Why are we happy? Why aren’t we happy?
Daniel Gilbert
The colors of the rainbow, so pretty in the sky
Are also on the faces of the people going by
I see friends shaking hands, sayin’, “how do you do ?”,
They’re really sayin’, “I love you”
Yes, I think to myself,
What a wonderful world
Louis Armstrong, what a wonderful world
“When happiness researcher Ed Diener, the past president of the International Society of Quality of Life Studies,
synthesized 916 surveys of over a million people in forty-five countries, he found that, on average, people placed
themselves at seven on the zero-to-ten scale”.
So, according to this result, people are quite happy. Consequently, the world should be quite a nice place to live in.
Let’s have a look at a small place in this wonderful world famous for the well being of its locals - France: divorce rate
over 40%, 50 000 rapes each year (200 000 sexual attacks), 150 000 deaths due to cancer, between 3.7 and 7.1 million
poor people, etc. (French Government Statistics)
There seem to be a contradiction between the results of these surveys and reality..
How could we explain this? That’s what Daniel Gilbert explains with his concept of synthetic happiness.
A. QUESTIONS
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:
1. What is this new part of the brain we gained? What is it there for?
2. Which futures would you choose? Which emotion (WOK!) do you associate with each of them? Is it your
“simulated” emotion that enables you to make this choice?
3. What is the impact bias?
4. Give a definition of synthetic happiness.
QUESTIONS TO TAKE NOTES ON:
5. Write down a list of the claims he makes. What is the production of knowledge to come out of this TED talk?
6. What TOK connections do you make between this talk? Refer to the Knowledge Framework? Explain in a
mind map.
B. Here are the reactions of some viewers. Pick at least one up and comment it:
Lodewijk van den Broek
Inspiring talk. Synthetic happiness sounds so fake, yet it is perceived as real. Really wonderful what our mind can do. I do feel that
in this talk, the examples are mostly about accepting circumstances, and our ability to feel good about it. However, I wonder how
actually achieving something that we want, by determination and effort, and the natural (?) happiness that accompanies it,
compares to the synthetic happiness of accepting the fact that we didn't..
Vanessa Motion
I would be interested to know how this varies culture to culture, country to country. America has always seemed to me be a very
positive country focussed on achievement and success from an early age in school. Therefore could it be possible that the very
make up of students (from the States - if those are who made up the bulk of the study sample) endears them to focus on the
positives of the chosen option, whereas someone from a country/ culture that tends to more self sacrifice and limitaton ( ie where
the culture encourages pessimism and self doubt perhaps) might always doubt their choice and therefore long for the option not
selected?.
Wesley Han
Everything's wrong. The only way to happiness is God.
Andy Dobson
Very interesting... but to equate "happiness" with "getting what you want" -- or getting what you think you want -- seems to miss
the mark rather widely. Gilbert apparently believes that happiness is the simple absence of cognitive dissonance. That seems to me
to be a rather empty definition. Religious issues aside, most people's conceptions of "happiness" I think entail the presence of
something positive or affirmative, not the simple absence of pain from cognitive dissonance. But perhaps this is a limitation of
Psychology -- there are many fundamental human truths which can't easilly be measured in a lab..
Jon Arnett
At 18:15, Dan says "the irreversible condition is not condusive to the sythesis of happiness". Isn't this a contradiction? Did he make
a mistake? I've watched this segment twice, and it doesn't make sense. I would think that the irreversible condition - that which we
have little or no control over - is the breeding ground for "synthetic" happiness. Otherwise, facinating. I see this at work in many
ways personall, and among family and friends. Imagine if society didn't negate this poweful instinct as "settling" or "coping" how
happy more people would feel about themselves and their decisions. We laughed at the remark Dan made about the marriage
scenerio where he says "if we saw our spouse pick their nose" because we know it's true. We learn to accept the things we can't
change. The divorce rate would be a lot lower if people stopped chasing ideas of happiness, and allowed happiness (sythetic or not)
grow..
Kristofer Pettersson
I think this excellent talk shows understanding of the fact that 'happiness' in any common definition does in fact have nothing to do
with rational thinking, or the ability to make the right choice in order to optimize your physical or mentally well being. Possibly it
even suggests that happiness was evolved as a counter measure to wrong decisions being made to saving the individual from
certain doom: If the algorithm we use to find and predict the best future for us shows nothing but 'game over'; change the algorithm
because there is nothing to lose. Of course, today the situation is more complex as we use the potential happiness in our future
predictions.
Trying to claim that happiness is connected to a rational decision or a goal serves no purpose. Why would I need to be happy if
everything happens the way I predicted? I think we are more likely to be bored.
Further more, it would seem most reasonable that 'lust' and 'pleasure' are other sorts of stimuli and are different from happiness.
They are more primitive in nature and serve much more basic needs (reproduce, seek food, rest)..
Erin Higgins
Re: Christian Loennechen, who said:
"Well, I think you missed the point... Half the students preferred their print more after a few days, the other half preferred their
print less. Why? Because they were agonizing over which print would be the better choice. His point was not about getting used to
things, but about the effect of choice on long term happiness."
It's not about agonizing over which print to choose. Most of the phenomena Dr. Gilbert is talking about owe themselves to a
process known in psychology as Cognitive Dissonance. The people in the irreversible group still liked each photo the same after
the fact because, when they did experience displeasure, they could blame it on something else. It was the fact that the choice was
irreversible that was making them unhappy. It wasn't something they did, so why be unhappy? The reversible group, though, had
no such external explanation if they experience dissonance. They liked both pictures, and, if they experience any unhappiness at
their choice, they can't blame it on something outside. To get rid of the unhappy feeling then, they will change their attitude about
the pictures. If they decide to like the picture they chose better and the picture they rejected less, they can get rid of any feelings of
"buyer's remorse."
The fact that Dr. Gilbert doesn't bring up Cognitive Dissonance at all in his talk rather bothers me. Because all of his data is about
Cognitive Dissonance. And I have qualms with the idea that the satisfaction that comes along with process of Cognitive
Dissonance is Happiness. Satisfaction, yes. Happiness, no. It's a process about getting rid of negative feelings...finding, perhaps,
contentedness. But to cheapen happiness by equating it with satisfaction and contentedness hurts my idealistic heart..
Andrea Vocino
Dan Gilbert does not use the words "cognitive dissonance" as such but he mentions the “free choice paradigm” (Brehm, 1956),
which is the paradigm wherein cognitive dissonance is engendered. If you listen carefully, the "free choice paradigm" is mentioned
with re- to the experiment with amnesia patients. I find the experiment very interesting since it reveals that "cognitive dissonance"
not only does affect our conscious minds but it impinges on our unconscious state too.
References: Brehm, J.W. (1956). Post-decision changes in the desirability of choice alternatives. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 52, 384-389..