[AuContraireVoltaire]

OK, as a student at an elite European university I wouldn't say I am 'impoverished'. But I am a 27 year old independent, mature student; so I don't have a rich family paying my fees. I am very much amassing a lot of debt, and living a frugal existence in a shared house.

Now, I have had many jobs in between my first attempt at college and my current stint in higher education: I was a combat engineer in the army, I have worked 12 hour shifts in a factory and I have had less-desirable or less well-paying jobs.

Even when I was earning good money in the army and in factories (overtime can make you very affluent when you're in your early 20s and live in a small town in Wiltshire) I wasn't particularly happy with my lot. I was always academic; someone who used their mind, rather than physical and someone who used his hands. I guess I know these jobs were not what I actually wanted to do.

And so I am at University, approaching my final year and preparing applications for LSE et al to do International Development as a Postgrad.
I am unable to spend freely like I did a few years back, not having to worry about my bank balance and checking funds meticulously. Whenever someone suggested a holiday abroad I would have no reservations, and was usually able to book immediately.

Now, I cannot do that. I have to budget and keep a watchful eye on my outgoings and expenditure. I don't have that liberty anymore and (especially at the moment as I await my final loan and grant instalment of the year) my activities and freedom are circumscribed by these fiscal constraints.

But yet I probably the happiest I have ever been.

I just wonder if anyone else has a similar experience or perception when it comes to their personal happiness? And why they think it is fundamentally so.

Does your happiness fluctuate more with your economic vicissitudes? or with changes in personal relationships, work?

What do people think is the key to happiness?

[Goldberk]

Not being snobby and describing places as "Elite European Universities"

[AuContraireVoltaire]

Not being snobby and describing places as "Elite European Universities"

...Brilliant (this confirms my characterisation of some posters on this forum as outlined in the Stalin death anniversary thread)

Anyone else?

[emmitt]

It's said that happiness mostly depends on genetics and your own activities and attitude towards life. Only a very small part of your happiness is determined by external factors (like your socioeconomic position).

Basically, it's vital to invest in relationships and to be optimistic.

You just need to pick up a book on positive psychology. It's all pretty interesting even though I think that most of this stuff has been known to humans for millennia

[neopagan]

Just going on the OP, I would say you have layed some pretty good ground work for a fulfilling life. You do need to know what you want. You need to be able to articulate it.

Happiness is something you need to define for yourself. But in my experience, expecting to find happiness in a relationship with another person, while achievable, is not accompanied by any guarantee. However, if you find satisfaction and creativity in your own life, you are likely to find yourself among similar people. First of all, its about you.

Does happiness, fluctuate etc.... God yes, just think if you were responsible for a child at this point. Your options would be severly limited.

Youth is about options. Age 27 is the peak for many people.

[Rei Murasame]

What's your plan for actually paying back all that debt that you are amassing? I can understand that you are happy, so long as you have a plan to pay back the debt and thus are not worrying about it. But if there is no plan for what you are going to do to swiftly pay it off, then I am bewildered at your happiness.

[Nattering Nabob]

But yet I probably the happiest I have ever been.

I just wonder if anyone else has a similar experience or perception when it comes to their personal happiness? And why they think it is fundamentally so.

Does your happiness fluctuate more with your economic vicissitudes? or with changes in personal relationships, work?

What do people think is the key to happiness?

Happy with less you say? According to all the sages, fulfilling our desires does not make us happy, overcoming them makes us happy...

[AuContraireVoltaire]

I'm surprised no-one has mentioned the statistics showing that the countries with the highest level of happiness are usually developing nations, many of the nations who rank highly are those with the least amount of western influence.

The 2012 Happy Planet Index had showed that 9 of the top 10 countries were among in the Caribbean Basin, and suffered high levels of poverty.

The only member of the G12 in the top 30 is Brazil. The highest European nation in the list is Norway.

I may not have made it clear that I wanted your opinions on happiness - how we become happy, what it is to be happy etc - within a wider, more global context.
But I'd like to know why people think the above is so. Why is it that the more impoverished corners of the earth show high levels of happiness and well-being.
I recognise the difficulties in definition and the flaws in methodology surrounding these Indexes and measures of well-being (the HPI isn't strictly measuring happiness) but it doesn't take away from the results that the HPI display.

[emmitt]

the HPI isn't strictly measuring happiness

You're absolutely right. It doesn't tell us anything useful about happiness. That's why it's somewhat nonsensical to ask why "the more impoverished corners of the earth show high levels of happiness and well-being."
Other indices of happiness are much more helpful and they regularly show that the inhabitants of richer countries are usually more satisfied with their lives.

Happiness is still determined by your genetics and intentional activities though (genetics: 50%; intentional activities: 40%; read Sonja Lyubomirsky's book "The How of Happiness").
If citizens of some countries are on average much happier than citizens of other countries, it probably means that their culture is more conducive to happiness: Their cultures stress the importance of relationships and optimism. Period.

[Verv]

It's said that happiness mostly depends on genetics and your own activities and attitude towards life. Only a very small part of your happiness is determined by external factors (like your socioeconomic position).

Basically, it's vital to invest in relationships and to be optimistic.

You just need to pick up a book on positive psychology. It's all pretty interesting even though I think that most of this stuff has been known to humans for millennia

I agree on this -- and I mostly think it is a choice because people can overcome genetic predispositions towards sadness.

I'd also like to point out that many monks, nuns, etc. take vows of poverty that they uphold for the whole of their lives and many tend to be happy with absolutely zero possessions.

I would also like to point out that I have been at some very poor points in life and have managed to be happy but... in reality... I really do not think it would be fun to be in poverty but do so with children. That would be rough.

[anna]

It's rather easy to romanticize poverty if one hasn't lived it. Poverty is hard and gritty, it can grind down the strongest of human spirits. On the other hand, money won't buy your happiness either... it might make things easier, more comfortable, cleaner, safer... but not necessarily happier. Happiness can indeed be strongly affected by outside influences, I don't agree with the poster above on that, although one's natural disposition has a lot of say in how well one deals with those outside influences. Ultimately, happiness is a state of mind and heart over which we have some control (will) but don't discount those outside influences to make things complicated...

[ronimacarroni]

Well I've always thought of creation as a divine force that leads to happiness.
Whether it be creating theories, creating art, creating music... even something as mundane as creating a tree house
As long as its conceptualized and carried out it fits the criteria I'd say
That's my opinion though, but I'd say not having to worry about survival is the foundation to happiness.

[Oxymoron]

Key to happiness, is living based on your principles.

And having correct priority:

Family, Love, Self, and Freedom.

[MeMe]

@ Aucontrairerevoltaire

I just wonder if anyone else has a similar experience or perception when it comes to their personal happiness? And why they think it is fundamentally so.

Does your happiness fluctuate more with your economic vicissitudes? or with changes in personal relationships, work?

Happiness is a subjective experience, but research has revealed some objective properties. Firstly, individuals judge their happiness by means of a comparison with a reference point. This reference point is deduced in part from past experiences, and in part from relevant groups (family, colleagues, friends etcetera). Secondly, the law of Weber-Fechner holds. It states that the human senses measure the relative changes of the external stimuli, and not the absolute changes. In other words, they register a percentage. Nowadays the law is also applied to the nervous system. For instance, happiness increases in proportion to the relative raise in income. Each doubling of income gives an equal extra quantity of happiness. However, note that the law of Weber-Fechner only holds for a representative (average) individual. The statistical spread around this average is very large. Some people derive their happiness primarily from income, others from company, etcetera.

The common happiness analysis assumes that happiness is a homogenous phenomenon. In this approach it is simpy equated to utility, or satisfaction. The founder of this theory is the English philosopher Bentham. However, already Aristoteles argued that the ultimate goal of humans is to become virtuous beings within society. So he attaches happiness to the moral fulfilment of the individual.

For this reason the American sociologist Etzioni makes the distinction between empiric-cognitive happiness and normative-affective happiness. These two types of happiness can not be compared in a quantitative way. The English economist J.S. Mill assumed that they are incommensurable.

On the other hand, a distinction can be made between happiness in the short and long run. A short-term gratification is often impulsive and emotional, whereas a long-term satisfaction is rational and cognitive.

At first sight the concept of moral satisfaction is attractive. For instance, we like to believe that we are not corruptible. However, this implies that human beings use several criteria in order to determine their actions. In that case it is impossible to predict human behaviour. This is a pity, and obviously the rigorous analysis of human behaviour benefits by the assumption of a monistic (single) happiness. In such a model norms are simply goods, which are given up at an extremely high price. It is preferable to abandon the ideas of Mill and Etzioni with regard to utility and satisfaction.

At the start I mentioned that individuals use a reference point. This point can shift with time, when the situation of the individual changes. It turns out that individuals adapt quickly to material changes, such as a raise in income, or even a physical handicap. The adaptation to social changes is more cumbersome, and sometimes impossible. For instance, unemployed people are and remain sad.

I hope that the preceding elaboration helps to structure your view on happiness.

I'm surprised no-one has mentioned the statistics showing that the countries with the highest level of happiness are usually developing nations, many of the nations who rank highly are those with the least amount of western influence.

The 2012 Happy Planet Index had showed that 9 of the top 10 countries were among in the Caribbean Basin, and suffered high levels of poverty.

... Why is it that the more impoverished corners of the earth show high levels of happiness and well-being.
I recognise the difficulties in definition and the flaws in methodology surrounding these Indexes and measures of well-being (the HPI isn't strictly measuring happiness) but it doesn't take away from the results that the HPI display.

Interesting. However, the HPI depends heavily on the ecological footprint. And a large ecological footprint does not make the overwhelming majority of human kind (the representative individual) unhappy. Incidentally, happiness research in the Third World is notoriously flawed. So it is advisable to be wary with regard to their statistical data.

In general composite indices suppy little information about happiness or well-being. For in fact the index presumes mechanisms of happiness formation. The well-being is defined by the choice of the variables within the index itself, and the weights attached to them. For instance, the HPI is to some extent simply the ecological footprint (and who cares?). So I do not really understand your argument here.

Furthermore, note that people have the tendency to adapt and acquiesce, even with respect to miserable conditions. This is indeed a crucial tenet of most religions. Thus, the people in South-America are rather happy, in spite of their mediocre governments and resulting weak societies. Their reference points ("cultures") discourage the competition and search for improvements. The objective quality of life remains below par.

[MeMe]

@ emmit

Happiness is still determined by your genetics and intentional activities though (genetics: 50%; intentional activities: 40%

Indeed people are extremely diverse. You may say that satisfaction is in part caused by genetics. But does this remark really help? Apart perhaps from indicating that the state can not guarantee individual happiness? Moreover, note that happiness is itself an elusive concept. For instance, some people may be hindered by their hormone levels. But in the right situation this characteristic can become an asset. At least unhappy people have survived the natural evolution.

[MeMe]

@ Verv

I'd also like to point out that many monks, nuns, etc. take vows of poverty that they uphold for the whole of their lives and many tend to be happy with absolutely zero possessions.

Certainly acquiescence can make life more pleasant. It seems reasonable to take the objective quality of life as the criterion for testing its becomingness. Here monks and nuns tend to fail: they are unproductive, do not compete and hardly innovate, and in general do not improve their living conditions. Nowadays, nobody wants to support them. Even the religions themselves have the tendency to be conservative, because they believe that the world is divine and God must not be offended.

That is to say, my ideal PoFo community is competitive, and encourages a socioeconomic orientation and personal growth.

[MeMe]

@ ronimacarroni

Well I've always thought of creation as a divine force that leads to happiness.
Whether it be creating theories, creating art, creating music... even something as mundane as creating a tree house
As long as its conceptualized and carried out it fits the criteria I'd say
That's my opinion though, but I'd say not having to worry about survival is the foundation to happiness.

Ok, well, now, that is solved then. Personal freedom or autonomy is a prerequisite for happiness, because people want to improve their lives. Moreover I do want to warn against growth scepticism. For research shows that your chances of happiness do increase with income, a job, a decent house, a happy marriage, etcetera.

[Hong Wu]

If we are only in a good mood when times are good, or always in a bad mood when times are bad, we are nothing more than a reflection of our surroundings. If we are happy when things are bad, that is when being happy actually matters.

[Rancid]

NECROMANCER!!!

[Mosaic]

I think you're fortunate, Au. Some people - and I think I'm lucky enough to be one of them - don't depend on possessions or status for happiness. (I rather think of it as "contentment." Happiness is a transient mood. Contentment is a more long term mental state.) Is it something we choose? So much of it is just plain luck. I was lucky to be born healthy and relatively intelligent, I had loving supportive parents, I lived in a crime free town with good education, etc. I know there is so much that contributed to my situation that I really can't take credit for. The there's the issue of personality type. Some people just seem to be driven, and they're not happy if their not driving. Others are content to "smell the flowers." I remember reading about a retired Roman general who got a request that he go back in service as they wanted him to return to Britain. His response was, "If you could see the cabbages in my garden, you'd never ask such a thing." Considering the plight of millions upon millions of people, I think we both have it pretty darn good! (My first post - YAY!)