Can You Be Too Happy?

since when is happiness an entitlement?
perhaps the author should go back and read some epicurus or aristotle as this essay fails to even set forth a premise of what happiness but instead throws down the rubric of jefferson's pursuit and then tries to force our 2007 lives into it. ambition, income, ''rich relationships''', power politics and perfectionism are not parameters by which happiness can be measured.

this work is lacking.

since when is happiness an entitlement?
perhaps the author should go back and read some epicurus or aristotle as this essay fails to even set forth a premise of what happiness but instead throws down the rubric of jefferson's pursuit and then tries to force our 2007 lives into it. ambition, income, ''rich relationships''', power politics and perfectionism are not parameters by which happiness can be measured.

this work is lacking.

This study, like many others I have come across in regards to happiness are pure crap. The reason for this is beacuse they are based on weak theoretical backgrounds. I mean, leave it to scientists (especially American scientists) to relate happiness with money, and to attempt to explain a purely abstract concept using concrete means. A similar thing happens when science attempts to explain love: it is reduced to nothing more than neurpchemical signals and mate value, a concept which most people have a hard time understanding. Anyone who has been in love knows that there is something deeper to love than just mate value and neurochemicals. Same thing with happiness. There's much more to happiness than money and material possessions. In fact, the pursuit of those very things causes much misery. My advice to anyone interested in the topic of happiness: you should really consider studying from more spiritual sources and disregard these near-worthless studies until science can come up with a better theoretical explanation.

Crap. I'm sick and tired of reading studies that are based on weak theoretical backgrounds, and the reason for this is beacuse they produce tons of useless research. Happiness, just like love, is an abstract concept that it cannot be so easily explained concretely. There is no such thing as being "really happy" or "kind of happy", just like people can't be "a little bit in love" or "ridiculously in love". That's a source of confusion, and studies like this one do absolutely nothing to further the cause. Until science can come up with a better theory to explain the phenomenon called "Happiness", people are better off studying in from a purely sense. That way, they will be better able to distinguish the difference between the minor satisfaction that we get from obtaining material things and this incredible experience that is happiness.

According to the author, it is better to earn lots of money than be happy. So American!!!

So, according to the author, it is better to earn money than be happy. So American!!!

Compelling!!!!!!????

Oliver Wendell Holmes:

The world has to learn that the actual pleasure derived from material things is of rather low quality on the whole and less even in quantity than it looks to those who have not tried it.

HH the Dalai Lama

Consider the following. We humans are social beings. We come into the world as the result of others' actions. We survive here in dependence on others. Whether we like it or not, there is hardly a moment of our lives when we do not benefit from others' activities. For this reason it is hardly surprising that most of our happiness arises in the context of our relationships with others.

Nor is it so remarkable that our greatest joy should come when we are motivated by concern for others. But that is not all. We find that not only do altruistic actions bring about happiness but they also lessen our experience of suffering. Here I am not suggesting that the individual whose actions are motivated by the wish to bring others' happiness necessarily meets with less misfortune than the one who does not. Sickness, old age, mishaps of one sort or another are the same for us all. But the sufferings which undermine our internal peace -- anxiety, doubt, disappointment -- these things are definitely less. In our concern for others, we worry less about ourselves. When we worry less about ourselves an experience of our own suffering is less intense.

What does this tell us? Firstly, because our every action has a universal dimension, a potential impact on others' happiness, ethics are necessary as a means to ensure that we do not harm others. Secondly, it tells us that genuine happiness consists in those spiritual qualities of love, compassion, patience, tolerance and forgiveness and so on. For it is these which provide both for our happiness and others' happiness. [Ethics for a New Millennium, by His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama]

Sorry about the duplication, but it was inadvertent. There is another view, of course. George Burns said: "Happiness is having a large, loving, caring, close-knit family in another city." And Fran Leibowitz said: "Remember that as a teenager you are in the last stage of your life when you will be happy to hear the phone is for you."

The author is, in my humble opinion, a materialistic fool. Of course, where you stand on this depends a lot on where you sit. Albert Schweitzer said it best: "Success is not the key to happiness. Happiness is the key to success. If you love what you are doing, you will be successful." Read The Plague by Albert Camus. You then learn why what he said is true: "When you have once seen the glow of happiness on the face of a beloved person, you know that a man can have no vocation but to awaken that light on the faces surrounding him; and you are torn by the thought of the unhappiness and night you cast, by the mere fact of living, in the hearts you encounter." Worship money if you must; it shows a plentiful lack of sound values if you do.

The author is, in my humble opinion, a materialistic fool. Of course, where you stand on this depends a lot on where you sit. Albert Schweitzer said it best: "Success is not the key to happiness. Happiness is the key to success. If you love what you are doing, you will be successful." surrounding him; and you are torn by the thought of the unhappiness and night you cast, by the mere fact of living, in the hearts you encounter."
Abd Er-Rahman III of Spain:

I have now reigned about 50 years in victory or peace, beloved by my subjects, dreaded by my enemies, and respected by my allies. Riches and honors, power and pleasure, have waited on my call, nor does any earthly blessing appear to have been wanting to my felicity. In this situation, I have diligently numbered the days of pure and genuine happiness which have fallen to my lot. They amount to fourteen.

(960 C.E.)

I agree with the previous comments. This article seems to be encouraging us to be less happy so we can have more material success. That is definitely the irony of today's world. I would like to also point out how vague this study seems to be. How do you measure happiness? How do you compare one person's self-described contentedness to another's bliss? I am far happier when I am questioning the world, debating important issues, and doing part in world issues than when I am sitting in my living room watching House. Yet those things are also stressful. So am I less happy when I'm not dealing with hard issues but just watchig TV? Further, the article begins with describing the study "data-heavy." I suppose we are to assume that throwing a bunch of numbers around makes the study's conclusions more concrete or significant. I implore readers of this article to think critically about their own lives. If being happy means I make $8,000 less (and are they sure that's correlated anyway?) so be it.

I agree that happiness should be the true measure of success. I would like to know who sponsored this study. Industry and government both have a stake in people measuring success my their income and their possessions (ie. the economy). When Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, he took large parts directly from JOhn Locke. The original wording was "...life, liberty, and the pursuit of property". Not wanting to leave out a majority of future Americans, Jefferson changed the wording. As much as we would like to believe he meant a life of virtue as some have suggested, that just isn't the case. Our founding fathers were all about the pursuit of wealth. Does this mean we should be too? Ok, many of us are, but I would rather be blissful than content and still trying to get more stuff.

It's articles like this that motivate the American people to be money hungry and plagued by consumerism. Of course these "content" people are "less happy". They're focusing on getting more plastic surgery vs. taking part in a "less practical" volunteer job. This is disguesting.

It's a pity that success is defined as making more money, having much, possessing more. Is that success? If that is a common understanding then no wonder more and more Americans are disappointed, frustrated, even suicidal. Is this all that the wise can offer?

This is one of those studies that makes me think, "Really? Really? Is someone actually paying for this? And, God forbid, are my tax dollars going towards this?" It's the kind of study that aptly illustrates what's wrong with academia, where the 'publish or perish' attitude prompts psychologists to create ridiculous niches and ultimately publish 'significant' data which amounts to drivel. Rather than questioning whether happiness is (should be!) confounded with success, the definition of success, or the significance of being 'blissful' rather than 'content' I would rather pose the question - What's the point?

This is one of those studies that makes me think, "Really? Really? Is someone actually paying for this? And, God forbid, are my tax dollars going towards this?" It's the kind of study that aptly illustrates what's wrong with academia, where the 'publish or perish' attitude prompts psychologists to create ridiculous niches and ultimately publish 'significant' data which amounts to drivel. Rather than questioning whether happiness is (should be!) confounded with success, the definition of success, or the significance of being 'blissful' rather than 'content' I would rather pose the question - What's the point?

This study and author have it all backwards - why is it "better" to be successful by our competitive, capitalistic society's standards (making more money, doing better in school) than to be happy? Given the way our society functions, I'm impressed to hear that there are blissful people out there who aren't constantly trying to "improve" themselves through self help books, diet regimens, and plastic surgery; earn more money, acquire more expensive items, etc. I don't pity these people like the author does, I envy them for not only seeing the futility of the American rat race but for not participating!