Today Mr. Romano said that happiness, when measured and compared to individuals' financial standings, is not affected by what other people in the world have but rather what the people around you have. For example, here in America one man can have three million dollars but see his neighbor has four million dollars and he can feel bad about himself and not be as happy as a man in Nigeria who lives in a dirt house, lives off cents but has a goat when his neighbor only has a chicken. I think it is fascinating that there is such relativity in how we view our lives and how this affects our happiness. I think we are all too distracted by what the people that we come in contact with everyday have to realize just how incredible our lives really are.
I agree! I think it's weird that comparing ourselves to others is such a large part of our desires and our happiness! I would like to think that this doesn't concern me, but I guess we all subconsciously must want, on some level, to have more than the people around us, or be better than them in some way. We want to be better than others, but wouldn't our lives be easier and happier if we just eliminated that desire? I think so. We should definitely learn to appreciate what we have.
After sending the last term discussing and researching happiness with all of you I am curious as to where everyone stands on what happiness is. I do not want to know your personal definitions of happiness. Instead I want to know whether or not you think happiness is ultimately decided by us, or chemicals in our brain that we cannot control. Is happiness a mind of matter thing where you decide for yourself what makes us happy and how we reach our happiness? Or is it something that consists of chemicals being correctly aligned in our brains allowing us to feel as though we are happy? Or is it a mixture of both of these concepts? I have my opinion on this but I want to hear everyone else's.
I feel like if you think of happiness as chemicals in your brian that you have no control over, it sort of takes the happiness out of happiness? I mean, happiness is supposed to be this great thing that makes everything better and that people strive for, but if you take the personal aspect out of the equation, it makes happiness sort of sad. It's just my opinion, but if happiness could be achieved just by having your brain release certain chemicals and having no control over it, it defeats the purpose of striving for it. For happiness to be happiness, I think that it has to be achieved and not just some random chemicals.
Today, Mr. Romano talked about happiness and satisfaction based on our personal wealth and success being relative to the wealth and success of those around us. Upon hearing this, I wasn't entirely sure I was convinced that the theory was true. It wasn't until I started applying it to my own life that I realized I experience this on a daily basis. For example, sometimes I'll be happy with my report card until I realize that my younger sister made better grades than I did. Little things like this also exemplify the theory Mr. Romano talked about. People don't feel truly happy with what they have because they are convinced that others have it better. Humans are always striving for the very best, thinking that the best things will make them happiest. But can anyone really ever achieve "the best"? Someone is always going to be smarter, funnier, richer, prettier, etc… so, according to this theory, can anyone ever really be content with what they have?
I thought Mr. Romano brought up an interesting point today in class when he was talking about Adam Smith. Adam Smith seemed to oppose himself in his two books. In one he stated that people are driven by an "impartial spectator" inside them that makes you act according to what others will think. On the other hand, in his book "The Wealth of Nations," he discussed the idea that people are driven by the want to satisfy ourselves. Some people think that there is no way that he can say both, but I think that there is some true in both of them. Whether we like it or not, all people are care to some degree about what others think of them. Some let it dictate their whole lives while others don't care at all. I think that it is important to be somewhere in the middle. If you are going to interact in society, you have to have some idea of what others think of you. You don't want to walk around being rude all the time because you feel like it and don't care about how people view you. But at the same time, you don't want to go around doing things solely for other people's sake. Along with being conscious of what others think, it is important to listen to yourself and do what you desire. But again, there needs to be a balance. You can't only indulge in personal pleasures, whereas you also can't do things only for other people's benefit. So, I think that if people have a balance of the two ideas, then their lives will be balanced, and it will be easier to be happy.
I thought it was interesting how Mr. Romano made the distinction in class between short term happiness and long term contentment. To me, it is interesting that he used the word "contentment for long term and "happiness" for short term. Is there any meaning behind this? Since these are originally economists words and not Mr. Romano's, are economists trying to tell us that we can only be happy in the short term and content in the long? It may just be the phrasing, but it seems like they distinctively made the choice to use the word contentment instead of happiness.
I think contentment is an accurate term for long term happiness. We can't be completely happy all the time. We can be "happy" with certain events in your life, but those are short term things. For example, if your team won a state championship, you would feel extremely happy in that moment, but after awhile, you would just be content that you won. You wouldn't continue to feel that absolute happiness all the time. Contentment is more a term of being happy with where you are and what you are doing in your life on a regular basis.
Today Mr. Romano talked about how happiness in financial standings has a lot to do with how relative it is to others. It would not surprise me if the US had a very high depression rate because we are brought up in such a competitive environment where what we do and what we have must be better than what someone else does or has, or we compare ourselves in that we want to have the same things that they have. It all goes back to the concept that we as humans strive to be accepted but at the same time expect to stand out based only on merit. We strive to satisfy ourselves, but it's hard to do when we are constantly compared with those around us
So I was a little confused today after the Romano talk. I mean he was a great speaker and it's obvious that he is a really smart guy no doubt, but I'm slightly confused on the eventual conclusion economists have come to? (or maybe they havent?) Does wealth increase happiness at ALL levels? Or once you reach a certain level does everything plateau? I guess it's still a debate?
I think everyone has their own opinions, and although psychologists/economists and so on have proved their own separate theories, there are those that contradict each other and therefore it is still a debate.
I think that in general the economist were saying that money will make you somewhat happy no matter what, but it only drastically changes your happiness levels from a low amount of income to a higher one. Once you make enough money to have your basic needs, it still affects your happiness levels but barely. To sum up, I think they've come to a general conclusion that happiness levels are increased by money, but the extent they are raised depends on how much you already have.
Today, Mr. Romano touched on how the United states has a huge income gap and how we are the exception to the rule stating that the more money a nation has, the happier they will be. He mentioned that if a person feels inferior to others around he or she, then that person, regardless of how much wealth they have, will always be unsatisfied and therefore unhappy. If someone's peers have more money than they do, then they will be less happy as a result. It was interesting, however, that Romano discussed how Americans have this perception and misconception that they need to be in that top-tier of wealth. He said that people in the US tend to look at the wealthiest of the wealthy and compare their own income to theirs which may lead to their own unhappiness. This is so interesting to think about. To think that maybe our own perceptions and heads are what keeps us from being happy with our lives is really interesting to think about.
I agree that it is very interesting that we, as humans, can have no reason not to be happy except for feeling as though someone else is better than us. Do you think that this idea applies to us here at Marist? For example if you get a 95% on a paper but someone else gets a 100%, do we feel worse about our grade even though it is good?
I found it funny how today after all of our debate and talk about economics on happiness and everything, that we got back to the same spot we started at! We can talk about how economics may or may not make someone happy. We can add different amounts of money into the equation, but in the end it's all relative. What makes you happy may not make me happy. So it's all pointless. Boom. Done. Oversimplified
I kind of agree with what you're saying here, sometimes we debate so much to a point that we end up just as confused or mind blown as when we began, but I think the main point we reached was that a certain point, the amount of money we make/ have becomes normal to us. After that, we start all over again being unsatisfied with what we have and want what we don't.
Amen. I agree that we've already figured out by now that we can't just measure happiness through some test or scale. Who even does the surveys going from country to country? Everyone is different, so everyone's definition of happiness is going to be different and therefore different things will make people happy. If being rich is a lot of people's definition of being happy, then we have to define what it means to be rich to every single person. So, back to square (week) one.
Mr. Romano made interesting points. One thing that intrigued me is that in economics, happiness has to be somewhat specific. You cannot just ask if someone is happy and expect a straightforward answer. We do not know if they are happy in the moment or if they are speaking about their long term happiness. Then comes the Easterlin Paradox, which states that happiness derived from income has a limit. Many people have already proven this wrong. While it has already been established that the more income/money you have, the happier you will be, what would it be like if you had all the money in the world? Once all the money has been obtained, could that be considered "optimal" happiness and could you finally be considered "truly happy?" If so, what would then happen as you spend that money? You have all the money in the world and you start spending it. The more you spend, the more money you lose. Since you'll always have to pay for something and it would diminish your money count, in terms of Economics, is it impossible to truly be happy?
I think the whole thing about happiness increasing with income comes down to the fact that you can buy more time to spend on being with friends and family and things like travelling. I wouldn't say that people with higher income are happier because they can have more materials, but that they have the flexibility in their life so that they don't have to work all the time to support themselves and their family. Time is very valuable, and I think the most attractive part about having that much money is having that extra time.
Is today's compulsion to buy more a manifestation of evolved reptilian desires?
I know we might have talked a little about this in class, but I am still curious.
I think that in our world, since we no longer need to worry about food, fire, and shelter, we have evolved our reptilian desires to encompass more material things. We are compelled to buy things that make our life easier, but more so, things that make our life more pleasant since we don't have to worry about surviving. If you looked at every possession you owned, there would not be anything that you purposely bought to make your life awful and cause unhappiness.
I think we are compelled to get things that make pour lives easier, but I don't think this is an exaggerated or evolved form of our reptilian desires, because they don't revolve around convenience or what we think will make us happy; they revolve around survival, mainly. I think we've still got that drive to be concerned about food/shelter/etc. Like, you still get hungry, right? Even though you have food and you know you're gonna get to eat food, you still get hungry and you still have a desire to eat. That, I believe, is what a reptilian desire is.
To sum up the youtube clip we watched today: "Money makes people happy."
In my life, I believe that money has only helped to pave the road or make my journey easier on my path to happiness. It has not brought me total happiness. Money has given me the ability to experience the world and to partake in social interaction which has brought me happiness. Overall, I believe that money is not necessary to happiness, but I think that it aids one and facilitates the process to obtaining it.
I really like where you're going with this. I agree that money doesn't necessarily bring happiness, but it definitely can help. If one isn't worried about making ends meet and worried about paying bills and pinching pennies, I would say that as a general rule, that person would have less stress in their lives. And when you have less stress in your life, you can worry about other things, such as actually being able to focus and enjoy things you do in your leisure time (such as knitting, playing an instrument, or being with your family). And if you're enjoying yourself in a hobby that you have more time to spend on, then I would say you would probably be happier. So i agree, that having money can help make the path to happiness easier in that sense.
I think both of y'all are onto something. I think rather than money making someone happy, it would be the means to obtain something that you want. For example, if someone wanted to eat pineapples for the rest of their lives, to us as Americans, we would need money. But to someone living in a place like Hawaii (or wherever pineapples are even grown), they could just go to a tree and pluck one off. While they don't have the physical money to buy it, they have the means to obtain it. If one was concerned about providing for their family and they knew they could do so by working and receiving food, I think they would be happy without money.
Mr. Romano discussed how the U.S. has an abnormal amount of happiness/unhappiness because of the large income gap that occurs between the lower and upper class. He mentioned that we're always worrying about what other countries are doing, and we're trying to one up them. I think it's interesting that he discussed whether the amount of money determines happiness. To me, it seemed the main point was that perceived wealth determines happiness. We can live our lives as simply or as extravagantly as we like, meaning we could learn to be happy with just beans and rice every night, or we could "need" some meat. We usually are content with what we have until we realize what those around us have, and I think if we stopped comparing ourselves to the Joneses, the U.S would be much happier. You can't miss something you never had, so why do we mourn over someone else's possession?
Mr Romano talked about the enormous income gap between poor and rich in the US, compared to the rest of the world. Going back to the question I asked in class, could the income gap be due to the lack of wars on American soil?
I think it does. The huge number of wars taking place in europe (compared to the US) pretty much wiped out the bottom portion of the population, because this portion was essentially unable to relocate as easily as people with a considerable amount of wealth. So, it's more likely that these people got caught in firefights, succumbed to disease, and/or starved. It is also possible that a lot of the working class in Europe, more likely to be working in factories than the middle class, could have been caught in bombing runs. In the US, none of the lower class was subject to the atrocities of war to the extent of their counterparts in europe, so they would not have been wiped out. Thoughts?
I'm not sure if it wiped out the lower classes because they weren't able to move, I think it's safe to say that everyone was affected in the same way regardless of class. The wholesale destruction of WW2 created more of an equal playing field during the rebuilding period, just like the Black Death did in the middle ages.
I like how Nettle splits up happiness into three parts: pleasure, subjective well-being, and fulfilling one's potential. It breaks up happiness into much more specific parts, and makes it easiier to understand which concept of happiness Nettle is talking about at any given point. However, the only problem that I see with this system, and with happiness in general, is that it's too subjective, and can be easily influenced by, for example, finding a dime at the printer.
But doesn't Nettle address the subjectivity of happiness measurements? I recall that there are certain criteria to be met when when measurements are verified. They have to be consistent and conclusive, right? That way even subjectivity can be somewhat accounted for and the data can still be credible.
I'm with Beth here, I think that there is some way of measuring this subjectivity even on a really broad scale. It's sort of like how people can rank their favorite painting, people do know what makes them happy and when they are happier than other times.
Mr. Romano embodied the fact that happiness is totally subjective. He stated that once a person has a certain amount of wealth that covers our needs, he can be happy. to increase their happiness from that point is very difficult and takes a large percent of wealth increase. do you think your happiness would greatly decrease if you only had enough money to have basic needs?
I think that what you're proposing is kind of like the example Mr. Heintz and the guy from the Ted Talk gave. In the example, they observed people who had won the lottery and people who lost the use of a limb. After a certain amount f time, both people were equally happy. I think this is similar. With enough time, if we were to go down to only having enough money to meet our basic needs, I think our baseline of happiness would adjust. It would definitely be a significant change and may take a while to get used to, but I think, in time, your baselines will balance out, and we will be perfectly happy.
I think that in a way the labeling of happiness as subjective well being contradicts the views of economics. If your happiness levels increase after getting money, then that form of happiness is not subjective. I guess it means that the happiness that you receive from the money is subjective, but the way in which you receive this happiness is uniform.
I'm going to have to disagree with you, Will. Different things make different people happy, so how one receives happiness is also subjective. You might experience happiness (flow) when you play music, but I just get frustrated with whatever instrument I'm playing, and smash it on the stage. I, however, experience Happiness (flow) when I'm running. I'm not saying you don't experience flow when you're running, because you probably do; most people, on the other hand, wouldn't experience flow when they're running. Therefore, Happiness AND the ways through which we receive Happiness are subjective.
During Romano's talk yesterday, we briefly discussed why we may want more material needs, like an expensive car. We don't necessarily need the over-the-top nice car or house, we are programmed by evolution to use these nice things to attract mates. I remember a few years ago I saw a documentary that dealt with a similar issue. They did an experiment where they showed pictures and information of different men. Generally the man that was less attractive but made $300,000/year were chosen over a very attractive man who makes $50,000/year.
That's awesome. Did they explain why? Like did a more expensive suit just look better on the less attractive man, or was he really clean shaven and sharp looking or something? In that case, the argument could be made that money MAY buy happiness, and that's a whole other aspect to look into.
Does money make you personally happy? This is a very personal question. I don't want to sit on my high horse and say "No, because I'm not about material possessions." but in fact I am. I could be categorized as a typical American consumerist. Do I need a yacht? No. Would I like one? Hell yes.
I would like to think that money would make me personally happy... but not so much money. For me, the lifestyle that i am blessed enough to live right now seems pretty fantastic and i just want to preserve that. I am just worried about losing my lifestyle and along with it my general contentness with my life. Sure i would love to have a yacht but if i was able to live in the same sized house i do now and enjoy the food and family that i do now... i would be happy. I think.
I agree with jack. Money brings us happiness but not necessarily through the possessions. it makes us happy through what it can eliminate through possessions. for example a new car or washing machine could eliminate time. this newly gained time would bring us happiness through more unburdened freedom. the possessions bring us happiness as a bi product of what they do.
Money personally makes me happy, but not us much as material possessions would. For example, I would much rather prefer to have ten CDs of my favorite music that each cost ten dollars than having one hundred dollars. I value things that make me happy, such as music and friends, a lot more than wealth. Sometimes I look at my life and wish "Oh man, I wish I had money to buy blah, blah, blah," but then I look at what I currently have and feel that I really don't need it and that I'm pretty comfortable with the way things are.
When you say that money makes you happy, I think you're mistaken.I don't think it's simply the act of having money that makes you happy, but it's having the ability to spend it on things is what makes you happy. It's like saying "this very piece of green paper makes me happy," as opposed to saying "this yacht and these CDs that I bought with these green pieces of paper make me happy."
I find Adam Smith’s dichotomy of the impartial spectator and how we decide what’s right and wrong quite interesting. First of all, I like that economics is a behavior science in which moral philosophy comes into play. We are all interested in what others think, but I never realized how much outside influence I had on the decisions I make, especially dealing with how I contribute to the economy. I think there’s a way that the impartial spectator helps us to make decisions while still taking into account others’ perception of us and also our perception of others. This goes back, in a way, to the theory that community helps achieve happiness in that we can create a foundation for how we can make ourselves happy.
Do you think that you can over power your impartial spectator and make choices that are contrary to the beliefs instilled by it. If so can you do this and still be happy? Or will you just end up unhappy because you feel unfulfilled?
I’m curious about the income gap and it’s relation to happiness. Mr. Romano explained that the income gap in the US could explain our uncharacteristic unhappiness. However, according to the documentary, Japan is one of the least happy countries while their GDP is ridiculously large. Maybe it’s their income gap that accounts for their unhappiness. I researched it, and Japan’s gap isn’t that large. It’s not even in the top 20 worst gaps, and there are far happier countries, such as Italy and Spain, whose gaps are much larger. Is the US just an outlier, or is the Easterlin Paradox more pertinent than we think?
Maybe Japan's income gap isn't as large because a whole bunch of people were wiped out during the American firebombings and nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
I've always believed that money can't buy happiness, but now that I've seen some other perspectives, it seems to be that it can to a certain extent. I understand that a certain amount of money is needed in order to fulfill basic needs like food and shelter. But, when money gets beyond that level, I think it can only provide momentary happiness. Is it possible for income to provide lasting happiness? Also, I think that people who already have money don't feel as much lasting happiness because they don't have to work for much. If everything is handed to you, then how can you be happy with your so -called "success"?
I think in class we touched on a very important point, money should be spent towards helping others and personal experiences rather than material possessions. For example, if you had enough money to either buy a yacht or tour Europe for two months, you should tour Europe because it gives you a more lasting happiness through experiences.
Along with what I said earlier, do we have to work hard in order to feel success? Or can we just be handed something and get the same amount of happiness? Sometimes, like in school for example, we work ourselves crazy trying to get good grades. Good grades don't always mean that we are going to be happy though. I think a lot of the time, people set goals that they just assume are the right thing to do or will make them happy.
Great point. How are we supposed to determine what good goals are for ourselves? What if everything we do as far as school work just becomes irrelevant one day... like if you were to win the lottery. If you had no need to make money and college didn't matter would we still do school work and get good grades to make ourselves content. Would this work still carry the same weight.
I am contradicting myself. One part of me just wants to be free to live life and run around just accepting what comes my way. Playing music making friends, eating good food (Which contrary to common belief is not all expensive), and maybe finding some love would be cool. If i could have my basic needs provided for and a way to make music... i think i would be happy. At the same time though their is a bastard of myself clawing for my mind. Part of me couldn't accept being slightly wealthy. Part of me screams for more. I feel like i need to prove myself to the world and say "look i'm worth something, im not useless, i deserve this life". Theres my heart sitting on my sleeve, my emotions and ideas sitting out in the sun. Go ahead classmates, desecrate and murder them. Please, im begging you.
But it's not uncommon nor is it bad to have contradicting feelings. And as much as we all want to believe it, our desires aren't usually that special. Everybody thinks that they want to just do the things they love, but we're held down by another always-present desire to be better than everyone else, or at least to have equal to or more than the people around us. We're selfish, but we're simple. It's not special to want more and it's not special to want to escape these desires- what makes us special and what makes us different and what makes us happy is if we actually take steps to take control of our lives and do what we want.
Maybe simplistic notions could be acceptable if we hadn't fallen so far into money and gain. What if simple beauties were what we thrived on. Hey, so what if we just loved each other and played in fields of roses and flew around on our emotions like huge seagulls looking for land and the stars became our tv and the spider traps the only webs we knew and the tears we cried were echoed by those around us and the love we felt was allowed to blossom and ensnare our own hearts and the earth just was as it is and we slept with blankets of dew and soft grass and we let out eyes see things with wonder again and if we stopped trying to learn everything and instead tried to take a chance and we were taught by the way that we tripped and the way that we wondered and if the sound of the birds became our ipods and the voices of our ancestors became our histories and the world wasn't ours, because it isn't. We are the world's.
I don't really think reptilian desires are the root cause of one's need and want to spend money and buy things. Everyone looks for more convenience in his/her life, but that isn't because of reptilian desires. It goes beyond that. There are these basic things we desire (food, water, etc) and I don't think those desires would influence someone to buy an excessively nice car or fancy clothes or anything. Although people might buy stuff in order to gain status (in fact, based on what we talked about today, they most definitely do), I don't think this longing for status is rooted in our need to find a mate. We've evolved to a point where there's not really much of a fight to find a partner, and one does not necessarily need status in order to find a mate.
I'm a little confused about David Gilbert's studies on adaptation. If we revert back to our previous state after some seemingly life-changing event occurs in our life, what's the difference? Does it matter whether or not I win the lottery or get paralyzed? It seems kind of empowering to think that our happiness is ultimately unaffected in the long-term, but isn't it kind of a let-down that it is also unaffected by all the amazing things that happen? Also what constitutes as an event that we adapt to and conversely what events are ones that change our happiness?
The point is that you have a genetically predetermined level of happiness that you naturally revert to regardless of most life events. We overestimate the importance of specific events in our lives and thus chase after the wrong things.
I thought it was interesting how Mr. Romano said that we have to look at context. The number you place on someone's wealth doesn't mean anything, until you put it in the context of relative levels of income around them. In the US, I think this is a major issue because of how comparing these levels of income has become so competitive. Is it simply our social structure? Why are we so concerned with the amount of money we make not because we need it, but because we feel the need to "beat out" those around us?
I believe that it is entirely our social structure. i think that a big part of our happiness is what we see other people doing to make themselves happy. if we grew up seeing that being dirt poor but fishing everyday made prominent figures in our life happy, we would be predisposed to follow that path or way to happiness.
I agree with Conor. In American, the wealthy are thought to look at those that are dirt poor as being unhappy. If you continue to live as a wealthy person, you will continue to believe that more accumulation of wealth will continue to make you happier, where as if you were to have grown up in a less wealthy family/society, you would not value money as much and your perception of happiness would have been different.
Today Mr. Romano said that happiness, when measured and compared to individuals' financial standings, is not affected by what other people in the world have but rather what the people around you have. For example, here in America one man can have three million dollars but see his neighbor has four million dollars and he can feel bad about himself and not be as happy as a man in Nigeria who lives in a dirt house, lives off cents but has a goat when his neighbor only has a chicken. I think it is fascinating that there is such relativity in how we view our lives and how this affects our happiness. I think we are all too distracted by what the people that we come in contact with everyday have to realize just how incredible our lives really are.
ReplyDeleteI agree! I think it's weird that comparing ourselves to others is such a large part of our desires and our happiness! I would like to think that this doesn't concern me, but I guess we all subconsciously must want, on some level, to have more than the people around us, or be better than them in some way. We want to be better than others, but wouldn't our lives be easier and happier if we just eliminated that desire? I think so. We should definitely learn to appreciate what we have.
DeleteAfter sending the last term discussing and researching happiness with all of you I am curious as to where everyone stands on what happiness is. I do not want to know your personal definitions of happiness. Instead I want to know whether or not you think happiness is ultimately decided by us, or chemicals in our brain that we cannot control. Is happiness a mind of matter thing where you decide for yourself what makes us happy and how we reach our happiness? Or is it something that consists of chemicals being correctly aligned in our brains allowing us to feel as though we are happy? Or is it a mixture of both of these concepts? I have my opinion on this but I want to hear everyone else's.
ReplyDeleteI feel like if you think of happiness as chemicals in your brian that you have no control over, it sort of takes the happiness out of happiness? I mean, happiness is supposed to be this great thing that makes everything better and that people strive for, but if you take the personal aspect out of the equation, it makes happiness sort of sad. It's just my opinion, but if happiness could be achieved just by having your brain release certain chemicals and having no control over it, it defeats the purpose of striving for it. For happiness to be happiness, I think that it has to be achieved and not just some random chemicals.
DeleteToday, Mr. Romano talked about happiness and satisfaction based on our personal wealth and success being relative to the wealth and success of those around us. Upon hearing this, I wasn't entirely sure I was convinced that the theory was true. It wasn't until I started applying it to my own life that I realized I experience this on a daily basis. For example, sometimes I'll be happy with my report card until I realize that my younger sister made better grades than I did. Little things like this also exemplify the theory Mr. Romano talked about. People don't feel truly happy with what they have because they are convinced that others have it better. Humans are always striving for the very best, thinking that the best things will make them happiest. But can anyone really ever achieve "the best"? Someone is always going to be smarter, funnier, richer, prettier, etc… so, according to this theory, can anyone ever really be content with what they have?
ReplyDeleteI thought Mr. Romano brought up an interesting point today in class when he was talking about Adam Smith. Adam Smith seemed to oppose himself in his two books. In one he stated that people are driven by an "impartial spectator" inside them that makes you act according to what others will think. On the other hand, in his book "The Wealth of Nations," he discussed the idea that people are driven by the want to satisfy ourselves. Some people think that there is no way that he can say both, but I think that there is some true in both of them. Whether we like it or not, all people are care to some degree about what others think of them. Some let it dictate their whole lives while others don't care at all. I think that it is important to be somewhere in the middle. If you are going to interact in society, you have to have some idea of what others think of you. You don't want to walk around being rude all the time because you feel like it and don't care about how people view you. But at the same time, you don't want to go around doing things solely for other people's sake. Along with being conscious of what others think, it is important to listen to yourself and do what you desire. But again, there needs to be a balance. You can't only indulge in personal pleasures, whereas you also can't do things only for other people's benefit. So, I think that if people have a balance of the two ideas, then their lives will be balanced, and it will be easier to be happy.
ReplyDeleteI thought it was interesting how Mr. Romano made the distinction in class between short term happiness and long term contentment. To me, it is interesting that he used the word "contentment for long term and "happiness" for short term. Is there any meaning behind this? Since these are originally economists words and not Mr. Romano's, are economists trying to tell us that we can only be happy in the short term and content in the long? It may just be the phrasing, but it seems like they distinctively made the choice to use the word contentment instead of happiness.
ReplyDeleteI think contentment is an accurate term for long term happiness. We can't be completely happy all the time. We can be "happy" with certain events in your life, but those are short term things. For example, if your team won a state championship, you would feel extremely happy in that moment, but after awhile, you would just be content that you won. You wouldn't continue to feel that absolute happiness all the time. Contentment is more a term of being happy with where you are and what you are doing in your life on a regular basis.
DeleteToday Mr. Romano talked about how happiness in financial standings has a lot to do with how relative it is to others. It would not surprise me if the US had a very high depression rate because we are brought up in such a competitive environment where what we do and what we have must be better than what someone else does or has, or we compare ourselves in that we want to have the same things that they have. It all goes back to the concept that we as humans strive to be accepted but at the same time expect to stand out based only on merit. We strive to satisfy ourselves, but it's hard to do when we are constantly compared with those around us
ReplyDeleteSo I was a little confused today after the Romano talk. I mean he was a great speaker and it's obvious that he is a really smart guy no doubt, but I'm slightly confused on the eventual conclusion economists have come to? (or maybe they havent?) Does wealth increase happiness at ALL levels? Or once you reach a certain level does everything plateau? I guess it's still a debate?
ReplyDeleteI think everyone has their own opinions, and although psychologists/economists and so on have proved their own separate theories, there are those that contradict each other and therefore it is still a debate.
DeleteI think that in general the economist were saying that money will make you somewhat happy no matter what, but it only drastically changes your happiness levels from a low amount of income to a higher one. Once you make enough money to have your basic needs, it still affects your happiness levels but barely. To sum up, I think they've come to a general conclusion that happiness levels are increased by money, but the extent they are raised depends on how much you already have.
DeleteToday, Mr. Romano touched on how the United states has a huge income gap and how we are the exception to the rule stating that the more money a nation has, the happier they will be. He mentioned that if a person feels inferior to others around he or she, then that person, regardless of how much wealth they have, will always be unsatisfied and therefore unhappy. If someone's peers have more money than they do, then they will be less happy as a result. It was interesting, however, that Romano discussed how Americans have this perception and misconception that they need to be in that top-tier of wealth. He said that people in the US tend to look at the wealthiest of the wealthy and compare their own income to theirs which may lead to their own unhappiness. This is so interesting to think about. To think that maybe our own perceptions and heads are what keeps us from being happy with our lives is really interesting to think about.
ReplyDeleteI agree that it is very interesting that we, as humans, can have no reason not to be happy except for feeling as though someone else is better than us. Do you think that this idea applies to us here at Marist? For example if you get a 95% on a paper but someone else gets a 100%, do we feel worse about our grade even though it is good?
DeleteI found it funny how today after all of our debate and talk about economics on happiness and everything, that we got back to the same spot we started at! We can talk about how economics may or may not make someone happy. We can add different amounts of money into the equation, but in the end it's all relative. What makes you happy may not make me happy. So it's all pointless. Boom. Done. Oversimplified
ReplyDeleteI kind of agree with what you're saying here, sometimes we debate so much to a point that we end up just as confused or mind blown as when we began, but I think the main point we reached was that a certain point, the amount of money we make/ have becomes normal to us. After that, we start all over again being unsatisfied with what we have and want what we don't.
DeleteAmen. I agree that we've already figured out by now that we can't just measure happiness through some test or scale. Who even does the surveys going from country to country? Everyone is different, so everyone's definition of happiness is going to be different and therefore different things will make people happy. If being rich is a lot of people's definition of being happy, then we have to define what it means to be rich to every single person. So, back to square (week) one.
DeleteMr. Romano made interesting points. One thing that intrigued me is that in economics, happiness has to be somewhat specific. You cannot just ask if someone is happy and expect a straightforward answer. We do not know if they are happy in the moment or if they are speaking about their long term happiness. Then comes the Easterlin Paradox, which states that happiness derived from income has a limit. Many people have already proven this wrong. While it has already been established that the more income/money you have, the happier you will be, what would it be like if you had all the money in the world? Once all the money has been obtained, could that be considered "optimal" happiness and could you finally be considered "truly happy?" If so, what would then happen as you spend that money? You have all the money in the world and you start spending it. The more you spend, the more money you lose. Since you'll always have to pay for something and it would diminish your money count, in terms of Economics, is it impossible to truly be happy?
ReplyDeleteI think the whole thing about happiness increasing with income comes down to the fact that you can buy more time to spend on being with friends and family and things like travelling. I wouldn't say that people with higher income are happier because they can have more materials, but that they have the flexibility in their life so that they don't have to work all the time to support themselves and their family. Time is very valuable, and I think the most attractive part about having that much money is having that extra time.
DeleteIs today's compulsion to buy more a manifestation of evolved reptilian desires?
ReplyDeleteI know we might have talked a little about this in class, but I am still curious.
I think that in our world, since we no longer need to worry about food, fire, and shelter, we have evolved our reptilian desires to encompass more material things. We are compelled to buy things that make our life easier, but more so, things that make our life more pleasant since we don't have to worry about surviving. If you looked at every possession you owned, there would not be anything that you purposely bought to make your life awful and cause unhappiness.
I think we are compelled to get things that make pour lives easier, but I don't think this is an exaggerated or evolved form of our reptilian desires, because they don't revolve around convenience or what we think will make us happy; they revolve around survival, mainly. I think we've still got that drive to be concerned about food/shelter/etc. Like, you still get hungry, right? Even though you have food and you know you're gonna get to eat food, you still get hungry and you still have a desire to eat. That, I believe, is what a reptilian desire is.
DeleteTo sum up the youtube clip we watched today: "Money makes people happy."
ReplyDeleteIn my life, I believe that money has only helped to pave the road or make my journey easier on my path to happiness. It has not brought me total happiness. Money has given me the ability to experience the world and to partake in social interaction which has brought me happiness. Overall, I believe that money is not necessary to happiness, but I think that it aids one and facilitates the process to obtaining it.
I really like where you're going with this. I agree that money doesn't necessarily bring happiness, but it definitely can help. If one isn't worried about making ends meet and worried about paying bills and pinching pennies, I would say that as a general rule, that person would have less stress in their lives. And when you have less stress in your life, you can worry about other things, such as actually being able to focus and enjoy things you do in your leisure time (such as knitting, playing an instrument, or being with your family). And if you're enjoying yourself in a hobby that you have more time to spend on, then I would say you would probably be happier. So i agree, that having money can help make the path to happiness easier in that sense.
DeleteI think both of y'all are onto something. I think rather than money making someone happy, it would be the means to obtain something that you want. For example, if someone wanted to eat pineapples for the rest of their lives, to us as Americans, we would need money. But to someone living in a place like Hawaii (or wherever pineapples are even grown), they could just go to a tree and pluck one off. While they don't have the physical money to buy it, they have the means to obtain it. If one was concerned about providing for their family and they knew they could do so by working and receiving food, I think they would be happy without money.
DeleteMr. Romano discussed how the U.S. has an abnormal amount of happiness/unhappiness because of the large income gap that occurs between the lower and upper class. He mentioned that we're always worrying about what other countries are doing, and we're trying to one up them. I think it's interesting that he discussed whether the amount of money determines happiness. To me, it seemed the main point was that perceived wealth determines happiness. We can live our lives as simply or as extravagantly as we like, meaning we could learn to be happy with just beans and rice every night, or we could "need" some meat. We usually are content with what we have until we realize what those around us have, and I think if we stopped comparing ourselves to the Joneses, the U.S would be much happier. You can't miss something you never had, so why do we mourn over someone else's possession?
ReplyDeleteMr Romano talked about the enormous income gap between poor and rich in the US, compared to the rest of the world. Going back to the question I asked in class, could the income gap be due to the lack of wars on American soil?
ReplyDeleteI think it does. The huge number of wars taking place in europe (compared to the US) pretty much wiped out the bottom portion of the population, because this portion was essentially unable to relocate as easily as people with a considerable amount of wealth. So, it's more likely that these people got caught in firefights, succumbed to disease, and/or starved. It is also possible that a lot of the working class in Europe, more likely to be working in factories than the middle class, could have been caught in bombing runs. In the US, none of the lower class was subject to the atrocities of war to the extent of their counterparts in europe, so they would not have been wiped out. Thoughts?
I'm not sure if it wiped out the lower classes because they weren't able to move, I think it's safe to say that everyone was affected in the same way regardless of class. The wholesale destruction of WW2 created more of an equal playing field during the rebuilding period, just like the Black Death did in the middle ages.
DeleteI like how Nettle splits up happiness into three parts: pleasure, subjective well-being, and fulfilling one's potential. It breaks up happiness into much more specific parts, and makes it easiier to understand which concept of happiness Nettle is talking about at any given point.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the only problem that I see with this system, and with happiness in general, is that it's too subjective, and can be easily influenced by, for example, finding a dime at the printer.
But doesn't Nettle address the subjectivity of happiness measurements? I recall that there are certain criteria to be met when when measurements are verified. They have to be consistent and conclusive, right? That way even subjectivity can be somewhat accounted for and the data can still be credible.
DeleteI'm with Beth here, I think that there is some way of measuring this subjectivity even on a really broad scale. It's sort of like how people can rank their favorite painting, people do know what makes them happy and when they are happier than other times.
DeleteMr. Romano embodied the fact that happiness is totally subjective. He stated that once a person has a certain amount of wealth that covers our needs, he can be happy. to increase their happiness from that point is very difficult and takes a large percent of wealth increase. do you think your happiness would greatly decrease if you only had enough money to have basic needs?
ReplyDeleteI think that what you're proposing is kind of like the example Mr. Heintz and the guy from the Ted Talk gave. In the example, they observed people who had won the lottery and people who lost the use of a limb. After a certain amount f time, both people were equally happy. I think this is similar. With enough time, if we were to go down to only having enough money to meet our basic needs, I think our baseline of happiness would adjust. It would definitely be a significant change and may take a while to get used to, but I think, in time, your baselines will balance out, and we will be perfectly happy.
DeleteI think that in a way the labeling of happiness as subjective well being contradicts the views of economics. If your happiness levels increase after getting money, then that form of happiness is not subjective. I guess it means that the happiness that you receive from the money is subjective, but the way in which you receive this happiness is uniform.
DeleteI'm going to have to disagree with you, Will. Different things make different people happy, so how one receives happiness is also subjective. You might experience happiness (flow) when you play music, but I just get frustrated with whatever instrument I'm playing, and smash it on the stage. I, however, experience Happiness (flow) when I'm running. I'm not saying you don't experience flow when you're running, because you probably do; most people, on the other hand, wouldn't experience flow when they're running. Therefore, Happiness AND the ways through which we receive Happiness are subjective.
DeleteDuring Romano's talk yesterday, we briefly discussed why we may want more material needs, like an expensive car. We don't necessarily need the over-the-top nice car or house, we are programmed by evolution to use these nice things to attract mates. I remember a few years ago I saw a documentary that dealt with a similar issue. They did an experiment where they showed pictures and information of different men. Generally the man that was less attractive but made $300,000/year were chosen over a very attractive man who makes $50,000/year.
ReplyDeleteThat's awesome. Did they explain why? Like did a more expensive suit just look better on the less attractive man, or was he really clean shaven and sharp looking or something? In that case, the argument could be made that money MAY buy happiness, and that's a whole other aspect to look into.
DeleteDoes money make you personally happy?
ReplyDeleteThis is a very personal question. I don't want to sit on my high horse and say "No, because I'm not about material possessions." but in fact I am. I could be categorized as a typical American consumerist. Do I need a yacht? No. Would I like one? Hell yes.
I would like to think that money would make me personally happy... but not so much money. For me, the lifestyle that i am blessed enough to live right now seems pretty fantastic and i just want to preserve that. I am just worried about losing my lifestyle and along with it my general contentness with my life. Sure i would love to have a yacht but if i was able to live in the same sized house i do now and enjoy the food and family that i do now... i would be happy. I think.
DeleteI agree with jack. Money brings us happiness but not necessarily through the possessions. it makes us happy through what it can eliminate through possessions. for example a new car or washing machine could eliminate time. this newly gained time would bring us happiness through more unburdened freedom. the possessions bring us happiness as a bi product of what they do.
DeleteMoney personally makes me happy, but not us much as material possessions would. For example, I would much rather prefer to have ten CDs of my favorite music that each cost ten dollars than having one hundred dollars. I value things that make me happy, such as music and friends, a lot more than wealth. Sometimes I look at my life and wish "Oh man, I wish I had money to buy blah, blah, blah," but then I look at what I currently have and feel that I really don't need it and that I'm pretty comfortable with the way things are.
DeleteWhen you say that money makes you happy, I think you're mistaken.I don't think it's simply the act of having money that makes you happy, but it's having the ability to spend it on things is what makes you happy. It's like saying "this very piece of green paper makes me happy," as opposed to saying "this yacht and these CDs that I bought with these green pieces of paper make me happy."
DeleteI find Adam Smith’s dichotomy of the impartial spectator and how we decide what’s right and wrong quite interesting. First of all, I like that economics is a behavior science in which moral philosophy comes into play. We are all interested in what others think, but I never realized how much outside influence I had on the decisions I make, especially dealing with how I contribute to the economy. I think there’s a way that the impartial spectator helps us to make decisions while still taking into account others’ perception of us and also our perception of others. This goes back, in a way, to the theory that community helps achieve happiness in that we can create a foundation for how we can make ourselves happy.
ReplyDeleteDo you think that you can over power your impartial spectator and make choices that are contrary to the beliefs instilled by it. If so can you do this and still be happy? Or will you just end up unhappy because you feel unfulfilled?
DeleteI’m curious about the income gap and it’s relation to happiness. Mr. Romano explained that the income gap in the US could explain our uncharacteristic unhappiness. However, according to the documentary, Japan is one of the least happy countries while their GDP is ridiculously large. Maybe it’s their income gap that accounts for their unhappiness. I researched it, and Japan’s gap isn’t that large. It’s not even in the top 20 worst gaps, and there are far happier countries, such as Italy and Spain, whose gaps are much larger. Is the US just an outlier, or is the Easterlin Paradox more pertinent than we think?
ReplyDeleteJapan has enormous levels of social isolation, long work hours, and highly competitive EVERYTHING. Not a situation to be happy in...
DeleteMaybe Japan's income gap isn't as large because a whole bunch of people were wiped out during the American firebombings and nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
DeleteI've always believed that money can't buy happiness, but now that I've seen some other perspectives, it seems to be that it can to a certain extent. I understand that a certain amount of money is needed in order to fulfill basic needs like food and shelter. But, when money gets beyond that level, I think it can only provide momentary happiness. Is it possible for income to provide lasting happiness?
ReplyDeleteAlso, I think that people who already have money don't feel as much lasting happiness because they don't have to work for much. If everything is handed to you, then how can you be happy with your so -called "success"?
I think in class we touched on a very important point, money should be spent towards helping others and personal experiences rather than material possessions. For example, if you had enough money to either buy a yacht or tour Europe for two months, you should tour Europe because it gives you a more lasting happiness through experiences.
DeleteAlong with what I said earlier, do we have to work hard in order to feel success? Or can we just be handed something and get the same amount of happiness? Sometimes, like in school for example, we work ourselves crazy trying to get good grades. Good grades don't always mean that we are going to be happy though. I think a lot of the time, people set goals that they just assume are the right thing to do or will make them happy.
ReplyDeleteGreat point. How are we supposed to determine what good goals are for ourselves? What if everything we do as far as school work just becomes irrelevant one day... like if you were to win the lottery. If you had no need to make money and college didn't matter would we still do school work and get good grades to make ourselves content. Would this work still carry the same weight.
DeleteI am contradicting myself. One part of me just wants to be free to live life and run around just accepting what comes my way. Playing music making friends, eating good food (Which contrary to common belief is not all expensive), and maybe finding some love would be cool. If i could have my basic needs provided for and a way to make music... i think i would be happy. At the same time though their is a bastard of myself clawing for my mind. Part of me couldn't accept being slightly wealthy. Part of me screams for more. I feel like i need to prove myself to the world and say "look i'm worth something, im not useless, i deserve this life". Theres my heart sitting on my sleeve, my emotions and ideas sitting out in the sun. Go ahead classmates, desecrate and murder them. Please, im begging you.
ReplyDeleteBut it's not uncommon nor is it bad to have contradicting feelings. And as much as we all want to believe it, our desires aren't usually that special. Everybody thinks that they want to just do the things they love, but we're held down by another always-present desire to be better than everyone else, or at least to have equal to or more than the people around us. We're selfish, but we're simple. It's not special to want more and it's not special to want to escape these desires- what makes us special and what makes us different and what makes us happy is if we actually take steps to take control of our lives and do what we want.
DeleteMaybe simplistic notions could be acceptable if we hadn't fallen so far into money and gain. What if simple beauties were what we thrived on.
ReplyDeleteHey, so what if we just loved each other and played in fields of roses and flew around on our emotions like huge seagulls looking for land and the stars became our tv and the spider traps the only webs we knew and the tears we cried were echoed by those around us and the love we felt was allowed to blossom and ensnare our own hearts and the earth just was as it is and we slept with blankets of dew and soft grass and we let out eyes see things with wonder again and if we stopped trying to learn everything and instead tried to take a chance and we were taught by the way that we tripped and the way that we wondered and if the sound of the birds became our ipods and the voices of our ancestors became our histories and the world wasn't ours, because it isn't. We are the world's.
I don't really think reptilian desires are the root cause of one's need and want to spend money and buy things. Everyone looks for more convenience in his/her life, but that isn't because of reptilian desires. It goes beyond that. There are these basic things we desire (food, water, etc) and I don't think those desires would influence someone to buy an excessively nice car or fancy clothes or anything. Although people might buy stuff in order to gain status (in fact, based on what we talked about today, they most definitely do), I don't think this longing for status is rooted in our need to find a mate. We've evolved to a point where there's not really much of a fight to find a partner, and one does not necessarily need status in order to find a mate.
ReplyDeleteI'm a little confused about David Gilbert's studies on adaptation. If we revert back to our previous state after some seemingly life-changing event occurs in our life, what's the difference? Does it matter whether or not I win the lottery or get paralyzed? It seems kind of empowering to think that our happiness is ultimately unaffected in the long-term, but isn't it kind of a let-down that it is also unaffected by all the amazing things that happen? Also what constitutes as an event that we adapt to and conversely what events are ones that change our happiness?
ReplyDeleteThe point is that you have a genetically predetermined level of happiness that you naturally revert to regardless of most life events. We overestimate the importance of specific events in our lives and thus chase after the wrong things.
Deleteohhh okay. thank you for the clarification!
DeleteI thought it was interesting how Mr. Romano said that we have to look at context. The number you place on someone's wealth doesn't mean anything, until you put it in the context of relative levels of income around them. In the US, I think this is a major issue because of how comparing these levels of income has become so competitive. Is it simply our social structure? Why are we so concerned with the amount of money we make not because we need it, but because we feel the need to "beat out" those around us?
ReplyDeleteI believe that it is entirely our social structure. i think that a big part of our happiness is what we see other people doing to make themselves happy. if we grew up seeing that being dirt poor but fishing everyday made prominent figures in our life happy, we would be predisposed to follow that path or way to happiness.
DeleteI agree with Conor. In American, the wealthy are thought to look at those that are dirt poor as being unhappy. If you continue to live as a wealthy person, you will continue to believe that more accumulation of wealth will continue to make you happier, where as if you were to have grown up in a less wealthy family/society, you would not value money as much and your perception of happiness would have been different.
Delete