April 1, 2012

• i’m on fire

  I suppose it’s obvious from the last post that this is one of those sweet spots in time when I feel as if the whole world is burning with a secret and brilliant fire that only I can see (as opposed to the times when the world is frozen over in secret and terrifying black ice).

  I live for these times.

  Quite some time ago, I posted about my simplified quantitative view of how to measure happiness. This post will make a lot more sense if you’ve read the other one. Or maybe it only makes sense to me.

  Anyways, quick summary of that post is that overall happiness (H) is a combination of three subsets of happiness: the momentary kind of happiness that comes and goes based on instantaneous occurrences (“happiness in the Moment”, or h_m), serendipitous joy that is transient and euphoric.  Second, there is the contentment that comes with knowing yourself and liking the self that you know (“happiness with Identity,” or h_i).  And third, there is the general satisfaction that comes with accepting and approving of the world as you perceive it, including your place in that perceived world in the present and the future (“happiness with the Perceived World,” or h_pw). Like so:

  H = h_m + h_i + h_pw

  Upon further reflection, and based on some experimentation over the last couple of years (in particular on my other blog that focuses on things that make me happy, which I try to update very frequently), I think it’s worth tweaking the equation a bit.

  You know the stale old saying, “If a tree falls in a forest, and no one is there to hear it, did it really make a sound?” Apply that to a feeling. If you’re happy about something on some level, but you don’t actually perceive that you’re happy, then are you really happy? Having a happiness-focused blog (no whining, frequent updates, focus on good things, even if they’re very small) has made me realize how many good things happen on a regular basis that would normally not even register on my happiness sensor, except for the fact that I make an effort to perceive them. Observing a positive phenomenon has a lot of impact on how happy it makes me.

  It also makes that silly children’s song, “If you’re happy and you know it, clap your hands” kind of interesting to think about. Break that down phrase by phrase. First, you need to be happy. Then, you need to be aware that you’re happy. Finally, you need to acknowledge that you’re happy by clapping your hands, which is a symbol of appreciation. So happiness isn’t necessarily just a state, but a series of steps — being in a position to be happy, realizing that you’re happy, and acknowledging and appreciating that you’re happy.

  It makes things so much more complicated, for me, at least, because it’s not enough just to have good things happening; I can’t just set a goal and assume that reaching the goal will make me happy unless I also take time to notice and think about the fact that I’ve reached the goal. In order to maximize the effect, I also need to really be aware that they’re happening and actively try to enjoy them (which is sometimes hard to do without an artificial reminder system — for me, it’s the blog, for others, it might be something else, like prayer or meditation).

  So how does this work into my equation? I think the best way to work it in is that each subset kind of happiness is subject to a multiplier that reflects the perception of that variable and either amplifies or diminishes the variable itself. 

  For example, if something really amazing happens that should affect your happiness in the Moment (h_m), but you’re preoccupied with something else and don’t take full notice of it, or if you somehow otherwise discount it, then the actual happiness you get out of it is not h_m, it’s:

  (h_m)(p_m),

  where p_m is somewhere between 0 and 1 (which decreases the effect of h_m). If, on the other hand, you’re disproportionately excited or pleased by the good thing that happened, or you really go out of your way to perceive and appreciate its effect, then p_m would be greater than 1, so that it increases the effect of h_m. If you are somehow level-headed enough that you perceive the event precisely as it is, and have no distorting factors that inflate or deflate its effect on your happiness, then p_m would be exactly 1.

  Practically speaking, using this multiplier system and trying to optimize for happiness, then, if something good happens where h_m is positive, it’s better to have a p_m of at least 1 (perceive the event and its effect for as much or more than it is worth), so that you can make sure you get the “right” amount (or even a disproportionate amount) of increased happiness from that event. With an unfortunate event where h_m is negative, however, it’s probably better that have a p_m that is less than 1 (perceive the event for less than it is worth), so that you can decrease the downer effect of that event on your overall happiness. This can be applied across all three of the h variables and their corresponding p multipliers.

  So, here’s my new equation, which factors in the distorting effects of perception, acknowledgement, and appreciation (you have to notice that a tree has fallen in the forest, and you not only have to be happy, you also have to know you’re happy and acknowledge and appreciate it):

  H = (h_m)(p_m) + (h_i)(p_i) + (h_pw)(p_pw), 

  where each h variable can be any number, positive or negative, and each p variable can be any number greater than or equal to 0.

  That’s all I’ve got for now. 

  • 3:08 am
  • Leave a comment