Talk:Happiness/Archive 1

Mechanistic view - In humans
"To look at it in a simple way, happiness is when reality is better than your dreams."

This sentence has been around for quite a while. It is poetic and makes a lot of sense. Keeping in line with the Wikipedia philosophy lets put an ugly "citation needed" sticker to this, because it smacks of original research.--210.212.8.61 17:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Subjations - The Complete Theory of Happiness and Other Emotions
One can immediately perceive that the page for Happiness in the Wikipedia is incomplete. For example, it does not attempt to explain humor or teasing which are well-known and obvious occurences of Happiness. The following is the theory of Happiness in relation with the other emotions. It is based on the subject of subjects and relations.

A subject is a cross-utilized unit of a generalization. A relation occurs if more than one subject is combined together. Related subjects do not combine for the same reason that unrelated subjects do not separate (the Base Rule). With a relation there is hierarchy. Also, a relationship itself can be given a subject. Such a subject is extrinsic to the relationship. Conversely, the subjects in the relationship are intrinsic to the extrinsic subject.

When subjects combine and form a relationship a field exists. If the subjects have nothing to do with people they are functional relationships. Without the function there is no reason for the relationship. If the subjects do have to do with people the field is happiness. This field exists in three different types:

"1stC" - occurs when a relationship is formed. Here the extrinsic subject is     created. (The C stands for combination.) "2ndC" - occurs when subjects are combined with an existing relationship. Here the extrinsic subject already exists. "3rdC" - occurs as the back and forth dynamics between relationships. Here more than one extrinsic subject is involved. There are also two other types of field: "LvgC" - resembles a lever, the relative lowering of a subject in a   relationship causes the relative increase of the other related subjects. This also could be known as 'apatheticC'. Subjects on opposite sides of the lever are apathetic to each other. "ContentmentC" - is the relative position a subject has in a relationship.

These are the five types of happiness, there are no others. Unhappiness is, of course, the same but only with separation instead of combination. The other emotions can be explained in this system as follows:

Nervousness - anticipation of a combination; Worry - anticipation of a separation; Shyness - excessive Nervousness; Fear - excessive Worry; Pride - above Contentment; Shame - below Contentment; Dignity - empathetic Pride; Honor - the action toward Dignity; Jealousy - apathetic Pride; Envy - the action toward Jealousy; Modesty - empathetic Shame; Humility - the action toward Modesty; Pity - apathetic Shame; Disgust - the action toward Pity; Expectation - future Contentment; Standard - past Contentmen;t Surprise - empathetically or apathetically above Expectation; Embarrassment - empathetically below Standard; Disappointmnet - apathetically below Standard; Elation - excessive Surprise; Sadness - excessive Disappointment or Embarrassment; The name for this theory is Subjations which is a blend of the words subjects and relations. This is something that is fixed in the psychology of cognizant individuals. For some reason, it's never been thought of and written about before. I'm posting this here so people will know that it exists. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.5.122.77 (talk • contribs) 2004-01-15 07:18:31 (UTC)

My remarks on happiness being akin to reinforcement
I am new, don't know if I have to explain my reasons for adding stuff, but I will anyway. :)

I was surprised there was no reasonable "mechanical" definition of happiness here. The only one listed was then mentioned to be "questionable". Personally it doesn't even make sense to me, growth and evolution seem to be marginally (at best) related to happiness. If it was up to me, I would remove that definition, but I don't want to step on toes.

Instead I presented what, to me, is the only "obvious" definition of what happiness is without giving a circular or subjective definition ("happiness is when you feel good" -- "but what is good?" -- "something that causes people to be happy" etc). Because my definition could apply to machines I felt it made it more objective, hence the extended example of machine happiness.


 * Happiness is, in my mind, usage. However this may apply more to machines than to people, as humans have no immediately obvious purpose. A good example may be a link on certain search engines: it "likes" to be clicked on, as this makes the page appear higher on the list, therefore pages strive (though passively) to be as high as possible.


 * A definition that's more likely to be agreed with is a goal state which entities strive for (maybe passively, as in the inanimate such as our link)--even Oscar the Grouch :-) --Ihope127 20:23, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

More changes
I tried to make the "mechanistic" section a little less controversial (as well as fleshing it out a bit), by concentrating most of the discussion on simple animals and even simple objects like magnets -- not to imply that such things actually experience happiness as we do, but to simply discuss the utility of the concept in discribing states of non-human entities. In other words, I am not trying to say "happiness is nothing more than a simple physical equilibrium state" (which some may take issue with! :) ), but that the concept of equilibrium or stability is essential in objectively differentiating happiness/pleasure from its opposite state of unhappiness/pain, and the more analogies to simpler forms, the more we can speak of happiness in an objective way.

I didn't concentrate as much on the specific biochemistry, because I am a bit out of my league there, but I felt that any discussion of the concept should at least mention neurotransmitters, dopamine, and endorphines. If nothing else, those terms are linked to articles that are heavier on the specifics of the biochemistry, but it would be good if an expert on the subject added some details here.

-rob

Since no one objected to or commented on my previous changes, I went ahead and removed a section that I think was redundant with my additions (the section where it was suggested that happiness could mean evolution or growth). I also reorganized things somewhat (moving the biological basis for happiness under the "mechanistic" section rather than being a section of its own). And, I added a reference to the mechanistic view in the introdutory paragraph.


 * I added the Positive Psychology 'definition' of happiness. Can you quote sources for your 'mechanistic view of happiness'? I think one kind of happiness might involve an equilibrium state, but whatabout someone doing an exciting sport? Their body will be pumped with endorphins and adrenalin which surely moves their state far from equilibrium. This is indicated by the adrenalin & endorphins being reduced when they stop the activity. So in moving towards equilibrium they are likely to become less happy!

The article does not imply equlibrium in the way you seem to mean it. It uses the term equilibrium to indicate a state of "tending to stay as is". Example: a hungry dog sitting next to a piece of meat is "unstable", while the same dog happily chowing down is at equilibrium -- it will tend to continue eating until eating is no longer pleasurable, or there is no more food.

To extend this to someone who is happy doing sports, the way it applies is that a person who likes sports, and continues to participate in them, is at an equlibrium (in a long term sense). Someone who likes them, but isn't doing them for whatever reason, is in an unstable state and prone to change. Nothing more. The various other equilibriums or non-equilibriums involved (such as chemical processes within their body, or the physical processes that act upon someone doing a sport) are not relevant.

Humans (as well as AI computers like the search engine example given) can better apply rewards to later actions (compared to lower animals, or of course things like magnets). That is called learning. So in humans, it may look less like a simple equilibrium, but it still is a long term equilibrium, with the reward causing a repeat of the causative action, but possibly at a much later time.

Fixed the entry "friends" under "social ways [of acheiving happiness]" so that it no longer links to the article for the TV show "Friends," whose status as a happiness-causing agent is open to dispute. --Theogon

Formula of Happiness
I'd propose a short definition of happines (though I came to it myself, I think its just summary of what I've read and experienced - I like maths :)

Happiness is state when You can do, what You want" or mathematically: (Your_wishes < Your_possibilities_and_abilities) = Happiness

I also added a section of resources about Happines, especially "Happiness Formula" (though it isn't directly realated to the definition of happiness proposed by me ;) http://www.stefanklein.info/en/texte.html

-Jurgis aka dz0

"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community,   against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient    warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so,    because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right.    These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating    him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise. Over himself,    over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign." -- John Stuart Mill, "On Liberty", 1859

Nuances
In English, the word happiness is not equivalent to the words joy or glee. Those words have a Dionysian connotation which is not at all meant, say, as in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In this phrase, which comes from the US Declaration of Independence, the word has a more rationalist basis. Thus happiness, in English, is associated with a smile, whereas joy or glee might well be associated with a laugh. Ancheta Wis 16:31, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dopamine Purpose
I thought the dopamine is actually a neurotransmiter for wanting and not the pleasure itself? in this article it is written as the dopamine being the cause for hapiness in chemical terms, i know it also says it is not exactly determined but still. User:Damjancd

Dopamine generally stimulates satisfaction and physical pleasure (as well as the ego) and is often referred to as a 'reward' neurotransmitter. Serotonin is probably closer to being a 'happiness' neurotransmitter as it influences overall wellbeing and psychological contentment.

Achieving happiness?
This bunch of emotions and behaviors under this heading seems very strange to me. I am changing ths section title to "Behaviours and emotions associated with happiness" &asymp; jossi &asymp; 15:52, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Describing what in terms of what, now?
From the article:

Happiness as a simple physical equilibrium
Conceptually, a reasonable -- if oversimplified -- way of viewing happiness might be to describe it as an equilibrium state, in which an entity has been drawn towards and, once there, has a tendency to stay "as is". For instance, two magnets joined positive to negative can be casually described as being "happy" in that state. Two magnets with positive forced against positive are unstable and strongly prone to change -- analogous to a person with his hand forced against a hot iron -- and thus might be described as being "unhappy". While we don't really think magnets are experiencing happiness per se, the term, as well as other anthropomorphisms which express a tendency toward a certain state ("try", "want", and especially "attract") are nonetheless useful and intuitive in describing the stability of a physical object or system.

This isn't describing happiness in terms of physics, as it claims in the first sentence; it is describing physics in terms of happiness. Shall we transplant it to metaphor or anthropomorphism or some such place? (Guess I'd better run off and see if there's an article on cognitive linguistics ... it seems that would be a good match.) Comments?

Also, magnets don't have positive and negative ends. They have north and south. Electric dipoles have positive and negative ends. Nobody re-post this text without fixing that. eritain 17:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I have to agree that this is just using 'happiness' as a metaphor for being at rest/equilibrium. Or perhaps a way of anthropomorphing inanimate objects--my bowling ball is happy when it(I) gets a strike?  I don't think this adds anything to the description of happiness, it's just a way of using the existing meanings in a metaphor.  WhiteC 02:57, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If someone can propose two forces that are in balance precisely when, and only when, happiness is found, then there is something to the equilibrium theory of happiness (as mentioned in the first sentence of the disputed paragraph). Otherwise all that's going on (and it is interesting!) is what happens in the rest of the paragraph: We use our 'ascription of desire and fulfillment' routines instead of our 'Newtonian physics' routines, because they are compiled in, and so they run a lot faster and have special privileges in I/O. (Or sometimes because the 'Newtonian physics' routines are still buggy and sometimes flat-out hang.) I say we give it a few days and see if anyone comes up with an opposed pair of emotional forces as described -- then get the other interesting stuff here backed up with some citations and moved into conceptual metaphor

Illusory Understanding
I love how casually people write about the "pleasentness" of pleasure, or the "unpleasentness" of pain, as if there were no need to worry about how exactly dopamine magically turns into "pleasentness". The article's assertion that we may one day be able to objectively measure happiness by measuring dopamine levels is so naive as to be positively adorable. Oh yes and opiate drugs "cause" happiness. Whoever wrote this passage obviously needs to visit their local ghetto.

The article also seems to imply that current technology will one day evolve into a form capable of happiness. While this may be true in the general sense of "technology", it needs to be made clear that turing machines, which comprise all modern-day computing technology, are by themselves utterly incapable of genuine intelligence or emotion. Modern attempts at "AI" would be more aptly named "Illusory Intelligence".

The problem is not in attempting to understand such things as happiness. The problem is when we think we know much more than we really do. The great acheivments of science tend to obscure the fact that our understanding of both quantum reality and complex systems is extremely limited. This becomes excruciatingly clear when it is realized that by "complex system" we really mean any system consisting of 3 or more dynamic interactions, hence the "three-body problem" in chaos theory.

This article and the discussion going on here need a serious dose of humility. The entire article from the psychological section on down is pretty worthless. The psychology section is good for what it is, unfortunately what it is is one psychologist's theory from one book. The Nuances section I think needs to be up in the initial definition. The statement "happiness cannot be bought" is pretty well contradicted by the next statement about situations well planned for (expensive vacation, for instance?). Dopamine should be discussed as a correlate of desire, not happiness. The freaking dopamine article itself points out that dopamine can be released when aversive stimuli is presented. I don't know how to even begin going about editing the article, but it needs to make clear at least these things:

1. We have not the faintest clue what consciousness is or how it is brought about, much less how it could be made to feel "pleasent" or "unpleasent". These words rest on foundationalist epistomologies, not on understanding. 2. From the very beginnings of human history man has sought to bring about happiness in himself, and yet a simple glance around at the world informs us he has not been very successful. 3. Yet happiness has been investigated extensively by the greatest minds in history, and their views deserve more discussion about WHY happiness is a philosophical issue. In fact it could be said that most of philosophy is really about how to bring about happiness.

As for the guy with the subjations article, if anything this should be it's own topic, presented as a new theory of happiness.

well i'm going to make some of the more minor edits, and wait to see what people say before doing anything major.

Pseudosciences
Pseudoscience/Cult approaches like "Psicanica", "Subjations" or anything else with a goofy name (Scientology/Dianetics, etc) I think belongs in it's own article. Articles about a mainsteam topic like "Happiness" should stick to mainstream views that can cite public references. In general if a system can only cite one company or organization or publisher for it's references, it should probably be regarded as a pseudoscience. Mainstream sciences demonstrate wider appeal by publication in multiple journals, books by multiple authors etc.

I Consider this a Good Article
Hi, I'm new to the Wikipedia community. My biggest criticism of the discussion page is this: it seems no matter how good an article is, it recieves harsh criticism from at least one person. While I don't contend that this is the best written article I've ever seen, it is certainly worthy of praise. Both the simplicity and depth of the writing seemed to have gone unnoticed by those who question its merit. For instance, the person who wrote "Illusory Understanding" (two sections above) clearly doesn't appreciate the time that was spent writting this article. After all, it is much easier to criticize an entry than to write one yourself. Statements such as "The entire article from the psychological section on down is pretty worthless." are simply uncalled for. As a community wikipedians (is that how you say it?) are simply too harsh with each other. Knowledge is a gift we should all share, and as such, I suggest we all respect each other's work much more. While criticism is all right, please avoid completely denouncing an article that has merit - constructive and kind comments are prefered. So in the future, please cut the author some slack - especially in an article such as this. Happiness is very difficult to define and is quite general, as such, it is impossible to write a "perfect" article on it.

Happiness and its Causes. Simple explanation related to Biology Sports and Neuroscience
While the encyclopedia relates happiness to the standard of living of a person, this might not be entirely truthful.

Exceptions: Curt Cobains Suicide (Band: Nirvana)

I am interested in approaches from Neuroscience.

My own definition would be:

Happiness can be perceived at different levels of consciousness.

Happiness as an achievment: a rather abstract perception of the fulfillment of "dreams" through own efforts. Goals of persons tend to evolve taking the individuals own context into account. A young man with an athletic body might want to be successfull in sports because of many reasons. There is the short term increase in hormone levels as a physical cause from his training that causes a short-term happiness associated with clearly perceptible chemical changes in his brain that allow the neurones of his brain to establish synapsis and to transmit electricity. The chemicals repsonsible for synapsis are K+ and others. The neuronal network of a human being extends to the entire body. His joy is to be reflected on his facial and corporal expressions. The short-term joy has very strong connection to the older parts of the brain, situated in the lower - back part of the brain, close to the region where nerves emerge from the medular spine.

Every person, even being not very athletic at all could experience his joy, restricted by its body "not being in shape" and not being capable to perform exercises with that level of intensity.

Real life demonstrates, howewer, that this short - term joy does not cause every individual to convert into athletes. Obviously, there are "higher" goals. The athletic young man is going to continue his career, if the alternative gains and costs compared to practicing any other activity seem to be higher for him. At this point other considerations must be made. Some valuable Thaughts are available from the psychologist Abraham Maslow and his hierarchy of needs.

Presumably the young man would pursue a sports career only if he could obtain a better looking body than normal people could. Other factors would probably also have an influence on his decision, like if he could get famous and have a positive reward getting "social recognition".

Therefore a more abstract, subtle and complex conception of happiness is true for the long term.

The happiness of our athlete is a combination of short term stimulies in the evolutionary older regions of his brain which we have in common with the other animals, and thougthful associations in the lateral and or front regions of his brain which are evolutionarily newer, and typical for mankind.

On a psychologic level, considerations have a strong connection with the social envirionment, his own socioeconomic level, family values, etc. Maslov's considerations like need for love and recognition start playing a role.

Happiness is a complex experience associated with all our levels of consciousness, feelings and knowledge.

Does this seem strange to anyone?
"If the person who wrote the text were the same than the one who posted the picture she would both have a high emotional and rational intelligence." It's at the end of the biological basis section under mechanistic views.

Happiness, Dopamine, and Pleasure
Happiness is not the same thing as pleasure. Dopamine, as suggested above, does not equate to pleasure or happiness. Happiness is deserves its own article, seperate from pleasure. This should be the first fundamental change.

Dopamine is not just related to pleasure motivation and reward, it is also a movement disorder, and has cognitive influences as well. In other words, the ventral dopaminergic system is taken to be a system of "goal directed behavior" and the dorsal dopaminergic system is taken to be a movement system. The two are related, of course, but to equate these two with happiness is an indicator of an amateur in the realm of philosophical neuroscience. I don't know how to define happiness, but perhaps we can get some more philosophical opinions on the subject. --Reid 02:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Semantic problems
Cut the bulk of the intro:
 * The definition of happiness is one of the greatest philosophical quandaries. Proposed definitions include freedom from want and distress, consciousness of the good order of things, assurance of one's place in the universe or society, inner peace, and so forth. More generally, though, it can be defined as the state which humans and other animals are behaviorally driven towards, to counter external forces which would otherwise lead to the unhappiness of sobriety (and presumably eventual death by boredom).

This conflates the cause of happiness with the definition of happiness. Excuse me for being pedantic, but we need to give our readers a plain answer to the question, "What is happiness?"

Another problem is that the "state" sentence asserts that humans are animals, which is something at least 40% of Americans would disagree with. Better say humans like animals to sidestep endorsement of the biological view. Uncle Ed 18:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Alternatives to Hedonism
I added a little bit on the subject, but I think someone with more experience editing ought to add a bit more about the philosophical conception of happiness as Eudaimonia and Flourishing. I know that hedonism is massively prevalent in contemporary thought, but something ought to be said about the classical definition of happiness. Whether happiness and pleasure are the same thing is one of the oldest debates in western thought, and although hedonism seems to be on top right now, the debate should not be ignored if we are going to seriously treat the topic of the ontological status and nature of happiness. As well, something ought to be said in defense of non-reductionism; that is to say that defining happiness or even pleasure purely in biological terms is controversial at best, and I think utterly mistaken. The viewpoint of those who still believe in the mind, consciousness, and free will should at least be expressed, as we are not so small a minority yet.

Spinozistic Definition of Joy
JOY is an increase in the probability of your Perpetuation. Its intensity is proportional to the increase. Yesselman 14:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

List of behaviors and emotions.
Although much of this article is decent, this particular list could stand to be reworked; I have added an appropriate boilerplate. There is miscategorization, redundancy, and so forth present among the links within it. It has alot of potential, but the current form confused me when I first read over it. Also, are six categories necessary?

Examples: Kissing under Emotional (why not Physical?), "Romantic relationships and Romance" (excessive), random reference to Epicurus at the bottom. Joshfist 15:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Happiness in Non-Human Animals section
Is there any scientific basis for any of that? Sources please. -- 2nd Piston Honda 06:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

ok then.............. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.12.22.57 (talk &bull; contribs).

Happiness not synonymous with pleasure
This article makes the assumption that happiness is the same as sensual pleasure. This is the idea of hedonism. Happiness is not pleasure. Pleasure is just enjoyment from an outside stimulus, it is a brief moment of joy from external stimulation. Pleasure is brief and fleeting. Happiness is long-term fulfillment of self, and it is ultimately a state one chooses. A distinction should be made. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Quantum bird (talk &bull; contribs).
 * The Terminology section appears to address the above concern. Is there more to add? The Rod 21:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Mystical (religious, spiritual & mythological) view

 * "Explanation of happiness in mystical traditions, especially in advanced spiritual techniques is related to full balance (conjunction, union, "secret marriage") of so called inner energy lines (energy channels of a soul or deepest dimension of the human): nadi (hindu), gimel kavim (hebrew), pillars, columns, gnostic ophis or caduceus. In balanced state two main lines (left & right, Ida & Pingala) form third line, called Shushumna or lashon hakodesh (hebr.). Speaking technically (full) activity of this third or central line is happiness. Left and right lines include all aspects of normal human life: sleep and awake, body and mind, physical and spiritual and so on. To attain balanced state of these 2 lines is a main task of life - a paradoxical result of all kinds of activities and endeavours combined with full relax or tranquillity at the same time."

WTF is this section doing in the article? It seems to be one person's account of his or her own wacky "mystical" views rather than anything we should be reporting in an encyclopedia article. Plus it doesn't make sense. Anyone else for deleting it?

positive psychology
I don't like the inclusion of the table called "positive effect study" or the paragraph on "positive psychology." Is it really necessary, informative and valuable to put these things in the article? It is clearly dubious and sophistical information. I believe that since this article is part of an unbiased encyclopedia, it should only include factual or historical information such as a definition or a detailed history of the term and the thought that surrounds it. It should not by any means include any mystical, spiritual, philosophical or psychological views on how to find or achieve happiness, since such views are not universal, but are based on individual views and biases. This also means that I think the "mystical views" paragraph should be deleted.

On the whole, I think this article could be made better by giving it a focus. If all the people involved could agree on a practical, sensible, universal definition of happiness, we could put it just in front of the largely etymological information someone has already written, and then the writing in the body could refer to this definition and expand on it. I think a good example of an emotion article is anger. The reason why I like it is because it starts with a definition and it offers a lot of facts about the emotion, synonyms, and other interesting things. Maybe we can do something similar with the happiness article.

user:razorgod &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Razorgod (talk &bull; contribs) 2006-03-09 05:45:00 (UTC)
 * I mostly agree. Note that I already changed the intro to describe less of the etymology of happiness, but the intro could clearly use more work. The Rod (&#9742; Smith) 06:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I added a paragraph on western society's definition of happiness. Feel free to improve or add onto it. Also, if someone is from a different society, and/or their idea of happiness is different, it would be great if they could share their knowledge.Razorgod


 * I think the table should certainly be taken out. There have been thousands of happiness-related studies, with many different and often conflicting results, and just including this one survey will make people think its results are somehow reliable & representative of the whole mass of data, which it can't possibly be. So I have taken it out; here it is for posterity.Ben Finn 11:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It is published in Science, one of the world's most prestigious peer-reviewed journals. Add other studies is questioning the results. Ultramarine 13:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think Smoking Pot should be in this list too



Western happiness
The definition of happiness in Western society is inaccurate. The ideals listed are generally thought to cause or allow happiness, but they are not in themselves happiness, and we in the West are all familiar with the phenomenon of rich people who are not happy, etc. Rather, the West thinks of happiness as joy, pleasure, etc., as described in the following section on psychology. I would suggest removing or clarifying the society section. 3/29/06 163.192.21.46 16:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I wrote that article, and even though I am aware of its limitations, I still think it has value. The problem with happiness is that it is so difficult to define. What I was trying to do (but admittidly failed at) was to describe the different perspectives on happiness. My original intention was to go farther than western society: to describe happiness defined by other cultures, countries, individuals, religions, and even throughout history, but when I attempted to do so I found out how terribly insufficient my knowledge of all of these aspects of society actually is. So you may delete it if you wish, but I think the action that would most benefit the encyclopedia would be to ameliorate and rework what is already there and maybe even add a section about something you are passionate about, or an expert in, such as happiness according religion, or according different cultures. You're also welcome to change what I've written completely. As to what you commented about, that some rich people are not always happy, there are studies, none that I can reference offhand, that have found that the likelihood of being happy increases when people get richer, although I do realize that this is not necessarily always the case.Razorgod

capture of happiness?
As an asperger, i sense that the facial expression of the picture presented is fake. He did good in achieving the lines by his eyes, but the smile is fake. I read somewhere that neurotypicals are blind to these things, no source and no real way to prove this though. Faking happiness is obviously important to people.


 * As a "neurotypical", I think that smile is a bit fake too. Fionah 14:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Quotes
I found a few quotes that attempt to define happiness:


 * Happiness comes when your work and words are of benefit to yourself and others. (Buddha)


 * Happiness is as a butterfly which, when pursued, is always beyond our grasp, but which if you will sit down quietly, may alight upon you. (Nathaniel Hawthorne)


 * There is only one happiness in life, to love and be loved. (George Sand)


 * The happiness that is genuinely satisfying is accompanied by the fullest exercise of our faculties and the fullest realization of the world in which we live. (Bertrand Russell)

They're old so probably out of copyright. I can add them if other people think they are relevant. Fionah 14:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The best place for those quotes is Happiness. This article can then link to that page (using ). The Rod (&#9742; Smith) 01:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Quotes
Looking at this article, I was looking for a phylosophical version of the definition of happiness, as well as develoment on the subject from that point of view (for example, Aristotle defined our goal to be happiness in life).--DragonFly31 15:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

What's up with the dufus eating the sandwich?


Is this article about happiness or food? (I suppose for some people they are one and the same.) How about the little girl smiling instead? I think it's a much better picture, and very appropriate. dbtfz talk 05:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd vote for the little girl too! Fionah 13:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC) Oh, just checked the main page. I like the kid as well. I guess kids good, sandwiches not so good. Fionah 13:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I've added that picture to the top just now - I didn't actually see this section until now, I followed the link to commons pages rather and came upon the same one. I think it fits quite well with the article, and as you guys seem happy with it, there doesn't seem any problem with using it. It was also a featured picture, and wasn't used a lot, so I think this makes a nice home for it. Richard001 08:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Main definition
"Happiness is a prolonged or lasting emotional or affective state that feels good or pleasing."

This is not even close to an agreed upon statement in psychology. Some argue (quite convincingly) that happiness is a cultural construct--a way of acting rather than an "emotional state", with prescribed situations in which it is appropraite, and prescribed responses. Can we try to give some sense that this is unsettled in the article?

As people higher up on the page have mentioned, there's something potentially circular (and certainly uninformative) about saying happiness is something that "feels good," because the obvious question is what it means to "feel good."

Odd Statement
Reading the Terminology of happiness section, I noticed these two odd sentences

''Happiness is the opposite of all this. Happiness is when you feel like the world has come down on your shoulders and there is no hope left.''

Seems to me someone has put this on for their own reasons, and not for the good of the article. It definitely does not strike me as a statement that would explain happiness; it looks more like sadness and hopelessness to me.

VANDALISM!
I deleted it, but beneath the religious and mythical and whatnot section someone wrote "OFFENSIVE PIE WAS HERE." This is not the first time I have caught such an action. The Person Who Is Strange 02:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Update: Again some idiot has added some links under the subsection "Societal theories of happiness" and i have deleted it.

The ugly little kid on the front page
The first picture that we see is of that ugly little red headed shirtless kid. He's very ugly, and the picture is blurred. He looks like some weird alien. Could somebody please remove the hideous picture and use something better? I'm not trying to be vandalous or prude or critical or offensive, I'm simply using words that describe the situation best.

I agree. Do you have any suggestions for a better picture?

I think it is a good picture. He is obviously very happy, which is entirely appropriate. Nicolharper 16:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Medications that cause happiness
I wandered around medline to find a reference to a medication that causes happiness among normal people. There are numerous others but Prozac as well as Yasmin have supporting literature. Yasmin makes women happier on a well being Item I urge people to bring quantity n vigor to this section.

Money & Happiness
The article currently states:
 * money does not appear to increase happiness

This Pew Research Center report published this year finds there is positive correlation between money and happiness, at least in the US, although of couse that does not prove causation in either direction (money makes people happy or happy people are more capable of making money). Pretzelpaws 00:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Introduction
''Happiness is an emotional or affective state that feels good or pleasing. Overlapping states or experiences associated with happiness include wellbeing, joy, sexual pleasure, delight, health, safety, contentment and love, while contrasting ones include suffering, sadness, grief, anxiety, and pain. Associated behaviors include smiling and laughter. Happy people are characterized by the belief that they are able to control their situation (destiny). Unhappy people tend to believe that they are a toy of fate. Happiness is directly correlated to the presence of favorable events (such as a promotion, a marriage, lottery winnings etc.) and the absence of troubles or bad luck (such as accidents, getting fired, divorce, conflicts etc.). Happiness, therefore, is dependent upon where we are on the river of self-knowledge.''

Societies, religions, and individuals have various views on the nature of happiness and how to pursue it.

I have some problems with this introduction. The first issue is with these lines:

''Happy people are characterized by the belief that they are able to control their situation (destiny). Unhappy people tend to believe that they are a toy of fate.''

This is uncited and not very reliable. What is being suggested here - determinists are unhappy, while believers in the concept of free will are? If this is going to remain, there would have to be a citation to some text or study that can confirm this. Though people who have little control over their current circumstances are likely to be less happy, the issue seems more to be addressing the question of free will rather than freedom. In the latter case this is much more debatable. Albert Einstein, for example, was a determinist, yet I doubt this made him particularly unhappy.

Secondly, this line:

Happiness, therefore, is dependent upon where we are on the river of self-knowledge.

This line takes too broad an artistic licence and is written in the wrong tone. I think it should be removed.

I'll probably make these changes myself in a few days if there is no argument, though since this concerns the introduction I felt it appropriate to create a section on the talk page.Richard001 07:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)p

Why is Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics being referenced in the introduction when the definition in the paragraph above is counter to the theory of happiness that he advanced in the Ethics? He specifically said that happiness was activity, not a state. 63.167.237.65 20:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Gayness
I know gay used to mean happy and it has a new definition now. But would you agree that in America, most heterosexual males are meant to look unhappy? There is a strong connection between the percieved promiscuity of the average gay male and his happiness. Heterosexual males don't have sex as often, and when they do it likely requires hard work and money. I'm kind of rambling here... but I think something should be said in this article about happiness and homosexuality. - ShadowyCabal 23:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The Picture
Why is it a white baby? Who agreed on that? I think it should be a smiley face. Or at least a Puerto Rican, because they are the happiest on the planet - ShadowyCabal 00:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Image.
The image on in the article is completley random, (boy in a shopping cart) barely showing happiness. I think a picture of a person smiling would be omre appropriate.


 * Oh I disagree. I think that picture is one of the most sublime editorial choices I have ever seen on Wikipedia. I'd argue a picture of a child smiling is like visual elevator music. Strong vote to include it. RS 00:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with RS there, the image is a way of saying "Yeah I did it! Yay," and not just "I'm happy, deal."


 * I disagree, It is obviously a very neutral and politically correct picture, unlike the "white baby" or "ugly kid" as some people feel it necessary to point out. However the picture shows more a state of euphoria than happiness, which this article makes clear are different. Any drunken idiot can jump into a shopping cart and be energetic, but that does not necessarily make them happy. I don't think a picture for a topic this broad is a good idea really, as happiness decidedly a non-corporeal thing.


 * I agree with RS and the first person! The boy in the shopping cart doesn't demonstate happiness at all. When I saw it, I thought I'd gone onto the Jackass article by accident. It should be a baby laughing or smiling, because a baby's happiness is the purest kind. Crazy Eddy 16:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * i came accross this article because i was working on a disambig project. When i saw the picture i almost changed it myself. This doesn't convey happiness to me at all. The first thing i thought of was the show Jackass. It did not seem fiting. Although i do agree with the fact that it should not just be a person smiling. It would seem more fitting to have a picture of a person taking part in something they enjoy and smiling (but not someone in a shopping cart). flipjargendy 18:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ha ha, this picture is so ludicrous that I'd like to see it stay just for ludicrous sake. But then my more reasonable side tells me that that is the sort of thing that gives Wikipedia a bad name. When a pic needs a catch-all caption like, "People show happiness in many ways", I think a better example should be found. PURGE IT! Bantosh 04:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

'North America'
This: "In modern western society, especially in North America, it is widely believed that happiness is attained through being successful, healthy, and having a beautiful family; creating monetary wealth; being physically attractive even through old age; and maintaining one's intelligence and wit. Some of these are not supported by empirical evidence; for example, money does not appear to increase happiness, and having children does not on average increase or decrease happiness. Health, however, has a strong impact on happiness.

As well, a portion of the population believes that happiness is achieved by following the latest cultural fads, such as keeping one's clothes in fashion or keeping them in fashion as much as humanly possible, going to the latest clubs, restaurants or bars, buying consumer products seen as trendy or cool, or changing a hair style so that it is current. However, most people disagree with these preceding ideals because they consider them too superficial, consumerist and unsatisfying." seems somewhat cynical, POV and definately too broad of a generalization. 'Widely believed', I believe, does not give enough credit to North Americans (the implication is Americans), or even humans in general.  It seems to assume that these people believe happiness as something to be attained, not something that cannot be measured whatsoever.  This seems to be american-bashing and the second paragraph is poorly written.  Happiness is insanely relative.

Developing World
Contrary to what it says in this article, I've seen studies that show that once a certain level of economic stability is achieved, happiness is pretty much the same across borders, and that the citizens some developed nations (i.e. Japan) are significantly LESS happy than citizens of some developing nations (i.e. Ghana). This was the best I could come up with after a half-hearted, thirty-second Google search, but it at least generally disproves what's in the article right now. 24.235.241.18 04:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

A world of the happiness
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/061113093726.htm

- lyhana8 ( Talk )  - 18:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

original research in Societal theories of happiness section
The section "Societal theories of happiness" completely lacks sources and appears to be almost entirely original research. This section needs some serious work, particularly providing good sources to make it verifiable. Otherwise the section will be deleted. Thnaks, Gwernol 15:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Recent Developments section
This seems to be a very poorly written section (in the context of an encyclopedia), anyone have the source on it so that I can rewrite it? I've edited it a bit for now. Kelvie 23:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for working on this! I agree that it needs it.  My suggestion would be to check out the Daniel Gilbert article.  Maybe you can find his book at your local library or glean some information from looking at the external links.  Cheers, Figma 04:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

www.cia.com
This paragraph is all rigths reserved to the cia INFO COPIED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 * NO NAME= NO GRADE****CIA GRADED

1. THE POINT OF CIA.

2. THE WAR ON TERROISM STATEMENT. "[D]efeating terrorism must remain one of our intelligence community's core objectives, as widely dispersed terrorist networks will present one of the most serious challenges to US national security interests at home and abroad...."

— DCI Porter Goss, testifying before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence February 16, 2006 TURE OR FALSE —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Npiane (talk • contribs) 19:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC).