"Hunger" makes you successful
Feb. 10th, 2008 12:01 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mundensNo Right Turn didn't have comments enabled on this recent post so I decided to make a comment here, as I know it will be noticed :) NRT posted the following :
What I believe should be draw from the described data is that those who are extremely happy see no need to try to achieve more, and therefore don't. They have found the level of weath and health that is necessary for them to be happy.
The report is wrong becasue conluding that "extremely high levels of happiness might not be a desirable goal" is invalid unless your goal is to ensure all people achieve more.
But NRT's comment is wrong also. Capitalism doesn't care how individual's live their lives, doesn't care whether people are happy or not, and doesn't care how much individuals achieve. In fact, if some people are happy at lower levels of wealth, that's a good thing for a capitalist society, because in such a society it is not expected that everyone has the same amount of health or wealth, so for the stabilty and health of such a society it is good that people are happier with less.
Also, we can't conlude from the report that "wealth isn't everything", as those "who are happy are certainly more healthy and successful than those who are angry and depressed,". All we can conclude is that the level of success and health neccesarry to make individuals extremely happy varies.
I'm afraid I disagree with both the conclusion made in the report and NRT.Or we could conclude that wealth isn't everything, and that there's more than one way to live the good life. But that would be an anathema in a capitalist society, wouldn't it?'Our findings suggest that extremely high levels of happiness might not be a desirable goal and that there is more to psychological well-being than high levels of happiness,' the study says.
What I believe should be draw from the described data is that those who are extremely happy see no need to try to achieve more, and therefore don't. They have found the level of weath and health that is necessary for them to be happy.
The report is wrong becasue conluding that "extremely high levels of happiness might not be a desirable goal" is invalid unless your goal is to ensure all people achieve more.
But NRT's comment is wrong also. Capitalism doesn't care how individual's live their lives, doesn't care whether people are happy or not, and doesn't care how much individuals achieve. In fact, if some people are happy at lower levels of wealth, that's a good thing for a capitalist society, because in such a society it is not expected that everyone has the same amount of health or wealth, so for the stabilty and health of such a society it is good that people are happier with less.
Also, we can't conlude from the report that "wealth isn't everything", as those "who are happy are certainly more healthy and successful than those who are angry and depressed,". All we can conclude is that the level of success and health neccesarry to make individuals extremely happy varies.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-09 11:42 pm (UTC)Or produce more. Capitalism has a cult of growth, which rather crudely equates greater production with greater happiness (due to economics' incorporation of vulgar utilitarianism). But the literature comparing happiness to material wellbeing shows that above a certain level, it doesn't actually matter (it also shows that other things - such as being in a stable relationship - have a far greater influence on happiness than per-capita GDP).
My poke was really aimed at market fundamentalists' crude conception of psychology and equation of stuff with happiness, which just isn't borne out by the empirical data. Not to mention the study author's response to those empirical facts as "people, rather than the theory, are broken".
I/S