The Chief Happiness Officer Blog

Category: Psychology

Inside your head

  • Natural and Synthetic happiness at work – Here’s why you need both

    Natural and Synthetic happiness at work – Here’s why you need both

    This article was written byTais Lyager Rasmussen and Woohoo inc’s newest employee Thomas Christensen .

    What do you do when you do not get the happiness you wanted? You make it yourself!

    As a child growing up, you quickly learn that you do not always get what you want. This is pretty much a fact of life. You wanted the red electronic toy car but instead you got told to use your imagination and go play outside. Your favorite band is playing tomorrow night – sorry, you have to work late.

    Everyone experiences these kinds of situations and everyone hates them. When life fails to match your expectations, for whatever reason, a gap is created between the expectations of your life and the realities of your life.  Obviously, this makes you unhappy, life was revealed to be less than you thought it was. But is this always the case? Research has shown that our ability to cope with unfavorable situations is greater than previously thought – because of a mechanism called synthetic happiness. Synthetic happiness is a form of personal psychological happiness.

    According to Professor of Psychology at Harvard University Dan Gilbert there exist two different kinds of psychological happiness, the natural kind and the synthetic kind. Gilbert explains that: “Natural happiness is what we get when we get what we wanted, and synthetic happiness is what we make when we don’t get what we wanted”. Hang on; is happiness not just the result of getting what you want? Surely it is not something you can just make up yourself. People that say that they are happier about the outcome they did not want are just fooling themselves, right? Well it turns out that it is actually possible to create your own happiness, called synthetic happiness, and that this form of happiness is equally as good as natural happiness.

    The name “synthetic” carries with it some associations that are less than ideal.  A more fitting name would be personal happiness, because the internal validation that adds value to a choice you have already made is just that, internal and personal.

    Dan Gilbert’s fascinating experiment

    Gilbert did an experiment with individuals suffering from anterograde amnesia, a condition making it impossible for them to acquire new memories – think of the movies “50-first dates” or “Memento”. Gilbert approached these individuals and asked them to rank 6 paintings from the one they liked the most to the one they liked the least.

    The idea of synthetic happiness

    Gilbert explained that they would receive a poster of one of the paintings. They could choose between number 3 and 4. Almost all individuals chose number 3, because they liked it a little more than number 4. Gilbert then went out of the room and came back moments later. Since these individuals have anterograde amnesia they could not remember who he was, that he was just in the room or that they owned a poster of painting number 3. He asked them to rank the 6 paintings from the one they liked the most to the one they liked the least. Surely they would rank the paintings in the same general order?

    Actually, individuals now ranked the poster they owned at number 2 (previously ranked 3) and the poster they had said no to (previously number 4) was now ranked number 5. Indicating that these individuals liked the poster they now own more than before they owned it, even when they do not remember that they own it!

    They also like the poster they gave up less, even when they do not remember that they gave it up!

    These startling results indicate that not only can individuals make their own synthetic happiness but they do this unconsciously. Gilbert also found that this unconscious ability to synthesize happiness happens more often in situations where you do not have a say in the matter.

    Dan Gilbert talks about the experiment in this TED talk:

    4 reasons why this is important when thinking about happiness at work

    Before going into the 4 points, a crucial observation must be made. In the experiment presented above, the choice of the pictures is presented in a low risk environment. There are no wrong choices, and no one to criticize their choice once it is made. Obviously this situation does not reflect the reality of most peoples lives. Rather than considering this to be just a criticism, it would be much more prudent to consider it an argument for fostering a low risk environment, so people are less likely to second guess themselves, because it is okay to be wrong.

    1: A happy life is not always about getting what you want. It is about learning to enjoy what you get.

    While this might read like “Don’t worry – be happy”, Gilbert’s experiment allows us to dig a little deeper. When your boss hands you a crappy assignment it is possible to end up feeling genuine personal happiness. Even if you have no choice in accepting the assignment or not because of #2.

    2: Synthetic happiness is not “cheating” yourself to happier. The experiment with the amnesiac patients demonstrates that the happiness created by themselves is true and genuine.

    The idea of “Synthetic” happiness sounds like you are somehow cheating. How can you be happy when your life does not match up to expectations, or the expectations of others. Thinking of “synthetic” happiness as  “personal” or “private” happiness is a much better metaphor. If you find yourself enjoying the crappy assignment your boss gave you, do not think of it as cheating or selling out.  Do not worry, it is allowed to enjoy things you did not choose.

    3: Natural happiness primarily relies on external factors whereas Synthetic happiness primarily relies on internal factors. As such, Synthetic happiness can be a more long-term, stable form of happiness than natural happiness.

    If you have to rely on always getting what you want to be happy there is a good chance that you will be unhappy, since life is unpredictable. Happiness derived from learning to live with any outcome is much more stable in that it is applicable to every outcome and not only those where you obtain what you want.

    4: General happiness in life comes from the relationship between Natural happiness and Synthetic happiness.

    This is probably the most important point. The idea of synthetic or personal happiness is not to suggest that you should be less involved in your decisions or just go with the flow. There is absolutely a time and place to stand your ground. The idea behind the division of happiness is to be more reflective of the idea of happiness. If you know that you can be happy from getting what you want but also from not getting what you want, it will take some of the pressure off on always having to achieve. Enjoying something you were told to do without feeling shameful, or like a quitter, has to go hand in hand with the ability to proactively seek out what you want. This is going to take a lot of practice. Thinking of happiness in these two metaphors can be really difficult, but ultimately rewarding. Having a sense of “personal” happiness that is removed from external factors requires discipline and practice, but it will lead to a happier life.

    Related posts

  • The movie “The Secret” is entirely fake

    I recently saw the movie The Secret, a pseudo-documentary that explains The Law of Attraction. There are things in this movie that need a rebuttal and I haven’t found one elsewhere – so here’s mine.

    The arguments and explanations put forward in The Secret are generally unscientific, mystical, nonsensical or just plain wrong.

    But first, what is The Law of Attraction (TLoA)? Let’s say you’re poor and really want to be rich. Instead of always complaining about being poor and always focusing on what you don’t have, TLoA says that you should visualize yourself as rich. See yourself in this situation. Feel what you would feel if you were in that situation. Then, somehow, money will come to you.

    Simply stated, it is the belief that what you focus on is what you get (or create for yourself), and there is some truth to that – but not for any of the mystical reasons claimed in this terrible movie.

    These are my major beefs with the movie:

    1: The movie claims that famous people knew “the secret”

    The movie indicates that a number of famous people knew “the secret”, including Einstein, Plato, Newton and Edison. However, the movie offers no proof that any of these people knew of, agreed with or used the law of attraction.

    2: The movie claims that TLoA is kept secret

    The movie also claims that the people in power in society and business have long known of this law and worked to keep it from the rest of us. Scenes are shown of people being persecuted for trying to steal the secret and (I assume) bring it out to the rest of us.

    No proof of this is offered and to the best of my knowledge, no conscious effort has ever been made to keep TLoA secret.

    3: The movie talks about electromagnetic waves/vibrations as the explanation for TLoA

    The movie claims that since thoughts are electromagnetic waves, every thought we have spreads to and affects our surroundings, and this is why our thinking affects the universe. The movie repeatedly shows people who, as they visualize their goals, generate a wave or signal that emanates from their heads. In some of the cases, this wave is seen to spread over the entire Earth.

    There are many things wrong with this assertion, primarily the fact that while thoughts are, at least in part, electromagnetic waves, there is no scientific indication that our brain waves alter the world around us in any meaningful way.

    4: The movie uses quantum flapdoodle. Badly.

    The movie also offers explanations from quantum physics as evidence of why TLoA works. I happen to have studied a lot of quantum physics at university, and I can safely say that the explanations offered in the movie are a prime example of what Murray Gell-Mann called quantum flapdoodle, i.e. “hijacking the terminology of modern science without understanding the underlying concepts or employing any of the intellectual rigour intrinsic to scientific inquiry”.

    5: The movie claims that the universe will provide

    But my greatest beef with the movie is the claim that whatever you sit down and imagine in this way, the universe will provide. Almost as if the universe is a big vending machine: Insert sincere wish here, pull out cold coke (or shiny new Ferrari) here.

    That seems to me to be a very mechanical, shallow, self-serving description of the universe.

    The upshot

    I believe that TLoA is sort of real.

    But this is my point: Changing your thinking changes nothing out there, in the vast universe surrounding you. It changes something inside of you. Changing your perception, your focus, your emotions and your thinking from negative to positive (from what you lack to what you want) has an effect on your internal state – your motivation, energy and creativity and that’s why you may then be more efficient working towards your goals. It’s that simple.

    No electromagnetic waves emanate from your head, magically transforming the universe. No mystical vibrations affect your surroundings. Changing your thinking does not change the quantum states of objects around you in any reliable, useful way. The universe doesn’t stand ready to grant your every wish.

    Rather, you change yourself and THEN you change your circumstances. It works through a combination of entirely non-mystical, psychological and rational mechanisms, including confirmation bias and optimism.

    The Secret offers precisely zero evidence that it could ever be otherwise, and instead proposes a number of mystical, unscientific and entirely unproved explanations. That’s why looking to this movie for explanations and insight will weaken your understanding of the TLoA and reduce your ability to successfully employ it.

    So, while the law of attraction is real(ish), “The Secret”, quite simply, is fake!

    PS.
    And don’t get me started on What the Bleep do We Know – that one is even worse :o)

    UPDATE:
    I’ve disabled comments on this blog post because I kept getting personal attacks from fans of The Secret. If you’re a believer in The Secret and you disagree vehemently with this post, I suggest you simply sit down and visualize a world where this article doesn’t exist :)

    Some interesting links:

  • Get lucky at work – be positive

    Unlock your luckMy driving force in business has always been enthusiasm. I’m easily amazed and get curious and fired up about many different things. In fact, I refuse to work on anything that does not grab me in that way.

    I remember one meeting I had with a woman who was… let’s say slightly less positive. At one point in the meeting, she said “You’re very positive, arent you?” I had to agree, that that was indeed so. It was only after the meeting that I realized that she’d meant it as criticism :o)

    Positivity has been getting a bad rap at work. If you’re too positive you can be accused of being pollyannaish, uncritical, unrealistic, silly, etc… “Well,” some people say, “it’s all very good for you to be so optimistic but some of us have to work in the real world.”

    And while there are many great reasons to be more positive at work, there’s one I’d like to mention specifically:

    Being positive at work means you get lucky at work.
    (no, not in that way)

    Yes, it’s true: Being positive makes you lucky.
    (more…)

  • Easter links

    Easter’s here and I’ll be taking the rest of the week off (I need a vacation after my last vacation :o). Meanwhile, here are some cool links:

    Sad monkeyDepressed monkeys. Yep, macaques can get the blues too. Research in this can increase our understanding of depression and open new possibilities for research.

    The Slow Leadership blog offers excellent tips on how to kill creativity. It’s depressingly(!) easy.

    Video of the most amazing Rube Goldberg-like devices. Now that’s creative. A word of warning: Turn down the sound, or the repetitive, japanese, childrens-tv-theme will drive you to desperation inside of 45 seconds.

  • The proven path to happiness

    Positive psychology can make you happier and this article by Martin Seligman et al proves it (pdf). With diagrams! The paper studies a number of very simple actions (eg. writing down three positive things each day) and shows that they work very well.

    Martin Seligman is the author of the excellent book Learned Optimism (read my review here) and the founder of the positive psychology movement which is based on the idea that psychology should focus more on what makes people happy, rather than focusing solely on curing mental illness. Makes sense to me :o)

  • Happy links

    What do you have to do to find happiness. A great, comprehensive article on the science of being happy.

    Wire up the right area of the brain, press a button, and hey presto – you’re happy. Is that as real as “real” happiness?

    Can technology cure fear? And should it, even if it could?

  • Goal-free living

    At the WorldBlu forum I had the pleasure of talking to Stephen Shapiro who just finished writing a book on goal-free living which is coming out in january 2006.

    As soon as Stephen mentioned “goal-free living” a flash-bulb went of in my mind, and I knew what he meant. I also knew that this is what I’ve been doing for the last 3 years, I just haven’t had a name for it. Here’s how Stephen introduces goal-free living:

    We are taught from a young age that in order to achieve great success we must set and achieve our goals. However in doing so, we become focused on where we are going rather than enjoying where we are right now. We sacrifice today in the hope that a better future will emerge, only to discover that achievement rarely leads to true joy. Goal-Free Living presents an alternative philosophy – that we can have an extraordinary life now, all without goals and detailed plans. By living for each moment, it?s possible to have a successful life and follow your passions at the same time.

    YES! 3 years ago I left the IT business with no new plans in mind. I gave my self some time off, and never once though consciously about what I should do next. After about 3 months an inspiration came to me, and The Happy at Work Project grew out of that. Also, for the 3 years we’ve been running the project, we’ve been goal-free. Rather than setting strategies, plans, targets, measures and budgets, we’ve done our best to cultivate every opportunity that came along and to create some ourselves. So while Stephen’s book focuses on the personal sphere, I’m here to tell you that it works just as well in a business setting!

    His book gives you 8 major tips on how to live goal-free:

    – Use a compass, not a map
    – Trust that you are never lost
    – Remember that opportunity knocks often, but sometimes softly
    – Want what you have
    – Seek out adventure
    – Become a people magnet
    – Embrace your limits
    – Remain detached

    That is quite simply brilliant thinking. Read more about goal-free living here.

    One of the high points of the forum was when Stephen took the stage and gave a goal-free presentation about goal-free living. He’d originally intended to talk about a different theme, and had nothing prepared on goal-free living, but a few other conference attendees dared him to do it. Needless to say he nailed it, and the goal-less nature of his presentation underscored and validated the message.

  • Procrastination

    Sometimes “you really should do X” but you don’t. Here’s some excellent advice from AmbivaBlog for all of us procrastinators:

    According to “archetypal psychologist” James Hillman, who at some point dissolved my own suicidal feelings of frustration and failure into laughter, procrastination is a “disease” only from the point of view of the heroic ego, which believes it can and should control everything — first discipline the self, then save the world. (“Enormous inner strength and will!” “The fight of your life, for the rest of your life!”) Procrastination is one of the signs of the soul at work, undermining and sabotaging the grandiose aspirations of the hero-ego, perhaps so that something real can happen, or not happen, as it, not I, wish. In Hillman’s work procrastination means uncountably many things to the soul. It’s an intrinsic part of the work process, resisting the pen the way the knots in wood resist and redirect the chisel; it’s like the dance of avoidance all animals do on the way to their most primal gratifications, building up the intensity of mating or fighting by postponing it. It’s much like the way we turn red-faced and flee from the very person we’ve fantasized confessing our love to, or the way we eagerly look forward to going “home” and then sink into a ghastly regressive lethargy, binge-eating on our parents’ couch, because what the soul wants is something less literal than we think we want. And one of the things it wants, and loves, is its problems, which Hillman says are like heraldic emblems.

    Read the entire excellent post here.

    I often berate myself for not just getting the stuff done I need to do… but I also find that I can force myself to do it, and it turns out to be difficult, or I can wait until he right moment (whatever that is) and suddenly it’s so easy, it feels as if the work does itself. On the other hand, sometimes I DO force myself to do it and it also turns out to be easy :o)

  • Why do we play at war

    Bernie DeKovens Funlog is my favourite source of play ideas (such as no-ball football or junk games). Occasionally even he gets serious, for instance when answering this question:

    Why do people enjoy meeting in cyberspace to engage in simulated warfare, with games like Halo and War Craft? Why do people want to spend their time “killing” each other as a pastime?

    His answer is classic:

    – we play war because we need to play with it – there’s no other way to integrate such an awful reality into our understanding of the world. it is too ugly, too irrational, too stupid for us to grasp in any other way.

    – we know we’re not really hurting anyone or anything, we know that we can’t really die, and without that knowledge, we couldn’t have fun

    – we can trust each other if we all know that we’re trying to kill each other, that the very worst in us is not hidden or subsumed by any other attempts at being human, so when we meet, we can meet above all that

    I enjoy this view because it is appreciative without romanticizing anything. War games of many kinds have been with us for as long as we have been human, and according to Bernie, this is not a bad thing to be avoided or outlawed. There’s more: Read the entire answer here.

  • Spot the fake

    Can you tell a real smile from a fake one? I got 13 out of 20, which is barely better than just guessing.