Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Hedonic Treadmill

happierhuman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 135 posts

Re: The Hedonic Treadmill

#51

Post by sliverstorm »

blakesterz wrote: post #7

>>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,…

Where I live, everyone celebrates the start of winter (because they're tired of summer), and then then start of summer (because they're tired of winter).

My favorite part of winter is, a warm fire literally never feels better than when it's freezing outside.

Re: The Hedonic Treadmill

#52

Post by jonbarker »

The Hedonic Treadmill may be a phenomenon but it can be rendered irrelevant to your decision making process with a couple simple guiding principles which many people actually do in practice (some don't but it is an overgeneralization to say everyone does this so don't try to make more money). Principle 1: All Raises Go to Savings (invest those in whatever suits your risk tolerance). Principle 2: Begin With The End In Mind. The end of course is the end of working life (free to do more work of course if you so choose beyond a certain point). If you want to be financially independent at age 50 plus or minus 10 years you need a high net worth, so ensure that these savings habits result in a high net worth (definitions of high net worth of course vary). Kind of tired of hearing about the hedonic treadmill at this point.

Re: The Hedonic Treadmill

#53

Post by Simp »

anotherhacker wrote: post #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 abo…

>'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

Uh... what that Edge article you are linking shows is that 'experienced happiness' which he thought would be a better measurement of happiness than life satisfaction is even more immune to your life circumstances:

>"This was the first of many such findings: income, marital status and education all influence experienced happiness less than satisfaction, and we could show that the difference is not a statistical artifact. "

This only strengthens the OP's opinion...

He does tell us at the end of the article that GDP correlates with the happiness levels of countries. But that doesn't really detract from the OP's reasoning. (Who knows if that's even causative, instability & war could cause both GDP & happiness to drop.)

Even the study you are linking suggests revisions, and is far from 'disproving' the hedonic treadmill theory.

Re: The Hedonic Treadmill

#54

Post by geodel »

Pils wrote: post #41
erroneousfunk wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Her…

Thanks, I like this point of view. I guess something like ratio of modern day comforts / modern day stress vs that ratio from past could be a useful measure.

Re: The Hedonic Treadmill

#55

Post by IkmoIkmo »

stevoski wrote: post #46
brianlweiner wrote: post #26

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 wastel…

Man I can't even imagine, all the best to you.

Re: The Hedonic Treadmill

#56

Post by erroneousfunk »

Pils wrote: post #41
erroneousfunk wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Her…

The homeless aren't hungry. The leading causes of death for the homeless aren't starvation or malnutrition -- it's drug abuse, cancer, and heart disease: http://pschousing.org/news/drug-overdose-1-cause-homeless-de... Sure, they're not the healthiest bunch in the world, and they have much shorter lifespans than the average non-homeless person, but they sure have a much longer lifespan than even the well-off did 10,000 years ago.

The homeless survive off the infrastructure of society, where food is relatively plentiful because of the massive commercial agricultural system we have in place. Not only is commercial agriculture in the US completely different than the small agriculture in rural Africa, that the Diamond essay is talking about, but the homeless aren't farmers! They're consumers of agriculture, but not producers of it. So, while I agree with the essay, and think it makes some interesting points, it's just not applicable to the homeless.

Also, the 20 hour week it mentioned is entirely devoted to obtaining food, and note that they say that's "during a month when food was plentiful" If the only work we did was for food, I'd only have to work one day a month!

While access to food, shelter, and other amenities we take for granted may be "insecure" for the homeless, they're still available. The homeless congregate in cities because that's where the food banks, homeless shelters, sources of sporadic income, public restrooms, and convenient places of shelter from the elements are. They have the ability (although, again, an inconsistent and insecure one) to be warm when it's snowing, receive medical care when they need it, eat a variety of food, and hang out in the library surfing the Internet during the day.

Re: The Hedonic Treadmill

#57

Post by [deleted] »

geodel wrote: post #54
Pils wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Her…

Thanks, I like this point of view. I guess something like ratio of modern day comforts / modern day stress vs that ratio from past could be a useful measure.

[deleted]

Re: The Hedonic Treadmill

#58

Post by npsimons »

The claim that losing weight won't make someone happier always surprises me. To be sure, there are those who have deep seated issues that won't be solved by losing weight, or for those who lose a little it won't make a big difference, but I can state with confidence the fact that I am happier and my quality of life is better for having lost weight. Just getting better sleep (and not needing a CPAP to do it) has made a world of difference for me. Anecdotal, I know, but still.

Re: The Hedonic Treadmill

#59

Post by ASpring »

unit91 wrote: post #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.

Reflecting on things that made you happy in the past increases your current mood. I actually find that pretty intuitive.

Re: The Hedonic Treadmill

#60

Post by visakanv »

stevoski wrote: post #46
brianlweiner wrote: post #26

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 wastel…

I'm so sorry for your loss.
Post reply on HN