I’m a sucker for scientific proof. I wait for “science says…” and then I believe , whatever it may be.
So, now here’s a book that can tell me how to be happy.
It’s called The How of Happiness by research psychologist and University of California professor of psychology Sonja Lyubomirsky.
Every statement Lyubomirsky makes about about our happiness is supported by research. (Plus, for a little visual verification of her results, check out the jacket photo, the author herself looks radiant.)
40 Percent
We’ve all noticed that there are some people who are just basically happier. That’s because a portion of your happiness – a kind of happiness baseline - is genetically determined. Fifty percent, according to Lyubomirsky.
And then there’s 10 percent of your happiness that depends on what’s going on: you have a wonderful new job, you have a horrible new job, you got a new puppy, your cat died.
But the remaining portion, that’s yours to do what you will. And science is saying that you can help yourself out. Lyubomirsky asserts that humans have control of 40 percent of their happiness.
Use your 40
You are who you are, but don’t you want to be happier?
So after thousands of years, after Jesus, after the Buddha, after yoga, after Grannie’s good old common sense, here are some ‘how’s of happiness,’ backed by research (…and I know the way they’re put doesn’t sound like science, but there you go…)
Money doesn’t buy happiness
Doing nice things for other people makes you feel good
Have a positive attitude
Spend time with your friends
Thing is, it sounds to me pretty much what everybody’s been saying this whole time.
I love it when science affirms wisdom from novels or philosphy or mysticism or street smarts, because it just shows that science and philosphy and hey, even religion aren’t totally at odds. In fact, one might say, putting it hokily-dokily rather than scientifically:
There are many pathways up the mountain of truth.
Here’s a picture that can go with it (for the poster or card.)
(I didn’t finish the book. I got to thinking, what kind of happy person sits around reading about how to be happy? Thus, there may be important info in the last 40 percent of the book that I don’t mention here.)
All well and good, but what you seem to be saying is that if I do things that should make me feel happy, then I will feel happy? How does this fit into addiction? What about those things that make us feel happy for awhile, but then fade? Would she (and you) advocate finding something new? I would be more interested in hearing about what I’ll call ‘levels of happiness’ or things that on the surface may not make you happy (ie., walking a screaming neonate around the dining room table at 3AM) but that give you an abiding sense of happiness. I believe there’s much more to this equation than the percentiles you report here. Happiness, like intelligence, cannot be so easily loaded onto a small set of variables with any sort of reliability. I’ll admit, though, that reminding you of that fact makes me happy. Go figure.
That “10% depending on what’s going on” can seem like a lot more than 10% when you’re going through tough times, but a positive attitude, however hard it is to keep one sometimes, really helps. Nice, fitting image, El!
This article made me happy
No kidding, Shaun. Plus that 50% that’s “given” can be pretty tough to deal with. I’m always struggling with mine.
Plus what does it mean to be ‘happy,’ exactly?
And how important is it?
That’s one reason I quit reading before finishing the book. Why am I spending my time doing this? If doing things for other people creates happiness, why am I not calling my mother. Or, if I just want to be happy for my own self, I could watch an episode of “The Wire.”
So what’s the “scientific proof” offered that 50% of happiness is genetic?
I was just having this conversation today: Are people predisposed to be curmudgeonly as they grow older? Or is crotchety-ness relative to unpleasantness experienced in the past? I’ve always been of the opinion that happiness is a combination of attitude and environment. It’s depressing to think that some people inherently have a more limited capacity for happiness than others. It also sounds eerily reminiscent of the argument that intelligence is genetic, which has been contested for centuries. I doubt that “The How of Happiness” closes the book on whatever science is behind happiness.
Lindsay:
I agree that “The How of Happiness” does not close the book, which is why I finally closed that book.
Funnily enough, I think that art and religion and exercise gurus and community centers and the old man sitting on the porch have a better approach to getting happy than science does… at this point.
I’m not writing off science’s ability to understand human happiness… or anything, really. It’s just that science relies on units of meansure, and how do you measure happiness?
Eleanor