Talk:Hedonic treadmill

message: "Marriage does, pets do, but children don't seem to (despite what we think)" plagiarized from source http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2099-1793873_1,00.html
I think I heard the term "hedonic adaptation" on the radio today. Same thing? Ronstew 02:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Older comments

message: It cannot be concluded one's happiness is 50% determined by genetics by that study alone. Unless, they actually did alter apperance drastically, of one of the identical twins, and they concluded the same with those altered identical twins.
And also altered appearance of some of the fraternal twins to look more like identical twins.
After that, the genetically influenced personality aspects should get examined and put in social context.
It seems reasonable to argue, that social environment simply responds to similar looking/acting people similarly, resulting in equal chances and reception between identical twins, suggesting those 50% of one's happiness are rather accounted for by environment, via subconcious social responses to ones born with features.
Genetics would affect those responses, not outright "account for at least 44-52% of one’s subjective well-being"
This is important to point out because you can't change genetics, nor could you change "44-52% of one’s subjective well-being" when "accounted to genetics", but in actuallity esthetic surgery, particular use of makeup, change of cultural setting, more equal, less biased society, personality training, could affect those 44-52% 
so perhaps source "Despite the fact that roughly 50% of our happiness is determined by genetics [Citation needed]" or remove it. One study where a wording such as "[genetics] account... for 44-52% of one’s subjective well-being" is used, that wasn't intended to prove or disprove "genetics define 50% of one's happiness", cannot make such a "fact".
217.82.90.242 (talk) 13:02, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lykken & Tellegen's study; Controversy 

message: Currently the Happiness Set Point page redirects here and the text of the page implies that set point and hedonic treadmill are the same thing.
It is possible to have a notion of a hedonic treadmill (where your actions are not materially altering your level of happiness)  but also the ability to get off the treadmill by adopting other actions, taking a pill or whatever. This would negate the notion of a fixed happiness set point but not hedonic treadmill - they are therefore related but not the same thing.  This seems to be what some of the research shows. (e.g. Heady 2006).
It is not therefore correct to have these two notions as synonymous within Wikipedia. I'm not sure what we should do about it.
RogerHyam (talk) 15:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I'm aware a set point of happiness is tied specifically to the measure "subjective well being". or rather, the point around where a person's mood is generally around. The hedonic treadmill is an analogy and more umbrella term for multiple types of happiness, instead of just applying to SWB. Psychologists also distinguish between immediate affect and overall mood. The affect is the weather today, while the mood is the general climate https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2802377/#CIT1. I believe the treadmill applies to both mood and affect.
Dabrams13 (talk) 18:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are Set Point theory and Hedonic Treadmill synonymous? 

message: Dr. Kverndokk has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
We believe Dr. Kverndokk has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:
*Reference : Carbone, Jared & Kverndokk, Snorre & Rgeberg, Ole-Jrgen, 2009. "Smoking and Health Investments: Impacts of Health Adaptation and Damage Reversibility," HERO On line Working Paper Series 2003:12, Oslo University, Health Economics Research Programme.
ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 16:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Kverndokk's comment on this article 

message: The section "Major empirical findings" reads "One must note that the paraplegics did have an initial decrease in life happiness, but the key to their findings is that they eventually returned to their baseline in time.[8]". 
This is false. The 1978 experiment doesn't follow the subjects of the study through their life to ask them in the future how happy the are, it just asks them in the present to estimate how happy they think their level of happiness will be, which is an entirely different thing.  I'm changing it.
Muriel (talk • contribs) 12:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conclusions of Brickman 1978 study