What is happiness? Can we measure it?
Hello, friends! Have you ever thought about what makes you happy? There are so many little things that seem to make a difference in one's mood, such as chocolate, good books, and fun conversations. There are also the more personal influences, like caring family and friends. Then there is the less personal but still impactful influence of work, education, and government. Do these affect people's happiness? If so, how so?
Many things make me happy. Spending time with my family, reading books, and participating in a discussion in history class are just a few examples. I think that I am at my very happiest when my mind is completely engaged in learning. Over the years, I have found that I am most satisfied in life when I am in a challenging academic environment because I absolutely love knowledge and education. However, that is just my opinion on happiness as a single individual. Equally interesting is the agglomeration of happinesses that comprise a collective national happiness. In the late 1990s, Bhutan introduced the Gross National Happiness Index, which serves to calculate, as the name suggests, the collective happiness of the country. I think that this happiness index is an incredible idea because it allows the level of happiness of a group a whole to be gauged, rather than merely that of individuals. In Bhutan, it is, according to a National Geographic article, "A social thermometer to ensure economic development doesn't squelch traditional lifestyles." I personally think that the best way to measure a nation's happiness would be to use a polling system to determine different factors of happiness. This could include satisfaction with education, the workplace, government, ecology, economy, and so on. It could also include more personal levels of happiness, such as quality of home life, relationships, and day-to-day enjoyment. All in all, I think that this is fairly well represented in the Bhutan Index.
To gain an understanding of these larger levels of group happiness, however, it is important to consider what makes us happy (or takes away our happiness) on the smaller level of the individual during day-to-day life. In Kurt Vonnegut's short story, "I have been called a Luddite," this is explored through the lens of modern technologies. After defining a Luddite as a person, such as himself, who "hates newfangled contraptions," Vonnegut proceeds to tell a short story about a trip to the Post Office, which he explores in great detail, putting in fun and relatable details such as being secretly in love with the woman behind the front desk, the charming blue bullfrog that sucks up the mail, and so forth. At the end, Vonnegut reflects that he "had one hell of a good time" and further concludes that "Electronic communities build nothing. You wind up with nothing.... How beautiful it is to get up and go around and do something. We are here on Earth to fart around. Don't let anybody tell you any different. " In this concluding statement, Vonnegut asserts the importance of experiencing life - in other words, it is important to stop and smell the roses. He argues that technology does not help with this; rather, it takes away from fun and lively day-to-day experiences. In part, I certainly agree with Vonnegut's position. I think that it is important to grasp new technologies and to take advantage of the opportunities and privileges that they give us, but it is also important to reflect on how they might be taking away from our happiness and it is good to moderate our use accordingly.
Technology is one lens through which to analyze happiness; another is money. "Does money buy happiness?" This controversial question is explored in a New York Times article titled "But Will It Make You Happy?" The article discusses the impacts that giving to charity, selective spending, resisting consumerism and materialism, and taking more time to enjoy life have on happiness. It argues that consumer goods do not grant happiness, quoting Ms. Strobel that "'the acquisition of material goods doesn't bring about happiness." This is almost antithetical in our world of 1-day Amazon shipping and instant gratification, and where conspicuous consumption is an active attempt to achieve satisfaction. The article also makes an incredibly interesting connection between experiences and happiness. It states that "One major finding is that spending money for an experience - concert tickets, French lessons, sushi-rolling classes, a hotel room in Monaco - produces longer-lasting satisfaction than spending money on plain old stuff." This demonstrates that money spent on particular things, such as vacations, might make one happier than money spent on a new gadget or toy. This is particularly significant as it suggests that money-spending does not intrinsically make you happy or unhappy, but that different types of money expenditures affect your happiness in different ways. Buying money for the sake of keeping up with the current trends that everybody around you has, such as a new iPhone or pen) (in other words, "keeping up with the Joneses") leads to far less happiness than spending for the sake of experiences. I agree with this article whole-heartedly. I think saving up for a long time to buy a book with soft, acid-free paper and lustrous illustrations just to have the decadent and nostalgic experience of reading it is much more gratifying than buying those Nike shoes that everybody has today but that will be out of style tomorrow. The issue with trend-following is that it never ends: there will be another style on trend tomorrow, and your purchases will only make you happy for a fleeting moment rather than giving you pleasure over a period of time.
There are a huge variety of factors that create happiness. These include both environmental influences and one's personal choices. I would be happier buying a good book than the latest iPhone. Even better than just buying the book would be exploring a Portland bookstore with my cousin. For me personally, happiness is defined by enjoyable experiences in a pleasant environment. Do you agree, or does happiness mean something different to you? Can you measure happiness?
Many things make me happy. Spending time with my family, reading books, and participating in a discussion in history class are just a few examples. I think that I am at my very happiest when my mind is completely engaged in learning. Over the years, I have found that I am most satisfied in life when I am in a challenging academic environment because I absolutely love knowledge and education. However, that is just my opinion on happiness as a single individual. Equally interesting is the agglomeration of happinesses that comprise a collective national happiness. In the late 1990s, Bhutan introduced the Gross National Happiness Index, which serves to calculate, as the name suggests, the collective happiness of the country. I think that this happiness index is an incredible idea because it allows the level of happiness of a group a whole to be gauged, rather than merely that of individuals. In Bhutan, it is, according to a National Geographic article, "A social thermometer to ensure economic development doesn't squelch traditional lifestyles." I personally think that the best way to measure a nation's happiness would be to use a polling system to determine different factors of happiness. This could include satisfaction with education, the workplace, government, ecology, economy, and so on. It could also include more personal levels of happiness, such as quality of home life, relationships, and day-to-day enjoyment. All in all, I think that this is fairly well represented in the Bhutan Index.
To gain an understanding of these larger levels of group happiness, however, it is important to consider what makes us happy (or takes away our happiness) on the smaller level of the individual during day-to-day life. In Kurt Vonnegut's short story, "I have been called a Luddite," this is explored through the lens of modern technologies. After defining a Luddite as a person, such as himself, who "hates newfangled contraptions," Vonnegut proceeds to tell a short story about a trip to the Post Office, which he explores in great detail, putting in fun and relatable details such as being secretly in love with the woman behind the front desk, the charming blue bullfrog that sucks up the mail, and so forth. At the end, Vonnegut reflects that he "had one hell of a good time" and further concludes that "Electronic communities build nothing. You wind up with nothing.... How beautiful it is to get up and go around and do something. We are here on Earth to fart around. Don't let anybody tell you any different. " In this concluding statement, Vonnegut asserts the importance of experiencing life - in other words, it is important to stop and smell the roses. He argues that technology does not help with this; rather, it takes away from fun and lively day-to-day experiences. In part, I certainly agree with Vonnegut's position. I think that it is important to grasp new technologies and to take advantage of the opportunities and privileges that they give us, but it is also important to reflect on how they might be taking away from our happiness and it is good to moderate our use accordingly.
Technology is one lens through which to analyze happiness; another is money. "Does money buy happiness?" This controversial question is explored in a New York Times article titled "But Will It Make You Happy?" The article discusses the impacts that giving to charity, selective spending, resisting consumerism and materialism, and taking more time to enjoy life have on happiness. It argues that consumer goods do not grant happiness, quoting Ms. Strobel that "'the acquisition of material goods doesn't bring about happiness." This is almost antithetical in our world of 1-day Amazon shipping and instant gratification, and where conspicuous consumption is an active attempt to achieve satisfaction. The article also makes an incredibly interesting connection between experiences and happiness. It states that "One major finding is that spending money for an experience - concert tickets, French lessons, sushi-rolling classes, a hotel room in Monaco - produces longer-lasting satisfaction than spending money on plain old stuff." This demonstrates that money spent on particular things, such as vacations, might make one happier than money spent on a new gadget or toy. This is particularly significant as it suggests that money-spending does not intrinsically make you happy or unhappy, but that different types of money expenditures affect your happiness in different ways. Buying money for the sake of keeping up with the current trends that everybody around you has, such as a new iPhone or pen) (in other words, "keeping up with the Joneses") leads to far less happiness than spending for the sake of experiences. I agree with this article whole-heartedly. I think saving up for a long time to buy a book with soft, acid-free paper and lustrous illustrations just to have the decadent and nostalgic experience of reading it is much more gratifying than buying those Nike shoes that everybody has today but that will be out of style tomorrow. The issue with trend-following is that it never ends: there will be another style on trend tomorrow, and your purchases will only make you happy for a fleeting moment rather than giving you pleasure over a period of time.
There are a huge variety of factors that create happiness. These include both environmental influences and one's personal choices. I would be happier buying a good book than the latest iPhone. Even better than just buying the book would be exploring a Portland bookstore with my cousin. For me personally, happiness is defined by enjoyable experiences in a pleasant environment. Do you agree, or does happiness mean something different to you? Can you measure happiness?
Image courtesy of https://www.flickr.com/photos/gracewanderer/3568060864
Comments
Post a Comment