Talk:Happiness/Archive 1

message: "To look at it in a simple way, happiness is when reality is better than your dreams."
This sentence has been around for quite a while. It is poetic and makes a lot of sense. Keeping in line with the Wikipedia philosophy lets put an ugly "citation needed" sticker to this, because it smacks of original research.--210.212.8.61 17:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mechanistic view - In humans

message: I am new, don't know if I have to explain my reasons for adding stuff, but I will anyway. :)
I was surprised there was no reasonable "mechanical" definition of happiness here. The only one listed was then mentioned to be "questionable".  Personally it doesn't even make sense to me, growth and evolution seem to be marginally (at best) related to happiness. If it was up to me, I would remove that definition, but I don't want to step on toes.
Instead I presented what, to me, is the only "obvious" definition of what happiness is without giving a circular or subjective definition ("happiness is when you feel good" -- "but what is good?" -- "something that causes people to be happy" etc).  Because my definition could apply to machines I felt it made it more objective, hence the extended example of machine happiness.
:Happiness is, in my mind, usage. However this may apply more to machines than to people, as humans have no immediately obvious purpose. A good example may be a link on certain search engines: it "likes" to be clicked on, as this makes the page appear higher on the list, therefore pages strive (though passively) to be as high as possible.
:A definition that's more likely to be agreed with is a goal state which entities strive for (maybe passively, as in the inanimate such as our link)--even Oscar the Grouch :-) --Ihope127 20:23, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  My remarks on happiness being akin to reinforcement 

message: In English, the word happiness is not equivalent to the words joy or glee. Those words have a Dionysian connotation which is not at all meant, say, as in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In this phrase, which comes from the US Declaration of Independence, the word has a more rationalist basis. Thus happiness, in English, is associated with a smile, whereas joy or glee might well be associated with a laugh. Ancheta Wis 16:31, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Nuances

message: From the article: 
===Happiness as a simple physical equilibrium===
Conceptually, a reasonable -- if oversimplified -- way of viewing happiness might be to describe it as an equilibrium state, in which an entity has been drawn towards and, once there, has a tendency to stay "as is".  For instance, two magnets joined positive to negative can be casually described as being "happy" in that state. Two magnets with positive forced against positive are unstable and strongly prone to change -- analogous to a person with his hand forced against a hot iron -- and thus might be described as being "unhappy".  While we don't really think magnets are experiencing happiness per se, the term, as well as other anthropomorphisms which express a tendency toward a certain state ("try", "want", and especially "attract") are nonetheless useful and intuitive in describing the stability of a physical object or system.
This isn't describing happiness in terms of physics, as it claims in the first sentence; it is describing physics in terms of happiness. Shall we transplant it to metaphor or anthropomorphism or some such place? (Guess I'd better run off and see if there's an article on cognitive linguistics ... it seems that would be a good match.) Comments? 
Also, magnets don't have positive and negative ends. They have north and south. Electric dipoles have positive and negative ends. Nobody re-post this text without fixing that. eritain 17:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree that this is just using 'happiness' as a metaphor for being at rest/equilibrium.  Or perhaps a way of anthropomorphing inanimate objects--my bowling ball is happy when it(I) gets a strike?  I don't think this adds anything to the description of happiness, it's just a way of using the existing meanings in a metaphor.  WhiteC 02:57, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Describing what in terms of what, now? 

message: Conceptually, a reasonable -- if oversimplified -- way of viewing happiness might be to describe it as an equilibrium state, in which an entity has been drawn towards and, once there, has a tendency to stay "as is".  For instance, two magnets joined positive to negative can be casually described as being "happy" in that state. Two magnets with positive forced against positive are unstable and strongly prone to change -- analogous to a person with his hand forced against a hot iron -- and thus might be described as being "unhappy".  While we don't really think magnets are experiencing happiness per se, the term, as well as other anthropomorphisms which express a tendency toward a certain state ("try", "want", and especially "attract") are nonetheless useful and intuitive in describing the stability of a physical object or system.
</blockquote>
This isn't describing happiness in terms of physics, as it claims in the first sentence; it is describing physics in terms of happiness. Shall we transplant it to metaphor or anthropomorphism or some such place? (Guess I'd better run off and see if there's an article on cognitive linguistics ... it seems that would be a good match.) Comments? 
Also, magnets don't have positive and negative ends. They have north and south. Electric dipoles have positive and negative ends. Nobody re-post this text without fixing that. eritain 17:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree that this is just using 'happiness' as a metaphor for being at rest/equilibrium.  Or perhaps a way of anthropomorphing inanimate objects--my bowling ball is happy when it(I) gets a strike?  I don't think this adds anything to the description of happiness, it's just a way of using the existing meanings in a metaphor.  WhiteC 02:57, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Happiness as a simple physical equilibrium

message: Happiness is not the same thing as pleasure. Dopamine, as suggested above, does not equate to pleasure or happiness. Happiness is deserves its own article, seperate from pleasure. This should be the first fundamental change. 
Dopamine is not just related to pleasure motivation and reward, it is also a movement disorder, and has cognitive influences as well. In other words, the ventral dopaminergic system is taken to be a system of "goal directed behavior" and the dorsal dopaminergic system is taken to be a movement system. The two are related, of course, but to equate these two with happiness is an indicator of an amateur in the realm of philosophical neuroscience. I don't know how to define happiness, but perhaps we can get some more philosophical opinions on the subject. 
--Reid 02:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Happiness, Dopamine, and Pleasure 

message: Cut the bulk of the intro:
:The definition of happiness is one of the greatest philosophical quandaries. Proposed definitions include freedom from want and distress, consciousness of the good order of things, assurance of one's place in the universe or society, inner peace, and so forth. More generally, though, it can be defined as the state which humans and other animals are behaviorally driven towards, to counter external forces which would otherwise lead to the unhappiness of sobriety (and presumably eventual death by boredom).
This conflates the cause of happiness with the definition of happiness. Excuse me for being pedantic, but we need to give our readers a plain answer to the question, "What is happiness?" 
Another problem is that the "state" sentence asserts that humans are animals, which is something at least 40% of Americans would disagree with. Better say humans like animals to sidestep endorsement of the biological view. Uncle Ed 18:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Semantic problems

message: JOY is an increase in the probability of your Perpetuation. 
Its intensity is proportional to the increase. Yesselman 14:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spinozistic Definition of Joy 

message: Although much of this article is decent, this particular list could stand to be reworked; I have added an appropriate boilerplate.  There is miscategorization, redundancy, and so forth present among the links within it.  It has alot of potential, but the current form confused me when I first read over it.  Also, are six categories necessary?
Examples: Kissing under Emotional (why not Physical?), "Romantic relationships and Romance" (excessive), random reference to Epicurus at the bottom. Joshfist 15:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of behaviors and emotions. 

message: Is there any scientific basis for any of that? Sources please. -- 2nd Piston Honda 06:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Happiness in Non-Human Animals section 

message: This article makes the assumption that happiness is the same as sensual pleasure. This is the idea of hedonism. 
Happiness is not pleasure. Pleasure is just enjoyment from an outside stimulus, it is a brief moment of joy from external stimulation. Pleasure is brief and fleeting. Happiness is long-term fulfillment of self, and it is ultimately a state one chooses. A distinction should be made. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Quantum bird (talk • contribs) .
:The Terminology section appears to address the above concern. Is there more to add? The Rod 21:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Happiness not synonymous with pleasure

message: The definition of happiness in Western society is inaccurate. The ideals listed are generally thought to cause or allow happiness, but they are not in themselves happiness, and we in the West are all familiar with the phenomenon of rich people who are not happy, etc. Rather, the West thinks of happiness as joy, pleasure, etc., as described in the following section on psychology.  I would suggest removing or clarifying the society section. 3/29/06 163.192.21.46 16:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Western happiness

message: As an asperger, i sense that the facial expression of the picture presented is fake. He did good in achieving the lines by his eyes, but the smile is fake. I read somewhere that neurotypicals are blind to these things, no source and no real way to prove this though.
Faking happiness is obviously important to people.
*As a "neurotypical", I think that smile is a bit fake too. Fionah 14:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: capture of happiness?

message: I found a few quotes that attempt to define happiness:
*Happiness comes when your work and words are of benefit to yourself and others. (Buddha)
*Happiness is as a butterfly which, when pursued, is always beyond our grasp, but which if you will sit down quietly, may alight upon you. (Nathaniel Hawthorne)
*There is only one happiness in life, to love and be loved. (George Sand)
*The happiness that is genuinely satisfying is accompanied by the fullest exercise of our faculties and the fullest realization of the world in which we live. (Bertrand Russell)
They're old so probably out of copyright. I can add them if other people think they are relevant.  Fionah 14:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The best place for those quotes is Wikiquote:Happiness. This article can then link to that page (using ). The Rod (☎ Smith) 01:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes 

message: Looking at this article, I was looking for a phylosophical version of the definition of happiness, as well as develoment on the subject from that point of view (for example, Aristotle defined our goal to be happiness in life).--DragonFly31 15:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes 

message: Is this article about happiness or food?  (I suppose for some people they are one and the same.)  How about the little girl smiling instead?  I think it's a much better picture, and very appropriate.  dbtfztalk 05:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added that picture to the top just now - I didn't actually see this section until now, I followed the link to commons pages rather and came upon the same one. I think it fits quite well with the article, and as you guys seem happy with it, there doesn't seem any problem with using it. It was also a featured picture, and wasn't used a lot, so I think this makes a nice home for it. Richard001 08:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's up with the dufus eating the sandwich? 

message: I deleted it, but beneath the religious and mythical and whatnot section someone wrote "OFFENSIVE PIE WAS HERE." This is not the first time I have caught such an action. The Person Who Is Strange 02:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  VANDALISM! 

message: The first picture that we see is of that ugly little red headed shirtless kid. He's very ugly, and the picture is blurred. He looks like some weird alien. Could somebody please remove the hideous picture and use something better? I'm not trying to be vandalous or prude or critical or offensive, I'm simply using words that describe the situation best.
I agree. Do you have any suggestions for a better picture?
I think it is a good picture. He is obviously very happy, which is entirely appropriate. Nicolharper 16:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The ugly little kid on the front page 

message: The article currently states:
: money does not appear to increase happiness
This Pew Research Center report  published this year finds there is positive correlation between money and happiness, at least in the US, although of couse that does not prove causation in either direction (money makes people happy or happy people are more capable of making money). Pretzelpaws 00:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Money & Happiness 

message: Happiness is an emotional or affective state that feels good or pleasing. Overlapping states or experiences associated with happiness include wellbeing, joy, sexual pleasure, delight, health, safety, contentment and love, while contrasting ones include suffering, sadness, grief, anxiety, and pain. Associated behaviors include smiling and laughter. Happy people are characterized by the belief that they are able to control their situation (destiny). Unhappy people tend to believe that they are a toy of fate. Happiness is directly correlated to the presence of favorable events (such as a promotion, a marriage, lottery winnings etc.) and the absence of troubles or bad luck (such as accidents, getting fired, divorce, conflicts etc.). Happiness, therefore, is dependent upon where we are on the river of self-knowledge.
Societies, religions, and individuals have various views on the nature of happiness and how to pursue it.
I have some problems with this introduction. The first issue is with these lines:
Happy people are characterized by the belief that they are able to control their situation (destiny). Unhappy people tend to believe that they are a toy of fate.
This is uncited and not very reliable. What is being suggested here - determinists are unhappy, while believers in the concept of free will are? If this is going to remain, there would have to be a citation to some text or study that can confirm this. Though people who have little control over their current circumstances are likely to be less happy, the issue seems more to be addressing the question of free will rather than freedom. In the latter case this is much more debatable. Albert Einstein, for example, was a determinist, yet I doubt this made him particularly unhappy.
Secondly, this line:
Happiness, therefore, is dependent upon where we are on the river of self-knowledge.
This line takes too broad an artistic licence and is written in the wrong tone. I think it should be removed.
I'll probably make these changes myself in a few days if there is no argument, though since this concerns the introduction I felt it appropriate to create a section on the talk page.Richard001 07:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: I know gay used to mean happy and it has a new definition now.  But would you agree that in America, most heterosexual males are meant to look unhappy?  There is a strong connection between the percieved promiscuity of the average gay male and his happiness.  Heterosexual males don't have sex as often, and when they do it likely requires hard work and money.  I'm kind of rambling here... but I think something should be said in this article about happiness and homosexuality. - ShadowyCabal 23:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gayness

message: Why is it a white baby?  Who agreed on that?  I think it should be a smiley face.  Or at least a Puerto Rican, because they are the happiest on the planet - ShadowyCabal 00:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Picture

message: The external links in this article really needed cleaning up.  Several of the links did not meet the criteria for inclusion according to Wikipedia:External links.  I've removed several...apologies to those trying to drive traffic.  ; )   Snackycakes 18:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: Contrary to what it says in this article, I've seen studies that show that once a certain level of economic stability is achieved, happiness is pretty much the same across borders, and that the citizens some developed nations (i.e. Japan) are significantly LESS happy than citizens of some developing nations (i.e. Ghana). This was the best I could come up with after a half-hearted, thirty-second Google search, but it at least generally disproves what's in the article right now. 24.235.241.18 04:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Developing World

message: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/061113093726.htm
 - lyhana8 (Talk) - 18:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A world of the happiness 

message: The section "Societal theories of happiness" completely lacks sources and appears to be almost entirely original research. This section needs some serious work, particularly providing good sources to make it verifiable. Otherwise the section will be deleted. Thnaks, Gwernol 15:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:OR|original research]] in Societal theories of happiness section 

message: This seems to be a very poorly written section (in the context of an encyclopedia), anyone have the source on it so that I can rewrite it?  I've edited it a bit for now. Kelvie 23:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for working on this!  I agree that it needs it.  My suggestion would be to check out the Daniel Gilbert article.  Maybe you can find his book at your local library or glean some information from looking at the external links.  Cheers, Figma 04:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Developments section 

message: A little while ago I pruned this article of external links that I thought did not fit WP:EL.  A fellow editor has contested those deletions, stating that I am engaged in a personal vendetta against the owner of one of the removed links.  There is now a new mediation case opened to address this editor's concerns.  Although I'm unsure whether the reinstated links fit WP:EL I will not remove any more until the case has been reviewed.  I apologize for any inconvenience caused by my pruning.TheRingess (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh dear, there are far to many of these links, and some of them look like advertising too.  I'm going to be bold!  We should only have a few lin ks I think, wiki is not a link farm.Merkinsmum 00:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: This paragraph is all rigths reserved to the cia
INFO COPIED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
*** NO NAME= NO GRADE****CIA GRADED 
   
1. THE POINT OF CIA.
2. THE WAR ON TERROISM STATEMENT.
"[D]efeating terrorism must remain one of our intelligence community's core objectives, as widely dispersed terrorist networks will present one of the most serious challenges to US national security interests at home and abroad...."
— DCI Porter Goss, testifying before the
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
February 16, 2006
 TURE OR FALSE
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Npiane (talk • contribs) 19:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  www.cia.com