Happiness

JuliusCaesar

Eavesdropping on Happiness
Well-Being Is Related to Having Less Small Talk and More Substantive Conversations
Matthias R. Mehl1,
Simine Vazire2,
Shannon E. Holleran1 and
C. Shelby Clark1

Is the happy life characterized by shallow, happy-go-lucky moments and trivial small talk, or by reflection and profound social encounters? Both notions—the happy ignoramus and the fulfilled deep thinker—exist, but little is known about which interaction style is actually associated with greater happiness (King & Napa, 1998). In this article, we report findings from a naturalistic observation study that investigated whether happy and unhappy people differ in the amount of small talk and substantive conversations they have.

Full text available here

Odysseus

My understanding of happiness is related to this:D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19vItpLiYgA&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJ_c2UaccJE&feature=related

Xluna

I think extroverts are more happy overall,more likely to have good social support too when things go bad. Introversion is a minority personality trait for a reason.

Valmont

Xluna wrote: »

Introversion is a minority personality trait for a reason.

Is it really though? How does one define a "minority personality trait"? I know more extroverts than introverts but that is obvious given the definitions, right?

edit: That was a very interesting article.

Xluna

Valmont wrote: »

Is it really though? How does one define a "minority personality trait"? I know more extroverts than introverts but that is obvious given the definitions, right?

edit: That was a very interesting article.

I don't think so. I can imagine a world where there are more introverts than extroverts. I belive extroversion to be the majority because extroverts are more likely to have more children,due to their nature.

Valmont

Xluna wrote: »

I don't think so. I can imagine a world where there are more introverts than extroverts. I belive extroversion to be the majority because extroverts are more likely to have more children,due to their nature.

I don't see how the definition of extraversion implies that an extrovert will have more children than an introvert. I suppose it is intuitively plausible, but it seems too simple a dichotomy. Surely there are many other personality factors that may contribute to one's desire to have children. I don't think the lines of demarcation between extroversion and introversion are bold enough to proclaim generalisations along these lines.

JuliusCaesar

What definition are you using? What tests are you using? This is an area with very high levels of controversy.

But HAPPINESS is the topic....

Xluna

There are different degrees of introversion and extroversion but I'm refering to the average/typical degree of each trait. Yes I'm using rationalism rather than empircism,mainly, to arrive at these opinions.
There does seem to evidence for a genetic element to introversion and extroversion and assuming there is I question how is introversion the minority trait. For me it's simply down to Darwinism. It's survived as a trait because it does have benefits for society,some of the greatest contributors to society were introverts but it's a minority trait because man is a social animal and we live in groups. Society needs only a certain number of these innovators for it's benefit.Take the personality type of INTJ. It's arguably the most asocial of them all and is the least common.

JuliusCaesar

Xluna wrote: »

Take the personality type of INTJ. It's arguably the most asocial of them all and is the least common.

Academic psychologists and commercial test providers have a tendency to put a different ‘spin’ on how valid and reliable these personality questionnaires are, with the test providers unsurprisingly ‘talking up’ both validity and reliability.

The following quotes are from David M. Boje, Ph.D., Professor of Management in the Management Department, CBAE at New Mexico State University (NMSU).

“…do not treat the archetype scores of M-B as anything more than Astrology”

Link

and endless other research....

astronige

looked on thread for an answer...at 39 i still dont know a real and deffinate description of happiness,but i would maybe nowdays say that content is as close as it gets...

but then who am i to know being an introvert with years of clinical depression..... :-(

all i know is it tricky and hard to pin down as to what it really is and no way can you tell from outside if someone is truly happy.....

my current life... happy for a year ish now but i feel the cloud is still around me and soon to make its comeback... for no reason ....

life is such an odd and complicated thing for sure..............

i do think that no one can be truly happy 100% of time even if got all the things in life you want you would still be missing something i think thats the flaw in human nature that one............

or maybe thats what makes humans.. the want for better... gets us out of the cave to look for better things.,.....

hope this all makes sense and i not made me look silly lol as i love this boards ie site so much lately

i know i could make a book from my life so far as i been there done all and got the t shirts in many things emotionally wise...so for one thing i can be sure of is ive lived :-)

JuliusCaesar

There are 2 formulas for happiness as far as I know:

H = P+(3XE)+(5XH) P stands for Personal Characteristics, including outlook on life, adaptability and resilience. E stands for Existence and relates to health, financial stability and friendships. And H represents Higher Order needs, and covers self-esteem, expectations, ambitions and sense of humour.

And Seligman's H = S+C+V. S=your biological set point, C=the conditions of your life, V=voluntary activities you take part in.

hotspur

Seligman's book "Authentic Happiness" is well worth reading about the positive psychology science of happiness:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Authentic-Happiness-Psychology-Potential-Fulfilment/dp/1857883292

simplistic2

Or I think Socrates equation was "reason + virtue = happiness".

Reason = accepting logic and rejecting faith

Virtue = honesty, integrity, compassion ,courage, self-knowledge etc

lmaopml

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

There are 2 formulas for happiness as far as I know:

H = P+(3XE)+(5XH) P stands for Personal Characteristics, including outlook on life, adaptability and resilience. E stands for Existence and relates to health, financial stability and friendships. And H represents Higher Order needs, and covers self-esteem, expectations, ambitions and sense of humour.

And Seligman's H = S+C+V. S=your biological set point, C=the conditions of your life, V=voluntary activities you take part in.

Great thread.

Forgive me, I'm not a subscriber on the site so couldn't read the article. However, the taster in the op seems quite intriguing...

Are they almost the same, the two formula, or at least extremely similar? I can't say I would argue with either..

The curiosity is killing me...Do happy people and unhappy people differ in the amount of small talk and substantive conversations they have?

I can be 'happy' from one moment to the next doing either...most of the time; However, if I 'had' to do either to a greater degree than I would like ( depending on people I'm surrounded with ) it would probably make me very unhappy..

I would say I place a higher 'value' on substantive conversation, and it would make me a happier person to engage in them more often...

Wish I could read that article

JuliusCaesar

lmaopml wrote: »

Wish I could read that article

Google is your friend........

Enjoy!

dermothickey

Simply put...Happiness is a feeling...not an emotion...when you feel happy your whole being radiates joy..put to the test...remember a happy moment in your life...no need to think about the details just remember it...let your whole body re-live the feeling of joy you had at that moment and just follow the nice feeling...simple really.. When we try to describe and analyze happiness we create pressure around our head.. this is because we are thinking too much thus given you a headache Now for those who genuinely did the small test above go back dpo it again and realize where the centre of the feeling comes from when you had the happy moment.

Was it in your head? was it in your mind/brain? Or was it somewhere else?
Let me know your answers ...

Onesimus

dermothickey wrote: »

Simply put...Happiness is a feeling...not an emotion...when you feel happy your whole being radiates joy..put to the test...remember a happy moment in your life...no need to think about the details just remember it...let your whole body re-live the feeling of joy you had at that moment and just follow the nice feeling...simple really.. When we try to describe and analyze happiness we create pressure around our head.. this is because we are thinking too much thus given you a headache Now for those who genuinely did the small test above go back dpo it again and realize where the centre of the feeling comes from when you had the happy moment.

Was it in your head? was it in your mind/brain? Or was it somewhere else?
Let me know your answers ...

happiness is neither a feeling or an emotion because emotion can be easily labelled as a feeling and vice versa.happiness is a state of being, to be in a undiluted continuous state of grace.

Happiness isnt an emotion or a feeling because both of these things, which are derived and have their source in thrills come and go.
where true happiness is a state reached that cannot be lost.

dermothickey

did you do the short test?

Onesimus

dermothickey wrote: »

did you do the short test?

what is a short test Dermothickey?

dermothickey

when you quoted my post there was a small test in it.. you see what I'm getting to here is happiness is something which can be permanent as that's the way Humans are meant to be

Cinful

Happiness? Conceptual definition? Deduced from theory? What theory (or theories)? Operationalize concept happiness into variables for measurement? Assume variables for concept happiness are dependent? Concept(s) and measurable independent variables? Intervening or interacting concepts operationalized into variables for measurement? Assuming sampling, or is this case studies? Naturalistic? Quasi-experimental design or what? Non-parametric measurement, or we talking qualitative methods? This is too warm and fuzzy thus far?

Not at university now, so cannot access paid site you sourced in OP.

hotspur

Cinful wrote: »

Happiness? Conceptual definition? Deduced from theory? What theory (or theories)? Operationalize concept happiness into variables for measurement? Assume variables for concept happiness are dependent? Concept(s) and measurable independent variables? Intervening or interacting concepts operationalized into variables for measurement? Assuming sampling, or is this case studies? Naturalistic? Quasi-experimental design or what? Non-parametric measurement, or we talking qualitative methods? This is too warm and fuzzy thus far?

Not at university now, so cannot access paid site you sourced in OP.

Read it here:
http://www.simine.com/docs/Mehl_et_al_PSYCHSCIENCE_2010.pdf

The findings are not in any way interesting for anyone who knows anything about the field of positive psychology.

Cinful

hotspur wrote: »

Read it here:
http://www.simine.com/docs/Mehl_et_al_PSYCHSCIENCE_2010.pdf

The findings are not in any way interesting for anyone who knows anything about the field of positive psychology.

Thanks for article.

Methodological problems?

• Purposive sample? Nonrandom? Only undergraduates, therefore only report about undergraduates in study. Threats to external validity, and not representative of a larger population or generalizable.
• Small sample n=79.
• No sample validation techniques?
• Communication variable (either/or) banal or substantive data occasionally subjective and problematic when sorting?
• Statistical technical error using Pearson r correlation coefficient analysis with either/or nominal data? Pearson r requires interval or ratio level data, and also assumes parametric sampling methods not evident here?
• EAR "periodically" not operationalized? Systematic? Random? What?
• No experimental or quasi-experimental control subjects in design, with associated threats to internal validity?
• Dependent variable happiness a "single-item" measure. Threat to content validity; or the extent to which a set of items reflects a content domain?

This is not an exhaustive review of their methodology. Given the above concerns, their research is problematic. Caution should be used when interpreting their results or conclusions.