tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18156735.post2754747902391071858..comments2023-10-29T17:43:27.054+07:00Comments on café salemba: Happiness and wealth, againUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18156735.post-3041680635236732812008-01-08T08:27:00.000+07:002008-01-08T08:27:00.000+07:00is this topic related to the good social security ...is this topic related to the good social security system: safety net and the sophisticated free health and education system?Anymattershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15417170603768510851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18156735.post-38659131977800450732008-01-08T06:46:00.000+07:002008-01-08T06:46:00.000+07:00roby -- they may be related, as shown, among other...roby -- they may be related, as shown, among others, by kahneman's colonoscopy study.<BR/><BR/>but it's worth noting that there are two versions of impact bias.<BR/><BR/>kahneman's version of impact bias is retrospective (how happy was i?). dan gilbert's version is prospective (how happy will i be?). <BR/><BR/>it gets all the more interesting as some psychologists have recently proposed that the brain mechanisms underlying memory and future imagination are rooted in the same module, called the 'mental time travel' module. <BR/><BR/>one interesting neuropsychological evidence for this proposal is that people with amnesia find it hard to imagine and simulate their future selves (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/315/5810/312)<BR/><BR/>however, i think the two versions of impact bias are different in one respect.<BR/><BR/>the prospective impact bias is distorted both ways: you think you will be happier and sadder than you will actually be.<BR/><BR/>but the retrospective impact bias, for the evolutionary reason you mentioned, tend to distort one way only, to make everything remembered better than they actually were.<BR/><BR/>ps: a shorter dan gilbert video about impact bias and how it relates to happiness: http://www.bigthink.com/love-happiness/505Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18156735.post-40690780851679152972008-01-08T04:38:00.000+07:002008-01-08T04:38:00.000+07:00tirta : i think evaluated happiness is related to ...<B>tirta</B> : i think evaluated happiness is related to the impact bias, isn't it? that people have this defense mechanism (as an evolutionary relic) to make the best of worst situation.<BR/><BR/>as i may have uttered to you, it's interesting to speculate that the same mechanism also works at the collective level. e.g., people create myths or "explanations" from historical facts<BR/><BR/>Btw, a very nice <A HREF="http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/97" REL="nofollow">video </A>that explains the impact bias.Robyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17313212532955108268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18156735.post-7210390344705436672008-01-07T15:01:00.000+07:002008-01-07T15:01:00.000+07:00rizal -- so far as i know, they're not correlated....rizal -- so far as i know, they're not correlated.<BR/><BR/>although i presume you should get some correlation at the very bottom end of the distribution (i.e. the poorest of the poor, who barely survive).<BR/><BR/>a.p. -- no, not the colonoscopy study, but this science paper: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/312/5782/1908Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18156735.post-74778524147683397372008-01-07T13:54:00.000+07:002008-01-07T13:54:00.000+07:00Tirta, thanks, it helps. But one more small clarif...<B>Tirta</B>, thanks, it helps. But one more small clarification: so presumably the experienced and evaluated happiness are somehow not correlated, yes?Rizalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00173988218021291027noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18156735.post-80403314105531901692008-01-07T13:16:00.000+07:002008-01-07T13:16:00.000+07:00rizal -- i'll try to make sense of the seeming par...rizal -- i'll try to make sense of the seeming paradox. <BR/><BR/>experienced happiness, or your feeling happy from time to time, is basically one of the basic emotions: others being sad, anger, or disgust. as an emotion, happiness here is to be understood in a biological context.<BR/><BR/>the relevant question here is why do animals have emotions in the first place. evolutionary psychologists propose that emotions work like a compass, that is, they tell you what to do and where to go, to achieve your goal. this applies to all animals, including us. for instance, brainless bacteria 'decide' to approach or avoid their target using 'proto-emotions', so to speak.<BR/><BR/>now a compass is broken when it's pointing to one direction all the time. same with emotions, you just can't feel happy or sad most of the time -- unless you want to be diagnosed as suffering from mania or depression. normal people, rich and poor alike, need to be able to experience all of the basic emotions as required by the circumstances.<BR/><BR/>so happiness, as an experienced emotion ('feeling', in laypeople's term) is rather independent of how much money you have, because there are always daily circumstances in which you need to NOT feel happy. even the sleeping bill gates can't be happy when his dog barks in the middle of the night. <BR/><BR/>and importantly, this was how kahneman collected his data, by beeping people in the middle of the night and asked them about their current feeling, when some are having hot sex and others are cursing their dogs.<BR/><BR/>on the contrary, life satisfaction -- or what i call evaluated happiness -- is not an emotion experienced. it is a cognitive evaluation, in retrospect. so if you're rich enough to have access to the all the gold and glitters you want from this world, it's hard not to say that you're not satisfied. despite the annoying barking dog, bill gates will say that he cannot ask for more from his life.<BR/><BR/>so i think there's no paradox, because experienced happiness and evaluated happiness are not comparable. <BR/><BR/>as for which one is more relevant to define HAPPINESS, i'll leave it to the monks and philosophers :-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18156735.post-44963171183421142162008-01-07T11:16:00.000+07:002008-01-07T11:16:00.000+07:00One of the articles discussed Kahneman's study. Ti...One of the articles discussed Kahneman's study. Tirta, did you also refer to the notorious colonoscopy study referred to by this article?<BR/><BR/>But the general discussion on happiness, including the nonlinear relationship between happiness and GDP, was based on the 'national surveys' that, I think, asked this simple question: “Taken all together, how would you say things are these days—would you say that you are very happy, pretty happy or not too happy?”a.p.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10803193376611057742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18156735.post-62686138955072238532008-01-07T06:08:00.000+07:002008-01-07T06:08:00.000+07:00In response to Tirta, that is exactly what makes m...In response to <B>Tirta</B>, that is exactly what makes me puzzled. I am aware of Kahneman's point that you can be satisfied without being happy. But perhaps you can elaborate more, maybe using some psychology theories, on this seemingly paradox.<BR/><BR/>Don't you think that it looks like the problem of finding the right "revealed preference" when asking agent?<BR/><BR/>Moreover, if that concept separation theoretically holds, which one is more relevant in defining "happiness": feeling satisfied or feeling happy with life?Rizalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00173988218021291027noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18156735.post-62898690402355120682008-01-07T05:39:00.000+07:002008-01-07T05:39:00.000+07:00i think we need to be precise when using the word ...i think we need to be precise when using the word 'happiness'.<BR/><BR/>kahneman's work is mostly valuable because it translates 'happiness' into two separate concepts: (1) your cognitive evaluation of whether you're satisfied with your life, and (2) your actual feeling of being happy (as an experienced positive emotion) from time to time.<BR/><BR/>(1) is found to be correlated with GDP and other economic variables, while (2) isn't.<BR/><BR/>so the message is that wealth makes you satisfied, but not necessarily happy, with your life.<BR/><BR/>ps: and one of the best explanations of why (2) is the case is offered by dan gilbert's 'stumbling on happiness'.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com