Happiness Hypothesis Part 5 of 10: The Happiness Formula
May 13, 2010 by dr. lam · 3 Comments
Buddha advocated non-attachment from the world’s externals. He advocated a life of apartness from worldly goods. Is this however the answer? According to Haidt, not exactly. Haidt says there are some things worth striving for (more about that later). He also talks about how Buddhists see we can attain happiness and his revised version of it.
The Happiness Formula that Haidt proposes is as follows:
H = S + C + V
H stands for happiness; S, for set point; C, for external conditions; and V, for voluntary actions. In the strictest definition (and perhaps a bit fatalistic) we could say that H = S. We are stuck with our genes. But that is not the case. Buddhists would argue that H = S + V, i.e., if we pursue the eightfold path and work toward how we view the world that we can reset our set point. This is true but there are certain things (C) that can affect us that lie beyond our adaptation.
What are these C’s? Studies have shown that one C is noise. People that live in noisy homes may never fully adapt to the abrupt alteration to their quietude. Another C is commute. Those that have to struggle against a long, onerous drive may be more stressed by the time they get to work despite living in a more tranquil environment at home. Lack of control where one feels beholden to another can be a negative external C that is hard to acclimate to. Shame is a C that he says can relate to body and facial appearance. He says that studies have shown that plastic surgery (how appropriate) can actually create long-term positive, psychological changes that can last years with added self-confidence and improved self-image. Finally, relationships constitutes the final major C, which will be discussed in a subsequent blog. Obviously, the more we work on V, the less that C will affect us but C is a major player that we should strive to adjust to raise our H.
Happiness Hypothesis Part 4 of 10: Social Connections
May 12, 2010 by dr. lam · 4 Comments
Let’s imagine two people. Bob is a white, attractive, athletic single man of 35 years of age living in Sunny California and making a salary of $100,000 a year. He drives a nice car and has a large house. Mary is a 65-year-old married, black woman who is overweight, plain and on dialysis for kidney problems. She is highly sociable and loves to work in her church. Which one do you think is happier? Most would say Bob but the answer is Mary.
Bob may have many of the external trappings of happiness like success, wealth, and youth. But Mary has many of the less tangible elements that can actually be much more important like marriage and religion. Social connections for someone can form the bedrock of happiness. Those that are alienated from heavy social connections find themselves less happy in many cases.
Remembering yesterday’s blog on the Happiness Set Point, Bob was probably pretty happy when he got his new job, bought his new car, and moved into his new house. However, how long do you think that lasted? To the world that does not possess Bob’s wealth, that world would think for quite some time. The reality is that Bob adjusted to his Happiness Set Point rather quickly. With Mary’s extensive social connections, she is probably much happier than Bob is.
Happiness Hypothesis Part 3 of 10: The Adaptation Principle
May 11, 2010 by dr. lam · Leave a Comment
Many people dream of the most amazing thing that could happen to them or fear the worst thing that could happen to them and believe that these two outcomes could greatly impact their lives. For example, many people when asked what could be the greatest thing that could happen to you would think, “I would love to win a $20 million lottery.” If asked what could be the worst thing that could happen to them, the answer could be, “If I were paralyzed from the neck down.” We think obviously there should be a huge gulf in happiness between the lottery winner and the quadriplegic but we would be wrong.
The reason for the lack of distance between these two seemingly extreme events is due to the Adaptation Principle. We humans tend to respond happily to a positive change and negatively to a negative change but once the change has set in we get used to it and no longer see the beauty or ugliness in it.
The lottery winner will buy a new house, eat better food, wear nice clothes, quit the day job. A year later the lottery winner may chuckle at how perverse his or her previous life was but may or may really enjoy that difference anymore because the difference vanishes. The lottery winner adjusts to the new house and car and it seems like the old house and car. The new anxieties that come with wealth: “I could lose it”; “People are treating me differently now”; “I cannot trust anyone.”; and “Now I am harassed by relatives I have not seen in a long time.” – may offset the gain from the new amenities and luxuries that wealth affords.
The quadriplegic on the other hand has freedoms fewer than a prisoner and may not want to live. He/she cannot have sex, must have attendants take care of basic bodily functions, cannot aspire to great, lofty goals, etc. However, after a year, many quadriplegics reset their goals and aspirations back to a point of equilibrium. Someone asked the famous astrophysicist Stephen Hawking how he could stand being a quadriplegic. He replied that after his life was adjusted to a zero in his early twenties everything after that was a bonus.
Then should we not strive for anything if we all return to our basic Happiness Set Point? Well, that will be a subject in coming blogs. The answer is not that easy.
Happiness Hypothesis Part 2 of 10: The Cortical Lottery
May 7, 2010 by dr. lam · 2 Comments
Haidt talks about a certain Happiness Set Point (that we will explore more in-depth in future blogs in this series) of where we are genetically predetermined to be and then how to adjust that set point higher. Unfortunately, this idea runs counter to Wayne Dyer’s holistic view that our genes do not control us. I think Dyer’s view is aspirational but Haidt’s is realistic.
Haidt talks about genetically identical twins that despite being separated at birth may come into each other’s lives much later in life and possess very similar outlooks on life. These separated-at-birth identical twins that contain the same genetic blueprint are not truly identical in every way but they do possess a certain happiness outlook that across many identical twins can account for 50 to 80% of their happiness.
In one story, Haidt talks about a set of two identical twins that did not know about each other until 40 years of age but when they met they were wearing very similar outfits and both laughed spontaneously in mid-sentence and shared a similar cheery outlook.
This is not the case with fraternal twins who possess only 50% of the same genetic makeup. The 50% difference is enough to make the twins completely different in the way that they see the world so that similarity in outlook is almost not apparent. Accordingly, genetics and environment have factors that we will explore later.
However, Haidt talks about three concrete ways to readjust your Happiness Set Point. First, he discusses meditation. For any of you who have not tried it, you will be magically surprised at how alleviating it can be. Sometimes without proper guidance from someone else it may be particularly difficult to master this trick during the first few outings. I am writing this blog en route to New York where our delay in flight due to weather stretched out several hours that made my mother particularly nervous and ill at ease. I worked with her through meditation and after a short 5 minute intervention, her entire brain chemistry changed and she was calm and relaxed leading up to the flight and throughout the remainder of the flight.
The second thing that Haidt discusses is cognitive therapy. By helping people who are chronically depressed see coping mechanisms and ways to structure alternative strategies, people can become enlightened and work themselves out of their own depression.
The third way that Haidt proposes is through conventional medicinal route like Prozac, that over 5 to 6 weeks changes one’s brain chemistry. Haidt, who suffered from a grim outlook on life, took Prozac and 8 weeks into it, all of a sudden started to wear rose-colored glasses, as he says. However, the pill affected his memory, which he needed as a college professor so he eventually stopped taking it. However, he swears by it and misses its effect. Obviously, this is the short route to attain a higher happiness set point. My sister, who has battled depression for most of her life, has been liberated in a profound way with anti-depressants. To me, it can be a much-beneficial method to help someone in need get what they require to reset their happiness to a higher plane.
In coming blogs, Haidt will outline a larger picture of how we all can achieve happiness in more profound ways than simply taking a pill or chanting. However, these are ways that may or may not work for you in your journey toward happiness.
Happiness Hypothesis Part 1 of 10: The Rider and The Elephant
May 6, 2010 by dr. lam · 4 Comments
Jonathan Haidt’s book, The Happiness Hypothesis, is a brilliant, scholarly treatise on what constitutes human happiness and pragmatically how we can find a path toward happiness. I found a lot of rich ideas that have been further enriched by reading other books that touch upon similar themes and ideas and that will be covered in future blog series.
Haidt envisions a human mind like a rider on an elephant. The rider represents our conscious mind and the elephant represents the unconscious mind, similar in many respects to Maxwell Maltz’s idea that our conscious mind can steer our unconscious mind like a torpedo toward a target. However, Haidt also recognizes some of the inherent limitations of our being able to do that at all times. The elephant being an animal carries with it the capricious whims of the animal kingdom. Our elephant side is reflected in our basal instincts of lust, anger, spontaneity, and desire for revenge, etc.
He talks about this condition as the “Divided Self” and how we can focus ourselves to tame the elephant in constructive ways. However, no matter how divided we are as a self, we are one self and must own up to the elephant in each of us. Like Dan Ariely’s masterful book, Predictably Irrational, that we covered last year, we all as humans have a certain quirkiness that is hard to understand through rigorous logical accounting. Admitting our elephant side as being an integral component to ourselves is a first and necessary step.