This is super interesting - I’d never heard the ‘dead person’s goals’ framing before, but it really struck me as an excellent way to move one’s thinking towards creating a richer, vibrant, and more exciting life on one’s own terms. I also appreciated your focus on value neutrality, as I think that tends to be a persistent problem in Western positive psychology frameworks. Looking forward to reading more!
Thank you! Yes I think the biggest problem with non-value-neutrality in positive psychology frameworks is they are often presented as if they are values neutral. I have no problem with someone proposing a non-neutral framework for general consumption (i.e., as a philosophical writing) if they are honest and clear about it. But as you suggest, many of these frameworks are presented as if they are neutral, which is a problem!
For some reason in reading this thoughtful piece I was thinking about Anna Lembke's 'Dopamine Nation' and the ideas she puts forth about the curious problem of our living in a culture that's saturated in constant access to quick and easy "pleasures" (dopamine spikes / (happiness?)). She describes that doing cold plunges, for example, is a great exercise to (eventually) feel good because you are inflicting pain on purpose in order to press on pain receptors in the brain so that the corresponding pleasure receptors balance out afterwards. I'm wondering if this applies in some way to the idea of pursuing 'happiness' as though it were a thing that can exist by itself instead of a thing that can only exist as relative to whatever its opposite is (depending on the type of happiness one is seeking). That the pursuit of feeling 'happy more often' as a way of avoiding pain/unhappiness/boredom/discomfort/what have you, obscures our ability to see that ultimately we need frustration, challenge, and difficulty in order to perceive happiness. In my recovery, too, I have this sense that the most challenging/hardest parts of it -- the times where I'm really unhappy! and have to struggle my way through practicing grace - are a part of what makes me ultimately so 'happy' (?) I have chosen recovery for myself.
Kind of like how my following along with your great thought-provoking essays and feeling the challenge of thinking through the concepts and questions you pose is enjoyable to me even though I also feel that lovely 'pain' of trying to figure out complex subjects! My mental fumbles as I do so only add to my glee when an insight pops through -- rare as that may be. :)
It sounds like you're saying that not only is science incapable of contributing to happiness, science is incapable of figuring out what happiness is. If that's the case, why not just abandon science except for its most instrumental and technological material functions? Is behavioral and social science just a fool's errand?
This is a reasonable critique and one that made me think. I wouldn't say that entirely. One issue is that many scientific endeavors could benefit from a more rigorous conceptualization of happiness. One of the big problems is overreach: the authors of the book argue and I agree that the "happiness agenda" promotes happiness as the greatest or supreme good, without any real clarity about what that good actually is. That doesn't mean we can't identify worthwhile goods and clarify what we think about them. We can choose different varieties of happiness to study, and that seems like a worthwhile thing to learn about. If someone says, e.g., "my valued life is X," (more positive emotions, or peace, or whatever), it'd be good to have some good psychological science that helps them understand how to get there. So I do think science can contribute in that less overreaching way.
As for being "incapable" of figuring out what happiness is, I would say as a starting point that it's incapable of figuring it out **by itself**, purely through reductionism.
Those headlines about the Dutch being the happiest are so American. What makes the Dutch “happy” (I think they would choose a different word like content or something similar) is that, by and large, they are not chasing a temporary sense of ease. They are all about savoring and enjoying simple pleasures like the atmosphere of a place or the occasional sunny day.
I also love what you wrote about a dead person’s goals and it’s like an automatic permission slip to be fully human. I’m carrying that forward. 💙
Well, it looks like I'm the proverbial turd in the punchbowl here. Oh well, it could be worse - I could actually be drinking the punch. Forgive me for asking impertinent questions; I admit I like to stir the pot. But in my defense I thought this was a discussion forum, not a fan club. My bad.
This is super interesting - I’d never heard the ‘dead person’s goals’ framing before, but it really struck me as an excellent way to move one’s thinking towards creating a richer, vibrant, and more exciting life on one’s own terms. I also appreciated your focus on value neutrality, as I think that tends to be a persistent problem in Western positive psychology frameworks. Looking forward to reading more!
Thank you! Yes I think the biggest problem with non-value-neutrality in positive psychology frameworks is they are often presented as if they are values neutral. I have no problem with someone proposing a non-neutral framework for general consumption (i.e., as a philosophical writing) if they are honest and clear about it. But as you suggest, many of these frameworks are presented as if they are neutral, which is a problem!
For some reason in reading this thoughtful piece I was thinking about Anna Lembke's 'Dopamine Nation' and the ideas she puts forth about the curious problem of our living in a culture that's saturated in constant access to quick and easy "pleasures" (dopamine spikes / (happiness?)). She describes that doing cold plunges, for example, is a great exercise to (eventually) feel good because you are inflicting pain on purpose in order to press on pain receptors in the brain so that the corresponding pleasure receptors balance out afterwards. I'm wondering if this applies in some way to the idea of pursuing 'happiness' as though it were a thing that can exist by itself instead of a thing that can only exist as relative to whatever its opposite is (depending on the type of happiness one is seeking). That the pursuit of feeling 'happy more often' as a way of avoiding pain/unhappiness/boredom/discomfort/what have you, obscures our ability to see that ultimately we need frustration, challenge, and difficulty in order to perceive happiness. In my recovery, too, I have this sense that the most challenging/hardest parts of it -- the times where I'm really unhappy! and have to struggle my way through practicing grace - are a part of what makes me ultimately so 'happy' (?) I have chosen recovery for myself.
Kind of like how my following along with your great thought-provoking essays and feeling the challenge of thinking through the concepts and questions you pose is enjoyable to me even though I also feel that lovely 'pain' of trying to figure out complex subjects! My mental fumbles as I do so only add to my glee when an insight pops through -- rare as that may be. :)
I hope any of this makes sense! Thank you, Carl.
It sounds like you're saying that not only is science incapable of contributing to happiness, science is incapable of figuring out what happiness is. If that's the case, why not just abandon science except for its most instrumental and technological material functions? Is behavioral and social science just a fool's errand?
This is a reasonable critique and one that made me think. I wouldn't say that entirely. One issue is that many scientific endeavors could benefit from a more rigorous conceptualization of happiness. One of the big problems is overreach: the authors of the book argue and I agree that the "happiness agenda" promotes happiness as the greatest or supreme good, without any real clarity about what that good actually is. That doesn't mean we can't identify worthwhile goods and clarify what we think about them. We can choose different varieties of happiness to study, and that seems like a worthwhile thing to learn about. If someone says, e.g., "my valued life is X," (more positive emotions, or peace, or whatever), it'd be good to have some good psychological science that helps them understand how to get there. So I do think science can contribute in that less overreaching way.
As for being "incapable" of figuring out what happiness is, I would say as a starting point that it's incapable of figuring it out **by itself**, purely through reductionism.
Those headlines about the Dutch being the happiest are so American. What makes the Dutch “happy” (I think they would choose a different word like content or something similar) is that, by and large, they are not chasing a temporary sense of ease. They are all about savoring and enjoying simple pleasures like the atmosphere of a place or the occasional sunny day.
I also love what you wrote about a dead person’s goals and it’s like an automatic permission slip to be fully human. I’m carrying that forward. 💙
Yes indeed, the great American trap of pursuing happiness, therefore pushing it further away!
So glad you like the dead person's goals framing too.
Very interesting. Excited to follow along.
Thanks Carl for always providing food for thought and for challenging us to step outside of comfort zones (self imposed or culturally imposed)!
Thanks Rosalie! Glad to have you here.
Well, it looks like I'm the proverbial turd in the punchbowl here. Oh well, it could be worse - I could actually be drinking the punch. Forgive me for asking impertinent questions; I admit I like to stir the pot. But in my defense I thought this was a discussion forum, not a fan club. My bad.