What if they are happy at a local optimum, and what if we human could only feel happiness on a scale between the best we've been and the worst we've been?
Sure then they may not be the happy at a maximum, but since they haven't found such a maximum yet their hapiness on a relative scale is 100%.
In other words, ignorance is bliss, and if you don't have "other experiences", it doesn't matter, you could still be just as happy - or even more!!
Considering I felt like the author, happier in the most work intensive years, and less happy afterwards, I have come to this theory of my own. It's not substantiated by anything but the famous "ignorance is bliss".
It has had one effect - stopped me from seeking "experiences" - because I want to maximize my relative happiness level. I noticed that when I did stopped that (buddihsm like), happiness happened (but didn't last - maybe there are disminishing marginal returns of staying at one level of "experience" - and we should gain experience, but little by little, to keep happiness maxed out.
> Sure then they may not be the happy at a maximum, but since they haven't found such a maximum yet their hapiness on a relative scale is 100%.
Interesting concept. That may have been true 50 years ago when it was not really possible to discover if other people were happier than your personal 100% level. Unfortunately, due to the internet, TV and Hollywood, it's extremely easy to discover there are tons of people out there happier than you.
After traveling the back roads of Central and South America for 2 years, it was amazing to show up in a dirt-street town where people were struggling to get food and potable water, and see them crowd around a TV and watch a blonde hair, blue eyed Jennifer Anniston complain about some trivial issue like her sofa not matching the carpet. Hollywood is an excellent marketing department, and purveyor of a "You are not as happy as you could be" mentality.
True, it may no longer be easy to do that passively - it now requires active action, like refusing to watch TV. (maybe that's why more and more people are complaining about not being happy - it's no longer the default!)
Still I believe there's some interest in doing that. If you are interested in maximizing your happiness, refusing the "You are not as happy as you could be" is required. It can be hard, especially if you know the fakeness of your action and that people do differently.
I wouldn't say they are happier than you : they seem to be, but they have their own problems. And if you watch them too much or try to emulate them too much, they make you less happy (following my own theory)
IMHO, the answer is still to join the rat race, but at your own pace, and for your own gain in happiness.
> True, it may no longer be easy to do that passively - it now requires active action, like refusing to watch TV.
For sure. I don't have a TV personally, but it's interesting to go to a developing country where they are desperately trying to get things like TVs, iPhones and shiny cars. By definition that's an increase in standard of living, so of course they want it.
> I wouldn't say they are happier than you : they seem to be, but they have their own problems.
That's the big one. Hollywood is an excellent marketing dept., but it's not even close to the truth. Funny how you never see a blockbuster movie about the millions living in America below the poverty line, or those that have lost their houses etc.
Once again, when you're on the other side of the world watching Jennifer Anniston, how can you know it's not reality?
You can't, unless you are either a) not trusting anything foreign (I don't know how this is linked to happiness, but I'm more and more interested in what's called parochialism- I wonder if on a large scale it usually makes people more happy or less - if it has some protective power) or b) you've had the experience for yourself and noticed happiness was not exactly correlated with standard of living.
But I guess the majority will fall in the trap and be miserable since they can't know it's not reality.
[I also made the choice of cutting TV a long time ago, only recently introducing a fraction of old series I watched before and new shows that enjoy high rating, watched on the computer - it was an experiment that I started when BSG was first airing.]
At the moment, I believe "standard of living" in a low amount can raise happiness, but that it's highly addictive and suffers from hugely decreasing marginal returns - so you have to control the increase very carefully.
Sure then they may not be the happy at a maximum, but since they haven't found such a maximum yet their hapiness on a relative scale is 100%.
In other words, ignorance is bliss, and if you don't have "other experiences", it doesn't matter, you could still be just as happy - or even more!!
Considering I felt like the author, happier in the most work intensive years, and less happy afterwards, I have come to this theory of my own. It's not substantiated by anything but the famous "ignorance is bliss".
It has had one effect - stopped me from seeking "experiences" - because I want to maximize my relative happiness level. I noticed that when I did stopped that (buddihsm like), happiness happened (but didn't last - maybe there are disminishing marginal returns of staying at one level of "experience" - and we should gain experience, but little by little, to keep happiness maxed out.