The Science of Happiness

[Anonymous No.2581868]

Let's just go ahead and take "human happiness is good" as an axiom. It's as reasonable as any other, and naturally satisfying.

Can science tell us what makes humans happy and how to make it happen?

[Anonymous No.2581929]

ill start with, no stress and no anxiety, a good base

[Anonymous No.2581927]

This is relevant, but I've heard that it is outdated. lol i dunno

Pic related, it's Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

[Anonymous No.2581934]

Purpose, freedom, blowjobs.

[Anonymous No.2581932]

>>2581868
This is hedonism, and I don't accept it.

[Scientist No.2581938]

>>2581868
>Let's just go ahead and take "human happiness is good" as an axiom. It's as reasonable as any other, and naturally satisfying.
I disagree. I imagine a lot of other humans do as well. Thus by that measure it's not as reasonable as any other.

Now liberty, now we're talking.

(Also Islam by the same measure, but meh.)

[Anonymous No.2581959]

>>2581938
>>2581932
Why is human happiness not good?

[Anonymous No.2581966]

>>2581932
No, hedonism is the assertion that all human happiness, or the greatest happiness, derives from satisfying all physical desires and impulses, no matter what they are. Basically, that pleasure is the only good. But in Maslow's hierarchy, that is mostly the bottom tier.

By your post it seems that you don't think this is a good way to find happiness. Is that a fair assessment? If so, I agree.

[Anonymous No.2581987]

>>2581938
Islam is actually a remarkably sensual religion, largely because Mohammed was a rather carnal man.

For example, the central question for the mohammedans is how to get into paradise, and how not to inherit the fire. the Church however, teaches one strives for justification of one's life, but heaven is only guaranteed to mary and christ. (the saints as well, but that is just because they have faciliated miracles beyond the grave- ergo they must be heavan)

[Anonymous No.2581997]

>>2581929
I actually think that we need a certain level of tension - it just doesn't need to be externally imposed. Setting goals that require effort and then meeting them is very satisfying. A life with no opportunity for accomplishment is soul-crushingly boring and depressing.

[Anonymous No.2582001]

>>2581938
>Now liberty, now we're talking.
I think all you're saying is that liberty is fundamental to happiness. And I agree. What did you think I meant when I said "happiness"?

[Anonymous No.2582002]

>>2581966
not really. Epicurus was a hedonist but he mostly advocated moderation in tastes. To be a hedonist all you have to say is human happiness is the Good.

[Jonny !!7WXrmZAqF1n No.2582008]

>2581927
I deem this the "Pyramid Of Life".

[Anonymous No.2582010]

[Scientist No.2582007]

>>2581959
Because I want the freedom of choice, not happiness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_Free_or_Die

>Give me liberty, or give me death.

>"Eala Freya Fresena" - "Rise up, Free Frisians", spoken at the Upstalsboom in Aurich in the early first millennium. It is traditionally answered with "Lewwer duad üs Slaav", or "Better dead than a slave."

[Scientist No.2582014]

>>2582002
There is a difference between a naive hedonist and a rationalist hedonist, like me. It's the difference of time horizons, and possibly an inclusion of morality depending on how naive the naive side is.

[Anonymous No.2582017]

>>2582007
>Because I want the freedom of choice, not happiness.

Does freedom not give you happiness or at least satisfaction? I always viewed liberty as essential to happiness.

[Anonymous No.2582024]

/sci/, I'm not interested in what people's opinions are unless they can be backed up by fact. Can't we scientifically study and find what objectively improves self-reported happiness? And isn't this some of the most important research?

Here's one relevant article about a study. Apparently you don't need to make more than $75k/yr to be happy. More than that increases your self-evaluated success, but not your happiness. Less increases anxieties and stresses related to finance.

http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2010/09/22/26295/

[Anonymous No.2582037]

Well, if I wanted to be a douchebag, I would ask you to define happiness.
I'd just say to put every child into a coma at his birth, then put an implant in his brain which stimulate the center of pleasure. Feed him with intravenous injection.
And that's it.

[Anonymous No.2582043]

>>2582010
A cynical and false view. I can enjoy far more with a greater mind. It just takes less to fill a small one.

Dogs can never experience the joy of looking at the sky and knowing what the stars are.

[Anonymous No.2582053]

sup /sci/

[Scientist No.2582066]

>>2582017
My problem with that is happiness can be construed to mean different things to different people. As long as I am the final arbiter of my happiness, then they're functionally equivalent, and I'm ok with either. My problem arises when other people start deciding what makes me happy instead of myself.

[Anonymous No.2582096]

>>2582066
Agreed. That's why I think self-reported happiness may be the best we can go for at the moment, even though you have to pass through the really imperfect filters of conscious self-assessment.

Why isn't this a major field of research? What matters more than understanding human happiness? Couldn't we use this knowledge to solve a great deal of the turmoil and needless conflict and suffering in the world? Don't we need to have this knowledge and use it before we can competently spread civilization through the stars?

[Anonymous No.2582118]

>>2582096
you must be new here

[Scientist No.2582123]

>>2582096
>Couldn't we use this knowledge to solve a great deal of the turmoil and needless conflict and suffering in the world?
I don't see how. Could you explain? I think most of the problems are questions of efficacy, and removing the falsely held beliefs of the population (such as all laissez faire believers).

[Anonymous No.2582134]

>>2582043
>Dogs can never experience the joy of looking at the sky and knowing what the stars are.

And you can never experience the joy of licking your own balls.
Dogs 1
Scifag 0

[Anonymous No.2582149]

>>2582134
>And you can never experience the joy of licking your own balls.

It's called masturbation. And I am fairly certain most people on /sci/ are well versed in it.

[Anonymous No.2582159]

>>2582123
I think that false beliefs *about human happiness* are the main concern. Would you say that Stalin was a happy man? Judging by his actions, I'd say he lived in constant fear of his own people. Then why do as he did? Why is there cruelty if it doesn't make the cruel happy? They fail to understand the consequences of their actions - the inescapable nature of human happiness.

I believe that the global optimum in happiness is cooperative. That principles like "don't lie, don't steal, don't hate" are designed to maximize happiness, both for yourself and others. It's not religious - it's simple objective consequences. It's rational, almost common sense.

[Anonymous No.2582163]

>>2582149
Oh, we are.....but you will never have he joy of doing it with your own tongue.

>not sure if I would enjoy that actually....

[Anonymous No.2582167]

>>2582118
Your choice to indulge in cynicism and defeatism are not likely to improve your happiness. Realism does, however, with a proactive dedication to accomplishing something you believe is worth it.

Are you happy being a cynic?

[Anonymous No.2582221]

Bump for happiness.

[Anonymous No.2582242]

>>2582167
>herp derp
>my opinions are facts
>wrong assumptions everywhere
>ignorance and derp

[Anonymous No.2582292]

>>2582242
You seem to think you've made an argument. You haven't. But I admit that my post was just assertions.

Which of them do you disagree with?

[Anonymous No.2582312]

>what makes humans happy
- having lots of friends
- having a girl or a number of them (assuming you're heterosexual male)
- knowledge
- being respected
- when the time comes, having a child
- being wealthy

>how to make it happen?
use your head.. it's not that hard..

[Anonymous No.2582337]

>>2582312
It's a nice list. It seems to hit everything but the top tier of Maslow's hierarchy...
>>2581927
Or did "knowledge" fit in there?

[Anonymous No.2582348]

/thread

[Anonymous No.2582352]

>>2582348
>take advice on being happy from House
Thanks, but no thanks

[Anonymous No.2582358]

Take lots of drugs all the time. Now you'll understand the axiom to be wrong.

[Anonymous No.2582365]

>>2582337
depends on the person if you are scientist knowledge hits it
if not you'd have to add your "following your hearts desire"
btw when making the list i had in mind only the emotions that humans have and how to satisfy them all
but i forgot "good health" too

[Anonymous No.2582370]

>>2582358
You think taking lots of drugs proves that human happiness is not good?

On the contrary, it proves that drugs cannot provide lasting human happiness. Or at least, not those drugs.

[Anonymous No.2582376]

>>2582370

If you take drugs nonstop, you'll be happy til you die.

[Anonymous No.2582380]

>>2582007
You could always stab yourself in the kidney with scissors if you feel the need to be unhappy.

Preferably soon.

[Anonymous No.2582382]

>>2582376
no cause tolerance

[Anonymous No.2582381]

>>2582376
And then your life, and happiness, ends. And that's granting the rather tenuous claim that drug-induced happiness is just as good as any other.

At any rate, it's not a very good long-term optimum.

[Anonymous No.2582414]

>>2582382
Except for sufficiently potent drugs that make you forget about wanting to drink or eat. But even then, >>2582381

[Anonymous No.2582417]

Can someone provide an explanation of the difference(s) between happiness and pleasure? I think to answer OPs questions would require a distinction between the two.

[Anonymous No.2582420]

ok let's change the subject a bit

Would you live as a brain in a jar if it is guaranteed that you'll be made to feel happy in an imaginary or simulated world?

[Scientist No.2582423]

>>2582417
I think it's way too subjective for any practicable definitions, which is why I much prefer taking the liberty approach.

[Anonymous No.2582430]

>>2582423

You will not shit up another philosophy thread.

[Anonymous No.2582433]

bitches & whores man

[Anonymous No.2582440]

>>2582417
This may not be very satisfactory, but here's an idea: Happiness is a state of being which you prefer. The happiest man is the one who, given a knowledge of what all other possible states of being for him would be like, would not change his environment or state of being.

So, happiness is just "what humans want", by definition. I think most of the problems people having finding happiness in life come from a misunderstanding of what would make them happy. Some people think wealth would do it. But studies show that anything beyond $75K/yr doesn't really improve happiness.
>>2582024

[Scientist No.2582463]

>>2582440
>So, happiness is just "what humans want", by definition.
Just noting that that makes human happiness equivalent to human liberty.

[Anonymous No.2582471]

>>2582440
So pleasure is the feelings of gratification something gives you, regardless of whether another thing or situation would give more?

[Anonymous No.2582474]

>>2582463
Only if that is what you value most highly. Or, more accurately, if that is the core of the state of being that you would most prefer, given perfect knowledge of all possibilities.

I'm not disregarding or excluding what you're saying. I think freedom is a very important part of the state that we would call happiest.

[Anonymous No.2582480]

serotonin & epinephrine /thread

[Anonymous No.2582487]

>>2582463
Would the illusion of liberty count as happiness as well? People under "bread and circuses" who think they are free to enjoy life feel that they are happy, but an outsider would surmise that they aren't feeling true happiness because they aren't really at liberty.

[Scientist No.2582489]

>>2582474
Not following your logic. I merely noted, one may say asserted, that
1- >So, happiness is just "what humans want", by definition.
implies
2- >Favoring human happiness is functionally equivalent to favoring human liberty.

Unless, of course, you want to argue that humans don't always act for what they want.

[Anonymous No.2582498]

>>2582471
That seems reasonable. But I might prefer a slightly different definition.

Pleasure, in common usage, generally refers to thing which are physical. Good food, nice clothes, sex, etc. The things commonly called "pleasure" seem to be near the bottom of Maslow's hierarchy. The things commonly called "happiness" seem to higher up on that hierarchy - not just purely physical anymore in their origin. And the greatest happiness would be found at the highest tiers. But you can't enjoy the higher tiers without satisfying the lower needs first.

Anyway, that's Maslow's model.

So, what you just called "pleasure", I would call "present happiness". If there is another state you would prefer, then that other state is just "more happy".

It seems like language is getting to be a problem here.

[Anonymous No.2582516]

>>2582489
>Unless, of course, you want to argue that humans don't always act for what they want.
I agree that humans act for what they want. They are just often mistaken about what they SHOULD want, or what they would want if they had more complete knowledge.

I think we agree. Sorry to give the impression we didn't.

[Anonymous No.2582525]

>>2582487
Illusions provide genuine happiness, but only for as long as the illusions last. They are not long-term optima.

[Scientist No.2582536]

>>2582516
>SHOULD want
See, this is making me antsy. This kind of reasoning implies that there is a difference between what humans want, and what is moral for them to have. Or, you can decide for me what makes me happy and override my own judgments. I don't know if you meant to imply that, but I strongly disagree that that is the moral course of action.

[Anonymous No.2582557]

>>2582536
No, I'm not suggesting that other people should determine the "ought". I'm merely pointing out that incomplete knowledge of "what would make me happy" leads people to poor choices.

What a person "should" want, in the sense I meant it, is what a person WOULD want if they had perfect knowledge of all the options and consequences. It's still perfectly self-determined - but without incomplete knowledge. It's the ideal, though not realistically attainable.

[Anonymous No.2582576]

>>2582557
Having perfect knowledge of the consequences is one thing, but the bigger question is, what consequences would the person want? If you had perfect knowledge of the consequences, you would still pick certain ones. What is the criteria for that choosing?

[Anonymous No.2582593]

>>2582557
The interesting thing that comes out of this is that, since we are all human, we should have very similar landscapes for "what I would want, given perfect knowledge". We should be able to study human happiness, and get a good idea of "what makes people happy", in general. Individual variation will shift the optima in that landscape, but I think we would have a lot in common.

And if people have similar landscapes of "what I want", then you can have a fairly coherent agreement on what society should be like, what principles and rules everyone would agree to follow, etc, so everyone can get as close to their personal optima as possible. Most of the disagreement would be about how to achieve a global optimum, rather than what that optimum is. That seems to be the case today, largely.

There's a reason things like the Golden Rule are pretty much universal to all human societies, though they may not be followed in practice. Incomplete knowledge of consequences, IMO.

See
>>2582159

[Anonymous No.2582604]

>>2582576
That's difficult to answer - but it might be the case that biology answers for you anyway. The human brain has a lot of predefined structure. So the question is, what does the happiest brain look like, and how can I make mine more like it?

The criteria for deciding what would be best (given perfect knowledge of the options) would be self-evident from just how brains work.

Imagine trying out all the possibilities, and then asking yourself "which do I like best"? It's hard to say more about the criteria than "it's what you prefer". There might be very descriptive principles of what humans in general prefer, however. For instance, personal liberty seems to be a strong component.

[Scientist No.2582605]

>>2582557
Ah, human ignorance resulting in different decisions. Indeed a problem.

[Anonymous No.2582617]

An mu opioid receptor agonist that does not cause tolerance would be the greatest drug on the world because opiates by nature do not cause neurotoxic or otherwise toxic effects. Imagine consequence free heroin forever! It's almost physically impossible (like cold fusion), but it's a dream pharmacologists must have!

[Anonymous No.2582632]

>>2582617
So, you aspire to create the society in A Brave New World? Or is there a way to have Soma without the dystopia?

[Anonymous No.2582644]

>>2582159
>Would you say that Stalin was a happy man? Judging by his actions, I'd say he lived in constant fear of his own people. Then why do as he did? Why is there cruelty if it doesn't make the cruel happy? They fail to understand the consequences of their actions - the inescapable nature of human happiness.
MIND = BLOWN

[Anonymous No.2582641]

>>2582604
The biological factor you bring up seems to mean that if you could just activate those parts in the brain directly with chemical stimulation, we would basically be happy. Our brain wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

But people don't usually see that as true happiness. Could our lack of knowledge be the reason people think like this? Could chemical stimulation be the right answer?

[Anonymous No.2582652]

>>2581868
Science can't tell us, but this guy can.

[Anonymous No.2582668]

>>2582644
Wanting ti eliminate undesirables doesn't necessarily mean he lived in constant fear of them. It's just taking precautions.

[Anonymous No.2582669]

>>2582641
I think the distinction is illusory. It's my hunch that the greatest happiness requires a state of mind that nuanced, balanced, complex, yet ordered. Basically, the sequence of chemicals needed would basically make you a brain-in-a-vat experiencing a perfect life - and that means what you are and what you "do", not just what happens to you.

Perfect chemically-induced happiness might be indistinguishable from the same state of mind produced by the real thing. But it's so complex, that the real thing might be easier to attain.

So yeah, you'd the world's happiest guy in the Matrix. The main problem I think I'm getting at is that happiness may be more than your sensory inputs, or your dopamine levels. What about the happiness that relies on the state of your mind, and your knowledge of it? Comprehension, accomplishment, inner peace and self-control. Can drugs give those? I'm not sure.

[Anonymous No.2582687]

>>2582668
He imagined "undesirables" where none existed. He was paranoid. Is paranoia a desirable state of mind?

Anyway, Plato beat everyone ITT to the idea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Republic_%28Plato%29#Definition_of_justice
>In terms of why it is best to be just rather than unjust for the individual, Plato prepares an answer in Book IX consisting of three main arguments. Plato says that a tyrant's nature will leave him with "horrid pains and pangs" and that the typical tyrant engages in a lifestyle that will be physically and mentally exacting on such a ruler. Such a disposition is in contrast to the truth-loving philosopher king, and a tyrant "never tastes of true freedom or friendship."

[Anonymous No.2582702]

new /sci/ rule: ignore scientist. He doesn't know what he's talking about and will continue to argue just for the sake of arguing.

[Scientist No.2582716]

>>2582702
Orly? Notice how I haven't really argued at all in this thread, and haven't said anything in a while.

tl;dr you're a bitch

[Anonymous No.2582717]

>>2582702
He hasn't gone so far as to be called unreasonable or trollish, IMO. But let's not make this about him.

[Anonymous No.2582772]

OP here, thanks for a great thread, guys. Here's hoping science can teach us all more about what makes humans happy, so we can make better decisions. Take care.