However, as suggested earlier, all circum-stances combined account for only 8% to 15%of the variance in happiness levels (Argyle,1999; Diener et al., 1999).
So surprising how low this number is. I feel as a capitalist society they doesn't want you to know about this statistic as it decreases the chance of buying into unnecessary products.
This leaves as much as40% of the variance for intentional activity,supporting our proposal that volitional effortsoffer a promising possible route to longitudinalincreases in happiness. In other words, changingone’s intentional activities may provide a hap-piness-boosting potential that is at least as largeas, and probably much larger than, changingone’s circumstances.
This answers my earlier question on how much is in our control vs not. It's critical to be able to distinctly tell the difference between the two in order to make changes.
In otherwords, happiness is primarily a subjective phe-nomenon for which the final judge should be“whoever lives inside a person’s skin” (Myers& Diener, 1995, p. 11; see also Diener, 1994).
I agree with this definition.
A third reason for optimism is provided byrecent findings that older people tend to besomewhathappierthanyoungerpeople(Charles, Reynolds, & Gatz, 2001; Diener &Suh, 1998; Roberts & Chapman, 2000; Sheldon& Kasser, 2001). Specifically, both cross-sec-tional and longitudinal work has shown thatolder persons report higher life satisfaction andlower negative affect.
This is probably due to acceptance and confidence in ones self as you age, and an overall wider appreciation of the smaller things in life. Younger people tend to be always dissatisfied, constantly chasing more wealth, success and keeping up with societies physical expectations to look a certain way.
Indeed, a number of philo-sophical traditions embrace the notion that hap-piness should not be increased beyond an ideallevel, one akin to a “Golden Mean” (Aristotle,1974) between agony and ecstasy. To be sure,most people would undoubtedly reject an unre-strained, ceaseless pursuit of well-being.
I feel like this relates to drugs that increase/exceed normal happiness levels. Is there a limit to happiness?
(1978) showed that, after 1 year, lottery winnerswere no happier than controls, and furthermorerecent paralysis victims were not as unhappy asone would expect. Further evidence of hedonicadaptation comes from findings of remarkablysmall correlations between happiness andwealth
Yes. I learned about this from the documentary "Happy", in which they said that after reaching the amount of money to meet your basic needs, more wealth doesn't have much affect on your happiness levels. I believe this to be true, even though it's a common American ideal that more money=more happiness.
Thus,although new circumstances may temporarilycause people to become happier or sadder, theyrapidly adjust, and the effect of these new cir-cumstances on happiness then diminishesquickly or even disappears entirely.
So does this mean we each have our own standard level of happiness that we always return to? Like circumstances make it fluctuate but our core happiness levels stay the same? I'm curious how much is in our control vs unchangeable/just the way we are.
Thus, we argue that enhancingpeople’s happiness levels may indeed be a wor-thy scientific goal, especially after their basicphysical and security needs are met.
I wonder is there any research on whether happiness is achievable if some of your basic needs aren't met? If not, does that mean individuals who may be homeless, in poverty or alone aren't able to achieve happiness? What about people who live in less modernized places who don't view what we view as necessities? Makes me think that the way we separate our needs from our wants is completely subjective.