Perhaps one (of many) reasons people are so terribly unhappy is because what they actually want is very modest, entirely achievable economically, yet denied them for ideological reasons. What would be really interesting though, and I suspect might undermine the findings, is to slice the data according to existing status. I'm betting that those in relative wealth and poverty (perhaps not those at the real extremes, but maybe them too) claim that what they want is only small fractional change of what they actually have. A poor person may only want a slightly less leaky roof; a rich person may "only" want a slightly faster superyacht. It would also be interesting to compare the desires of those born into high status, those who achieve it, and those who have it thrust upon them. Those who have actually experienced both ends of the spectrum will be in a better position to judge their current status and assess what it is they actually want. Maybe. I'll further bet that those claiming they only want modest improvements, even if given the option of access to magic, do so because they simply cannot imagine the consequences of an extreme change. No-one can, probably. That's enough supposition for one day.
“Our research shows that people’s sense of perfection is surprisingly modest,” says psychological scientist Matthew J. Hornsey of the University of Queensland, first author on the research. “People wanted to have positive qualities, such as health and happiness, but not to the exclusion of other darker experiences – they wanted about 75% of a good thing.”
Furthermore, people said, on average, that they ideally wanted to live until they were 90 years old, which is only slightly higher than the current average life expectancy. Even when participants imagined that they could take a magic pill guaranteeing eternal youth, their ideal life expectancy increased by only a few decades, to a median of 120 years old. And when people were invited to choose their ideal IQ, the median score was about 130 – a score that would classify someone as smart, but not a genius.
In general, participants tended to rate their ideal levels of individual characteristics to be about 70-80%, although there was some variation across the traits. For example, many more participants chose to maximize health than chose to maximize happiness. Participants’ ideals were also relatively modest for both intelligence and longevity, even when there were no limits on the levels they could choose.
https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/releases/around-the-world-people-have-surprisingly-modest-notions-of-the-ideal-life.html
One of the happier people I've ever known lived in a chicken coop for the first few years I knew her. I am referring to an actual building used to house hundreds of chickens in rural Sonoma County.
ReplyDeleteShe had dozens of friends, hundreds of students, & people who offered to pay for her travel around the world in exchange for lessons. She's a Tai Chi teacher.
You can be pretty happy in extremely modest circumstances if people express care and appreciation for you.
As Pratchett's Death put it :
ReplyDeleteI MEAN…IT’S RIGHT TO BE HAPPY WITH WHAT YOU’VE GOT. BUT YOU’VE GOT TO HAVE SOMETHING TO BE HAPPY ABOUT HAVING. THERE’S NO POINT IN BEING HAPPY ABOUT HAVING NOTHING.
On the other hand, material purchases and experiences can make people happy, depending on their circumstances :
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/finding-new-home/201806/materialismhappiness
It's an interesting question as to whether you can train yourself to be happier by means of different influences. It seems safe, I think, to assume that the majority of people need a certain minimum standard of living : clean water, safe shelter, loving relationships, etc. Oh, there's a few who would be genuinely happy living in squalor, but most won't. There's a certain (not insignificant) political element who believe that poor people ought to live in squalor because for some unfathomable reason they deserve it and must work insanely hard for even the most basic necessities. The opposing view is that living in decent conditions will make people happier and more productive. You can guess which of these notions I ascribe to.
Beyond the basics I think happiness is a hugely individual thing. In the words of Lisa Simpson it helps to have "a challenge I could do". Everyday miracles like sanitation and chairs that fly through the sky a 600 mph and television don't really help that much, because they become normal. The brain needs activities which provide constant, changing stimulation, and those activities are largely individual dependent.
Rhys Taylor I live in a place that is by most people's standards pretty damn nice. I can walk to a major park in 5 minutes. I can easily bike to store's or the University in 20 minutes. I'm a better cook than most people b/c I used to be a sous chef in a high end place.
ReplyDeleteOTOH- I have a chronic pain issue which makes happiness a challenge. Not that I've quit trying but there are days where the challenges exceed the depth of my mug.