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

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.

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.”