Talk:Happiness/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Realization

In the book "Map of Life" the author describes how we naturally only appreciate our past state through transformation: such as seeing your face everyday you might not think much of it, but you feel more wanted towards your past face if it is scared (since then you "realize" how much you have lost and how much can be lost). In this way we can (without being selfish) gain happiness from knowing that in Africa someone is starving and realizing your fortune you might gain a sense of "some word I do not know or cannot describe". Perhaps the title should have been: "Reflection/Realization". If I have a mistake then it is due to to trying to explain something from the past which I cannot remember. I tried my best to express what he said, but I feel I lacked it. If you can understand, please explain better. --72.74.104.215 (talk) 02:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Mystical (religious, spiritual, and mythological) view

The first paragraph of this section requires reworking. The word "advanced" may indicate bias, and the sentence structure makes it difficult to understand which traditions are being described. It also needs to be fleshed out to include a wider range of spiritual and religious traditions. - Okelle 2007-08-21 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Okelle (talk • contribs) 18:03, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

In addition to quoting various paths to happiness from various religions one ought to state the obvious conclusion which can be inferred by reading the existing text. The section, as it stands, is a bit disjoint. I'm not terribly good at wording things, but something like: "Nearly all religious and philosophical tenets seem to hold that happiness comes about with the abandonment as self interest as a primary motivator of action." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simultaneous (talk • contribs) 12:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Important distinction

This article does not really distinguish between happiness and pleasure. The drug addict gets lots of pleasure, but he is probably not really happy. -- ???

I second the above observation. Under the "Biological basis" heading, Happiness and Pleasure are used interchangeably. Many people and traditions treat these as separate. Furthermore, the assertion that "A person's overall happiness is objectively measurable" strikes me as not a neutral POV. I'm on the fence myself, but many people certainly think that happiness is beyond the grasp of empirical results. wanderingstan (talk) 06:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Happiness and Thermodynamics

Without a proper discussion of happiness in the context of modern thermodynamics, this article is just a set of opinions based on incorrect observations. A proper analysis has been done and presented here, which correlates with our current known models of lifestyle factors that influence happiness, and disease models of addiction. The person who removed this is doing a great disservice to many unhappy people, who sit inside on their PC's and read Wikipedia....the need to go out from some fresh air.....

While throughout history, thinkers have tried to frame happiness subjectively, in modern science the concept of energy can be used to understand the emotion of happiness. The natural energies that exist in the outside world (solar power, capillary action, oxygen combustion) are all accessible when people live an active, healthy outdoor lifestyle. This energy, when used, changes form according to the laws of Entropy and becomes less concentrated. Thus the "expansion" of "free" energy due to its use through a positive belief system of healthy, outdoor living allows one to experience "happiness" as an emotion.

Because modern thermodynamic principles can explain how happiness operates at the statistical level of energy exchanges, we can see that the roots of happiness are based in belief systems which allow people to spend a high percentage of their time in the "great outdoors". As a result, any other types of behaviors such as the pursuit of wealth for its own sake, forming relationships in the hopes that they will improve happiness, gaining extra credentials or spending money for satisfaction/gratification, only create micro-bursts of feel-good energy and as a result can be classified as "addictive behaviors". Modern neuroscience thermal brain modeling and biochemical pathway energy diagrams have confirmed experimentally that our brains are wired to "feel good", and so without the outside energies to drive the feel-good energy reactions through healthy lifestyle, addictive behaviors will predominate.

The inability of unhappy people, who simple hold belief systems that keep them inside for great amounts of time, to recognize the true happiness in others whose belief systems are dominated by outside, active living means that the minority (who live for the most part to enjoy the great outdoors) view those who live for the most part indoors (and this is a large percentage of modern society) as in denial, and suffering from forms of dementia. The unhappy, who cannot change their belief systems because they have roots in habitual behaviours, denial, and addictive energy process, try and make those around them happy through their actions and behaviors; of course this fails as happiness is only transiently transmitted this way and is method is actually a form of addictive obsession.

If two unhappy people are together, a relationship may survive. If two happy people are together, a relationship will survive. If an unhappy person is with a happy person, the relationship cannot survive for the reasons explained above, and often the authorities are called in.

Being "happy" is therefore a condition of nature, which is readily explained by thermodynamics and the concept of entropy-inflation of energy use. Since true happiness cannot be gained any other way, all of our efforts to reach it through other means have failed and we have the epidemics of unhappiness (obesity, depression, attention deficit, fatigue, divorce, crime, violence) all around us. In this situation, we can ask what use money may be, because it is thermodynamically impossible to buy happiness with money. Money is just a form of security, and is used to protect us from unhappy people. So the truly happy can gain wealth, because they can see it for what it is, security that protects them from the apparently demented unhappy all around them. For the unhappy, money is believed to be something that makes them happy, which is again thermodynamically impossible based on modern science. So their obsessive, addictive behaviors around money and all other forms of property, security, wealth, and relationships only serve to reinforce their addictive attempts to feel good, and true happiness and wealth/security cannot be achieved.

Recommendations by competent authorities, that citizens of developed nations lead a "healthy, active lifestyle" are undermined by the habits which have developed generations of looking at possesions, credentials, money, income, etc... as helping to "create" happiness. Since in nature, energy can never be "created or destroyed", again this misguided belief system serves to undermine the experts, who urge everyone to just relax, go outside, and enjoy life.

Commercial interests cater to the unhappy majority, and assist them in their pursuits of physical wealth and higher education; even though a simple look at the lifestyles of the truly rich and happy show them at the beach, on their yachts, sitting by the pool, playing golf and polo, out hunting, living on the ranch, etc... And yet through the warped belief systems that believe the possessions of the rich create happiness, their true source (active, healthy outdoor living) is seen as a luxury. The lack of vacation time in North America is a symptom of this warped system of beliefs, and the epidemics of unhappiness as described earlier are growing and threaten the security of what we used to call the "Free World". A quick review of the loss of liberties, due to the current state of international tensions which are resulting from behaviors that are based on belief systems (instead of true natural energy that drives happy feelings) shows we are losing our "freedoms" faster than at any time in history.

How does one go about dealing with this, at a personal level. Just spend most of your time outdoors, mood will stabilize and happy "energy" will return slowly, but surely. As our current education, business, and social systems are all based for the most part on the opposite behaviors, changing them will only follow changes by the unhappy majority who want a better lifestyle. So as we can see, the only "change" in life that is possible is to move from inside to outside. Just as a leopard cannot change its spots, neither can a person change themselves. They just have to change where they are. The opposite change, from outside to inside, is belief system driven and self-reinforcing through denial processes that arise.

If this analysis was indeed in the article at one point, I can tell you why it was removed. It contains extraordinary claims without a single external source to back it up. See WP:CITE and WP:NOR. While I agree from personal experience with the notion that an active, outdoor lifestyle is conducive to happiness, the link between that and thermodynamics is dubious at best and sounds like pseudoscience to me. Being in a properly climate-controlled room should make people just as happy by your explanation.

However, if you can find a credible source which has done research linking heat transfer and thermodynamics to happiness, go ahead and put it back. But in that case you will probably need to rewrite your argument so that it echoes your source(s), otherwise you may be accused of citing an irrelevant source in the hopes that your original research will not be detected. Wikipedia is not a blog or a place to post one's own ideas, theories, and philosophies. For that, we would ask that you get a free account at a site that is meant for such content, such as LiveJournal. Mbarbier (talk) 18:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Didn't wish to read you "way too long" blabber (with no offense) it has been shown that "entropy" rises with heat and decreases with cold. Giving out a reason for this idea of his, but looking around Google such as you I have reached the same conclusion: that I have not found any source stating this (except maybe blog's). Being outside is as dubious idea as his. For most part I believe the exact opposite (that going outside contribute's nothing), but health and that life is (without health) better lived socially. Doing nothing with getting energy or metaphysical broccoli. We humans would be as happy as a clown being self sustained. While going outside does contribute to happiness it's very small compared to what is needed.--72.74.104.215 (talk) 02:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Important Question

Why isn't this article just a picture of a ducky and a kitty playing together?

Serious question here. A picture is worth a thousand words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.221.211 (talk) 01:33, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Because we're explaining what happiness is, not filling people with happiness. :P --Partymetroid 03:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The Horrible World Happiness Picture

The colour coding on the figure illustration world happiness distrubtion is completely hopeless - the colours aren't arranged in any sort of logical order and it is thus very hard to follow.

Different shades of one colour [dark red->light red], or cold to hot colours [blue->red], or the traffic light range [green->amber->red] would all be acceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.123.128.114 (talk) 03:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I also thought the colour choices are odd, but I am happy with it anyway. I guess I am just a happy person. I went to this page to learn more about happiness, the feeling I have. I didn't expect the map, but now (after looking at it) I have a better understanding of why I am happy. I live in Canada. Look at how happy the nation is! I wanna go out and be happy with the rest of the happy people. 24.72.113.212 (talk) 23:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Minor change

I have changed the opening paragraph very slightly. I have changed the word "universal" in "This reflects the universal importance that humans place on happiness" to "huge". I am sure there are better words to use here, but universal is inappropriate because not all human beings place importance on happiness. At least, not all of us admit is importance as universal. Epictetus, for example, (with other stoics) place more importance on duty and integrity. Nietzsche refers to happiness as "intellectual hedonism" and calls it "unimportant". Some Christians believe that happiness of certain kinds is fleeting and the only thing to strive for is grace or forgiveness.

With these thoughts in mind, I thought it important to downgrade the wording used. Obviously not all people agree on the place of happiness in ethical and psychological thought. I look forward to seeing a better descriptor than "huge" in that place soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spozmo (talk • contribs) 14:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Csikszentmihalyi missing?

Strange, no mention of Dr Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi's "Flow" theory of happiness yet. This approach probably deserves some kind of summary here.

Of course, there are plenty of other psychologically respectable theories of happiness which need to be added too.

Jonathan Headland 11:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Centainly. As someone involved with happiness research, the whole entry seems strange. Torally missing all what we iknow about happiness. feels unbeleivable!

Anyone is invitged to broaden the sceintifical scoop of this entry YechezkelZilber 01:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism!

The entire page has been vandalised shamelessly. It should be sorted out as soon as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.219.95 (talk) 16:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Mystical (religious, spiritual, and mythological) view

The first four lines is one man thoughts. I suggest to clean it at once. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.222.3.5 (talk) 09:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

"Cheerfulness" merits its own article

I suggested a new article Cheerfulness and it just got redirected here. Cheerfulness is rich in definitions, including “Encouragement of a positive state of mind/emotions to others (motivation) in the now moment: it encompasses more qualities of encouragement of a positive state of mind/emotions to others than almost any other word in the English language, including motivation.” SourceDhammapal 07:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I might be shallow, but these 2 terms are the same to me, and anyway, we can not afford to write an article about every concept (or word for that matter) in the english language, but if we were to start such an article "Cheerfulness", many of its sources and context would be simply a copy and paste from this article, ot it would simply end up as a stub. AuaWise -Talk- —Preceding comment was added at 14:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Overall Structure of Article

I think the article needs an overall cleanup and reorganization. Some subsections should be merged or grouped (e.g. all the science and measuring stuff should be grouped) and lot of the paragraphs are akward. I did a few edits myself, but think some more thought needs to be put into it. My quick idea for an outline would be:

• Overview, basic definition and explanation
• Philosophical views of Happiness (aristotle, bentham, basic history of thinking about happiness etc...)
• Religious and Mystical views of Happiness (christianity, islam, mystic traditions, etc..)
  • Correlation of Happiness and Religion
• Scientific view of Happiness (latest research, drugs & brain regions involved, etc..)
  • Measuring Happiness
  • What causes happiness
• Happiness and Economics
• Happiness and Psychology
  • Positive Psychology

Even that doesn't seem completely correct, so I'd appreciate feedback. E.g. I'm torn as to how to order the big 3 traditional approaches to happiness: Philosophical, Religious, and Scientific. Thoughts? wanderingstan (talk) 06:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Since happiness is a biological state of mind characterized by certain hormones, I think we should start first with the scientific approach, away from human interpretation. Then, you could start with philosophical then religious. I think the ordering of the latter 2 makes no difference.AuaWise -Talk- —Preceding comment was added at 14:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Since happiness is FIRST and FOREMOST a concept, I think we should start first with the philosophical approach, defining the term, examine the alternative. Then, you could continue with the scientific approach (its insistence of subjective well-being). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.216.28.167 (talk) 07:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, while the effects of happiness are activated by biological phenomenon, the very trigger and sensation of happiness is much a philosophical, spiritual and physchological, etc component.--209.80.246.31 (talk) 17:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed link

Apparently I have to propose external links here rather than just adding them. I would like to propose the following journal article: http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=400&issue=117 It's a serious piece by an academic. He critiques the use of the "science" of happiness, which is often politically motivated. Piquant (talk) 20:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Happiness vs. Joy

In Christian circles, happiness is viewed as transient and goverened by circumstances, while joy is permanent. Like the peace of God, which transcends all understanding (Philippians 4:7), joy is a fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22). Paul sums it up as follows: "I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want" (Philippians 4:12).72.159.176.130 (talk) 09:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I cannot find a difference, except that joy is the past/present tense of "happiness" and that it is a more extreme form. Happiness can last a life time, joy can last a moment.--72.74.104.215 (talk) 02:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Overall Structure of Article, Part 2 (continued from above)

One of the problems with the current structure is that it leads with a theory of happiness that comes from a particular school of philosophy, then drops into measurement issues, then jumps to another theory (the set point theory this time), then picks up other empirical measurement data ("everyday correlates"), then skips into another set of theories (this time religious and spiritual approaches). "Research findings" are inexplicably separated from "Worldwide findings" which are separated from "Everyday correlates" - which has the correlation with religious involvement separated out as the only sub-category. It's terribly confusing, what little research that's available is spread out and difficult to find, and there's no overall structure to help the reader keep it all straight.

I think this would be much, much cleaner if we started with a good overview in the lead, then covered the basic research data available, and only then covered the various "perspectives," "approaches," "theories" and "views" in detail. When we have a topic where there are multiple conceptual approaches, we run two risks when leading with theory: 1) what's actually known empirically can get lost among the competing theories, and 2) we can give the first theory we discuss undue weight simply by it's positioning. EastTN (talk) 18:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the program proposed by EastTN above. Be bold in editing! (especially with broad, unwieldy topics). Bold restructuring had very good results in the end at Community and Social psychology. -DoctorW 04:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Happiness in Buddhism

Tests were performed on several Buddhist monks showing that they were the happiest people ever tested. A quick Google search will produce these finds. I believe this should be worked into the article, but I don't know how, because bullet points in the article contradict the fact that Buddhist monks achieved their happiness without such things the article mentions. And again, they aren't just pretending to be happy, because the scientific tests say they really are. Any comments appreciated! Voyaging^(talk) 19:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Most religion foster happiness. If this was a test done on Buddhist monks alone then it is no more accurate then saying a monkey is happier then a tiger. Who is to to truly say that a Christian is no more happy? Unless you find a comparison, then it helps no more then a peanut butter with out the bread. By the way: even if this was a "scientific" test (highlighted because people always find science so right) it does not mean it is a fact or even the truth. We cannot truly gather up all the religious people in the world and measure each one based on happiness, because happiness in itself is far more then applied philosophy (not to say it doesn't help). Scientific surveys always come out saying things on percentage based on a limited test and limited people, but unless it is true, it is no more a test, then anything else. Even if we did gather all the religious people in the world it only measures the current state, not the thousand, hundred or even five year future.--72.74.104.215 (talk) 02:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Religious Neutrality Dispute

I challenge the neutrality of a specific section of this article entitled: "Correlation with religious involvement", in observation of its strong religious-bias, as the vast majority of the section promotes the idea of a positive correlation between happiness and religiosity, referencing mostly studies that were conducted exclusively within the United States - a country known to have a high level of religiosity - and thus cherry-picking the facts to support a particular bias or favor.

However, the aforementioned section does indeed close with a few notes representing the opposing favor, which partially balances the equation for an otherwise relatively neutral and fair article, but I believe this specific section can be further neutralized to more fairly represent the full spectrum of research corresponding to the possibility of a correlation between happiness and religiosity across the world.

Instead of contributing the majority of the section to references supporting a positive correlation and ending with a diminutive counter-argument, both sides should be represented equally throughout, closing with a neutral, conclusive statement regarding the uncertainty of such a possibility. Somakai (talk) 12:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hm, I think there could be a better solution. I think rather than opposing separate arguments, since this really isn't one of those "arguable" topics, that the only content that should fill this page is that with scientific background, things that are proven to increase happiness. My section above this one in talk is one area I think that should be looked into to add to as far as scientific background. Voyaging^(talk) 15:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a legitimate concern. However, everything in the current section is reporting the results of survey and other research. There's also full disclosure of the US origin for the studies, and a clear recognition that they may not be more broadly applicable. If you're aware of additional studies from other countries - or better yet, cross national studies - please bring them in. It can only improve the article.

'overall religion is a positive contributor to mental health...' this is grotesque and not scientific at all. bad mental health in religiously led countries like iran or the vatican shows a frightening opposite of this statement.

I note that the section on happiness and religion cites the Times, a BBC article, and a blog. Surely there must be better sources. I did happen to find a couple of review articles on the subject found here:

• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16924349?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum and here
• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11761504?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=5&log$=relatedreviews&logdbfrom=pubmed.

I am sure there are more out there if we looked a little harder on google scholar. Maybe someone else could comment on the sources I've suggested, but if not, I may come back and add them in at some point. It seems like there ought to be a few better citations than the ones included (no offense to Time magazine and whoever owns that blog).Rutilus (talk) 23:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I also note that the full text of the resources used by the blog suggesting that there may not be a correlation between happiness and religiosity is also available online here:

• http://springerlink.metapress.com/content/650q541579041625/fulltext.html
• http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~pnorris/Books/Sacred_and_secular.htm
• http://bpp.wharton.upenn.edu/betseys/papers/Happiness.pdf

It seems like these resources which include something that is probably a peer-reviewed paper, a book, and a book chapter (not sure of that ???) might be put to good use. Rutilus (talk) 23:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Link proposal: Universal theory to achieve happiness

I'd like to add a link to a proposal for a universal (well let's say an 80% solution or) theory to achieve happiness:

Enrich Life

I sincerely hope this community will help to improve this little piece of thoughts.

87.209.88.238 (talk) 12:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Material moved here from another article page

The following material was at Positive psychology, but it has very little to do with the history of Positive Psychology:

Historical roots

Judaism promotes a divine command theory of happiness: happiness and rewards follow from following the commands of the divine.

The ancient Greeks had many schools of thought. Socrates advocated self-knowledge as the path to happiness. Plato's allegory of the cave influenced western thinkers who believe that happiness is found by finding deeper meaning. Aristotle believed that happiness, or eudaimonia is constituted by rational activity in accordance with virtue over a complete life. The Epicureans believed in reaching happiness through the enjoyment of simple pleasures. The Stoics believed they could remain happy by being objective and reasonable.

Christianity continued to follow the divine command theory of happiness. In the Middle Ages, Christianity taught that true happiness would not be found until the afterlife. The seven deadly sins are about earthly self-indulgence and narcissism. On the other hand, the Four Cardinal Virtues and Three Theological Virtues were supposed to keep one from sin.

During the Renaissance and Age of Enlightenment, individualism came to be valued. Simultaneously, creative individuals gained prestige, as they were now considered to be artists, not just craftsmen. Utilitarian philosophers such as John Stuart Mill believed that moral actions are those actions that maximize happiness for the most number of people. Thus, an empirical science of happiness should be used to determine which actions are moral. Thomas Jefferson and other proponents of democracy believed that "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are inalienable rights, and that it justifies the overthrow of the government.

The Romantics valued individual emotional expression and sought their emotional "true selves," which were unhindered by social norms. At the same time, love and intimacy became the main motivations for people to get married.

The material above was at Positive psychology, but it has very little to do with the history of Positive Psychology: -DoctorW 04:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Overhaul

This article is in serious need of major renovations. A proposal for restructuring was made by EastTN in July (and seconded). Anyone willing to help do it? -DoctorW 04:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I took a stab at it a while back. We have the research at the top now. The remainder of the article could still use a good bit of work, though. EastTN (talk) 19:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for Extra Reading

I was going to add this to the external links at the end, but I noticed that there was HTML comments there that requested no more links be added to the article. It's not a reference for any of the content, but I think a large percentage of the people who read the article would find this articel of benefit. The article is <a href="http://www.bloggingguy.com/2009/03/five-steps-to-happier-life.html" rel="nofollow">Five Steps to a Happier Life</a>. If you agree this is a fitting addition to the article, add it or let me know it's okay to add it. I'm not going to add it myself because of that do not add more links warning. Kemrin (talk) 01:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks like this is an blog entry that you wrote, which you may have wanted to mention that in your request. While anyone seeking to be happy may find this blog entry helpful, there are also 1000's of other blog entries, including entire blogs devoted to the idea of achieving happiness, like lifehack.org and zenhabits.net just to name two. So even if the point of this wiki article was to show people how to be happy (which it isn't), I would not suggest adding your blog post, sorry. Anythingapplied (talk) 14:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right, it is an article that I wrote myself, although I'm not sure what difference that would make to it's validity. You've got a point though that there have been many articles written about how to be happy, and those are both find blogs on the topic. And you're right that this isn't really an entry specifically about how to be happy, and I won't press the issue. I just thought the people visiting the page may be trying to find happiness, and might find the extra reading helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kemrin (talk • contribs) 22:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Bird image

Hi, I've restored the bird image, because the connection to happiness seems very clear. If anyone still objects, can you explain your reasoning? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The reasoning is very simple: in is nonencyclopedic: it does not help to understand the nature of happiness, there is no proof that the person in the picture is happy, he may be simply ticklish after all. The caption is but a wikipedian's speculation of the person's state of mind. Please read the policy about the images: we don't need pretty pictures that bring nothing. I am sure there are plenty of famous paintings or photos which are attested by critics to represent happiness, and many are in public domain. - 7-bubёn >t 16:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

There's an image in the article of people on a beach with seagulls — no hard evidence there either that anyone's happy. Happiness is an internal mental state. It is something that can only be guessed at by observers. Therefore, as a matter of definition, all images showing happiness are going to be speculative. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Therefore all images without reliable sources that claim they depict happiness have no place in wikipedia as speculative. - 7-bubёn >t 17:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

We don't do that with images; they're allowed per NOR. You presumably wouldn't remove the main image from Beauty, just because no reliable source has been presented.

The source we're using for the seagulls picture doesn't say "running on a beach with seagulls" makes people happy. It says exercise does. Therefore, we could just as easily use an image of somehow miserably sweating it out in a gym. But we don't, because we know that's not quite what's meant by "happiness." What is meant by "happiness" — or at least the appearance of it — is running along a beach with seagulls or balancing three birds on your arm, which is why both those images are appropriate. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)I find it perplexing why SemBubenny finds it worthwhile to edit-war over this image, even if there wasn't consensus. Per our Wikipedia:Images#Image_choice_and_placement guideline:

Intangible concepts can be illustrated; for example, a cat with its claws out portrays aggression, while a roadside beggar juxtaposed with a Mercedes-Benz shows social inequality.

So see - you don't have to prove the cat's claws are out for agressions, where it could also be stretching. We don't have to prove that this building is on fire, when it could, in fact, be part of the Universal Studios tour. There's a reason why this instruction in the guideline exists, and it's directly related to time-wasting edit wars like this one. It was quite a collaborative effort between three different editors to improve the image for this article. I put a caption that directly referenced the section it is found under and there are few images on a topic that--let's get real--shouldn't be hard to illustrate outside of an antiquated painting that doesn't mirror "Joy"; someone running on a beach; and a smiley face. SemBubenny, there's better use of your time on here, and looking at your block log for edit wars, you might want to start to choose your battles more wisely. Say...ones that actually mean something. --David Shankbone 18:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It takes two or more to edit war. So clearly, I guess this must actually mean something. If the picture shows the guy laughing, then it's more relevant to the laughing article; unless it's conculsively proven laughing occurs 100% from happiness. Can SV and DS please clarify the real reason for wanting the image included - it's an image of a dead wikipedian. I sense there's thus more desire to insert the image for that reason alone rather than the picture necessarily improves the article. Minkythecat (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

When three people are reverting you, then you are the edit warrior. The real reason is, the article has few images showing happiness. No, we don't have to prove laughing 100% of the time is because of happiness, and I've cited a guideline to indicate that. We had three editors (not myself or anyone else in this article) specifically work on the image for this article. What's the problem? Why is this worth the time and discussion about whether the man is happy or not in the photo, which is kind of retarded. --David Shankbone 18:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

As someone who has contributed a lot of featured pictures I sometimes get asked to participate at this type of conversation, which sometimes extends to ridiculous proportions such as here, which has since been enshrined at Wikipedia:LAME#Images. It is exceedingly difficult to source concepts such as humor or beauty or happiness for image use. In this instance, however, sourcing would be possible in the following manner: David Shankbone is a published writer, and although the subject of that photograph is deceased the photographer is known and can attest that this represents happiness instead of tickling. So it would be possible for David to get an article published in a reliable source to indeed verify that the subject was happy. If this discussion extends to that extreme, I will do two things: first, source the caption at the article; second, immortalize this discussion at WP:LAME. It would not be surprising if David took an equally ironic tone for his published piece; the reading public might chuckle too. Durova^Charge! 18:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not my photo, it was sent by his mother and I uploaded it. I was just thinking WP:LAME, perhaps with a title "Is this man happy? Or is he being tickled by talons that are digging into his scalp and biceps? Would it matter?" --David Shankbone 18:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Right, well you can get in touch with the photographer and get a quote from him? We can jump through all the hoops if Minkythecat insists. Of course there would be no reason at all to refrain from stating in your published article that it was Minkythecat's insistence that prompted the thing: properly expressed, the offsite article would be hilarious. Durova^Charge! 19:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggested title: "The Picture of Happiness". Cheers! Durova^Charge! 21:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

A man laughs as he attempts to balance three birds on himself.

Is that caption really accurate? These birds are trained to sit on people and pose for photos; It's not really a balancing act. A more accurate caption would say something like, "A man laughs as he poses for a photograph with three birds." Viriditas (talk) 10:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Your suggested change would be fine. Durova^Charge! 16:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with the caption change, but to be pedantic - just because birds are trained to sit doesn't mean a person has an easy time balancing three of them on his head and arms. But I don't think the cap change is a big deal. --David Shankbone 17:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Speciescoverage Tag

User Jwray added the SpeciesCoverage Tag. I can only assume this is refering to the bias in the article to talk about humans rather than all species equally? But, being human, isn't that only appropriate? Anythingapplied (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC).

I removed it. Viriditas (talk) 10:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The Philosophy section needs much work

The philosophy section on the page is paltry, especially considering the huge importance of happiness in itself. This is my first post on wiki, so I'm not too familiar with the editing and discussion process, but the philosophy section of this needs a few definitions of happiness, at the very least. I cannot speak for the Eastern philosophies, but Analysis of Happiness by W. Tatarkiewicz does a great job of breaking down the western perception of happiness. Many philosophical views are completely missing, such as Christian ones; St. Augustine's De Beata Vita and St. Thomas' Prima Secundae should be two great places to start. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocknrollerguy37 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to wiki. I haven't been here for too long either, so take this as you will. Make sure that what you are writing is specifically important to Happiness. From Wikipedia:Handling_trivia It says:

Note that certain kinds of information can be more or less important, depending on the context. For instance, in the South Park episode "Pink Eye," the space station Mir (which really existed) lands on Kenny McCormick (a fictional character), killing him. The overall importance of this piece of information may be hard to define, but it is certainly important to Pink Eye (South Park episode), somewhat important to Kenny McCormick, and not very important to Mir.

So in this situation we need to decide if, for example Happiness as defined from a Christian perspective, would be better here on the Happiness page or if they'd be better on some other philosophy specific pages, like Christianity, which can be linked to from Happiness. Feel free to add anything you feel is appropriate. Some more experienced editors may remove it if they deem it to be to trivial to the topic, though if it is important, well cited information, they would probably wouldn't delete it but rather try and find somewhere more suitable to put it if they find it to be too trivial in the context of Happiness, but not too trivial elsewhere.

You seem to be quite well informed on the subject, so it sounds like you could add a lot of value. You could find a place in happiness to link to articles like De Vita Beata, for example, and then go expand the De Vita Beta article, thus not making the happiness article too long and allowing readers to dive more into specific parts of happiness. Plus De Vita Beata is a really short article and could use any information you know on the subject. You should link to other articles when possible, there is no need for redundant information and it is great to keep most information under the article it is most suited to.

I look forward to seeing what you have to add. Anythingapplied (talk) 05:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

That's good advice. My sense is that this article should provide a summary of the different views or approaches to happiness - survey and empirical research based, religious, philosophical, psychological, etc. - and (ideally) point the reader to more detailed articles on the approaches that may interest them.

It sounds like you're familiar with some of the religious and philosophical approaches. One way to approach this might be to:

• think about the most important approaches that may be missing;
• find one or more sources for each;
• decide which main section in the article each approach would best fit in; then
• write a short summary paragraph describing it (you might shoot for the same level of detail as is given in the paragraphs on Mencius, Aristotle or the Buddhist views); and
• add appropriate links to related articles to help the reader find additional information.

If adding these makes one of the main sections to long to be easily readable, you can add subheadings to help organize the concepts. EastTN (talk) 13:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Structure of the article

EastTN, I endorsed your plan some time ago to restructure the article, and I see there have been a lot of changes since then, and a lot of weak material deleted. Now, reading the article again, the "research" section was so egregiously inadequate that I was tempted to delete it entirely. Instead I put it at the end, after some heavy editing. It still needs a great deal of work. I'd like to compare this article to another unwieldy topic, meaning of life, where there were more editors involved, more experts, and a lot of thoughtful discussion. We decided on a roughly historical approach, and the sections reflect it: starting with religious ideas, then philosophical, then scientific. The historical development can be seen, and the tools people had to work with changed over time.

Virtually all of the findings with a good deal of scientific weight behind them are from psychological research, so one possibility would be to integrate the "research" into the psychology section (but perhaps retain a subsection for the theoretical frameworks of positive psychology). Perhaps conclusions from political surveys should be preserved in a separate section though.

To those with expertise, please go ahead and add something! EastTN's guidelines immediately above are good ones. Be bold in editing! -DoctorW 06:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that we not automatically cut anything that's not psychological research. Survey research and studies of correlations don't directly address causality, but are legitimate avenues of research. When we have reliably sourced materials in this area, it seems appropriate to include them. If the sensitivity is in labeling them "Research" then we should be able to find a way to address it in the way the material is framed. EastTN (talk) 21:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

happiness and religion not correlated

That section needs to be balanced. The most religious nations are in third world countries. While it's been true in America religion on a global scale has no correlation with happiness. There's also the problem of irreligion. There are plenty of people who do not regard religion at all but do not identify as atheists or give religion any acknowledgement. YVNP (talk) 08:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Parenthood is not corrolated with happiness

I cant judge the citations in this article, because one is an offline book and the other is an opinion piece in The Economist that's only available for subscribers. However I did try to find some other sources and it appears that there are studies that shows that there is no correlation between parenthood and happiness.

A quick google turned up these results:

From Newsweek: http://www.newsweek.com/id/143792

The most recent comprehensive study on the emotional state of those with kids shows us that the term "bundle of joy" may not be the most accurate way to describe our offspring. "Parents experience lower levels of emotional well-being, less frequent positive emotions and more frequent negative emotions than their childless peers," says Florida State University's Robin Simon, a sociology professor who's conducted several recent parenting studies, the most thorough of which came out in 2005 and looked at data gathered from 13,000 Americans by the National Survey of Families and Households. "In fact, no group of parents—married, single, step or even empty nest—reported significantly greater emotional well-being than people who never had children. It's such a counterintuitive finding because we have these cultural beliefs that children are the key to happiness and a healthy life, and they're not."

From babble.com (the magazine and community for a new generation of parents) http://www.babble.com/content/articles/features/dispatches/mitchell/happiness/

"We know marriage raises happiness a lot," he says. So does health. But there was one shocking conclusion:

"Children don't," Oswald says. "Most of the people who are parents in society have a strong feeling that children have brought them a lot of happiness. What our work seems to show is that it is just as easy to be happy childless. Those with children don't understand that fact. I certainly hadn't anticipated these findings and they're often viewed as some of the most surprising outcomes from this research."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Haakenlid (talk • contribs)

• The article text in Happiness#Other_correlates says otheriwse. Please feel free to add an opposite opinion into the article. - Altenmann >t 22:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Map of world happiness

Should we create something similar? Do not know how good the data is backing it up. http://www.fahad.com/pics/world_map_of_happiness_lrg.jpg Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

MAYBE IT SHOULD BE HAPPINESS STATE OF THE BRAIN?

State of the Mind goes the first line of article on Happiness.Butb really no one has proved the MIND. It rather is the human(other animals too) brain that releases "Hapiness Chemicals" Producing Euphoria Happiness etc.SOCALMOI (talk) 16:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Automate archiving?

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days.--Oneiros (talk) 21:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 20:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

30 days may be a little too often for an article with such infrequent comments. Is it possible to set it for a longer period, say 3 months? -DoctorW 05:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Religious and Philosophical views

I combined the Religious and Philosophical views sections, and set them in chronological order. This should head off any potential arguments about whether Mencius, Aquinas, Al-Ghazali, etc. are religious or philosophical. -DoctorW 05:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Should the "research findings" be integrated into the scientific views sections?

Most of the items in the "Research findings" section are from scientific psychological studies. All research findings (almost by definition) are the result of research carried out using a particular scientific model of empirical investigation and conclusion-drawing, normally within a respective academic discipline. Perhaps the research findings should be integrated into the scientific views sections. Otherwise the scientific theories presented are artificially separated from their empirical roots. This might also help to keep a bit more of a check the inclusion of questionable "findings" that were the result of a single survey. What do others think? -DoctorW 05:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Restructured article to have a more appropriate focus

There was too much emphasis on religion in the previous structure of the article and not enough focus on the scientific composition of happiness itself. Pursuit of happiness within religious context should be secondary to any scientific data that may exist on the subject in order for the article to maintain an educated tone. The scientific section regarding happiness is currently in need of more development but facts regarding happiness should have precedence over historical perspectives. The13thzen (talk) 10:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Non-religious symphony goers were as happy as believers

Perhaps something that gets you dressed up and out of the house correlates with happiness. Or perhaps those too disabled or depressed to leave the house for either church or other activities are less happy than those not suffering such disability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdcntx (talk • contribs) 16:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The most popular course at Harvard is one on happiness

Teaching Happiness, on the Web January 24, 2008, 3:39 pm By TARA PARKER-POPE (blog) http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/24/teaching-happiness-on-the-web/

Dr. Ben-Shahar is the teacher. The text is his best-seller, "Happier."

Happiness 101 Magazine Article By D.T. MAX Published: January 7, 2007 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/07/magazine/07happiness.t.html?_r=1&em&ex=1168664400&en=cf8e0732da22c4f4&ei=5087%0A

Ocdcntx (talk) 16:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Religious attendance correlates with cigarette smoking, which correlates with unhappiness

CONCLUSIONS: Greater frequency of attendance at religious services was associated with lower smoking prevalence by self-report or serum cotinine in a national, multi-ethnic sample.

FULL TEXT (emphasis added):

Gillum RF. Frequency of attendance at religious services and cigarette smoking in American women and men: the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.

Prev Med. 2005 Aug;41(2):607-13.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, 3311 Toledo Road, Room 6424, Hyattsville, MD 20782, USA. rfg2@cdc.gov

BACKGROUND: Data are lacking from representative samples of total populations and Hispanic Americans on the association of cigarette smoking and religiousness/spirituality, a protective factor for mortality, and on the validity of self-reported smoking data for religious research. METHODS: The Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III) included 18,774 persons aged 20 years and over with complete data on self-reported frequency of attendance at religious services, and cigarette smoking. RESULTS: After stratifying by age, gender, and ethnic group, and adjusting for age, education, region, and health status, infrequent attenders (<24 times/year) were much more likely to be smokers than frequent attenders; odds ratios (95% confidence limits) ranged from 1.74 (1.45-2.10) to 3.06 (1.86-5.03). Among current smokers, frequent attenders smoked an average of 1-5 fewer cigarettes per day. Using serum cotinine > or =14 ng/mL as the gold standard for current smoking, under-reporting of smoking did not vary appreciably with frequency of attendance: false negative percentage for never smokers 3.1% in frequent attenders, 4.2% in others. CONCLUSIONS: Greater frequency of attendance at religious services was associated with lower smoking prevalence by self-report or serum cotinine in a national, multi-ethnic sample.

PMID: 15917059 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdcntx (talk • contribs) 17:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Is the Goal of Human Existence the Pursuit of Happiness?

Before constructing a house, the foundation has to be laid. Before writing an essay, definitions have to be made. There are two ways to define a term. One way is to go by one’s personal feelings. For example, Dictionary of Modern Chinese defines Happiness as “experiences and life that soothe one’s mind”. Another way is to transcend one’s body and be objective. My definition for Happiness is “the state in which one’s needs have been satisfied” or “the state in which one’s goals have been achieved.” Aristotle said that the goal of human existence is the pursuit of happiness. Substituting my definition for Happiness into this statement and you get “the goal of human existence is the pursuit of the state in which goals have been achieved.” Rubbish. Just as if nothing has been said.

--205.209.23.245 (talk) 19:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

A view exists that "happiness" is a very Western concept employing many unrecognized biases. The article barely hints at this. Westerners seem quite attached to the "myth" of happiness and may refuse to recognize its cultural relativity. See Buddhism. Mydogtrouble (talk) 17:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The Oxford Site Link

Avast reported to me that a trojan was lurking on the site. Perhaps we should relink.Evolver42 (talk) 03:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Sources for the article

I'm surprised to see nothing on Affective forecasting in this article. Maybe this source could help: {{cite journal|last=Hsee|first=Christopher K. |coauthors=Reid Hastie|title=Decision and experience: why don't we choose what makes us happy? |journal=Trends in Cognitive Sciences|date=2006|volume=10|issue=1|pages=31-37|doi=10.1016/j.tics.2005.11.007|accessdate=31 May 2010}} Available at [1] MartinPoulter (talk) 12:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Rozpresho, 9 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Can our website www.thehappinessinstitute.com be added as an external link please?

Rozpresho (talk) 05:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Such an external link would act as an advertisement. For general guidelines on external links on Wikipedia, have a look at WP:EL. Favonian (talk) 08:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Global happiness studies suggest that social security is correlated with happiness

The text regarding economic correlation with happiness is far too simple: "Economic freedom correlates strongly with happiness[45] while social security not at all,[46] and socialist East European countries were less happy than Western ones, even less happy than other equally poor countries[46].".

Recent studies (for instance, see [42] and [*] below) have regularly shown that Denmark and other Scandinavian countries are among the very happiest in the world, which is attributed to several causes, including not only high standards of living but, equally, good social security systems that provide peace of mind in times of unemployment or old age, good public health systems, and free education (other causes include low violence levels, tight social cohension, high mutual trust, low corruption).

Citizens of the Eastern European countries have had many causes to be unhappy, and social security is not necessarily one of these causes.

[*] Veenhoven, R., World Database of Happiness, Distributional Findings in Nations, Erasmus University Rotterdam. Available at: http://worlddatabaseofhappiness.eur.nl (+ year)

Sonofnob (talk) 17:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought that that statement in the article was biased, and now the citation justifying it leads to a 404... time for it to be removed.13:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.58.60.207 (talk)

It upset me when I saw this on the page because I know that it's obviously biased and untrue. Denmark is the happiest country in the world[1] and, get this, it also has the highest income equality in the world.[2] America actually ranks below many other European countries and welfare-sates on happiness ranking as low as #23 even though it's the richest country in the world.[1] Social-security absolutely has a positive effect on happiness.

This part of the article should not only be removed but reversed to say the opposite.

1. http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=4086092&page=1 2. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality

Freedomaniac (talk) 10:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Gthirteen, 30 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Please change "Al-Ghazali (1058–1111) the Muslim Sufi thinker wrote the Alchemy of Happiness, a manual of spiritual instruction throughout the Muslim world and widely practiced even now. About one hundred years later, the Hindu thinker Patanjali, author of the Yoga Sutras, wrote quite exhaustively on the psychological and ontological roots of bliss." To "Al-Ghazali (1058–1111) the Muslim Sufi thinker wrote the Alchemy of Happiness, a manual of spiritual instruction throughout the Muslim world and widely practiced even now. The Hindu thinker Patanjali(150 BCE or 2nd c. BCE), author of the Yoga Sutras, wrote quite exhaustively on the psychological and ontological roots of bliss." Reason [[2]] Gthirteen (talk) 22:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

There seem to be two Patanjalis, the author of the Yoga Sutras living in a later time period than the other one. [3] From this and other sources I've checked, the dates of the later Patanjali seem not to be known, so I've removed the phrase that placed him in the 12th Century. If I've made a mistake, please show me and I'll reverse it.MartinPoulter (talk) 12:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Disadvantages of happiness?

I believe someone did a study showing that depressed people had a more realistic perception of a situation in which they were powerless than normal controls, who were optimistically deluded. Does this imply that happiness has at least one disadvantage, or does it only imply that a state of mental health that is considered normal or healthy has a disadvantage?

I also recall reading about some study in which people who reported higher levels of happiness were more indifferent to the suffering of others.

I have a suspicion that this article is missing something important.

You're thinking of depressive realism. MartinPoulter (talk) 19:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. After reading the article about Depressive Realism, I believe it needs to be mentioned in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.85.171 (talk) 15:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

"Ideal Salary" paragraph

This para doesn't seem to be encyclopedic. "Happiness peaks at that level of income" seems to contradict the title of the source. "people accumulate more personal possessions with gaining an incremental increase in happiness" is not correct English. It's clearly not taking a world-wide view of the subject (is 75,000 (US?) dollars the ideal salary in Somalia?), and when there is lots of actual scientific research on income and happiness, the paragraph relies not on an academic source, not on a news source but on a blog post from a news site. I'm going to remove the paragraph as potentially misleading. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Political POV-pushing

There's a over-reliance on the Cato Institute in the section on Economics. Tagged because this repeats a talking point rather than informing readers in a balanced way about the state of academic research. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Note also that Policy, the New Zealand magazine cited in that section, is not an academic journal or news magazine but the publication of another right-wing think tank. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Manojsathe, 20 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

Manojsathe (talk) 07:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 07:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit Request from Ivbauer, Oct 7, 2010

{{Edit semi-protected}}

After further inquiry into the topics Darwinian Happiness, Ethical naturalism, and their critiques, I have come to the understanding that the view proposed in the paragraph on "Biological approach" in Section "Scientific views" is by no means undisputed! I would therefore propose to change it to the following to point out its disputability (bold typeface indicates changes, with comment in parenthesis):

The evolutionary perspective offers an alternative approach to understand what happiness or quality of life is about. Briefly, it focuses on (new) the questions (removed: to be answered are): What features are included in the brain that allow humans to distinguish between positive and negative states of mind, and how do these features improve humans' ability to survive and reproduce? It claims that (new) answering these questions points towards an understanding of what happiness is about and how to best exploit the capacities of the brain with which humans are endowed. The perspective is presented in detail by the evolutionary biologist Bjørn Grinde in his book Darwinian Happiness, as well as in a more formal way.

It might make sense to link to the topics of Ethical naturalism, Naturalistic fallacy, Is-ought problem, and Science of morality. However, if links are established, one should be careful not to introduce bias in either direction. --Ivbauer (talk) 11:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

You should have been able to edit the article yourself, but it's done. -Atmoz (talk) 17:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

That's odd, I was really confused, since I wasn't able when I wanted to edit, but now I am... Thank You for editing it anyway! --Ivbauer (talk) 14:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Time factor

My sense is the definition of happiness needs to include the time factor. Specifically, I think happiness is a feeling we have in the present when we remember a time in the past when we did something pleasurable. That is, happiness is remembering now a past time when we were fully immersed in something meaningful to us such as painting a painting or loving a lover or singing a song or running a race, but since we were so fully immersed back then, we didn't have time to stop and think that we were happy at that moment; rather, we CAN think now about how good we felt back then. For me, this is what happiness is. It needs a time factor. I explain this idea further in my "knol" called "Mentally healthy mind" in this section [4]. (search for "what is happiness"). And I realize there is controversy surrounding this concept but I urge the people who protect this article to consider this aspect. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, why not put in the GREAT DRAWING of the man and woman -- which is in my knol. It's in Wikimedia Commons but I need the filename. If interested, bug me about it on my talk page, and I'll see if I can track down the filename. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for edit

A person laughing

— Preceding unsigned comment added by GRPH3B18 (talk • contribs) 06:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

research on happiness as a result of social scheduling

start school older than your grade peers BBC reports that people born during the summer are three times likelier to be considered doing badly at school, apparently purely a result of being the youngest or least developed amongst their grade peers, while those born during the month that makes them oldest at school do vastly better. Are there any papers on social schedule effect on happiness, are there other cases of this more chronologically mature or capable at a group effect — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.121.204.129 (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

This short section on buddhism appears quite good, and deserves respect

It deserves protection from careless editing. The choice of the word "craving" to indicate the form of desire that interferes with happiness, and distinction from other forms that do not, seems an unusually able and useful explanation.

I found the section on Buddhism exceptionally dubious, and think that associating Buddhism with happiness is completely at odds with Buddhism and betrays a perverse Western appropriation of Buddhism. Once I found that I couldn't edit the article (simply to add "dubious"), I came in to see the discussion and found this (^) even more unsubstantiated and dubious declaration, presumably by the author of the Buddhist section, who didn't even bother to use tildes. This is not up to Wikipedian standards. Knock-kneed (talk) 02:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I have added some tags to represent your criticisms. I did this, not because I know anything about Buddhism (I don't). But assuming good faith, I checked the sources to see what you were up against: they are both somewhat random websites. I hope those tags are a good start.-Tesseract²(talk) 03:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Scientific views

The "Happiness" page still has it's religious views, and actually it could use way more philosophical views. But I'm considering making the "Scientific views section" very, very brief - and moving the information onto the positive psychology page. Otherwise it's sort of redundant. Any objections?-Tesseract2 (talk) 17:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

There have been lots of very questionable edits to this article since the last time I looked at it, but certainly the proposal to remove scientific findings on happiness is a bad idea. This page can deal with broad themes that are not as detailed as the positive psychology article, but scientific views are - and should be - the core of this article. Otherwise (as with all other scientific endeavors) how does anyone know whether the information is reliable? With apologies, I've reverted Tesseract2's edits made today, and will look at the article in more detail tomorrow. -DoctorW 08:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Ya sorry I didn't explain. Basically there was a lot of redundancy between details here and details at Positive Psychology. Just make sure you check out what I DID end up writing for this page's scientific input; I feel I had provided a concise, but even broader coverage of science's input than there was before. Maybe I left out exercise... Anyway lemme know.-Tesseract²(talk) 05:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Since it has been a week without any changes or notices, I will go through with my edits. Again, it is all available at the Positive Psychology page- I've just opted to provide more of a summary here.

This time I've also linked to some ideas about how psychological and physiological factors impact moods-Tesseract²(talk) 16:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Dealing with the POV tag

It has come to my attention that there may still be debate over the NPOV of this article. It's just that throwing up tags and leaving them for months doesn't fix anything, so let's get discussing and editing so we can clean her' up. Maybe someone can justify the POV tag being applied to the whole article, instead of specifying sections that might be POV? Or better yet, list specific issues? -Tesseract2 (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

(update) If no one has any issues soon, I will remove the tag, again. And, again, anyone who at that time decides to put the tag back up should do it whilst mentioning issues on the talk page.-Tesseract2 (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Definition of Happiness

A simple view of the definition of happiness would be: "The love for certain actions is happiness". The definition lacks of experimenting the application of itself but for me it seems the easiest way to understand how you get fast/slow in a happy state. I came to this conclusion after thinking that love and happiness are hard to maintain, hazardous, because sometimes they both need luck, or hard working to achieve such things, they seem to share same construction. --TudorTulok (talk) 21:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The term 'happiness' has many different uses. Of all the uses, two are primary: one that refers to merely a psychological or emotional state, and the other that refers to a valuable state of affairs for the person who has it. Nowadays, it's common to use the term 'happiness' to just refer to the former, merely descriptive, state (see Wayne Sumner 1996; Dan Haybron 2008; and Fred Feldman 2010). In order to refer to the latter valuable state of affairs for the person who has it, we use the terms 'well-being' or 'welfare'. This article opens with the following definition of happiness: "Happiness is a mental or emotional state of well-being characterized by positive or pleasant emotions ranging from contentment to intense joy". Although the definition is from WorldNet, it's not a good definition of happiness. I propose defining the term 'happiness' as a mere psychological or emotional state, not necessarily good for the person experiencing it. I propose creating a new page for well-being (welfare). -Nietzsche123 (talk) 01:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

So you're not proposing changes to this article, just the creation of another article? Is quality of life suitable for explaining the other meaning? MartinPoulter (talk) 11:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm proposing both changes to this article and the creation of a new article on well-being. The quality of life article is not what I had in mind for well-being. Although I think the quality of life page needs some improvements, the term 'quality of life' seems mostly reserved for economists and psychologists measuring the quality of life of different societies. Quality of life is sometimes said to track well-being; but this is misleading. Quality of life tracks income, health, life expectancy, etc, of a particular society. Well-being tracks intrinsic prudential value: what it is for a person to live a good life for herself. 'Well-being' is conceptually prior to 'quality of life', if that makes sense. The changes to this article I had in mind represent advances in the understanding of what it is for a person to be happy in contemporary philosophy. It's an exciting time to be a philosopher specializing in happiness and welfare nowadays; I would like to update this page in light of the apparent progress. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 01:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be proposing the exclusion of "good" or "pleasant" from the definition of happiness. That seems to be a bit eccentric. Do you think that happiness is NOT preferable to unhappiness?--Other Choices (talk) 08:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, there's a sense of the term 'happiness' that is evaluative, that does imply the state the person is currently experiencing is good for her; but that sense should be reserved for the term 'well-being'. The other (primary) sense of happiness is when we use 'happy' to connote merely describe a particular psychological or emotional state to a person, a state that's not necessarily good for the person who has it. There are different theories of happiness. Some argue happiness essentially consists of pleasure, whether sensory pleasure or attitudinal pleasure; others argue happiness essentially consists of satisfied desires; while still others argue happiness essentially consists of overall satisfaction with one's life to date. But these theories all leave open the possibility that happiness is not good for the person who has it; they all admit that there may be inauthentic happiness as a result of social conditioning that's not good for the person experiencing it.-Nietzsche123 (talk) 12:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, to stir the pot a bit with an alternative view (excluding the possibility of inauthentic happiness as a result of social conditioning), based on the 2000-year-old Ciceronian definition of happiness ("internal peace, virtue, and good order") formally adopted by the drafters of the Declaration of Independence, you can see the links on my user page.--Other Choices (talk) 11:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I could be mistaken, but I believe Cicero is simply being mistranslated: that's a definition of well-being, not happiness. Aristotle is often translated as having said that happiness consists excellent rational activity of the soul. But the term Aristotle is using is 'eudaimonia', which is better translated into English as 'welfare' or 'flourishing', not 'happiness. I imagine something similar is going on with Cicero, although I'm not that familiar with Latin. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 20:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The definition of happiness was written in May 1776 in English by John Adams (in the original declaration of independence), encapsulating the content of Cicero's Tusculan Disputations. The three elements of Adams's definition were also associated with happiness in renaissance English jurisprudence and by moral philosophers such as Richard Cumberland and Burlamaqui, who of course followed the Ciceronian natural law tradition as did Adams and the American Founders in general (it was a standard part of their education).

Although it's true that Jefferson, not Adams by the way, used the English term 'happiness' in The Declaration of Independence, contemporary scholars would use the term 'well-being'. Jefferson and Cicero clearly do NOT mean happiness, as in an emotional or psychological state. Rather, they mean well-being, a state that is good for the individual experiencing it. The point is that contemporary scholars, whether they're economists, philosophers, psychologists, anthropologists, sociologists, etc, all use the term 'happiness' to get at a mere emotional or psychological state; they use 'welfare' to get at the state that's good for us. It seems reasonable to suppose that an encyclopedia should reflect this usage. Plus, disambiguating 'happiness' in this manner not only follows contemporary scholarship, it also helps clear up a legitimate confusion over what sense of happiness we're considering. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 00:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I certainly agree that the wikipedia article on happiness should reflect contemporary scholarly usage, at least in the part that deals with contemporary scholarship. The meaning of the philosophical term "happiness" has changed drastically over the past 200 years, and perhaps this should also be reflected in the article, especially since the famous phrase "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" uses the much older definition, which leads to rather grotesque modern-day confusion when trying to make sense of the Declaration of Independence. Currently, the article is simply blind to this issue. The article says absolutely nothing about the history of the concept of happiness, which was central to the western philosophical endeavor for 2000 years or so. A introductory scholarly treatment of the history of "happiness" is Darrin McMahon's Happiness: A History, which is quite good on the change in the meaning of happiness over the past 200 years. If I still had access to a copy, I'd use it to improve the article. A review of McMahon's book from the New York Times is here.
By the way, regarding your comment about Jefferson and Adams, you are missing my point. Jefferson was the primary drafter of the July 1776 Declaration of Independence (with Adams as his primary editor), using the phrase "safety and happiness" that Adams had previously defined in the ORIGINAL declaration of independence on May 15, 1776, which Adams co-wrote with Richard Henry Lee. When Jefferson drafted the more formal Declaration six weeks later, he was recycling philosophical points that had already been exhaustively debated and finally agreed upon by the Continental Congress, which had already already defined happiness as "internal peace, virtue, and good order" while correlating SAFETY (not happiness) with "life, liberty, and property."--Other Choices (talk) 10:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Other Choices, for both points. I'll either order the McMahon text from Amazon or borrow it from my university library. I didn't realize that the authorship of the Declaration was a little complicated. I'll have to do a bit of research on that. Again, thanks for the information. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 15:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Everyone Else's critique

1:Improving happiness

The Scientific Views section makes the following assertion, yet does not cite any source. "There is evidence suggesting that people can improve their happiness."

Either the source has to be cited or the assertion removed.

Everyone Else (talk) 07:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

2:Religion and happiness

The following assertion is made: "Research has generally found that religion may help make people happier by providing various important components (e.g. PERMA) in countries where there are many who share that religion."

1. The source for this assertion is not cited.

2. The phrasing implies that research has found a causal link between religion and happiness, whereas any such link would be correlational at best.

3. The sentence contains the word "may", which vitiates the science of the assertion. If the sentence is well-founded, it would say "religion helps make people happier" rather than "religion may help make people happier".

Everyone Else (talk) 07:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

3:Everyone can benefit

The "Scientific Views" section contains the following sentence: "Furthermore, the model suggests that everyone can benefit, to varying degrees, from the various habits and practices identified by positive psychology."

A "model" is an explanation not a source of scientific information. In order to assert that "everyone can benefit" from positive psychology, reproducible effects must be validated by peer-reviewed research.

To tie together what a "model" can "suggest" with the blanket assertion "everyone can benefit" does a disservice to the normal high standards of Wikipedia.

Everyone Else (talk) 08:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Repeating requests

{{edit semi-protected}}

Until someone does a representative summary of the state of science of happiness, this "Scientific Views" section should be eliminated.

I made serious criticisms of the "Scientific Views" section on September 4, 2011, which have not yet been addressed. They are the comments 8, 9, 10 on this talk page.

Apart from the particular points mentioned, the bulk of this section consists of the section quoted below, which promotes the work of only one point of view on the science of happiness (which already has its own Wikipedia page), and neglects to include the many important contributions made by others.

(A sampling of those who have been other major contributors appears below the quoted section.)

"Psychologist Martin Seligman provides the acronym PERMA to summarize many of Positive Psychology's findings: humans seem happiest when they have Pleasure (tasty foods, warm baths, etc.), Engagement (or flow, the absorption of an enjoyed yet challenging activity), Relationships (social ties have turned out to be extremely reliable indicator of happiness), Meaning (a perceived quest or belonging to something bigger), and Accomplishments (having realized tangible goals)."

Some of the other thinkers who have made important contributions to the scientific study of happiness, and a few cited works, can be found in the following; Charles Darwin William James Berridge, K. C. (2003). Comparing the emotional brains of humans and other animals. In R. J. Davidson, K. Scherer, & H. H. Goldsmith (Eds.), Handbook of affective science (pp. 25–51). New York: Oxford University Press. Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review of General Psychology, 2, 300–319. Keltner, D., & Haidt, J. (2003). Approaching awe, a moral, spiritual, and aesthetic emotion. Cognition and Emotion, 17(2), 297–314. McCullough, M. E., Kilpatrick, S. D., Emmons, R. A., & Larson, D. B. (2001). Is gratitude a moral affect? Psychological Bulletin, 127, 249–266. Tomkins, S. S. (1984). Affect theory. In K. Scherer & P. Ekman (Eds.), Approaches to emotion (pp. 163–195). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2007). Emerging insights into the nature and function of pride. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 147–150.

Everyone Else (talk) 00:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

That is a fine list: surely I could persuade you to provide each of those sources a summary on the actual Wikipage. It won't be perfect, and it will see much improvement and rewriting once it attracts interest, but that is all the more reason to get something, anything, on the page.

Jonathan Winters supposedly said "If your ship does not come in, swim out to meet it." -Tesseract²(talk) 12:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind doing it when I get the time, but I'm not authorized to edit the happiness page because it's semi-protected. The assertions without citations mentioned in my points 8 and 9 are violations of Wikipedia criteria. The extrapolation from an explanatory model (10) is unscientific and does not belong in a Scientific Views section. Everyone Else (talk) 04:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Summary of requests, again

{{Edit semi-protected}}

1. Please remove the sentence in "Scientific Views" section that says: "There is evidence suggesting that people can improve their happiness."

2. Please remove the sentence in "Scientific Views" section that says: "Research has generally found that religion may help make people happier ..."

3. Please remove the sentence in "Scientific Views" section that says: "There are various habits that have been correlated with happiness."

The above three assertions are stated without their source being identified.

Jimmy Wales has said explicitly on "Insist on sources", WikiEN-l, July 19, 2006: "I really want to encourage a much stronger culture which says: it is better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources."

4. Please remove the sentence in "Scientific Views" section that says: "Furthermore, the model suggests that everyone can benefit, to varying degrees, from the various habits and practices identified by positive psychology."

To tie together what a "model" can "suggest" with the blanket assertion "everyone can benefit" does a disservice to the normal high standards of Wikipedia.

Thanks.

Everyone Else (talk) 10:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

First, I see your account has gone red. I hope I did not some how do something terrible while I was re-organizing all your comments. I was just checking your contribution history, and I noticed you had 9 edits. I think 10 edits would have autoconfirmed you so you could have edited the page yourself. Anyway, maybe you deleted your account just now??

I also made a first pass at addressing your critiques.

The Religion comments did need to be made more concise, and tentative. Actually, I could add a source for the comment now being made. I am not sure I will bother, for the same reason mentioned below.

As far as habits go, a source is superfluous. The pages that cover the research in more detail are unambiguous; these are not professionally controversial issues. There is clear and convincing evidence that habits influence happiness, and that some tend to increase it. I suppose we could afford to look for a source that summarizes the research on religion and happiness, and another on habits and happiness; I am just saying it is not the urgent issue that you make it sound like.

About the claim that everybody can benefit: I think you are correct it was a little too sweeping.

I was going to ask you to provide summaries of those sources here on the talk page, and I could edit them in myself. Now, with your account red, I am not sure what to expect.

Thanks for you contributions here.-Tesseract²(talk) 15:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Everyone Else, 9/11/11

{{Edit semi-protected}}

The first sentence and the last sentence of the largest paragraph in the Scientific Views section should be taken away.

The first sentence says: "There is evidence suggesting that people can improve their happiness." The citation is a Time magazine article from 2005.

The last sentence says: "Furthermore, the model suggests that many could benefit from the various habits and practices identified by positive psychology."

Time Magazine revisited this issue in 2009 in an article called: "The Science of Happiness Turns 10. What Has It Taught?" Here is the URL: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1908173,00.html

The Time Magazine update says, quoting the president of the International Positive Psychology Association, "some of the most popular findings on happiness have not held up to further study". The new Time Magazine review also says, quoting the Chairman of the the First World Congress on Positive Psychology, "There's a temptation to bullshit in positive psychology." (Pardon the language, but it's not mine.)

The Scientific Views Section as it stands now is mainly a promotion for the field of Positive Psychology, the major assertions of which have not withstood the test of time, and in any case, this field already benefits from its own Wikipedia page, disambiguations, and redirects.

The only substantive findings of this field have been correlations, not causations.

It's a misuse of Wikipedia to assert that any habit or practice can cause people to become more happy. As the Time Magazine 2009 review points out, the practices "become stale and stagnant" and those people most likely to chase happiness, the clinically depressed, can end up even "less happy".

I don't think this section warrants being called "Scientific Views", but it if it's not eliminated entirely until it's better done, at least the two sentences mentioned should be removed.

Thanks.

Everyone Else (talk) 22:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

_______________

NB Since my last entry on this page I've become authorized to edit the page, and made the requested elisions myself. Everyone Else (talk) 01:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I've closed Everyone Else's edit requests now that EE can edit the article directly. Tesseract, the red colour on EE's username just means EE's user page does not exist, just as a red wikilink in an article indicates the target does not exist. As far as I can tell, it never did exist, so EE's name would have always been red. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 09:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Further Reading resource

ISBN-13: 978-1608195107 What's the Economy For, Anyway?: Why It's Time to Stop Chasing Growth and Start Pursuing Happiness David K. Batker (Author) and John de Graaf (Author), Publisher Bloomsbury Press (November 8, 2011) 97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Please consider linking with http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Tal_Ben-Shahar and his book "Happier" Tal Ben-Shahar (2007) Happier: Learn the Secrets to Daily Joy and Lasting Fulfillment, McGraw-Hill Professional. ISBN 978-0-07-149239-3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.45.84 (talk) 01:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Is the Tal Ben-Shahar comment for a seperate section, Special:Contributions/24.151.45.84? 99.181.134.134 (talk) 04:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

(od) From Talk:Tim DeChristopher ... more further reading The Politics of Happiness: What Government can Learn from the New Research on Well-Being (2010) by Derek Bok, and Derek's spouce Sissela Bok's Exploring Happiness: From Aristotle to Brain Science (Yale University Press, 2010). Also, appearently related is The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better. 99.35.12.139 (talk) 05:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Is there more regarding this?

World Database of Happiness 99.181.146.108 (talk) 11:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Buddhism and Wealth

"More mundane forms of happiness, such as acquiring wealth..." What is the source of this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.142.188 (talk) 20:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Happiness Video

Hey I was hoping to get the "create happiness" video added to the external links page.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHVA4ivCfqk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reader 31 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Its a unique/ valid link in that its the first video of its kind thats designed to make the viewer experience happiness just because they see other peole experiencing it. It is designed to spread happiness in its purest form, .i.e. happiness not based on any particular reason/idea, but the happiness that gets generated because of awarenes of already existing happiness. This emphasis the viral nature of pure happiness.

I want to make sure the link doesnt violate any policies of wikipedia before I go ahead and add it to the external link section of the page. Please let me know if theres any concerns, if don't hear back Ill go ahead and add the link.

Thanks.

Reader 31 (talk) 17:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

No thanks. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 September 2012

Add a reference in the measure of happiness

Measures of happiness The Happy Index is a web application that allows anyone to answer the "Are you happy?" question at anytime and anywhere. The results are used to build a real time index of the world's happiness in real time with a ranking per country.

Melkisch (talk) 08:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template., as it sounds somewhat...fishy, I don't know. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Genetics of happiness

Wichers et al at The catechol-O-methyl transferase Val158Met polymorphism and experience of reward in the flow of daily life describe how the met met version of the COMT gene causes people to be twice as happy throughout the daily moments of their lives as others. The graph at the paper (Wichers COMT flow at pubmed) is impressive

The above was an unsigned addition, and what follows is my comment. I believe this is the figure referenced. However, it would be very misleading to include a section describing a "gene for happiness" (or a "gene for" anything, for that matter). As described in the "Related uses" section of the Winner's curse page, early genetics studies often report strong effect sizes only to have them later tempered by further studies finding much smaller or null effects. This study and other such "Genetics of happiness" information should either be described as highly tentative or witheld until more widely replicated.

Laurenrmeyer (talk) 18:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

NPOV on economic Views

The text reads: "On average richer nations tend to be happier than poorer nations, but this effect seems to diminish with wealth." This is ambiguous. It needs further explanation. How is happiness measured in these studies?

Then the next paragraph has a serious NPOV issue as it is based on personal opinion: "Economic freedom correlates strongly with happiness[16] preferably within the context of a western mixed economy, with free press and a democracy. East European countries (ruled by Communist parties) were less happy than Western ones, even less happy than other equally poor countries.[17]"

I don't think it is enough to give a quote to support that economic freedom correlates with happiness. Economic freedom as a term itself is debatable, it needs explanation by the writer re. what s/he understands as economic freedom.

It is quite clear that the writer of the text favours a western mixed economy, but this says actually nothing regarding happiness. There is no explanation how free press actually is related to happiness, neither how democracy affects levels of happiness either. Generally the whole paragraph is highly registered with personal opinion based on specific ideological perceptions and political leanings. This text lacks objectivity and as a result I believe that this page should be tagged as biased until this paragraph is re-written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alualuna (talk • contribs) 13:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The key to happiness is love and doing things ou love so be happy and do things that make you happy. To make someone else happy say things or get them to do things thay like to make them happy. eberyone wants to be happy!!!

It appears as though the NPOV issues in this section have been addressed:

1. "'On average richer nations tend to be happier' ... How is happiness measured in these studies?" There are two sources cited for this claim. If every finding/ claim had a thorough explanation of its methodology in-line rather than relying on the included references, the page would be too long. I think it is appropriate to leave out the method of measuring happiness in these studies here.
2. "I don't think it is enough to give a quote to support that economic freedom correlates with happiness..." That paragraph now begins with "Libertarian think tank Cato Institute claims that..." I think that, along with the following sentence beginning with "According to certain standards...", sufficiently demonstrates that this is not a neutral point of view. And again, the sources are cited so interested readers can follow-up to inspect and evaluate the methodology.

Laurenrmeyer (talk) 18:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Scientific views on happiness

The "Scientific Views" section does not contain enough empirically supported research that is representative of the range of scientific theories/ideas/findings on happiness and related concepts. Here I suggest adding new contents to that section so that a broader and more scientific view can be introduced to the readers.

1.1 Happiness as a universal emotion

Happiness has been proposed as one of the basic emotions that are universally experienced, expressed, and recognized. When shown the facial expression of happiness (i.e. smile), westerners and pacific islanders (who have no prior contact to western media and socialization) are equally accurate in labeling the facial expression as happiness . Human infants also recognize happiness facial expression and prefer to look at happy faces . The finding is in line with Darwin (1872)'s hypothesis that some basic emotions, including happiness, are hard-wired into human beings and constant across human cultures.

1.2 Subjective well-being

Research on subjective well-being (SWB), or how satisfied people feel about their lives, suggests that across the global, most people are generally happy about their lives. Despite cultural differences in the levels of reported happiness, the values always exceed the neutral point of 5 on a 0-to-10-point scale. The majority of disadvantaged individuals, including people with severe disabilities and social circumstances, report positive levels of well-being as well . Along with mildly positive affect associated with a higher level of SWB, people also show positive, optimistic thinking and recall positive events more quickly than negative events . Psychological theories suggest that this positive baseline in humans may be essential to maintain approach motivations that would allow behaviors such as attainments of food, shelter, social support and sex . Alternatively, a positive baseline may allow negative events to stand out and gain more informational value .

1.3 Evolutionary value of happiness

The innate and universal nature of happiness (see Section 1.1) implies that it might have served evolutionarily adaptive functions. The "broad-and-build" theory of positive affect proposes that positive affect has its unique contribution to human survival and well-being. Unlike negative emotions that narrow one's attention and generate specific action tendencies (e.g. to attack in anger, to flee in fear, and to expel in disgust) that help our ancestors cope with life-threatening situations , positive affect, including emotions such as joy, contentment, interest, pride and love, broadens the scope of attention, increases thought-behavior repertoires, and facilitates exploration. The momentary broadening of these attributes then helps build lasting physical, intellectual, and social resources that would become critical for survival in the long run. This attribute of positive affect is closely related to resilience, the ability to bounce back from failures and difficulties. Happier people exhibit greater resilience to adversity .

1.4 Happiness and reward

It has long been discovered that electrical stimulation of the ventral tegmental area (VTA), the septum, and the nucleus accumbences (NAc) that are part of the reward circuits in the brain elicits intense euphoria in humans . Animal research reveals further that neurons in VTA, NAc, and dorsal striatum show phasic release of dopamine towards food and water rewards . As such, some psychologists regard subjective feelings of happiness as by-products of positive reinforcement and rewards . Other researchers have proposed a distinction between the motivational (i.e. wanting) and consummatory (i.e. liking) component of happiness , such that the process to obtain reward is distinguished from the process of enjoying the reward itself.

Youlilly (talk) 21:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Reshuffling "Happiness" and "Positive psychology" content

I believe there is much on the current Positive psychology page that actually belongs on the Happiness page instead, and vice versa. Specifically:

• Positive psychology contains a section titled "General findings by topic" that lists various research findings of (mostly) correlates of happiness. This should be on the Happiness page instead as the information is more generally about happiness rather than being specific to the perspective of Positive psychology. That page should be left with the other sections covering its history, methods, theory, applications, and criticisms.
• The Happiness page's "Scientific views" section explains Martin Seligman's PERMA acronym, but this content would be more appropriate on the specific Positive psychology page that already covers it under the "Broad theories" section.

Laurenrmeyer (talk) 17:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

"Measures of happiness" section

The "Measures of happiness" section should be updated as follows:

• Move the entire section to be after the "Scientific views" section, rather than at the end.
• Add an introductory paragraph at the beginning, such as the below:

Psychologists, neuroscientists, and other scientists measure happiness in a multitude of ways across different studies. They may use surveys (which directly ask participants about their happiness level), observations (which measure some aspect of the participants' behavior), physiological measurements (which measure some aspect of the participants' biological reactions), or some combination of these methodologies.

• Break it down into the following subsections: Survey measures, Observational measures, and Physiological measures. The three current measures (SHS, PANAS, and SWLS) would all belong under the "Survey measures" section.
• Under the "Survey measures" section, add a bullet with the following:

Some studies use an Experience sampling method to measure moment-to-moment happiness that is not affected by Recall bias.

• Under the "Survey measures" section, add a bullet with the following:

A 2012 study by Zhou proposes a new procedure for measuring happiness on a societal level. It combines Ng's questionnaire based on "just perceivable increments" of emotions with Kahneman's Day Reconstruction Method.

• Under the "Survey measures" section, add a bullet with the following:

Many more survey measures of happiness are available here on Martin Seligman's Positive psychology webpage. People may view the surveys as well as take them and see their scores after registering with the site.

• Under the "Observational measures" section, add:

Patterns of facial expressions and movements of the body and head can be analyzed to classify emotions.

• Under the "Physiological measures" section, add:

Happiness can be differentiated from other emotions based on the pattern of blood pressure and heart rate. Gamma-band Electroencephalography can also be used to classify emotions.

Laurenrmeyer (talk) 20:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

See Also

The "See Also" section of the original entry includes some points that are neither scientifically supported nor closely related to the central idea of happiness. Some concepts and ideas are only tangentially related to and perpetuating popular myths about happiness. The suggestion is to remove links such as "Mania", "Serotonin", "Biopsychosocial Model"

There can be additional bullet points added to the "See Also" section to include more divergent and remotely related materials -

• Bulleted list item Positive Psychology
• Bulleted list item Smile
• Bulleted list item Hedonism
• Bulleted list item Epicureanism
• Bulleted list item Reward system
• Bulleted list item Contentment
• Bulleted list item Peak experience

Youlilly (talk) 04:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Evenness of the sections

It seems to me that there is an unevenness to the sections of this article. Specifically,

• Scientific views: This section contains information that should be covered elsewhere (e.g., in the other sections on religion and economics and on the separate Positive Psychology page) rather than being duplicated here. Another user recently suggested other major overhauls/ additions to this section that would help make it more original, comprehensive, and scientific.
• Religious perspectives: Rather than having two specific examples of religions (Buddhism and Catholicism) and their perspectives on happiness, this section should have a more general overview/ summary of the linked Religion and happiness page.
• Philosophical views: Since there is already a separate Philosophy of happiness page, the section on the main Happiness page should be a briefer overview/ summary.
• Economic views: Since there is already a separate Happiness economics page, the section on the main Happiness page should be a briefer overview/ summary.

Laurenrmeyer (talk) 21:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

These, and many of your other suggestions, are excellent. Glad to have you involved. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Cultural differences in perceptions of happiness

A new section on how people from different cultures differ in their perceptions of happiness can be added.

While people socialized in Western cultures regards enthusiasm, excitement and other high-arousal positive emotions as constituting the ideals of happiness, people grown up in the East regard contentment, calmness and other low-arousal positive emotions as ideal affect [1]. In addition, Westerners and Easterners also differ in their emotion regulation strategies towards happiness, with Westerners savoring positive emotions more so than Easterners [2].

[1] Tsai, J. L. (2007). Ideal Affect: Cultural Causes and Behavioral Consequences. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00043.x

[2] Miyamoto, Y. & Ma, X. (2011). Dampening or savoring positive emotions: A dialectical cultural script guides emotion regulation. Emotion, 11, 1346-1357.

Youlilly (talk) 04:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

A good suggestion. Feel free to go ahead and do it. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

“how we might attain it” vs “how one might attain it”

By default, an encyclopedia is expected to use third-person pronouns only (unless citing a text). The first-person plural pronoun in that context overemphasizes col Hi lective happiness. “One” is a neutral alternative. EIN (talk) 02:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

You are quite right! I changed it into "how it might be attained." Lova Falk talk 09:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. Passive voice suits it even better. EIN (talk) 15:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

HAPPY

is a great song! by Pharelle Anyone and anything can be happy DINNER! Random can be happy too. =) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.19.139.155 (talk) 08:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

added section on positive emotion and its benefits

Work done by a student in my nutrition course reviewing nutrition literature related to happiness Rocordman (talk) 22:17, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Missing factors

People often debate whether money, material luxuries, social status, fame, or power bring happiness. These things are missing from this overview, though happiness economics does cover some of these. -- Beland (talk) 22:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

What's with the weird guy with birds?

Is this a joke? It's pretty freaking ridiculous.

Furthermore, there are no women prominently featured on this page. In fact, the only women present at all are two (debatably three) kind of, sort of visible in the back rows of the Annapolis graduation. Obviously, neglecting to portray happiness as exhibited by a whole half of the world's population is quite silly. If this article is going to contain illustrative photographs, they should be better than what's now up. Here are some nice options: <https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/Rebecca_L._Felton.png>, <https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/Bride_and_bridesmaid_happy.jpg>, <https://secure.flickr.com/photos/julien_harneis/590028480/>, <https://secure.flickr.com/photos/dfid/7348237818/>, <https://secure.flickr.com/photos/seeminglee/3885634615/>. 71.235.191.162 (talk) 22:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2014

happiness Geliepter Fuhrer (talk) 04:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

No actionable request made. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

more weblinks

• German happiness researcher and writer Sebastian Luetzig about -be happy in everyday life- with articles and blog] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.175.152.154 (talk) 05:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Daniel Kahneman

I am surprised that Daniel Kahneman's work has not been considered in this discussion of happiness. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I am could tackle this. Hans Pitsch Hanspitsch (talk) 19:08, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Failure to adequately characterize Happiness

I'm sorely disappointed with the treatment of Happiness. First, if Happiness be a state of mind, and I think all would agree with that, then no one has presented even the properties of Happiness. Properties would include a list of the gradient of affective states, autonomic responses, behavioral responses, the satiation of biological drives to appease impulses of dissatisfaction with the present psycho-physical state. All this historical presentation just muddies the waters and explains nothing. They all focus on what may lead to happiness, not what happiness is and how it's state is established in the mind. 173.25.55.24 (talk) 13:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC) Dalton Seymour 8/24/14

Western Perspective

The article, as often, is clearly biased and written from a Western Anglo-American perspective, from start to finish.

The first paragraph cites the US Declaration of Independence and the "unalienable right for happiness" but we all know that this was written, cynically, at the same time that the Anglo-American colonizers of North America were assassinating the Native Americans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.6.71 (talk) 23:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Specific suggestions for changes? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Indian philosopher Kautilya wrote in his Nitisutras 2-7 that the root of happiness is ultimately the service to elders (vRddhopasevA). http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/chANakyasUtra.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.140.188.176 (talk) 18:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Different Meanings of Happy

Happiness can be related to excitement. Excitement doesn't always mean happy, but can also mean happy in a sense that your situation is bad, but some thing happy finally happens.Awsome81672 (talk) 23:38, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Evolutionary psychology

Can someone put in the evolutionary psychology reason for happiness? Why is the page locked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.44.250.118 (talk) 14:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm interested, but what did you have in mind? Not sure what evolutionary psychology references you are thinking of here. Kingshowman (talk) 19:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

Nietzsche

Warring and personal attacks

Flyer22 is wading out of her depths and has exited the kiddy pool in reverting my inclusion of Nietzsche to the philosophy of happiness section of the article. Nietzsche is obviously enormously relevant to this section, and it is an embarrassing omission to not include him along with Aristotle, Mill, Augustine, and Aquinas. Read the links I've provided and you will see they back up everything I say, which represents the current academic consensus on Nietzsche's philosophical views on happiness. Stop reverting my edits without reason because of your petty, childish vendetta against me, supplying absolutely spurious reasons in the comment box. Thanks! Best of luck to you. Kingshowman (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman My response: Yes, this here. Your erratic, WP:Disruptive editing, WP:Personal attacks, rantings and talk page madness show that it won't be long until that indefinite block happens. Flyer22 (talk) 00:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC) If you are not indefinitely blocked first, I will type up a good WP:ANI case against you. Flyer22 (talk) 00:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC) What does this have to do with my criticism that you had no reason to revert my sourced addition of a paragraph on Nietzsche where many other philosophers of comparable stature are discussed? Whether or not the personal attack was unnecessary, you had no reason to revert my edit. And what is the problem if I rant on my talk page? It's my talk page. Kingshowman (talk) 00:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman I don't follow what you're referring to with "this here". What is an ANI noticeboard case, and what is exactly is your complaint?Kingshowman (talk) 00:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman Your editing is poor, plain and simple. That was my reason for reverting you. You don't listen to anyone about how poor your editing is (whether we point out your unsourced additions, poorly sourced additions, WP:Lead violations, WP:Synthesis, WP:Editorializing, WP:Activism or whatever else); it does not align with Wikipedia's ways. And you WP:Edit war to maintain that poor editing. Your edits to the David Hume article consist of such editing, and I am tempted to revert you there and assist Theroadislong in doing so. "This here" is what I stated in that WP:Edit summary. And if you want to know what WP:ANI is, go ahead and see for yourself. Flyer22 (talk) 00:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC) Fine. Since you're so rude, hostile, and have such an obviously meagre education on topics you chose to write on, and delight in acting like a thorn in my side, pointlessly wasting my work and time on all of my edits, I'm finished editing here. I'm going to revert all my edits myself since the great representative of Wikipedia Flyer22 has decided they are unwanted.. I'm done with this low-quality encyclopedia and will invest no more time in improving it. Enjoy your plethora of c-class articles, which cover about 90 percent of the topics.Kingshowman (talk) 00:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman I highly doubt you know much about the topics I actually write on, such as sexology and anatomy. Having articles on my WP:Watchlist and reverting and/or tweaking problematic edits to them does not meant that I "write on" such topics. I have many articles on my WP:Watchlist. I am also a WP:Patroller. And I have WP:Good articles to my name. I don't mean to be rude or hostile to you; I only mean for you to actually read and comprehend the WP:Policies and guidelines that you are pointed to and to adhere to them. Flyer22 (talk) 01:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC) As a note for you, I deleted my edits to the David Hume article since they were so obviously "poor, plain and simple." Strangely enough, they got restored (as did my contributions to nearly all the other pages that you found so purely and simply "poor.") Obviously, I'm very interested in hearing more of your assessment of the Hume article since doubtlessly you've based it on your reading of Hume rather than just spouting shit out of your ass. Kingshowman (talk) 08:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman Regarding this edit, Pgallert reverted you because you removed his edits as well. And it seems that he is willing to let your edits stay for improvement. Regarding this edit, I don't know why C.Fred reverted you, but he is a WP:Patroller and capitalized letters that include one or more insults by a red-linked user account tend to lead WP:Patrollers to revert. I assume that's also why Vsmith, who is also a WP:Patroller, reverted you. I reverted Vsmith (followup note here). I don't know why Stemoc reverted you. But your other removals are still removed, and this is better discussed at your talk page. Not here. The various warnings you have received show that I am not "spouting shit out of [my] ass." Flyer22 (talk) 15:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC) You are such a fundamentally dishonest, disengenuous person without the integrity to even admit when she is obviously wrong. My Hume edits were regarded as an improvement, contra the wisdom you tried to dispense to me. Likewise, my "landlord" edits were restored. Likewise my edits to the "Coal" page were restored. As were others. So go fuck off. Kingshowman (talk) 15:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC) Once again, you fail to listen to what has been stated to you. I doubt you did any research into what a WP:Patroller is, such as their use of WP:Twinkle, WP:Huggle and/or WP:STiki and how your loud, insult-packed edit summaries would naturally cause any WP:Patroller to revert you. A person restoring your edits does not always mean that your edits were improvements. In this case, it means that your edits were largely WP:Disruptive. Do cease talking to me unless necessary. I do indeed intend to take you to WP:ANI if no one indefinitely WP:Blocks you first. You are not suited for Wikipedia in the least. Flyer22 (talk) 15:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC) My primary editing has been at the David Hume page. You claimed my edits there were "poor, pure and simple." Yet when I deleted them, they were magically restored. Not by "Twinkle" or "Huggle" but by a live-honest-to-God editor who said not to throw out the edits. So they were indeed regarded as an improvement. Contra your opinion, which you provided no argument to back up. If you'd like, I can delete them again, and we can see what happens this time. Why is admitting you were wrong so difficult for you? Kingshowman (talk) 16:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman And you should perhaps finish your education before you start throwing so many insults around and ignorantly opining on subjects well beyond your ken. Kingshowman (talk) 16:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)kingshowman Pgallert, thanks for this. As you can see above, by stating "Pgallert reverted you because you removed his edits as well. And it seems that he is willing to let your edits stay for improvement.", I noted similarly of your reasons for reverting Kingshowman. Flyer22 (talk) 16:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC) Read it and weep: "I believe the prose added to the lead of Hume indeed improved the article ...the new prose captures much better what Hune is about than what was there before." Please try reading Hume, Nietzsche, or Freud before you comment on them in the future. Enjoying my day of triumph and my freedom from ever editing this encyclopedia again! So long, edit goon!----kingshowman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingshowman (talk • contribs) 19:15, 11 August 2015

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101115020515/http://www.time.com:80/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1015902-1,00.html to http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1015902-1,00.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141112020019/http://www.breslov.org/dvar/zmanim/elul3_5758.htm to http://www.breslov.org/dvar/zmanim/elul3_5758.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071011133516/http://newadvent.org:80/summa/200308.htm to http://www.newadvent.org/summa/200308.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120617020438/http://bpp.wharton.upenn.edu:80/betseys/papers/happiness.pdf to http://bpp.wharton.upenn.edu/betseys/papers/Happiness.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100223054616/http://www.cis.org.au:80/Policy/spring05/polspr05-2.htm to http://www.cis.org.au/Policy/spring05/polspr05-2.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071222025241/http://www.latimes.com:80/news/opinion/la-oe-weiner13nov13,0,5698259.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail to http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-weiner13nov13,0,5698259.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120522230648/http://www.ppc.sas.upenn.edu:80/subjectivehappinessscale.pdf to http://www.ppc.sas.upenn.edu/subjectivehappinessscale.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120417090553/http://www.psychology.uiowa.edu:80/Faculty/Clark/PANAS-X.pdf to http://www.psychology.uiowa.edu/faculty/clark/panas-x.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2016

I suggest adding this as the last paragraph of the "Definition" section:

There is increasing disaffection with using statements by subjects about how happy they are to assess how happy (or content) they are. Aside from seeking to establish people’s subjective or objective well-being, in recent years measuring where people feel that their life has meaning has grown in popularity among researchers. [reference: Carol Graham. 2016. "Amitai Etzioni's Critique of Happiness." Society 53.3]. Critics point out that gang members can find meaning in their illegal and unethical pursuits as can jihadists. That all these measures of happiness, contentment, well-being, and meaning are amoral. [reference: Amitai Etzioni. 2016. "Happiness is the Wrong Metric." Society 53.3].

Communitarian703 (talk) 13:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. You are autoconfirmed. But I please ask that you establish as consensus for the addition before adding. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 21:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

What religions think about sadness does not matter. It is solely dependent on oneself and varies from individual to individual.

This article needs to include scientific thoughts on happiness. The religious opinion of what happiness is does not matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.79.188.231 (talk) 19:02, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2016

read this article on people who fear happiness. survey on Chandigarh [5] 14.98.113.37 (talk) 14:15, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:33, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Misspelling

In the section physical mechanisms, serotonin is misspelled as "seratonin". Since the article is protected, I can't change it myself. --93.192.236.136 (talk) 10:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

 Fixed, thanks. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2017

There is no information in this article on the biochemical basis of happiness, the key neurotransmitters involved, the parts of the brain and types of neurons that process happiness. There is no information on the ability of narcotics and drugs to induce a state of happiness. Also, genes that govern happiness perception are not mentioned. I would like to make a contribution. Mightyroy (talk) 18:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 02:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Eudaimonia, philosophy of happiness, happiness

Isn't it weird to have three different pages on one single topic, namely Eudaimonia, Philosophy of happiness, and Happiness? It might make sense to:

• Merge the philosophical aspects, that is, "Eudiamonia" and "Philosophy of happiness," into one of the two, or into a new page "Happiness (philosophy)";
• Merge the psychological aspects from "Eudaimonia" to Well-being;
• Split-off the religious aspects into a separate article (though Thomas Aquinas also belongs to the philosophy-part);
• Add a couple of links to Happiness (disambiguation).

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Einstein’s theory of happiness

Wonder if this is worth a mention?

”A calm and humble life will bring more happiness than the pursuit of success and the constant restlessness that comes with it”

Einstein’s theory of happiness sold for $1.5mMais oui! (talk) 23:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2017

"honoru" misspelled. replace with "honor" 97.126.65.78 (talk) 19:13, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Done SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 19:17, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2017

It is incorrect that muslims are currently practicing al-Ghazali's Book of Happiness. 24.69.118.150 (talk) 18:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ToThAc (talk) 18:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2019

Happiness is a feeling. 67.199.251.5 (talk) 16:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:56, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Editor repeatedly removing sourced content

​ The content in question:

Sigmund Freud said that all humans strive after happiness, but that the possibilities of achieving it are restricted because we "are so made that we can derive intense enjoyment only from a contrast and very little from the state of things."

It's a shame the removing editor didn't take up my invitation to discuss on the talk page, and instead went ahead and removed the content for a third time. I have been assuming good faith but after three failed opportunities to do it right, at this point it's time to be frank.

Their first edit summary removing the content said "unecessary [sic] quote".

The second time, it said "not relevant".

The third time it was:

"this is irrelevant cause [sic] it is not understandable by the general public here contrast and "state of things" are not even explained"

finally revealing (in a misspelled and ungrammatical word soup) the true reason it was removed - the editor doesn't understand it. And because they don't understand it, they decided no-one else does either.

It's no crime to not understand the content, but if you don't understand it, what makes you think you're qualified to judge its necessity or relevance? And to delete it on those bases? Another, more considerate, more capable, less arrogant editor would have left alone content they don't understand, and at the outset asked on the talk page for other editor's explanations and opinions.

Although the editor has still not asked for it, without an explanation there is a danger of their damaging edits continuing so here is my understanding of the content:

Sigmund Freud is saying everyone tries to be more happy. However, the way people are made means they only get enjoyment from a change in their situation (a contrast), and they don't get much enjoyment from their situation staying the same (the state of things). He is implying, not unreasonably, that people's circumstances tend to stay the same, so people's efforts to be more happy are therefore limited.

Given this is from Freud, a hugely respected and significant figure (linked in case you haven't heard of him), in the article "Happiness", in the section "Possible limits on happiness seeking", it is hard to see how it can be called unnecessary or irrelevant - but it turns out those were spurious grounds anyway.

I have no wish to breach the the three-revert rule and have pinged the editor in question in hope that they will read, understand, and self-revert. Captainllama (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

ok Captainllama thanksWalidou47 (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

"Happineſs" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Happineſs. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 9#Happineſs until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TheAwesomeHwyh 00:33, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Happiness/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Larry Hockett (talk · contribs) 09:01, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take a look at this one. I will begin posting feedback shortly. Larry Hockett (Talk) 09:01, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

After reading through this entry, I think the GA nomination may be a bit premature. With that said, I appreciate the work that has already gone into the article, and I will leave some comments to explain my thoughts. Right now, the issues fall into a few themes:

• the lead doesn't adequately summarize the article
• there are existing maintenance tags in the article and some unsourced passages for which tags would be justified
• some of the concepts are not explained in enough detail to help the reader
• sometimes the structure of the writing leads to potential confusion

I will explain in more detail below.

Lead

The lead section should summarize the main points from the body; see WP:WIAGA criterion 1b. Happiness is a massive topic, so it will probably require a large lead (four well-developed paragraphs) to do the job here. Right now it is just three sentences and doesn't really even hint at a definition of the concept.

Maintenance tags

Maintenance tags, like Citation needed, are easy opportunities to improve an entry before a GA nomination. There are a few such tags, and there are some unsourced passages that could be tagged. Sources should be added to those passages even if they are not tagged yet.

Lack of detail in some areas (criterion 3)

I see the first example of this in the Definitions section, where you mention the convening power of the term. I am not sure what you mean by this. I also struggled in the Culture section, needing some examples to understand the points being made. Which individualistic cultures are you referencing? What about some of the cultures that are averse to happiness? I find that very interesting, but the article stops right at the point of telling us who they are.

The Philosophy section is mostly fleshed out, but the bit about McMahon could use some attention. What emphasis are we referring to? (Or among whom?)

In the Religion section, if Patanjali wrote on these matters extensively, at least give us a one- or two-sentence summary of his work. Same for Al-Ghazali - what are the key tenets that came from the manual?

The Methods section needs expansion, but not everything mentioned there is a method for achieving happiness. Negative effects, for example, are not methods. Being naturally happy is also not really a method. Tell us about positive psychology in a sentence or two before mentioning its expansion. That way the lay reader can appreciate its connection to happiness. In the discussion of Mill, I might leave out the term en passant and just explain what you mean by it (even looking up the term on WP leads to entries about chess, bridge and music). A couple of the subsections here are just single direct quotes. Surely we can paraphrase those or add to what the theorist said. You list the three needs associated with self-determination theory, but there is no discussion of how the theory relates to happiness.

You mention that some cultures do not seek to maximise happiness, but you have already said this in the Culture section.

In the Examining happiness section, you have "Some commentators focus on the difference between ..." - this is a prime opportunity to mention the prominent commentators who do so.

In the Measurement section, the bit about the UK and Bhutan seems random. Were they the first countries to measure it? How long has Bhutan done that?

Structure issues

Some of the sections are organized in a manner that leads to confusion. I noticed an example of this in the Definitions section. You mention that Daniel Kahneman gives one definition based on current experience, but then you state that he says the other definition (life satisfaction) is more important to people. That might require more explanation (as to why he would define the term that way if there is another definition that better captures people's feelings on the subject).

You might consider combining the sections on the negative effects of happiness and the negative effects of seeking happiness. Same for possible limits. I notice that, despite the presence of the negative effects and limits sections, there are no sections on benefits of happiness. Right now, the benefits are broken up into different sections.

In the section on physical characteristics and heritability, there is only the slightest mention of physical characteristics. Is there a better way to break this up? (While we're looking at this section, there is also some editorializing: "it is important to first understand".)

In the section on contributing factors and research outcomes, the Yale course doesn't seem to fit as either a contributing factor or a research outcome. Where else could we mention it?

Other matters

The references need some cleanup (GA criterion 2). There are bare URLs, and there is a lack of consistency in citation style to the point where it is sometimes unclear whether a book, journal or website is being cited.

There are some grammar and spelling issues that can be distracting at times; ex: happiness aims being effected (affected) by cultural factors, and a run-on sentence in Judaism section. Once the article is expanded, it may be helpful to request a copyedit at WP:GOCE to clean these things up.

Check that your references support the cited content. The current ref 70 should support the similarities between Maslow and Csikszentmihalyi, but it doesn't mention Maslow as far as I can tell. There is some close paraphrasing from ref 65 ("to be attained not in this life, but in the next").

I notice a few uses of claim, claims or claimed. See WP:SAY.

When you introduce a person's ideas, it is helpful to state their occupation ("Historian Darrin McMahon"). On this topic, this is especially helpful when the person is not a psychologist.

Summary

Right now the article is an interesting read but far away from meeting the Good Article criteria. Since a GA nomination is intended to be a quick and lightweight process, it makes the most sense to close this nomination for right now. (See this explanation of the approach to articles that are far from meeting criteria.) The nominator or other editors can work on the issues identified above at their leisure and then nominate the article again at any point. Larry Hockett (Talk) 11:09, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

thanks for your work and consideration on this. fully understand your view. JCJC777 (talk) 01:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Happiness

Happiness is something that can be shared with others. Md Ahosanul Haque Shahid (talk) 14:28, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Interpretation of studies in the 'possible limits' section

(this is my first ever wiki edit, so please let me know if I'm doing something wrong)

In the context of this section, the sentence "A 2012 study found that psychological well-being was higher for people who experienced both positive and negative emotions." seems to imply that having only positive emotions may be worse than having mixed ones. This is not the claim of neither of the referenced studies. They instead claim that having mixed emotions leads to better health in comparison to having only negative ones. The studies thus highlight an advantage of happiness, not a limitation. So the sentence should be moved in a "advantages of happiness seeking" section, or be entirely removed. Furthermore, the current wording refers to a single (2012) study, while the references cite two (2012, and 2013) studies and a nonscientific book. Jojojojo99 (talk) 09:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Citation Needed

I found this quote in the article, "In turn, which habits and acts that normally lead to happiness is according to Aquinas caused by laws: natural law and divine law. These laws, in turn, were according to Aquinas caused by a first cause, or God" word for word in "THE PHILOSOPHY OF HAPINESS" By FOLORUNSHO MEJABI, textbook. I was trying to add it, but the page wouldn't allow me. Beherbic (talk) 21:12, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Lion

Lion 2409:4041:2E95:73A9:0:0:4808:D409 (talk) 04:12, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 September 2019 and 18 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Wartainian.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

This article needs a MAJOR revamp.

When people say "The most moral action is the one that maximizes happiness" they don't literally mean the emotion of being happy. Typically, they really mean something a bit more subtle than that, something which could partially be described as "freedom to do what you want to do". This article however, assumes that it does indeed mean the emotion of happiness, with is just totally not right. I'd say rewrite this article to describe the emotion rather than the strange combination of emotion and philosophy that it is right now. Tux9001 (talk) 20:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

It seems like you're talking about the moral philosophy theory of Utilitarianism with your "people say". That is how the article introduces the connection of moral action to happiness. The way Jeremy Bentham wrote about this topic, he was definitely referring to the emotion of being happy. When John Stuart Mill refined the idea, he recognised different kinds of contentment or satisfaction, so he was still talking about emotions, but more refined/ nuanced ones. Although he had a lot to say about the liberty being a good, he didn't describe the happiness utilitarianism aims for as "freedom to do what you want to do". Your proposal contradicts what's cited and so seems "just totally not right". The changes you want would introduce vagueness where there is clarity and misrepresent the sources the article is based on. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:24, 16 December 2022 (UTC)