Happiness Readings and The Three Princes of Serendip

In culling out old links, I isolated Mind Shadows posts on happiness. They are an eclectic lot, about aspects of the subject.  What you will discover for yourself will be a case of serendipity, the term coined by Hugh Walpole about the story of the Three princes of Serendip, who discovered by accident. Enough of that. Enjoy the serendipity. Here are the Mind Shadow links:

Matthieu Ricard, Happiness, & Buddhist Meditation

What is happiness, and how can we have it? Biochemist turned Buddhist monk Matthieu Ricard says we can train our minds in habits of well-being to generate a true sense of serenity and fulfillment. He has been dubbed the "happiest person in the world" by popular media.

Happiness Isn't What It Used To Be

Do you want to be happy? Then focus on making other people happy. That is one finding in the new field of happiness research.

From Ancient times to modern, the dominant Christian worldview has been that happiness is not something we can obtain in this life. It comes in an afterlife, or we are sent to Hell. This life is itself a vale of tears.

We can be happy, we tell ourselves, teeth gritted. We should be happy. We will be happy.

That is a modern article of faith. But it is also a relatively recent idea in the West which dates from the 17th and 18th centuries, a time that ushered in a dramatic shift in what human beings could legitimately hope to expect in and from their lives. People prior to the late 17th century thought happiness was a matter of luck or virtue or divine favor.

Happenstance, something due to chance, exemplifies the English connection of the word to luck.

Today we think of happiness as a right and a skill that can be developed--certainly not due to random chance."This has been liberating, in some respects, because it asks us to strive to improve our lots in life, individually and collectively. But there have been downsides as well. It seems that when we want to be happy all of the time, we can forget that the pursuit of happiness can entail struggle, sacrifice, even pain.

It is a striking fact that in every Indo-European language, without exception, going all the way back to ancient Greek, the word for happiness is a cognate with the word for luck. Hap is the Old Norse and Old English root of happiness, and it just means luck or chance, as did the Old French heur, giving us bonheur, good fortune or happiness. German gives us the word Gluck, which to this day means both happiness and chance.

What does this linguistic pattern suggest? For a good many ancient peoples—and for many others long after that—happiness was not something you could control. It was in the hands of the gods."

Not so today. More

Daniel Kahneman, Nobel Prize Winner: Happiness Can Be Had With $60,000 Yearly Income

Arguing that experience is essentially divided into the "experiencing self" and the "remembering self," Kahnemen suggests that happiness is essentially an act of deftly balancing the two. (They don't always match up, it turns out.) Here's Kahneman:

We know something about what controls satisfaction of the happiness self. We know that money is very important, goals are very important. We know that happiness is mainly being satisfied with people that we like, spending time with people that we like. There are other pleasures, but this is dominant. So if you want to maximize the happiness of the two selves, you are going to end up doing very different things. The bottom line of what I've said here is that we really should not think of happiness as a substitute for well-being. It is a completely different notion. . . .

I think the most interesting result that we found in the Gallup survey is a number, which we absolutely did not expect to find. We found that with respect to the happiness of the experiencing self. When we looked at how feelings vary with income. And it turns out that, below an income of 60,000 dollars a year, for Americans, and that's a very large sample of Americans, like 600,000, but it's a large representative sample, below an income of 600,000 dollars a year. . . .

From DNA & Consciousness to Snorts, Sighs, & Happiness

All DNA does is unzip into another form: here is a genetic/cellular argument that nothing dies, nor is born, and all is part of one life. There is only one life, and it is shared by all human beings.

So you are bored? Try Studies on Consciousness, Cognition, and Life. Take your pick: The nature of consciousness; the nature of Mind; the philosophy of mind; Neurobiology, Theoretical physics.

"Human history can be understood as a long, unbroken sequence of snorts and sighs and other self-modifications of our mental states." Love? Ambition? Heroism? And you thought there was something noble in it? (I still do.)

A grab bag of books on happiness revealed this statement: "A full forty percent of the capacity for happiness is within your power to change." Really? And on what verifiable data is this statement based? Sounds more like an academic version of Oprah Winfrey to me.

Does Spontaneity Promote Happiness?

"Despite considerable research on the topic, I've discovered very little explicitly relating spontaneity to happiness. Admittedly, it's doubtful that any straightforward, one-to-one correspondence actually exists. Still, what various theorists have said about this ideal state of consciousness suggests that, however indirectly, spontaneity does play a crucial role in its achievement. For whether these writers talk about the importance of living in the moment (or 'mindfulness'), liberating oneself from self-consciousness, or even 'being in the zone,' the underlying notion of living more spontaneously to foster a greater state of well-being is generally not far below the surface."

Spontaneity. Hmmm. Long ago when I took French, I read a novel by Andre Gide, Lafcadio's Adventures (in French Les Caves du Vatican, or The Vatican Cellars), in which the protagonist tried to do a completely gratuitous act--something undetermined by him. Without premeditation, so he thinks, without a plan, he murders a man, by shoving him off a train. But the act was not gratuitous, for at the last minute Lafcadio Wluki had intent. He could not escape the cause and effect which informs our lives. For Gide, this was a philosophical novel on what the novelist regarded as the conflict between human freedom and determinism. So much for literature vis-à-vis neuroscience, which cannot find a ghost in the machine.

Which raises the question, Is anything ever spontaneous? Yes, says Robert Burton (On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You're Not). Yes, by implication in the sense that we think we know something because a conscious thought (our belief) arose as a sensation produced by the unconscious mind. The conscious thought that we are right is produced by an unconscious association and is therefore spontaneous. Burton has an interesting argument and from a neurological perspective he is dead on about many things, but it is too long for my purpose here. Read the book if you want to understand more.

Burton, though, was a neurologist, now retired to write novels, and his book is not about happiness. For a psychologist's perspective on happiness and spontaneity, read on. More

Don't Underestimate Yourself

Psychologists have observed that depressives have a more realistic view than have optimists. This should offer little comfort to those who are inclined to expect gray skies rather than sunshine. You can spend your life preparing for thunder storms and miss the pleasure of blue skies. Optimists also tend to accomplish more in life.

Do you prepare yourself for the possibility of bad news by assuming the worst?

Well, don't.

In an experiment, students took a personality test. Then they had to wait for the results of the test. Having taken the test on a computer, they sat in front of its screen. The computer randomly offered them a choice. They could predict the results would be good or bad.

What happened? The "official" results were given to the students. Those with bad results felt no less bad even though they had predicted a poor outcome. Those with good results felt no better, though they had predicted a good outcome.

The point here: having low expectations did not help alleviate feelings of students with bad results.

"Likewise, students who had low expectations of their performance on midterm exams did not feel better than students with high expectations after getting their exams back. The authors speculate that people cling to the low-expectations strategy because they falsely assume that the initial emotional impact from learning the actual outcome will last for a long time. "More

Buddhism & Happiness

Click for other videos in the series.

Is There a Science of Happiness?

"Philosophers have been discussing the nature and possibility of happiness for as long as philosophy has existed. From Socrates on down, there have been many attempts to provide an understanding of the nature of happiness and the ways that individuals might attain it. Later, a more social theory of happiness emerged stressing the role education and knowledge play in creating a world free of superstition in which everyone has a chance to develop their capacities in a society that encourages self-development and the happiness of all. This movement culminated in the ethical theory of Utilitarianism, which self-consciously aims at promoting the happiness and well-being of the greatest number of people. The question before us now is whether there might not be a science of happiness in light of which we can collectively aim to create a better world in which increasing numbers of people have a chance to live happy and flourishing lives." More

Martin Seligman & Happiness

Mind Shadows Home Martin Seligman & Happiness

A woman, call her Jane, sees a psychiatrist who prescribes Prozac for her depression. Joe, with bi-polar disorder, takes lithium. They have been helped by the pharmacopeia of drugs made available to the public. Undergoing standard therapies, others have gained a better sense of well being from the data psychology has collected on various mental illnesses. Over the years, psychology has focused on negative mental health, much to the benefit of those suffering from it.

But what about psychological studies on positive mental health? What makes people happy? Until recently, little research has been conducted on that. More

We Think We Know What Will Make Us Happy, But Are Bad Predictors of What Actually Will

Mind Shadows Home We Think We Know What Will Make Us Happy, But Are Bad Predictors of What Actually Will

My cat Sebastian likes food in his bowl, a warm lap, and a hand stroking his head. After I pet him for a while, he settles into a purr of perfect contentment while I read a book. For him, the future doesn't exist. It is one continual series of now. So much for living in the present. His brain has a limited frontal cortex while ours, yours and mind, is large. Like him, we have a limbic system deep in our brains, and there lies our problem as so-called rational human beings. To use some short-hand here, the cortex reasons, the limbic system emotes. The cortex prepares for the future while, in a cat, the limbic system lies on your lap and purrs, so to speak.

We all want to be happy. Aristotle long ago said it is the ultimate good, and not to be questioned as it is an end unto itself. Buddha taught that people can become happy by developing skillful means (upaya) to see through the tricks mind plays on them. The mind plays tricks aplenty. We think we know what will make us happy but we don't, not really. We think we know what has made us happy but that too is often wrong. So the question becomes, If happiness is so important to us, why are we not any better at finding it?

Recently considerable research has been spent on this question, and in several fields of inquiry. One of the fields is Behavioral Economics. A different field, Neuroeconomics, explores competition between the cortex and the limbic system. My cat Sebastian, though, does not buy things. Living in the Long Now, he does not have the least curiosity in how food gets to his bowl. You and I must deal with getting and spending and, like Wordsworth, we sometimes fret that the world is too much with us. We are not always happy, maybe never, and we wonder why.

It seems that people make bad life choices because they have faulty estimations of their future emotional state. Overall, they are poor judges of future events, good or bad, which prove less intense and more transient than they predicted. (Read Misconceptions About Happiness (Maybe You'd Really Rather Have A Candy Bar) )

Behavioral Economics helps us understand how to better manage and predict our own and others' happiness. It begins with an observation that the traditional, classic view of economic science is flawed. What does that mean?

Our free market system is based on the view that we are rational, all human beings, and free agents acting in our own rational self interest. That is the premise of orthodox economics. In his 1776 The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith wrote that "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard for their self-interest."

Rational? Well, over two hundred years later, that is still the prevailing doctrine taught in economics classes. It's not wholly accurate, though.

Behavioral economics, looks at the irrational side of things. People buy, but they often buy what they should not. Consider the following comment:

"People very robustly want instant gratification right now, and want to be patient in the future. If you ask people, ‘Which do you want right now, fruit or chocolate?’ they say, ‘Chocolate!’ But if you ask, ‘Which one a week from now?’ they will say, ‘Fruit.’ Now we want chocolate, cigarettes, and a trashy movie. In the future, we want to eat fruit, to quit smoking, and to watch Bergman films." More

The video below has Daniel Gilbert in a very interesting presentation of findings on happiness. Watch it to discover a few mind hacks and learn something about your brain.

Happiness: Positive Emotions Versus Life Meaning

Mind Shadows Happiness: Positive Emotions Versus Life Meaning

Book store shelves are filled with happiness self-help books by self-appointed gurus. This book is based on scientific research on happiness strategies--

Are transient positive emotions really as important to strive for as honor, integrity, or meaning in life? The answer is that the very question is misleading. It sets up a false dichotomy between so-called hedonistic pleasures and the well-deserved gratifications of the mind, heart, and soul. In truth, positive emotion is positive emotion, joy is joy, contentment is contentment. Who is to compare the thrill of a helicopter ride with the ecstasy of spiritual awakening, the joy of lemonade in the high desert to the delight of hearing your baby's first laugh? Experiences that forge a sense of life meaning, whether they involve helping a friend in need, worshiping a higher power, or developing a superior expertise, are happy moments, even if the positive emotions surrounding them may not always be evident or if they differ (as they undoubtedly do) from the positive emotions induced by a sugar high.

So don't pooh-pooh pleasure. You can find pleasure in a silly TV show or in being wholly absorbed in a lecture on astrophysics. Both types of pleasure contribute to a happy life, and both types of pleasure can give rise to the multiple benefits of positive emotions, like feeling more sociable, more energetic, and more resourceful. An avalanche of studies has shown that happy moods, no matter the source, lead people to be more productive, more likable, more active, more healthy, more friendly, more helpful, more resilient, and more creative. This means that positive emotions actually help us achieve our goals (reinforcing the feeling that we are working toward something important) as well as help us strive for meaning and purpose in life. Indeed, a series of intriguing studies at the University of Missouri found that happy moods lead people to perceive their lives as more meaningful; for example, the more positive emotions people experience during a particular day, the more meaningful they judge that day. That seriousness and greatness must be accompanied by grumpiness is a myth.

I confess now that I did gloss over something. The source of the happy moments does in fact matter, for it influences the ability of the experience to be self-sustaining. Although the bliss of a sinful pleasure can trigger the same kinds of intellectual, social, and physical benefits as the bliss of hard-earned effort, the sinful pleasure is over quickly and, what's more, can leave guilt or negative feelings in its wake. But the pleasure borne of any of the happiness-inducing strategies described here, whether they involve practicing optimism, nurturing relationships, developing coping strategies, or living in the present, is lasting, recurring, or self-reinforcing.

From The How of Happiness: A New Approach to Getting the Life You Want, by Sonja Lyubomirsky. Found here.

On Happiness: Jean François Revel and Matthieu Ricard

On Happiness: Jean François Revel, His Son, and Their Exchange About Buddhism: 10 days in an Inn above Kathmandu

Two able minds, one an agnostic humanist, the other on the Buddhist path, both believing the examined life is well worth living.

Jean-François Revel died Saturday April 29th in Paris, at 82. Having written over 30 books, he was a literary and philosophic lion--a prolific iconoclast as philosopher, writer, and journalist with a bite reminiscent of Voltaire and an empiricism in the tradition of Montaigne. Unlike many of his nation, he was a champion of certain American values, and was so even when European intellectuals praised Karl Marx and Chairman Mao. In his book Without Marx or Jesus (1970) he said "the revolution of the 20th Century will take place in the United States."* In the early 1990s he argued that French intellectuals seemed unwilling to face up to the threat of Islamic terrorism, and that they were the same people who had been enamored of Stalin. In How Democracies Perish, he warned that democracy is not a given in modern society, but echoed Edmund Burke in that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. He was one of the 40 Immortals, members of the Académie Française, which keeps the standards of the French language. He was born Jean-François Ricard, on Jan. 19, 1924, in Marseille. He first used Revel as a literary pseudonym. *(Before anybody wraps himself in the US flag, he should read America Against The World: How We Are Different and Why We Are Disliked.)

While teaching in Mexico in the 1950s he became familiar with North America, a familiarity which increased during extended visits to Canada and California. As an observer of the 1960s Civil Rights movement, he saw a profound social transformation taking place in the United States. In the USA he found a "complete contrast to the conventional portrayal then generally accepted in Europe." In particular, he was impressed with Americans' willingness to address and correct their own faults. Later, he attacked Europeans who said the United States had brought terrorists' attacks on itself through misguided foreign policies. "Obsessed by their hatred and floundering in illogicality, these dupes forget that the United States, acting in her own self-interest, is also acting in the interest of us Europeans and in the interest of many other countries, threatened, or already subverted and ruined, by terrorism," he wrote.

That provides some background on a very rich and intelligent life, but my interests here have to do with a dialogue between Revel and his son, a Buddhist, in a book titled The Monk and The Philosopher: A Father and Son Discuss the Meaning of Life, a best seller in France. First, though, a little background on the son.

His son, Matthieu Ricard, studied biology at the Institut Pasteur under Nobel Prize winners, and was awarded a highly commended PhD in molecular biology. As the father, pointed out in the book, here was somebody steeped in the highest levels of Western scientific culture who turned from it to adopt Buddhism. Ricard sought something extra in his life; he abandoned a highly promising career for Buddhist practice. Matthieu Ricard explained that his scientific career resulted from a passion for discovery. He did not reject scientific research. Rather, he realized that such research "was unable to solve the fundamental questions of life--and wasn't even meant to do so. In short, science, however interesting, wasn't enough to give meaning to my life." He came to see research as "an endless dispersion into detail." At the same time, he became more interested in the spiritual life as a "contemplative science." Science remained fundamental to him but he concluded that wisdom lay elsewhere, in a way of life and seeing, rather than in only intellectual curiosity and discipline. He lives in Schechen monastery in Kathmandu, Nepal, and acts as translator during the Dalai Lama’s visits to France. He has written Happiness: A Guide to Developing Life's Most Important Skill and The Quantum and The Lotus: A Journey to the Frontiers Where Science and Buddhism Meet (this book co-authored with Trinh Xuan Thuan).

On his part, Jean-François Revel believed that "wisdom will always be a matter of conjecture. . . . Wisdom is not based on scientific certitude, and scientific certitude does not lead to wisdom. Both, nevertheless, exist -- forever indispensable, forever separate, forever complementary." For him, Buddhist metaphysics requires a leap of faith unacceptable to scientific understanding. The Tibetan Bardo Thodol, on the after life, is part of the metaphysics he encountered.

As for the son, Matthieu, he says that "Happiness . . . is not just some agreeable sensation but the fulfillment of living in a way that wholly matches the deepest nature of our being. Happiness is knowing that we have been able to spend our life actualizing the potential that we all have in us and to have understood the true and ultimate nature of the mind. For someone who knows how to give meaning in life, every instant is like an arrow flying toward its target."

Ricard argues what I have regularly said in this blog, that philosophers of consciousness and neuroscientists lack experiential expertise. Ricard says that little interest in contemplative science has developed in the West since the scientific revolution began. For thousands of years and with much effort, monks have spent many hours a day and twenty to thirty years of their lives exploring the mind, which has found its way into teachings available only to those trained to be receptive. Although analysis and experimentation will surely yield more results in cognitive consciousness, scientists and philosophers have yet to realize that the same methods do little to address David Chalmers' hard problem of consciousness which, as an example, is that we can read an explanation the brain's engagement in tasting an apple, while not explaining the experience of tasting it.

Here are excerpts from The Monk and the Philosopher.

Jean François' son Matthieu-- Buddhism gets down to the deep causes of suffering. It's a search that concerns any human being, Buddhist or not.

J.F.-- Can you define what you call suffering?

M.-- A state of deep dissatisfaction, which may be combined with physical pain but is first and foremost a mental experience. . . . Suffering arises when the self, the 'me' that we cherish and protect, is threatened, or doesn't get what it wants. . . . ordinary goals in life, like power, possessions, the pleasures of the senses and fame, can procure temporary satisfaction but are never permanently satisfying. . . .

J.F.-- The Epicureans and the Stoics both said the same thing, in exactly the same terms. More