The Happiness Hypothesis

This book is written by Jonathan Haidt. I’d read his other book, The Righteous Mind, and enjoyed it. I liked this one as well. What follows is not really a review. These are just notes I took from the book that I found interesting.


Not a metaphor: there’s literally a  Gut brain , connected by vagus nerve with main one. Runs independently to manage the intestine. Huge lining of neurons in the lining. Triggers anxiety when infections are present.

Confabulation – seen in people with split brain problems. When something is observed by 1 half of the brain and it’s trying to rationalize it with a narrative.

Key to understanding many later parts of the book. Why we obey certain impulses but not others.

Marshmallow experiment: the crucial piece was emotional intelligence and strategy: knowing how to beat your emotions by distracting yourself, focus on other things etc. basically stimulus control.

How to change your mind:

  • Meditation
  • Cognitive therapy
  • Prozac

Signs of a cooked-up hysteria (e.g. communism)

  • Invisible
  • Contagious (young can be influenced)
  • Can only be defeated by all of us getting together

Evil doesn’t just come from the outside. There’s rounds of escalation before it gets violent. And a richer context than what you see on TV. Two things that we encourage as positive that actually lead to evil:

  • High self esteem (when unrealistic or narcissistic, problems arise). Rather than directly raising self esteem you should be teaching skills.
  • Moral idealism – people who believed that they were using violence for a larger cause. Ends justify the means. Outcome rather than path.

Conspicuous consumption is a zero sum game i.e. A Rolex is good only if other people have Casios. So focus on inconspicuous consumption like holiday trips.

Apparently experiences > material possessions

Especially if those experiences are with other people


Whereas early Greek philosophers focused on what makes a person virtuous e.g. should I return a wallet full of money, modern philosophy focuses more on actions and quandaries, e.g. do you kill one person to save dozens.

Some stuff on divinity and disgust that lines up pretty well with his work on Moral Foundations and his other book, the Righteous Mind.

On religion and how Group Selection incites violence only against apostates and outsiders. i.e. shifts the problem one level up, from individuals caring for self to individuals caring for their own group.


So for a Meaningful life: we as a species are social (so we need people), and industrious (we need vital engagement and flow in our work/hobbies).

So get the connections and conditions right in work, love etc. And happiness will come.

On meat and ethics

As a vegetarian, I am often interested in arguments both for and against eating meat. A recent link I read started a chain of fascinating resources arguing in either direction. Spoiler: my opinion hasn’t changed, yay.

It started with this post in 3quarksdaily in defense of eating meat that got me annoyed. It is fairly obvious that animals feel pain, and are intelligent to varying degrees. Saying that the pain of an animal is of a different degree that we cannot fully comprehend is a pretty weak argument. Another gaping hole is in arguing that the non-existence of a cow is somehow worse than the horror it goes through in a farm or slaughterhouse.

I also ended up reading the utilitarian Peter Singer’s ‘All Animals Are Equal‘ paper, and loved it for its clarity. The entire piece is well worth a read for the problems it anticipates, and the thought experiments it proposes.

The truth is that the appeal to the intrinsic dignity of human beings appears to solve the egalitarian’s problems only as long as it goes unchallenged. Once we ask why it should be that all humans—including infants, mental defectives, psychopaths, Hitler, Stalin, and the rest—have some kind of dignity or worth that no elephant, pig, or chimpanzee can ever achieve, we see that this question is as difficult to answer as our original request for some relevant fact that justifies the inequality of humans and other animals.

In another few decades, I won’t be surprised if animal rights acquire the same level of seriousness in public discourse as race, caste and gender equality have in the past few generations.

P.S. This also lead me on an unrelated but interesting overview of Singer’s utilitarian ideas.

Ignorance and bliss

A quote I read a long time back in some book resurfaced in my memory yesterday, and thankfully, I remembered enough keywords to track it down in the first attempt. Full credit to Aristotle the Geek, where I found it in full. The book was William Durant’s ‘The Story of Philosophy’. Here is the story itself:

The Good Bramin

Does happiness result from ignorance or from knowledge?

IN my travels I once happened to meet with an aged Bramin. This man had a great share of understanding and prudence, and was very learned. He was also very rich, and his riches added greatly to his popularity; for, wanting nothing that wealth could procure, he had no desire to defraud any one. His family was admirably managed by three handsome wives, who always studied to please him; and when he was weary of their society, he had recourse to the study of philosophy.

Not far from his house, which was handsome, well-furnished and embellished with delightful gardens, dwelt an old Indian woman who was a great bigot, ignorant, and withall very poor.

“I wish,” said the Bramin to me one day, “I had never been born!”

“Why so?” said I.

“Because,” replied he, “I have been studying these forty years, and I find it has been so much time lost. While I teach others I know nothing myself. The sense of my condition is so humiliating, it makes all things so distasteful to me, that life has become a burden. I have been born, and I exist in time, without knowing what time is. I am placed, as our wise men say, in the confines between two eternities, and yet I have no idea of eternity. I am composed of matter, I think, but have never been able to satisfy myself what it is that produces thought. I even am ignorant whether my understanding is a simple faculty I possess, like that of walking and digesting, or if I think with my head in the same manner as I take hold of a thing with my hands. I am not only thus in the dark with relation to the principles of thought, but the principles of my motions are entirely unknown to me. I do not know why I exist, and yet I am applied to every day for a solution of the enigma. I must return an answer, but can say nothing satisfactory on the the subject. I talk a great deal, and when I have done speaking remain confounded and ashamed of what I have said.”

“I am in still greater perplexity when I am asked if Brama was produced by Vishnu, or if they have both existed from eternity. God is my judge that I know nothing of the matter, as plainly appears by my answers. ‘Reverend father,’ says one, ‘be pleased to inform me how evil is spread over the face of the earth.’ I am as much at a loss as those who ask the question. Sometimes I tell them that every thing is for the best; but those who have the gout or the stone—those who have lost their fortunes or their limbs in the wars—believe as little of this assertion as I do myself. I retire to my own house full of curiosity, and endeavor to enlighten my ignorance by consulting the writings of our ancient sages, but they only serve to bewilder me the more. When I talk with my brethren upon this subject, some tell me we ought to make the most of life and laugh at the world. Others think they know something, and lose themselves in vain and chimerical hypotheses. Every effort I make to solve the mystery adds to the load I feel. Sometimes I am ready to fall into despair when I reflect that, after all my researches, I neither know from whence I came, what I am, whither I shall go, or what is to become of me.”

The condition in which I saw this good man gave me real concern. No one could be more rational, no one more open and honest. It appeared to me that the force of his understanding and the sensibility of his heart were the causes of his misery.

The same day I had a conversation with the old woman, his neighbor. I asked her if she had ever been unhappy for not understanding how her soul was made? She did not even comprehend my question. She had not, for the briefest moment in her life, had a thought about these subjects with which the good Bramin had so tormented himself. She believed from the bottom of her heart in the metamorphoses of her god Vishnu, and, provided she could get some of the sacred water of the Ganges in which to make her ablutions, she thought herself the happiest of women.

Struck with the happiness of this poor creature, I returned to my philosopher, whom I thus addressed:

“Are you not ashamed to be thus miserable when, not fifty yards from you, there is an old automaton who thinks of nothing and lives contented?”

“You are right,” he replied. “I have said to myself a thousand times that I should be happy if I were but as ignorant as my old neighbor, and yet it is a happiness I do not desire.”

This reply of the Bramin made a greater impression on me than any thing that had passed. I consulted my own heart and found that I myself should not wish to be happy on condition of being ignorant.

I submitted this matter to some philosophers, and they were all of my opinion: and yet, said I, there is something very contradictory in this manner of thinking; for, after all, what is the question? Is it not to be happy? What signifies it then whether we have understandings or whether we are fools? Besides, there is this to be said: those who are contented with their condition are sure of that content; while those who have the faculty of reasoning are not always sure of reasoning right. It is evident then, I continued, that we ought rather to wish not to have common sense, if that common sense contributes to our being either miserable or wicked.

They were all of my opinion, and yet not one of them could be found to accept of happiness on the terms of being ignorant. From hence I concluded, that although we may set a great value upon happiness, we set a still greater upon reason.

But after mature reflection upon this subject I still thought there was great madness in prefering reason to happiness. How is this contradiction to be explained ? Like all other questions, a great deal may be said about it.