[Buddha-l] The Malaise of Modernity

[Alberto Todeschini]

Richard Hayes wrote:

> Applying Taylor's concern to the question that has been under discussion here,
> happiness might best be seen as an individual's overall assessment of her
> entire being,

Look at definitions of happiness scientists use. Many will agree with Taylor.

> whereas most kinds of data collection would be focused on
> particular aspects of an individual's state of being, and especially on those
> aspects that can somehow be measured.

As far as I can tell, this would not be a good description of what's
happening. To be sure, there are scientists studying things like
patterns of use of different areas of the brain in association with
different psychological states and they have noticed that people who
report to be happy have an area of the brain particularly active. But
not everyone is doing this. And from what I can see, people are
careful not to say "see those neurons? That's the happiness center."
One *does* see similar statements made by the mass media but I've
never seen a scientist say that.

> Now if the data collected is simply a record of responses to the question "Are
> you happy?" there is nothing wrong with those data.

And this is precisely what a large part of the field is based on.

> Where investigation goes off the rails is when measurements of physical states
> are taken and used to question the truthfulness of the answer to the
> question "Are you happy?"

Please note that this is what I said could *theoretically* be done and
only on a particular definition of happiness, not what scientists say.
I didn't say this would be desirable. Furthermore, the point of it all
wouldn't be to say whether one is wrong or not. And I repeatedly
asserted that it may be a long while before reliable and hence
potentially useful assessments of the relevant physiological states
are possible. I know, you disagree, but how many times do we need to
come back to this?

> Why, for example, would the testimony of
> thousands of philosophers, poets and prophets not be taken as sufficient
> evidence that an accumulation of wealth is not likely to make a person happy?

Never heard anyone suggest anything like this and certainly that was
not my point. I apologize if I gave this idea. Interestingly, every
single book-length work on happiness that I have read, though written
by scientists, mentions a variety of ancient Greek and European
philosophers as well as HH the Dalai Lama, who seems to be very
popular with the happiness crowd. One also finds frequent quotations
of artists, composers, writers, etc. So your question may suggest a
rift that isn't actually there.

Anyway, scientists have added a lot of details and have vastly
increased our understanding of the relationship between wealth and
happiness. Some examples:

- there actually is a *small* increase in reported happiness with
increase in wealth;
- in the case of people below the poverty line, they do report
*significantly* lower happiness level;
- relative wealth as opposed to absolute wealth *is* strongly
correlated with happiness. For instance (I'm making the numbers up,
but it's the idea that counts) people tend to be happier if they earn
$50000 a year when their peers earn $30000 than if they make $100000
when their peers make $500000.

See?  We understand the relationship between reported happiness and
wealth better than ever and if this influences public policy so much
the better. One obvious policy would be to encourage the conditions
under which the redistribution of wealth is possible, for instance by
taxing the wealthiest and improving the financial lot of the poorest.
Again, this sounds obvious to left-leaning, liberally-educated,
middle-class Americans or Europeans. Others will find a quotation from
a scientific study more convincing than a quote from the Dhammapada.

> Surely their observations are sufficient to verify the claim that wealth is neither necessary  nor sufficient for
> happiness.

Apart from the argument about science having added to and corrected
the picture (see above), for whom are those observations sufficient?
What if you are a politician or civil servant? Are you going to tell
your colleagues or your constituency that your policy is worthy
because of something the Buddha or Heinrich von Kleist said?

> Here is an area where we learn nothing new when someone collects
> data on people's reports of their level of happiness and correlates them with
> data about their financial security.

In light of the examples above this is incorrect. There are plenty more cases.

> What do these data prove? That all those
> philosophers and poets were right after all,

That, sure enough, they had great insight into human nature and that
they were fairly correct overall but with some omissions and mistakes
(depending on whom we are talking of and on her definition of wealth).
This doesn't prevent us (or me, at least) from appreciating their
insight. If anything, I'm more and more amazed at how many things the
Buddha, for instance, got right.

> and that before the data were
> analysed the philosophers and poets were just voicing an ungrounded
> prejudice?

Never heard anyone suggest this. See above. What scientists have done
is offer a much improved understanding of both the whole picture and
of the details. Sure, we can still improve both. And sure enough, the
scientists involved are at pain to improve what they do.

In general, I'd say that it is a mistake to underestimate the degree
of sophistication, self-scrutiny, the awareness of flaws and problems
as well as the ability to see both the whole picture as well as the
details of the scientists involved in researching happiness. Having
said this, I'm am sure that there will be occasional embarrassing
mistakes, blind-alleys and perhaps even revolutions in the field.

Best,

Alberto Todeschini