Study Questions for Happiness Summer 2007b

June 4

How does Layard distinguish social comparison from habituation?

Social comparison is when we assess our well being in relation to others instead of completely subjectively (and often, realistically). This point is evidenced in the results from the survey question in which most people would choose to make less money overall but more than the majority of people as opposed to making more money overall but less than the majority of people. One problem that arises with social comparison is the idea of a reference point. As discussed in class, we should admire people who are the best but only "compare" ourselves to those in our own group (whatever group that might be for the topic at hand). Ideally, we shouldn't compare ourselves to anyone, but this is highly difficult and unlikely in our society today. Conversely, habituation is how you assess your well being in terms of how you are used to doing. For example, becoming accustomed to a certain level of pay and then receiving a large paycut would be quite devastating because this new pay might be very far from our baseline, or what we are used to. --Lauren Landon

June 5

What is the difference between maximizing and satisficing?

Maximizing occurs when a person wants to make the absolute best out of their choice (or "maximize" their choice). Often, this included "hunting" for the best possibility as compared with other options. People who call themselves maximizers tend to wonder if there is something better constantly waiting around the corner for them. Satisficing occurs when a person settles for something that works. In other words, this object or relationship (or anything) might not be the "best" choice possible, but it gets the job done. Satisficers look for an object that will suffice for the job they need it to perform. --Lauren Landon

After reflecting on the reading, I have decided that Barry Schwartz's concepts of maximizing and satisficing can relate to almost everything we make a decision on in life. Maximizing is the idea that we are always trying to choose the best and we will research and spend as much time shopping for the best item available, no matter how long it takes. Satisficing is the idea that we make a comfortable choice on any brand that works for us. We are satisficing if the brand fits are qualifications or standards and we show no regret that there could possibly be a better product or brand out there. Maximizing has been shown to increase a person's regret. A maximizer is always thinking about the possibility that they could have gotten something better, or that something better than what they have will be introduced in the near future. It is impossible to know if there is anything in the world that might be better, and this could cause an extreme maximizer to go crazy. Maximizers often experience buyer's remorse, and they even have a higher chance of suffering from depression. Satisficers on the other hand, are happy with buying any brand that fits their specifications. Jack H.

From class discussion and the reading entitled The Paradox of Choice I have learned that maximizing is when you compare everything until you find the best and satisficing is when you just settled for something that works instead of putting effort into looking for something that might make you happier, your needs would be met and no more. When looking back at class discussion we talked about how an mp3 player is an mp3 player to a satisficer, whereas a maximizer would not just settle for any mp3 player, they would look for the newest, highest quality, getting the most for their money, that holds the most songs, looks the best, and has the best warranty. --Ellen Caletti

Why does Schwartz think that maximizing might not be such a good strategy?

Schwartz thinks that maximizing might not be such a good strategy because it will make everyone depressed if they are constantly comparing what they have to the person next to them.---Ellen Caletti

How does contemporary culture promote maximizing as a strategy?

American culture is constantly focused on who has what, who's getting what, how fast they got it, and how you measure up to others. Many people could not honestly say they are happy with what they have. We compare ourselves to others and their possessions. We are constantly trying to "keep up with the Joneses." Our culture is fast and incredibly focused on how we look to one another. We all want to "get the best bang for our buck" possible, and sometimes people are willing to risk health, money, relationships, and many other things to get ahead. However, one important thing to remember is that this way of life is a constant competition. It never ends. While I don't always think this competition is negative, it definitely can be when it's all people are concerned about. The second we acquire a new possession, something better tends to come along. These objects can never make a person happy. Sure, they might contribute to a high degree of state happiness, but is maximization of every decision really the best way to achieve life happiness? Our culture does not answer this question--instead, we focus on constant acquisition and how we measure up to others. --Lauren Landon

Is maximizing a threat to happiness? If so, why? If not, why not?

In my opinion maximizing is not a threat to happiness because it is just a person’s point of view. It is what you do with that other person’s view point or comparison that will cause threat to your happiness. If I were to buy bananas and then my roommate came home with bananas but she had gotten them cheaper then me, and we compared prices, this could be a threat to my happiness. If I hadn’t compared my bananas to her’s, then I would have been very happy with my choice to buy them. Since I did compare my purchase to her’s that in turn could cause upset to one of us (whoever had the worse end of the deal) and then in turn it would cause me to think that my purchase was not good enough because I wasn’t getting the most “bang for my buck.” It really depends on what is being maximized, and how much. ---Ellen Caletti

June 6

Idnetify and assess the paradox of work.

The paradox of work is that we think work is a positive quality experience, but often times we want to do less of it. Many people report that they like working, but while at work they would rather be somewhere else. If it is such a posivite experience, than why would we want to be elsewhere? Three hyspothesises to explain this paradox of work are as follows:

1.) First, we might look to work for "life happiness". It may give us a sense of purpose in life. Although in the moment we might not like working, we know that it will give us happiness later in life.

2.) Second, we have trouble imagining a sense of purpose to replace work. Often times the idea of filling our time with only leisure activities seems impossible without boredom.

3.) Third, is that maybe work is not so great after all. Our culture and society has taught us that work is a good thing, but we could be wrong in believe this. Maybe we are overinvested in the idea that work is good. -Meghan Flaherty

June 7

Give a general characterization of Stoicism / Stoic beliefs.

Stoics truly believe that we can radically alter our emotional responses by making different judgments about reality. When looking back at the readings and the class discussion and evaluating the responses of fellow classmates, I realized that it can be the difference of getting rid of emotion from our experiences versus removing suffering from our emotions. In my opinion, it is okay to have emotions toward something, but I don’t think that it is healthy to hold onto those emotions for an extended period of time, if they are negative emotions. Stoics believe that if we can alter the judgments that we have connected with reality then this will alter our emotions. For example, look at death. We all see death as coming later in life, probably between 60 and 80 years of age. If we really think about it, we could die tomorrow in some freak accident. Many people incorrectly judge the permanence of things such as the length of life and when life ends up not being as long as we expect (if we were to die tomorrow) this could and most likely would cause a person to be very angry, sad, or emotionally effected in a negative way.---Ellen Caletti

Are emotions related to judgement as stoics think they are? How much control do we have of our emotions?

I disagree with the way that Stoics think because I believe that emotions are a natural response to any decision we make regardless of how much knowledge we have of the world. I think that the judgments that we make cause an emotional response within us and this either occurs as suffering or happiness. Distinguishing our positive emotions from our negative emotions is the beginning to having control. Some things are up to us as humans and others are beyond our control. Take for example Epictetus’ approach: there are some things that we think we are in control of when really we are not in control of such as drugs, alcohol (potions), others reactions to you, body type, health, mortality, permanence of possessions (wealth). All of these are out of our control, so how can we possibly think that we have control over the judgments of these things? Stoics think that we can control more than we actually can.---Ellen Caletti

June 11

Why does Csiksentmihalyi think we have trouble enjoying leisure?

Csikentmihalyi thinks we have trouble enjoying leisure because he thinks it takes a lot more work than people think. He explains that we as human beings are not really designed for leisure. Instead he thinks we are designed to do work. We are bulit to be able to hunt and work for our food, fight for our health, and to reproduce. Csikentmihlyi explains that it is easy for people to mess up leisure. Many leisure activities involve some planning and budgeting. For some people these can be challenging things. Other people simply struggle with the lack of structure involved in leisure time. When there is not structured activity many people have a hard enjoying themselves. For example, when on vacation one can easily feel overwhelmed with the new environment. There is planning which has to go into the trip. They may feel stressed out and ask themselves questions such as "what should I be doing right now?" or "how am I going to budget so that I see all the sights and still eat well?". Also people can be in a beautiful place and be bored because they have no structured activities.

Csikentmihalyi explains that boredom is often associated with feelings of apathy as a result from passive leisure activities. On the other hand, active leisure leads to happiness and flow. Active leisure includes things such as reading and sports. It seems that we should partake in active leisure because it will keep us away from boredom. And bored people tend to do unhealthy things such as overdrink. We should reflect on the way we feel when spending leisure time. Maybe if we become more aware of our feelings then we wont have as much trouble enjoying our leisure time. -Meghan Flaherty

Csiksentmihalyi thinks we have trouble enjoying leisure because leisure requires a great deal of skill. If you don’t know how to handle leisure time or you do not know how to handle it then it could affect your happiness negatively, according to Csiksentmihalyi. Many people struggle with what to do during their leisure time, or how to handle themselves when they have a great deal of leisure. --Ellen Caletti

What might the research from Pont Trentaz suggest about generational trends in work/leisure satisfaction?

The way work and leisure are viewed differs from generation to generation. Results from this study indicated that different generations found opportunities for flow in opposing activities (ie, work and leisure). For example, the older generation seemed to experience more flow states when engaging in activities they would consider work. Conversely, the youngest generation experienced more flow states during activities they would consider as leisure. The "in between" generation seemed to experience about the same amount of flow states during both work and leisure. Essentially, the world (I think it might be hasty to say "our culture" when this research is from Pont Trentaz) is moving toward a state in which we seem to get more out of our leisure activities than we do our work activities. This could be due to changing ways of viewing both work and leisure (maybe work is seen as more negative today than it used to be in the past). --Lauren Landon

Does leisure require disciple?

Yes, leisure requires extreme discipline. Leisure is difficult, especially if done correctly. In this day and age, it is far too easy to use the little few time we receive to do absolutely nothing productive. Csikzsentmihalyi would consider this a waste of leisure time. He describes two types of leisure: active and passive. Active leisure is doing something productive (this can vary from person to person) that provides a genuine opportunity for flow. Passive leisure is essentially being lazy, sitting back, and doing nothing during free time. These leisure activities do not provide an opportunity for flow and might consist of excessive napping or television watching. --Lauren Landon