Rationalistic approach to happiness

I believe true happiness is found on the inside when someone actually reflects on themselves and improves on themselves as a person rather than accepting someone elses version of what happiness is.

I dont believe and dont want to believe someones genes define their own happiness factor, after all everyone is an individual so its pretty obvious everyone will have it different

We are all social animals so any form of happiness is easy to achieve if you are healthy at a cognitive/physical/social/spiritual level and most importantly with our relationships with others, there are just some people who are poison to us and must be the first people to go.

 

That's more or less what the blog post said, just with language that was much more denotative rather than romantic.

I glanced briefly at the cited sources pertaining to the genetic component, and what you've posited here is essentially a straw man. The papers don't say that genetics determines whether someone can be happy to some degree or another, but that genetics give some people more of a disposition toward happiness and that whatever the genotype, there is about a 50% determination of disposition. A comparison, if you don't quite understand the distinction, would be people who are predisposed to depression genetically; although they will not necessarily become depressed, and although others who do not have this disposition still have the chance of becoming depressed as well, it is much easier for the predisposed to slip into that state. Their genetics favour it as an outcome compared to that of others.

Anyhow, the article does not suggest that we should resign ourselves to however our genotype has arranged itself. That in itself would be silly, considering that it is merely the most significant determining factor rather than the only determining factor, and because the traits which people disposed to happiness have can, with some effort, be acquired. The author himself is a nice anecdotal example of this. So, far from suggesting that happiness is genetic and leaving it at that, the author goes into great lengths to suggest ways in which one can acquire behaviours which favour happiness, such as social skills, devotion to hobbies/studies/careers, physical activity, healthy intimacy, etc. This could be described as "reflecting on oneself" as you would like to put it.

 

good to know I summerised a boring article :dry:

mhmm so you're telling me the article wasnt saying genetics determine happiness but is saying some people have a 50% determination of disposition for depression which is pretty much alluding to the same thing in the same context.

Edit: -yes, I just want to extend on reflecting on oneself, and thats how you fit into place, where the ego doesnt rule and you treat others the way you want to be treated, after all success is measured by the amount of happiness achieved, not the other way round, and there is a difference between self reflection, and doing it because you think it will make you happy which are two different concepts which the article tries to explain and what I mean

 

Eh. I guess one has to develop a taste for science writing.

Nope, I'm afraid you misunderstood. The research which the blogger referenced relevant to the note about genetics founds that genetics had about a 50% influence in determining the variance of happiness. There are other factors which make up the other 50% of influence of which genetics doesn't take account. I used depression as an example not because genetics has the same amount of influence in that case (or so I assume, because I don't know much in detail about genetics' influence on depression) but because it's an example of genetic predisposition with which people are generally familiar.


I'll use another example: muscular development. Certain people are more predisposed genetically to develop muscularly and be "fit" or "buff." It doesn't necessarily follow that genetics causes people to become fit. Indeed, people without a genotype which disposes them toward muscularity can usually become just as fit; they just have to work harder for it. The same thing applies here to happiness. Genetics influences the variance of happiness (how often and how far people fluctuate between happy and upset), but anyone can be happy because the cause lies elsewhere. Basically, I'm trying to point out the distinction between genetics causing whether someone is happy and genetics having an influence over whether someone is happy. Does that make sense?

I think you see this distinction not because it exists, but because you aren't quite used to formal writing. The only difference between what you're saying and what the author is saying in terms of how happiness can be attained is the language which you use. The author is using language appropriate for a scientific article, which is clear and devoid of narrative techniques such as metaphor, allusion and imagery. He would in fact agree with you that simply wanting to be happy is not enough; for example, he says much the same thing when he mentions forced positive thoughts as being counter-productive. Instead, the author suggests reflecting on the issues which prevent the reader from being happy, and set out to forge new attitudes and behaviours to fix that. Some of the specific suggestions include being kind to people, being more socially and physically active and living a fulfilling life, all of which sound to me very much like self-reflection, self-exploration and self-fulfillment.