Dan Gilbert: The surprising science of happiness

[The Midnight]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4q1dgn_C0AU

You lost one option and you consider that if you had had the opportunity to choose, you could have done a better job. But is the free will going to make things easier? Apparently not!

In a study done on students that were asked to present two photographs, the results were quite intriguing. They were asked to take with them only one photograph while the other remained at the study. A part of them had the possibility to take this decision in a few days, while the others had to do it in a couple of minutes. The results were fantastic! Those who had time to think about their decision were unhappier than the other category that had to act quickly.

This reminds us of Barry Schwarz paradox of #choice, in which you are less happy when you have a lot of choices to make.

 

[moevillini]

Interesting video, good presentation of the topic!

Choice overload and information overload, two scourges of our current times.

A simple trip to the grocery store to pick up a few sundries isn't so simple!


Sent from the JazzFanz app

 

[franklin]

This is why rich people are unhappy. They can't decide whether to put an extra $50,000.00 into stocks this week or blow it on a trip to Europe. It's only when they go bankrupt that they find true happiness.

 

[The Midnight]

The rich may be more "comfortable" but are they truly more "happy"?



Where does "joy" and "contentment" fit into the overall picture of "Happiness"?

 

[8]

The rich may be more "comfortable" but are they truly more "happy"?



Where does "joy" and "contentment" fit into the overall picture of "Happiness"?

Why just single out the rich. Can anyone be 'happy' in the way you define it.

Let's all take soma

 

[The Midnight]

Why just single out the rich. Can anyone be 'happy' in the way you define it.

Let's all take soma

I was mainly just replying to franklin's comment.

 

[8]

I was mainly just replying to franklin's comment.

oic. So the video's not about unhappiness amongst rich people?

 

[The Midnight]

oic. So the video's not about unhappiness amongst rich people?

LOL.. no.. you should watch it, it's quite interesting.

 

[8]

Read the synopsis underneath. Makes sense to me. People that had more time to think about a decision also were able to analyze the opportunity costs that went along with each decision. Thus, these are more aware to them and they are more apt to brood over these. Pretty interesting indeed. So are the people that couldn't afford a full cost/benefit analysis better off? Is that the main question?

Sorry, I don't want to watch, it's too long

 

[franklin]

The rich may be more "comfortable" but are they truly more "happy"?



Where does "joy" and "contentment" fit into the overall picture of "Happiness"?

I may have said it half sarcastically but I wasn't really being facetious. People who have nothing to do but sit around and worry about their money sound like a bunch of miserable malcontents. Why do you think Americans are so much less happy than European counterparts (completely b.s.ing here, but it makes sense to me)?

 

[The Midnight]

Read the synopsis underneath. Makes sense to me. People that had more time to think about a decision also were able to analyze the opportunity costs that went along with each decision. Thus, these are more aware to them and they are more apt to brood over these. Pretty interesting indeed. So are the people that couldn't afford a full cost/benefit analysis better off? Is that the main question?

Sorry, I don't want to watch, it's too long

He basically began talking about how a lottery winner and someone who loses a leg, ends up having the same level of happiness by the end of the 1st year. This is the so called "synthetic happiness" - i.e., it's the human mechanism that makes us happy even though we are faced with an adverse situation. Other examples he quoted were people who have been imprisoned who have said that they have no regrets, etc.

Then he went on to say that, actually, "free will" or "choices" is detrimental to these "synthetic happiness" - hence his experiment with the paintings. He found that people who were forced to choose and take their paintings right there and then are happier with their paintings than people who were given the choice to swap the paintings.

Also another interesting thing he talks about is how in a recent study, it found that human is able to forget our "trauma" after 3 months as if it never happened (with a few exceptions). This is because happiness can be "synthesised" he argued. This is backed up by another experiment in which people rank paintings form most liked to least liked, they were then given 1 of the paintings, a subsequent ranking is done and found that people almost always ranked the paintings that they were given higher than they did initially.

 

[8]

He basically began talking about how a lottery winner and someone who loses a leg, ends up having the same level of happiness by the end of the 1st year. This is the so called "synthetic happiness" - i.e., it's the human mechanism that makes us happy even though we are faced with an adverse situation. Other examples he quoted were people who have been imprisoned who have said that they have no regrets, etc.

Then he went on to say that, actually, "free will" or "choices" is detrimental to these "synthetic happiness" - hence his experiment with the paintings. He found that people who were forced to choose and take their paintings right there and then are happier with their paintings than people who were given the choice to swap the paintings.

Also another interesting thing he talks about is how human is able to forget our "misfortunes" after 3 months. This rings true to me, as I truly struggled to remember or feel sad/bad about certain situations 2-3 months ago.

Interesting. How is this 'happiness' quantified? Because it really can't be (it'd be like comparing utility between persons). Definitely disagree on the free will being detrimental part.

Sounds like this guy likes soma and meaningless sex

 

[The Midnight]

Interesting. How is this 'happiness' quantified? Because it really can't be (it'd be like comparing utility between persons). Definitely disagree on the free will being detrimental part.

Sounds like this guy likes soma and meaningless sex

Sorry I just added more info to my post.

He argued that happiness can be "synthesised". (i.e., it's not something we "find" or "received" as much as what our mind "accepts"). This is backed up by another experiment in which people are asked to rank 6 paintings from most liked to least liked, they were then given 1 of the paintings and the same test is done. They were asked to rank the paintings again and it was found that almost always people would rank the painting that they were given higher than they did initially.

 

[8]

Sorry I just added more info to my post.

He argued that happiness can be "synthesised". (i.e., it's not something we "find" or "received" as much as what our mind "accepts"). This is backed up by another experiment in which people are asked to rank 6 paintings from most liked to least liked, they were then given 1 of the paintings and the same test is done. They were asked to rank the paintings again and it was found that almost always people would rank the painting that they were given higher than they did initially.

Well this is all well and good. Levels of happiness are definitely determined by an individual's mind just as any emotion would be. What I'm curious about is how he thinks free will is detrimental to happiness. Sounds rather communist.

 

[The Midnight]

Well this is all well and good. Levels of happiness are definitely determined by an individual's mind just as any emotion would be. What I'm curious about is how he thinks free will is detrimental to happiness. Sounds rather communist.

Well to a certain extent we need free will, but too much choices don't necessary lead to more happiness I think is what he's arguing.

 

[8]

Well to a certain extent we need free will, but too much choices don't necessary lead to more happiness I think is what he's arguing.

Oic. Pretty interesting topic tho fo sho

 

[The Midnight]

Oic. Pretty interesting topic tho fo sho

Yup. Fo Sho.

 

[moevillini]

Interesting. How is this 'happiness' quantified? Because it really can't be (it'd be like comparing utility between persons). Definitely disagree on the free will being detrimental part.

OK, here's the gist of one experiment he cites in his talk:

Folks are given 6 prints of Matisse paintings to rank in order of how much they like them. So each person ranks their favorite - #1 - down to their least liked - #6. Then they are told that 2 of the prints are available for them to take home if they'd like - those they ranked #3 and #4. Most people choose to take #3, which is given to them.

At some point some time later (I don't recall if it was weeks later or what) they are shown the same 5 prints and in most cases, the new rankings move print #3 up to the #2 spot and print #4 is moved to the #5 spot. So because they now own a print, they decide they like it more than before when they didn't own it. And because they didn't chose their 4th ranked print, they move it down to the 5th position. In other words, they have "synthesized" more happiness for one particular print because they own it and less happiness for another print because they had rejected it.

 

[The Midnight]

OK, here's the gist of one experiment he cites in his talk:

Folks are given 6 prints of Matisse paintings to rank in order of how much they like them. So each person ranks their favorite - #1 - down to their least liked - #6. Then they are told that 2 of the prints are available for them to take home if they'd like - those they ranked #3 and #4. Most people choose to take #3, which is given to them.

At some point some time later (I don't recall if it was weeks later or what) they are shown the same 5 prints and in most cases, the new rankings move print #3 up to the #2 spot and print #4 is moved to the #5 spot. So because they now own a print, they decide they like it more than before when they didn't own it. In other words, they have "synthesized" more happiness for that particular print because they own it.

Nice summary.

Also another quick example he gave was when you go on a date and the guy picks his nose - you're never gonna go out with him again. But if you're married and your husband picks his nose - well he has a heart of gold.

 

[8]

OK, here's the gist of one experiment he cites in his talk:

Folks are given 6 prints of Matisse paintings to rank in order of how much they like them. So each person ranks their favorite - #1 - down to their least liked - #6. Then they are told that 2 of the prints are available for them to take home if they'd like - those they ranked #3 and #4. Most people choose to take #3, which is given to them.

At some point some time later (I don't recall if it was weeks later or what) they are shown the same 5 prints and in most cases, the new rankings move print #3 up to the #2 spot and print #4 is moved to the #5 spot. So because they now own a print, they decide they like it more than before when they didn't own it. And because they didn't chose their 4th ranked print, they move it down to the 5th position. In other words, they have "synthesized" more happiness for one particular print because they own it and less happiness for another print because they had rejected it.

Interesting. Just like I think the Jazz are actually better than they are.

Does this argue money buys happiness? Since they have synthesized happiness by owning the painting (even tho they didn't purchase it) it seems to make them enjoy it even more. Or does synthesized happiness not count?