The Hedonic Treadmill

Post by scotty79 » Fri, Jun 21, 2019, 9:15 AM UTC

TomMarius wrote: post #13

scotty79 wrote: post #11

That's the worst name for the simplest thing. I'd call it 'illusion of impact'. What happens to you seems like it's affecting you but really doesn't. After a while you feel no happier or sadder that you have always been. It's because your happiness is biological and you can improve it or harm it lastingly only by affecting your biology. Getting more money won't affect it. Sleeping longer, moving more, eating with mor…

Just a comment under you is a description why it's a good analogy (by user skrebbel). Do you disagree (it's a newer comment than yours)?

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jun 21, 2019, 10:10 AM UTC

lotsofpulp wrote: post #23

arketyp wrote: post #4

In the way that being content is an evolutionary disaster, it makes sense that we always have an itch to scratch.

Not being content can also be an evolutionary disaster. Imagine a specifies that consumes more than the environment can sustainability produce and collapses the whole environment (for that species). This can be on a bacteria/virus level, insect level, mammal level, and of course human level.

Post by lotsofpulp » Fri, Jun 21, 2019, 10:55 AM UTC

scotty79 wrote: post #29

lotsofpulp wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reducing volatility and increasing security of health, food, and shelter makes me happy, and more money certainly is a way to achieve that in the environment I live in. I’m sure it’s biological as it’s still chemicals in the brain. I define happiness as meeting one’s expectations, or maybe unhappiness as not meeting one’s expectations.

Lack of money prevents you from getting things that help keep your body in good condition. So it this sense money can improve your happiness. Just not directly. Having money does nothing for you. Spending money to improve your health, diet and leave the place that harms you is what makes you happier. I don't think you can define happiness. It's a primary emotion. How do you define pain?

Post by Joof » Fri, Jun 21, 2019, 12:38 PM UTC

raducu wrote: post #30

k__ wrote: post #17

I'm living non-monogamous and in the poly community we often talk about a similar phenomenon called "Relationship Escalator", which is less general than the "Hedonic Treadmill". The idea is that most people see a relationship as an escalator where you move up somehow automatically. First you date, than you're going steady, then you move in together, marriage, kids etc. pp. The hedonic treadmill is considered one of t…

No offense, but aren't you guys the ones who keep on the hedonic treadmill by constantly changing partners and are never actually satisfied? The ones actually chasing after that new relationship energy/dopamine rush? Isn't it backwards to spin the normal progression of a romantic relationship as hedonic? Are the people into poly some kind of saints/ascets and the people on the "relationship escalator" the hedonits? (…

Post by k__ » Fri, Jun 21, 2019, 2:08 PM UTC

raducu wrote: post #36

k__ wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because you have multiple partners doesn't mean that you have to be "constantly changing partners". You are totally right, there are many people who run after the "new relationship energy" as other people are ascending the "relationship escalator". I just wanted to point out that there isn't one right way to happiness in relationships :)

I think hedonism is a valid personal choice(if it's a culture-wide beneficial choice -- that's debatable), there's no need to paint other choices black(not saying you were doing directly). Experiencing in myself and other what you call the "relationship escalator" -- I can assure you it's not driven by hedonism, it's just a functional necessity, at least in the vast majority of cases and history(sure there can be peo…