Haidt takes the ancient wisdom of Buddha & the Stoics as a starting point for developing (what will become “a final version” of) the happiness hypothesis: Happiness comes from within, and it cannot be found by making the world conform to your desires.  He describes how the familiar pursuit of happiness – the striving for material wealth and prestige – inevitably results in nothing more than “always striving after wind.”  Or, as Haidt put it, “The pleasure of getting what you want is often fleeting,” and soon leaves one thinking, “Okay, what do I have to do now?”

 

jmh: They’re right, but…I think such striving is also a natural inclination[1], and one that for some people can be a rather productive endeavor, and not just in the rewards and prestige sought or earned but in the doing itself. For it is really in the learning, growth, and maturing (which such effort provides) that the wisdom of the sages (Buddha & Co.) can be realized, understood, and appreciated. I also find it hard to argue that certain material gains can indeed truly provide pleasures and, to some degree, satisfaction and contentment, based as it is on my own experience.[2]

 

For it turns out that no matter how much you get, and no matter how much you achieve, it always seems one ends up returning to “their happiness set-point – your brain’s default level of happiness – which is determined largely by your genes.”[3]

 

Haidt then presents the “second biggest finding of happiness research (after the strong [and likely dominating] influence of genes on one’s average level of happiness): Most environmental and demographic factors influence happiness very little.” But he then observes this research may also prove the Buddha & Co. went a little too far…that there may actually be some things worth striving for outside of yourself.  If you know where to look…

______

But before pointing where, Haidt examines a couple of key concepts in understanding how the actual experience of happiness occurs.

 

 

 

And It works best…

 

…when the pleasure – and the reinforcement it drives – comes seconds (not minutes or hours!) after the behavior…

 

Battling a fear of meaninglessness is in part battling the disappointment of success; i.e., the pleasure in getting what you want too often seems ephemeral and short-lived.  Seldom is the joy enduring – although the satisfaction may be (more on this later).  Usually “success” turns out to be more a case of, “Okay, what’s next?”

 

Haidt accounts for this by offering some insight and language from Richard Davidson (a psychologist). Davidson describes “pre-goal attainment positive affect” = pleasurable feeling one gets as you make progress towards a goal; and “post-goal attainment positive affect” = contentment (or satisfaction).  Recognizing both this reality and the difference between the two, Haidt makes the argument (as have many others) that: “Success is [actually, or at least mostly] a journey.”  I.e., set any goal you want, most of the pleasure is in the doing.

 

Haidt calls this “the progress principle,” and credits Shakespeare for saying it best: “Things won are done; joy’s soul lies in the doing.”

______

There is the subtle but critical characteristic to understand and appreciate about the progress principle (i.e., that “success is [in large part] a journey”): It works – and works best – when the pleasure (and the reinforcement it drives) comes seconds (not minutes or hours!) after the behavior (i.e., the effort, action, or deed that produces the positive reaction [that small dopamine rush in the brain]). Thus we often “miss it” as we plunge forward with our task, often lost “in the flow” (see below), and realizing (as in becoming consciously aware of) only the “post-goal” contentment and satisfaction in completing it.

 

This progress principle – that a pleasurable dose of reinforcement occurs immediately after any small productive effort is made – is key in understanding how our mind’s work in driving our behaviors and ultimately achieving whatever we may think we want…because that’s how the Elephant works; i.e., it feels pleasure “whenever it takes a step in the right direction…”

 

Of course, the progress principle and what the Elephant is experiencing is one and the same, the latter being just another way of grasping and understanding what’s really going on…[4]

 

Win the lottery or break your neck…what human beings do – in the event of having no real choice but to do so – is reset (or recalibrate, if you will) their station in life. “People’s judgments about their present state are based on whether it is better or worse than the state to which they have become accustomed.”  (Note that “better” is always relative to what is – or is expected.) Put simply, no matter what happens to us, we eventually become assimilated (as in resigned, reconciled, or adapting) to “a new normal” or baseline for seeing the world. (When we’re young, it can best be described [or remembered] as successive stages in “growing up.”)

 

But more than just “adapting” to what is, we are also “bad at ‘affective forecasting’ and grossly overestimate the intensity and duration of our emotional reactions.”  Research confirms that animals (including us humans) are subject to a process called habituation – i.e., the decline of a conditioned response following repeated exposure to the conditioned stimulus (e.g., like hunger satiated after eating, pleasure/reward/success also fades but (in the process) recalibrates “a new steady-state” from which we perceive our world.  And, in this sense, the pursuit of happiness truly is a relative proposition…

 

“The human mind is extraordinarily sensitive to changes in conditions, but not so sensitive to absolute levels.  The [lottery] winner’s pleasure comes from rising in wealth, not from standing still at a high level…”

 

Now Haidt introduces an equation[5] to define a measure for happiness:

 

where:

 

H = Happiness,

S = one’s biological Setpoint (i.e., the “normal” level of happiness one can achieve[?]),

C = Conditions of your life, and

V = Voluntary activities you choose to do (proactivity!)

 

One’s Setpoint is (for now, at least; until someday when maybe science learns to “re-code” it) a given (i.e., mathematically speaking, a “constant” [or here, nearly so, as it’s probably more a narrow range of mood that is our biological tendency [i.e., homeostasis] to return to]).

 

Conditions “ include facts about your life that you can’t change (race, sex, age, disability) as well as things that you can (wealth, marital status, where you live).” They tend to be (because of the Adaptation Principle [AP]), relatively constant, although Haidt argues there are things we can change that are not necessarily subject to the AP and may in fact contribute to more lasting happiness.[6] 

 

Voluntary activities “are the things you choose to do (e.g., meditation, exercise, learning a new skill, taking a vacation).” And here Haidt points out that “chasing after wealth and prestige is not an activity that seems to work, citing research that confirms “People who report the greatest interest in attaining money, fame, or beauty are consistently found to be less happy, and even less healthy, than those who pursue less materialistic goals.”

 

So what is V really all about? The “big discovery”[7] is that there is a state of total immersion in a task that is challenging yet closely matched to one’s abilities – and it’s often called “flow” because it feels like effortless movement…it happens, and you “go with it…”

 

Drawing on Csikszentmihalyi’s (“cheeks-sent-me-high”) work, Seligman proposes a fundamental distinction between pleasures and gratifications:

 

Pleasures are “delights that have clear sensory and strong emotional components,” such as may be derived from food, sex, backrubs, and cool breezes.

 

Gratifications are activities that engage you fully, draw on your strengths, and allow you to lose self-consciousness.

 

Gratifications can lead to flow. Seligman proposes that V (voluntary activities) is largely a matter of arranging your day and your environment to increase both pleasures and gratifications. Pleasures must be spaced to maintain their potency. Eating a quart of ice cream in an afternoon or listening to a new CD ten times in a row are good ways to overdose and deaden yourself to future pleasure. Here’s where the rider has an important role to play: Because the elephant has a tendency to overindulge, the rider needs to encourage it to get up and move on to another activity.

 

Pleasures should be both savored and varied. The French know how to do this: They eat many fatty foods, yet they end up thinner and healthier than Americans, and they derive a great deal more pleasure from their food by eating slowly and paying more attention to the food as they eat it. Because they savor, they ultimately eat less. Americans, in contrast, shovel enormous servings of high-fat and high-carbohydrate food into their mouths while doing other things.

 

 

 

[1] Or it could be possibly the work of cultural construct and influence, as we do live in a highly individualistic and wealth-valuing society…

[2] There’s an old quasi-humorous adage that goes: “There are worse things than money – like hunger, poverty, and misery.” And Haidt’s report on the studies by Ed Diener do apply: “…that people who worry every day about paying for food and shelter report significantly less well-being than those who don’t…” No kidding.

[3] The Happiness Hypothesis – Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom, ibid, pg. 86. Haidt also describes this as “the cortical lottery” – one’s average level of happiness is primarily determined by genetic formulation…and science hasn’t yet figured out how to alter or modify this preset condition…yet.

[4] jmh note: Which leads to another, here seemingly paradoxical, concept of how one goes about experiencing life – it’s called mindfulness [or lack thereof]…

[5] From Seligman & Co. and their positive psychology research… 

[6] He gives some “anti-AP” examples: 1) noise, 2) commuting, 3) situations you have little or no control over, 4) shame (as in physical presentation you wish was different), and 5) relationships.

[7] By a guy named Csikszentmihalyi (pronounced “cheeks sent me high”)

 

 

*Jonathan Haidt: The Happiness Hypothesis, 2006