I will be honest, this class period seemed to branch off in a hundred different directions. At one point I had no idea how we had gotten to what we are talking about. However with that said I did not a few notes and a few interesting things I heard along the way.
"We are how we behave". Is there some base level person we will ways come back to? Or can we trick our brains so much that we truly become someone we want to be?
I also liked the idea that Religious ideas don't offer the means to happiness, but a way of finding meaning in this life, and comfort even when times are not in a sense "happy".
Thanks for the post, Megan.
ReplyDeleteMy factual question: Seligman's book Authentic Happiness suggests some activities to influence one's happiness--what are they? Express gratitude for positive events and consider forgiveness for negative ones. P. 151
For discussion: Considering that varying percentages are offered for that part of our happiness that is genetic, how does our experience of happiness compare with our perceptions of our parents levels of happiness?
For today's link, here is Seligman's website where he offers an assessment quiz, the authentic happiness inventory: authentichappiness.sas.upenn.edu
I appreciate John sharing his background in positive psych. Experience has shown me that circumstances need not play the major role in happiness. Mindset/perspective has been crucial for me and changing these has allowed me to view the same circumstances in radically different ways.
And I like Megan's mention of our identification with our behavior. Feelings are important but I believe we can act/behave in ways that are contrary to how we feel and change those feelings. "Act as if" can be a real answer to the question of hedonic adaptation.
FQ: What was Bertrand Russell's outlook on happiness as expressed in his book, Conquest of Happiness?
ReplyDeleteAnswer: "it lies within the power of individuals, given average good fortune, to achieve, or 'conquer,' happiness"
DQ: Bok states on page 136, "Even as Russell exalted love and work as capable of bringing lasting individual happiness, Freud now viewed both as inadequate from hat point of view: 'We are never so defenseless against suffering as when we love, never so helplessly unhappy as when we have lost our loved object or its love.'"
Does your view on life/happiness side more with Russell or Freud?
thanks again, Megan for posting for us. I wanted to post, but I really had no idea what to say about last class's discussion, haha. I too ponder the question of how much of a "set point" there is when it comes to who we are and how we feel. As a young person in college I feel especially buffeted by several ideas/questions as I am answering the questions, "who am I, who do I want to be, and can I be that person?"
Here's my 'link':
An aesthetic representation of a quote that makes me happy, and I would use as my response to Freud's thoughts on love:http://behance.vo.llnwd.net/profiles23/901233/projects/4384803/1f57254732178c0d87864ab926412d16.jpg
The entire quote:
"My dear, In the midst of hate, I found there was, within me, an invincible love. In the midst of tears, I found there was, within me, an invincible smile. In the midst of chaos, I found there was, within me, an invincible calm. I realized, through it all, that... In the midst of winter, I found there was, within me, an invincible summer. And that makes me happy. For it says that no matter how hard the world pushes against me, within me, there's something stronger - something better, pushing right back." -Albert Camus
The concept of a "me" to come back to both hinders and promotes happiness. It really depends on how we view our individual "self." If we dislike things about the way we behave, think, etc., we're not very likely to feel comforted or happy when someone tells us to just be ourselves. Contrary to that, if we're really confident in the concept of self that we've built up, we're going to feel calmed and content when we're reassured that we should just "keep doing you." The problem I run in to is that the cause for most of my unhappiness or malcontent comes directly from a sense of NOT being able to change some core feature or neurotic tendency of mine. It's only when I realize that I decide who I am that I'm ready to pull myself up by the bootstraps. Whenever someone tells me to "just be myself," I'm overwhelmed with the desire to shake that person and exclaim that I have no friggin' clue who I am most of the time! Life is so fluid that I feel like if I try to pin down one sense of who I am for too long, I'm missing out on possible avenues for change and growth. I have ideals, opinions, preferences, sure, but if I don't consistently challenge them, I feel more like a naïve child than an adult who's openly exploring life and the world around me.
ReplyDeleteAs Dewey and many Pragmatists have said, I too conclude that we are our habits more than anything else. Once we've fostered habits that make us happy, it's a whole lot easier to pull back when we're upset and truly view the issue that's causing those unsettling feelings. It's also crucial to point out that our habits (and behavior) can be carefully deconstructed, reassembled, and toyed around with in many different ways throughout life. If something we do on a regular basis is a source for cognitive dissonance, why not try to either change what we're doing or how we're doing it (in terms of both thoughts about the activity and methodology)? While I understand that there are some responsibilities that just cannot be avoided, is it not better to restructure the "self" that perceives that responsibility as an obligation to one that, rather, enjoys some part of it for whatever reason (even the simple fact that it's necessary)?
I really like what Kathy was getting at with genetics and parental happiness. In a previous comment, I posed a very similar question, only with a focus on what we think we've inherited in terms of behavior or thought processes from our parents (particularly the negative).
Rebecca - That Camus quote often reminds me that I have the power to change how I feel at any given time, regardless of circumstance. This is, again, crucial to the development of acceptance in terms of control. We can't control everything outside of us, but we certainly have some, albeit limited, control over our inner workings. It ties so well with what Kathy was saying at the end of her comment there--circumstances play less of a role in happiness than we realize. Thanks for sharing that :)
Factual Question: Who coined the expression "hedonic treadmill?" Answer: Philip Brickman and Donald Campbell
Discussion: How do you react to a parents' general advice? For example, when a parents tells you that everything will get better or some such, do you find that comforting? Or do you shrug it off with a thought like "Well, you're my parents, you have to say that?"
Link: http://www.somethingyoushouldknow.net/content/how-parents-affect-kids-happiness
Haha, we are on the same page Kat, before I saw your Factual question I posted mine, which was, " • The expression "hedonic treadmill" refers to what? Answer: The concept of adaptation to experiences of pleasure or happiness."
ReplyDelete(Maia Lewis)
ReplyDeleteI believe we do have a constant base person that we generally go back to, but huge life events can change who that person is, and we can gradually change that base person over time if we are mindful of how we want to change.
Fact Q: Bok says that we can be happy without being optimistic or outgoing. However, she says to add to our happiness we need to learn to experience what more fully?
ReplyDeleteA: Gratitude
Diss Q: Do you agree that people can be happy without being optimistic or outgoing?
I agree that changing your perspective is more influencial than circumstances. I like what Kat saying about developing the acceptance of control. when I realized that circumstances don’t influence my happiness as much as my mindset I’m able to accept more moments of happiness rather than see them as unattainable and block it.