The Pursuit is a Lie
The pursuit of happiness has been thrown around since the Declaration of Independence. Life and liberty may be unalienable rights, but is the pursuit of happiness really a right? Pursuing happiness is not possible; happiness is a feeling. It is not tangible. Buying a new shirt or getting a good grade can only stimulate happiness, though. The shirt is the tangible object; the feeling is what is created afterward. In pop culture, “The Pursuit of Happyness” features Chris Gardner and his son struggling in New York City. The movie might as well be titled, “The Pursuit of a Job” because that is really what the movie is about. Throughout the movie scenes depict Chris Gardner laughing and enjoying time with his son. Even as a homeless man in New York City he could feel happiness. How can he pursue something that is already inside of him?
The ability to feel happy comes from the prefrontal cortex, which has both a left hemisphere (that creates happiness) and right hemisphere (that creates sadness). People suffering from depression use their right prefrontal cortex much more than their left; when they buy a new shirt or get a desired grade, they do not feel that happy sensation that the average person feels. Viktor Franklin, an Austrian neurologist and Holocaust Survivor says, “(I)t is a characteristic of the American culture that, again and again, one is commanded and ordered to ‘be happy.’ But happiness cannot be pursued; it must ensue.” Society pushes an idea of finding happiness through getting what they want, but just because they get what they want doesn’t mean they will be happy.
For about 65 million years, the human brain has been developing and adapting to the world around it. The human brain only recently obtained the prefrontal lobe, which is the part of the brain that involves positive emotions. Jim Wright, chairman of the House of Representatives, resigned when someone found out about a secret book deal he took part in. He lost all of his money, power and respect from the public, but said, “I am so much better off physically, financially, mentally and almost in every other way.” After losing everything and resigning in disgrace, how could he possibly say and truly feel that he is better off? He synthesized happiness. He became happy with how his life turned out, even though it was not what he originally wanted. Another man, Moreese Bickham was released from prison at 78-years old when DNA evidence proved that he had not committed the crime. After being released he said, “I don’t have one minute’s regret. It was a glorious experience.” How can spending a lifetime in jail be considered a glorious experience? Bickham also synthesized happiness. He spent his entire life in jail and grew to truly, and hardheartedly actually love it. He knew of no other life. He synthesized happiness by adjusting his feelings into cheerful emotions. Lastly, Pete Best, after being kicked out of the popular band The Beatles, said, “I’m happier than I would have been with The Beatles.” In this situation, Best also honestly believes that being without The Beatles creates for a more happy and fulfilled life. A man who was kicked out of a famous rock band has synthesized his happiness around a life without The Beatles. Synthesized happiness is just as real as natural happiness, and can be seen throughout history.
Though only the human brain allows for the stimulation of happiness through the prefrontal cortex, any animals brain can feel natural happiness. Animals can become happy when they anticipate future events, such as when they get food or expect an owner to come home. In Pavlov’s dog experiment, he would ring a bell every day before he gave the dog food. After a while, the dog would salivate when he heard the bell, before seeing the food. Though the dog is salivating without seeing the food, the presence and training of the bell justifies that the dog was not stimulating happiness. The dog needed that bell in order to salivate and feel happy. Simulating happy events does not need a stimuli; it can self-trigger.
People only tend to value natural happiness, and denote synthesized happiness. When someone gets something they want, their brain releases endorphin’s to make them happy. This happens when people buy or receive items they want. Dan Gilbert, a professor of psychology at Harvard University, asks, “What kind of economic engine would keep churning if we believed that not getting what we want could make us just as happy as getting what we want?” And goes on to say, “A shopping mall full of Zen monks is not going to be particularly profitable because they don’t want stuff enough.” Clearly, Zen monks do not need to pursue anything to feel content with their lives or themselves. These Zen Monks have synthesized happiness by appreciating what they have instead of yearning for more.
Another study proved that yes, paraplegics feel just as much happiness as lottery winners. On a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being unhappy and 5 being very happy, lottery winners ranked a 3.48 and paralyzed patients ranked a 3.33. At first, it seems that the loterry winners are facing natural happiness by getting what they wanted, while the paralyzed patients are immediately faced with synthesizing their happiness (because nobody really wants to be paralyzed). When faced with two completely opposite lifestyles both parties were almost equally as happy. Millions of people in America buy lottery tickets in hope that a win will fulfill all of their dreams. Yet, in a single years time all of that happiness and cheerfulness of the win has gone away, leaving the winners feeling generally the same way they did before ever winning the money. So, try to pursue happiness; win the lottery. A year later you will not feel any happier than everyone who did not win it.
Jennifer Aaker, a professor at Stanford University, said happiness can be stated as, “a relatively shallow, self-absorbed or even selfish life, in which things go well, needs and desire are easily satisfied, and difficult or taxing entanglements are avoided,” when life-meaning is not involved. But, a Time article states that happiness caps at $75,000 dollars a year. That is to say that people who make $100,000 dollars a year, or $1,000,000 dollars a year are just as happy as those making $75,000 dollars a year. A person making $75 grand a year may not be as easily satisfied as those making $1 million a year, yet are exactly as happy with their life.
For those who still believe that happiness can be found through getting something, please consider suicidal and depressed patients. Depressed and suicidal patients have an overwhelming sense of helplessness and hopelessness. Depression affects 15% of Americans, that is to say that almost fifteen million Americans struggle with depression. This creates the inability to feel happy, never mind trying to find it. If happiness can be found, must not it be in doing engaging and fun activities? Are these 14.8 million people left to sit on the bench when it comes to enjoyment with their lives?
Works Cited
Conklin, Bill. “The Role of the Brain in Happiness.” Psychology Today: Health, Help, Happiness + Find a Therapist. N.p., 19 Feb. 2013. Web. 20 Apr. 2014.
Fredholm, Lotta. ” Pavlov’s Dog.” NobelPrize. N.p., 15 May 2001. Web. 24 Apr. 2014.
Gilbert, Daniel. “The Surprising Science of Happiness.” TED Talks. California, Monterey. 26 Feb. 2004. TED. Web. 10 Mar. 2014.
“Life Satisfaction in the Wake of Disability.” Psychology Today: Health, Help, Happiness + Find a Therapist. N.p., 8 Dec. 2011. Web. 22 Apr. 2014.
Luscombe, Belinda. “Do We Need $75,000 a Year to Be Happy?” Time. Time Inc., 06 Sept. 2010. Web. 16 Apr. 2014.
Smith, Emily Esfahani. “There’s More to Life Than Being Happy.” The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 09 Jan. 2013. Web. 18 Mar. 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 
Can I pretty please with whipped cream on top have some feedback on my research paper draft?
Feedback provided. —DSH
~ <— using the tilde!!! Feedback requested please and thank you.
Feedback provided. —DSH
P1. Grammar notes on the first paragraph only. If there’s more than one, have a fresh set of eyes examine your paper for more errors. You DO NOT want to have me read a portfolio full of grammar and punctuation problems.
—1. Don’t capitalize Liberty.
—2. Remember that lesson about semicolons on Thursday? Take a good look at your third sentence.
—3. Are you sure you mean stimulate?
—4. Another semicolon mistake.
—5. Three comma errors out of four commas around your two movie titles.
—That’s seven errors in one paragraph. Looks to me as if you could use a proofreader, Angela.
I’ve read your paragraph a couple of times, Angela, and I can’t follow the argument. Your first examples say the tangible object can be pursued. Your movie example says whatever we already have cannot be pursued. You also say that happiness is a feeling that follows the acquisition of a tangible object (like a shirt.)
So I to ask you: If the shirt will make us happy, and we work to earn the money for the shirt, are we pursuing the shirt or the happiness? How can you say which? We wouldn’t want the shirt if we didn’t think it would make us happy. And finally, if we’re already happy, does that mean we stop working to acquire other things? Can’t we pursue greater happiness?
The rest of my notes will be much briefer.
P2. Fluency: Your first five sentences
Don’t need to be five sentences
Your quotation is very useful, but it doesn’t fit well with the observation about brain mechanics unless you make that connection for us, Angela. Do depressed people’s brains function differently? You need to say so.
P3. Two questions you haven’t answered for me in this paragraph. 1) What’s your evidence that Wright, Bickham, and Best are telling the sincere truth? 2) Why do you call their happiness synthetic? If they’re sincerely happy, couldn’t their happiness be natural?
P4. I thought you said natural happiness results from acquiring the object of our desire. So how is happiness at the bell not synthesized? The bell can’t be the achievement, can it? Natural happiness would occur when the food came. Right?
P5. So what are the monks? I would call them naturally happy, but I can’t tell what you call them. If they want less, they achieve it more easily, so whatever little they get makes them happy. That sounds like your description of natural happiness to me.
P6. Lottery winner on the day of the win: naturally happy or synthetically happy? Tell us please. Lottery winner a year later, naturally happy or synthetically happy? Tell us please. Paraplegic on the day of his crippling accident: naturally happy or synthetically happy? Tell us please. Paraplegic a year later, naturally happy or synthetically happy? Tell us please.
If you can answer those four questions, we’ll have a much better understanding of what you mean by natural and synthetic happiness, Angela. If you can’t we’re going to remain confused.
P7. Is there a connection between the $75,000 salary and “needs and desires are easily satisfied and difficult and taxing entanglements are avoided?” Is that salary supposed to produce happiness by eliminating difficulty?
P8. Ending with depressed patients is a good idea, Angela. It’s hard for anybody to argue that happiness is a “state of mind” or a psychological condition if there is sound evidence that a physical or chemical condition prevents some people from ever being happy.
Angela, this has the structure of a good essay, but the confusion I still have about synthetic and natural happiness and how they’re achieved (after careful reading and giving you the benefit of every doubt) keeps it from earning anything other than an average grade. If you can’t clarify these essential ideas, you’ll be disappointed.
As I am typing, I am following along with your very useful and appreciate feedback.
— I un-capitalized liberty
–I actually laughed when I noticed that I should have put a semicolon, considering that was my question in class the other day
— Yes, I do mean simulate. I reread the sentence, and to me, stimulate is the right word.
(Really? Look at the ONE MORE TIME. —DSH)
— Okay, I fixed the semicolon again. I hope the one I fixed is the one you are referring to.
— Again, I hope I fixed the comma errors you were talking about.
— Actually, I did have a proofreader. My friend who is a tutor at Rowan read it over and gave me feedback before I uploaded it to the blog. But, I guess I should have someone else proofread it as well.
— What I mean is, you can’t pursue a feeling. Yes, you can pursue an object (like the shirt), but that’s the shirt not the literal feeling of happiness. I’m not sure there is any other way to word it because what I just said is what I am saying in my first paragraph. I remembered you saying that people can pursue a shirt which created happiness and I wanted to clarify for you what I meant.
— Well, some people don’t necessary work for the money, they could just have generous parents. Also, people don’t always buy clothes because of happiness they could be buying the shirt because they actually need it, not just so satisfy a superficial yearning. In that case, they are pursuing the shirt not the happiness.
P3. — Okay, I made the sentences shorter and not repetitive.
— I also added a sentence after the quotation to make it clear what I am saying.
–1) My evidence that these 3 men are telling the sincere truth is that they are saying how they feel. If it were up to me I would go back in time and have them all take a lie detector test, but I can’t do that.
2)”He synthesized happiness. He became happy with how his life turned out, even though it was not what he originally wanted.” “He knew of no other life. He synthesized happiness by adjusting his feelings into cheerful emotions.” “In this situation, Best also honestly believes that being without The Beatles creates for a more happy and fulfilled life.” I think those sentences explain what the synthetic happiness they felt were. And no, natural happiness literally means getting what they wanted. If what he really wanted was to resign, he wouldn’t have been forced; if he really wanted to go to jail, it wouldn’t have been a false acquisition and he would have turned himself in; and lastly, if he really didn’t want to be in The Beatles, he would have left on his own rather than by getting kicked out. Synthetic happiness is exactly what happened which was loving what happened after not getting what they originally wanted.
P4. –I realized after reading your comment and looking back at my work that I used the wrong word. What I meant to say was that animals can’t stimulate happiness. Like, how humans can simulate what its like to win the lottery without actually winning it. Animals can only feel natural happiness which is getting what they want. They can’t actually stimulate what it would be like to get a new toy, they need it to happen for their tails to start wagging. The point was that the bell was the trigger the dog needed to start salivating. Human’s don’t need a commercial of a Big Mac to appear to start thinking about what it would be like to eat one. Thus, dogs and all other animals can’t stimulate happiness all on their own like humans can, they need a trigger or for something to happen that would actually make them happy.
P5–No, the Zen Monks have synthesized happiness. They have learned to love what they don’t have instead of constantly wanting more. Natural happiness would be if they splurged at the mall.
P6– I went back and added a couple words in to clarify more, hope it helps.
P7– I’m not sure what you are saying here but that my last sentence: “A person making $75 grand a year may not be as easily satisfied as those making $1 million a year, yet are exactly as happy with their life” says that no, Jennifer Acker is not correct. $1 million dollars a year and $75 thousand dollars a year for, lets say a family of four, could buy two very different types of items. Someone making a million a year could probably buy their two children each a brand new BMW but a family making 75 grand probably couldn’t.
P8– Thank you for the compliment, I figured that ending on a controversial idea was a good way to end it.
I appreciate all of your feedback and I hope you appreciate my reply. I hope the changes I have made will bring me a little closer to getting more than an average grade.