Have you heard of this? Synthetic happiness. Does it sound even remotely enticing? No, not really? Well, to be entirely honest with you, it sort of put me off as well. But by the time you’ve reached the ending of this presentation, I promise you will agree with at least a couple of statements you hear there about happiness.
As Dan Gilbert, the speaker behind this incredible talk, puts it – we think of happiness as necessarily being a natural, spontaneous occurrence. But this is so rarely the case. And for this reason, so many of us spend a big portion of our existences being unhappy. Our expectations about what would make us happy are the ones that truly lead to our unhappiness. Just because we don’t get what we wanted, it does not mean that our lives are ruined. Just because we’ve had something bad happen to us, this does not translate into our impossibility to ever be happy from now on. Happiness really is what you make it into.
There are so many examples of people who have had awful things happen to them, who have experienced terrible losses – losing all their fortunes, losing their reputations, losing the ability to walk…And yet they calmly and serenely state that they are happier now than back when they had money, fame and mobility in their legs…How can this be true? Surely they must be promoting darn out lies! Well, they’re not.
Not getting what we want can make us just as happy as getting it. Synthetic happiness is just as real and as valuable as the natural one. That’s not to say that we should not strive to make our lives better or to become ourselves more than we are at present. But falling into the pits of depression if we suffer a loss or if we don’t get what we wanted is the biggest mistake we could ever make because it will prevent us from seeing the good in our lives – the existing one and the one to come.
Adam Smith said it wonderfully in The Theory of Moral Sentiments:
“The great source of both the misery and disorders of human life seems to arise from over-rating the difference between one permanent situation and another…. Some of those situation may, no doubt, deserve to be preferred to others: but none of them can deserve to be pursued with the passionate ardour which drives us to violate the rules either of prudence or of justice; or to corrupt the future tranquillity of our minds, either by shame from the remembrance of our own folly, or by remorse from the horror of our own injustice.”
Food for though.
Synthetic happiness is something I thought of some time ago. Americans/english people prefer to use euphemisms for everything, especially for the things they can’t handle by themselves. So they called it “synthetic”. Sounds better than “fake”. I referred to it as fake when I talked about in a post I can’t seem to find right now
Either way, not for me.
When I became aware that it all comes down to choice I was thrilled for a few seconds. Then I realised that choosing to be happy when you’re really not is probably not a good idea. At least for me. I prefer to take it naturally and if it hurts, l accept the pain. Of course I do try to hold on to the good in my life and not get miserably depressed. That state can’t be any good either. But, faking happiness? Artificially setting your mind to a mode that doesn’t come naturally? I’m sorry, it’s not faking, it’s probably embracing synthetic happiness
Monica, it’s not really the choice to be happy, it’s the choice to not view a failure, a loss, or simply not getting something you really really wanted as a catastrophe. The talk Dan Gilbert gives explains how we tend to exaggerate the impact that such events really have on our lives, thus thinking that we should be fatally unhappy.
Ah,Monica, one more thing I forgot to add – it’s not fake happiness at all, it’s just the first step one needs to take sometimes in order to get back on the right track.
as i said it already some time ago: if one always strives to become, one never really is …
we learn by imitation firstly, so why shouldn’t happiness be an acquired taste?
because you can play notes on a score … but without heart/soul it’s just nice and empty sounds.
Too much talk, too much analysis, too little feeling and acting. If what you’re saying were true, then every single soul on this earth should be miserable and cursing their days alive – it’s not like life these days is very easy in many aspects…
Dan Gilbert’s talk came into my my life at a time when I was unhappy and could not see many reasons to be joyful about. I saw things in a completely different light. You can keep on questioning this way of thinking and viewing the world, but it’s saved my heart from whithering away in solitude.
so, if i got it right, you’re experiencing now a state of endless bliss, joy and happiness … but winter comes early this year, twice.
ps: the vast majority of people on this planet don’t have the luxury of pondering about happiness … probably because they’re forced to manufacture cheap stuff for others like Gilbert.
pps: the Dalai Lama got the Nobel prize for peace … after about 160000 people (tibetans and chinese) died while he fled the country. that’s the world we live in … and it’s like this because of people like Goebbels and Gilbert (who sell Meth to the people, drugs beeing prohibited by law).
I’n not experiencing a state of “endless bliss, joy and happiness”. I’m not being e hypocrite by saying that all my troubles are gone. They’re just not as large and as scary as we fathom them to be most of the time. But I am now fully aware that winter may come early, but it’s not forever. Spring will eventually arrive once again.
And I’m sorry, but I’m far from being blinded by this new kind of Meth you’re talking about. If being hopeful and positive is Meth, then so be it.
and without Gilbert’s pep-talk you didn’t know that? if you’re hungry you go out asking other people for confirmation about what you feel inside (there where nobody but you has access)? sure, having some sort of confirmation makes it easier to accept … but the problem isn’t solved by mere acceptance. synthetic happiness will only make you even more “hungry” for real deal …
with Meth … i pointed to addiction (with all it’s side-effects) … and replacing one addiction with another also doesn’t solve the underlying problem … that’s why Gilbert (and other like him) is, at least for me, on the same level with Goebbels.
facing life, facing fear, facing pain, facing problems … understanding how they work and why they exist … that’s what solves the problem and makes life enjoyable (for real this time, not like the high of an addict).
in a world ruled by money, always remember: happy humans can’t be (easily) controlled (they don’t need anything, they have all they need, they are happy as they are) … only unhappy ones.
also, this is my point of view … i’m entitled to it the same way you’re entitled to yours … and if you don’t want to read other points of view, please let me know because both our time is priceless.
INTJ, am sa trec pe limba romana, pentru a ma exprima cat mai clar cu putinta. Da, fara pep-talk-ul lui Dan Gilbert poate ca nu as fi constientizat niste lucruri in clipa in care am facut-o. E nevoie ca unele adevaruri sa le auzim spuse intr-un anumit fel pentru a le putea interioriza cu adevarat. Speech-ul lui a fost acel declansator pentru mine. (repet: pentru MINE) Prin asta nu ma las controlata in niciun fel.
Daca ai ascultat talk-ul lui, probabil ca ai auzit la un moment dat ca el mentioneaza economia de piata si felul in care incearca aceasta sa ne pacaleasca in legatura cu nefericirea pe care am trai-o daca nu am obtine un lucru sau altul. El nu a promovat deloc trend-ul asta in discursul lui. Din contra, a vrut sa aduca in prim plan faptul ca nu trebuie sa ne lasam pacaliti de astfel de tentative de a ne face sa credem ca fericirea noastra sta in a obtine o masina sau un televizor sau mai stiu eu ce, iar daca nu o facem, vom fi profund nefericiti. E vorba de un mecanism psihologic, prin urmare se aplica nu doar in cazul lucrurilor, ci si a diverselor evenimente din viata noastra.
Nu stiu ce sa zic, poate nu am ascultat acelasi speech.
Iar eu vreau sa cred ca infrunt viata, nu ignor partile neplacute ale ei. Nu sunt oarba la nedreptati, dar nu ma mai las doborata de ele.
Nu am dorit sa-ti atac nici punctul de vedere, nici pe tine sau stilul tau de viata. Eu chiar apreciez un dialog – si asta implica puncte de vedere divergente. Dar nu apreciez un ton agresiv ascuns sub acest drept de a ne exprima punctul de vedere.
Mi-a parut bine sa te am ca partener de dialog pana in acest punct, dar daca ai ajuns la concluzia ca iti pierzi timpul, tinand cont ca nu ne cunoastem propriu-zis si nu ne datoram unul altuia absolut nimic in afara de respectul pe care l-am arata oricarei alte persoane, inteleg perfect daca nu vrei sa mai vizitezi acest blog.
nu, nu ne-am inteles! eu incercam sa spun asta: daca vrei sa citesti doar pareri conforme cu ale tale … atunci ne pierdem amandoi timpul … si asta pentru ca-n acel caz, eventuale contraziceri cu mine, te-ar face nefericita … iar eu cred ca timpul tau e prea pretios ca sa-l irosesti citind ceva ce te face nefericita … la fel cum timpul meu e prea pretios pentru a il irosi suparand pe cineva (in loc sa provoc macar un zambet sau un proces rational care sa aduca ulterior macar o minima satisfactie interlocutorului). nu cred in Dumnezeu sau alt tip de divinitate … dar cred in urmatorul pasaj din biblie (care imo defineste cel mai corect conceptul de iubire pura … singurul ideal pe care merita, tot imo, sa incercam cu totii sa-l atingem):
Love is patient, love is kind.
It does not envy.
Love is never boastful, nor conceited, nor rude;
It is not self-seeking, nor easily angered.
It keeps no record of wrongdoing.
It does not delight in evil,
But rejoices in the truth.
It always protects, trusts, hopes, and preserves.
There is nothing love cannot face;
There is no limit to its faith, hope, and endurance.
In a word, there are three things that last forever:
Faith, hope, and love;
But the greatest of them all is love.
– 1 Corinthians 13:4-7
revenind la oile-n discutie:
“Din contra, a vrut sa aduca in prim plan faptul ca nu trebuie sa ne lasam pacaliti de astfel de tentative de a ne face sa credem ca fericirea noastra sta in a obtine o masina sau un televizor sau mai stiu eu ce, iar daca nu o facem, vom fi profund nefericiti.” … adica “cumpara orice ieftinitura, nu conteaza calitatea, nu conteaza nimic” … in conditiile in care omu’ nu degeaba vrea un anume produs dintr-o paleta (mai ales daca acel produs e si scump). prin asta, el ce face? nu cumva “vinde” o alta iluzie … iluzia unei fericiri care nu-i tulburata de nimic (ca deh, cand nu ai parte de cea “autentica” o ai pe cea “sintetica”)? cum poti aprecia/distinge dulcele fara sarat? poate ca exemplul urmator e prea vehement … da’ chiar as vrea sa intelegi ce spun eu (chiar daca nu esti de acord cu ce spun): indirect/intr-un fel, el invata femeile sa-si repete “e ok sa n-am orgasm, nu-i vina lui, el ma iubeste, e ceva in neregula cu mine” (fericirea sintetica) … chiar daca asta se intampla in mod repetat. eu spun “nu-i ok asa” … si mai ales daca asta se repeta. mai departe, “mecanism psihologic” e d.p.m.d.v. doar o exprimare frumoasa pentru “reflex pavlovian” … si ala nu rezolva nimic, e doar un paleativ … care daca dispare, ramai cu sechele si intr-o stare mult mai grava decat cea dinainte.
asemantor am patit cu-n vechi prieten care m-a facut sa citesc Osho … si am citit … mult si bine, ca sa pot discuta cu omu’ stiind despre ce vorbesc. cand ne-am reintalnit eu am avut o singura intrebare: “daca acea stare de iluminare e asa cum o descrie el (adica esti practic rupt de realitate) … cum supravietuiesti in oras fara sa te calce vreo masina sau in natura fara sa te manance vreun animal?”. ah, ca multe alte chestii le vad asemanator … e alta treaba, da’ nu pot lua in serios pe cineva care pe de o parte spune ca “fiecare trebuie sa-si gaseasca propria cale” si apoi se pune sa arate el “calea cea dreapta”.
repet: eu discut/dezbat, nu impun si nu dau retete … pentru simplul motiv ca retete nu exista (din moment ce acea “fericire” e unica/diferita pentru fiecare om … tocmai fiindca oamenii sunt unici si comunicarea empatica, presupunand ca exista, e la nivel de “gangurit de bebelus” nu la nivel de “biblioteci intregi”) si oricine imparte retete intru fericire/etc. e fals. in comment-ul initial nu ti-am spus ce sa faci … ci doar am facut o constatare si anume ca: daca esti mereu pe fuga, n-ai cum sa stii cum e sa stai pe loc.
anyway, d.p.m.d.v. subiectul e terminat (nu mai am ce comenta referitor la el), imi cer scuze daca am parut agresiv (deobicei asta se intampla pentru ca aleg imagini socante care “darama” eventuale prejudecati) … si prefer sa-ti recomand, in caz ca n-ai vazut, un film bun: My Afternoons with Margueritte (2010)
subiect incheiat.