Happiness Hypothesis

So often lately I read an article in the newspaper or see a show on TV or even read a blog and someone is talking about the pursuit of happiness. There is a happiness institute, where they teach you how to be happy. Philosophers debate what happiness is and whether it is even achievable. What do you think? This post is a commentary. This is what I think. This is my happiness reality, that is, my theory. It works for me. It helps me understand and therefore it has purpose for me.

First of all, I want to consider for a moment, the times in my life when I was happy. And I mean really happy. Think for yourself. Landing your first job, or a big promotion. Your first kiss, or the first time you got laid. Your wedding day. Your first born. Your engagement party (this was a hugely happy day for me, one of the most enjoyable days of my life). Finishing your school or university exams. Retirement day. Buying your first home. All big events. But what is unique about them? They are all a change from one thing to another. They are ususally a big step too. And often, it has required a lot of effort.

I don't feel the same happiness now about my home as I did on the first day we moved in. But there certainly is some happiness there about it, especially on reflection. I love my wife as much today as the day we married, but the feeling of happiness about it is different. I'm not punching the air as we kiss on the front step for example. I still have my university degree and I still have my job. This is a point that I make about happiness. There are kinds of happiness.

One kind is the one where you experience a significant change in your life. It is not necessarily the outcome itself that causes the happiness, but rather the promise of better things to come. It is the fact that you have an explicit and strong awareness of what was and how much better things are now and more importantly will be in the future. The other kind is the general background level of happiness you have. It is the things that happen everyday. It's determined by your ability to be happy, to allow yourself to be happy, or rather, not to allow yourself to be un-happy. This is the bit where I will find it difficult to explain without some science.

Allow me to introduce the work of a dude called Maslow. You may have heard of him. He did some work in the 40's about human motivation.

His 'hierarchy of needs' is a theory that proposes that we all have different needs at different levels and that generally we must have a lower level need met before a higher one can be sought. Generally, most or all aspects of one lower level need must be met before we can seek out needs in a higher level. For the most part, I agree with this theory since it seems to apply very well to my own situation. And since I have no other frame of reference, then I have to accept this as my truth. This theory also helps me explain what I mean about background level of happiness, and why the big things in our lives make us happy. When a big event occurs, like buying your first home, it ususually will represent a step from one needs level to another. All in one go. If you've been homeless, it is a step from Physiological to Safety. If you're moving out of home, it represents a step from Love/Belonging to Esteem. You see what I mean? We find these things hugely happy moments due to the massive increase in human needs that are met in that one instant. The theory also explains background happiness. If you have all of these things, food in your belly, a roof over your head, family and friends around you and a job that you're good at - it means that it's very likely that you've got the bottom three or four levels covered. This allows you to explore more things at the top layers. Spend time being creative, explore new interests, do volunteer work, etc. The fact is that when you have basic and intermediate needs met, and you're not having to work too hard to maintain them, you have the time and resources to seek out much more satisfying things. And this does not happen consciously, but we seek it naturally. So the background happiness is all the things that we take for granted.

I think this is going to be a long post. For those who want my secret for being happy, stick with me now. Stick with me...

So I've encountered debate that the pursuit of happiness is fruitless. That once you decide to seek it, you can never reach it. I agree and disagree. To explain how this is not fence sitting, I first need to explain something else I believe about why some people are happier than others.

You notice that optimistic people are happier, generally, than others. Some might say that this is more about ignorance-is-bliss. No, ignorance-is-bliss is more about avoiding the negative rather than recognising what an optimist is. Or rather, how they think. Here's where I need to introduce some more theory. Another dude called Seligman wrote about Explanatory Style. Basically it describes how people explain to themselves why they experience a particular event as being positive or negative.

Consider these three descriptors about an event. Permanence, pervasiveness and personalisation.

Permanence is the belief of how long a particular good or bad event will last. Optimists believe that good things will last a long time and bad things will not. Vice-versa for pessimists.

Pervasiveness is the belief of how much a particular good or bad event in one aspect of one's life will carry through to and effect other parts of their life. Optimists believe that good things will impact on other parts of their life but bad things will not.

Personalisation is the belief about how much a particular event is one's own doing. Optimists believe that good events occur because they played a hand in it but bad events were out of their control.

Now the concept of "hope" is a function of how much you believe that bad events will be non-permanent and non-pervasive. This is where I believe it links to Maslow's hierarchy in terms of how optimistic people are happier. A person who has a high level of hope will tend to subconsciously fill up the lower level needs quicker or before they are even actually met since they believe that they have hope that they will be. So an optimistic person will believe that their lower level needs are not really a problem (even if they are to someone else) and therefore are naturally seeking out higher level needs. Comprende?

So back to the question, can you seek happiness and actually achieve it? The answer is no if you seek possessions - the things that we associate with enjoyment. The answer is yes if you work on the way you think about things. If you actively work on being hopeful (and you can by the way) then this allows your hierarchy of needs to be more completely filled and you will be much happier as a result.

Still with me? Good...

I've also encountered a discussion that poses the question that living a life of poverty is virtuous. What's that got to do with happiness? Quite a bit. Consider these theories again, and who usually lives by the belief that poverty is virtuous? Consider monks in a monestary, or nuns in a nunnery. They will almost certainly consider that poverty is virtuous. But how can they? Well this can be answered by these theories. Lets say that you have a super-great amount of hope about any situtation. For example, that God will provide for you. You will be ever so much more likely to forego lower level needs willingly in order to satisfy higher level needs. And they still have a roof over their head, the love of those around them and of their God. It is in this circumstance that self-transcendence is possible. This is the level above self-actualisation in the hierarchy. I think it is very likely that true self-transcence is possible only with some form of sacrifice of the lower levels of needs, such as money. This likely can only be possible if the upper level needs are so strongly met and that some of the lower level needs still exist to some extent. In this sense, poverty is a virtue not because of what it is, but because it enables us the ultimate level of happiness.

This is where the debate about happiness and religion collide. My discussion is leading to the point that true happiness, the uppermost peak of needs being met is possible only when you have absolute faith that lower needs will always be met. Am I contradicting myself? I'm not sure. I don't think so. I still think that as you progress though life, your capacity to progress up the hierarchy continues. You have more and more time to reflect. You become more accepting of our place. You smell the roses. Happiness in small steps begets more happiness. Happiness is not a state in your life. Happiness is your life. Having lived a life is actually what happiness is. It's ups and downs. The good and bad. The journey itself. I said in a reply in another blog recently. I don't need a religion to hide my fears of my mortality. I predict that when I'm in my final days, I will be happy and accepting of my fate. I will not be fearful since I will have transcended my needs and that it what ultimate happiness is.

So this is the point of everything. Happiness is life.

So that ends the first lesson in Happiness 101 at EMFBU (Excuse my full brain university).
A pass mark for every student who read everything and posts a reflective comment.

Goodnight.