How to live a Happy, Satisfying and Fulfilled Life or something....

This hub has more questions than answers.
This hub will make assertions and when called on to corroborate a position, will, instead offer opinion in place of proof.
This hub is taking the intellectual low road, making generalizations about a significant aspect of modern popular culture, barely trying to rise to a minimally acceptable level of an essayist-to-be.

Why is that considered acceptable? I would submit that it is the result of the lowering of the bar (of standards for discourse) in today's digital media. We are all in the position to put our thoughts before the world (at least in potential) and there are no gate keepers, no review panels, no editors nothing stands between my mind and the entire world ( the computer-owning, blog reading world), at any rate.

So, does that make it 'right'? Or valid or in any way valuable? Is this modern 'worldwide medium' of near instant communication another step in the evolution of human discourse, or is it a non-viable branch. An evolutionary failed experiment, like the duck-billed platypus? Undeniably cool, fun to look at if there is nothing better to do, but not a development you would expect to see growing and expanding into the future.
I will take the position that this pervasiveness of communication, however uni-directional it may be is serving a basic human need and therefore will flourish.

The basic human need in question? The desire to reproduce. Nothing more basic, more energetic, more 'I-know-its-2am-but-listen-to-this-idea-I-have' insistent.
I am basing this hub on that very thesis.
My writing this particular hub (and your reading it) is very much like the interaction between a couple after the 3rd date. Their mutual interest is acknowledged by both ( "hey I got over a 100 views each on the last two hubs, I think we really have something going on here with you") but the shared interests that will be used to build new common interests are not quite clear. There is an eager tentativeness, an excitement about what comes next tempered by the last bits of caution and reservation over the price of this particular union.

So it is with these hubs.
We have established that the common ground for the mutual interests that is forming between me and you (the imagined Reader) is the Wakefield Doctrine.
It is an interesting thing, topic, subject. And because of this I am free to reference the Wakefield Doctrine at any point that the level of interest in the topic of today's hub starts to wane. Like now...

To the topic. Why do so many people write so many words about how to live a better/happier/satisfying/interesting/fulfilling life and why do they feel that we want to read them?

Two reasons.
A) the implied reciprocity of this medium, i.e. 'I'll read yours if you read mine" (and)
2) a personality-specific drive to present ideas to others...the 'need to reproduce'

My moneys on the second reason.
The need to reproduce on an intellectual level. The drive that we all seem to have to change the world somehow, to alter the minds of the people we encounter, here in this digital world.
In a sense this site and all the other blogsites on the internet, in fact, comprise the biggest singles bar in the universe and we are all here to: hook-up, get laid, and otherwise impregnate everything/everyone else we can encounter...

(Dude! This is a serious forum for sharing ideas...come on now, salaciousness...metaphorical or any other way is still kinda...sleazy...no?)

Point taken.
If I may be allowed to try to salvage this hub, very much like when you offer to take your date to breakfast even after you have been rebuffed on every attempt to...to...to get somewhere...lets talk briefly about the what the Wakefield Doctrine tells us about the people who frequent these digito-literary singles bars that are blog-sites...

The Doctrine tells us that:

clarks will be the ones to put the most effort into writing blogs with the near-genuine interest in offering help or advice, trying to alter the lives of the Readers for the better;

rogers will be the most read among the authors of blogs and posts and hubs. By virtue of their innate 'sociability' rogers communicate in a style that is comfortable and comforting, familiar and easy to like...not much for original or creative content but they are very, very popular among Readers;

scotts well they just like to shout...literally and figuratively. Here in the blogosphere the scotts are much more likely to be found in the Comments sections than they are to be found as in the "About the Author' section. If writing blogs was a golf tournament, clarks would be Tiger Woods (at least the first 10 years), rogers would be the Fred Couples or Phil Michelson. scotts? they would be the guy who is heard yelling, "get in the hole!"