Conspicuous Happiness

Two insightful views on happiness from two (more or less) modern sages. This first is from Jonathan Haidt’s new book The Happiness Hypothesis. Despite this unpromising title, and a subtitle so ghastly I don’t even dare quote it, this is one of the most fascinating, wide-ranging, and well-documented books on happiness to come out in, well, ever. But anyway, I'm keeping you from the book, which reads:

In his more recent book, Luxury Fever, [Robert] Frank used the same approach to understand another kind of irrationality: the vigor with which people pursue many goals that work against their own happiness. Frank begins with the question of why, as nations rise in wealth, their citizens become no happier, and he considers the possibility that once basic needs are met, money simply cannot buy additional happiness. After a careful review of the evidence, however, Frank concludes that those who think money can't buy happiness just don't know where to shop. Some purchases are much less subject to the adaptation principle. Frank wants to know why people are so devoted to spending money on luxuries and other goods, to which they adapt completely, rather than on things that would make them lastingly happier. For example, people would be happier and healthier if they took more time off and "spent" it with their family and friends, yet America has long been heading in the opposite direction. People would be happier if they reduced their commuting time, even if it meant living in smaller houses, yet American trends are toward ever larger houses and ever longer commutes. People would be happier and healthier if they took longer vacations, even if that meant earning less, yet vacation times are shrinking in the United States, and in Europe as well. People would be happier, and in the long run wealthier, if they bought basic, functional appliances, automobiles, and wristwatches, and invested the money they saved for future consumption; yet, Americans in particular spend almost everything they have — and sometimes more — on goods for present consumption, often paying a large premium for designer names and superfluous features. ...

Frank's conclusions are bolstered by recent research on the benefits of "doing versus having." The psychologists Leaf van Boven and Tom Gilovich asked people to think back to a time when they last spent more than a hundred dollars with the intention of increasing their happiness and enjoyment. One group of subjects was asked to pick a material possesson; the other was asked to pick an experience or activity they had paid for. After describing their purchaes, subjects were asked to fill out a questionnaire. Those who described buying an experience (such as a ski trip, a concert, or a great meal) were happier when thinking about their purchase, and thought that their money was better spent, than those who described buying a material object (such as clothing, jewelry, or electronics). After conducting several variations of this experiment with similar findings each time, Van Boven and Gilovich concluded that experiences give more happiness in part because they have greater social value. Most activities that cost more than a hundred dollars are things we do with other people, but expensive material possessions are often purchased in part to impress other people. Activities connect us to others; objects often separate us.

So now you know where to shop. Stop trying to keep up with the Joneses. Stop wasting your money on conspicuous consumption. As a first step, work less, earn less, accumulate less, and "consume" more family time.

You can buy this book via the link below. I have absolutely no connection with the book or its author; I just think it’s a superb summary and analysis of culture and emotion.

http://www.amazon.com/Happiness-Hypothesis-Finding-Modern-Ancient/dp/0465028020/ref=
pd_bbs_2/102-4223220-1660942?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1173319642&sr=1-2


And from another key text, Thomas Love Peacock’s masterpiece, Nightmare Abbey:

MARIONETTA:
I should be glad to know by your means, what is the matter with my cousin; I do not like to see him unhappy, and I suppose there is some reason for it.

MR FLOSKY:
Now I should rather suppose there is no reason for it: it is the fashion to be unhappy. To have a reason for being so would be exceedingly common-place: to be so without any is the province of genus: the art of being miserable for misery’s sake, has been brought to great perfection in our days; and the ancient Odyssey, which held forth a shining example of the endurance of real misfortune, will give place to a modern one, setting out a more instructive picture of querulous impatience under imaginary evils.

MARIONETTA:
Will you oblige me, Mr Flosky, by giving me a plain answer to a plain question?

MR FLOSKY:
It is impossible, my dear Miss O’Carroll, I never gave a plain answer to a question in my life.