The Happiness Hypothesis - Giả Thuyết Hạnh Phúc Reviews

This book isn’t about happiness. It is more about ancient philosophy (love of wisdom) and modern psychology and science. The original title of the book was “10 Great Truths - Insights into mind and heart from ancient culture and modern psychology” and it better describes it. This repeats some of the ideas from the author's transformational book “The Righteous Mind” and many widely known psychology ideas so I didn't enjoy it thoroughly. However, there were still plenty of novel insights for me and the simple yet wonderful conclusion at the end made this a worthwhile read! The seed of this book was planted when the author wasn't happy during his college and was contemplating about the purpose of life despite everything going well in life. He was a philosophy major and found that with the exception of existentialism, modern philosophy doesn’t talk about the purpose and meaning of life. So, he turned to various ancient philosophies like The Bhagavad Gita, Confucianism, Buddhism, Stoicism, Epicureanism and the Abrahamic religions. This book inspects central philosophical ideas from these using the latest psychology and scientific research. The author makes a compelling argument with solid evidence that ancient philosophers and sages had great insights about mind, body, relationships and work. Once you are convinced of the arguments, it goes on to show with contrary evidence that how misguided they were, had faulty assumptions and why these don't apply universally! That is useful to reach a balanced conclusion. For example, “What doesn’t kill you, makes you stronger” by Nietzsche suggests facing obstacles as opportunities to improve oneself. But then, what about PTSD that doesn’t make oneself stronger? Understanding the situations when adversity results in PTG (Post Traumatic Growth) instead of PTSD is useful to deal with adversity as well as recover from it. Writing of the book is simply brilliant and helped me understand a few ideas that I didn’t understand earlier. Like, I didn’t understand the ‘categorical imperative’ concept by Kant as I didn’t find any blog or video that wasn’t boring. However, the book explains this in just a few sentences. Similarly, being an atheist, I never understood the point of ‘Vishvarupa’ in Gita where Krishna shows himself as god to Arjuna. But this book shows how Arjuna’s experience is similar to the experience with LSD and how it changed Arjuna’s mind more than the earlier philosophical discussions in the book. Key takeaways from the book: - The rider and the elephant metaphor describing the mind and the heart. It may seem that we are driven by the mind but all the latest research shows that many actions are driven by the unconscious self and the mind just comes up with post hoc justification. - McAdams’ three levels of personality model: one’s personality is not just made of the big five personality traits but at a higher level one’s desires, beliefs, concerns, and coping mechanisms and the stories that give a life a sense of unity, meaning, and purpose. All these have a big influence on one’s normal happiness level. - Classification of Character Strengths and Virtues similar to the classification of mental disorders that is the primary focus of psychology. But, it is more enjoyable as well as productive to focus on one’s natural strengths while managing one’s weakness so that it doesn’t become Achilles' heel. Usually all weaknesses come with some corresponding strengths. I recently learned that the smartest person in the world Newton was apparently suffering from so many mental illnesses that people simply say he was suffering from everything. And, that isn't a coincidence! - Taking a single concept like freedom or utilitarianism and applying it universally may not be a good idea compared to thinking holistically. For example, people who have fewer social constraints, bonds, and obligations are more likely to kill themselves. I am personally guilty of making decisions simply based on utilitarianism or rationality. - Modern education teaches morality to children using logic and reason but given the nature of mind and heart, it is also important to also build character and develop virtues through practice. All these discussions in the book naturally led to the simple yet brilliant idea of Yin and Yang from Taoism. It describes how obviously opposite or contrary forces may actually be complementary, interconnected, and interdependent in the natural world, and how they may give rise to each other as they interrelate to one another. I realized that this is a common theme across many of Kahlil Gibran’s beautiful poems. Such as good and evil, joy and sorrow, reason and passion, a tear and a smile, life and death, righteous and wicked etc. Only criticism for the book is on the chapter of religion that describes the point of view of religious people and the experiences they have. It definitely mentions the widely known negative effects of orthodox or organized religions but doesn’t go deeper into it. Sure, Being a part of a group and conforming to it could lead to happiness but it might not be worth it. Galileo felt isolation and persecution by challenging the Church but it was necessary. And, once we see this using the Yin and Yang concept, happiness isn’t everything and not being happy is okay for other important things in life. Great read regardless if you are happy or not!

Haidt är en jävla hjälte. Boken verkligen jobbar igenom metaforen om ”The Rider and the Elephant” och med den binder man ihop gammal visdom med modern forskning inom psykologin. Hela boken är en recap på större delar av första årets kurslitteratur. Den Vidareutvecklar synen på personlighet och hur man kan använda Big Five som en ”lägre nivå”, med copingmekanismer som ”mellannivå” och vår livsberättelse som ”högsta nivå” av vår personlighet och vad som gör oss lyckliga/desorienterade. Om dessa tre är i linje med varandra, med tillgång till meningsfulla relationer och arbete man kan känna stolthet (genom viss grad av egenmakt i yrket) så man når det så kallade stadiet av ”flow” osvensk Gillar även Haidts syn på evolution; att det sker på både individuell och gruppnivå - och det är så kulturer utvecklas och förändras. Han tar det också i Righteous mind men det här är föregångaren så det blir mer grundligt presenterat. Mycket bra. Författaren drar verkligen ut, bit för bit, varje resterande del av den starkt övertygade, 14-åriga, nyateisten i mig som tycker att religionen är inget annat än cancer. Istället är det kanske dem gamla berättelserna, som boken argumenterar, som förstått människan bäst från första början innan ”The rationalist delusion” slog till med upplysningen och 60-90-talets torra rationalism etc. Fan, vill verkligen INTE men känner ett ökat behov av att läsa om den metaforiska betydelsen av Cain och Abel… Efter Sapolskys Behave blir det fan Maps of Meaning parallellt med kurslitteraturen i höst. Jag är redo. Ge mig betydelsen av Pinocchio; ”Slay the dragon, free the father, save the virgin, collect the gold. Hey MAN”

(Audiobook) This book was super interesting. I am not well versed in philosophy and psychology to actually comment on whether the book is factually accurate but a lot of things in the book made sense to me. For example the metaphor of a conscious rider riding an emotional elephant explains a lot about how the mind actually works. The conclusion of the book "happiness lies in between" is something I agree with because I never accepted that happiness only lies within unless you are a monk and neither I believe happiness lies outside except if you are a influencer trying to sell your s***. The books explanation of divinity using the concept of flatland was very interesting. Random notes - H = S + C + V h is happiness, s is the set point decided by your genetics c is the conditions that you live in and v is the voluntary actions that you take on day-to-day basis - S this is not just a specific value but a range. So it is up to us to reach the set point's maximum value - condition of the environment we live affects our happiness greatly. One biggest factor is love. Having strong relationships in your life affects your happiness greatly - doing actions that bring you into a state of flow is a great way to increase your general happiness - having the right amount of relationship and work can help a person reach great levels of happiness

Εξαιρετικό βιβλίο στο οποίο αναλύεται σε βάθος όλο το φάσμα της πολυπλοκότητας της ανθρώπινης ψυχής. Όχι δεν είναι ένα βιβλίο αυτοβοήθειας. Είναι ένα επιστημονικό βιβλίο το οποίο θα σας αφήσει με ανοιχτό το στόμα όσον αφορά το τι πραγματικά είναι ο άνθρωπος (ό,τι κι αν σημαίνει αυτό, ο νους του; η ψυχή του; η συνείδησή του;) Θα προσγειωθείτε ολίγον ανώμαλα μερικοί (όπως κι εγώ άλλωστε) με ορισμένες επιστημονικές αλήθειες, οι οποίες γκρεμίζουν την «παιδική» οπτική μας. Ποιό είναι λοιπόν το νόημα της ζωής; Ή όπως το θέτει ορθότερα ο συγγραφέας: ποιό είναι το νόημα εντός της ζωής; Ένα μόνο μπορώ να σας πω: όπως σε όλα τα ζητήματα της ζωής μας η αλήθεια δεν βρίσκεται ποτέ στο μαύρο ή στο άσπρο. Η αλήθεια κρύβεται στη γκρι. Η απάντηση βρίσκεται στο «ανάμεσα».

I love this book. I truly do! It is a combination of the three subjects I think about most: psychology, philosophy, and religion. In the Happiness Hypothesis the (humble) author brings together theories of the past, the theories of religion, and updates them with understandings from psychology. In many ways, he either adjusts traditional thinking with science or he validates traditional thinking with science. It is an excellent approach that must have taken the author a long time to put together. There is particularly one potent concept that the author teaches: the rider and the elephant. After having gone back into traditional thoughts, religion, and modern psychology, the bound nature of the mind and body becomes clear. In this case, the mind is the rider; the body is the elephant. The rider does its best to train the elephant; but the elephant can still disobey and his its own mind. The mind will never have full control, the elephant will never disappear. These two are always together and they must work together. The sooner the reader begins to understand this, the sooner the reader can listen to their own bodies and the feedback it gives them. The elephant is not bad. It is important to you. It may simply be too large to control or not trained well by the rider. The next time you cave into chocolate cake, it is not your mind that makes you do it, it may be your elephant. You may need to train the elephant more. I recommend this book for everyone.

After finishing the book today, I'm quite confused about what I got out of it. I can remember some individual sections that were interesting, but I would have trouble trying to sum up the whole book effectively in a couple of sentences. This could be, and likely it is, a personal issue, as my mind has been all over the place lately and my reading practice has without question suffered from it (both in terms of concentration, as well as frequency). That being said, I still think that Haidt should have provided a more elaborate conclusion that would make it easier for the reader to put everything together. Anyway, the book is filled with deep truisms that one should be reminded of regularly. In some sense it is a similar read to Peterson's work, when seemingly straightforward concepts are bolstered by modern science and "ancient wisdom", only to remind you how crucial role they play in our life and overall wellbeing. I really liked the part about volunteer work. Did you know that old people who volunteer or try to help their families/friends are happier, and even objectively healthier and end up living longer? It really makes you think about the importance of having a purpose in life. Without purpose we degenerate. I can often see this in my own grandparents. We have the tendency to provide everything necessary for them, granting them a "well-deserved" life of ease and relaxation. Yet, although they are physically less capable, to cease "working" is likely the worst thing that could happen to them. If we want to see our elders thrive, we must encourage them to take part in meaningful activities, even though we might secretly regard their engagement as not very effective. This applies to kids, too.

This book is probably the most thought-provoking book that I've read in a couple of years. That leaves me feeling like I should justify the four-star rating (instead of five) I'm giving it. I have two basic issues with the book, one of which may actually come down to a difference of philosophy with Haidt generally, that preclude the five-star rating I would give it based on the quality of writing, organization of presentation (which is like sitting through well-organized college-level lectures), and thought-provoking nature of the material. The first of these qualms is an insistence on the subtitle that almost comes off as awkward and forced at times, as if Haidt went through upon the editing phase and forced in quotations from ancient sources like the bible (these, interestingly, being the most conspicuously forced) to try to connect more powerfully to the subtitle. I find these insertions distracting, but there are only a handful of them that feel properly out of place and unnecessary. Still, I have a general problem with searching for "ancient wisdom" and then presenting it as if it is more profound and important than it is, seemingly mostly by virtue of the fact that it has stood the test of time (which doesn't count for much in the major religions because those have forced their ideas to stand the test of time). The second is a place that it is likely that I diverge from Haidt in opinion: his insistence upon the theme captured by the Shakespearean "Nothing is either good or bad but thinking makes it so." Haidt is a moral psychologist and, so far as I can tell, takes this statement as a functional basis for moral normativism, not moral relativism, but to have espoused it as the core idea behind his moral presentation (not the central theme of this work), seems to miss something important. There's a strong case to be made that salient definitions of "good" and "bad" exist in terms of well-being and suffering, however nebulous those concepts, and the feeling is that Haidt's foundational premise ignores that facet. This detracted from the book for me because it made the first several chapters harder to get into. Aside from a few nit-picky other points that do not require elaboration (like the equation that doesn't actually have mathematical use or interpretation), The Happiness Hypothesis is an excellent book that is well worth reading. It's on the short list of books that I would classify as highly recommended and on the shorter list of books that I have found foundationally transformative in how I think about certain questions (particularly those related to the role of religion and some religious ideas). It's not a long or difficult read, in terms of content, diction, or style, and so it's worth the investment of time. In short: thoroughly thought-provoking, well written, interesting, and worth the read.

The Happiness Hypothesis has some interesting ideas on positive psychology and the concept of happiness, but it didn't really resonate with me.

Don’t be put off by the title! It sounds wishy-washy, but it’s not. Haidt’s claims are specific and empirical, and are backed-up with citations to published studies. The Happiness Hypothesis serves two functions: (1) it’s a psychology professor’s introduction to his chosen subfield (“positive psychology”), which aims to help people “find happiness and meaning” (Kindle Loc. 132); and (2) it explores the continued applicability of (mostly ancient and/or religious) philosophical and moral ideas, in light of (relatively) recent empirical findings. First, the social science. Haidt employs a simple analytical framework throughout the book: [subjective self-reported] happiness = biological set point + conditions of one’s life (some of which are changeable) + voluntary activities. (Loc. 1772) His book spends its pages explaining which conditions and activities correlate with increased subjective well-being (and sometimes the experiments show explicit causation). Many of the findings Haidt reports are unsurprising but important nonetheless; I present four of my favorite takeaways. (1) Be aware of the adaptation principle: after you buy better/bigger/nicer things, you’ll quickly get used to them; instead, spend money on improving your circumstances in a way that, on average, will improve your subjective well-being: e.g. studies show that moving to a bigger house farther away from one’s place of work isn’t wise (“people quickly adapt to having more space, [but] they don’t fully adapt to the longer commute, particularly if it involves driving in heavy traffic.” (Loc 1795)). [Living near loud noises, e.g., a busy intersection, is like a long commute in that people do not fully adapt to it.] (2) Realize that your brain is populated with self serving biases, and that correcting them takes active work: research shows that it’s not enough to simply know that the biases exist (Loc. 1395), so force yourself to write down weaknesses in whatever position/case/argument you’re advocating: you’ll emerge from the exercise with a more nuanced/balanced (and accurate) assessment of the persuasiveness and/or the chance it will prevail (Loc. 1414). (3) Find something that engages you for long periods of time, ideally as part of your job. Haidt explains the findings of Csikszentmihalyi’s investigations into people’s level of enjoyment of their current activities (“experience sampling method”): [His] big discovery is that there is a state many people value even more than chocolate after sex. It is the state of total immersion in a task that is challenging yet closely matched to one’s abilities. It is what people sometimes call “being in the zone.” Csikszentmihalyi called it “flow” because it often feels like effortless movement. . . . The keys to flow: There’s a clear challenge that fully engages your attention; you have the skills to meet the challenge; and you get immediate feedback about how you are doing at each step (the progress principle) [which states that on average people report more pleasure from making progress towards goals than from achieving them]. (loc 1856) Note that this finding suggests that people should find and follow their strengths (and work on strengthening their strengths, which they’ll find rewarding and which can help them as much as trying to allay weaknesses) (Loc. 4062). (4) Remember that you’re not an island: having strong social relationships-yes, even those with annoying ties and obligations-produces an absurd host of physical and emotional benefits. (loc 2527) The Happiness Hypothesis also incorporates ancient philosophy. In addition to Aristotle et. al., the author weaves in quotes from Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and Shakespeare, and then shows how certain studies support them, or require an augmenting of the chosen phrases. Haidt also clarifies the relationship between positive psychology and these Great Thinkers of the past, breaking it down into two questions: the first involves the question of why we all exist (just for philosophers/theologians/physicists), while the second is something like “How can I find a sense of meaning and purpose?” (Loc 3990). The second question is (he argues) empirical, and thus amenable to positive psychology’s inquiries. The inquiries don’t produce a single “how to live” answer, but rather offer a ying-yang-type balance: We were shaped by individual selection to be selfish creatures who struggle for resources, pleasure, and prestige, and we were shaped by group selection to be hive creatures who long to lose ourselves in something larger. We are social creatures who need love and attachments, and we are industrious creatures with needs for effectance, able to enter a state of vital engagement with our work. We are the rider [Haidt’s metaphor for conscious thought] and we are the elephant [metaphor for all unconscious processes], and our mental health depends on the two working together, each drawing on the others’ strengths. (Loc. 4357) Haidt also has some interesting tangents. My two favorites: he laments the change in the notion of morality from a "character ethics" inculcating moral virtues to a "quandary ethics" focusing on moral reasoning, and endorses David Wilson's interpretation of religion as an interlocking of genetic and cultural adaptations that enhance peace, harmony, and cooperation within the group for the express purpose of increasing the group's ability to compete with other groups. (Loc 4300) I thoroughly enjoyed this book, and Haidt convinced me of its main thesis ("Hypothesis"): contrary to Eastern thought, the secret to satisfaction does not lie entirely within oneself, and contrary to Western values, it does not solely involve external factors (attaining wealth, etc.), but rather happiness and meaning exist "in the relationship between the two," i.e., in the relationship (coherent=happy; discordant=not) between one's thoughts/desires/dreams, and one's current situation and choices. (Loc. 4110)

This book gives a good look at the psychological factors that contribute to human happiness. The best way to summarize its many conclusions about happiness simply is to state the operative word: Balance. Balance is crucial between the elephant and the rider, balance between the inner and outer world, balance between the emotional and the logical… Haidt gives some great explanations of the necessity of finding balance as a means to happiness. One point of contention I have with the author is his outspoken recommendation of antidepressants such as Prozac. This is questionable, debatable advice, IMO. Overall though, this is an excellent read that discusses a wide variety of topical material. It definitely left me feeling far more informed on the nuances of the subject. 4 stars.