What Makes Us Happy(theatlantic.com)
theatlantic.com
What Makes Us Happy
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200906/happiness/
7 comments
I found this passage absolutely chilling. I have never read fiction, classic or otherwise, that captured so well the tragic vulnerability of the human condition; the tenuous moment-to-moment insanity that makes us happy and irrational. It quite literally brought a tear to my eye:
To illustrate his point, he told a story about one of his "prize" Grant Study men, a doctor and well-loved husband. "On his 70th birthday," Vaillant said, "when he retired from the faculty of medicine, his wife got hold of his patient list and secretly wrote to many of his longest-running patients, 'Would you write a letter of appreciation?' And back came 100 single-spaced, desperately loving letters--often with pictures attached. And she put them in a lovely presentation box covered with Thai silk, and gave it to him." Eight years later, Vaillant interviewed the man, who proudly pulled the box down from his shelf. "George, I don't know what you're going to make of this," the man said, as he began to cry, "but I've never read it."
"It's very hard," Vaillant said, "for most of us to tolerate being loved."
To illustrate his point, he told a story about one of his "prize" Grant Study men, a doctor and well-loved husband. "On his 70th birthday," Vaillant said, "when he retired from the faculty of medicine, his wife got hold of his patient list and secretly wrote to many of his longest-running patients, 'Would you write a letter of appreciation?' And back came 100 single-spaced, desperately loving letters--often with pictures attached. And she put them in a lovely presentation box covered with Thai silk, and gave it to him." Eight years later, Vaillant interviewed the man, who proudly pulled the box down from his shelf. "George, I don't know what you're going to make of this," the man said, as he began to cry, "but I've never read it."
"It's very hard," Vaillant said, "for most of us to tolerate being loved."
One of the most striking parts of this article came right at the end: the mention of all these successful, well-adjusted people's amazing capacity to lie to themselves:
"In 1946, for example, 34 percent of the Grant Study men who had served in World War II reported having come under enemy fire, and 25 percent said they had killed an enemy. In 1988, the first number climbed to 40 percent—and the second fell to about 14 percent. “As is well known,” Vaillant concluded, “with the passage of years, old wars become more adventurous and less dangerous.”"
It's a scary and uncertain world we live if we can't even rely on our own memories to tell us the truth. Makes me think I should keep a diary.
I was also slightly frustrated with the author's apparently uncritical acceptance of Vaillant's theory of adaptations. Any actual verifiable evidence for this theory?
"Strenuous defenses, I came to see, are no mere academic theme for Vaillant, who has molded his life story like so much clay. Consider the story of his father’s suicide and his own delight in going through the 25th-reunion book [of his father's school] as a 13-year-old. When I asked Vaillant if the experience of paging through the book had been tinged with sadness, he said, “It was fascinating,” and went on to describe his awe and wonder at longitudinal studies. If he were observing his own case, Vaillant himself would probably call this “reaction formation”—responding to anxiety (pain at grasping a father’s violent departure) with an opposite tendency (joy at watching men, quite like him, develop through time)."
Is "reaction formation" really the only explanation for this? It seems a very likely one but maybe Vaillant just has a brain which, due to its biological programming, doesn't react strongly to death. Maybe his fascination with the reunion book was simply because of his perplexity with the mystery of his father's death (as opposed to a way of substituting a painful emotion with a manageable one, as Vaillant's theory would have it).
I found this strange because at other points in the article, the author seemed aware of the gap between psychoanalysis as genuine science – unverifiable speculation and verifiable testing – and yet here we have a theory being talked about as if it were a proven fact.
And, finally, I liked this quote very much:
"Their lives were too human for science, too beautiful for numbers, too sad for diagnosis and too immortal for bound journals" - George Vaillant
Though I hope that doesn't stop people trying to bind them up in science, because it's the only way we'll ever know the truth about human nature.
"In 1946, for example, 34 percent of the Grant Study men who had served in World War II reported having come under enemy fire, and 25 percent said they had killed an enemy. In 1988, the first number climbed to 40 percent—and the second fell to about 14 percent. “As is well known,” Vaillant concluded, “with the passage of years, old wars become more adventurous and less dangerous.”"
It's a scary and uncertain world we live if we can't even rely on our own memories to tell us the truth. Makes me think I should keep a diary.
I was also slightly frustrated with the author's apparently uncritical acceptance of Vaillant's theory of adaptations. Any actual verifiable evidence for this theory?
"Strenuous defenses, I came to see, are no mere academic theme for Vaillant, who has molded his life story like so much clay. Consider the story of his father’s suicide and his own delight in going through the 25th-reunion book [of his father's school] as a 13-year-old. When I asked Vaillant if the experience of paging through the book had been tinged with sadness, he said, “It was fascinating,” and went on to describe his awe and wonder at longitudinal studies. If he were observing his own case, Vaillant himself would probably call this “reaction formation”—responding to anxiety (pain at grasping a father’s violent departure) with an opposite tendency (joy at watching men, quite like him, develop through time)."
Is "reaction formation" really the only explanation for this? It seems a very likely one but maybe Vaillant just has a brain which, due to its biological programming, doesn't react strongly to death. Maybe his fascination with the reunion book was simply because of his perplexity with the mystery of his father's death (as opposed to a way of substituting a painful emotion with a manageable one, as Vaillant's theory would have it).
I found this strange because at other points in the article, the author seemed aware of the gap between psychoanalysis as genuine science – unverifiable speculation and verifiable testing – and yet here we have a theory being talked about as if it were a proven fact.
And, finally, I liked this quote very much:
"Their lives were too human for science, too beautiful for numbers, too sad for diagnosis and too immortal for bound journals" - George Vaillant
Though I hope that doesn't stop people trying to bind them up in science, because it's the only way we'll ever know the truth about human nature.
Their memories might be just fine, but over time they might have realized the glory came from living through danger and not from shooting someone.
[deleted](1)
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=605207
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=865853
Old, but still a very good read.
Old, but still a very good read.
What would make me happy is to read articles that start of with a good summary of the answer to the question they pose in the title. That way I can know whether it is worth investing the time into reading the rest of it.
Articles that force you to read someone's life storey before getting to the point don't make me happy.
Articles that force you to read someone's life storey before getting to the point don't make me happy.
To be fair, the article is about Valiant the person almost as much it is about his research, though the title is a bit misleading.
Anyway, I read it a few months back and this is the part that still sticks with me:
Vaillant was asked, "What have you learned from the Grant Study men?" Vaillant’s response: "That the only thing that really matters in life are your relationships to other people."
Anyway, I read it a few months back and this is the part that still sticks with me:
Vaillant was asked, "What have you learned from the Grant Study men?" Vaillant’s response: "That the only thing that really matters in life are your relationships to other people."
So do you think it is reasonable to have to read through 4 pages of an article just to find out that isn't really about what the title said? I understand that a lot of people enjoyed the article but does that make this deception excusable?
You might like Bertrand Russell's 1930 _The Conquest of Happiness_. At least if you're the target audience:
"I shall confine my attention to those who are not subject to any extreme cause of outward misery. I shall assume a sufficient income to secure food and shelter, sufficient health to make ordinary bodily activities possible... My purpose is to suggest a cure for the ordinary day-to-day unhappiness from which most people in civilised countries suffer." http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell#Conquest_of_Ha...
"I shall confine my attention to those who are not subject to any extreme cause of outward misery. I shall assume a sufficient income to secure food and shelter, sufficient health to make ordinary bodily activities possible... My purpose is to suggest a cure for the ordinary day-to-day unhappiness from which most people in civilised countries suffer." http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell#Conquest_of_Ha...
Well this is an article about life stories so tough luck. The study had some conclusions which could be drawn out without understanding the life stories, but they're nothing you haven't heard before. The point of this article really was the life stories themselves.
I feel your pain. Most articles on the Internet could use a summary to help the reader make a decision about whether they're worth reading. Most of them would also be a lot better if they just got to their point. And skipped the other stuff.
But this article is very hard to summarize. And it wanders. It's also quite good.
But this article is very hard to summarize. And it wanders. It's also quite good.
I really, really enjoyed that piece, and was pleasantly surprised after the generic title. If someone has the time, it's an interesting narrative with interesting points backed by data.
But for a busier person, they could start at the meat of it, with the numbers. You'd miss the enjoyable narrative and backstory, but get the important details. Link to page 3 of 4, it'll make sense stand-alone but do go back if you enjoy it:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200906/happiness/3
But for a busier person, they could start at the meat of it, with the numbers. You'd miss the enjoyable narrative and backstory, but get the important details. Link to page 3 of 4, it'll make sense stand-alone but do go back if you enjoy it:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200906/happiness/3
[deleted]
Don't worry about your Startup, it will probably fail. Celebrate every milestone, have fun.