Dan Gilbert and me on synthetic happiness
First off, I strongly recommend you to watch this video, from TED.com:
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/dan_gilbert_asks_why_are_we_happy.html
What is it about? It's a very good talk about "artificial" happiness: why and how can you synthesize your own happiness using nothing but your own brain. It's really easy, because all you have to do is accept the inevitability of facts.
When I first watched this movie my head went to all of the great thinkers and back to us,the regular guys.
What's the difference between Kant and Nietzsche, put simply? Kant looks happy, while Nietzsche clearly is anything but happy. This leads me to a two-way conclusion: first, don't you think that the "happiness" of any given ideas could be a way to separate status quo thinkers (after all, artificial happiness comes from irreversibility) from change thinkers (unhappy deliberators); second, when you're thinking about something or making decision in your life, maybe thinking in a "happy" manner (positively) could bias your brain. I might be overreaching here, but still...
My first point derives directly from the conclusions of Dan Gilbert's video: living a life of choice will indeed impair your brain's ability to synthesize happiness. If anybody were to classify thinkers and creators (from mathematicians to artists) into two categories - change and status quo - these would be happy, while the latter wouldn't.
The second conclusion would only apply to people who are always "calibrating" their thoughts and ideas based on how they feel. Dan Gilbert's research says you'll feel happier by making the irreversible alternative. Ok, so I wanna feel happy too. I will look to the world - deeply examine every single detail - and then stand back and say something like this: Oh my god! Everything is just so perfect that I wouldn't want to change anything. AIDS, hunger, economy, global warming... there's nothing I can do. I feel so much better!
Religion comes to mind too, doesn't it?
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/dan_gilbert_asks_why_are_we_happy.html
What is it about? It's a very good talk about "artificial" happiness: why and how can you synthesize your own happiness using nothing but your own brain. It's really easy, because all you have to do is accept the inevitability of facts.
When I first watched this movie my head went to all of the great thinkers and back to us,the regular guys.
What's the difference between Kant and Nietzsche, put simply? Kant looks happy, while Nietzsche clearly is anything but happy. This leads me to a two-way conclusion: first, don't you think that the "happiness" of any given ideas could be a way to separate status quo thinkers (after all, artificial happiness comes from irreversibility) from change thinkers (unhappy deliberators); second, when you're thinking about something or making decision in your life, maybe thinking in a "happy" manner (positively) could bias your brain. I might be overreaching here, but still...
My first point derives directly from the conclusions of Dan Gilbert's video: living a life of choice will indeed impair your brain's ability to synthesize happiness. If anybody were to classify thinkers and creators (from mathematicians to artists) into two categories - change and status quo - these would be happy, while the latter wouldn't.
The second conclusion would only apply to people who are always "calibrating" their thoughts and ideas based on how they feel. Dan Gilbert's research says you'll feel happier by making the irreversible alternative. Ok, so I wanna feel happy too. I will look to the world - deeply examine every single detail - and then stand back and say something like this: Oh my god! Everything is just so perfect that I wouldn't want to change anything. AIDS, hunger, economy, global warming... there's nothing I can do. I feel so much better!
Religion comes to mind too, doesn't it?
Comments
Post a Comment