THE ILLUSION OF HAPPINESS

I am going to succinctly expatiate on 2 thesis:

Un, Happiness is a salutary evolutionary gadget

Deux, unfortunately, the very same gadget exemplifies an illusion (like chasing a ghost but believing it to be a ‘non-ghost’)

Let me introduce you to my 2 friends – Gray and Dr. Jon – and their so called ‘goals’

Gray. Wants to hit the million dollar status.

Dr. Jon (My most intellectual friend) After a medical degree and a PhD in Physics, he lamented “I feel my understanding of Physics is being limited by my knowledge in Philosophy. A PhD in Philosophy will just be apt”

There seems to be no overlap between these goals, but you need to be close to them (like me) to find out there is one. Only one. They claimed that they will be one of the happiest persons in the world if they hit the jackpot.

Both  guys are really intense and knew their onions. Soon enough they hit the jackpot.

But this is what they sounded like after settling into their new elevated status.

Gray: “Have you heard about the status syndrome? I heard billionaires live longer ...”

Dr. Jon: “I met a dude last night he had like 4 PhDs. Very vast! After speaking with him, I felt disappointed about what I don’t know, that I don’t know (i.e the unknown unknowns). I think ...”

You don’t have to be an augur to portend their next happiness goals.

In my opinion, life will be sterile (in fact, non-existent could be the right word to use) if we are not galvanized to achieve our goals. However, several systems have been put in place to preempt such sterility, and it turns out that happiness – among others – is responsible for the ‘non-sterility’ of life.

As we can see from the lessons of my 2 jolly friends. Happiness (or expected happiness) is an immense motivational factor.

Hence, the logic is clear, the evolutionary-gadget just has to be an illusion (unless if you have the puissance to hack the system.)

I got this simple equation from Drs Burnham and Phelan’s book, Mean genes.

Satisfaction = Performance – expectation

It explains so many things clearly. (Including our fleeting happiness) Here is what a revised happiness version could look like.

Absolute Happiness = Actual Happiness – Expected Happiness.

Let’s say you hit your jackpot today. Actual Happiness will be = Expected Happiness (for the most part).

However, the moment you settle into your new status (just like my 2 friends) actual happiness decreases. And because expected happiness remains constant, (unless if you can go back in time and change your expectation) you end up with a negative absolute happiness. Thus, the illusion sets in and the cycle goes on and on.

This is called the hedonic treadmill.

“The observed tendency of humans to quickly return to a relatively stable level of happiness despite major positive [...] events [...]”

So, what’s the damn solution?

[After a short mental-cum-internet-search for a concrete solution, I was far from satisfied with my results. I thought they all lack the vigorous and staunch pragmatism I sought.

So I decided to ask my roommate. And he gave me an unexpected answer: “is it a problem?”

Immediately I had a re-think and found out that I could have been caught up in a very subtle bias.

I deleted my prior conclusion and I think this will be more ‘befitting’]:

The obvious ‘solution’ is to jump off the hedonic treadmill (for example showing gratitude; living in the present). Not only that, knowing when to jump off the treadmill [I think] is far more important. I am typing this on my blog and getting it across to tons of people via the internet because [I could argue that] the Tim Barner-Lee(s) and Edison(s) of this world achieved their goals by running on the very same treadmill.

AMBIGUITY AVERSION

FreeImages.com/Abdulaziz Almansour

YOUR LIZARD BRAIN, AND PICKING FROM THE SUCKER’S BOX.

Let’s start with a thought experiment, quickly. Visualize two boxes.

In box A there are 50 red balls and 50 black balls (100 in total). In Box B there are 100 balls, however, the % of red balls vs black balls is unknown (but assume that every ratio is as likely as the other). I want you to pick a red ball (with your eyes closed, of course) from either Box A or Box B. Which box will you pick from?

This thought experiment is a modified version of the Ellsberg Paradox experiment carried out in the 60s, a classic evidence for ambiguity aversion.

You see, if you from pick Box A. You might just be human after all. Research has shown (incessantly) an overwhelming choice of box A. We have a preference for risk (probability known) over uncertainty (probability unknown). In this context, a preference for Box A over Box B. That’s how we are ‘wired’ evolutionary.

So, what makes this a paradox? Without getting into the esoteric probabilistic jargons, here is why:

The probability that you pick a red ball from Box A is 0.5 (1/2) right? Good. Straight forward

How about box B? You see ... The key word is, every ratio is as likely as the other.

And this simply means the following combinations are possible for box B:

1red balls and 99 black balls is as likely as 2 red balls and 98 black balls;

2red balls and 98black balls is as likely as 3 red balls and 97 black balls

...                             

98red balls and 2black balls is as likely 99red balls and 1 black balls

... blah blah blah (you get the point)

With this simple analysis it’s obvious that the probability of picking a red ball in both boxes is identical (i.e 0.5) as such, we should pick from box A as often as from box B, but that does not happen in reality.

We continually pick from box A because we are averse to ambiguity. A literary interpretation will be “Better the devil you know than the devil you don't know”.

Scientists have identified the portion of the brain that allow for this bias, it’s the lizard brain (for clarity it’s the portion of your brain you share with lizards) Imbued with fear, picking from box A can’t be easier.

This explains why we settle for less and aim low. Think about it: we are literally giving up a chance of picking a red ball from a box B that looks like this {100 red balls; 0 black balls} for box A with just 50 red balls. It’s probably the fastest way to be a sucker. (Sucker’s box will therefore be a perfect memento for box A)

And we all do this:

Each time you decide to stick to your low-paying-boring job instead of starting the business you had constantly dreamt about, you are picking from the sucker’s box.

Biases are at the core of humanity, and recognizing various biases (and managing to escape it) leads the path to a better decision. Ambiguity aversion is a cognitive bias, that is of course heuristic driven.

...

(To save you the psychological ‘rendition’), just remember, the next time you are settling for less: you are picking from the sucker’s box.