem lies in finding the perfect combination of all components. If even a few of the many components are incorrectly abstracted and arranged, the machine will not function at all. If this machine were to function poorly, one would at least have a basis on which to build for optimization. But in the case of artificial intelligence, the machine would not function at all. Unfortunately, one is still poking with a stick in the fog, searching for the first somewhat functional machine with human intelligence.

Therefore, it is also so difficult to give an estimate of the required time. Assuming that humans remain interested in research and invest a lot of money in these basic researches, functional artificial brains with human-like intelligence are to be expected between 2030 and 2100. As with all developments, however, there is still a lot of work and potential in fine-tuning these machines.

An important point is the following:

Even today, building a neural network is a standard technology. The neural network takes over certain functions and solves them successfully.
But today, one is not yet able to replicate, for example, the brain of an insect. Now imagine how long evolution took to produce the brain of a mammal.
But the even more difficult step is the one that turns an ape brain into a human brain.
This is about the human ability to elevate oneself above oneself and think about oneself. This is an ability that was not intended by nature. But accidentally, a growing complexity of the brain led to this "side effect" of self-reflection.

Thus, in the construction of this intelligent machine, we must hope for this accidental side effect. It does not seem possible to construct this effect into the machine.

This is a novelty in science.

Every problem allows two viewpoints: our own and the wrong one.
Channing Pollock, American dramatist, 1880-1946
Truth Content: 95 %
Error: none

The explanation is the same as for the quote below.

Memory is a strange sieve. It retains all the good about us and all the bad about others.
Wiesław Brudziński, Polish aphorist, 1920-1996
Truth Content: 95 %
Error: none

However, the brain is not a sieve. It is a net. This net only catches thoughts that have exactly the shape of the net. Other thoughts fall through until the net has changed its shape.
A change in the shape of the net can take minutes or an eternity. The change in the shape of the net usually goes unnoticed by the owner of the brain.

The more flexible this net is, the better we can analyze information that hits our brain or information generated in the brain and examine it for validity.
The shape of the net is mainly determined by our emotional compulsions. Rational thinking plays only a subordinate role.

A passionate smoker who always reads about the danger of smoking to health, in most cases stops – reading.
Winston Churchill, British statesman, 1874-1965
Truth Content: 95 %
Error: none

The brain strives for emotional happiness. For a smoker, tobacco offers this feeling of happiness. The brain will do everything to continue to get this feeling of happiness.
Things that could disturb the attainment of the feeling of happiness are usually repressed unnoticed.

3.2. Emotion

Life is a tragedy for those who feel and a comedy for those who think.
Jean de La Bruyère, French writer, 1645-1696
Truth Content: 90 %
Error: none

The one who follows their feelings will, especially in our complicated world, often be disappointed. During the decision, the person is generally happy. But regarding the effect of the emotional decision, the person will often not be happy in the long term.

The one who makes their decisions rationally may sometimes suppress their emotions in the short term, which will not provide them with a feeling of happiness. But through their rational decision, apart from individual events (bad luck and good luck), they will generally fare very well.

It is important to know that there is a fluid transition between feeling and thinking. Both come from the brain. The characteristics of the brain determine how many (rational) thoughts lie between the emotional drive to do something and the action of doing something. The principle of thinking remains the same.

The strength of character is often nothing more than a weakness of feeling.
Arthur Schnitzler, Austrian dramatist and writer, 1862-1931
Truth Content: 95 %
Error: none

If rationality predominates, then the human has great control over their emotions.

A sure friend is recognized in an unsure matter.
Marcus Tullius Cicero, Roman statesman and philosopher, 106-43 BC
Truth Content: 95 %
Error: none

Friendship was "invented" primarily to increase our success. One helps each other among friends. According to the motto: "Today I help you, tomorrow you help me."
However, if it is not certain that the friend can still help me tomorrow, then continuing the friendship does not increase my success at all.

In this case, only the emotional friend (i.e., the sure friend) would stay with me.

It is important to consider that the "friend we want to test" must have an alternative. If they have no alternative, I cannot be sure whether they are staying with me because they are my emotional (i.e., sure) friend, or simply because they have no other choice.

Both types of friendship are "real" or "legitimate." Neither is better. Emotional friendship, however, feels good in a more direct way. But it is also much harder to find and, in most modern human life circumstances, more difficult to maintain.

It is hard to find happiness within ourselves, and it is completely impossible to find it elsewhere.
Nicolas de Chamfort, French writer, 1741-1794
Truth Content: 90 %
Error: none

The reason for this lies in the fact that only our own brain can release the natural happiness drugs.
Of course, other people can also make us happy through their actions (i.e., stimulate our brain to release happiness drugs), but we are then always dependent on these people. Generally, this external stimulation of the production of happiness drugs is subject to inflation. So over time, we need more and more of it.

Another alternative is the intake of external happiness drugs. Here there is a fluid transition. Food, sugar, chocolate, coffee, alcohol, nicotine, and harder drugs are examples of common drugs.
As the quote says, it is better to have control over our own happiness.

If you feel insulted by someone, you place yourself mentally beneath them.
Eastern wisdom
Truth Content: 90 %
Error: In a "spiritualized world," the quote is correct, but unfortunately, humans do not live by spirit alone.

Let us imagine the situation where we present an argument in a group of people. A person then says that we are not quite right in the head. The group sides with the person who insulted us.
In this situation, we feel insulted because a group of people relevant to us now has a negative image of us. If we managed to eliminate this influence of other people, we would not be insulted. However, we would also no longer be a "human."

It is strange how remote a misfortune is when it does not affect us ourselves.
John Steinbeck, American writer, 1902-1968
Truth Content: 90 %
Error: none, except that it is not strange.

Humans and their genes originated when there were no newspapers, radio, or television. Therefore, humans feel according to the principle: "Out of sight, out of mind."
Only if something affects their immediate environment will it affect them emotionally. Events that are further away are perceived much more rationally and thus much less intensely.

Whoever has made a mistake and does not correct it commits a second one.
Confucius, Chinese philosopher, 551-479 BC
Truth Content: 70 %
Error: Insufficient distinction between instinct and thinking in complex systems.

Humans have a specific style of thinking and acting. We can only change this slowly. If we consider ourselves as instinctive animal beings that represent an experiment of nature, then we follow our genetic programming. If this leads to success (i.e., more offspring than the average of the population), then this characteristic will become more dominant in the gene pool.

Humans, like any other living being, can adapt. The degree of adaptation is, in turn, an evolutionary characteristic.
Humans, like hardly any other living being, can learn. According to Mr. Confucius, humans should now analyze the situation in which they behaved erroneously and have another and better behavior ready.
Is this possible?
For many situations, this is possible because they are simple, constant, and often recurring.
But what should one do with situations that are complex, change, and occur only very rarely? Here it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to follow the statement of Mr. Confucius's quote.

Never judge the value of a human quickly based on a short hour. Above are moving waves, but the pearl lies at the bottom.
Otto Leixner von Grünberg, German writer, 1847-1907
Truth Content: 50 %
Error: Generalization of a very complex connection.

What is the value of a human?
Surely, whether one likes this human or not.
The spontaneous decision of whether one likes a human or not is a judgment. The same holds for a lengthy decision.
What is interesting is that emotional reasons generally dominate rational reasons. If we have formed a more rational image of a person over a long time, it can still happen that we change our initial image.

This is due to the way complex systems function and how these complex systems are mapped in our brain. For practically every question regarding the complex system, a single person can give several answers. If one now feels drawn to a particular person, one can and will, without noticing, shift many of one's statements in the direction of achieving a mental consensus with that person.
This consensus, however, will only last as long as one feels drawn to that person.

One helps a comrade. One mistrusts a colleague. With a friend, one is silly.
Peter Bamm, German writer, 1897-1975
Truth Content: 95 %
Error: none

As always, the transitions are fluid, and people can switch between these three types.
With the comrade, one has the deal: "I help you, you help me."
With a colleague, one is in competition for the hierarchical level.
One can "smell" the friend well. It's fun to have them around. Apart from the good feeling that the friend provides, one wants nothing from them.

Animals are the best friends. They ask no questions and do not criticize.
Mark Twain, American writer, 1835-1910
Truth Content: 95 %
Error: none

Animals are emotional friends, and they do not criticize us. Besides their cuddly mood, they are also "nice" to our brain. They do not represent competition for our hierarchical sense. That is probably the main reason why we love them so "selflessly."

But then, what do you want from a true friend? That he tels you honestly what you are doing wrong and what you are doing right. An anaimal does not do this.

What is the most human thing? To spare someone shame.
Friedrich Nietzsche, German philosopher, 1844-1900
Truth Content: 95 %
Error: none

The emotion of seeing oneself in a good light is one of the strongest emotions we have. For the life of a modern human, the quote is thus true.
However, one must note that the survival instinct is far stronger. Also, physical pain is worse than vanity.

Home is not where one lives, but where one loves and is loved.
Karlheinz Deschner, German writer
Truth Content: 60 %
Error: Humans are rooted in many ways, not only through social contacts.

Generally, love will be the strongest driving force in a human's life. However, there are many things that tell us where we feel comfortable and where we are at peace. These can be the scent, the sound, the temperature, the view of a familiar environment.

Being happy is a gift of fate and does not come from outside; one must fight for it oneself. But that is also comforting, for one can fight for it.
Wilhelm von Humboldt, German philosopher, 1767-1835
Truth Content: 80 %
Error: The quote presents the matter too simply.

It is correct that external events, consumed by us in a passive form, only improve our feeling of happiness for a short time. As long as this drug works.
Therefore, every person who wants to create happiness in their own body has the possibility to increase the intensity, quantity, and frequency of the body's own release of happiness drugs.

How does that work?
We only need to find the associations that cause the release of happiness drugs in our brain, strengthen them, and change our external life circumstances so that we often and automatically stimulate these associations.

What the short quote by Mr. Humboldt does not mention is that every person, genetically predisposed, has a level of happiness drugs that is expressed with varying strength. We are—unfortunately or fortunately—not all equal.

Important: Another possibility for attaining happiness is, of course, the constant administration of external happiness. The danger here is that we often do not handle this external administration well and become excessive. If this external happiness drug is not harmful to health, then one can fare very well with it. One must, of course, be aware that one is then dependent on an external "medicine." As soon as, perhaps due to changed life circumstances, our "medicine" is no longer accessible, we will become unhappy. But one should also consider that every human is dependent on many things: food, warmth, physical contact, body care, social contacts, etc. Why not add a few more things, even artificial ones?

work in progress...