Seek Neither Happiness Nor Pleasure

There is a vast literature on how to be happy. As I read most of the articles I encounter, I stop to question the meaning of "happiness," because it is too often understood as "pleasure." I'm not anti-pleasure, but I've personally seen that pleasure-seeking is not a path to a meaningful life. In fact, it is the opposite. I prefer to seek a meaningful life, but doing this involves many painful moments that are, in the end, worth the pain. Here's a caricature of these two approaches, from an article by Arthur Brooks, titled "There Are Two Kinds of Happy People: Some of us strive for a virtuous life. Others strive for a pleasant one. We could all use a better balance."

Epicurus (341–270 B.C.) led an eponymous school of thought—Epicureanism—that believed a happy life requires two things: ataraxia (freedom from mental disturbance) and aponia (the absence of physical pain). His philosophy might be characterized as “If it is scary or painful, work to avoid it.” Epicureans see discomfort as generally negative, and thus the elimination of threats and problems as the key to a happier life. Don’t get the impression that I am saying they are lazy or unmotivated—quite the contrary, in many cases. But they don’t see enduring fear and pain as inherently necessary or beneficial, and they focus instead on enjoying life.

Epictetus (c. 50–c. 135 A.D.) was one of the most prominent Stoic philosophers, who believed happiness comes from finding life’s purpose, accepting one’s fate, and behaving morally regardless of the personal cost. His philosophy could be summarized as, “Grow a spine and do your duty.” People who follow a Stoic style see happiness as something earned through a good deal of sacrifice. Not surprisingly, Stoics are generally hard workers who live for the future and are willing to incur substantial personal cost to meet their life’s purpose (as they see it) without much complaining. They see the key to happiness as working through pain and fear, not actively avoiding them.

Here's an alternate path offered by Emily Esfahani Smith. Instead of seeking happiness (which will not result in happiness), she urges us to seek meaningfulness in our lives. Her article in The Atlantic is titled "There's More to Life Than Being Happy: Meaning comes from the pursuit of more complex things than happiness." Here's an excerpt:

Meaning is not only about transcending the self, but also about transcending the present moment -- which is perhaps the most important finding of the study, according to the researchers. While happiness is an emotion felt in the here and now, it ultimately fades away, just as all emotions do; positive affect and feelings of pleasure are fleeting. The amount of time people report feeling good or bad correlates with happiness but not at all with meaning.

In her TED talk, Esfahani Smith explains that it is futile to seek happiness:

The data showed that chasing happiness can make people unhappy. And what really struck me was this: the suicide rate has been rising around the world, and it recently reached a 30-year high in America. Even though life is getting objectively better by nearly every conceivable standard, more people feel hopeless, depressed and alone. There's an emptiness gnawing away at people, and you don't have to be clinically depressed to feel it. Sooner or later, I think we all wonder: Is this all there is? And according to the research, what predicts this despair is not a lack of happiness. It's a lack of something else, a lack of having meaning in life.

01:35 But that raised some questions for me. Is there more to life than being happy? And what's the difference between being happy and having meaning in life? Many psychologists define happiness as a state of comfort and ease, feeling good in the moment. Meaning, though, is deeper. The renowned psychologist Martin Seligman says meaning comes from belonging to and serving something beyond yourself and from developing the best within you. Our culture is obsessed with happiness, but I came to see that seeking meaning is the more fulfilling path. And the studies show that people who have meaning in life, they're more resilient, they do better in school and at work, and they even live longer.

02:24 So this all made me wonder: How can we each live more meaningfully? To find out, I spent five years interviewing hundreds of people and reading through thousands of pages of psychology, neuroscience and philosophy. Bringing it all together, I found that there are what I call four pillars of a meaningful life. And we can each create lives of meaning by building some or all of these pillars in our lives.

Esfahani Smith's fourfold path to meaningfulness includes these four elements:

1) A Sense of Belonging, meaning relationships “where you really feel like you matter to others and are valued by them, and where you in turn treat others like they matter and are valued.”

2) Purpose, or “having something worthwhile to do with your time,” says Smith. “It’s this pursuit that organizes your life and involves making a contribution to others.” Smith writes and speaks about the best ways we can find purpose in our own lives. This includes locating our strengths and talents, what our unique perspective on the world is, and bringing that all together to give back.

3) Transcendence, “those moments where you're basically lifted above the hustle and bustle of daily life and you feel your sense of self fade away.” Transcendence, for a lot of people, is part of a religious pursuit, experienced through meditation, prayer, and other expressions of faith. But you can also experience it in nature, or at work, explains Smith.

4) Storytelling, the final pillar “surprised me in a lot of ways,” Smith says. “Storytelling is really about the story that you tell yourself about your life, about how you became you. It’s your personal myth.”

For several years, I've embraced Esfahani Smith's four principles. And, if you haven't noticed, neither happiness-seeking nor pleasure-seeking are among her paths.

I will pause this discussion at this point.  More to come . . .

Continue ReadingSeek Neither Happiness Nor Pleasure

Inconvenient Statistics Regarding Urban Homicides and Race, Including Comparison of 2019 and 2020

Soon after George Floyd's death, thousands of people peacefully marched in American streets protesting police violence. As the sun went down in those cities, however, multitudes of people rioted and looted, causing more than $1 billion in damage.

The damage from riots and looting across the U.S. following the death of George Floyd is estimated to be the costliest in insurance history – between $1 billion and $2 billion. Insurance Information Institute (or Triple-I) compiles information from a company called Property Claim Services (PCS), which has tracked insurance claims related to civil disorder since 1950, and other databases.
Yet we have millions of people in the U.S. and major newspapers who will not call $1 billion in damages "rioting" or "looting." That is a repeated phenomenon these days on both the political right and political left: people making strong arguments by ignoring contradictory evidence.  This article focuses on denialism on the political left.  My topic is police violence and race. It's important that we gather the facts, whether it be the existence of riots and of police violence, especially violence toward African American people. Many people would rather not look at actual crime statistics, however, and this has led to an untethered and dysfunctional conversation regarding police violence. Sam Harris experienced harsh pushback (and also praise) when he released a podcast titled, "Can We Pull Back From the Brink?" His "sin" is that his podcast contained actual crime statistics:

Again, cops kill around 1000 people every year in the United States. About 25 percent are black. About 50 percent are white. The data on police homicide are all over the place. The federal government does not have a single repository for data of this kind. But they have been pretty carefully tracked by outside sources, like the Washington Post, for the last 5 years. These ratios appear stable over time. Again, many of these killings are justifiable, we’re talking about career criminals who are often armed and, in many cases, trying to kill the cops. Those aren’t the cases we’re worried about. We’re worried about the unjustifiable homicides.

Now, some people will think that these numbers still represent an outrageous injustice. After all, African Americans are only 13 percent of the population. So, at most, they should be 13 percent of the victims of police violence, not 25 percent. Any departure from the baseline population must be due to racism.

Ok. Well, that sounds plausible, but consider a few more facts:

Blacks are 13 percent of the population, but they commit at least 50 percent of the murders and other violent crimes. If you have 13 percent of the population responsible for 50 percent of the murders—and in some cities committing 2/3rds of all violent crime—what percent of police attention should it attract? I don’t know. But I’m pretty sure it’s not just 13 percent. Given that the overwhelming majority of their victims are black, I’m pretty sure that most black people wouldn’t set the dial at 13 percent either.

Continue ReadingInconvenient Statistics Regarding Urban Homicides and Race, Including Comparison of 2019 and 2020

The Experts are Now Certain that COVID Infection is Rare Via Surface Contamination

The evidence, we are now told, is strong that COVID infection through surface contamination is rare. How long now before we repurpose some of those surface sanitizers and double down on better ventilation? But not so fast . . .

Do you remember some of those early videos where doctors warned that we "must" wipe down all of our groceries with sanitizer or let them sit for three days? I know it was all well intended, but looking back, it is striking that this expert advice, like so much other advice we've heard from the "experts" on COVID and the economy, was delivered earnestly, confidently and (now we know) wrongly. In short, bad advice looks a lot like good advice. The experts rolled out for public presentations are always confident that they are correct. I suspect that this is the Dunning-Kruger effect in action.

That said, the following excerpt is from a Feb 2, 2021 article in Nature, "Coronavirus is in the air — there’s too much focus on surfaces: Catching the coronavirus from surfaces is rare. The World Health Organization and national public-health agencies need to clarify their advice":

A year into the pandemic, the evidence is now clear. The coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 is transmitted predominantly through the air — by people talking and breathing out large droplets and small particles called aerosols. Catching the virus from surfaces — although plausible — seems to be rare (E. Goldman Lancet Infect. Dis. 20, 892–893; 2020). Despite this, some public-health agencies still emphasize that surfaces pose a threat and should be disinfected frequently. The result is a confusing public message when clear guidance is needed on how to prioritize efforts to prevent the virus spreading.

This lack of clarity about the risks of fomites — compared with the much bigger risk posed by transmission through the air — has serious implications. People and organizations continue to prioritize costly disinfection efforts, when they could be putting more resources into emphasizing the importance of masks, and investigating measures to improve ventilation. The latter will be more complex but could make more of a difference.

I'm still going to wash my hands after being in a public place. I'll do that because It's such a simple measure and there are other germs out there in addition to COVID, but I'll be doing it with increased suspicion that this effort is unnecessary. I'm also looking forward to getting a vaccine--I've registered with the City of St. Louis and with two hospitals, but I'm not a priority. I'll probably be waiting for many months. I hope anyone reading this has better luck with getting the vaccine . . .

Continue ReadingThe Experts are Now Certain that COVID Infection is Rare Via Surface Contamination

“Follow the Science” is not a Panacea

At Quillette, Ilana Redstone thinks science is a very good thing, but wonders why so many of our disputes are not solved by the adage "Follow the Science." This is a thoughtful article well worth a read. Here's an excerpt from "Why ‘Just Follow the Science’ Won’t Solve All Our Problems":

I’m not arguing that there’s no truth out there. For many issues, there is—although we could certainly do a better job of recognizing when we simply don’t know what that truth is yet. And for issues that touch on morality and ideology, in particular—often topics on which opposing sides all claim the mantle of science—we might do well to pause before digging in our heels. Sometimes, what we have isn’t “science” per se, but rather a strong conviction tethered to a set of scientific data and propositions. True dialogue requires a willingness to recognize that occasionally our opponents do, too.

Continue Reading“Follow the Science” is not a Panacea

The Many Dangers of Loneliness

For months, I have been contemplating the destructiveness of the COVID pandemic, including the pain many people are feeling from loneliness. How dangerous is loneliness? Tonight I spotted this quote by Dr. Vivek Murthy:

During my years caring for patients, the most common pathology I saw was not heart disease or diabetes; it was loneliness. Loneliness and weak social connections are associated with a reduction in lifespan similar to that caused by smoking fifteen cigarettes a day and even greater than that associated with obesity. Loneliness is also associated with a greater risk of cardiovascular disease, dementia, depression, and anxiety. At work, loneliness reduces task performance, limits creativity, and impairs other aspects of executive function such as reasoning and decision making. For our health and our work, it is imperative that we address the loneliness epidemic quickly.

Continue ReadingThe Many Dangers of Loneliness