The Folly of Our Choices
I was recently exposed to a talk by Dan Gilbert who is a psychologist at Harvard as well as the author of the book "Stumbling on Happiness". The talk revolved mainly around the idea that happiness can be self-generated independent of our failures or successes in life. He calls this "synthetic happiness". Here is an example of synthetic happiness:
A promoter on the street is giving out free key chains. There is a red key chain and a blue key chain. You are free to choose whichever you like, but there can be no exchanges made after a particular key chain has been chosen. John must decide between the two key chains. He chooses the red key chain. It is not clear to him whether or not the red key chain is the better of the two. In fact, the red key chain might even be a little too flashy for him - John's a low key kind of guy - but the choice has been made and cannot be undone. Soon after John returns home, he feels immediately that he has made the right choice. He sees now that he needs to be a little more boldness in his choice of pocket accessories. Perhaps the blue was even a tad TOO blue for him, not the milder shade that he typically prefers.
Dan seems to believe that this synthetic happiness - what many of us would lean to calling sour grapes - is on par in both quality and authenticity to actual happiness attained by getting what we want. Now, let's change up the situation a bit.
John is free to make a single exchange after his initial decision has been made. John chooses the red key chain. Maybe he goes back to exchange it for the blue one, or perhaps he just decides to keep the red. In either situation, John would suffer from regret of his choice. Why? Because he feels that the other key chain might have been better and the fact that he did not choose it has caused him to be stuck with this inferior colored key chain. No matter what John decides to do after choosing the initial key chain - whether he chooses to exchange for the other color or stick with his initial choice - John will almost certainly be less happy than he would be if the promoter had not allowed the exchange.
So how do we know that synthetic happiness is equivalent to the traditionally defined happiness of western industrial societies - namely, getting what you what? Dan Gilbert performs studies with amnesiacs - patients with korsakoff's who cannot form new memories, and asks them to rank in order a series of Monet paintings from their most to least favorite. He then offers them a printed copy free of charge of one of the two copies that the patient rated in the middle (a 3-4 in a series of 8 paintings). The patient is then asked at a later time to rate the same series of paintings again - the patient has no recollection of the earlier event. What Gilbert found was that on average, most of the amnesiacs tended to rank the painting they previously chose to take home higher while rating the forgone painting at a lower spot than in the previous trial. So for example: if the painting they chose to take home ranked originally at a 3, it would rank a 2 or even 1 in the second trial. Likewise, the painting they chose to forgo might originally have ranked a 4 and now ranks a 6 in the second trial. So even with NO memory of the act of making a choice, the subconscious of these patients has somehow been affected by this "synthetic happiness" of which Gilbert speaks.
So herein lies the million dollar question: Is freedom of choice stripping us away of our chance for happiness?
I know of many people who are constantly plagued by the regret of their life choices. Perhaps it is because the potential alternatives are too many and varied for practical comparison, making it impossible to be certain that the choice made was the perfect, eternal, unwaveringly correct one.
Our industrial society has been built upon the idea that if you give people exactly what they want, they will be happy. Dan Gilbert and many others - yours truly included - believes that this is a false tenet.
Most people do not know exactly what they want. They are limited by the history of their experiences, the reaches of their imagination, and the reality and reasoning behind why they want what they want. To give a person what he/she claims to want is to set that person up for disappointment and self-blame. These people will make choices based on what they believe they want. Yet, when they receive the end result, it is often disappointing because all the choices that were made available have raised the expectation to the level of perfection, and as we all know, nothing is perfect. Moreover, the person has no one to blame but themselves because for better or worse, they are the ones who have made these choices.
This brings to mind a laundry list of other questions.
Are people in moderately developed nations happier on average?
Does the excess of choice play a part in the overabundance of psychiatric illnesses in the developed world?
Were marriages more successful and couples happier back in the day when divorce was socially taboo?
Are rejections easier to handle because you have no choice in the matter?
Does the phrase "It's not you. It's me." actually work, given that it is genuinely expressed?
Do men lose interest after sex because they are immediately reminded of the lost opportunity cost in sleeping with other, potentially better, women? Is this why some women insist on playing hard to get?
Are medical students that go to more expensive schools happier with their career choice because the size of their loans make quitting virtually an impossibility?
What is the perfect amount of freedom in choice?
Do we all just want someone else to do the choosing for us?
A promoter on the street is giving out free key chains. There is a red key chain and a blue key chain. You are free to choose whichever you like, but there can be no exchanges made after a particular key chain has been chosen. John must decide between the two key chains. He chooses the red key chain. It is not clear to him whether or not the red key chain is the better of the two. In fact, the red key chain might even be a little too flashy for him - John's a low key kind of guy - but the choice has been made and cannot be undone. Soon after John returns home, he feels immediately that he has made the right choice. He sees now that he needs to be a little more boldness in his choice of pocket accessories. Perhaps the blue was even a tad TOO blue for him, not the milder shade that he typically prefers.
Dan seems to believe that this synthetic happiness - what many of us would lean to calling sour grapes - is on par in both quality and authenticity to actual happiness attained by getting what we want. Now, let's change up the situation a bit.
John is free to make a single exchange after his initial decision has been made. John chooses the red key chain. Maybe he goes back to exchange it for the blue one, or perhaps he just decides to keep the red. In either situation, John would suffer from regret of his choice. Why? Because he feels that the other key chain might have been better and the fact that he did not choose it has caused him to be stuck with this inferior colored key chain. No matter what John decides to do after choosing the initial key chain - whether he chooses to exchange for the other color or stick with his initial choice - John will almost certainly be less happy than he would be if the promoter had not allowed the exchange.
So how do we know that synthetic happiness is equivalent to the traditionally defined happiness of western industrial societies - namely, getting what you what? Dan Gilbert performs studies with amnesiacs - patients with korsakoff's who cannot form new memories, and asks them to rank in order a series of Monet paintings from their most to least favorite. He then offers them a printed copy free of charge of one of the two copies that the patient rated in the middle (a 3-4 in a series of 8 paintings). The patient is then asked at a later time to rate the same series of paintings again - the patient has no recollection of the earlier event. What Gilbert found was that on average, most of the amnesiacs tended to rank the painting they previously chose to take home higher while rating the forgone painting at a lower spot than in the previous trial. So for example: if the painting they chose to take home ranked originally at a 3, it would rank a 2 or even 1 in the second trial. Likewise, the painting they chose to forgo might originally have ranked a 4 and now ranks a 6 in the second trial. So even with NO memory of the act of making a choice, the subconscious of these patients has somehow been affected by this "synthetic happiness" of which Gilbert speaks.
So herein lies the million dollar question: Is freedom of choice stripping us away of our chance for happiness?
I know of many people who are constantly plagued by the regret of their life choices. Perhaps it is because the potential alternatives are too many and varied for practical comparison, making it impossible to be certain that the choice made was the perfect, eternal, unwaveringly correct one.
Our industrial society has been built upon the idea that if you give people exactly what they want, they will be happy. Dan Gilbert and many others - yours truly included - believes that this is a false tenet.
Most people do not know exactly what they want. They are limited by the history of their experiences, the reaches of their imagination, and the reality and reasoning behind why they want what they want. To give a person what he/she claims to want is to set that person up for disappointment and self-blame. These people will make choices based on what they believe they want. Yet, when they receive the end result, it is often disappointing because all the choices that were made available have raised the expectation to the level of perfection, and as we all know, nothing is perfect. Moreover, the person has no one to blame but themselves because for better or worse, they are the ones who have made these choices.
This brings to mind a laundry list of other questions.
Are people in moderately developed nations happier on average?
Does the excess of choice play a part in the overabundance of psychiatric illnesses in the developed world?
Were marriages more successful and couples happier back in the day when divorce was socially taboo?
Are rejections easier to handle because you have no choice in the matter?
Does the phrase "It's not you. It's me." actually work, given that it is genuinely expressed?
Do men lose interest after sex because they are immediately reminded of the lost opportunity cost in sleeping with other, potentially better, women? Is this why some women insist on playing hard to get?
Are medical students that go to more expensive schools happier with their career choice because the size of their loans make quitting virtually an impossibility?
What is the perfect amount of freedom in choice?
Do we all just want someone else to do the choosing for us?
posted by Peter at 8:15 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home