The following shall be regarded as a methodological “Cycle of Health,” a cycle of behavior that humans happen to fall into, or can knowingly cause, that is very likely to, result in optimal health.

Statistics should be found or determined that prove this, this is simple and loop

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 1.1. De facto joining of Potentially-Increasing-Survival-Potential-Group (on whichever aspects(s) of life, you can identify or another, whether or not a specific “group” would qualify as such)
 1.2. Positive interaction with 1 or more others in PISPG
 for each of Cycle 1, after the point is completed:
 2.1. Recognition of having likely improved survival potential (on whichever aspects(s) of life)
 2.2. [(Mental/spiritual/physical/emotional/general/uncategorized) health]/[pleasure]/[happiness], just here, and nowhere else

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 So the full cycle would be:
 1) De facto joining of Potentially-Increasing-Survival-Potential-Group (on whichever aspects(s) of life, you can identify or another, whether or not a specific “group” would qualify as such)
 2) Recognition of having likely improved survival potential (on whichever aspects(s) of life)
 3) [(Mental/spiritual/physical/emotional/general/uncategorized) health]/[pleasure]/[happiness], just here, and nowhere else
 4) Positive interaction with 1 or more others in Potentially-Increasing-Survival-Potential-Group
 5) Recognition of having likely improved survival potential (on whichever aspects(s) of life)
 6) [(Mental/spiritual/physical/emotional/general/uncategorized) health]/[pleasure]/[happiness], just here, and nowhere else
 7) Go to 1.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A short form would be

As a loop
	Join, recognize good, happiness

	Positive interaction, recognize good, happiness

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(A “group” could be any kind of group, it could only be 2 people, it could be 1 million people.)

“De facto joining” would be very liberal in classification

Obviously, people and robots should operate on the basis of this.

It is currently very not-known, the relative importances of these points. So there is no statement to “do one point more than another.”

Everyone should try to maximize, to the best of their ability, all 7 points.

Point 2.2 is completely incompatible with psychiatry. The upsides of such an approach could, and should, be tested. Surely, there would
be a tremendous amount of bias and vested interest in this methodology not seeming to “work in practice,” but would this work in practice?

The answer is <b><span color="blue" size="large">YES, DEFINITELY.</span></b>

See also
	Ask this software about “ai”