Live data from Hacker News

The Hedonic Treadmill

happierhuman.com

41–50 of 135 posts

Re: The Hedonic Treadmill

#41

"The material standard of living of a homeless person in modern-day Manhattan is several dozens of times higher than the wealthiest of kings ten thousand years ago." Can someone explain to me what their definition of "standard of living" is in this context? I get that they might have access to cleaner water, but surely easy access to food prepared for you and having a roof over your head in a snowstorm would sound re…

10,000 years ago, we were living in a pre-agricultural society (or, perhaps, only somewhat agricultural) Lots of wandering tribes, moving around following the food, hunting with sharp rocks. Hunger and starvation would be common, everything would be scarce, even for "kings" (which were really just tribal leaders) Modern construction wasn't a thing, dwellings were constructed out of sod, animal skins -- at the best, s…

I know the work of Jared Diamond has some problems, but as a counterpoint:

"While the case for the progressivist view seems overwhelming, it's hard to prove. How do you show that the lives of people 10,000 years ago got better when they abandoned hunting and gathering for farming? Until recently, archaeologists had to resort to indirect tests, whose results (surprisingly) failed to support the progressivist view. Here's one example of an indirect test: Are twentieth century hunter-gatherers really worse off than farmers? Scattered throughout the world, several dozen groups of so-called primitive people, like the Kalahari bushmen, continue to support themselves that way. It turns out that these people have plenty of leisure time, sleep a good deal, and work less hard than their farming neighbors. For instance, the average time devoted each week to obtaining food is only 12 to 19 hours for one group of Bushmen, 14 hours or less for the Hadza nomads of Tanzania...While farmers concentrate on high-carbohydrate crops like rice and potatoes, the mix of wild plants and animals in the diets of surviving hunter-gatherers provides more protein and a bettter balance of other nutrients. In one study, the Bushmen's average daily food intake (during a month when food was plentiful) was 2,140 calories and 93 grams of protein, considerably greater than the recommended daily allowance for people of their size. It's almost inconceivable that Bushmen, who eat 75 or so wild plants, could die of starvation the way hundreds of thousands of Irish farmers and their families did during the potato famine of the 1840s."[1]

Obviously this isn't representative of all hunter-gatherer societies, but a >20 hour work week, high-protein 2000 calorie diet seems pretty nice. Of course there are some other nice benefits of modernity but saying being homeless in the US have a categorically higher quality of life is a stretch.

[1]http://www.ditext.com/diamond/mistake.html

Re: The Hedonic Treadmill

#42
The author is flat out wrong. The Hedonic Treadmill has been disproven. Moreover, the author seems to be conflating the concept of the treadmill, with adaptation. The former denotes the subject returns to the original state. The latter recognizes that while we become accustomed to new things, we still improve in happiness.

The author is also misquoting, or misunderstanding, Kahneman. Kahneman isn't talking at all about the treadmill. He's talking about what he called the "Focusing Illusion"-- a fancy way of saying "the grass is always greener on the other side..."

Relevant links:

"Beyond the Hedonic Treadmill: Revising the Adaptation Theory of Well-Being" http://www.factorhappiness.at/downloads/quellen/S9_Diener.pd...

Kahneman tried to explain the hedonic treadmill via with his own aspiration treadmill. He claims that he not only failed, but the data were opposite to his hypothesis.

https://www.edge.org/response-detail/10056

Kahneman's paper where that OP misquotes Kahneman from:

http://psiexp.ss.uci.edu/research/teaching/Schkade_Kahneman_...

Re: The Hedonic Treadmill

#43
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't you ignoring the alternatives which the author suggests have significantly better ROI?

Yes, I consider that section of pop-psychology fluff literally below contempt or discussion. But by all means, if it interests you, try it; on another page, he promises that keeping a gratitude journal will grant you "spiritual transcendence."

So, you say:

"That's no reason not to work for small improvements; the small improvements add up."

But dismiss the idea of using some sort of heuristic to prioritize said small improvements? Because that's what I got out of this slightly verbose piece: prioritize what will actually make you happy, not what you assume will make you happy. Though, I agree, it's not particularly profound.

Re: The Hedonic Treadmill

#44

"The material standard of living of a homeless person in modern-day Manhattan is several dozens of times higher than the wealthiest of kings ten thousand years ago." Can someone explain to me what their definition of "standard of living" is in this context? I get that they might have access to cleaner water, but surely easy access to food prepared for you and having a roof over your head in a snowstorm would sound re…

I'm equally confused. I wonder if he meant to say 10,000?

My understanding of human history pretty much stops at what we all learned about Egypt in history class, and that time period was ~6,000 years ago IIRC. I have no concept whatsoever of what life was like before then.

Were there even "kings" 10,000 years ago?

Re: The Hedonic Treadmill

#45
What strikes me about the article is that a gratitude journal is recommended because of its effect, with no real discussion of the cause of the increased happiness. What could possibly explain a strong, common desire regardless of life-circumstances to thank an external source for the good things in our lives? If we're merely products of genetic mutation, this seems like a very bizarre psychological phenomenon.

Re: The Hedonic Treadmill

#46

Studies have cast doubt on whether Subjective Well-Being (SWB) levels actually return to normal after significant life events. [1] [2] So a core element of this post may not even be an actual phenomenon. [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17469954 [2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3289759/

> Studies have cast doubt on whether Subjective Well-Being (SWB) levels actually return to normal after significant life events.

I had heard (in a TED talk I think) that humans typically need only three months or so to get back to "feeling normal" after a terrible life event.

Then I had my one terrible life event (widowed two days after marriage). Boy was that TED talk wrong! The next few years were a desolate wasteland.

Re: The Hedonic Treadmill

#47

>>But sunshine after sunshine is correlated with nothing. >> Because if every day was warm and sunny, you would get use to it. That seems really really wrong. I see they cite studies but it just finally got warm and sunny here after a long cold winter and it feels, well, happy :-) Maybe, just maybe, if it was sunny all the time I'd get used to it. But some days wouldn't be sunny, or I'd travel someplace with no sun,…

It's not wrong.

I've lived very close to the equator for a couple of decades. I never had to care about weather forecasts at all, because I alway knew what the weather would be like: 30 degrees celsius (86F), +/- a couple of degrees. Sunny. Too hot under direct sunlight, but completely fine under a tree shade even at noon.

If anything, you get fed up with the single season and will welcome rainy days. There is this mountain nearby that was hugely popular because it was a few degrees colder. So I guess even nice beaches under perfect weather get boring, given enough time.

Re: The Hedonic Treadmill

#48

"The material standard of living of a homeless person in modern-day Manhattan is several dozens of times higher than the wealthiest of kings ten thousand years ago." Can someone explain to me what their definition of "standard of living" is in this context? I get that they might have access to cleaner water, but surely easy access to food prepared for you and having a roof over your head in a snowstorm would sound re…

I'm equally confused. I wonder if he meant to say 10,000? My understanding of human history pretty much stops at what we all learned about Egypt in history class, and that time period was ~6,000 years ago IIRC. I have no concept whatsoever of what life was like before then. Were there even "kings" 10,000 years ago?

10,000 years ago suggests Mesopotamia. My weak history knowledge suggests that was the only thing closed to a civilization in that era.

Re: The Hedonic Treadmill

#49
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eating freshly cooked meat from a domesticated or game animal is miles better than a rotting piece of garbage in a dumpster sitting in the hot sun. I don't think we're understanding how filthy dumpsters are and how our bodies are not engineered to handle the types of bacteria that grow in those circumstances or just how dangerous and unhealthy urban areas are for the homeless. Even days old dried meat is going to be…

You are romanticizing the hunter-gatherer past. Constantly being on the verge of starvation, eating under-ripe fruit, and scavenging rotten meat off week-old corpses was not a good or 'healthy' life.

Agreed. In particular, the social support for physical/mental disabilities that often fuel homelessness was probably nonexistent then. And yes, it's fair to scoff at the social support when comparing nations among one another at the present. But the trend among all of them at present is light years ahead of what it was 10000 years ago.

Re: The Hedonic Treadmill

#50
post #34

Studies have cast doubt on whether Subjective Well-Being (SWB) levels actually return to normal after significant life events. [1] [2] So a core element of this post may not even be an actual phenomenon. [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17469954 [2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3289759/

Your first link is paywalled, but the second study hardly seems to "cast doubt" as you say. While we're taught to think about science in terms of "one experiment can disprove a whole theory!", the actual probability of getting an experiment wrong is much higher than the probability of a very established theory predicting an opposing effect to what's actually the case.

There are many supposed theories that survive for decades with little scientific support.

Such as the RICE treatment for illnesses, which has finally been denounced by its creator. [1] http://www.drmirkin.com/fitness/why-ice-delays-recovery.html

The pressure to publish new results and the low attention given to validation experiments drives a lot of unreliable outcomes.

Post reply on HN