I find it really interesting how the movie portrays more social people (with more and stronger bonds between friends, family, and neighbors) who have more intrinsic goals are happier. It reminds me of Aristotle's Golden Mean, because there's one section in the movie that talks about how money can buy people out of poverty, which makes them happier, but make any more money, and your Happiness won't see an appreciable increase. This flows into epicurean and stoic fractional happiness, because by eliminating the desire for money, cars, houses, and other simply material things, we can focus on what will really make us happy: our relationships to one another, which leads me to the Confucian emphasis on human relationships. The lady and the 20 other families in the community in Denmark certainly make it seem like their happiness is derived from each other. It's fascinating how all of these (and many more) philosophers were right about what Happiness is comprised of, without even being able to test their hypotheses like we can today.
If you are lowering your standards and compromising, then wouldn't you be less satisfied? If you were to work hard and work your way out of poverty, wouldn't that allow you to be more satisfied than if someone bought you out of poverty? I have to disagree because personally when people tell me that I can't do something, that only makes it sweeter when I reach my goals. Therefore, in my opinion, i do not think that having lower standards will allow you to be happier
I never said anything about lowering standards or compromising. I'm talking about trying to eliminate some of the extrinsic goals, which are proven to not contribute to happiness at all past a certain point, and forming everlasting relationships that DO contribute towards happiness. I agree that working hard to get out of poverty is much more satisfying than being bought out of poverty, and I would refuse if someone offered to buy me out of poverty. However, I would gladly join forces with someone else who is in a similar impoverished situation as me, and work together to get out of poverty. Not only would this teamwork make it easier on me and the other person, but it would also result in more prosperity in terms of happiness and accomplishment.
At the very beginning of the movie, we are shown a man. This man lives a life without much of anything: little to no food, money, etc, but still finds a way to be happy. Why is this? Well, as Frank stated above, it is most likely due to the fact that he has plenty of relationships with people. Its human nature to want to be in a relationship with others, whether that be a sexual, friendly, or marital relationship. The man continues to live a life with only the essentials and not much of anything else, not by choice but because he can't live any other way. But in the end, he is still happy. Why? Because his society doesn't rely on money as much as our society. Our society has developed a sense of desire for money, which is why in a society like the United States, where almost everything is bought with money, money seems to be a necessity. Citizens of the United States have been psychology wired to think that for us to be happy, we must have large quantities of money and lots of flash and expensive personal items to be happy. While I believe that some of the philosophers that we studied about could potentially be correct, I feel that happiness is ultimately achieved through a combination of both philosophy and psychology.
I really like your ideas about how the man's society isn't as materialistic as ours is. I think it is a really good point that needs to be taken into consideration. As Mr. Heintz said early in the term, there are certain things that we need to keep in mind when looking at different philosophies and cultures. We need to remember that not all people are like us and don't have the same societal norms. It is easy for us to look at the man and say "How can he be happy? I'd never be happy if I had to live like that." And I'm sure that if one I was suddenly forced to live in a house with dirt floors, a tar for a roof, and pieces of trash holding it together, I would not be as happy as I am now. But, we can't look at it that way. He is from a different part of the world with a different culture and different means for living. I think it is remarkable that the man could put aside all of his hardships in life and focus on his wonderful family and neighbors. I think we should admire this man but do it from a place where we fully understand all of his circumstances.
I also find it really interesting how Denmark and Okinawa, more socialist states, are happier than the rest of Japan, a more capitalist state. After WWII, Japan propagated rebuilding it's country from the destruction of the American nukes and firebombs. So, one or two generations were forced into the productive and progressive mindset, but did that mentality pass on to their posterity, but with an even worse case of the now 'affliction'? Are people so caught up in business, like the birthday boy in the movie who blew off his girlfriend because he said "business is more important," that they work themselves to death? Are people working so hard at such monotonous jobs that their brain stops producing dopamine? I guess competition amongst individuals, or even nations, can make those individuals better people, or those nations more advanced. Go too far however, and it can kill you.
It seems that since these Japanese workers are without stimulating and enjoyable/ joy inducing activities, their brains could actually be dopamine devoid. However, do they still find happiness or a rush in their work? If not why do they do it? Is it juts the social norm? Maybe they just need the money?
Maybe it's just me, but I don't think I'd find flow working for Toyota, like the guy who died in the movie. My opinion: he was so focused on getting the money to support his family that he blocked out his basic needs for rest.
After hearing about Japanese people dying from too much work and stress, i began to think about the stress that we as students are subject too. It would be interesting to see if Marist and other students are significantly affected by stress and if they develop lasting mental and physical conditions as compared to other less strenuous schools. Further more, it would be interesting to see if Marist students die sooner than others. Although Marist students may make more money, is a more intense education worth it if you die at a younger age?
If we know that we're stressed and the administration does too, why doesn't anything change? Ever since seventh grade we've heard that Marist is a pressure-filled environment and incredibly stressful, and I can attest to that right now. So why won't anything change? There has to be a better option than working ourselves (and for the administrators, their students) to death.
I don't mean to be that guy, but personally I do not struggle with tons of work, homework, and stress at Marist. I can survive with doing none of my optional homework, playing tons of guitar at night, barely studying, and watching tv. I don't have to try very hard to get my grades. However, I realize that I am the exception and maybe I haven't experienced the full junior year workload yet. Even though I am not stressed with schoolwork itself, I do believe that other Marist activities create stress. Something should be done to help other students.
In the video shown today, i found it really interesting how the two cities that had a very communal living system where the happiest. the communities are very family oriented. in both cities, the elders where the "grandparents" of all the children. it reminds me of Mr. Marriers lesson at the beginning of the term. how from the archaic period to the classical period we moved from being lone to communities of polices. while this change wasn't necessarily aimed at happiness, we can easily see a correlation from the cities in the video today. i wonder if there was an increase in the ancient peoples happiness when these communities formed? i think there probably was a large increase. more human interaction and a sense of togetherness probably brought the people large amounts of happiness. from the the people probably received other things that made them happy. they felt safer, had an easier access to all their goods from food to clothes and other items. we know that it also allowed the people to come together and become smarter. so does this mean that happyness is easier to get to in communities?
I think that the fact that you're essentially in such close quarters with other people just means that you'll all eventually start to talk. I don't know how you viewed the Denmark Communities but i thought those were fantastic. When these people start to talk you get a whole strata of ideas and opinions some of which you agree with very much and others that you may not. This basically if you think about is like a pack of animals? I mean not a lot of animals live solitary, and we are highly social animals.And yeah a lot of them do do it for protection?
it goes beyond the polis -- the polis is the "city" which breeds anonymity and thus depression. It is close communities, intimate ones, that matter most. The polis would represent the destruction of the "family" to a certain extent.
Although i loved the idea of communal living in Denmark, i am skeptical of its relevance in providing happiness to those who are more introverted and prefer to be lone wolfs in most cases. Once again all paths seem to lead right back to our old friend subjectivity. I guess that some introverts may actually enjoy being around other who are more social and maybe it full fills certain desires for acceptance, yet there are those who just prefer to pull a Walden. Introverts aside, i feel that communal living would be really cool and would assist a great amount in raising kids to be more accepting of others (especially of the communal living shelter was racially and political/religiously diverse), as children would be exposed to the many stages of life and the many forms that it may take. These children after learning a communal sense of obligation may also be more apt to take care of the world community as a whole.
Jack-- introverts do not necessarily prefer to be alone, they just get their energy from being alone. I would argue that although I am sure there are those who prefer to be alone more than others, sharing the company of others and building relationships is almost necessary for happiness. I agree with your second observation, though, about community and diversity. It would be very cool.
I will echo Stagliano, introverts do like being social but often on different terms. Coffee with 3-4 friends is different than a dance club or a cocktail party where you don't know anyone.
In the video today, I was intrigued about how it said that "only 10% percent of our happiness comes from external circumstances."
In my opinion, I find this hard to believe. As we are predisposed to believe in our world, supposedly most happiness comes from money and material possessions. However, after working with some extremely kind, content, and overall happy people during my community service, I have found this can be true. Also, as the video pointed out, the homeless people I worked with were extremely social which increases their dopamine production. One man who I worked with said that he was simply happy because he woke up this morning in response to my question of how he was doing. Most of these people seemed even more happy or just as happy as me.
Is their something in the homeless life-style which may be more conducive to happiness? It would be interesting to see if homeless people are statistically happier than those who are well off? Could the minimalist lifestyle be a contributing factor to this?
I think that the ability of the homeless man to be content with the aid he was granted from the soup kitchen had a great effect on this. Even though most of his basic needs were not met, he still was happy because the suffering in his life contrasted the shelter and warm food he was given. he was able to be social and see the kind nature of humans. In my opinion, happiness still comes from a comparison to sadness/suffering.
Psychology seems a lot more tangible than philosophy. Obviously, psychology is backed up a lot more by fact where philosophy is more opinion-based and subjective. Although it is much different than philosophy, is psychology just another path to happiness? If doctors or scientists could find a way to make that so called "happy pill" or some way to maximize the amount of chemicals in our brain that cause positive feelings, that could be a path to happiness. OR is psychology a completely separate thing from philosophy in the sense that we follow these various philosophical ideas and paths in order to get to a point where the levels of these chemicals in our brains are higher? In short-- is psychology a path to happiness or the end result?
I think that psychology is not necessarily that path to happiness as much as it the new way of finding that path. Instead of just pondering the questions and coming up with opinions, as was done in philosophy, psychology is looking to prove it scientifically.
What if it is a part of philosophy? we could use psychology and apply what we learned to philosophy. Not unlike what we did in class today, what if psychology is just a new lends too look at philosophies through?
I find it interesting how the man in the beginning of the film was so happy even though he lived in extreme poverty. The film tied his happiness to the fact that he had great relationships with his neighbors and family, but what about his lack of better options? All he has is good health and a good family with basic needs met. What if the man is happy/content because he knows that there is no possible way for his situation to improve? In our country we have an infinite amount of paths we can take for our lives to either improve or decline, so why is our society not as happy as the poor man? Most likely, the man has a Stoic attitude without even knowing it because he is content with his life no matter how bad the conditions may be.
i see it as a gift. if you have only one choice/life-path in life and you are ok with not being going anywhere why would you not be happy. it is a gift in the form of removal of a burden. if it is truly our only path, we should be happy that we are on the right road (albeit the only road).
I think that the lack of options is a gift because I would have less self-doubt about the choices I make. For example, when we discuss scheduling for next year it really stresses me out because they make it sound like whatever courses you take will affect you for the next 10 years. I know this isn't necessarily true, but I don't want to be told that out of thousands of different combinations of courses I can take, only a few of them will take me where I want to go.
Do you think that you can achieve happiness in situations like the piano player who plays his piece perfectly?
In my life, once I have finished a concert and played every song well or nailed a difficult solo that I always mess up, I feel an amazing amount of happiness/dopamine that is unlike any other. However, I believe we can recreate a feeling close to this through our daily victories and competitions of goals. For example, once I've finished working out and have gone on my run for track, I feel amazing. This also happens when I do well on a test or quiz or possibly eat right. What do you guys think?
The video we watched today mentioned a concept called the "hedonic treadmill." This is basically the idea that no matter how much you attempt to fulfill you desire for various material things, you will always want more. In some ways, this can seem really depressing, but I think it's refreshing. If you think about it, most of us are running on the hedonic treadmill. We're constantly buying things we suppose will make us happy like clothes that we don't really need, fancy phones that go way beyond necessity, new headphones, or whatever it is that you like. Imagine eliminating all of that unnecessary stuff from your life. It seems like it would be really difficult, but think about how much better you would feel afterwords. Living simply is definitely a component to happiness. We heard about it in christian philosophy when Jesus preached that we give up a lavish lifestyle for a life of poverty. If I remember correctly, we also heard about it when Aristotle suggested living a life of moderation, and I'm pretty sure we've heard it in other happiness philosophies. Living a modest life (at least in terms of material possessions), has got at least something to do with happiness.
My understanding is that we are always running on the hedonic treadmill, because, in such a competitive and materialistic society like our own, we are always looking for THINGS to make our life easier and better. What the majority of our society doesn't realize, however, is that other people aren't actually competitors, but allies with a common goal that we can team up with to take the load off, therefore resulting in more prosperity (happiness) to go around.
So you're suggesting that the hedonic treadmill is related to the competitive nature of our society? If so, I agree. We're looking to get ahead, but all we're doing is walking in place.
I thought it was interesting in the video that the woman who was run over by a truck seemed to "have it all" per say, and to everyone seemed to be very happy, and maybe she even thought she was, but after her accident she was sort of humbled and experienced maybe a more true form of happiness different from existential characteristics. That seemed to be a common theme throughout the video, and it was even proven that the rich aren't necessarily happier than those who have enough to live on. The humbler, better person/communal person you are, the happier you seem to be. At least from what we saw.
I think that this is a really pod point. To me, it is really important for people to be humble. I never thought of being humble as being a better way to achieve happiness. I think that this idea ties into the point they documentary made about service. It talked about how happiness was more often found in people who served others regularly. To be able to serve someone, you have to be humble and that is why I think these two ideas go hand-in-hand.
Why do we always strive for material wealth? Why is our culture conducive to everyone always wanting more? It was proven in the studies from the video that the wealthy are not always, and are almost never, the "happiest" on earth. Those who make $50,000 a year are roughly as happy if not happier than those of make 50 million dollars a year. If it is scientifically and experimentally proven that the more material goods doesn't affect our happiness, then why do we strive for more? Because we think it will and simply cannot get enough? The more we get the more we want? I just can't figure it out.
I think it goes back to the way America used to be the place where people could make money and there was the "American Dream" and whatnot, so people who were living in horrible places and conditions could find more happiness by making money and finding success in the US. I think now, instead of that value being about working our way up for success, it has become more money-focused and material-based. It's the society we live in. We are exposed to advertisements everyday that tell us that we need the next best thing, and not many people have tried to change that.
So far in the film they have focused a lot on relationships and how they affect our level of happiness. Do relationships ultimately decide how happy we are? I'm sure they will expand on this even more in the film or probably link it to something else, but this seems to be a big driving point so far. I think that the relationships we develop are important to our state of happiness, but I don't think that it is as important as the film makes it out to be.
I think relationships are very important in the sense that we are symbiotically related to one another in some way. You know how the film was talking about being a part of something bigger than ourselves makes us happy? I think that relationships, whether just a friendship, a parent/child thing, or a relationship as human beings among one another, do make us happy fundamentally.
I agree. Relationships are extremely important. Think about it. If you have no friends, your parents don't love you, and you have no one to talk to or share affection with..odds are you're going to be pretty depressed...unless you're a psychopath. I think we crave the need to share our experiences with others in order to be happier than if they were just experienced alone. A sense of community or belonging really heightens experiences and feelings for us. Knowing there is someone else out there who cares for us and/or feels the same as us is very comforting.
One thing that was said in the documentary stuck with me. I was interested in the fact about how people that said they were surrounded by family and friends, though they may not be close, were happier than those who weren't. I think this is a very important statement. I know that families can sometimes cause more stress than not sometimes, but this fact shows the importance of the close bonds between family members. It is important for people to remember to have good relationships with family and friends. Without these relationships, people could never reach their full potential for happiness.
I agree with you, Emma. I think loneliness is a huge source of being unhappy, so being around people, even if the relationship is not perfect, brings happiness. For example, once older people get to an age where they are alone and have no one else left to live for, they often become depressed, which causes physical deterioration as well as mental. People are naturally social creatures, so we need contact with life to remain happy, and sane. Also, the practice of solitary confinement in prisons has shown human desire and need for positive mental health and happiness. Those who are isolated from the rest of the world and have no human contact often end up going crazy, because it is a natural human need to be around and have relationships with other people.
While watching the documentary, I noticed a lot of similarities between some of the things said and the first part of Nettle's book, "Happiness." The section in the book that discussed how people would prefer to make $50,000 a year in a world where others earned $25,000 instead off earning $100,000 in a world of others making $250,000. In a way, this situation is similar to what was said in the documentary about there being a sort of cutoff limit for money buying happiness. People would rather make less money and spend a smaller amount for things that get more money and have to pay more for things. In the documentary, one of the speakers talked about how money can buy some happiness but not all. Money can provide people with basic needs in life (food, shelter, etc.), but after it satisfies those needs, it cannot help people achieve higher levels of happiness. So, I guess my question in all of this is wether or not these two sources of information regarding happiness were based off of each other. I know that the book was published prior to the making of the movie, so was the documentary influenced by this book?
I think with the money analogy it's all about relativity. Even though $50,000 is less than $100,000, the world where you'd make $50,000 would mean you earn twice as much as everyone else and therefore better off. I'm sure that the documentary drew information from the Nettle book. I don't know if you noticed this, but the book was shown for a moment in the film when they mentioned how a lot of books were published about happiness.
Overall the idea of positive psychology seems to be as valid of a research as any other type, but as people we tend to put a focus on the negative rather than the positive. that's just how it is. I think from the documentary I got from it was that a lot of the practices modern nations practice essentially kill their very citizens. Think Consumerism, Competition , and Capitalism. All of these promote individual success and material gain rather than a sense of Community and Togetherness. As a whole we put a lot of pressure on these individual accomplishments at a young age essentially conditioning generations to grow up like this. Sure we play sports and other tings that promote community, but in the end at least in my experience, there's still a focus on the individual. I'm not just bashing this. Yeah these are okay ideas, but in my own opinion we've taken all of these to an extreme and then we're confused why no one is happy. As for What Frank said about the whole socialism thing. I think the fact that there is a guarantee of a safety net for these citizens takes a ton of stress away from these people. Think about it Free Health Care, Free Higher Education, along with probably some other unsaid benefits in the movie. Here without paying for insurance or financial aid, we pay ridiculous amounts for these things deter people from doing these things just because it could endanger their own life.
I really agree with you on this, and I like what you said in class today too. There is so much stress created from the need to pay for college, get a job, and earn a living, and to have the basic necessities met and to have that safety net would definitely increase happiness for all. And there are going to be people who disagree with that because they believe their personal happiness and their freedoms are infringed upon by this, but I don't think that is the case, because as we learned, anything that is gained materially past the basic necessities is basically useless to our happiness as it sets us on this path of just wanting more.
Personally I liked the theory that all of our decisions come from an internal drive to preserve our own life and our genetic make up. I thought it was very interesting when Mr. Heintz described a situation where a person's family is being attacked and one member will sacrifice themselves to keep the rest of his/her family alive. The reasoning for this course of action, based off of the theory I previously stated, is that while one member of the family will not be able to reproduce because they are dead, the rest of the family can still pass along the family genes to new generations; therefore, making the loss of one member more favorable than the possibility of losing multiple members. I think that this is perhaps over simplifying the rational behind human thought, but it does make sense to a degree. Based off of what I know about this theory I think that preservation of genes/genetic make up and reproducing seem to be a very large part of what makes people act the way they do.
I agree. Sacrifice one for the whole. Makes sense, and I think people get a sense of pride when they do something purely for the benefit of others. It can help with emotions. It may not always be dying, but sacrificing for others can help lead to happiness. But also dying, yet still passing on your genes through others can be beneficial as well. Knowing you're family will prosper and continue on without your specific genes, but your families' seems like a comforting though. Keep the lineage alive!
I found it interesting that one society, Japan, can have people who literally work themselves to death by working long hours and not resting enough, but at the same time have the most 100 year olds per capita. I think that it is fascinating that one country can have both extremes. One reason why I think this is so incredible is I cannot make sense out of what conditions allow for these two extremes to exist in one country. The only reason I could come up with is that Okinawa is a separate island from the main island of Japan and the cultures and lifestyles must be different enough between the two to account for the extremes of these situations. I am curious to know what you guys think is the reason for such a drastic difference. Do you agree with my idea? Or do you have a different explanation?
Okinawa was not always a part of "Japan" I think. I don't remember where I read it, but I think it was conquered back in the day and absorbed into "Japan" proper.
I thought what we were talking about in class yesterday was really interesting because of the fact that some people are genetically made up to have a higher level of happiness. Although two people experience a high and a low, one person's high and low can be significantly higher as a whole than another person's high and lows. It's very interesting, but at the same time kind of scary that this whole happiness thing may actually be totally our of our control.
Something that struck me when watching the movie was the positive connotation of Positive Psychology as a field. When reading Nettle's book, it seems as if Nettle is asserting that Positive Psychology might not be as objective or well-founded as it ought to be; when citing sources on autotelic people and Mihalyi Csikszentmilhalyi, a positive psychologist, their arguments seem to be moral-based and judgmental, not based on how to achieve happiness but how to increase "flow" and establish a moral (and subjective) baseline. I wonder if Nettle's perspective is different than most people's idea of Positive Psychology or if he's focusing on just a few of its shortcomings while the move is emphasizing the general benefits of Positive Psychology.
Both the book and the movie emphasized how once basic needs are met and we've reached a baseline of a normal quality of life, the amount of income one makes has little to no impact on his or her happiness. With this kind of information available to the general public, what is the mindset behind our society that refuses to let us change our primary motivations in life? I know we live in a consumerist society, yes. But the power of the public would allow for a social shift in attitudes that could make our lives substantially better- without money being our main focus, perhaps we can focus (like the Bhutanese) on happiness primarily, at least on an individual level. What's stopping us from doing that as a society?
The main things that surprised me from the movie were how small circumstances affect overall happiness and the current situation in Japan. I never would have expected that genes affect happiness more than a person’s circumstances but I am glad that this is so. I agree with the idea that the amount of possessions a person has does not greatly affect how happy they are and this is one of the messages in the song I wrote about in my essay. I think that happiness is mostly a result from how well a person is doing internally rather than externally. I wouldn’t expect to be happy if the only thing I cared about was my job and not my own wellbeing. Clearly putting your own wellbeing second to your job is not very healthy considering how high the stress levels are in Japan. I also think being a part of a community makes people a lot happier, and this seems to be the case in Denmark. I love being around people and I would rather be surrounded by people than be alone. Another thing that makes me happy is being around children. Although I obviously do not have any kids, I babysit three to four nights a week and I love all the kids I babysit for. Most teenagers do not want to spend so much of their time with kids under the age of six because it’s really hard, but I love babysitting because it forces me to focus on someone else’s needs over my own. For example, it took me an hour to get a three year old to bed last night, but it made me happy because I was putting someone else’s needs before my own.
I agree with you. Being around other people and helping others can make you happier, while being alone and focusing on yourself and your work can make you less happy. I think that a lot of parents experience this every day. When they're at work at a job that they're bored of and alone in an office (or something of that nature), they're pretty unhappy. But when they come home and spend time with their family and children, they're typically a lot happier. People who spend their time surrounded by people that they love and care about seem to be happier than people that are lonely.
I think putting other people's needs before your own definitely contributes to happiness. Like you said, it's definitely not an easy thing to do, but when you do it, you realize how helping others in turn helps you too.
The Dalai Lama says that we are born with an intrinsic desire for compassion and to be compassionate. From the first moment we are born, we know to look to others for help, and we are programmed to want to give that help as well (i.e. Mothers). I love this idea that we search to have our needs met and one of those needs is compassion and that's what makes us happy. I truly do believe that happiness can and does come from being in community and being a part of something larger than yourself whether that's a club, interest group, cult, religion. And I love that people are, in general, happier when their cause is helping others rather than hurting or condemning others. Happiness, as personal as it is, can be seen as a universal need and in helping others reach this need, we find it ourselves. I feel like this is somewhat of a cliche, but I really do love this notion of community.
What drives the desire to work ourselves to death? That section of the documentary is absolutely tragic. Whether or not we experience the stress to the same extent that they do in Japan, almost everyone, especially in the Marist sphere, knows and deals with stress on a regular basis. If we know that we will be happier if we relax and do what makes us feel less stress, why do we still strive to overwork ourselves and work long hours? Do we feel as if this is the only way we can reach our full potential? Is it for monetary purposes? Even when we know that money isn't the answer, why do we keep running towards this goal to the point of, in extreme cases, death?
I think the reason that we stress so much here at Marist is because even though we know we could be healthier if we relaxed, we are too afraid of what might happen to us if we do not preform the way are expected. We would rather stick with our current stress level than risk relaxing and ending up more stressed then before.
Like I was saying yesterday, I think we think that we're special. Everyone who assumes that looking for happiness in material goods has access to the information that says money and wealth will do nothing to increase our happiness- and yet we still push ourselves. We live in a society that emphasizes our individualism, full of congratulatory participation awards, a society that tells us that we're special. But we're not. We're not that special. I'm not arguing that everyone is unique and amazing in their own right, but we can't assume that we're different enough or better enough or special enough that the material route to happiness will work for us. Despite the overwhelming emphasis on our own individuality, we're still very similar at heart. We're human, searching for meaning and a source for joy, and material wealth isn't going to cut it for any of us.
Overall, I think most Marist students are generally striving to reach success. The reason we work so hard to make good grades and perform our best in all of our activities is that we want to look good when we apply to colleges. We want to be accepted to and attend the best colleges so we can have better opportunities. It's all about success, which for some reason, humans connect with money. We want to be able to tell others how successful we are, which may even cause ourselves to feel momentary fulfillment. We like to feel like we're accomplishing something. We think our accomplishments are going to bring us happiness, when in reality, we are moving farther and farther away from it.
To me, the part that stuck out to me the most in the movie was when the man who was talking to the students talked about the girl in the Special Olympics. I volunteer for the Special Olympics, so I've gotten to know dozens of athletes with special needs. He was talking about how, despite her disabilities and the rude comments being said about her, the girl was so happy because she focused more on her friends than winning the race. I've seen similar things happen when I've been volunteering. So many of the Special Olympics athletes focus on the happiness of others instead of their own. The man said something along the times of "together, we all win". And I think that saying is exemplified throughout the whole Special Olympics program. These people put others' happiness before their own, and in turn, this brings them happiness as well. People who are loving, caring, and generous towards others are typically happier than selfish people who only strive for their own happiness.
I agree with Ally. It is very fulfilling for me to help people and knowing that i am needed makes me happy. It's hard to put others before yourself because so many people are used to putting themselves first. I had this problem when i first started babysitting when i was 11 but over the years i have noticed that i am a much more selfless person, and it's made me a lot happier.
I agree completely. I thought the Special Olympics part was really touching and interesting. I know from experience that whenever I have looked out for others ahead of myself, I have been more happy myself. I'm not sure what is it about thinking of others before myself, but I have a sort of appreciation and self-satisfaction in the fact that I helped someone else which could be why I'm happier as a result.
I found it interesting when the video talked about people's genes determining their baseline of happiness. I never really have thought that everyone's genes really play a key role in their levels of happiness. I just assumed before that everybody was on the same baseline levels of happiness. After thinking about this for a while, I had some questions pop into my head. Let's say Person A on a scale of 1-10 has a baseline range of happiness from 1-3 and Person B's range is 7-9. Will Person A and Person B both perceive their highest levels of happiness as equal? Because if you think about it, there is no way that Person A could have experienced the same maximum level of happiness that Person B has. So as a result, Person A's perception of their maximum happiness level will be the same in their mind as Person B's. Same with Person B's outlook on Person A's happiness. If they are both at their happiest possible level of happiness and have no way of experiencing anything outside of that range, then they will assume the other person is experiencing the same happiness as the other. So is their even a way to compare happiness or to give others advice on happiness if we realize that everybody's happiness might be on a different range on the 1-10 scale?
Good question on whether Person A and Person B will perceive their highest levels of happiness as equal. I think there isn't any possible way to determine this, but it's an interesting thing to think about how different my being the happiest I possibly could be is from you being as happy as you possibly could be.
I think our ideas of happiness in America are pretty messed up. After seeing happiness in other parts of the world and how different they are from ours, it makes me wonder why we are like this and why we haven't really changed yet. Yes, most Americans overwork themselves and for what, so we can buy a flashier car or the next iPhone model? What is all this work amounting to? It seems that we are raised this way. In school, we are taught to work hard so we can get into college, and in college we are told to work hard so we can get a high paying job, where we will continue to work hard. What's the point? If all we get out of all of this work and stress is materials that don't guarantee our happiness, then why do we continue to work ourselves to death? Americans need to figure this out - for some reason, we think that having stuff and being wealthy will somehow make us happy because we will have a sense of security. But then there are people on the other side of the world who have close to nothing and are far happier than us. What is our problem?!
I think it's interesting that some people are genetically only capable of achieving a certain level of happiness. It sucks how it's completely out of our control, which is why the whole "happy pill" idea is intriguing. If we could each reach our highest possible levels of happiness, one person would still be happier than another. Yet, contrary to popular belief in our society, this happiness level has everything to do with genetics and basically nothing to do with money. Of course, having basic needs met affects happiness, but I found it interesting that there was virtually no difference in the happiness levels of those who made enough income to support their families and those who were concerned rich. Why is it, then, that happiness is so connected to money in our minds? Why do we view money as something that leads to happiness? Even though we all well know that money can't buy happiness, we are still enthralled it. And if we try to pursue a career that is known to be difficult to make money in, our parents worry about our "future happiness." Why is it that we are so worried about money when it's correlation to happiness clearly isn't that strong?
In my opinion, although wealth does not greatly affect overall happiness, we should not assume that it isn't helpful to try to be successful in life. Wealth is generally a sign of success, so why should people put such little importance on how successful they are? One thing that makes me happy is being able to buy something with my own money and knowing that I am making money doing something that benefits other people. I don't babysit all the time just to make money, but for me making money makes me feel important. I get paid because people need me to babysit their kids and it is nice to be needed
I agree. I have a greater sense of worth and accomplishment after I work hard and save up money to buy something that is meaningful to me. Also, I feel like with more money comes more opportunity, so it may in some way lead to happiness, as long as people aren't consumed with the idea of making money. I personally however get more out of buying things myself rather than having a parent or someone else buy that same thing for me.
The most interesting part of the movie was when they showed the tribe (I assume it was African?) that had no technology and no modern conveniences. It talked about how when one person becomes sick, the entire village, even the children, work together and do everything in their power to make the person better rather than bringing them to an unknown, strange doctor. One man said he likes to go around sometimes and pretend like he's a bull. Everyone in class laughed, thinking he was silly. What if he heard of Americans getting frustrated with Flappy Bird and thought we were equally as crazy? I loved how the movie showed both aspects of the spectrum: those who have a lot of material things and those who simply believe they have a lot. It was an example of not being able to miss what you don't have. It seems humans are naturally made to be happy initially, and they only develop the desire for more when they see someone else who seemingly has more.
I find it really interesting how the movie portrays more social people (with more and stronger bonds between friends, family, and neighbors) who have more intrinsic goals are happier. It reminds me of Aristotle's Golden Mean, because there's one section in the movie that talks about how money can buy people out of poverty, which makes them happier, but make any more money, and your Happiness won't see an appreciable increase. This flows into epicurean and stoic fractional happiness, because by eliminating the desire for money, cars, houses, and other simply material things, we can focus on what will really make us happy: our relationships to one another, which leads me to the Confucian emphasis on human relationships. The lady and the 20 other families in the community in Denmark certainly make it seem like their happiness is derived from each other. It's fascinating how all of these (and many more) philosophers were right about what Happiness is comprised of, without even being able to test their hypotheses like we can today.
ReplyDeleteIf you are lowering your standards and compromising, then wouldn't you be less satisfied? If you were to work hard and work your way out of poverty, wouldn't that allow you to be more satisfied than if someone bought you out of poverty? I have to disagree because personally when people tell me that I can't do something, that only makes it sweeter when I reach my goals. Therefore, in my opinion, i do not think that having lower standards will allow you to be happier
DeleteI never said anything about lowering standards or compromising. I'm talking about trying to eliminate some of the extrinsic goals, which are proven to not contribute to happiness at all past a certain point, and forming everlasting relationships that DO contribute towards happiness. I agree that working hard to get out of poverty is much more satisfying than being bought out of poverty, and I would refuse if someone offered to buy me out of poverty. However, I would gladly join forces with someone else who is in a similar impoverished situation as me, and work together to get out of poverty. Not only would this teamwork make it easier on me and the other person, but it would also result in more prosperity in terms of happiness and accomplishment.
DeleteAt the very beginning of the movie, we are shown a man. This man lives a life without much of anything: little to no food, money, etc, but still finds a way to be happy. Why is this? Well, as Frank stated above, it is most likely due to the fact that he has plenty of relationships with people. Its human nature to want to be in a relationship with others, whether that be a sexual, friendly, or marital relationship. The man continues to live a life with only the essentials and not much of anything else, not by choice but because he can't live any other way. But in the end, he is still happy. Why? Because his society doesn't rely on money as much as our society. Our society has developed a sense of desire for money, which is why in a society like the United States, where almost everything is bought with money, money seems to be a necessity. Citizens of the United States have been psychology wired to think that for us to be happy, we must have large quantities of money and lots of flash and expensive personal items to be happy. While I believe that some of the philosophers that we studied about could potentially be correct, I feel that happiness is ultimately achieved through a combination of both philosophy and psychology.
ReplyDeleteI really like your ideas about how the man's society isn't as materialistic as ours is. I think it is a really good point that needs to be taken into consideration. As Mr. Heintz said early in the term, there are certain things that we need to keep in mind when looking at different philosophies and cultures. We need to remember that not all people are like us and don't have the same societal norms. It is easy for us to look at the man and say "How can he be happy? I'd never be happy if I had to live like that." And I'm sure that if one I was suddenly forced to live in a house with dirt floors, a tar for a roof, and pieces of trash holding it together, I would not be as happy as I am now. But, we can't look at it that way. He is from a different part of the world with a different culture and different means for living. I think it is remarkable that the man could put aside all of his hardships in life and focus on his wonderful family and neighbors. I think we should admire this man but do it from a place where we fully understand all of his circumstances.
DeleteI also find it really interesting how Denmark and Okinawa, more socialist states, are happier than the rest of Japan, a more capitalist state. After WWII, Japan propagated rebuilding it's country from the destruction of the American nukes and firebombs. So, one or two generations were forced into the productive and progressive mindset, but did that mentality pass on to their posterity, but with an even worse case of the now 'affliction'? Are people so caught up in business, like the birthday boy in the movie who blew off his girlfriend because he said "business is more important," that they work themselves to death? Are people working so hard at such monotonous jobs that their brain stops producing dopamine? I guess competition amongst individuals, or even nations, can make those individuals better people, or those nations more advanced. Go too far however, and it can kill you.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that since these Japanese workers are without stimulating and enjoyable/ joy inducing activities, their brains could actually be dopamine devoid. However, do they still find happiness or a rush in their work? If not why do they do it? Is it juts the social norm? Maybe they just need the money?
DeleteMaybe it's just me, but I don't think I'd find flow working for Toyota, like the guy who died in the movie. My opinion: he was so focused on getting the money to support his family that he blocked out his basic needs for rest.
DeleteAfter hearing about Japanese people dying from too much work and stress, i began to think about the stress that we as students are subject too. It would be interesting to see if Marist and other students are significantly affected by stress and if they develop lasting mental and physical conditions as compared to other less strenuous schools. Further more, it would be interesting to see if Marist students die sooner than others. Although Marist students may make more money, is a more intense education worth it if you die at a younger age?
ReplyDeleteMarist students are more stressed. Plain and simple. We did our "balance survey" a few years ago and the results were staggering.
Deletewell that is just fantastic... what about that balance... have their been leaps in the right direction or are we just running a rat race into death?
DeleteIf we know that we're stressed and the administration does too, why doesn't anything change? Ever since seventh grade we've heard that Marist is a pressure-filled environment and incredibly stressful, and I can attest to that right now. So why won't anything change? There has to be a better option than working ourselves (and for the administrators, their students) to death.
DeleteI don't mean to be that guy, but personally I do not struggle with tons of work, homework, and stress at Marist. I can survive with doing none of my optional homework, playing tons of guitar at night, barely studying, and watching tv. I don't have to try very hard to get my grades. However, I realize that I am the exception and maybe I haven't experienced the full junior year workload yet. Even though I am not stressed with schoolwork itself, I do believe that other Marist activities create stress. Something should be done to help other students.
DeleteIn the video shown today, i found it really interesting how the two cities that had a very communal living system where the happiest. the communities are very family oriented. in both cities, the elders where the "grandparents" of all the children. it reminds me of Mr. Marriers lesson at the beginning of the term. how from the archaic period to the classical period we moved from being lone to communities of polices. while this change wasn't necessarily aimed at happiness, we can easily see a correlation from the cities in the video today. i wonder if there was an increase in the ancient peoples happiness when these communities formed? i think there probably was a large increase. more human interaction and a sense of togetherness probably brought the people large amounts of happiness. from the the people probably received other things that made them happy. they felt safer, had an easier access to all their goods from food to clothes and other items. we know that it also allowed the people to come together and become smarter. so does this mean that happyness is easier to get to in communities?
ReplyDeleteI think that the fact that you're essentially in such close quarters with other people just means that you'll all eventually start to talk. I don't know how you viewed the Denmark Communities but i thought those were fantastic. When these people start to talk you get a whole strata of ideas and opinions some of which you agree with very much and others that you may not. This basically if you think about is like a pack of animals? I mean not a lot of animals live solitary, and we are highly social animals.And yeah a lot of them do do it for protection?
Deleteit goes beyond the polis -- the polis is the "city" which breeds anonymity and thus depression. It is close communities, intimate ones, that matter most. The polis would represent the destruction of the "family" to a certain extent.
DeleteAlthough i loved the idea of communal living in Denmark, i am skeptical of its relevance in providing happiness to those who are more introverted and prefer to be lone wolfs in most cases. Once again all paths seem to lead right back to our old friend subjectivity. I guess that some introverts may actually enjoy being around other who are more social and maybe it full fills certain desires for acceptance, yet there are those who just prefer to pull a Walden. Introverts aside, i feel that communal living would be really cool and would assist a great amount in raising kids to be more accepting of others (especially of the communal living shelter was racially and political/religiously diverse), as children would be exposed to the many stages of life and the many forms that it may take. These children after learning a communal sense of obligation may also be more apt to take care of the world community as a whole.
ReplyDeleteJack-- introverts do not necessarily prefer to be alone, they just get their energy from being alone. I would argue that although I am sure there are those who prefer to be alone more than others, sharing the company of others and building relationships is almost necessary for happiness.
DeleteI agree with your second observation, though, about community and diversity. It would be very cool.
I will echo Stagliano, introverts do like being social but often on different terms. Coffee with 3-4 friends is different than a dance club or a cocktail party where you don't know anyone.
DeleteIn the video today, I was intrigued about how it said that "only 10% percent of our happiness comes from external circumstances."
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, I find this hard to believe. As we are predisposed to believe in our world, supposedly most happiness comes from money and material possessions. However, after working with some extremely kind, content, and overall happy people during my community service, I have found this can be true. Also, as the video pointed out, the homeless people I worked with were extremely social which increases their dopamine production. One man who I worked with said that he was simply happy because he woke up this morning in response to my question of how he was doing. Most of these people seemed even more happy or just as happy as me.
which proves that external circumstances don't matter all that much...
DeleteIs their something in the homeless life-style which may be more conducive to happiness? It would be interesting to see if homeless people are statistically happier than those who are well off? Could the minimalist lifestyle be a contributing factor to this?
DeleteI think that the ability of the homeless man to be content with the aid he was granted from the soup kitchen had a great effect on this. Even though most of his basic needs were not met, he still was happy because the suffering in his life contrasted the shelter and warm food he was given. he was able to be social and see the kind nature of humans. In my opinion, happiness still comes from a comparison to sadness/suffering.
DeletePsychology seems a lot more tangible than philosophy. Obviously, psychology is backed up a lot more by fact where philosophy is more opinion-based and subjective. Although it is much different than philosophy, is psychology just another path to happiness? If doctors or scientists could find a way to make that so called "happy pill" or some way to maximize the amount of chemicals in our brain that cause positive feelings, that could be a path to happiness. OR is psychology a completely separate thing from philosophy in the sense that we follow these various philosophical ideas and paths in order to get to a point where the levels of these chemicals in our brains are higher? In short-- is psychology a path to happiness or the end result?
ReplyDeleteI think that psychology is not necessarily that path to happiness as much as it the new way of finding that path. Instead of just pondering the questions and coming up with opinions, as was done in philosophy, psychology is looking to prove it scientifically.
DeleteWhat if it is a part of philosophy? we could use psychology and apply what we learned to philosophy. Not unlike what we did in class today, what if psychology is just a new lends too look at philosophies through?
DeleteI find it interesting how the man in the beginning of the film was so happy even though he lived in extreme poverty. The film tied his happiness to the fact that he had great relationships with his neighbors and family, but what about his lack of better options? All he has is good health and a good family with basic needs met. What if the man is happy/content because he knows that there is no possible way for his situation to improve? In our country we have an infinite amount of paths we can take for our lives to either improve or decline, so why is our society not as happy as the poor man? Most likely, the man has a Stoic attitude without even knowing it because he is content with his life no matter how bad the conditions may be.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think Matt? Are those options a burden or a gift?
Deletei see it as a gift. if you have only one choice/life-path in life and you are ok with not being going anywhere why would you not be happy. it is a gift in the form of removal of a burden. if it is truly our only path, we should be happy that we are on the right road (albeit the only road).
DeleteI think that the lack of options is a gift because I would have less self-doubt about the choices I make. For example, when we discuss scheduling for next year it really stresses me out because they make it sound like whatever courses you take will affect you for the next 10 years. I know this isn't necessarily true, but I don't want to be told that out of thousands of different combinations of courses I can take, only a few of them will take me where I want to go.
DeleteDo you think that you can achieve happiness in situations like the piano player who plays his piece perfectly?
ReplyDeleteIn my life, once I have finished a concert and played every song well or nailed a difficult solo that I always mess up, I feel an amazing amount of happiness/dopamine that is unlike any other. However, I believe we can recreate a feeling close to this through our daily victories and competitions of goals. For example, once I've finished working out and have gone on my run for track, I feel amazing. This also happens when I do well on a test or quiz or possibly eat right. What do you guys think?
The video we watched today mentioned a concept called the "hedonic treadmill." This is basically the idea that no matter how much you attempt to fulfill you desire for various material things, you will always want more. In some ways, this can seem really depressing, but I think it's refreshing. If you think about it, most of us are running on the hedonic treadmill. We're constantly buying things we suppose will make us happy like clothes that we don't really need, fancy phones that go way beyond necessity, new headphones, or whatever it is that you like. Imagine eliminating all of that unnecessary stuff from your life. It seems like it would be really difficult, but think about how much better you would feel afterwords. Living simply is definitely a component to happiness. We heard about it in christian philosophy when Jesus preached that we give up a lavish lifestyle for a life of poverty. If I remember correctly, we also heard about it when Aristotle suggested living a life of moderation, and I'm pretty sure we've heard it in other happiness philosophies. Living a modest life (at least in terms of material possessions), has got at least something to do with happiness.
ReplyDeleteMy understanding is that we are always running on the hedonic treadmill, because, in such a competitive and materialistic society like our own, we are always looking for THINGS to make our life easier and better. What the majority of our society doesn't realize, however, is that other people aren't actually competitors, but allies with a common goal that we can team up with to take the load off, therefore resulting in more prosperity (happiness) to go around.
DeleteSo you're suggesting that the hedonic treadmill is related to the competitive nature of our society? If so, I agree. We're looking to get ahead, but all we're doing is walking in place.
DeleteI thought it was interesting in the video that the woman who was run over by a truck seemed to "have it all" per say, and to everyone seemed to be very happy, and maybe she even thought she was, but after her accident she was sort of humbled and experienced maybe a more true form of happiness different from existential characteristics. That seemed to be a common theme throughout the video, and it was even proven that the rich aren't necessarily happier than those who have enough to live on. The humbler, better person/communal person you are, the happier you seem to be. At least from what we saw.
ReplyDeleteI think that this is a really pod point. To me, it is really important for people to be humble. I never thought of being humble as being a better way to achieve happiness. I think that this idea ties into the point they documentary made about service. It talked about how happiness was more often found in people who served others regularly. To be able to serve someone, you have to be humble and that is why I think these two ideas go hand-in-hand.
DeleteWhy do we always strive for material wealth? Why is our culture conducive to everyone always wanting more? It was proven in the studies from the video that the wealthy are not always, and are almost never, the "happiest" on earth. Those who make $50,000 a year are roughly as happy if not happier than those of make 50 million dollars a year. If it is scientifically and experimentally proven that the more material goods doesn't affect our happiness, then why do we strive for more? Because we think it will and simply cannot get enough? The more we get the more we want? I just can't figure it out.
ReplyDeleteI think it goes back to the way America used to be the place where people could make money and there was the "American Dream" and whatnot, so people who were living in horrible places and conditions could find more happiness by making money and finding success in the US. I think now, instead of that value being about working our way up for success, it has become more money-focused and material-based. It's the society we live in. We are exposed to advertisements everyday that tell us that we need the next best thing, and not many people have tried to change that.
DeleteSo far in the film they have focused a lot on relationships and how they affect our level of happiness. Do relationships ultimately decide how happy we are? I'm sure they will expand on this even more in the film or probably link it to something else, but this seems to be a big driving point so far. I think that the relationships we develop are important to our state of happiness, but I don't think that it is as important as the film makes it out to be.
ReplyDeleteI think relationships are very important in the sense that we are symbiotically related to one another in some way. You know how the film was talking about being a part of something bigger than ourselves makes us happy? I think that relationships, whether just a friendship, a parent/child thing, or a relationship as human beings among one another, do make us happy fundamentally.
DeleteI agree. Relationships are extremely important. Think about it. If you have no friends, your parents don't love you, and you have no one to talk to or share affection with..odds are you're going to be pretty depressed...unless you're a psychopath. I think we crave the need to share our experiences with others in order to be happier than if they were just experienced alone. A sense of community or belonging really heightens experiences and feelings for us. Knowing there is someone else out there who cares for us and/or feels the same as us is very comforting.
DeleteOne thing that was said in the documentary stuck with me. I was interested in the fact about how people that said they were surrounded by family and friends, though they may not be close, were happier than those who weren't. I think this is a very important statement. I know that families can sometimes cause more stress than not sometimes, but this fact shows the importance of the close bonds between family members. It is important for people to remember to have good relationships with family and friends. Without these relationships, people could never reach their full potential for happiness.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, Emma. I think loneliness is a huge source of being unhappy, so being around people, even if the relationship is not perfect, brings happiness. For example, once older people get to an age where they are alone and have no one else left to live for, they often become depressed, which causes physical deterioration as well as mental. People are naturally social creatures, so we need contact with life to remain happy, and sane. Also, the practice of solitary confinement in prisons has shown human desire and need for positive mental health and happiness. Those who are isolated from the rest of the world and have no human contact often end up going crazy, because it is a natural human need to be around and have relationships with other people.
DeleteWhile watching the documentary, I noticed a lot of similarities between some of the things said and the first part of Nettle's book, "Happiness." The section in the book that discussed how people would prefer to make $50,000 a year in a world where others earned $25,000 instead off earning $100,000 in a world of others making $250,000. In a way, this situation is similar to what was said in the documentary about there being a sort of cutoff limit for money buying happiness. People would rather make less money and spend a smaller amount for things that get more money and have to pay more for things. In the documentary, one of the speakers talked about how money can buy some happiness but not all. Money can provide people with basic needs in life (food, shelter, etc.), but after it satisfies those needs, it cannot help people achieve higher levels of happiness. So, I guess my question in all of this is wether or not these two sources of information regarding happiness were based off of each other. I know that the book was published prior to the making of the movie, so was the documentary influenced by this book?
ReplyDeleteI think with the money analogy it's all about relativity. Even though $50,000 is less than $100,000, the world where you'd make $50,000 would mean you earn twice as much as everyone else and therefore better off. I'm sure that the documentary drew information from the Nettle book. I don't know if you noticed this, but the book was shown for a moment in the film when they mentioned how a lot of books were published about happiness.
DeleteOverall the idea of positive psychology seems to be as valid of a research as any other type, but as people we tend to put a focus on the negative rather than the positive. that's just how it is.
ReplyDeleteI think from the documentary I got from it was that a lot of the practices modern nations practice essentially kill their very citizens. Think Consumerism, Competition , and Capitalism. All of these promote individual success and material gain rather than a sense of Community and Togetherness. As a whole we put a lot of pressure on these individual accomplishments at a young age essentially conditioning generations to grow up like this. Sure we play sports and other tings that promote community, but in the end at least in my experience, there's still a focus on the individual. I'm not just bashing this. Yeah these are okay ideas, but in my own opinion we've taken all of these to an extreme and then we're confused why no one is happy.
As for What Frank said about the whole socialism thing. I think the fact that there is a guarantee of a safety net for these citizens takes a ton of stress away from these people. Think about it Free Health Care, Free Higher Education, along with probably some other unsaid benefits in the movie. Here without paying for insurance or financial aid, we pay ridiculous amounts for these things deter people from doing these things just because it could endanger their own life.
I really agree with you on this, and I like what you said in class today too. There is so much stress created from the need to pay for college, get a job, and earn a living, and to have the basic necessities met and to have that safety net would definitely increase happiness for all. And there are going to be people who disagree with that because they believe their personal happiness and their freedoms are infringed upon by this, but I don't think that is the case, because as we learned, anything that is gained materially past the basic necessities is basically useless to our happiness as it sets us on this path of just wanting more.
DeletePersonally I liked the theory that all of our decisions come from an internal drive to preserve our own life and our genetic make up. I thought it was very interesting when Mr. Heintz described a situation where a person's family is being attacked and one member will sacrifice themselves to keep the rest of his/her family alive. The reasoning for this course of action, based off of the theory I previously stated, is that while one member of the family will not be able to reproduce because they are dead, the rest of the family can still pass along the family genes to new generations; therefore, making the loss of one member more favorable than the possibility of losing multiple members. I think that this is perhaps over simplifying the rational behind human thought, but it does make sense to a degree. Based off of what I know about this theory I think that preservation of genes/genetic make up and reproducing seem to be a very large part of what makes people act the way they do.
ReplyDeleteI agree. Sacrifice one for the whole. Makes sense, and I think people get a sense of pride when they do something purely for the benefit of others. It can help with emotions. It may not always be dying, but sacrificing for others can help lead to happiness. But also dying, yet still passing on your genes through others can be beneficial as well. Knowing you're family will prosper and continue on without your specific genes, but your families' seems like a comforting though. Keep the lineage alive!
DeleteI found it interesting that one society, Japan, can have people who literally work themselves to death by working long hours and not resting enough, but at the same time have the most 100 year olds per capita. I think that it is fascinating that one country can have both extremes. One reason why I think this is so incredible is I cannot make sense out of what conditions allow for these two extremes to exist in one country. The only reason I could come up with is that Okinawa is a separate island from the main island of Japan and the cultures and lifestyles must be different enough between the two to account for the extremes of these situations. I am curious to know what you guys think is the reason for such a drastic difference. Do you agree with my idea? Or do you have a different explanation?
ReplyDeleteOkinawa was not always a part of "Japan" I think. I don't remember where I read it, but I think it was conquered back in the day and absorbed into "Japan" proper.
DeleteI thought what we were talking about in class yesterday was really interesting because of the fact that some people are genetically made up to have a higher level of happiness. Although two people experience a high and a low, one person's high and low can be significantly higher as a whole than another person's high and lows. It's very interesting, but at the same time kind of scary that this whole happiness thing may actually be totally our of our control.
ReplyDeleteSomething that struck me when watching the movie was the positive connotation of Positive Psychology as a field. When reading Nettle's book, it seems as if Nettle is asserting that Positive Psychology might not be as objective or well-founded as it ought to be; when citing sources on autotelic people and Mihalyi Csikszentmilhalyi, a positive psychologist, their arguments seem to be moral-based and judgmental, not based on how to achieve happiness but how to increase "flow" and establish a moral (and subjective) baseline. I wonder if Nettle's perspective is different than most people's idea of Positive Psychology or if he's focusing on just a few of its shortcomings while the move is emphasizing the general benefits of Positive Psychology.
ReplyDeleteBoth the book and the movie emphasized how once basic needs are met and we've reached a baseline of a normal quality of life, the amount of income one makes has little to no impact on his or her happiness. With this kind of information available to the general public, what is the mindset behind our society that refuses to let us change our primary motivations in life? I know we live in a consumerist society, yes. But the power of the public would allow for a social shift in attitudes that could make our lives substantially better- without money being our main focus, perhaps we can focus (like the Bhutanese) on happiness primarily, at least on an individual level. What's stopping us from doing that as a society?
ReplyDeleteThe main things that surprised me from the movie were how small circumstances affect overall happiness and the current situation in Japan. I never would have expected that genes affect happiness more than a person’s circumstances but I am glad that this is so. I agree with the idea that the amount of possessions a person has does not greatly affect how happy they are and this is one of the messages in the song I wrote about in my essay. I think that happiness is mostly a result from how well a person is doing internally rather than externally. I wouldn’t expect to be happy if the only thing I cared about was my job and not my own wellbeing. Clearly putting your own wellbeing second to your job is not very healthy considering how high the stress levels are in Japan. I also think being a part of a community makes people a lot happier, and this seems to be the case in Denmark. I love being around people and I would rather be surrounded by people than be alone. Another thing that makes me happy is being around children. Although I obviously do not have any kids, I babysit three to four nights a week and I love all the kids I babysit for. Most teenagers do not want to spend so much of their time with kids under the age of six because it’s really hard, but I love babysitting because it forces me to focus on someone else’s needs over my own. For example, it took me an hour to get a three year old to bed last night, but it made me happy because I was putting someone else’s needs before my own.
ReplyDeleteThis is one of the reasons you are great Robin -- seriously, admitting this and practicing this type of attitude is so refreshing!
DeleteI agree with you. Being around other people and helping others can make you happier, while being alone and focusing on yourself and your work can make you less happy. I think that a lot of parents experience this every day. When they're at work at a job that they're bored of and alone in an office (or something of that nature), they're pretty unhappy. But when they come home and spend time with their family and children, they're typically a lot happier. People who spend their time surrounded by people that they love and care about seem to be happier than people that are lonely.
DeleteI think putting other people's needs before your own definitely contributes to happiness. Like you said, it's definitely not an easy thing to do, but when you do it, you realize how helping others in turn helps you too.
DeleteThe Dalai Lama says that we are born with an intrinsic desire for compassion and to be compassionate. From the first moment we are born, we know to look to others for help, and we are programmed to want to give that help as well (i.e. Mothers). I love this idea that we search to have our needs met and one of those needs is compassion and that's what makes us happy. I truly do believe that happiness can and does come from being in community and being a part of something larger than yourself whether that's a club, interest group, cult, religion. And I love that people are, in general, happier when their cause is helping others rather than hurting or condemning others. Happiness, as personal as it is, can be seen as a universal need and in helping others reach this need, we find it ourselves. I feel like this is somewhat of a cliche, but I really do love this notion of community.
ReplyDeleteWhat drives the desire to work ourselves to death? That section of the documentary is absolutely tragic. Whether or not we experience the stress to the same extent that they do in Japan, almost everyone, especially in the Marist sphere, knows and deals with stress on a regular basis. If we know that we will be happier if we relax and do what makes us feel less stress, why do we still strive to overwork ourselves and work long hours? Do we feel as if this is the only way we can reach our full potential? Is it for monetary purposes? Even when we know that money isn't the answer, why do we keep running towards this goal to the point of, in extreme cases, death?
ReplyDeleteI think the reason that we stress so much here at Marist is because even though we know we could be healthier if we relaxed, we are too afraid of what might happen to us if we do not preform the way are expected. We would rather stick with our current stress level than risk relaxing and ending up more stressed then before.
DeleteLike I was saying yesterday, I think we think that we're special. Everyone who assumes that looking for happiness in material goods has access to the information that says money and wealth will do nothing to increase our happiness- and yet we still push ourselves. We live in a society that emphasizes our individualism, full of congratulatory participation awards, a society that tells us that we're special.
DeleteBut we're not. We're not that special.
I'm not arguing that everyone is unique and amazing in their own right, but we can't assume that we're different enough or better enough or special enough that the material route to happiness will work for us. Despite the overwhelming emphasis on our own individuality, we're still very similar at heart. We're human, searching for meaning and a source for joy, and material wealth isn't going to cut it for any of us.
Overall, I think most Marist students are generally striving to reach success. The reason we work so hard to make good grades and perform our best in all of our activities is that we want to look good when we apply to colleges. We want to be accepted to and attend the best colleges so we can have better opportunities. It's all about success, which for some reason, humans connect with money. We want to be able to tell others how successful we are, which may even cause ourselves to feel momentary fulfillment. We like to feel like we're accomplishing something. We think our accomplishments are going to bring us happiness, when in reality, we are moving farther and farther away from it.
DeleteTo me, the part that stuck out to me the most in the movie was when the man who was talking to the students talked about the girl in the Special Olympics. I volunteer for the Special Olympics, so I've gotten to know dozens of athletes with special needs. He was talking about how, despite her disabilities and the rude comments being said about her, the girl was so happy because she focused more on her friends than winning the race. I've seen similar things happen when I've been volunteering. So many of the Special Olympics athletes focus on the happiness of others instead of their own. The man said something along the times of "together, we all win". And I think that saying is exemplified throughout the whole Special Olympics program. These people put others' happiness before their own, and in turn, this brings them happiness as well. People who are loving, caring, and generous towards others are typically happier than selfish people who only strive for their own happiness.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ally. It is very fulfilling for me to help people and knowing that i am needed makes me happy. It's hard to put others before yourself because so many people are used to putting themselves first. I had this problem when i first started babysitting when i was 11 but over the years i have noticed that i am a much more selfless person, and it's made me a lot happier.
DeleteI agree completely. I thought the Special Olympics part was really touching and interesting. I know from experience that whenever I have looked out for others ahead of myself, I have been more happy myself. I'm not sure what is it about thinking of others before myself, but I have a sort of appreciation and self-satisfaction in the fact that I helped someone else which could be why I'm happier as a result.
DeleteI found it interesting when the video talked about people's genes determining their baseline of happiness. I never really have thought that everyone's genes really play a key role in their levels of happiness. I just assumed before that everybody was on the same baseline levels of happiness. After thinking about this for a while, I had some questions pop into my head. Let's say Person A on a scale of 1-10 has a baseline range of happiness from 1-3 and Person B's range is 7-9. Will Person A and Person B both perceive their highest levels of happiness as equal? Because if you think about it, there is no way that Person A could have experienced the same maximum level of happiness that Person B has. So as a result, Person A's perception of their maximum happiness level will be the same in their mind as Person B's. Same with Person B's outlook on Person A's happiness. If they are both at their happiest possible level of happiness and have no way of experiencing anything outside of that range, then they will assume the other person is experiencing the same happiness as the other. So is their even a way to compare happiness or to give others advice on happiness if we realize that everybody's happiness might be on a different range on the 1-10 scale?
ReplyDeleteGood question on whether Person A and Person B will perceive their highest levels of happiness as equal. I think there isn't any possible way to determine this, but it's an interesting thing to think about how different my being the happiest I possibly could be is from you being as happy as you possibly could be.
DeleteI think our ideas of happiness in America are pretty messed up. After seeing happiness in other parts of the world and how different they are from ours, it makes me wonder why we are like this and why we haven't really changed yet. Yes, most Americans overwork themselves and for what, so we can buy a flashier car or the next iPhone model? What is all this work amounting to? It seems that we are raised this way. In school, we are taught to work hard so we can get into college, and in college we are told to work hard so we can get a high paying job, where we will continue to work hard. What's the point? If all we get out of all of this work and stress is materials that don't guarantee our happiness, then why do we continue to work ourselves to death? Americans need to figure this out - for some reason, we think that having stuff and being wealthy will somehow make us happy because we will have a sense of security. But then there are people on the other side of the world who have close to nothing and are far happier than us. What is our problem?!
ReplyDeleteI think it's interesting that some people are genetically only capable of achieving a certain level of happiness. It sucks how it's completely out of our control, which is why the whole "happy pill" idea is intriguing. If we could each reach our highest possible levels of happiness, one person would still be happier than another. Yet, contrary to popular belief in our society, this happiness level has everything to do with genetics and basically nothing to do with money. Of course, having basic needs met affects happiness, but I found it interesting that there was virtually no difference in the happiness levels of those who made enough income to support their families and those who were concerned rich. Why is it, then, that happiness is so connected to money in our minds? Why do we view money as something that leads to happiness? Even though we all well know that money can't buy happiness, we are still enthralled it. And if we try to pursue a career that is known to be difficult to make money in, our parents worry about our "future happiness." Why is it that we are so worried about money when it's correlation to happiness clearly isn't that strong?
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, although wealth does not greatly affect overall happiness, we should not assume that it isn't helpful to try to be successful in life. Wealth is generally a sign of success, so why should people put such little importance on how successful they are? One thing that makes me happy is being able to buy something with my own money and knowing that I am making money doing something that benefits other people. I don't babysit all the time just to make money, but for me making money makes me feel important. I get paid because people need me to babysit their kids and it is nice to be needed
ReplyDeleteI agree. I have a greater sense of worth and accomplishment after I work hard and save up money to buy something that is meaningful to me. Also, I feel like with more money comes more opportunity, so it may in some way lead to happiness, as long as people aren't consumed with the idea of making money. I personally however get more out of buying things myself rather than having a parent or someone else buy that same thing for me.
DeleteThe most interesting part of the movie was when they showed the tribe (I assume it was African?) that had no technology and no modern conveniences. It talked about how when one person becomes sick, the entire village, even the children, work together and do everything in their power to make the person better rather than bringing them to an unknown, strange doctor. One man said he likes to go around sometimes and pretend like he's a bull. Everyone in class laughed, thinking he was silly. What if he heard of Americans getting frustrated with Flappy Bird and thought we were equally as crazy? I loved how the movie showed both aspects of the spectrum: those who have a lot of material things and those who simply believe they have a lot. It was an example of not being able to miss what you don't have. It seems humans are naturally made to be happy initially, and they only develop the desire for more when they see someone else who seemingly has more.
ReplyDeleteQuestions for happiness survey: Are you content with your life? Would you change anything?
ReplyDeleteQuestion for Happiness Survey: If you died today, would you consider your life complete?
ReplyDeleteor would you be proud of the life you have led
Delete