Up@dawn 2.0

Tuesday, August 6, 2013

The right kind of happy

Pig-wallowing "hedonic" happiness is not as good for you as meaningful "eudaimonic" happiness. 

I've stopped (as of today) tagging those as Benthamite and Millian, respectively. But the point stands: there's more to human happiness than high quantity/low quality hedonic pleasure. Or so says a new study led by UNC psychologist Barbara Frederickson.
To assess eudaimonic well being they asked questions like, “In the past week how often did you feel that your life had a sense of direction or meaning to it?” and “How often did you feel that you had something to contribute to society?...
In volunteers who scored strongly for hedonic well-being and weakly for eudaimonic well-being inflammation-causing genes were 20% more active than average, and genes associated with the production of virus-attacking antibodies 20% less active. In contrast, in those who were the other way round, genes associated with the production of interferons (proteins that support communication during immune-system responses) were 10% more active and antibody genes 30% more active. Eudaimonic pleasure thus looks as though it is good for the health, while hedonic pleasure is bad...
Psychosomatic medicine: The right kind of happy | The Economist

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.