And bronze medal winners are happier than silver medal winners. "I almost got gold" vs. "I almost didn't get any medal".
But it also shows why there is no solution. If you hold back and aim for a bronze and not a silver, you will not get the "I almost did not get any medal" feeling. Overly ambitious goals are unavoidable.
We are, though you can try to hack your hedonic system. You can see philosophies like Stoicism and Buddhism as attempts to generate happiness by reducing the frustration from desire.
Very interesting: being optimised for maximising potential not contentment.
I wonder how much control we have on our benchmarks? How much of it is aspirational: I'm measuring myself against the pond I consider worthy, the one I "should" be in, maybe the one I "spiritually" belong to, not the one whose muddy shallows I'm actually paddling in right now?
Good question. In a previous post, I discussed the fact that our hedonic system should be designed for us to feel that "if we can, we must." This is achieved with a combination of anticipatory utility and loss aversion: https://www.optimallyirrational.com/p/explaining-loss-aversion.
I suspect attracting high quality mates was a key selective (evolutionary) pressure, in part responsible for the attention we pay to social staus and comparisons.
In the context of attracting a mate, a small fish in a bigger pond might attract a bigger fish than what was available in the smaller pond. It that evolutonary sense, the happiness tradeoff would be worth it.
Thanks. Yes, there are clearly status gains from belonging to higher social circles. The cost is the lower rank you may have in that circle. Another benefit is the possibility that you may fit well in this higher circle (who knows).
And bronze medal winners are happier than silver medal winners. "I almost got gold" vs. "I almost didn't get any medal".
But it also shows why there is no solution. If you hold back and aim for a bronze and not a silver, you will not get the "I almost did not get any medal" feeling. Overly ambitious goals are unavoidable.
That's right. Your hedonic system should you to aim for the goal as ambitious as credibly possible. I wrote about it here: https://www.optimallyirrational.com/p/if-you-can-you-must-why-we-set-ever
There's no escaping the perils of hedonism, is there? We're destined to make comparisons, either to those above us or those below us.
We are, though you can try to hack your hedonic system. You can see philosophies like Stoicism and Buddhism as attempts to generate happiness by reducing the frustration from desire.
It's as though the universe is pushing me towards stoicism. Your reply is a sign at this point
I’ll write a post on life satisfaction where I’ll likely come back to it.
Very interesting: being optimised for maximising potential not contentment.
I wonder how much control we have on our benchmarks? How much of it is aspirational: I'm measuring myself against the pond I consider worthy, the one I "should" be in, maybe the one I "spiritually" belong to, not the one whose muddy shallows I'm actually paddling in right now?
Good question. In a previous post, I discussed the fact that our hedonic system should be designed for us to feel that "if we can, we must." This is achieved with a combination of anticipatory utility and loss aversion: https://www.optimallyirrational.com/p/explaining-loss-aversion.
Thanks for your informative post, Lionel.
I suspect attracting high quality mates was a key selective (evolutionary) pressure, in part responsible for the attention we pay to social staus and comparisons.
In the context of attracting a mate, a small fish in a bigger pond might attract a bigger fish than what was available in the smaller pond. It that evolutonary sense, the happiness tradeoff would be worth it.
Hi Isaac,
Thanks. Yes, there are clearly status gains from belonging to higher social circles. The cost is the lower rank you may have in that circle. Another benefit is the possibility that you may fit well in this higher circle (who knows).