Being Slightly off Mark is Better than Hitting It.
It isn’t what we have, but how we see it. At least, that’s what Dan Gilbert would argue. In his TED talk Gilbert makes a case for synthetic happiness. This is what are brain produces when things don’t go the way we’d normally want. He starts out his talk by asking [whether?] the paraplegic who lost their legs, or the lottery winner is happier. He reveals both are equally happy a year after their life-changing events. He goes on to make the case that no matter what happens in our lives we will synthesize happiness and play mental mind games to make our lives happy. He closes his speech noting that we should make choices to lead us to better futures, but not overestimate the happiness between different futures. He makes some incredibly valid points, but he is slightly off the mark on what makes us truly happy.
There is much more to life then success and failure. Gilbert frequently emphasizes the black and white in life, but doesn’t firmly address the grey. We often chase big dreams, but often don’t fully realize them. What’s crucial though is that chase. It may seem that we will make ourselves happy no matter what, but we are certainly happiest when we both succeed and fail. Naturally we overestimate our ideal future which results in our success not living up to our expectations. Trying and falling a little short is probably the happiest people can be.
At the bottom we long for the top and at the top we long for more. The middle ground is where we know we worked out of our bad situation and got closer to that overestimated good. Gilbert doesn’t really talk about how the journey is what spawns most of our happiness. We truly fill fulfilled and happy when we feel like we earned our future, and falling a little short lets us be satisfied with where we’re at. While synthetic happiness may be caused by our failures, it is truly realized when it is the result of our almost realized ambition.
Works Cited
“The Surprising Science of Happiness.” Dan Gilbert:. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 May 2014.
“Synthetic Happiness.” Sources of Insight. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 May 2014.
alwaystired247
AnonymousStudent
azntaco
beforeverge
BigBabyBaller
bitagaming
breakingbad1820
Caravan
cinderella1013
davidbdale
Yankeelover18
fatboy489zt
giantsfan224
glacierfreeze21
gobirds17
green0728
gymrat230
Gir
jerseymikes1106
jesusisking1738
jetsfan806
Kenneth Alex Krug
manipulator66
mercythyhealer14
McCormick Karner
mochaatrain
oni
powerranger
peanut2348
pinkcottoncandy4
princess01430
redbird1123
rubes1256
shxrkbait
sillyinternetperson
soulpond47240
spatel8267
stingingcrib5
tacotyphoon
thepersonindisguise
usmnt23
worldofjuice999
xephos1
Counterintuitive Fall 2022 
Chasing Happiness
Happiness doesn’t come from what we have, it comes from what were grateful for.
What’s the “it” of your first sentence, John? Happiness, right?
Happiness isn’t what we have; it’s how we see what we have. Happiness is a world view, not an emotion.
Feedback would be greatly appreciated Professor!
Feedback provided. —DSH
P1. You do this very nicely, John. Step by step, but without too much wasted language, you track us through the premise of Gilbert’s talk. You hint in the second sentence that you do not agree with Gilbert, then redeem that hint in your last sentence, launching us into what we hope will be your clarification of the flaw in his reasoning. If this were paper, I’d circle the following spots and ask you to work on them:
—happiness, a reaction (?) We might be reacting to something, but synthetic happiness has to be the result of some process, not a reaction.
—who is happier the paraplegic. Needs some kind of punctuation.
—the paraplegic who lost their legs. That’s one paraplegic but several sets of legs.
—life changing events. Life plus changing equals a one-word adjective.
—no matter what happens . . . now matter what hand. Repetition in the same sentence.
P2. Sentence One. You’ve spent a full paragraph outlining the Gilbert position and closed by saying he isn’t quite right. Now you further delay your own point by telling us what premises we need to accept and further outlining Gilbert. This is a rhetorical mistake, John. Start strong with a claim of your own. It can spell out your entire position or just provide the basis for your argument, but it has to be yours and it has to be Sentence One.
Decide for yourself how much to say and how, but be sure it contrasts clearly with Gilbert.
P3. Avoid the vague “talks about” language here, John. “Gilbert doesn’t really talk about . . . .”
Overall. The arc of your logic is clear. But the whole essay fails to engage our senses. Gilbert’s example, lottery win or crippling accident, comes close to capturing our imagination with a human dilemma. Your own contributions do not. Read this objectively and you’ll feel its pure abstraction. There isn’t a person in here striving for a particular goal or feeling disappointment. Even Gilbert’s paraplegic is just “reacting” by “playing mental games” with himself. We have no sense of what he appreciates about his disappointing future.
Cows and chips, John. Without them, we have no stake in this sentence at all: “We truly fill fulfilled and happy when we feel like we earned our future, and falling a little short lets us be satisfied with where we’re at.”
Still Needs a Title.
Works Cited is not compliant.
Initial grade still stands until revisions.
Corrections made. Still lacks specificity, illustrations. Too abstract. Graded for Portfolio.