A profile of Sonia Lyubomirsky in the NYT (“Happiness
Inc.”) quotes another psychologist referring to her as just that – the “queen of happiness.”
She has a new book on the subject, in which she argues that we all have a “set
point” of happiness – a level to which we tend to return after pleasant or
unpleasant experiences as we become habituated to these. So she is a bit
skeptical of the longer-term happiness-inducing effects of counting one’s blessings,
expressing gratitude, helping others, and other evidence-based prescriptions
given by positive psychologists. She no longer even considers her a member of
the “positive psychology” movement. Needless to say, she doesn’t believe
material acquisitions are very promising either. All this raises an
all-important question – can you, then, raise your happiness set point?
This won’t be easy, since our default level of
happiness is partly determined by genes. But with all the recent findings
related to brain plasticity, epigenetics, etc., we shouldn’t be easily
discouraged. In fact, I suspect there may be a feasible way to upgrade one’s
neuropsychological profile and approaching something like lasting happiness.
You do need to have at least a slight genetic predisposition to taking this self-improvement
road; but in case you have that, the rest is very realistic, and for the more
genetically disposed can even be a lot of fun. All you need to do is become an
extroverted empiricist. You can achieve this by studying engineering; or statistics
and its application in various fields of social engineering, a.k.a. “social
sciences.” This personal transformation will also be assisted by anything which
keeps the default network in your brain chronically inhibited – plenty of
screen time, sensory overstimulation, information overload, multitasking, and
rigorous analysis; with very little screen-free downtime or daydreaming. Throwing
in some “mindful meditation” would produce even better outcomes.
This, at least, is the path taken by the “empirical”
generation whose attitudes are described by David Brooks and Charles Blow in
the NYT columns I recently quoted. The young people they write about see most social
problems around them as non-systemic and amenable to technical fixes; and are supremely
confident, cheerful, and optimistic, even though experts from the older generations think
they have good reasons to be weary. Judging from Lybomirsky’s example, female
empiricists can even “have it all” – she has been able to successfully combine a
high-flying academic career with serial mothering (at 46, she is expecting her fourth
kid). Or, and if it is too late for you, you should consider emigrating to the
US so that your kids could grow up there and have a better shot at happiness.
Lyubomirsky’s parents did this when she was 9, and I really doubt she would
have become her current vigorous self if they had waited for the end of the
Cold War to leave Moscow forever. And she could have hardly achieved the same emotional tone if her parents had moved to Sofia instead of D.C.
P.S. Oh, and if you want a faster solution, you can try Botox. The temporary paralysis of the muscles in your forehead it provides, and the related inability to frown, can apparently brighten up your mood - unless, of course, you are a truly morose misanthrope.
P.S. Oh, and if you want a faster solution, you can try Botox. The temporary paralysis of the muscles in your forehead it provides, and the related inability to frown, can apparently brighten up your mood - unless, of course, you are a truly morose misanthrope.