What's new
By:

Dan Gilbert: The surprising science of happiness

LazyD said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
Hotttnickkk said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
LazyD said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
LazyD said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
moevillini said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
moevillini said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
LazyD said:
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?
Click to expand...

Well it's a given that they get a free painting (i.e., either it's #3 or #4) so that's a mute point. It's how they feel about the painting they received (#3) and the painting they discarded (#4) afterwards that matters.


This links back to his earlier data between the lottery winner vs the paraplegics, their happiness 1 year after the event are the same, i.e., the paraplegics had somehow found "synthesised happiness" within his own conditions/environment/situation.
 
Hotttnickkk said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yep, gotta suppress that until you get married, then have at it!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top