Relationship Between Incompleteness and The Halting Problem

Yesterday, while googling around for information on hyperoperations, I came across Scott Aaronson’s essay, “Who can name the bigger number?” You should go read it. I’ll wait.

On the halting problem:

The proof is a beautiful example of self-reference. It formalizes an old argument about why you can never have perfect introspection: because if you could, then you could determine what you were going to do ten seconds from now, and then do something else. Turing imagined that there was a special machine that could solve the Halting Problem. Then he showed how we could have this machine analyze itself, in such a way that it has to halt if it runs forever, and run forever if it halts. Like a hound that finally catches its tail and devours itself, the mythical machine vanishes in a fury of contradiction.

What if we could solve the halting problem? On hypercomputation:

Suppose we could endow a Turing machine with a magical ability to solve the Halting Problem. What would we get? We’d get a ‘super Turing machine’: one with abilities beyond those of any ordinary machine. But now, how hard is it to decide whether a super machine halts? Hmm. It turns out that not even super machines can solve this ‘super Halting Problem’, for the same reason that ordinary machines can’t solve the ordinary Halting Problem. To solve the Halting Problem for super machines, we’d need an even more powerful machine: a ‘super duper machine.’ And to solve the Halting Problem for super duper machines, we’d need a ‘super duper pooper machine.’ And so on endlessly.

Wikipedia’s hypercomputation page is silent on the super Halting Problem. Is this the work of the hypercomputation Illuminati, trying to suppress an inconvenient truth?

Then it occurred to me: the structure of the super Halting Problem is virtually identical to the “Contracrostipunctus” dialogue in [Gödel, Escher, Bach] (very recommended, buy a copy), in which the Tortoise tells Achilles about his collection of phonograph-destroying records. The super Halting Problem can be thought of as a record that cannot be played on a super Turing machine, which makes one wonder: what is the relationship between the incompleteness theorems and the halting problem?

My understanding of it is this: Gödel’s incompleteness theorems state that for any sufficiently powerful formal system, there are assertions that cannot be proven either true or false. Concretely, perhaps all the recent work on the twin prime conjecture has been in vain and it is unprovable. One wonders, then: given some proposition, can you decide in advance whether or not it is provable? If we could decide in advance, we could avoid wasting a whole lot of time trying to solve something that cannot be solved.

At this point, we need to step back and consider just how one goes about proving something. You start with a proposition, carry out some operations, and then voila!, it is proved. The difference between a provable statement and an unprovable statement is the number of steps we have to carry out in order to prove it. If a proposition is provable, it can be proven in a finite number of steps. If not, you can use as many steps as you like and you will never prove it.

This is the halting problem!

The Stark Beauty of the Glazed Donut

The glazed donut is the noblest of all donuts. It’s not a loud, flashy donut. It doesn’t seduce coffeehouse denizens with sprinkles or jelly filling. It’s an honest, functional donut. While all donuts may represent some excess, the glazed donut does not smack of the same gluttony as more lavish donuts.

The glazed donut is to donuts as black coffee is to coffee. It’s a man’s donut: a plain, frill-free donut. It’s a white t-shirt, not a lacy dress.

Women Friends are Better Friends

The Justice Department now seems to be saying that prison rape accounted for the majority of all rapes committed in the US in 2008, likely making the United States the first country in the history of the world to count more rapes for men than for women.
Christopher Glazek

Women receive prison sentences on average only about half as long as men, and about half of that advantage is due solely to gender bias.1

Hat tip to Scott Alexander.

Men are more likely than women to say that their best friend is their spouse. Four in five women say their best friend is another woman.2

If men do benefit more from marriage, this may be because women serve as better confidants than do men.6

Don’t disclose anything to men. Gotcha.

Well-being of a sample of patients depended on the percentage of women in their networks, providing social support.3

The best predictor of not being lonely is the frequency of interaction with women; time spent with men made no difference.4

Perhaps Sartre should have written, “Hell is other men.”

In several studies (including a Korean sample), women also have shown higher profiles on personal growth relative to men.5

Women smile more often than men.7

For more, check out this essay.

Sources


1. Sarnikar, Supriya, Todd Sorensen, and Ronald Oaxaca. “Do you receive a lighter prison sentence because you are a woman? An economic analysis of federal criminal sentencing guidelines.” An Economic Analysis of Federal Criminal Sentencing Guidelines (June 2007). IZA Discussion Paper 2870 (2007).

2. Myers, David G. Pursuit of Happiness. HarperCollins, 1993.

3. Hall, G. Brent, and Geoffrey Nelson. “Social networks, social support, personal empowerment, and the adaptation of psychiatric consumers/survivors: Path analytic models.” Social Science & Medicine 43.12 (1996): 1743-1754.

4. Wheeler, Ladd, Harry Reis, and John B. Nezlek. “Loneliness, social interaction, and sex roles.” Journal of Personality and social Psychology 45.4 (1983): 943.

5. Ryff, Carol D., and Burton Singer. The role of purpose in life and personal growth in positive human health. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, 1998.

6. Argyle, Michael, and Maryanne Martin. “The psychological causes of happiness.” Subjective well-being: An interdisciplinary perspective (1991): 77-100.

7. Fox, Kate. “SIRC guide to flirting: What social science can tell you about flirting and how to do it.”

Math Art: Picasso as a Mathematician

picasso-and-the-bull

Math art.

I wanted to live deep and suck out all the marrow of life, to live so sturdily and Spartan-like as to put to rout all that was not life, to cut a broad swath and shave close, to drive life into a corner, and reduce it to its lowest terms.
Henry David Thoreau, Walden

If people do not believe that mathematics is simple, it is only because they do not realize how complicated life is.
John von Neumann

Picasso drew math art: a bull in full and then simplified the figure to a few lines, to the essence of a bull. This is the role of mathematics in the sciences. She takes reality and distills it to its essence. She drives life into a corner and reduces it to its lowest terms.

Why Some Weird Beliefs Aren’t

People hold a lot of weird beliefs, but these weird things seem a whole lot less weird once you understand the reasoning behind them. In this post, I’m going to sketch out the gist of a couple “weird” beliefs.

The hope is that once you understand why people believe weird things, you’ll stop thinking of them as crazy and realize that they, too, are human beings just like you and me. I don’t necessarily endorse the beliefs here, but they are things that used to baffle me, but I now feel like, “I get where you’re coming from.”

Veganism

Vegans consume only non-animal products. Some vegans will still eat some products, such as honey, while others might abstain from animal products entirely, going so far as boycotting leather and even leather lookalikes.

People go vegan for different reasons. These are not mutually exclusive.

An argument from animal suffering

Factory farming is institutionalized cruelty on a scale that is hard to comprehend.1 Vegans who go vegan for reasons of animal suffering usually do so based on the belief that buying factory farmed meat is wrong. Specifically, they value not participating in animal torture more than the inconvenience of not eating animal products.

A lot of people will retort with, “Who cares? They’re animals,” which strikes me as a rationalization. If I came to your house and started kicking your dog, you would not like that, even though your dog is “just” an animal.

So, then, one might say: yes, but I love my dog, and I don’t love the cow I’m eating, which is fair enough. If I invited you to my house and said, “Give me a nickel or I’m going to torture this cow”, you would probably give me the nickel (or call the police), which suggests that you, yes, you value animal suffering.

At this point, you might argue, well, yes, I’ll pay not to see an animal tortured, but as long as I’m not aware of it, who cares? You could reason this way, but it strikes me as not all that plausible. Why should torturing a cow only be wrong when you witness it?

An argument from human suffering

Let us say that you do not value animal suffering, or that you do not value it enough such that you’re willing to change your eating habits. There are other reasons why one might choose to be vegan.

Veganism is more sustainable than factory farming.2 Meat is not an efficient source of energy. Only about a fourth of the energy from the grain that we feed cows makes it into the meat itself.3 We could maintain a higher population of happy, non-starving humans if the world was populated by vegans. That is: you might go vegan because you value other human beings not suffering, not because you care about animal welfare.

Further, livestock have a huge impact on the environment. Cattle farming is responsible for dumping more carbon dioxide into the environment than transportation.4 Given that we value all the global warming doomsday scenarios not occurring, veganism should be appealing.

An argument from personal health

Finally, one might become a vegan because they value their own personal health more than they value eating animal products.

Some people argue that veganism is not that healthy for you, that vegans are missing some of the vitamins that are mostly obtained through animal products. This is missing the point. The question should be: is the average vegan diet healthier than the average non-vegan diet? The answer to which is almost certainly yes.5,6 Comparing the ideal non-vegan diet to the average vegan diet is not a relevant or fair comparison.

The best individual comparison might be: will a vegan diet be healthier for me than my current diet? If so, given that you value your own health, you should be willing to consider veganism. It is, of course, possible that the costs of switching to a vegan diet outweigh how much you value the health benefits, which would imply that you should not switch.

The status quo

Another interesting question that can be posed regarding veganism is, “If you were born into a vegan society and grew up eating a vegan diet, do you really think your would choose to eat animal products?” Or even, “How much would you have to pay vegans to convince them to go back to eating meat?”

Cryonics

People who sign up for cryonics do not believe in an afterlife. If you are going to live eternally in heaven, there is no reason to freeze yourself in the hope of being resurrected in the future. (Although, if you suspect you are going to suffer eternal damnation hell, resurrection starts to look mighty appealing.)

Those who sign up for cryonics don’t necessarily believe that cryonics works or will work, but they do believe that there is a higher probability that they will be brought back to life by signing up for cryonics than if they don’t sign up for cryonics.

Essentially, the choice boils down to a decision between:

  • The probability of resurrection given that you sign up for cryonics.
  • The probability of resurrection given that you do not sign up for cryonics.

Thus, signing up for cryonics seems reasonable given that:

  • You value living.
  • There is no afterlife.
  • It is more likely that you will be resurrected if you sign up for cryonics than if you don’t.
  • The expected value of signing up for cryonics outweighs the hassle of going through the process.

Existential risk

People who would never dream of hurting a child hear of an existential risk, and say, “Well, maybe the human species doesn’t really deserve to survive.”
Eliezer Yudkowsky

With the rise of nuclear warfare, the human race now has the ability to cause destruction on a scale that was not possible in the past, including self-destruction. Unchecked global warming could destroy our biosphere or an especially virulent bioweapon could kill everyone.

If we extrapolate from the past trend of technology toward more and more control over the environment, the future seems to hold even more dangerous technological advances (e.g. nanotechnology and grey goo). Nick Bostrom offers the analogy of the scientific process as pulling random technologies from an urn of possible technologies.7 You never know when you will stumble on something terrible.

The study of existential risks is the study of events that could cause human extinction. Those in the field estimate that there is a significant chance that humanity will not survive this century. One survey of experts placed the probability at 19%.8

So, given that you value your own life and those that you love, you should value reducing the threat of human extinction.

Future generations

Wiping out the human race not only kills all of those who are living now, but it would also mean that future humans will never be born. In essence, human extinction means that they never get the chance to live.

Most of the people interested in existential risk believe that future humans have some moral significance. Even if we assume that only one billion humans can live on the earth sustainably, and that the earth will remain habitable another billion years, then \( 10^{16} \) future lives would be lost if the human race destroys itself.7

If you multiply a small reduction in existential risk by the number of future human lives (an expected value calculation), you get staggering numbers. Reducing the risk of extinction by a tenth of a percent is worth as much as \( \frac{1}{1000} * 10^{16} \), or ten trillion future lives.

Work on existential risk seems reasonable, then, given that:

  • There is a significant risk of human extinction.
  • Whatever action does the most good is best (e.g. saving the most lives).
  • Future human lives have some worth.

We’re living in a computer simulation

The simulation argument argues that at least one of the following is true:

  • We will go extinct before uncovering the necessary technological capability necessary to run simulations of entire worlds.
  • Humans will choose not to run simulations of worlds once we have the technology necessary to do so.
  • We are living in a computer simulation.

There are also a few assumptions:

  • Human-level intelligence is substrate independent, meaning that it could be implemented via other things than brains, such as on computer hardware.
  • Intelligence does not consist of some supernatural life force, like a soul.

If civilizations similar to ours inevitably go extinct, then there is no reason to believe that we are being computer simulated. After all, who would be simulating us?

If civilizations similar to our own don’t go extinct and do invariably reach greater levels of technological attainment, such that they can simulate worlds like this one, they either choose not to simulate people (perhaps believing it immoral) or we are living in a simulation.

Why is this so? An advanced civilization would be able to simulate many possible worlds given the amount of computational power that they would control. The number of simulated worlds, then, is some large number \( N \) and then number of real, non-simulated realities is one. The probability that we just happen to be the non-simulated civilization is \( \frac{1}{N + 1} \). The more simulations a civilization would choose to run, the more likely it is that we are, right now, in a simulation.

If advanced civilizations do not run such simulations or do not have the capability to run the simulations, then the probability that we are currently being simulated is near zero.

So, the reasoning for people who believe that we are currently living in a computer simulation is something like this:

  • Human-like civilizations tend to attain a level of technological advancement such that simulating entire worlds is possible.
  • These civilizations choose to run many simulations.
  • We are almost certainly living in a simulation.

Singularitarianism

Singularitarianism is the idea that the future is going to look drastically different than the present, and that it’s going to happen very quickly. At the core of singularitarianism is the idea that change, technological progress, is accelerating. Things are improving more and more rapidly.

One common example is strong artificial intelligence. That is: machines that are smarter than humans. If a human can build a machine that is smarter than a human, then this machine should be able to build a machine even smarter than itself, and so on, culminating in something different than whatever we can imagine.

Most of singularity type ideas revolve around the idea of smarter than human intelligence, but this isn’t essential. You might believe that more technological progress enables even more progress and that this keeps compounding on itself, such that technology improves at faster and faster rates.

So, for example, a singularitarian might think of all the progress that has been made in the past 100 years, and posit that a similar amount of progress will be made in the next ten years. This would become more and more compressed, such that the next ten years after that might encompass something like a thousand years of progress or more. Envisioning such changes becomes impossible. What does another thousand years of progress look like?

The reasoning, then, is something like:

  • The rate of technological advancement is accelerating.
  • This trend will continue into the foreseeable future, compounding on itself, leading to rapid, unimaginable change.

Polyamory

Most educated people are, these days, pro gay marriage, but if you suggest that people ought to be allowed to marry more than one person, this is crossing a line. Most of the reasoning for allowing gay couples to marry, however, also applies to marrying multiple partners.

Of course, you can be polyamorous without marrying multiple people, e.g. an “open relationship.”

Most of the arguments against open dating (ignoring religious concerns) center around the issue of jealousy. According to at least some people in open relationships, jealousy is less of an issue then you might at first think, with a couple people reporting here that it is a non-issue.

Or, if jealousy is an issue, those in polyamory communities or who engage in open relationships figure that it is something that can be overcome. I suspect that there is a significant selection effect going on here, though, such that people who experience strong feelings of jealousy tend to never become polyamorous or, once they try it, decide that it is not for them.

All of this avoids the question, though, why be in an open relationship? Even if jealousy is a non-issue, it must have significant benefits over traditional relationships for it to be worthwhile.

Some reasons are:

  • Humans have not evolved for monogamy. There is an innate tendency to sleep around and fighting nature makes everyone miserable.
  • Having multiple partners provides many sources of social support.
  • Multiple partners have a diverse range of skills, strengths, and perspectives that can be drawn upon.
  • Polyamory is a relationship style in the same sense that being gay is a relationship style. It is a stable individual trait with a sizable genetic component, not a choice.

Further Reading

  • For more on the environmental impact of meat production, check out this Wikipedia page. For information about sustainability arguments for veganism, there’s this page.
  • What foods cause the most suffering? A stab at an answer to that question is here.
  • According to this informal survey of philosophers’ eating habits, philosophers are ten to twenty times more likely to be vegan than the general population.
  • For a critique of moral vegetarianism, there is this paper.
  • The importance of existential risk from an ethical standpoint is laid out in Derek Parfit’s Reasons and Persons. Nick Bostrom describes the reasoning in this TedX talk.
  • The book Global Catastrophic Risks covers the threats facing humanity’s continued existence.
  • The (debunked) doctrine that living organism are fundamentally different from non-living things (due to a soul or life force) is called vitalism.
  • For a whimsical discussion of the philosophical issues regarding artificial intelligence (and much more!), check out Hofstader’s Gödel, Escher, Bach.
  • The original and more thorough treatment of the simulation argument is covered here. There are a number of resources — papers, interviews, an FAQ — related to the idea here.
  • Here is a far less artificial (given that it’s written by polyamorists in the wild, something I’m not), discussion of polyamory.

Sources


1. Given the conditions of factory farms (Wikipedia has the most neutral article I could find), it is hard to imagine how this could be otherwise.

2. Pimentel, David, and Marcia Pimentel. “Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based diets and the environment.” The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 78.3 (2003): 660S-663S.

3. Singer, Peter. Practical ethics. Cambridge University Press, 1993.

4. Steinfeld, Henning, et al. Livestock’s long shadow. Rome: FAO, 2006.

5. Appleby, Paul N., et al. “The Oxford vegetarian study: an overview.” The American journal of clinical nutrition 70.3 (1999): 525s-531s.

6. Key, Timothy J., et al. “Mortality in vegetarians and nonvegetarians: detailed findings from a collaborative analysis of 5 prospective studies.” The American journal of clinical nutrition 70.3 (1999): 516s-524s.

7. Bostrom, Nick. “Existential Risk Prevention as Global Priority.” Global Policy 4.1 (2013): 15-31.

8. Sandberg, Anders, and Nick Bostrom. “Global catastrophic risks survey.” civil wars 98.30 (2008): 4.

Book Summary: The Pursuit of Happiness

This is a review anPicture of the book cover of David G Myers's book, The Pursuit of Happiness.d summary of David Myers’s The Pursuit of Happiness.

General Thoughts on the Book in General, Generally

The book is pretty good. I gave it a four out of five stars on Goodreads. If you’re looking for an answer to the question, “Who is happy?” and are not interested in reading more rigorous texts, then this is a good place to start. If you’re interested in the more pragmatic question, “How can I become happier?” then I would suggest you start with Sonja Lyubomirsky’s The How of Happiness.

It is, however, a bit dated. Specifically, more recent results suggest that the disabled are significantly less happy and satisfied than the book would lead you to believe (although they are still better off than one would naively suspect), the theoretical foundations of Pennebaker’s work on trauma-writing have advanced significantly and focus on the benefits of sense-making and its mediating role in cognitive accessibility, most people adapt to marriage within two years, negative affect peaks in late adolescence, etc.

Myer’s has a tendency to use anecdotes, which work well stylistically, but are probably too easy to believe, which is to say: readers may come away convinced of the truth of more than they would based on a careful review of the evidence.

The Pursuit of Happiness: Summary By Chapter

What is well-being?

Fewer than one in ten rate themselves as more dissatisfied than satisfied.

People over report good things. There is more reported voting (extrapolated from surveys) than actual voting, many fewer cigarettes smoked than actually sold, less tax evasion than known to occur.

As they begin college, only 2 percent of students say there is a very good chance they will drop out, even temporarily. Only about half of the students entering a four-year college or university graduate within five years.

To discover who is happiest, and why, we need only assume that those who say they are “very happy” or “completely satisfied” do experience greater well-being than those who say they are unhappy or dissatisfied.

Wealth and well-being

The correlation between income and happiness is modest, and in both the United States and Canada has now dropped to near zero.

When subjects of countless experiments speak or write on behalf of some point of view, they come to believe it more strongly.

A satisfied mind

Indeed, a recent Gallup poll offered the astonishing result that people with incomes of under ten thousand dollars give 5.5 percent to charity, and those earning fifty to sixty thousand give a stingier 1.7 percent.

In a 1990 Gallup poll, Americans readily applied the label “rich” to others. The average person judged that 21 percent of Americans were rich. But virtually none–fewer than 1/2 of 1 percent–perceived themselves as rich. To those earning $10,000 a year, it takes $50,000 to become rich. To those making $500,000 a year, rich may be $1 million income.

Napoleon envied Caesar, Caesar envied Alexander, and Alexander, I daresay, envied Hercules, who never existed. You cannot, therefore, get away from envy by means of success alone, for there will always be in history or legend some  person even more successful than you are. Bertrand Russel

The demography of happiness

Most men in their early forties do not experience a dip in well-being, that is, a mid-life crisis.

Adult moods (compared to adolescents) are less extreme and more enduring. Emotional intensity decreases with age.

Middle class housewives who feel less free–whose lives feel full and rushed rather than free and easy–express greater feelings of happiness and contentment.

Myer’s writes here that women experience more intense emotions than men. I’m skeptical of such claims but, on reflection, it strikes me as possible that women are more likely to indulge in their feelings, which does intensify moods. Why do I believe that women are more likely to indulge in and cultivate emotional states? Because society promotes the stereotype that women are emotional, illogical creatures, which encourages greater emotional expression, while portraying men in an opposite way.

Men are more likely than women to say that their best friend is their spouse, and four in five women say their best friend is another woman.

Statistical digests of many dozens of studies credit race and education with less than 2 percent of person-to-person variance in well-being.

Reprogramming the mind

Argue for your limitations and sure enough, they’re yours. Richard Bach

Astrology doesn’t work. Subliminal persuasion doesn’t work.

The traits of happy people

Every time we act, we amplify the underlying idea or tendency.

Do we wish to change ourselves in some important way? A potent strategy is to get up and start doing that thing. Don’t worry that you don’t feel like it. Fake it.

Going through the motions can trigger the emotion.

If we wish to conquer undesirable emotional tendencies in ourselves, we must assiduously, and in the first instance cold-bloodedly, go through the outward motions of those contrary dispositions we prefer to cultivate. William James

“Flow” in work and play

In fact, the less expensive (and generally more involving) a leisure activity, the happier people are while doing it.

Among the college students I have spent twenty-five years working with, few behaviors strike me as more irrational than self-destructive sleep patterns, with resulting fatigue, diminished alertness and, not infrequently, failure and depression.

Those sleeping seven to eight hours a night were half as likely to be depressed as those sleeping less (or more).

One astonishing recent result even found that daily meditation boosted longevity. Seventy-three residents from nursing homes were assigned either to a meditation or no-meditation condition. After three years, one fourth of the non-meditators had died, while all of the meditators were still alive.

The friendship factor

When Pennebaker surveyed more than 700 college women, he found one in twelve reported a traumatic sexual experience in childhood. I think it’s easy to become jaded and ignore these kind of self-report measures and just continue to systematically underestimate the amount of sexual abuse people, especially women, continue to endure, that is largely invisible to the rest of us. I have a tendency about this kind of thing and react with, “well, that’s bullshit”, but I have heard enough independent measures reporting surprisingly high results to convince me otherwise.

Myer’s speaks here about Pennebaker’s research and the importance of self-disclosing traumatic events to other people or a diary. Newer research on trauma writing suggests that it is not so much telling someone about the event, as it is constructing a narrative to explain what happened. That is, the key factor involved is making-sense-of.

Compared to American students, university students in Hong Kong talk with half as many people during a day, but for longer periods.

National Opinion Research: “Looking over the last six months, who are the people who you discussed matters important to you?” Compared to those who could name no such intimate, those who named five or more such friends were 60 percent more likely to feel “very happy.”

I’d just like to point out how absolutely weird that last statement is. It takes the people on one end of the scale and compares them to those with the most social resources and says, “Hey, look how important social relationships are!” I could take income and do the same thing. The completely destitute and homeless are way less happier than the average billionaire! Look how important money is to happiness! But, of course, no one does this, which begs the question: why do people want to believe that social relationships are paramount to happiness?

People report greater well-being if their friends and families support their goals by frequently expressing interest and offering help and encouragement.

Love and marriage

In the United States, almost two thirds say their marriage is “very happy.”

In one study, researchers Stephen Strack and James Coyne observed that “depressed persons induced hostility, depression, and anxiety in others and got rejected. Their guesses that they were not accepted were not a matter of cognitive distortion.”

95 percent of Americans over age forty have married.

“The real proportion of those marriages that were successful… may well have been under a fourth.”

The gap between the happiness of the married and the unmarried seems to be shrinking.

For couples living apart (because of dual careers, military service, or imprisonment) absence does not make the heart grow fonder. Such couples have double the normal rate of divorce.

Those who cohabitate before marriage are more likely to get divorced.

The number of premarital sexual partners correlates with marital unhappiness.

75 percent of divorced people remarry — half within three years.

Although second marriages have a 25 percent greater risk of divorce, remarried people are virtually as satisfied with their marriages as those in first marriages.

In a 1988 Gallup survey, nine in ten Americans said they had not had sex with anyone other than their spouses during their present marriage.

Those who married out of romantic love experienced a diminishing of romantic love after five years. In contrast, those in arranged marriages reported more love as the years went by. In fact, a decade after marriage, love was more abundant in arranged than love-based marriages.

Virtually every couple that had sex more often than they argued were happily married; no couples that argued more than they had sex rated their marriage as happy.

Thoughts on this chapter

I’m convinced that most authors are too optimistic about the benefits of marriage. Myers ought to be commended for the sheer amount of disturbing evidence that he presents in this chapter.

He still seems optimistic, though. There doesn’t seem to be any compelling reason for such optimism. If an alien visited Earth, knowing nothing about marriage, and was presented with all the studies on marriage, would he be as optimistic as most authors are? I don’t think so.

Books on happiness ought to be counseling people not to get married at all. Texts will often speak at length about all the problems with marriage, the downsides, and then talk about how you, with effort, can maybe prevent that from happening. Odds are you won’t beat the odds. That’s why they’re the odds. Your marriage will be unhappy. Don’t get married in the first place. You’ll be better off.

This is all a little tongue in cheek. I’m not certain that people really shouldn’t get married. Maybe with a little knowledge, most marriages would be worth it. The idea that maybe marriage isn’t worth it deserves serious consideration, though, in light of what we know. Authors need to stop assuming that the answer to the question, “Should people get married?” is yes, and start thinking.

Why are most authors so optimistic about marriage? Probably because they themselves are married.

Faith, hope, and joy

Economists were more than twice as likely as those in other disciplines to contribute no money to private charities. In laboratory monetary games, students become more selfish after taking economics courses.

Concluding thoughts

Okay, that’s my summary. If you enjoyed this The Pursuit of Happiness summary, you should really check out the book! Definitely worth the read.

Book Summary: The Psychology of Happiness

A picture of the cover of Michael Argyle's <em>The Psychology of Happiness.</em>This is my The Psychology of Happiness summary. The book is by Michael Argyle.

Notes on notes

I didn’t bother taking notes on parts of the book that contained information covered more thoroughly elsewhere or where the author’s claims struck me as dubious. I also spent a while hunting down citations and then quit about half way through, figuring blogging ought to be fun.

The Psychology of Happiness Summary By Chapter

Introduction

Happiness and meaning in life were rated as much more important in producing the good life than moral goodness and going to heaven.1

Happiness has sometimes been measured by an answer to a single question, but this has led to some very improbable results.

According to one survey, there are 17 papers on depression for every one paper on happiness.

Well-being is different from subjective well-being in that well-being usually considers objective measures of things such as health or income.

Argyle believes that the main causes of happiness are relationships, work, and leisure.

The main motivation of leisure activity is often to enjoy social relations, real or imaginary.

Watching television can have positive effects for the socially isolated.

Soldiers expect more fear of a difficult parachute jump than actually happens. Dental patients expect more pain from a procedure than actually happens.

People say that money is not important to happiness and they are correct. However, their behavior suggests that they think money is very important.2

Social skills training is an effective intervention for depression and for improving social relationships among the non-depressed.

Increased exercise can improve the happiness of both depressed and normal populations.

Smaller organizations with flatter hierarchies and more employee input on decisions have greater well-being.

How to measure and study happiness

Brandstatter (1991) using experience sampling found that people are in a positive emotional state 68% of the time. (pg. 8)3

Single question job satisfaction correlates .67 with longer scales. (pg. 9)

The Oxford Happiness Inventory has better retest validity than the Beck Depression Inventory, correlates with rating by friends, and has strong and predicted relations with personality dimensions, stress, and social support. (pg. 11)

Andrews and McKennel (1980) found that happiness correlated more affective factors than cognitive factors (satisfaction).4

Suh et al. (1998) reported that the average correlation for affect balance and satisfaction was .41, but higher for individualist nations, where it was over .50.5

Positive affect and negative affect correlate at about -.43. (pg. 14)6

Headey and Wearing (1992) found that depression and anxiety correlated at .50, suggesting that negative affect consists of separable components. (pg. 14)7

Most people are well above average happiness, 6 or 7 on a 9 point ladder. (pg. 17)8

Most people in Britain say they are happily married, but half will get divorced. (pg. 17)

Life satisfaction has been found to correlate with measures of self-deception.9

Austria and Nigeria had the same level of subjective satisfaction, but Austria scored 71 and Nigeria 30 on the Quality of Life Index. (Diener and Suh 1997a) (pg. 19)10

Clark and Oswald (1996) found that satisfaction with income had no relation to actual income, but satisfaction was greater for those who expected less. (pg. 20)11

Unemployment affects mental health and mental health affects likelihood of unemployment, but causation is stronger in the direction of unemployment-mental heal. (pg. 21)

High levels of well-being increase extraversion. (Headey, Holmstrom, and Wearing, 1984). (pg. 21) 12

Joy and other positive emotions

People have a number of negative moods, but really only one positive mood, joy. (pg.23)

Emotions can be plotted on two axis: happy-sad and excited-calm. (pg. 24)

The intensity of positive emotions correlated with extraversion at .41 and the intensity of negative emotions with neuroticism at .64. (pg. 26)

Thinking about and talking to others about positive events produces positive meed’s (Argyle and Martin, 1991).13

Seven emotions can be reliably discriminated by others in most cultures. (pg. 28)

Monkeys reared in isolation can recognize happy versus angry. (pg. 28)

It is an increasingly widely held view that there are a limited number of basic emotion, perhaps seven, that have been hardwired into the brain by evolution. (Ekman, 1982) (pg. 28) 14

In Japan there is a rule about not showing negative faces in public. (pg. 29)

Smiles and frowns leads to enhancement of the corresponding moods. (pg. 29)

Facial expressions may express emotions, but their real purpose may to be to communicate with others. Facial expressions occur when people are alone, but they are much weaker. (pg. 29)

Voice tone leaks more emotions than the face. (pg. 30)

There is no particular body posture corresponding to joy. (pg. 30)

Frequency of contact with friends, and of sexual intercourse, come out strongly related to happiness. (Veenhoven, 1994). 15

The most common sources of joy (pg. 31): * Eating * Social activities and sex * Exercise and sport * Alcohol and other drugs * Success and social approval * Use of skills * Music, the other arts and religion * Weather and environment * Rest and relaxation

Social activities and sex are the most common sources of positive emotion. (pg. 31)

Exercise is the easiest and most powerful way of inducing positive emotion in experimental conditions. (pg. 32)

People are in a better mood when the sun is shining, it is warm but not too warm, and humidity is low, 16, but there is a high degree of adaptation to the weather. (pg. 33)

Larson et al. (1984) found that alcohol produced positive emotions along all the scales they used. (pg. 36) 17

Satisfaction

Cummins (1998) concluded that most studies report an average of 70% of the maximum of the satisfaction scale. 18

The effect of life satisfaction on job satisfaction is stronger than vice versa. (Diener et al., 1999), (pg. 44) 19

In one study, asked if they would choose the same profession again, 91% of mathematicians and 82% of lawyers said they would, compared with 16% of unskilled steel workers. (pg. 44)

Widows are about four times more likely (42% vs 10%) to be depressed than the married. (pg. 44)

Leisure satisfaction has been found to be more related to total satisfaction than any other domain in some studies. (pg. 45)

Watching TV is sometimes found to have a negative relationship with satisfaction, probably because those watching TV have nothing better to do. (pg. 45)

Adams (1997) found that objective indicators for Black Americans declined from 1980 to 1992, but life satisfaction increased. 20 (pg. 46)

Strack et al. (1990) found that being with a handicapped confederate who seemed to be on a kidney dialysis machine increased the well-being of real subjects. 21 (pg. 46)

For individuals with the same income, living in a richer or poorer area had no effect on subjective well-being.

Schulz and Decker (1985) found, in a study of 100 disabled individuals, reported satisfaction was lower than the general population 20 years after the accident. (pg. 48) 22

The disabled are less satisfied than those who acquired their injuries at birth or early in life. (Mehnert et al., 1990) (pg. 48) 23

Strack et al. (1985) found that asking subjects to think about pleasant events in the present or recent past, but for past events there was more effect on well-being from thinking about negative events. Past events are used to contrast, while present events are used as evidence of well-being. (pg. 50) 24

Humour and laughter

Finding things funny happens about 18 times a day, most often in spontaneous response to situations in the presence of others. (Martin and Kuiper, 1999) (pg. 54) 25

There are different kinds of jokes, but so far no agreed classification of them. (pg. 54)

Ruch and Carrell (1998), using 263 American and 151 German adults, found very high correlations, .80 or more, between a cheerfulness inventory and Ruch’s sense of humor scale. (pg. 54) 26

Extraverts laugh more. (pg. 54)

Houston et al. (1998) found that a laughter-inducing sing-song in an old people’s home led to reduced levels of anxiety and depression. (pg. 55) 27

It seems that only in the apes that have had a lot of human contact and been taught sign-language can something like humor can be seen. (pg. 55)

Most adult humor contains sexual, aggressive, or hostile components. (pg. 57)

By age 6 there is a gender difference; boys tell more jokes and fool about more than girls. (pg. 57)

The central feature of events that makes them funny is incongruity. (pg. 58)

Extraversion is usually found to correlate with sense of humor as measured by the 3WD test, and extraverts like sexual jokes the most. (pg. 60)

Humour makes young people more attractive to one another. (Lundy et al. 1998) 28

Keltner et al. (1998) found that in romantic couples teasing led to increased flirtation and positive affect. (pg. 62) 30

For males who laughed a lot, stressful events led to an increase in positive affect. Kuiper et al. 1992 (pg. 62) 31

Children who initiate a lot of humor have often experienced a period of rejection early in life. (pg. 65)

Jokes were found funnier when they esteemed a subject’s own group or one with which he identified, and when they disparaged groups to which he did not belong or identify with. La Fave et al. (1976) 32

Jokes may be an indirect way of expressing hostile attitudes. (pg. 66)

Graham (1995) asked pairs of stranger to talk for 30 minutes; a strong sense of humor led to reduction of social distance between them. (pg. 68) 33

Grammer (1990) found that young men indicated their sexual interest by laughter combined with bodily posture. (pg. 68) 34

Decker and Rotondo (1999) found that job satisfaction as greater when supervisors were rated as having a good sense of humor, especially female supervisors. (pg. 68) 35

When humor is used in public speaking, the speaker is liked more, the audience are in a better mood, and the speech is found more interesting. (pg. 69)

Teachers are like more if they use humor. (pg. 69)

The key to most humor is entertaining two versions of events, or stories, where the second and unexpected one is less worthy, e.g. ruder, than the first. (pg. 69)

Social relationships

Infant monkeys rared in total isolation start to discriminate friendly and threatening faces at 2 months, so this ability must be largely innate. (Sackett, 1966) (pg. 74) 36

Lu and Argyle (1992b) found that extraverts gave more social support than introverts did. (pg. 74) 37

Weiss (1973) found that to avoid loneliness people needed a single close relationship and also a network of relationships. (pg. 75) 38

Wheeler et al. (1983) fond that a number of students who had plenty of friends and spent a lot of time with them were still lonely because they talked about impersonal topics. (pg. 75) 39

Friendships were most often lose by individuals breaking such “third party rules” as keeping confidences and standing up for friends in their absence. (Argyle and Henderson, 1985). (pg. 75) 40

The best predictor of not being lonely is the frequency of interaction with women; time spent with men made no difference. (Wheeler at al. 1983). (pg. 75)39

Extraverts are more assertive and more cooperative, making them able to manage their relationships better (Argyle and Lu, 1990). 41

Ross and Mirowsky (1989) found that social support led to less depression, but that intimate conversations about problems made things worse since this meant talking about problems, or complaining, rather than solving them. (pg. 76) 42

Bereavement is more damaging for men than women. (pg. 79)

Being in love is good for health. Smith and Hoklund (1988) found that Danish students who were in love had a higher white blood cell count, and had fewer sore throats, colds, or afters-effects of drinking than those not in love. (pg. 80) 43

The overall effect of having children on the happiness of their parents is zero (Veenhoven, 1994). (pg. 82)15

There are two bad periods for marital happiness: when there are very young children and when they are adolescents. (pg. 82)

Favorite cousins in later life are those who were childhood playmates (Adams, 1968). (pg. 84) 44

Couples with children live longer. (Kobrin and Hendershot, 1977), (pg. 84). 45

Headey (1999) found that only 11% of those who had dogs were on some medication compared with 19% of those with no pets; the pets owners went to the doctor less too. (pg. 85) 46

Hall and Nelson (1996) found that the well-being of a sample of patients depended on the percentage of women in their networks, providing social support. (pg. 86) 47

Argyle and Furnham (1983) found that the spouse was the greatest source of conflict as well as of satisfaction. (pg. 86) 48

Work and employment

In a survey of 7000 workers from nine European countries, Clark (1998a) found that 42% reported having high job satisfaction. (pg. 89) 49

The overall correlation between pay and job satisfaction is low, typically .15 to .17, so pay is not an important cause of job satisfaction. (pg. 91)

Those doing voluntary work ares sometimes found to enjoy their work as much or more than paid workers (Furnham and Argyle, 1998). (pg. 91) 50

A meta-analysis of job status found a rather modest overall correlation of .18 with job satisfaction (Haring et al., 1984). 51

For European workers, having “good relations” at work, with management and colleagues, was the strongest predictor of job satisfaction. (pg. 93)

There is a U-shaped curve to job satisfaction, such that the young and the old tend to be more satisfied with their jobs (Clark et al., 1996) (pg. 95). 52

Arvey et al. (1994) studied 2200 pairs of twins and found that 30% of the variability of in job satisfaction could be explained by genetic factors (pg. 96). 53

Furnham and Schaeffer (1984) found there was more satisfaction if an individual’s profile of needs matched the profile of rewards offered by the job. (pg. 96) 54

American surveys have found that 10-12% of the unemployed described themselves as “very happy” compared with 30% of the general population. This effect is causal. (Warr, 1978) (pg. 103) 55

Clark et al. (1996) conclude that the effect of job loss on general mental health is worse than that of divorce. (pg. 104)52

Murphy and Athanasou (1999) carried out a meta-analysis and found that starting work led to increased mental health with an effect size of .54, while losing a job led to deterioration with an effect size of .36. (pg. 104) 56

In Britain it has been found that income explains less than a quarter of the reduction of GHQ scores for the unemployed (Clark, 1998b). 57

Unemployment creates more distress for those high in neuroticism (Payne, 1988), introversion, and for type A personalities. (pg. 105) 58

The unemployed structure their time less (Feather and Bond, 1983) 59 and this is a cause of lower psychological health (Wanberg et al, 1997). 60

When voluntary workers are compared with paid workers doing the same work, the voluntary workers have been found to have higher job satisfaction (Pearce, 1993). 61

On average the retired are happier than those at work. (pg. 107)

American studies find no difference in mental health before and after retirement (Kasl, 1980). 62

Leisure

Several studies have found a negative relation between TV watching and happiness. (pg. 112)

Thayer (1989) found that a 10-minute brisk walk resulted n less tiredness, more energy, and less tension 2 hours later. Other studies found that after an hour’s exercise, such as aerobics, those involved felt less tense, depressed, angry, tired or confused, and had more vigor, for the rest of the day and, in some, for the next day (Maroulakis and Zervas, 1993). (pg. 113)

Paffenbarger el at. (1991) followed up 17,000 Harvard alumni over a period of 16 years and found fewer heart attacks for those who did more exercise. Thirty minutes a day was enough to give maximum benefits. There were 31% fewer deaths. (pg. 115)

Former athletes have been found to live longer than non-athletes (Shepherd, 1997). (pg. 115)

Koneci (1982) fond that playing simple melodies at a low volume led to insulted subjects being less aggressive. (pg. 121)

People listen to about 1.25 hours of music a day on average. (pg. 121)

There is no evidence that music can create enduring happiness or satisfaction. (pg. 121)

Watching videos of wilderness has been found to lower blood pressure. (pg. 122)

A number of leisure activities were thought to satisfy social needs that are not obviously social, such as serious reading and meditation. (Hills et al., 2000), (pg. 126)

There is a strong correlation between intrinsic motivation and positive affect. (Graef et al., 1983) (pg. 128)

Zuckerman (1979) found that those who engage in dangerous sports are high on his sensation-seeking scale, which correlates with extraversion and psychoticism. (pg. 129)

Eyesneck et al. (1982) found that successful sportsmen have a special personality, they are high on extraversion and psychoticism. They do particularly well at, and presumably enjoy, rough sports because they don’t mind injuring other people. (pg. 129)

Money, class and education

Campbell et al. (1976) in their Quality of American Life study found that “financial situation” was rated 11th out of 12 possible sources of life satisfaction. (pg. 131)

King and Napa (1998) found that their subjects estimated money as worth one-fifth of the effect of happiness and one-sixth of meaning as components of the good life. (pg. 131)

Kessler (1982) analyzed data from eight American surveys with 16,000 subjects. He found that for men income, especially earned income, was the strongest predictor of depression; occupational status was much weaker. For women education was a stronger predictor. (pg. 134)

For men the benefits of income leveled off at $75,000, but for women the richest were more depressed than those in the next lowest income band. (West, Reed, and Gildengorin, 1998). (pg. 135)

Blaxter (1990) found that the poor were in much worse health than the better off, but there was an upturn in bad health for the very rich, which she concluded was mainly due to drinking too much. (pg. 135)

Clark (1996) studied data from 9000 British adults and found that job satisfaction was greater for those who had the largest pay raises during the past year. However, their data suggested that the gains in satisfaction were in the short term only, and some kind of habituation sets in. (pg. 138)

It looks as if suddenly acquiring large sums of money does not make people very happy. (pg. 138)

In 1987 Americans wanted $50,000 per annum to fulfill their dreams, in 1994 they wanted $102,000 (Schor, 1998) (pg. 140).

With income held constant those with the lowest expectations had the highest job satisfaction. (Clark and Oswald, 1996) (pg. 141).

Berkowitz and his colleagues (1987), in a survey in Wisconsin, found that inequiity was the strongest predictor of (low) pay satisfaction. (pg. 141)

Do people compare their present situation with the past, are they happier if their financial situation has improved? There are immediate effects, but these do not last very long, and there seem to be no reliable effects of comparisons with the past. (pg. 141)

The effect of education on happiness is greater in poorer countries. (pg. 146)

Personality, age and gender

Argyle (1994) found that the socially unskilled avoid many situations that others enjoy. (pg. 149)

Headey et al. (1985) found that good social relations over a period of time produced increased levels of extraversion, and this in turn led to increased well-being. (pg 149)

Watson and Clark (1984) concluded that the relation between neuroticism and negative affect is so strong that the two variables can be regarded as equivalent. (pg. 152)

Self-esteem correlates with measures of well-being more strongly than extraversion. (pg. 154)

Internal control has consistently been found to be a predictor of happiness. (pg. 155)

Positive affect increases with age and negative affect decreases, at least through early and middle adulthood. Mroczak and Kolanz (1998) found that increases in positive affect held only for male introverts, while the decline in negative affect in women only held for those who were married. (pg. 160)

A meta-analysis carried out by Wood et al. (1989) found that women were on average a little happier than men. (pg. 161)

Religion

The benefits of church may due to the social support it provides. (pg. 167)

Poloma and Pendleton (1991) found that peak experiences and prayer experience were the best predictors of well-being, especially existential well-being. (pg. 167)

Existential well-being is the aspect of SWB most influenced by religion (e.g. Charmberlain and Zika, 1988). (pg. 167)

Kirkpatrick (1992) suggested that the relation with God via prayer, private devotions, and religious experiences, can be experienced in much the same way as relations with humans, and and can give similar benefits. (pg. 167)

The effect of religiosity on subjective well-being is strongest for Black Americans. (pg. 167)

The benefits of religion on objective health (e.g. longevity) are largely due to church members abstaining from risky behaviors and increased social support as a result of church attendance. (pg. 170)

Booth et al (1997) carried out a careful longitudinal study of 1005 married people and found that over a 12-year period increases in religious activity did not lead to increased marital happiness or decreased conflict. (pg. 173)

Intense religious experiences usually occur in isolation. (pg. 173)

Pahnke (1966) induced religious experience by means of drugs and the effects on positive outlook were still there 6 months afterwards, described as “joy, blessedness and peace”.

Prayer produces enhanced happiness and existential well-being. Poloma and Pendleton (1991) found that this was greatest when religious experiences occurred during prayer, and these were brought on by meditative prayer. (pg. 173)

In Jerusalem a number of visitors become emotionally disturbed simply by the strong religious presence of holy places and religious symbolism, and end up in the hospital ward kept for those with “Jerusalem syndrome.” (pg. 175)

Intrinsic religiosity may reduce the fear of death. (Osarchuk and Tate, 1973). (pg. 175)

National differences in happiness

Collectivism is beneficial for poor nations, while individualism is beneficial for rich nations. (Veenhoven, 2000). (pg. 185)

Overall freedom correlated with national happiness .49, but for the poor countries is was non-significant. (Veenhonven, 2000) (pg. 186)

It has been suggested that the high satisfaction and happiness scores in the US are due in part to the social norms that demand the appearance of cheerfulness. (pg. 189)

The Ifaluk tribe live on a small Pacific island. In this culture, looking happy is not socially acceptable. (Lutz, 1998) (pg. 190)

Lists of objective indicators for well-being appear to be very arbitrary. Becker at al. (1987) found that for 329 American cities, 134 of them could come first depending on different weighting of the indicators. (pg. 192)

Happiness enhancement

Exercise is one of the easiest and most effective methods of inducing positive moods. (pg. 202)

Forms of cognitive therapy have been used for normals with success. Lichter et al. (1980) devised a course of eight 2-hour sessions over 4 weeks, focusing on improving insight and understanding and correcting irrational beliefs. Those trained in this way improved in happiness and satisfaction. (pg. 210)

Depressed patients and many other mental patients have been found to display defective social skills such as low rewardingness (Hollin and Trower, 1986). (pg. 212)

The effects of positive moods and happiness

When positive moods have been induced in subjects, they feel very sociable. (pg. 215)

Happy people have higher quality social interactions. (pg. 215)

When people are in a positive mood they have a less cautious social style. (pg. 215)

Couples coming out of a happy movie, or who had seen one in the lab, evaluated their relationships more positively, and reported greater admiration for each other and more self-disclosure than those coming out of a sad movie. (Forgas et al., 1994) (pg. 216)

Those in positive moods are sexually aroused more readily. (pg. 216)

Happy people like others morel they are also more liked by others, who will spend more time with them, sit nearer, say they would like to meet them again, compared with depressed individuals for example (Howes and Hokanson, 1979) (pg. 216).

When individuals have had a lot of positive life events they become more extraverted, which in turn makes them happier, as Headry and Wearing (1992( found in their longitudinal study in Australia. (pg. 216)

O’Malley and Andrews (1983) found that 47% of subjects who had been put in a good mood by recalling happy past event offered to give blood, compared with 17% in a control condition. (pg. 216)

Isen and Levin (1972) found that children who had been allowed to win at bowling gave three times as much to poor children. (pg. 216)

Weisenverg et al. (1998) found that after seeing a humorous film subjects could stand more pain, 51 minutes with a had in cold water, compared with only 31 minutes after a sad film. (pg. 220)

Conclusions

Social relations are probably the greatest single cause of happiness and other aspects of well-being. (pg. 224)

Friends are very important but how do we find and keep them? Part of the answer lies in social skills training, part of it lies in joining leisure groups. (pg. 225)

Purpose in life and a sense of meaning can be generated by commitment to goals. (pg. 225)

Intelligence has almost no effect on happiness. (pg. 226)

It is sometimes said that you can’t seek happiness, it has to come as a by-product of other activities. But depressed patients certainly seek happiness for themselves, and mental health workers seek it for them, successfully, and there seems to be no objection to that. (pg. 229)

Okay, that’s my The Psychology of Happiness summary. If you enjoyed this, consider buying a copy of the book.

Sources


1. King, Laura A., and Christie K. Napa. “What makes a life good?.” Journal of personality and social psychology 75.1 (1998): 156.

2. Loewenstein, George, and David Schkade. “Wouldn’t it be nice? Predicting future feelings.” Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (1999): 85-105.

3. Brandstatter, H. “Emotions in everyday life situations: Time sampling of subjective experience.” Subjective well-being: An interdisciplinary perspective (1991): 173-92.

4. Andrews, Frank M., and Aubrey C. McKennell. “Measures of self-reported well-being: Their affective, cognitive, and other components.” Social Indicators Research 8.2 (1980): 127-155.

5. Suh, Eunkook, et al. “The shifting basis of life satisfaction judgments across cultures: Emotions versus norms.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74.2 (1998): 482.
6. Tellegen, Auke, et al. “Personality similarity in twins reared apart and together.” Journal of personality and social psychology 54.6 (1988): 1031.
7. Headey, Bruce, and Alexander James Wearing. Understanding happiness: A theory of subjective well-being. Longman Cheshire, 1992.

8. Andrews, Frank M., and Stephen Bassett Withey. “Social indicators of well-being: Americans’ perceptions of life quality.” (1976): 19-35.

9. Hagedorn, James W. “Happiness and self-deception: An old question examined by a new measure of subjective well-being.” Social indicators research 38.2 (1996): 139-160.

10. Diener, Ed, and Eunkook Suh. “Measuring quality of life: Economic, social, and subjective indicators.” Social indicators research 40.1-2 (1997): 189-216.

11. Clark, Andrew E., and Andrew J. Oswald. “Satisfaction and comparison income.” Journal of public economics 61.3 (1996): 359-381.

12. Headey, Bruce, Elsie Holmström, and Alexander Wearing. “Well-being and ill-being: Different dimensions?.” Social Indicators Research 14.2 (1984): 115-139.
13. Argyle, Michael, and Maryanne Martin. “The psychological causes of happiness.” Subjective well-being: An interdisciplinary perspective (1991): 77-100.

14. Ekman, P. (1982) Emotion in the human face New York: Cambridge University Press.

15. Veenhoven, Ruut. World database of happiness: Correlates of happiness: 7837 findings from 603 studies in 69 nations 1911–1994, Vols. 1–3. Erasmus University Rotterdam, 1994.

16. Cunningham, Michael R. “Weather, mood, and helping behavior: Quasi experiments with the sunshine samaritan.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37.11 (1979): 1947.
17. Larson, Reed, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, and Mark Freeman. “Alcohol and marijuana use in adolescents’ daily lives: a random sample of experiences.” Substance Use & Misuse 19.4 (1984): 367-381.
18. Cummins, Robert A. “On the trail of the gold standard for subjective well-being.” Social Indicators Research 35.2 (1995): 179-200.
19. Diener, Ed, et al. “Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress.” Psychological bulletin 125.2 (1999): 276.

20. Adams III, Virgil H. “A paradox in African American quality of life.” Social Indicators Research 42.2 (1997): 205-219.
21. Strack, Fritz, et al. “Salience of comparison standards and the activation of social norms: Consequences for judgements of happiness and their communication.” British Journal of Social Psychology 29.4 (1990): 303-314.
22. Schulz, Richard, and Susan Decker. “Long-term adjustment to physical disability: the role of social support, perceived control, and self-blame.” Journal of personality and social psychology 48.5 (1985): 1162.
23. Mehnert, Thomas, et al. “Correlates of life satisfaction in those with disabling conditions.” Rehabilitation Psychology 35.1 (1990): 3.
24. Strack, Fritz, Norbert Schwarz, and Elisabeth Gschneidinger. “Happiness and reminiscing: The role of time perspective, affect, and mode of thinking.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 49.6 (1985): 1460.

25. Martin, Rod A., and Nicholas A. Kuiper. “Daily occurrence of laughter: Relationships with age, gender, and Type A personality.” Humor 12 (1999): 355-384.

26. Ruch, Willibald, and Amy Carrell. “Trait cheerfulness and the sense of humour.” Personality and Individual Differences 24.4 (1998): 551-558.

27. Houston, Diane M., et al. “Using humour to promote psychological wellbeing in residential homes for older people.” Aging & Mental Health 2.4 (1998): 328-332.

28. Lundy, Duane E., Josephine Tan, and Michael R. Cunningham. “Heterosexual romantic preferences: The importance of humor and physical attractiveness for different types of relationships.” Personal Relationships 5.3 (1998): 311-325.

30. Keltner, Dacher, et al. “Teasing in hierarchical and intimate relations.” Journal of personality and social psychology 75.5 (1998): 1231.

31. Kuiper, N. A., R. A. Martin, and K. A. Dance. “Sense of humour and enhanced quality of life.” Personality and Individual Differences 13.12 (1992): 1273-1283.

32. La Fave, Lawrence, Jay Haddad, and William A. Maesen. “Superiority, enhanced self-esteem, and perceived incongruity humour theory.” (1976).

33. Graham, Elizabeth E. “The involvement of sense of humor in the development of social relationships.” Communication Reports 8.2 (1995): 158-169.

34. Grammer, Karl. “Strangers meet: Laughter and nonverbal signs of interest in opposite-sex encounters.” Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 14.4 (1990): 209-236.

35. DECKER, WAYNE H., and DENISE M. ROTONDO. “Use of humor at work: predictors and implications.” Psychological reports 84.3 (1999): 961-968.

36. Sackett, Gene P. “Monkeys reared in isolation with pictures as visual input: Evidence for an innate releasing mechanism.” Science 154.3755 (1966): 1468-1473.

37. Lu, Luo, and Michael Argyle. “Receiving and giving support: Effects on relationships and well-being.” Counselling Psychology Quarterly 5.2 (1992): 123-133.

38. Weiss, Robert S. “Loneliness: The experience of emotional and social isolation.” (1973).

39. Wheeler, Ladd, Harry Reis, and John B. Nezlek. “Loneliness, social interaction, and sex roles.” Journal of Personality and social Psychology 45.4 (1983): 943.

40. Argyle, Michael, and Monika Henderson. The anatomy of relationships. Penguin books, 1985.

41. Argyle, Michael, and Luo Lu. “The happiness of extraverts.” Personality and individual differences 11.10 (1990): 1011-1017.

42. Ross, Catherine E., and John Mirowsky. “Explaining the social patterns of depression: control and problem solving–or support and talking?.” Journal of Health and Social Behavior (1989): 206-219.

43. Smith, Donald F., and Marianne Hokland. “Love and salutogenesis in late adolescence: A preliminary investigation.” Psychology: A Journal of Human Behavior (1988).

44. Adams, Bert N. Kinship in an urban setting. Chicago: Markham Publishing Company, 1968.

45. Kobrin, Frances E., and Gerry E. Hendershot. “Do family ties reduce mortality? Evidence from the United States, 1966-1968.” Journal of Marriage and the Family (1977): 737-745.

46. Headey, Bruce. “Health benefits and health cost savings due to pets: preliminary estimates from an Australian national survey.” Social Indicators Research 47.2 (1999): 233-243.

47. Hall, G. Brent, and Geoffrey Nelson. “Social networks, social support, personal empowerment, and the adaptation of psychiatric consumers/survivors: Path analytic models.” Social Science & Medicine 43.12 (1996): 1743-1754.

48. Argyle, Michael, and Adrian Furnham. “Sources of satisfaction and conflict in long-term relationships.” Journal of Marriage and the Family (1983): 481-493.

49. Clark, Andrew E. What Makes a Good Job?: Evidence from OECD Countries. LEO-CRESEP, 1998.

50. Furnham, Adrian, and Michael Argyle. The psychology of money. Psychology Press, 1998.

51. Haring, Marilyn J., William A. Stock, and Morris A. Okun. “A research synthesis of gender and social class as correlates of subjective well-being.” Human Relations 37.8 (1984): 645-657.

52. Clark, Andrew, Andrew Oswald, and Peter Warr. “Is job satisfaction U‐shaped in age?.” Journal of occupational and organizational psychology 69.1 (1996): 57-81.

53. Arvey, Richard D., et al. “Genetic influences on job satisfaction and work values.” Personality and Individual Differences 17.1 (1994): 21-33.

54. Furnham, Adrian, and Rosemary Schaeffer. “Person‐environment fit, job satisfaction and mental health.” Journal of Occupational Psychology 57.4 (1984): 295-307.

55. Warr, Peter. “A study of psychological well‐being.” British Journal of Psychology 69.1 (1978): 111-121.

56. Murphy, Gregory C., and James A. Athanasou. “The effect of unemployment on mental health.” Journal of Occupational and organizational Psychology 72.1 (1999): 83-99.

57. Clark, A. E. “The positive externalities of higher unemployment: Evidence from household data.” Research Paper (CNRS and LEO-CRESEP, UniversitÈ d OrlÈans, France) (1998).

58. Payne, Roy. “A longitudinal study of the psychological well-being of unemployed men and the mediating effect of neuroticism.” Human relations 41.2 (1988): 119-138.

59. Feather, N. T., and M. J. Bond. “Time structure and purposeful activity among employed and unemployed university graduates.” Journal of Occupational Psychology 56.3 (1983): 241-254.

60. Wanberg, Connie R. “Antecedents and outcomes of coping behaviors among unemployed and reemployed individuals.” Journal of Applied psychology 82.5 (1997): 731.

61. Pearce, Jone L. Volunteers: The organizational behavior of unpaid workers. London: Routledge, 1993.

62. Kasl, Stanislav V. “The impact of retirement.” Current concerns in occupational stress (1980): 137-86.

Book Summary: Happiness: Lessons from a New Science

Picture of the cover of <em>Happiness: Lessons From a New Science.</em>

This is my Happiness: Lessons from a New Science summary.

Happiness: Lessons from a New Science Summary

What is the problem?

Jeremy Bentham was a shy and kindly man, who never married and gave his money to good causes. He was also one of the first intellectuals to go jogging – or trotting as he called it. (pg. 4)

From his experiences in Auschwitz, Viktor Frankl concluded that in the last resort “everything can be taken from a man but one thing, that last of human freedoms–to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances.” (pg. 8)

What is happiness?

People can say at any moment how they feel. (pg. 12)

Most people find it easy to say how good they are feeling, and in social surveys such questions get very high response rates, much higher than the average survey question (pg. 13)

Layard defines happiness as feeling good and states that the book is concerned with increasing people’s average happiness over time. (pg. 17)

By using very powerful magnets it is possible to stimulate activity in the left side of the forebrain, and this automatically produces a better mood. Indeed, this method has even been used to alleviate depression. Even more remarkable, it has been found that to improve the immune system, which is heavily influenced by a person’s mood. (pg. 19)

When different people are exposed to good experiences, those who are naturally happy when at rest experience the greatest gain in happiness. And when they are exposed to nasty experiences, they experience the least increase is discomfort. (pg. 19)

When people are exposed to a painful experience, their subjective pain reports are highly correlated with the different levels of brain activity in the relevant part of the cortex. (pg. 20)

It is not possible to be happy and unhappy at the same time. Positive feelings damp down negative feelings and vice versa. So we have just one dimension — running from the extreme negative to the extreme positive. (pg. 21)

People who achieve a sense of meaning in their lives are happier than those who live from one pleasure to another. (pg. 22)

Oscar nominees who won went on to life four years longer, on average, than the losers. (pg. 24)

Are we getting happier?

When people become richer compared with other people, they become happier, but when whole societies have become richer, they have not become happier. (pg. 31)

When we look at the same people over their lifetimes, we find they got no happier, even though they get much richer. (pg. 32)

A group of Chinese students were asked to answer a happiness survey in both Chinese and English, with two weeks between the two events. The students reported almost exactly the same average level of happiness in both Chinese and English, and the answers in the different languages were highly correlated across the students. (pg.34)

In Switzerland most people speak French, German, or Italian, but all these groups give similar replies to the question about happiness. (pg. 34)

Most evidence suggests that clinical depression has increased since the Second World War. (pg. 35)

In any one year about 6% of people in the United Sates experience a major depressive episode. (pg. 35)

In the United States over a quarter of young white men say they have already experienced problem with alcohol. This compares with under 15% of men over sixty-five who say they have ever experienced such problems. (pg. 36)

In Europe, the number of people dying of cirrhosis of the liver is up since 1950 in every country except France. (pg. 37)

Youth suicide has increased in almost every advanced country. (pg. 37)

If you’re so rich, why aren’t you happy?

Since 1972 Americans have been asked whether they are satisfied with their financial position. Although real income per head has nearly doubled, the proportion of people who say they are pretty well satisfied with their financial situation has actually fallen. (pg. 42)

The only situation where we might willingly accept a pay cut is when others are doing the same. (pg. 44)

At the extreme we have the Russian peasant whose neighbor has a cow. When God asks how he can help, the peasant replies, “Kill the cow.” (pg. 45)

If I work harder and raise my income, I make other people less happy. But when I decide how much to work, I do not take this “pollution” into account. so I will tend to work more than is socially efficient — and so will everyone else. (pg. 47)

A dollar rise in experienced income causes a rise of at least forty cents in “required income.” (pg. 49)

People do underestimate this process of habituation: As a result, our life can get distorted towards working and making money, and away from other pursuits. (pg. 49)

Among rich countries, people in the United States work the longest hours. In most countries and at most times in history, as people have become richer they have chosen to work less. Over the last fifty years Europeans have continued this pattern and hours of work have fallen sharply, but not in the United States. (pg. 50)

So what does make us happy?

Despite these problems you will still hear that some trait is x% “heritable,” meaning that x% of the variation is due to the genes. In most cases the figure given is an overestimate, because it includes as a genetic effect any effect of experience when this is positively correlate with the effect of the genes. (pg. 58)

As adoptees progress through life, the effect of their adoptive parents fades and the effect of their genes increases. (pg. 59)

Among humans, controlled experiments to improve parenting have been shown to have lasting effects on the children. (pg. 60)

For many reasons mothers treat one twin differently from another, and even by the age of seven we can see that the favored twin behaves much better. (pg. 60)

What’s going wrong?

Bhutan is small Buddhist kingdom in the Himalayas. In 1998, the king announced that the nation’s objective would be the Gross National Happiness. In 1999, the country’s ban on television was lifted. Crime increased, families dissolved, and drug use rose. (pg. 77)

Unmarried parents are on average twice as likely to split up as married parents. (pg. 79)

In 1950, 20% of U.S. mothers went out to work. Now it is over 70%. (pg 82)

Given that the rate of divorce has soared over the past 50 years, one would expect that the remaining marriages would be happier, but marriage satisfaction has actually fallen. (pg. 85)

Over a lifetime a typical Briton spends more time watching television than doing paid work. The figures are much the same in the United States. (pg. 86)

Richard Layard believes that television increases violent behavior. Two days after heavyweight prize-fights in the United States, there is 9% more homicide than otherwise. And after a reported suicide in a television drama, more people actually take their lives. (pg. 87)

Researchers measured the change in children’s aggression in the two years that followed the introduction of television. This showed conclusively that the introduction of television increased aggression.

The more television people watch, the more they overestimate they overestimate the affluence of other people. (pg. 89)

Since television has a negative impact on your perceived position, it is bad for your happiness. (pg. 89)

On one estimate an extra hour a week watching television causes you to spend an extra $4 a week on keeping up with the Joneses. (pg. 89)

Can we pursue a common good?

On average, people with a strong moral sense do better than others, even economically. (pg. 102)

People who are given thirty minutes beforehand to talk to other strangers are quite good at forecasting how the others will behave in the ultimatum game. (pg. 104)

The evidence also shows that when one spouse does something and the other spouse reciprocates, the first gets less satisfaction than when no direct reciprocation occurs. (pg. 105)

At this point in the text, Layard writes at length about utilitarianism. His analysis is aimed at a popular audience and will not be of much use to anyone who has taken an ethics course or read a few articles on Wikipedia. However, Layard does mention two books that argue against utilitarianism, Utilitarianism and Beyond and Utilitarianism: For and Against. This sort of information is very useful to utilitarians, as reading these will help correct for confirmation bias.

Can we tame the rat race?

For example, in 1996 the Eurobarometer survey asked employed people in each country whether in the last five years there had been a significant increase in the stress involved with your job. Nearly 50% said it increased, while 10% said it diminished. (pg. 158)

Conclusion

That’s all, folks! If you enjoyed this, consider buying a copy of the book.

How To Spot Important Problems In The World Today

If you do not work on an important problem, it’s unlikely you’ll do important work.
Richard Hamming, You and Your Research

How can you distinguish important problems from those which aren’t? A problem’s importance is determined by the amount of good that work on it produces.

What’s Good?

On all plausible theories, everyone’s well-being consists at least in part in being happy, and avoiding suffering.
Derek Parfit, On What Matters

The essence of “what is good” is the extent to which something reduces suffering and increases happiness. This is not to claim that these are the sole factors that determine goodness, but rather that any theory of the good would be incomplete without them.

More Good is Gooder

That is wise. Were I to invoke logic, however, logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
Spock, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982)

It’s better to save two lives than one. The more people that work on a problem helps, the more good that work does and the more important that work is.

Hard Problems

Work on impossible problems is not important. It will not lead anywhere. The human condition will not be improved. The more likely it is that work on a problem will do a lot of good, the more important that problem is. It is better to work on something where you have a 95% chance of saving a million lives than it is to work on something where you have a 5% chance of saving a million lives.

Working on something hard is not in and of itself virtuous. People working on research in pure mathematics are working on hard problems, but given how disconnected pure mathematics is from reality, just donating money to a charity is probably more important than working on the millennium problems.

You might think, “Yeah, but sometimes pure mathematics does have important real world consequences.” I agree. This is not a real objection, though. We are again talking about the likelihood of doing a lot of good.

One could argue, for example, that you might have some kind of powerful insight into many of the world’s greatest ills by setting the record for most olives eaten in a single sitting. The chance is negligible. You would have a higher likelihood of success by working directly on solving world hunger, etc.

If Not Me, Then Who?

It has always appalled me that really bright scientists almost all work in the most competitive fields, the ones in which they are making the least difference. In other words, if they were hit by a truck, the same discovery would be made by somebody else about 10 minutes later.
Aubrey de Grey

It is important to consider context when deciding whether or not to work on a problem. Consider two scenarios:

  1. Curing a rare disease that will save 20 lives per year. Discovering the cure is an active area of inquiry within your discipline and there is a 90% chance that someone will discover a cure within the next year regardless of your contribution.

  2. Curing a rare disease that will save 5 lives per year. The disease is absent from the academic literature and most researchers have no idea that it exists. Those that do know of its existence are not interested in finding a cure. There is less than a 1% chance that someone will discover a cure within the next year without your contribution.

You should work on the second problem.

This has an odd implication. Most people believe that Isaac Newton’s discovery of calculus and Alexander Graham Bell’s invention of the telephone were important. However, all of these were discovered by other people: Leibniz (among others) discovered calculus at the same time as Newton. Elisha Gray filed a patent for the invention of the telephone on the same day as Alexander Graham Bell. The infamous formula \( E=mc^2 \) was chanced upon by Henri Poincaré, Olinto De Pretto, Paul Langevin and, of course, Albert Einstein.

It’s useful here to make a distinction. I’m not claiming that the discovery of calculus or the invention of the telephone were not important. Rather, my point is that the individual work of Alexander Graham Bell and Isaac Newton was less important than it first appears. The world may have been better off if they had invested energy in some other pursuit.

Our aim should be an efficient distribution of intellectual resources among problems so that we maximize the amount of good accomplished. One aspect of reducing waste is to prevent duplicated work, such as two people inventing the telephone. By taking into account the amount of work that other people are doing on a problem before you begin working on it, you can maximize the amount of difference you can make as an individual.

Recognition and Reproduction

Doing important work doesn’t always feel important and is often not recognized as such. Important work is distinct from recognition for doing important work. When we think of doing groundbreaking research, we think of Albert Einstein and how great it would be to be like him.

This is a focusing illusion. We only hear about important work when it has been recognized. Important work without recognition is invisible. We have no memory of it because we’ve never heard of it. Who knows how many important discoveries have been ignored?

A significant amount of the appeal of doing important work is connected to the social status that we expect to gain as a result of doing that work. In this sense, then, aspirations of being a great researcher are not much different from dreams of being rich and famous. Our monkey brains want desperately to maximize their reproductive fitness.

The model I have presented here is not about maximizing reproductive fitness. If that is your goal, you would be better served by donating to a sperm bank or studying seduction than by setting out to do important work. This model is concerned with doing important work regardless of whether or not one achieves recognition for it.

Would you be content with improving the world even if someone else received credit for it? If the answer is yes, then you are interested in defining important work as I’ve presented here. If not, you are interested in something else and ought to be focusing on that goal instead.

Further Reading

  • Robin Hanson explores some similar themes in this post.
  • For more multiple discoveries, like the invention of the telephone, Wikipedia has a list.
  • The idea that one should choose whatever will do the most good is standard consequentialism, which you can read more about here.
  • The dependence of a problem’s importance on the probability of solving it is an expected value calculation, which Wikipedia covers here, and is related to the concept of comparative advantage in economics.
  • The failure to take into consideration a decision’s context is termed “system neglect.” You can read more about it in this paper.
  • The observation that unrecognized things are invisible is what Donald Rumsfeld called “unknown unknowns” in a 2002 speech.
  • Daniel Kahneman has a great paper on a relevant focusing illusion, the relationship between income and happiness.
  • The intimate relationship between goals and reproductive fitness is described in this paper.

Predictions for 2014

  • The One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge goes unclaimed.
  • The price of an ounce of marijuana in Colorado drops to under 150, half of what it’s going for today.
  • The twin prime conjecture is proven.
  • First mainframes, then desktops, then laptops, cell phones, tablets. This year we will see an influx of wearable computing devices.
  • Rights for gays continue to improve with at least one more state legalizing same sex marriage.
  • Pat Quinn wins the 2014 Illinois gubernatorial election.