Category: Wider Issues

I just watched Nic Marks of the New Economics Foundation’s recent TED talk, which I hope I can embed below. Marks and I both appear have a problem with the amount of media attention that the financial industry gets. For me, I don’t like the contradiction where science writing has to be dumbed down because “people don’t get science,” but the finance section of a newspaper is filled with so much jargon that few people have a clue what it means. He has a slightly different problem – why is it there at all? (or to such a degree, at least)

Why the focus on the strength of currency, the level of the FTSE or DOW; why is this pushed into our awareness so strongly?

Nic argues that these financial measures might not be the best indicator of human progress, quoting the end of Robert Kennedy’s lament against the use of GDP as an index of progress. Here’s RK’s full speech:

And here’s the gist if you can’t watch that video:

“It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country, it measures everything in short, except that which makes life worthwhile. And it can tell us everything about America except why we are proud that we are Americans.”

Furthermore, Nic notes a particular finding – if you know how much energy you use, you tend to use less. ‘Smart Meters’ tend to reduce energy use, he says, and I’m reminded of a study in which people reduced their energy use when they get a letter giving them just that information – and that of their neighbours – and they are using more.

The argument is, why not put different information into mass media reports, bring something else into the forefront of our minds that might more accurately reflect progress – for example, how much energy did America use yesterday, how much did xyz country use? It’s an interesting idea.

It revolves around the Happy Planet Index, (you can find out more and download the reports here http://www.happyplanetindex.org/), which is a measure of happiness compared with resources consumed. Ideally, you’d want to get a high level of happiness, with low resources consumed, but this isn’t what’s happening in much of the world. Costa Rica is the boss in this department, achieving a greater level of happiness as countries like the USA, on only a quarter of the resources.

This might come down to fundamental differences in the values of these countries; how much focus there is on social relationships for instance, something that does not seem to go hand-in-hand with materialistic values.

I like thinking of the implications of this model – combining well-being with ecological efficiency. If you don’t believe in higher powers and life after death (which I suspect is the case…), you’d probably put your own happiness, and the happiness of your family, as one of your most important goals. But you’re also probably a decent, normal person, who also doesn’t want to negatively impact the happiness of other people.

By extension, should this logic include people who don’t yet exist? What’s the point of having a very happy nation if the next generation are unhappy because of it?

Anyway here’s the TED talk so you can see what you think yourself:

“Thousands of candles can be lighted from a single candle, and the life of the candle will not be shortened. Happiness never decreases by being shared.”- Buddha

“L’enfer, c’est les autres” (”Hell is other people”)- Jean-Paul Sartre

What’s your favourite sitcom? Mine has to be Friends, slightly nipping Cheers to the post. Friends is quite an interesting phenomenon; millions of people sit, captivated by a flashing box as they watch the unfolding friendships of fictional people. This is happening instead, perhaps, of the unfolding of their own relationships. Aside from it being hilarious, the great appeal of Friends is that it’s based around a topic we can all relate to – our need and desire for friendship, which is rooted deep in our psychology; it’s part of our nature.

But as time’s gone by, it seems that modern life has gradually reduced the need for other people. A lot about modern life seems to directly compete with building close relationships with others. We have our own TVs, so we don’t rely on each other as much for entertainment. Machines let one person do the job of twenty. There’s even these virtual worlds springing up online; create your own character, log in, and interact with other people who also created their own characters.

You could potentially live in the midst of millions of people without ever seeing another person. Hole yourself up somewhere, do all your shopping online and have it delivered to your doorstep. You might have to see people sometimes, such as if you got sick, but the point is, it’s possible to cut human contact down to a minimum and still survive – all the while, life bustles on around you.

Freedom of choice and technology make this possible. But is it a good idea? People do vary in how much time they like to spend with other people, that much is true. But is there anyone who can be completely alone and get by? If you deprive your body of a basic biological need like food or warmth, there are consequences. Is the same true of a basic psychological need, like relating to others?

Of course it is. Society knows this. If you offend against society, you’re taken to prison, away from the other people. In prison, the worse behaving prisoners are sent to solitary, and denied contact even with the other inmates.

Outside of imprisonment, one of the worst deterrents to certain behaviours is the threat of public branding; you keep your freedom, but lose the acceptance of others. We do a lot to be accepted, and taking away our social ties is not a pleasant experience.

On the other hand, adding to our social ties is a pleasant experience. If you’re not convinced, here are some facts and figures.

One survey found that of people who report they are ‘very happy’, 38% had more than five close friends, whereas 26% had fewer than five. In another study, students who were materialistic, looking for success and money over close friendships were twice as likely to report that they were ‘fairly unhappy’ or ‘very unhappy’ than their less materialistic peers. People with more relationships cope better with bad situations such as bereavement, losing their jobs, or falling ill. The benefits are also physical; people who have more social ties, through friends, family, work, religious groups or other memberships, are more resistant to illness and have longer life spans than those who have fewer relationships. At times when these ties break, such as divorce or losing a job, the immune system weakens for a time.

The conclusion is quite obvious. People: good. No people: bad. As much as modern life encourages less interaction between people, it has failed to replicate its benefits. Having friends around keeps you happier, healthier and more resilient.  It might be worth keeping this in mind, when you’re about to watch that Friends repeat for the 47th time!

Refs:

For a review see: Myers, D. G. (2000). Funds, Friends and Faith of Happy People. American Psychologist. 55(1), 56-67.

“Anybody who thinks money can’t buy happiness doesn’t know where to shop”- Unknown

“Anybody who thinks money will make you happy, hasn’t got money.”  – David Geffen

We humans are obsessed with money.  To many people, it’s a commodity in and of itself.  And it seems we’re gradually getting more obsessed.  In the 1960s, 80% of US college students said it was essential to develop a meaningful philosophy of life, and 40% said it was essential to be very well off financially.  By the mid-1990s, you could reverse those figures.

It seems like many people just want money.  They don’t want to have made a product, provided a service or found some other way to offer value, and have their money reflect the value they have given.  They want money as the end goal, not particularly caring how it was obtained.

Not all people are like that, of course, but a lot are.  And it’s quite natural that they are, given what people think money can do for them.  It’s the Holy Grail, isn’t it?   You get freedom, security, status. But do you get happiness?

Yes!  And no.  It’s complicated.

Money can buy happiness if you don’t have it to start with, and it’s subject to the law of diminishing returns.  It also depends how you spend it. I’ll explain in more detail.

If you live in poverty, it’s likely that many of your basic physical needs aren’t being met.  You might not have an available food or water supply.  You might have inadequate shelter, warmth or safety. In these situations, money absolutely will make you happier.

However, after a certain point, which is somewhere around $10-15k, money has a diminishing effect on happiness. Essentially, once you’re out of poverty and into the middle-class, extra money doesn’t buy much more happiness.  

In 1985 the Forbes 100 wealthiest Americans, each with a net worth over $125m, had their happiness measured by psychologists, and their results turned out to be only slightly higher than the average for the country.  Think about that; the top 100 wealthiest people, out of however-many-millions, were only a little happier than average.
However, when it comes to your bank balance, it’s not the size, but what you do with it that counts. Researchers have found that so-called ‘experiential purchases’, such as a meal out or theatre tickets, resulted in greater happiness than material purchases, like a big screen TV or new shoes. After a while we get used to these material possessions, even bored with them. If you spend £500 on a new TV, you’ll be happy for a while, but then you’ll adapt to it, and it will be the norm for you. When planned obsolescence brings the next technological advancement in television along, suddenly your TV is worse than the norm; it’s not good enough! On the other hand, you don’t adapt to an experience, and the more of them you have, the more ‘memory capital’ you build. Reminiscing on the good times makes people happier, and the more good times you’ve, had the more you have to reminisce on. This is not to mention the social bonds that you can develop through these experiences, which tend to be shared with friends or at least involve other people in some way.

Furthermore, if you use your money to perform acts of kindness for others, it can increase your own happiness, as well as the receiver of your gift.  A researcher measured the happiness of a group of people, and then gave each of them some money, between $5-$20.  Some were asked to spend it on themselves, while some were told to spend it on others.  Then happiness was measured again, and it was the latter group who showed an increase.  

So it seems how much money you earn isn’t as important as how you spend it.  Perhaps the famous quote at the start of this article should read: “those who think money can’t buy happiness, don’t know who to shop for”.

Refs:

Dey, E. L., Astin, A. W., & Korn, W. S. (1991). The American Freshman: Twenty-five year trends. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, University of California, Los Angeles.

Diener, E., Horwitz, J., & Emmons, R. A. (1985). Happiness of the very wealthy. Social Indicators, 16, 263-274.

Dunn, E.W., Aknin, L., & Norton, M. I. (2008). Spending money on others promotes happiness. Science, 319, 1687-1688