It's been awhile since my last post, so one can say that this post is an interruption of an interruption. If you Google the word "hiatus" you will find many definitions, ranging from those anatomical to use of the term in the context of breaks in television production or programming. The word comes from the Latin word for "yawning" (interesting), and also is used to signify an opening.
Lately, I have been considering the notion of hiatus from the standpoint of transitions. Most people have transitions in their lives, and often, but not universally, these transitions are marked by a hiatus that serves as a bridge from the old to the new state (whether this refers to jobs, life stages, parenthood, or other aspects of the life course). A hiatus, of course, can also be defined by a vacation period, or time away from a usual routine.
Transitions are often difficult and stressful. I have frequently found that returning to work from an extended break can be challenging, as though one has to move through the gears to get sufficient torque to overcome inertia and resume customary speed. A well-oiled life, it seems, chugging along with a predictable routine, maintains momentum and indeed, even benefits from that momentum (just as a sleigh moves downhill without the need for additional propulsion).
So, I'm hoping that firing up the cylinders for this post will get me back in the groove so that posts will be more regular for the coming weeks and months. Commentary, of course, helps. So if you stop by, please leave a note and share your thoughts about the events and facets of everydy life that contribute to balance, happiness and of course, success in the projects that engage us.
Showing posts with label authentic happiness. Show all posts
Showing posts with label authentic happiness. Show all posts
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Friday, May 29, 2009
More on the world's happiest countries
Previous posts have discussed the comparative data among countries using measures of happiness or subjective well being. Sometimes, the fact that two different measures are used causes confusion. One measure, used by Martin Seligman to measure "authentic happiness" as described in his book, is the simpler of the two. It measures happiness by asking people how happy they are. A second measure also asks people how happy they are but adds a second dimension called satisfaction. That measure is called a subjective well being score and is used in the World Values Surveys done at the University of Michigan.
Using the second (subjective well being) measure, the following countries rank in the top five across the globe: 1. Nigeria 2. Mexico 3. Venezuela 4. El Salvador and 5. Puerto Rico. At first blush, it is obvious that these countries have something in common: they each have large numbers of relatively poor people, suggesting that money does not equate with happiness. The list brings to mind another truth, which is this: Happiness is a state of mind, and as such, people have complete control over it. If people make the best of their circumstances, they can create the conditions necessary for happiness. One wonders if there is a cultural characteristic about poverty that enables people to see the best in their circumstances, which in turn influences their sense of well being?
I have two friends, both professionals, who respectively are from Nigeria and Puerto Rico. They are both positive energy emoting people. That is, they bring good feelings to situations, in comparison with others who seem to work hard in the opposite direction. Each of these persons also share the trait of valuing things that make a difference in the longer term, while also taking care to make each moment a particular pleasure for themselves and others.
In future blogposts I will explore this notion further. As always, if you have observations about anything on this topic or others that pertains to doing life well, please share it with us!
Using the second (subjective well being) measure, the following countries rank in the top five across the globe: 1. Nigeria 2. Mexico 3. Venezuela 4. El Salvador and 5. Puerto Rico. At first blush, it is obvious that these countries have something in common: they each have large numbers of relatively poor people, suggesting that money does not equate with happiness. The list brings to mind another truth, which is this: Happiness is a state of mind, and as such, people have complete control over it. If people make the best of their circumstances, they can create the conditions necessary for happiness. One wonders if there is a cultural characteristic about poverty that enables people to see the best in their circumstances, which in turn influences their sense of well being?
I have two friends, both professionals, who respectively are from Nigeria and Puerto Rico. They are both positive energy emoting people. That is, they bring good feelings to situations, in comparison with others who seem to work hard in the opposite direction. Each of these persons also share the trait of valuing things that make a difference in the longer term, while also taking care to make each moment a particular pleasure for themselves and others.
In future blogposts I will explore this notion further. As always, if you have observations about anything on this topic or others that pertains to doing life well, please share it with us!
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Looking Out for Our Neighbors- Ayn Rand Revisited
The blogosphere has been buzzing lately with commentary about Atlas Shrugged, the novel written by author Ayn Rand in 1957. Considered one of the most popular US novels during the second half of the twentieth century, Atlas Shrugged tells the tale of a revolt by innovators and others in society whose ideas and work efforts create wealth and opportunity. The books lays out a philosophy that has come to be known as Objectivism, and advocates free market capitalism, objective reality, and enlightened self-interest.
Opponents of the economic stimulus plan, particularly far right conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh, and others, frequently cite Atlas Shrugged as a type of manifesto that justifies their position that people who have lost jobs or are losing their homes should not be helped by the government because this is contrary to free market individualism. Typically, their argument holds that people (which is usually code for themselves) should not be asked to contribute tax dollars toward efforts that are seen as contrary to free market philosophy. Objectivism's emphasis on an individual's right to pursue happiness and self interest without feeling an obligation toward others is central to the current misguided argument used by anti-stimulus adversaries who cite Rand.
So what does this have to do with doing life well? An oft-cited viewpoint expressed in previous posts on this blogsite is that because we are group-living animals, we are interdependent creatures. We each depend on others, and our species requires altruism and cooperation for its survival. Objectivism rejects unbridled altruism, and its principles have been misrepresented by Limbaugh and others as justifying the kind of selfish "look out for yourself only" type of attitude that led to the unprecedented transfer of wealth over the past decade to the wealthiest one percent of the population. Social Darwinism, which is the kind of winner-take-all mentality that characterizes some viewpoints, misses two points. First, it presumes that by accumulating enough wealth, people don't really have to worry about the greater environment because they can enjoy their riches in protected isolation.
They are so wrong about this. Everything that we know about happiness and the enjoyment of life involves sharing experiences with others. Studies consistently show that we need others for our happiness. But more importantly, advocates who use Rand's book as a justification for their selfish philosophy didn't read the book closely enough. Rand does not advocate the kind of selfishness that some use to as justification to deny unemployment checks to people who are out of work for reasons unrelated to their performance. Rather, she advocates reasoned, rational and enlightened self-interest, which is different than the hedonistic, pleasure seeking, "I refuse to share my rice bowl with others" self-interest that typifies so much of the superficial Rand-citing that is moving across the conservative blogosphere these days. In the interest of creating the kind of world we can all share, whether rich or not rich, it is important to set the record straight. Ayn Rand never justified selfishness in the hedonistic sense that anti-stimulus adversaries are now contending. The Irish proverb is worth citing again: "the people live in the shelter of each other."
Opponents of the economic stimulus plan, particularly far right conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh, and others, frequently cite Atlas Shrugged as a type of manifesto that justifies their position that people who have lost jobs or are losing their homes should not be helped by the government because this is contrary to free market individualism. Typically, their argument holds that people (which is usually code for themselves) should not be asked to contribute tax dollars toward efforts that are seen as contrary to free market philosophy. Objectivism's emphasis on an individual's right to pursue happiness and self interest without feeling an obligation toward others is central to the current misguided argument used by anti-stimulus adversaries who cite Rand.
So what does this have to do with doing life well? An oft-cited viewpoint expressed in previous posts on this blogsite is that because we are group-living animals, we are interdependent creatures. We each depend on others, and our species requires altruism and cooperation for its survival. Objectivism rejects unbridled altruism, and its principles have been misrepresented by Limbaugh and others as justifying the kind of selfish "look out for yourself only" type of attitude that led to the unprecedented transfer of wealth over the past decade to the wealthiest one percent of the population. Social Darwinism, which is the kind of winner-take-all mentality that characterizes some viewpoints, misses two points. First, it presumes that by accumulating enough wealth, people don't really have to worry about the greater environment because they can enjoy their riches in protected isolation.
They are so wrong about this. Everything that we know about happiness and the enjoyment of life involves sharing experiences with others. Studies consistently show that we need others for our happiness. But more importantly, advocates who use Rand's book as a justification for their selfish philosophy didn't read the book closely enough. Rand does not advocate the kind of selfishness that some use to as justification to deny unemployment checks to people who are out of work for reasons unrelated to their performance. Rather, she advocates reasoned, rational and enlightened self-interest, which is different than the hedonistic, pleasure seeking, "I refuse to share my rice bowl with others" self-interest that typifies so much of the superficial Rand-citing that is moving across the conservative blogosphere these days. In the interest of creating the kind of world we can all share, whether rich or not rich, it is important to set the record straight. Ayn Rand never justified selfishness in the hedonistic sense that anti-stimulus adversaries are now contending. The Irish proverb is worth citing again: "the people live in the shelter of each other."
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Longevity and Quality of Life
Most of us are interested in living a long life. I recently came across a book called Blue Zones, which described studies, partially sponsored by the National Geographic Society, involving various locations on earth where the inhabitants seem to have unusually high longevity. In examining the lifestyle factors in these regions, Dan Buettner and his associates came up with some factors that they believe contribute to longevity. These include strong social networks, diets with fruits and vegetables, active lifestyles, and a positive view of aging. The implication is that the people in these regions have a high quality of life. Little is said directly, however, about their levels of happiness. Can we assume that the scientists posit that happiness and longevity are related? That is, do happy people live longer?
The answer, it seems, is yes, but only if you are healthy. This finding is based on a review in the Journal of Happiness Studies by Ruut Veenhoven. Veenhoven, a scientist at Erasmus University in the Netherlands, found in his review that happiness in healthy populations added to longevity in a manner similar to being a non-smoker. In populations that have chronic diseases, being happy does not seem to add measurably to life expectancy.
Studies of healthy aging in the United States have focused less on longevity and more on factors that seem to ward off chronic illness. Carol Ryff, PhD, a leading researcher in this area, has shown that various personal factors, including autonomy (our degree of choice and control over our lives), environmental mastery, personal growth, positive relations with others, purpose in life and self acceptance are important for successful aging and resilience. Dr. Ryff is among a growing number of researchers who are making the case for neuropsychoimmunology, the science that demonstrates that how we feel influences our immune system (as previous blog posts have outlined). Clearly, it is not difficult to imagine that what we do, and how we feel about what we do, relates to the factors that Dr. Ryff has identified in her research.
So, what is the take away from this post? Do we know what factors that lead to longer lives also lead to happiness? The answer is an equivocal yes, but is based on comparing findings of different studies rather than looking at the question from a single study. Perhaps the MIDUS II (Midlife in the United States) studies now going on under Dr. Ryff's direction will address this issue.
In this blogger's opinion, the question of longevity must always be asked in the context of life quality. The issue for us all, it seems, is not just how long we live, but how well we live.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Fyodor Who? on Activity and Happiness
Those avid readers among us will no doubt be able to quickly note that the title to this post refers to Russian author Fyodor Dostoyevski. Dostoyevski is among the most famous authors in history, and lived from 1821-1881. During his sixty year lifespan he wrote two fiction classics that are included on most great books lists, including The Brothers Karamozov and Crime and Punishment. In addition to being a great writer, Dostoyevski is sometimes credited as being one of the originators of the philosophy of existentialism.
So what does Dostoyevski have to do with this blogsite? Well, because doing is so important to our happiness and well being, those who love to read (and read and read) will certainly enjoy the works of Dostoyevski. But he appears in this blog not for that reason, but because he wrote an interesting passage about activity and happiness in a book of occasional writings. The excerpt is as follows:
"Our passion for some sort of activity reaches a point of feverish and uncontrollable impatience; we all long for some serious occupation, many of us are full of an ardent desire to do good, to be of some use, and we gradually begin to realize that happiness is not the same thing as being able to afford to sit about twiddling one's thumbs or just to do something for the sake of a change when the occasion arises, but consists of continual and tireless activity and the development of all faculties and capabilities in practice."
This observation by Dostoyevski is blogworthy here because it makes some interesting observations about activity and happiness. Reading along and between the lines, one might claim the following existential interpretation:
We serve our well-being best when we make choices about what we do that are consistent with our values and sense of self, and when those activities help us grow and become more competent. Indeed, it might be said that we create ourselves (our identities) through doing activities that are genuine, that allow us to express the joy of being and our uniqueness through creating or producing something that expresses some purpose or has meaning. Dan McAdams, whose studies of people's stories has been mentioned in other blogs and whose work is listed on this blogsite, coined the expression "selfing" to refer to this type of activity that serves self expression and beingness.
Think about what you do, and how many of those activities are done because of others, and how many were initiated with careful thought by you, the doer, to challenge and engage yourself, to help you realize your unique potential, and to truly make you feel "alive". Those kinds of activity choices are among the most important decisions we make.
What are you doing among your regular activities currently that makes you feel authentic? That may be a hard question to answer, but if you care to give it a try, please share it with others on this blogsite. And if you've a mind to, visit the wdydwyd? website to get a taste of how others express their authenticity.
As always, if you have a different perspective or a comment to add about anything written here, by all means, do it! Please share it here and now.
So what does Dostoyevski have to do with this blogsite? Well, because doing is so important to our happiness and well being, those who love to read (and read and read) will certainly enjoy the works of Dostoyevski. But he appears in this blog not for that reason, but because he wrote an interesting passage about activity and happiness in a book of occasional writings. The excerpt is as follows:
"Our passion for some sort of activity reaches a point of feverish and uncontrollable impatience; we all long for some serious occupation, many of us are full of an ardent desire to do good, to be of some use, and we gradually begin to realize that happiness is not the same thing as being able to afford to sit about twiddling one's thumbs or just to do something for the sake of a change when the occasion arises, but consists of continual and tireless activity and the development of all faculties and capabilities in practice."
This observation by Dostoyevski is blogworthy here because it makes some interesting observations about activity and happiness. Reading along and between the lines, one might claim the following existential interpretation:
We serve our well-being best when we make choices about what we do that are consistent with our values and sense of self, and when those activities help us grow and become more competent. Indeed, it might be said that we create ourselves (our identities) through doing activities that are genuine, that allow us to express the joy of being and our uniqueness through creating or producing something that expresses some purpose or has meaning. Dan McAdams, whose studies of people's stories has been mentioned in other blogs and whose work is listed on this blogsite, coined the expression "selfing" to refer to this type of activity that serves self expression and beingness.
Think about what you do, and how many of those activities are done because of others, and how many were initiated with careful thought by you, the doer, to challenge and engage yourself, to help you realize your unique potential, and to truly make you feel "alive". Those kinds of activity choices are among the most important decisions we make.
What are you doing among your regular activities currently that makes you feel authentic? That may be a hard question to answer, but if you care to give it a try, please share it with others on this blogsite. And if you've a mind to, visit the wdydwyd? website to get a taste of how others express their authenticity.
As always, if you have a different perspective or a comment to add about anything written here, by all means, do it! Please share it here and now.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
More on Happiness...
My recent blog on happiness prompted a reader to send a link to the WebMD website and an interesting article on happiness. You can link to that article by clicking on the title to this post. The article identifies six barriers to happiness, citing work by the author of a recent book on Happiness by Darrin M. McMahon, PhD.
The six barriers explained in the WebMD blog include the following:
While some are obvious, others are more challenging, and not surprisingly, most involve changes in attitude or behavior that are wholly under our control. Thus, it seems, the keys to being happy are entirely within us; we can use changes in attitude or behavior to unlock the power within us to create the lives we want.
All of this, of course, is apparent to psychologists, students of positive psychology, and life coaches, and to them it probably seems obvious. But, sadly, it seems that so many people are held captive by their external locus of control, which is a fancy way of explaining that to many people, what happens to them is the result of forces outside them: they have rotten luck, they are victims of chance or downtrodden by the ruthless behaviors of others. People who feel this way assign the reasons for things that happen to the universe, to some external entity, or, in some cases, to "God's will.
Albert Einstein, a pretty smart cookie by any standard, once observed that "God does not play dice with the universe." Reading about Einstein is surprising to many. He was a brilliant physicist. And being a scientist, given to the precision of numbers and formulas and all, one might think he was less inclined to contemplate beauty and the spiritual mysteries of a complex universe. But the truth is, Einstein was very contemplative and spiritual—perhaps because his appreciation for the complexity of things convinced him that the world or the universe could not be readily explained by chance.
This blogsite is about doing. And one of the things we can "do" to improve our lives is to take control of them. January is a perfect month to resolve to do things differently. Attending to overcoming the barriers to personal happiness seems like a worthy pursuit and a great place to start. So, if you have a mind to —be happy— begin doing it now.
The six barriers explained in the WebMD blog include the following:
- Complexity
- Breakneck pace
- Negativity
- Despair
- Suppressing Sadness
- Navel gazing
While some are obvious, others are more challenging, and not surprisingly, most involve changes in attitude or behavior that are wholly under our control. Thus, it seems, the keys to being happy are entirely within us; we can use changes in attitude or behavior to unlock the power within us to create the lives we want.
All of this, of course, is apparent to psychologists, students of positive psychology, and life coaches, and to them it probably seems obvious. But, sadly, it seems that so many people are held captive by their external locus of control, which is a fancy way of explaining that to many people, what happens to them is the result of forces outside them: they have rotten luck, they are victims of chance or downtrodden by the ruthless behaviors of others. People who feel this way assign the reasons for things that happen to the universe, to some external entity, or, in some cases, to "God's will.
Albert Einstein, a pretty smart cookie by any standard, once observed that "God does not play dice with the universe." Reading about Einstein is surprising to many. He was a brilliant physicist. And being a scientist, given to the precision of numbers and formulas and all, one might think he was less inclined to contemplate beauty and the spiritual mysteries of a complex universe. But the truth is, Einstein was very contemplative and spiritual—perhaps because his appreciation for the complexity of things convinced him that the world or the universe could not be readily explained by chance.
This blogsite is about doing. And one of the things we can "do" to improve our lives is to take control of them. January is a perfect month to resolve to do things differently. Attending to overcoming the barriers to personal happiness seems like a worthy pursuit and a great place to start. So, if you have a mind to —be happy— begin doing it now.
Monday, December 29, 2008
Happiness is...
A professor named Ed Diener at the University of Illinois is among the leading scientists studying happiness. In fact, a whole new area of psychology, known as positive psychology, has emerged in the past few years devoted specifically to understanding what creates favorable feelings or mindsets, such as life satisfaction or upbeat attitudes. A few years ago, Martin Seligman, another psychologist, published the book "Authentic Happiness" in which he described this new movement and some of its characteristics. A website devoted to authentic happiness (with over 700K registered users) is cited in the list of links on this blogsite.
Among the mildly surprising findings from emerging research on happiness is that, on average, people tend to be reasonably happy. It is also worth noting that in cross national studies, some surprising findings have emerged. The top five happiest countries, it seems, are NOT among the world's richest: 1. Nigeria 2. Mexico 3. Venezuela 4. El Salvador 5. Puerto Rico. (Source: University of Michigan World Values Survey (WVS). Only Denmark and Ireland break into the top five when an alternate measure is used. In case you are curious, the U.S. ranked 15th out of 79 countries studied.
So what accounts for this? Clearly, neither per capita income nor standard of living as measured by material goods are determinants of happiness. (But we knew this, despite the pervasive greed attack that put us into the world economic mess we now face.) It seems that buying more simply creates the illusion that buying even more objects will eventually get us to the poorly defined destination of happiness we crave. But enough on that topic. You can read more about this if you want at the WVS website, or scientific articles at Ed Diener's website.
At the end of the day, happiness is a subjective state. It's what we perceive. Some people are ecstatic because they love what they do rather than what they earn. Some people have the best of both worlds. And many people believe that it's all about contentment and supportive, loving relationships. Important relationships exist for us all in many domains. For example, we have important relationships with ourselves, with others, with the environment, and with the world beyond, however we may want to define "the world beyond".
I'm curious about what YOU believe leads to personal happiness. Please share your thoughts below.
And...here's a toast to YOUR happiness in the year ahead!
Among the mildly surprising findings from emerging research on happiness is that, on average, people tend to be reasonably happy. It is also worth noting that in cross national studies, some surprising findings have emerged. The top five happiest countries, it seems, are NOT among the world's richest: 1. Nigeria 2. Mexico 3. Venezuela 4. El Salvador 5. Puerto Rico. (Source: University of Michigan World Values Survey (WVS). Only Denmark and Ireland break into the top five when an alternate measure is used. In case you are curious, the U.S. ranked 15th out of 79 countries studied.
So what accounts for this? Clearly, neither per capita income nor standard of living as measured by material goods are determinants of happiness. (But we knew this, despite the pervasive greed attack that put us into the world economic mess we now face.) It seems that buying more simply creates the illusion that buying even more objects will eventually get us to the poorly defined destination of happiness we crave. But enough on that topic. You can read more about this if you want at the WVS website, or scientific articles at Ed Diener's website.
At the end of the day, happiness is a subjective state. It's what we perceive. Some people are ecstatic because they love what they do rather than what they earn. Some people have the best of both worlds. And many people believe that it's all about contentment and supportive, loving relationships. Important relationships exist for us all in many domains. For example, we have important relationships with ourselves, with others, with the environment, and with the world beyond, however we may want to define "the world beyond".
I'm curious about what YOU believe leads to personal happiness. Please share your thoughts below.
And...here's a toast to YOUR happiness in the year ahead!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)