What brings you happiness? A recent opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times addressed the subject.* The article noted that a growing body of research shows that the mere whiff of money draws out our selfish sides, focusing us on what that money can do for us, and us alone. In particular, the article explored whether the growing acquisition of things made us happy. Let’s think about that for a minute (gee, I sound like the folks from Freakanomics or Planet Money, wondering if money really brings happiness).

So can money bring happiness? More specifically, can acquiring more stuff or nicer stuff make you happier? In some ways, we need only look at the true happiness of the wealthy, with lots of stuff to manage, protect, move, store, etc. That’s a lot of work. Further, studies by a generation of behavioral scientists show that material goods often fail to deliver lasting happiness.

According to the article, what does give happiness? Dozens of studies show that people get more happiness from buying experiences than from buying material things. Experiential purchases — such as trips, concerts and special meals — are more deeply connected to our sense of self, making us who we are.  Experiences come with one more benefit: They tend to bring us closer to other people, whereas material things are more often enjoyed alone. Decades of research point to the importance of social contact for improving mental and physical health.

Perhaps this is why I enjoy going to live theatre and concerts. It is an experience — in fact, live entertainment is a unique experience (unlike movies, which are the same everytime you watch them).

The article goes on to note that the author’s research suggests that doing things for other people can provide an additional boost. In experiments they have conducted around the world, including in Canada, the United States, Uganda and South Africa, they find that people are happier if they spend money on others. And we’ve found that spending even just a few dollars on someone else provides more happiness than using the cash to treat yourself. Again, this is easier to see in small theatre. In the large theatre/touring shows, one feels your money is going to a machine. But going to a small theatre — a black box ala The Blank, REP East, Celebration Theatre, etc — directly brings happiness to others. You can see it as you interact with the artistic staff.

That’s not the only way to spend on someone else. We’ve all seen the fun in gift giving. There are also charitable donations. Does sending a check to a charity bring happiness? Alternatively, does charitable happiness come more from volunteering one’s time in addition to money? This ups the social aspect quite a bit. I’ve seen this in synagogue service — people are happy and make friends serving on synagogue boards. I have other friends that get happiness by volunteering with charities such as animal rescue, helping those in need.

The article’s conclusion?

Who was happiest? Those who treated someone else and shared in that experience with them. So the cost of increasing your happiness may be as cheap as two cups of coffee.

Taken together, the new science of spending points to a surprising conclusion: How we use our money may matter as much or more than how much of it we’ve got. Which means that rather than waiting to see whether you find $1 million under your mattress tomorrow, you can make yourself happier today. Switching your spending to buying experiences — for both yourself and others — can lead to more happiness than even the most amazingly Amazonian rain shower.

So what makes you happy?

(*: The piece was posted over the weekend; I wrote this up Monday night before posting it at lunch on Tuesday)

Share/Bookmark

Well, it’s Saturday, and that means it is time to clear out all the links that didn’t fit into a theme:

• Wasting Time in Google. Yet again, Google has resurrected an arcade game as an Easter Egg (how’s that for a metaphor!). First, it was Pacman as a Google Doodle. That doodle, when it was released, caused a significant time waste. This time, it is Atari Breakout hidden in Google Images. Just type “Atari Breakout” into Google Image Search, hit enter, and start knocking your way through the various levels. Photo tiles appear just as they would on any Google search results page, but this time are lit up with their corresponding row’s color, creating a rainbow of Atari and Breakout images across a black screen. Game play is exactly as you may remember it: Knock out all of the blocks and rack up points, while trying to keep the ball from falling off the screen, and then move on to the next level.
• Photos in Art Museums. Ever wonder why you couldn’t take pictures in art museums. Part of it is the damage from the flash, but it is also that the museum often doesn’t own the copyright for the works. From the article: “Museums often do not hold the copyrights to the works they display, which creates legal problems when visitors start snapping away. According to Julie Ahrens, a lawyer who specializes in issues of copyright and fair use at the Center for Internet and Society at Stanford University, a photograph of an artwork could be considered a “derivative work,” which is “potentially a violation of the copyright holder.” But the deluge of cameras, along with the fact that the vast majority of visitors simply want to snap a pic for a Facebook album, has led some institutions—such as MoMA, the Indianapolis Museum, and the Brooklyn Museum—to ask lenders for permission to shoot, with the stipulation that pictures are for noncommercial use.”  But that all is changing…
• Photos in Art Museums, Take II. Here’s another photo issue related to art. A New York City photographer took pictures of people in an apartment building without their knowledge, later using them in an exhibition. He did this from across the street with a birder’s telephoto lens. Now the people in the photographs are upset (even though their faces are obscured), calling it an invasion of privacy. So, is it an invasion of privacy if someone in a public space can see you doing something? What if they take a picture of it?
• Apostrophes in Place Names. Did you know that there is an active effort to scrub apostrophes from place names in the US, so that Caesar’s Palace becomes Caesars Palace. That example was a joke, but the scrubbing is not. Here’s the scoop. Specifically, the Domestic Names Committee of the U.S. Board on Geographic Names doesn’t like apostrophes. The program took off when President Benjamin Harrison set up the Board on Geographic Names in 1890. By one board estimate, it has scrubbed 250,000 apostrophes from federal maps. The states mostly—but not always—bow to its wishes. An apostrophe, the argument goes, implies private ownership of a public place. When names appear on maps, “they change from words having specific dictionary meaning to fixed labels used to refer to geographic entities,” the names committee explains in its statement of “Principles, Policies and Procedures.”
• AM Radio. It appears there is an active effort to get rid of AM Radio. You remember radio, don’t you. It’s that thing that streams music, talk, news, and commercials wirelessly to a movable receiver… oh, nevermind. In any case, here’s one reporters opinion on how to save AM radio.
• Dr. George. A short update on Dr. George Fischbeck, who used to do the weather in Los Angeles. The man with the bow tie and glasses is 90 years old now, but is still a character, a performer and a teacher. He has never pretended to be a meteorologist, but he does know how to get peoples’ attention (he actually doesn’t have a doctorate, just like Sheriff John was never a Sheriff, nor was Hobo Kelley a hobo). Here’s another, older, article on Dr. George.

Share/Bookmark

Well, it’s Friday around lunch time, and by now you know what that means — it’s time to clear out most of the accumulated links. So grab your sandwich or salad, and enjoy this food for thought:

• Items of Interest. What better way to start out a post with some random stuff than with a post about random stuff. Two articles fall into this category. The first, from Gizmodo, presents a variety of optical illusions for your enjoyment. The second, from LA Observe, links to a bunch of random factoids.
• Changing Your View. In what some might call a waste of virtual newsprint, the former media editor for George W. Bush writes about how they came up with the Barney-cam. No, I’m not talking about the purple dinosaur; I’m talking about George Bush’s dog, who just passed away.
• Doing It On Wheels. Here’s another interesting point of view: This time, from a VIP host at a club in Las Vegas… who does it successfully from a wheelchair. This goes to show that it is the person, not the physical limitations, that makes the success.
• Microsoft vs. Google. Microsoft has embarked on a campaign against Google. This time their target of attack is Gmail, and the fact that Google scans emails to put up relevant ads. What Microsoft seems to forget is that people probably prefer relevant ads to irrelevant ads, and most people have gotten so focused they ignore the ads anyway. As for Google seeing the data anyway, Microsoft also seems to have forgotten that SMTP is a plaintext protocol, and unless steps are taken to encrypt email, anyone can read it at any transfer point.
• Mine Is Bigger Than Yours. Reports have come out that the new hotel/building replacing the Wilshire Grand will be the tallest building on the west coast. Now, normally I wouldn’t write about this, but one paragraph caught my eye: “The 71st floor will be a restaurant. The floor above that will house window-washing gear and engineering equipment, clearing the top floor for an “infinity” swimming pool and recreation area.” Wow. Would you want to swim in an infinity pool on the 73rd floor?

Share/Bookmark