DAVID KAHNEMAN: THE PSYCHOLOGY OF HAPPINESS PART 2

David Kahneman

What is  satisfaction and is it different from happiness?

Listening to Daniel Kahneman on Radio 4 the other week he expounded his clear insight into the field of behavioral science, especially in the area of judgement and decision-making and an area I'd never heard of before, hedonic psychology.  I've wondered if it was possible to make a quantitative study of happiness, not necessarily in terms of possessions and wealth or income and profit, but in terms of a satisfaction with life where needs are simple and few and the main concern is being relaxed  in the present.

In a simple framework, Kahneman has looked at what makes experiences pleasant or unpleasant; the causes of satisfaction and dissatisfaction; joy and sorrow.  His study took him into the field of behavioural science - from a sociological and biological perspective.

In the interview, Kahneman seemed grounded and human with his idea that there was a use for gossip and for one's image of themselves:  this, he says I got from my mother.  She, apparently was a great gossip and knew everybody's business well.  Kahneman  concludes:
          
People who anticipate gossip tend to make better decisions than if they           didn't anticipate gossip...and...People see others much more clearly than       they see themselves.

Kahneman states:  Older people are happier.  Becoming older myself, I can understand that statement as there is less now to bother me as I've learned to handle situations and problems with much more equanimity than in the past.  

He then goes on to say that: 

Emotional happiness is how you feel about your life as you're living it and life satisfaction is how you feel about your life when you're thinking about it.

This is a statement about being consciously in the present rather than turning your mind to the past or the future.  From this there follows the premise that, in general, people will do more in their lives to achieve satisfaction rather than happiness.  There is one small step to reach the conclusion that we achieve satisfaction through thinking about the ephemerality of situations and conditions that we construe as bringing us happiness, whereas, for an embedded and lasting happiness we should live life in the present.

What seems remarkable is that Kahneman claims to have identified a gene which affects optimism and happiness and pessimism and misery.  Although we do have freedom of choice, genetic input has a lot to do with our positive and negative approach to life.  This, he put in terms of how we think when we're younger.  A young person who intends to make a lot of money when they're older generally achieve their objective and are happier than those who fail. Conversely, those who feel that money and possessions are not that important while in their youth, are also happier than average in their old age.

Although this would seem obvious, the input of a genetic factor is an element that deserves consideration.

*

DAVID KANHEMAN: THE PSYCHOLOGY OF HAPPINESS PART 1

Thinking fast and slow

Meeting an old friend a few days ago, we talked about this and that and caught up on what had to be old news because we hadn't met for nearly a year.  Carrie was her expressive self.  Clearly, her encounter with the Alexander Technique in the past had held her in excellent stead.  A tall, straight and elegant octogenarian with a gentle wildness of white locks tumbling around her head, she regaled us with her adventures in Nepal where she lives for most of the year.

-Oh, but you should have been at my party on Friday, she said.  -I had lots of people come round.  If I'd known you were in town I'd have let you know.  Why didn't you contact me?  I've been here for two-months now.

Having had no idea there had been a party in her spacious, New Town, Georgian tenement, no doubt with personable, distinctive folk full of ideas and opinions, I felt a slight feeling of self-reproach and made a mental note to communicate more in the future.

I always remember Carrie advising me to have an opinion.  This advice didn't conflict with my idea of being non-judgemental.  -How could we advance if no one had an opinion about matters that affect us? I thought.  -Is it not right to become involved and influence events if they seem unjust, dangerous or threatening? I further justified.

-We were talking about Scottish Independence and had a vote, Carrie told me, -and what do you think the result was?  she asked.

-I guess most people were for it, I told her.

-That's right, she concurred. -And how would you vote? 

I thought about it.  -I'm not sure.  There are advantages and disadvantages either way.

Without going into the details of the rest of the conversation, suffice it to say that the topic veered around a bit and what transpired was that the question of happiness versus satisfaction stood up on their hind legs in diametrically opposed corners of the ring, and took their gloves off.

*