There’s been an interesting response to the happiness article I posted earlier, so I thought I’d jump back into the discussion by adding to some of the points mentioned by others. In the comments thread, Dave writes:
“too much we read about activities, foods, or experiences that are empirically linked to a percent increase in endorphins, seratonin, dopamine, etcetera. most previous science on happiness suggests that all we gotta do is build a button on someone’s skull that will, when pressed, release said chemicals to provide a sense of accomplishment, satisfaction, and orgasm all at the same time. Isn’t that what makes us happy? chemicals?”
I agree here with Dave completely and I think he brings up an important point - much of human behavior cannot be accurately understood through empirical testing alone. As a graduating anthropology student, this is an issue near and dear to my own heart. How does one go about attempting to understand what makes another person happy? Well, one way is to use the scientific method, form a hypothesis, test it, and then attempt to analyze the results as objectively as possible. The trouble with this approach is that you get a conclusion that is framed (or some would say, limited) by the hypothesis being tested. As Dave correctly notes, if one looks for links between chemistry and happiness, one’s results will inevitably express a relationship (or lack thereof) between, well, chemistry and happiness. This begs the question, “Are chemicals what makes us happy?”.
I would answer, “Yes and No.” I feel fairly convinced by the studies I’ve read that my own personal biochemistry has a significant impact on the way I feel. However, I wouldn’t quite contend that my chemistry is my feelings, no exceptions permitted. There’s a whole universe (literally) of variables that effect my affect - my personal chemistry being just one part (or more accurately, one mechanism) of the creation of my emotional state of being. Like Dave, I’m glad to see studies that are attempting to address the variables both inside and outside of my physical body.
My sister also had an interesting response about happiness and it’s relationship to worrying:
“I have concerns about the quirky and specific (is this project complete? Should I scrub the kitchen floor a second time? Is my pet mouse fulfilled?) to the very universal ( is the planet going to last? How can I find a job that makes me happy? How do I show equal parts gratitude and independence when it comes to family?) If one worry fades, another replaces it. [...] I see it [worrying] more as really digging in deep. [...] for me, for my own happiness, I feel in touch, connected, when I consider it all. I feel like I am doing my part to avoid ostrich-dom. For some people, that just goes hand in hand with worrying. Because the world is such a beautiful place. Because there are so many, many worthwhile ways to live. Because people and ideas are worth caring about. Is it a failure to “let goâ€? Sure. I cling like a madman to each day - it’s smells, events, issues. And then I wake up and do it all over again. Don’t we all?”
I find this to be a beautiful articulation of how happiness can be tied into all kinds of different aspects of one’s personality - even aspects that others might find somewhat negative. Again, as I stated in my last post, happiness seems to be a kind of summation of things or feelings, rather than a stand-alone emotion, or isolated goal (that is infrequently achieved).
Jessie’s example here is excellent - worrying keeps her in touch with day to day living, indeed, it is a somewhat paradoxical ‘path to happiness’ because it helps her to sort out what matters from what doesn’t and to pursue those people, ideas, or events that matter. I can relate to this (no pun intended) because I’m something of a worrier myself.
I think this is an oft-overlooked aspect of personal happiness - one has to have a means of discernment, a way of “staying in touch”, in order to be happy. It’s tempting to believe that what makes others happy will make us reasonably so as well, however, one of the great joys of living is finding out what gets you going, what keeps you “in touch” with the world around you and inside you. It may be something as casually mundane as worrying or as complex as calculus, but you can be sure that it won’t match the cookie-cutter situations we see in adverts on television. Real happiness, like real life, consists of relationships between people, things, places, events. And relationships are by definition specific, idiosyncratic. Will more brain chemicals make me happy? Perhaps, but I wonder if it wouldn’t be only generally so, a kind of diffused happiness, a relationship with no object - just a content subject?