Meaning or Happiness? Which Would You Pick?

[Me Myself]

To clarify, your addendum essentially made people choose between two sets of things, rather than just one:

1. Meaning vs Happiness
2. Helping others vs Selfishness

I don't see why the two sets should inherently be linked. And the fact that you linked them will skew the results to the main question: Meaning vs Happiness.

very fair point.

though I still wonder what does "meaning" and "happiness" are suppossed to meanin this contexts. Maybe to him those are linked.

 

[Penumbra]

I think these two articles are a pretty good addition to this thread.

Meaning is Healthier Than Happiness

There's More to Life Than Being Happy

The top article there provides some examples of what they asked people when they were determining whether they had happiness or meaning in their lives, and the second one is a more detailed article overall.

Happiness was defined, as in the earlier study, by feeling good. The researchers measured happiness by asking subjects questions like “How often did you feel happy?” “How often did you feel interested in life?” and “How often did you feel satisfied?” The more strongly people endorsed these measures of “hedonic well-being,” or pleasure, the higher they scored on happiness.

Meaning was defined as an orientation to something bigger than the self. They measured meaning by asking questions like “How often did you feel that your life has a sense of direction or meaning to it?”, “How often did you feel that you had something to contribute to society?”, and “How often did you feel that you belonged to a community/social group?” The more people endorsed these measures of “eudaimonic well-being” — or, simply put, virtue — the more meaning they felt in life.

Their studies showed that some people have both meaning and happiness, some people have meaning but not happiness, some people have happiness but not meaning, and some people have neither happiness or meaning, as far as these questions are concerned. Most of the people in the study were happy but had little self-reported meaning, while the other three combinations were rarer.

They found a lot of people that are happy, but don't really consider themselves as contributing much to society, and their spending patterns and things like that tend to orient towards the self. Other people may have meaning without much happiness, such as someone who may believe they contribute a lot to society but that their subjective day to day experience is not very happy, even though a lot of their actions in life are directed towards others. Others have both, or neither.

So Sunstone's question is a valid one, because according to studies like those, when they analyze people and how they answer questions, they're different, and they're often not experienced together. Reading those full articles may elaborate a bit on differences between a sense of meaning, and a sense of happiness, for the purpose of answering Sunstone's question.

 

[Sunstone]

To clarify, your addendum essentially made people choose between two sets of things, rather than just one:

1. Meaning vs Happiness
2. Helping others vs Selfishness

I don't see why the two sets should inherently be linked. And the fact that you linked them will skew the results to the main question: Meaning vs Happiness.

Please read the articles Penumbra linked to in post #42 of this thread.

 

[LuisDantas]

Purpose. But I don't see that as a choice, personally. Hedonism is just not for me - or even something that I can very well stand.

 

[Me Myself]

But according to what I am seeing, there seems to be clear interlap. For starters the definitions there use "happiness" as someting selfish, that has nothing to do with service to others, it doesn't seem to be able to encompass the happiness that happens from empathy. In a way it seems to deal with the most superficial side of happiness, the one that tends to come and go with the waves.

In the part of meaning, the humans ae still the ones deciding what is meaningful for them and the fulfillment of their meaningfull tasks still give them pleasure. For example in the case of the two suicidal people in the camp, the idea that they might one go see the kids and other finish the book made them aspire to something, something they obviously wanted.

I find it extremely weird to leave happiness out of this context of "meaning". It's like making you choose between your body or your (physical) heart.

 

[Penumbra]

But according to what I am seeing, there seems to be clear interlap. For starters the definitions there use "happiness" as someting selfish, that has nothing to do with service to others, it doesn't seem to be able to encompass the happiness that happens from empathy. In a way it seems to deal with the most superficial side of happiness, the one that tends to come and go with the waves.

In the part of meaning, the humans ae still the ones deciding what is meaningful for them and the fulfillment of their meaningfull tasks still give them pleasure. For example in the case of the two suicidal people in the camp, the idea that they might one go see the kids and other finish the book made them aspire to something, something they obviously wanted.

I find it extremely weird to leave happiness out of this context of "meaning". It's like making you choose between your body or your (physical) heart.

The actual results from how people answer the questions in the study disagree with what you're seeing.

 

[Falvlun]

I think these two articles are a pretty good addition to this thread.

Meaning is Healthier Than Happiness

There's More to Life Than Being Happy

The top article there provides some examples of what they asked people when they were determining whether they had happiness or meaning in their lives, and the second one is a more detailed article overall.





Their studies showed that some people have both meaning and happiness, some people have meaning but not happiness, some people have happiness but not meaning, and some people have neither happiness or meaning, as far as these questions are concerned. Most of the people in the study were happy but had little self-reported meaning, while the other three combinations were rarer.

They found a lot of people that are happy, but don't really consider themselves as contributing much to society, and their spending patterns and things like that tend to orient towards the self. Other people may have meaning without much happiness, such as someone who may believe they contribute a lot to society but that their subjective day to day experience is not very happy, even though a lot of their actions in life are directed towards others. Others have both, or neither.

So Sunstone's question is a valid one, because according to studies like those, when they analyze people and how they answer questions, they're different, and they're often not experienced together. Reading those full articles may elaborate a bit on differences between a sense of meaning, and a sense of happiness, for the purpose of answering Sunstone's question.

They are making really strange assumptions, such as:

As Roy Baumeister, one of the researchers, told me, "Partly what we do as human beings is to take care of others and contribute to others. This makes life meaningful but it does not necessarily make us happy.

While that may be true of some people, it is certainly not an absolute. And it even contradicts other things the study "found":

Happy people get a lot of joy from receiving benefits from others while people leading meaningful lives get a lot of joy from giving to others," explained Kathleen Vohs, one of the authors of the study, in a recent presentation at the University of Pennsylvania

On one hand, leading a meaningful life doesn't make us happy, and then on the other hand, meaningful people get a lot of joy from it. Which is it? If happiness can be gained from helping others, then this blows the "happiness is selfishness" theory out of the water.

It appears to me that they also made unwarranted extrapolations based upon how they decided to interpret various answers.

For instance, here's examples of questions:

The researchers measured happiness by asking subjects questions like “How often did you feel happy?” “How often did you feel interested in life?” and “How often did you feel satisfied?” The more strongly people endorsed these measures of “hedonic well-being,” or pleasure, the higher they scored on happiness.

How exactly does answering "yes" to those questions indicate that you are prone to selfishly pursuing your own pleasure? I could feel happy and satisfied often because I volunteer at a Animal Rescue Center, or because I planted trees last weekend or because I was kind to a little old man.

And the examples of questions indicating "meaning" are no better:

Meaning was defined as an orientation to something bigger than the self. They measured meaning by asking questions like “How often did you feel that your life has a sense of direction or meaning to it?”, “How often did you feel that you had something to contribute to society?”, and “How often did you feel that you belonged to a community/social group?” The more people endorsed these measures of “eudaimonic well-being” — or, simply put, virtue — the more meaning they felt in life.

How exactly is feeling part of a social group "virtuous"? And defining "meaning" as an orientation to something bigger than yourself is simply circular if you are trying to prove that it is a less selfish life style. There is no reason why the meaning of someone's life need be anything more than bettering themselves. You see that in a lot of religions.

 

[Me Myself]

The actual results from how people answer the questions in the study disagree with what you're seeing.

I would find it interesting to see all the actual questions and the way the answers were interpreted.

 

[Penumbra]

They are making really strange assumptions, such as:

While that may be true of some people, it is certainly not an absolute. And it even contradicts other things the study "found"

It doesn't say it's an absolute, so I'm not sure what you mean. Some people feel meaning and happiness, some just feel one of those things, and some feel neither of those things.

On one hand, leading a meaningful life doesn't make us happy, and then on the other hand, meaningful people get a lot of joy from it. Which is it? If happiness can be gained from helping others, then this blows the "happiness is selfishness" theory out of the water.

One example to give is having children. Researchers have measured the effect of children on a parent's happiness. People had to write down how they were feeling when a certain trigger goes off, every once in a while for a very long time. They found that when people were taking care of children, it was statistically not a time of self-reported happiness. It's frustrating, busy, etc. But they also found that parents are generally quite happy they had children- they look back on it as having been worthwhile, despite being measurably detrimental to their self-reported feelings of happiness when they were taking care of them. It indicates there is more than one type of happiness- more akin to meaning.

It appears to me that they also made unwarranted extrapolations based upon how they decided to interpret various answers.

For instance, here's examples of questions:

How exactly does answering "yes" to those questions indicate that you are prone to selfishly pursuing your own pleasure? I could feel happy and satisfied often because I volunteer at a Animal Rescue Center, or because I planted trees last weekend or because I was kind to a little old man.

You'd have to read the whole article for that, Falvlun. They did more than just ask people the questions- they measured spending patterns and other tangible factors. They specifically looked at people that were giving their time, giving their money, or spending the time and money on themselves, and compared it to answers of those questions about happiness and meaning. According to their findings, people that report meaning tend to be "givers" and people that report happiness tend to be "takers". And, as already pointed out, some people are both. Some givers are also quite happy, fortunately.

And the examples of questions indicating "meaning" are no better:

How exactly is feeling part of a social group "virtuous"? And defining "meaning" as an orientation to something bigger than yourself is simply circular if you are trying to prove that it is a less selfish life style.

Because, again, you have to take into account the fact that they analyzed things like spending patterns. Their use of the word "virtuous" is linked to more than just being a part of a social group- it's related to the researchers findings of where they spend their focus.

There is no reason why the meaning of someone's life need be anything more than bettering themselves. You see that in a lot of religions.

A person can define meaning as drinking wine if they want. Words are words. The researchers defined it the ways I quoted.

So if you want to look at it a different way, don't focus on the word "meaning". Focus on the questions. If you had to pick one, and only one, would you rather be someone who is happy but tends to be a taker and doesn't feel part of anything larger, or would you rather be someone who isn't all that subjectively happy but tends to be a giver, tends to think you're making a difference?

I think ideally we'd all want to be happy givers, to have the best of both worlds, but the point of separating the question to make you only pick one is to determine which is a higher priority to you, especially considering that the findings show that not all givers are happy, among other combinations that can occur.

 

[gerrywilson]

Dear Chinu, are you saying i am wrong or i am correct

 

[chinu]

Dear Chinu, are you saying i am wrong or i am correct

No, am not taking about anything wrong or correct, All that I just want to point out is that you got entangled in the question and made a choice between the two options, whereas there was nothing to make any choice between those two options because they were one and same options.

The question of the OP was: If for some reason, you had to make a choice between, on the one hand, being happy in life, or, on the other hand, having a strong sense of meaning and purpose in life, which would you choose?

The Reason which is making one to choose to have a strong sense of "Meaning and purpose in life" is for "Being happy in life". Means all that one do is just for the sake of.. to be happy in life. Thus.. they both are one and the same options.

 

[Falvlun]

I think ideally we'd all want to be happy givers, to have the best of both worlds, but the point of separating the question to make you only pick one is to determine which is a higher priority to you, especially considering that the findings show that not all givers are happy, among other combinations that can occur.

My bolding. But that's precisely my point: They didn't separate the questions. They intertwined the two sets, by definition. I think if you really want to determine one or the other, you need to not stack the deck, so to speak, and honestly have people choose between one or the other.

 

[Falvlun]

One example to give is having children. Researchers have measured the effect of children on a parent's happiness. People had to write down how they were feeling when a certain trigger goes off, every once in a while for a very long time. They found that when people were taking care of children, it was statistically not a time of self-reported happiness. It's frustrating, busy, etc. But they also found that parents are generally quite happy they had children- they look back on it as having been worthwhile, despite being measurably detrimental to their self-reported feelings of happiness when they were taking care of them. It indicates there is more than one type of happiness- more akin to meaning.

My bolding. That smells like a no true scotsman. The claim is that happiness is equatable to selfishness, but when you point out things that are unselfish that make people happy, suddenly, that shouldn't be considered happiness, but meaning.

You'd have to read the whole article for that, Falvlun. They did more than just ask people the questions- they measured spending patterns and other tangible factors. They specifically looked at people that were giving their time, giving their money, or spending the time and money on themselves, and compared it to answers of those questions about happiness and meaning. According to their findings, people that report meaning tend to be "givers" and people that report happiness tend to be "takers". And, as already pointed out, some people are both. Some givers are also quite happy, fortunately.

Because, again, you have to take into account the fact that they analyzed things like spending patterns. Their use of the word "virtuous" is linked to more than just being a part of a social group- it's related to the researchers findings of where they spend their focus.

I dunno. If they are equating spending money with a group of people as "virtuous", or simply linking those who give with those who self report as hanging out with groups of people, it still smells rigged to me.

A person can define meaning as drinking wine if they want. Words are words. The researchers defined it the ways I quoted.

That's the point: if you define something as unselfish, and then try to show that people who are unselfish fall into that category, then the game is rigged.

You need a non-biased definition. Personally, I would simply define those who have meaning in their life as those who have a sense of purpose. Purpose can be anything, selfish or unselfish.

 

[NIX]

I am a meaning maker/finder. This is what fulfills me.

So assuming that fulfillment cannot include happiness proper (for whatever reason),
I still prefer fulfillment and all of the other things that come with it.

 

[Penumbra]

My bolding. But that's precisely my point: They didn't separate the questions. They intertwined the two sets, by definition. I think if you really want to determine one or the other, you need to not stack the deck, so to speak, and honestly have people choose between one or the other.

Sunstone separated the questions. That's what I was referring to. The study demonstrated that they can be separated, because there are people that report happiness but no meaning, and people that report meaning but no happiness, and people that report both or neither. So Sunstone's OP was the question of if you had to choose one, which would you choose?

My bolding. That smells like a no true scotsman. The claim is that happiness is equatable to selfishness, but when you point out things that are unselfish that make people happy, suddenly, that shouldn't be considered happiness, but meaning.

The unselfish things in the study don't necessarily make people happy. Clearly there is something driving them to do it or they wouldn't, but for some people, they do indeed do things that they feel are meaningful, but if they are asked if they are happy, if they feel in a good mood, if they feel interested and satisfied in life, they answer no.

Examples of activities in the study that were shown to increase self-reported meaning but decrease self-reported happiness statistically within the group were:
-Giving gifts to others.
-Taking care of kids.
-Doing charity work.
-Thinking about the past or future.
-Feeling stress.
-Listening.
-Reflecting on struggles and challenges.

Now I know someone's going to say that they feel happiness when they give gifts or do charity. That's great. But that doesn't change the fact that in the study, those were the statistics of how those activities were correlated with people's answers to the happiness and meaning questions, on a statistical level.

Examples of activities in the study that were shown to increase self-reported happiness but decrease or have little effect on self-reported meaning statistically within the group were:
-Partying
-Focusing on the present
-Avoiding stress and worry and negative events

Positive and negative events impact the variables in different ways:
-Positive events were positively correlated with both happiness and meaning.
-Negative events were very negatively correlated with happiness, but still positively correlated with meaning.

Happiness as a whole in the study was easier to decrease- a lot of things decrease it. Meaning in the study was a bit more resilient- positive things generally increase it, and negative things tend to increase it.

I dunno. If they are equating spending money with a group of people as "virtuous", or simply linking those who give with those who self report as hanging out with groups of people, it still smells rigged to me.

They're not defining virtue as spending money with other people. They're linking virtue with that whole paragraph. It's giving gifts, doing charity work, etc.

That's the point: if you define something as unselfish, and then try to show that people who are unselfish fall into that category, then the game is rigged.

You need a non-biased definition. Personally, I would simply define those who have meaning in their life as those who have a sense of purpose. Purpose can be anything, selfish or unselfish.

Did you read the study?

There's nothing circular about it. Neither variable is wholly selfish. Some people have both meaning and happiness.

They wanted to measure two things, happiness and meaning. Happiness was defined as having good feelings, which meant asking people how often they feel happy, how often do you feel interested in life, how often do you feel satisfied? Meaning was defined as an orientation towards something bigger than the self, which meant asking people if they feel their life has a sense of direction or purpose to it, whether they feel they are contributing to society, how often they feel part of a community, etc. Now someone say that's not a good definition and can define meaning as drinking wine alone all day if they want, but then just focus on the actual categories of questions they asked.

Then, they analyzed what people spent time doing, and things they reported, to find which sorts of things are correlated with meaning and happiness. Taking care of kids, for example, tended to reduce the answers related to happiness and increase the answers related to meaning, as did doing charity work and giving gifts. Thinking about the past or future was also negatively correlated with happiness and positively reported with meaning. What we're doing right now, debating/arguing, in the study was positively associated with a sense of meaning but negatively correlated with happiness.

It's not rigged, because there were multiple possible outcomes. For example, they could have found that meaning and happiness were always reported together, or not at all. That would have been an interesting thing, that you can't really separate them. But that's not what they found.

They found that some people are capable of feeling good, having positive emotions, feeling happy, without contributing much to other people or feeling part of anything larger than themselves. They also found people that spend a lot of time on others, spend time in stressful environments, and report feeling part of something larger, report that their life has direction and purpose to it, and yet don't report feeling happy, don't report feeling positive emotions often, don't report feeling satisfied, etc. Some people fortunately report feeling both happy and meaningful, while unfortunately others report feeling neither.

So I think it's a fair OP: Given that each combination seems as though it does occur in practice (high levels of both meaning and happiness, meaning but less happiness, happiness but less meaning, low levels of both meaning and happiness), if you had to pick only one, which would you pick? Would you rather feel positive emotions, feel happy, feel satisfied, but not feel that you're part of anything larger, not feel that you have much to contribute to society, or would you rather feel that you're part of something larger than yourself and that you contribute to society, but not feel very happy or satisfied in general?

 

[Falvlun]

Just to clarify, my argument wasn't that meaning and happiness must always be together. It appears self-evident that someone could have any combination of meaning and happiness, and the study supports this.

My argument was against this idea that happiness always correlates to selfish behavior and meaning always correlates to unselfish behavior.

In other words, as you wrote in a previous post, the question in the OP, and my beef with study, boils down to this sort of question:

If you had to pick one, and only one, would you rather be someone who is happy but tends to be a taker and doesn't feel part of anything larger, or would you rather be someone who isn't all that subjectively happy but tends to be a giver, tends to think you're making a difference?

I don't think the giver/taker part should inherently be linked to the happiness/meaning dichotomy. I think this is evidenced by the fact that people do feel happy when they do charitable work or that people can find a sense of purpose in their own personal betterment.

 

[crossfire]

If for some reason, you had to make a choice between, on the one hand, being happy in life, or, on the other hand, having a strong sense of meaning and purpose in life, which would you choose? And why would you choose it?

Please assume for the sake of this discussion that there is no "middle way". You can choose one option or the other, but not a mix of both. If you choose being happy, you will live without a strong sense of meaning and purpose in life. If you choose living with a strong sense of meaning and purpose, you will not be very happy.

Also, please assume that your happiness, if you choose it, would be hedonistic -- that is, it would be based on your success at obtaining pleasure and avoiding pain -- and in that sense be self-centered. While your meaning or purpose in life, if you choose it, would to some significant extent involve service to others -- and in that sense be oriented towards other people.

I must have missed this final paragraph earlier. With these conditions, it would be purpose all the way. A hedonistic lifestyle would leave you vulnerable to manipulation via animal training techniques/conditioning. (Which would really blow if you ran into someone whose strong sense of purpose towards others was try to raise the consciousness of the hedonists via manipulating them.)

 

[Me Myself]

Readin the actual definition of happiness I notice my confusion with the dillema was that I viewed happiness as something way more deep than it actually is.

I dont really talk about having a "happy" day unless I felt something deep that wold probably change my mood for the whole week or more for example.

When I use it for trivial matters it is mostly in jester. I viewed happiness as a deep feeling of satisfaction with your life, who you are people around you, etc.

Apparently, having a wank qualifies as literally having a happy moment.

Go tell.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

I will be brave and chose meaning, because I don't understand how I could go on just living for myself.

 

[DallasApple]

Examples of activities in the study that were shown to increase self-reported happiness but decrease or have little effect on self-reported meaning statistically within the group were:
-Partying
-Focusing on the present
-Avoiding stress and worry and negative events

:beach::canoe: