Life has many pleasures, like tasty food, soft sheets, the smell of spring, sunlight through leaves, the touch of skin, the sound of a sweet song, etc. And the quality of these experiences vary with the quality of inputs — how much one pays for good food, sheets, etc., and how much one studies which inputs give the best value per price.
The picture one develops reading this website is that most dissatisfaction is bred into us: our ancestors who were more satisfied were less motivated to excel and, on balance, did not contribute as much to our current gene pool.
Of course as an individual, especially one who has had all the kids he is going to, we have no great reason to be carried on the tide of Darwin. Why not learn how to be "spiritual," how to take enjoyment in less- or non-status enhancing ways? The skills we have may have gotten there by helping our ancestors compete and survive, but that is no reason we shouldn't use them just for fun.
My atheist church (Centers for Spiritual Living, Seaside Church in Encinitas CA in particular) certainly move one towards enjoying every moment, "grokkiing" it I would say (as an aging sci fi child). I think a lot of religion may be devoted to helping people enjoy life as an alternative to seeking status.
This is similar to field independence in personality psychology. I have the same experience, preferring to focus on internal, self-generated stimuli rather than external, field-generated stimuli.
Thanks, this was helpful. I think it will nudge me to more often do focused savoring, and also to try to be more conscious of the status effect (in my case I think there are useful puts and takes that your observations suggest).
I'd like to add a point about savoring: It has a context. In my case, if I make a conscious effort to remind myself of bigger contexts while savoring, that tends to increase the pleasure, since (among other reasons) this reminds me that most people are not as fortunate as those near me in space and time, most matter is not even alive, etc. (Yet another reason to get interested in cosmology:-)
(sorry, gotta go else I'd try to make that last paragraph more coherent)
Status symbols largely seem to me to revolve around demonstrations that the person in question lacks the propensity necessary to achieve that status.
I assume the guy driving the brand new luxury car is mortgaged to the hilt and barely making ends meet. Such a spendthrift attitude does not suggest the discipline or drive necessary to achieve substantial success in any sense.
@Poelmo:I'm not sure economists are telling us that.Marketers and manufacturers and the people who profit from that, they are the ones who tell us that "having" makes us happy. (Or, if clever enough, that buying is rebelling.)On the other hand, science tells us that "buying" makes us happy, but not so much "having" (the pleasure of buying is not counteracted by later returning the unused items to the store, apparently)Economists just tell us that buying makes the economy go, which is good for the ecnomy, and good for the aforementioned groups. Some economists will say that a healthy capitalism is useful and necessary for individuals, but not that it will make them "happy" as such.
In other words, you're kind of a snob. Common pleasures aren't good enough for you. Let the commoners have them.
I'm kidding.
Actually, in other words, people can find pleasure in their environment regardless of socio-economic status, assuming basic needs are met, and the key to finding that pleasure is taking the time to appreciate it, or to savor it, as you put it.
To put a negative spin on it, those who aspire to higher status but have not achieved it do not allow themselves to enjoy lower status pleasures and lead generally unhappy lives.
To translate into a time-tested piece of advice, you need to stop and smell the roses once in a while.
Ironic isn't it: collecting more toys makes us happy according to economists, yet, this system leads to us working harder and harder for diminishing returns, having less time to enjoy our toys, which actually makes us unhappy. Meanwhile a tiny elite is laughing their asses off when they bath 24/7 (they don't have to work) in the luxuries the rest of us created for them with our blood sweat and tears...
The picture one develops reading this website is that most dissatisfaction is bred into us: our ancestors who were more satisfied were less motivated to excel and, on balance, did not contribute as much to our current gene pool.
Of course as an individual, especially one who has had all the kids he is going to, we have no great reason to be carried on the tide of Darwin. Why not learn how to be "spiritual," how to take enjoyment in less- or non-status enhancing ways? The skills we have may have gotten there by helping our ancestors compete and survive, but that is no reason we shouldn't use them just for fun.
My atheist church (Centers for Spiritual Living, Seaside Church in Encinitas CA in particular) certainly move one towards enjoying every moment, "grokkiing" it I would say (as an aging sci fi child). I think a lot of religion may be devoted to helping people enjoy life as an alternative to seeking status.
I don't know what weight you put on self-reported happiness surveys, but Justin Wolfers discusses the issue with Robert Frank here.
This is similar to field independence in personality psychology. I have the same experience, preferring to focus on internal, self-generated stimuli rather than external, field-generated stimuli.
I've wondered if that's why people think wine labelled as more expensive tastes better. Believing that the wine is expensive gets them to focus on it.
Thanks, this was helpful. I think it will nudge me to more often do focused savoring, and also to try to be more conscious of the status effect (in my case I think there are useful puts and takes that your observations suggest).
I'd like to add a point about savoring: It has a context. In my case, if I make a conscious effort to remind myself of bigger contexts while savoring, that tends to increase the pleasure, since (among other reasons) this reminds me that most people are not as fortunate as those near me in space and time, most matter is not even alive, etc. (Yet another reason to get interested in cosmology:-)
(sorry, gotta go else I'd try to make that last paragraph more coherent)
Status symbols largely seem to me to revolve around demonstrations that the person in question lacks the propensity necessary to achieve that status.
I assume the guy driving the brand new luxury car is mortgaged to the hilt and barely making ends meet. Such a spendthrift attitude does not suggest the discipline or drive necessary to achieve substantial success in any sense.
@Poelmo:I'm not sure economists are telling us that.Marketers and manufacturers and the people who profit from that, they are the ones who tell us that "having" makes us happy. (Or, if clever enough, that buying is rebelling.)On the other hand, science tells us that "buying" makes us happy, but not so much "having" (the pleasure of buying is not counteracted by later returning the unused items to the store, apparently)Economists just tell us that buying makes the economy go, which is good for the ecnomy, and good for the aforementioned groups. Some economists will say that a healthy capitalism is useful and necessary for individuals, but not that it will make them "happy" as such.
Savoring and gratitude are the two golden highways to happiness.
In other words, you're kind of a snob. Common pleasures aren't good enough for you. Let the commoners have them.
I'm kidding.
Actually, in other words, people can find pleasure in their environment regardless of socio-economic status, assuming basic needs are met, and the key to finding that pleasure is taking the time to appreciate it, or to savor it, as you put it.
To put a negative spin on it, those who aspire to higher status but have not achieved it do not allow themselves to enjoy lower status pleasures and lead generally unhappy lives.
To translate into a time-tested piece of advice, you need to stop and smell the roses once in a while.
@Carl Schulman
Ironic isn't it: collecting more toys makes us happy according to economists, yet, this system leads to us working harder and harder for diminishing returns, having less time to enjoy our toys, which actually makes us unhappy. Meanwhile a tiny elite is laughing their asses off when they bath 24/7 (they don't have to work) in the luxuries the rest of us created for them with our blood sweat and tears...
"its future" rather.
If savoring is costly and can be done without, then it's future looks poor in a hypercompetitive cognitive soup.