Hic Habitat Felicitas

While I Was Gone...

Hello Fellow Hedonists,

The hustle and bustle of activity that has occured since my haitus is a bit overwhelming, but I am going to do my best to cover it here:

1) Peter Clough (University of Hull), in collaboration with AQR, has shown it is possible to teach kids to be tough (which they claim you can measure using the MTQ48) and that doing so has the beneficial effects you would expect, given other research on the benefits of resilience.

2) Research on hedonic adaptation has shown that “Within a few years, paraplegics wind up only slightly less happy on average than individuals who are not paralyzed.” Recently, researchers have shown that, ironically, functionally impaired patients with diseases such as amytrophic lateral sclerosis might be depressed (and, consequently, decline life sustaining treatment) because they don't realize that having the disease won't nessecarily compromise subjective quality of life (if they accept life sustaining treatment). It was also shown that, unsurprisingly, educated patients adapt to the illness better, from a hedonic point of view (this might be surprising if you buy into the myth of the melancholic genius). 

3) Researchers from the University of Texas at Austin have shown that having strong family ties is a much bigger predictor of contentment than income. This research seems to support the jist of the Easterlin Paradox: money matters up to a point (when basic needs are met), then, other things matter more. In the words of Rebecca J. North, one of the researchers,"Our findings underscore the importance of additional policy indicators that can tap the well-being of individuals and families at the psychosocial level to provide a more comprehensive understanding of a nation's well-being." As I have argued in other places, researchers often forget that money is extrinsically valuable. If it has any influence on subjective well-being, it is probably because of how it is used.

4) It has previously been shown old people are as happy as young people. This is puzzling, in part, because old people spend more time alone, which has been shown to cause (and be caused by) depression. In the current issue of Psychology and Ageing, Bill Von Hipple has shown that "older people are just as satisfied with their social lives because they seem to get much more from the few interactions they have." In other words, the old aren't lonely because the elderly simply adapt, hedonically, to being less social than they used to be.  

5) Check out this Gallup graph. Apparently, everybody is, in fact, working for the weekend. Yet another reason to pursue a gratifying profession.

6) Previously, I have discussed the link between subjective well-being and health. A new study published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences has shown "that positive affective states are related to favourable profiles of functioning in several biological systems and may thereby be relevant to risk of development of physical illness."

7) Read this interesting how-to article on how to maintain a happy marrige (and your health, by extension).

                                                                                               Excelsior!

                                                                                               C.L.Sosis

                                      

The 'Costs' of Being Happy...

Hello Fellow Hedonists,      

                                                                                                         

A new study (The Optimum Level of Well-Being: Can People Be Too Happy?) suggests that being elated isn't good for you; moderate happiness may be preferable to full-fledged elation. The researchers, Shigehiro Oishi, Ed Diener and Richard E. Lucas, (from the University of Virginia, the University of Illinois and Michigan State University, respectively) analyzed data from the World Values Survey, "the worlds most comprehensive investigation of political and sociocultural change" as well as the behaviors and attitudes of 193 undergraduate students at the University of Illinois.

                                                                                                

A plethora of studies have shown the connection between happiness and various forms of 'success'; the happier you are the 'more successful' you'll be in terms of money, employment and relationships. Other researchers have also found that happy people are, on average, healthier than unhappy people and that they live longer. Happy people are more likely (than unhappy people) to get married, are more likely to stay married and are more likely to think their marriage is going well. They’re more likely to volunteer. They’re more likely to be rated highly by their supervisor and they’re more likely to make more money. Studies seem to indicate that happiness is the cause of these sources of good fortune, as well as the result.

                                                                                             

Happiness, however, could also cost you. It turns out that "The highest levels of income, education and political participation were reported not by the most satisfied individuals (10 on the 10-point scale), but by moderately satisfied individuals (8 or 9 on the 10-point scale)." Furthermore, the study found that 10s earned significantly less money than eights or nines. Their educational achievements and political engagements were also much lower than their moderately happy and happy-but-not-blissful counterparts.

                                                                                                                                     

These findings challenge the ubiquitous assumption that indicators of success or objective well-being increase as happiness, or subjective well-being increases. While many indicators of success and well-being do correspond to higher levels of happiness, the researchers report, those at the uppermost end of the 10 point life satisfaction scale are in some respects 'worse off' than their slightly less satisfied counterparts. It should be noted that the study reaffirms the finding that happy people are more successful in social realms, engaging more often in volunteer activities and maintaining more stable relationships.

                                                                                                                                        

The researchers predicted that moderately satisfied people might be 'more successful' in some realms than those who report being more satisfied. This prediction was based on the hypothesis that profoundly happy people may be less inclined to alter their behavior or adjust to external changes even when such flexibility offers an 'advantage'.

                                                                                                                                       

The student study revealed a similar pattern in measures of academic and social success. In this analysis, students were categorized as unhappy, slightly happy, moderately happy, happy or very happy. Success in the categories related to academic achievement (grade-point average, class attendance) and conscientiousness increased as happiness increased, but dropped a bit for the individuals classified as very happy. In other words, the happy group outperformed even the very happy in grade-point average, attendance and conscientiousness. Those classified as very happy scored significantly higher on things like gregariousness, close friendships, self-confidence, energy and time spent dating.

                                                                                             

The data, Diener argues, indicate that happiness may 'need to be moderated for success' in some areas of life, such as income, conscientiousness and career: “The people in our study who are the most successful in terms of things like income are mildly happy most of the time.” In an upcoming book on the science of well-being (Rethinking Happiness) Diener notes that being elated all the time is not always good for one’s success — or even for one’s health. Reviews of studies linking health and emotions show that for people who have been diagnosed with serious illnesses, being extremely happy doesn’t always improve survival rates, Diener said. This may be because the elated don’t worry enough about issues that can have profound implications for their ability to survive their illness: “Happy people tend to be optimistic and this might lead them to take their symptoms too lightly, seek treatment too slowly, or follow their physician’s orders in a half-hearted way.”

                                                                                       

The problem here, is obvious. Diener is defining optimality in objective terms, and in doing so, he seems to presuppose that certain states of affairs have independent value, which is to say, he seems to believe, that success (among other things) matters whether or not it undermines our subjective well-being. Does Deiner really assume that these goals are valuable even if they undermine our subjective well-being overall? He seems to assume, implicitly, that happiness is costly in certain circumstances because being happy can, occasionally, be an obstacle to achievement (for instance), which is valuable even if it doesn't make us happy. One might wonder whether we should want the things we value if they make us unhappy, that is, if they compromise our subjective well-being. In light of these studies, we might just conclude that we should, upon reflection, adjust our preferences and values (if we can).

                                                 

                                                                        Excelsior!

                                                                        C.L.Sosis

Sadness for Sale...

Hello Fellow Hedonists,

Recently, I've noticed a resurgence of articles and books that celebrate sadness. For instance, the book, The Loss of Sadness, points out that the way major depressive disorder (MDD) is defined takes no account of personal circumstances. This, of course, is patently false. Nonetheless, to diagnose a person with MDD, the person must must display at least five of the following nine symptoms over a two-week period (the five must include at least one of the first two symptoms):

1. depressed mood;
2. a lack of interest in activities;
3. change in appetite or weight;
4. insomnia or hypersomnia (excessive sleep);
5. a physical slowdown;
6. loss of energy;
7. feelings of worthlessness or guilt;
8. inability to concentrate and make decisions;
9. recurrent thoughts of death or suicide.

The authors of the book (Allan V. Horwitz and Jerome C. Wakefield) argue that these symptoms happen naturally to a healthy person after a stressful event, and without that context being specified, the authors conclude: "Contemporary psychiatry has inadvertently characterized intense normal suffering as disease."

Hyperperexia and Hypothermia happen naturally in certain circumstances, but we alleviate these symptoms because the costs outweigh the benefits. Our natural responses to a virus or infection often threaten our health. Often, our natural responses to stress also threaten our health. Arguing that we should live with these symptoms because they occur naturally is simply silly.

Mark Rapley argues that we must demedicalise misery. According to Rapley, depression is merely another word to describe being "unbearably sad, so sad that you can't leave the house and you don't think life is worth living. I call that what it is: unbearable sadness. I see nothing wrong with using substances to make yourself feel better." Apparently, psychologists are as vulnerable to silly semantic disputes as us philosophers.

When it comes down to brass tacks, it has been shown that unbearable sadness kills, and always has, no matter what you call it. So, when Rapley says, "the drug industry has made us believe that, when we feel sad, we have something fundamentally wrong with us that needs correcting" I cringe. You 'medacalise' a condition in order to understand it; in order to diagnose and treat it. One could easily argue we have a moral imperative to medacalize misery. After all, doing so can help prevent unnecessary suffering and death, which is obviously, one might argue, a morally good thing.

When an English professor lambastes the attempt to annihilate melancholia, I'm disturbed. MDD is an affective disorder and it is literally a disease insofar as it presents an immanent threat to your physical health. Positive Psychology attempts to make mentally healthy people happier. Doing so might turn out to be ocassionally misguided. So, denounce positive psychology if you will, but be aware that it might help prevent suicide, and please, consider the real world consequences of authentic misery before you compose an ode to it in order to make a buck. After all, unbearably sad people can't write books, organize conferences, or perform monologues. Often enough, truly depressed people kill themselves instead.

                                                                                     Excelsior!

                                                                                     C.L.Sosis

P.S. The Psychology of Happiness and Satisfaction blog has a post on Seligmans efforts to use positive psychology to alleviate depression.

Memento Mori...

Hello Fellow Hedonists,

According to a new study (From Terror to Joy: Automatic Tuning to Positive Affective Information Following Mortality Salience) your automatic, unconscious psychological immune system generates positive associations after you are confronted with existential dread. Apparently, these defense mechanisms help us cope with the paralyzing depression and despair thoughts of our mortality elicit. According to Terror Management Theory (which isn't merely good name for a death metal band), it makes sense from an evolutionary point of view.

I wonder if these findings can really be explained by the fact that approximately 85% of Americans are religious and, presumably, believe in an afterlife which is, I shall assume, something to be happy about. Nathan DeWall, one of the authors of the studies, seems to consider this a plausible hypothesis: "When you ask people, 'Describe the emotions that the thought of your own death arouses in you,' people will report fear and contempt, but also happiness that 'I'm going to see my grandmother' and joy that 'I'm going to be with God.'" Personally, I'm far more concerned with pollution levels in heaven.

Now, consider the following just-so-story. People believe in a pleasant afterlife because when they reflect on death (an unpleasant thought), they inevitably imagine what life after death is going to be like (a neutral thought, initially), and what we imagine is inevitably influenced by the coping mechanisms that are designed to protect us from the negative effects of the unpleasant thoughts that originally inspired us to think about what the afterlife is like in the first place.

Thus, we imagine a pleasant afterlife. These thoughts assist our coping mechanisms, which reinforce our pleasant thoughts about the afterlife, which assist our coping mechanisms, etcetera. I suspect that these pleasant thoughts and coping mechanisms are instigated and reinforced by society in general. These findings might provide a socio-psychological/evolutionary explanation for why most people believe in a pleasant afterlife. These findings might even provide us with a good reason to encourage people to believe in a pleasant afterlife (or, at least, watch more Bergman).

                                 

                                                                                             Excelsior!

                                                                                             C.L.Sosis