Simulated Happiness

http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_gilbert_asks_why_are_we_happy.html

If you have some time to kill you should really check out the link above because, plain and simple, it's awesome.

Short Summary:

One of the key evolutionary traits humans developed was a frontal lobe portion of the brain. This allows us to simulate events and their outcomes without actually partaking in them. This feature allows us to generate scenarios to differentiate between courses of action that would make us happy and those that would not. What's interesting is the ability for the simulation to over dramatize the results that occur in reality. Therefor, the act of, getting fired for instance, is much worse in simulation than the actual act of being fired. Ultimately, even if we don't get what we want, our "psychological immune system" will let us feel truly happy no matter the circumstances.

What I loved about this talk was the fact that it was a mix of philosophy and psychology. Not only did it feature the aspect of finding happiness, but it even presented actual data to support the results. The message of the talk is actually quite comforting because it shows us that even if we don't end up with exactly what we want, we still have the potential for happiness. If anything this means we have the ability to be a tad more risky in our pursuit of our "wants" simply because if true, the act of striking out will lead us to happiness as well in the long-run. Again, this wasn't an empty claim, but supported by examples such as the man who turned down the first chance to investment in McDonalds.

More interesting however, was our side-talk about the paraplegic/lottery winner which is happier discussion. Now I understand how eventually both individuals will reach the same level of happiness as they become accustomed to their lives, but Baker actually took a different spin on it. He said that instead of the two meeting with the paraplegic going up in happiness over time and the lottery winner's happiness decreasing over time, he suggested the two would both decrease, as the lottery winner would suffer new found stress with their winnings (family and friends wanting some, etc). Many winners apparently hold off as late as possible before deciding if they want to even collect their winnings. I pictured them both reaching this "average happiness plateau" in the middle, however it's a very interesting point. Just goes a step further to demonstrate how just because we visualize something one way, doesn't mean it can't go the other way in reality.

This fellow has the right idea.

The idea of the choices we make influencing our own perception of beauty with the Monet prints was incredible. An act as simple as selecting one picture over another (even when the individual could not remember which they had chosen) had a bigger influence than I could ever believe. It stems back to the in-class quote, "Things are beautiful if you love them." By selecting one mediocre print over the other the chooser made the subconscious link that they loved it because they chose it. Through that decision it significantly altered their ratings of the pictures as they ranked the one they chose higher then the one they passed (because they didn't "love" that one). Very cool how the mind makes the best of the choices we make by re-wiring itself.

Being an indecisive person in the past, I'm not really surprised how people with no opportunity to change their minds were happier than those who could. We may enjoy the idea of complete freedom, however much of the time it only creates uncertainty in our actions.

Like I stated earlier, I think this talk adds to, but doesn't revolutionize our preconceived idea of happiness from class. I may even disagree slightly. If this talk were completely true, then it would make sense that everyone would be happy eventually in every circumstance, which I don't buy entirely. I know any example I could come up with would be a simulation and therefore have the potential to be overdramatized to the reality, but I think there are people who aren't willing to let go of their losses. Not to be completely random, but the marriage example he gave was interesting to me. Yes, I agree that one may be more lenient to certain negative characteristics of your spouse, but the speaker says you'd just live with it because you married them. The media says however that divorce rates are climbing higher, so does that just mean these people are less content with their choices? Maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way. Perhaps the finality of marriage just isn't what it used to be. Similar to the photography class example done at Harvard, perhaps society has weakened the bonds of marriage so that instead of the final choice class, it has become the class where one may change their mind. It makes sense if society really does enjoy the idea of freedom despite it making them less happy.

A picture says a thousand words. This one only needs the two.

It's not that I oppose people who are unhappy getting out of a marriage. Far from it because everyone deserves to be happy. I just find it a tad depressing that the longevity and commitment of marriage seems like a hollow gesture nowadays.

Anyways, regarding the talk, I do agree that this is an excellent mindset to get into and the speaker is probably correct that this behaviour is instinctual. It's a fantastic concept that no matter what we do we still have the potential to be happy with ourselves and, like I said, this should only give us more incentive to pursue our dreams and goals. We have nothing to lose. :)

Never stop questioning.