Quick, which one of these is the primary cause of unhappiness in our modern era?
1. Death
2. Taxes
3. Inflation
4. Terrorism
5. What color blouse to buy.
If you said number five, you are either wise, daft, or a conscientious shopper. The wise or wise guy answer is indeed number five, but blouses aren't the root of unhappiness, but the choices they present before us. This counterintuitive observation was made recently by the psychologist Barry Schwartz in the April, 2004 edition of Scientific American. In a comprehensive review of research data, Schwartz attributed the current statistical decrease in reported happiness to the simple and rather banal fact that modern day folks simply have too many choices, and that unhappiness has nowhere to go but up as our choices continually increase. The reason is simple, as our choices increase, we become equally aware of the opportunity 'loss' that occurs when we choose one alternative at the cost of another. And loss hurts a lot more than the pleasure of gain. What is worse, we adapt
to the things we aquire, but our estimate of our losses does not , and thus we follow an ever inclining treadmill towards things whose fancy continually passes, leaving unhappiness, not to mention a mountain of debt in its wake.
So what's the solution? Minimize choices! It's a remedy that's seemingly counterintuitive, impractical, and downright stupid, yet ironically may have more merit than any of the nostrums prescribed by academic or pop psychologist alike.
So why shouldn't we accept a world with two ice cream flavors, three shirt sizes, and any color for that SUV we dream about, as long as it's black? The problem, or
should we say cognitive dissonance is the implication of the very metaphors we hold about what we value, or the incentives that motivate us. The wisdom of settled knowledge couches it all in classic economic terms. Thus value is a logical property of behavior, it is invariant, it is real, and it possesses a rareness that is embodied by money. Thus the subject-object relationship of what we have learned from experience as good informs completely what will motivate us now to want to experience. The fact that past knowledge determines present motivation seems trivially true, but like Newton's concept of an invariant time, it is utterly false. In other words, learned value is not the same as motivated value both psychologically (i.e. behaviorally) and physiologically (i.e., the corresponding neural processes of our brains), and both interoperate in different and surprising ways.
The Brain Facts
Our neocortex or gray matter allows us to metaphorically compute what-if scenarios that enable us to derive conscious values. For example, knowing car rankings enables us to logicaly determine the best car to buy, yet these decisions are converted into behavior by 'gut level' events that are mediated by entirely different neurochemical and neuromuscular events that are controlled by an entirely different logic. It is this motivational value that not only energizes or drives behavior, but is the source of value that our aspirations must ultimately serve.
Unlike logical value derived from learned associations or cognitions, motivational value is abstract, not logical, volatile, not invariant, virtual, not real, and unlimited rather than rare. Although both sources of value can be logically and empirically separated, the two interoperate in all of our decisions. Thus in addition to the logical value of an SUV, its motivational value is the novelty or newness of its ride, its appearance, and the additional apprehension of the positive regard of other people. But novelty is an abstract thing that declines with experience. Therefore, when choice occurs, motivational value declines and we become adapted to objects of desire that end up as important yet unremarkable as air.
Simply put, motivational value lies in the apprehension, not execution of choice. Rooted in an elemental need to forage, explore, or seek our new surroundings, the apprehension of choice is never a sure thing, and it is the surprises entailed by prospective choice that elicits a sense of pleasurable alertness that provides the incentive to action, and upon reflection a sense of satisfaction.
So given this new mark of happiness, what are happy societies? Simple, they are societies that encourage the apprehension, not execution of choice. There is never opportunity loss in the apprehension of choice, as a sustained hope can engage and excite, but rarely disappoint. Secondly, if the execution of choice represents virtual rewards and penalties (i.e. the express or implied approval or disapproval of others) that can never be 'cashed out', then our losses are as literally impermanent and painful as dreams.
The idealized cultural values and individual archetypes of a happy life are those that limit choice by deferring choice, and when we do decide on things, the loss is more likely virtual than real. It is a life where one must struggle and grasp for achievement, yet be continually excited by the possibilities. Better still if the struggle is paid in the estimate of other people, as we envy the family and societal values (as in Shakespearean England, Renaissance Italy) that value the virtual currency of applause for a interplay of ideas that is ever renewing. A society that rewards ideas with ideas, that incites us to apprehend possibilities rather than settle on them is the goal of the enlightened social engineer, whether (s)he be economist, sociologist, or psychologist. So apprehensions inherent in family, artistic, and sporting value are what mainly count for happiness, while the rest can be pleasurably be put off to another day.
