The author did not do a good job of spelling out the differences in the two types of happiness. In fact, she didn't even address them by their proper names (hedonic and eudaimonic). Identifying the two and really digging in on their differences would probably have made for a more interesting article - and certainly a more enlightening one. Just saying "people are unhappy, don't confuse unhappy with unjoyful" isn't en…
While I stand by your desire for more nuance in the discussion, I'd be wary of assuming one theorization of happiness, and it's attendant conceptual divisions, is the only theory of happiness. While the hedonistic and eudaemonic conceptions come down to us from tradition for good reason, it seems somewhat presumptuous to call these categorizations the "proper names" for the kinds of happiness. Since it's a humanistic…
Maybe so, but all kinds generally fall into one or both of these kinds (there's grey area as there always is). My point though was to show that the author didn't even scratch the surface in examining what happiness is and because of that the article just seemed like filler.