Science Confirms: You Really Can't Buy Happiness
By Shankar Vedantam
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, July 3, 2006; A02
When Warren Buffett announced last week that he will be giving away more than $30 billion to improve health, nutrition and education, people all over America reflected on his remarkable generosity, pondered all the noble things the gift would achieve and asked themselves what they would do if someone were to give them that kind of dough.
Halt that daydream: Turns out the Oracle of Omaha is a wizard at more than investing. When it comes to money, giving may buy a lot more happiness than getting.
Buffett may have been thinking of his soul -- "There is more than one way to get to heaven, but this is a great way," he said as he announced the largest gift in the history of the planet -- but he may also have been keeping up with the latest psychological research.
A wealth of data in recent decades has shown that once personal wealth exceeds about $12,000 a year, more money produces virtually no increase in life satisfaction. From 1958 to 1987, for example, income in Japan grew fivefold, but researchers could find no corresponding increase in happiness.
In part, said Richard Layard of the London School of Economics, who has studied the phenomenon closely, people feel wealthy by comparing themselves with others. When incomes rise across a nation, people's relative status does not change.
But surely a Buffett-size gift -- he wants to give away $4 million a day -- would make most people euphoric, right?
Temporarily, that is true, Layard said in an interview. However, social comparisons are not the only factor at play. Another big psychological factor is habituation: Dramatically changing one's wealth does create happiness, but it will last only until people get used to their newfound status, which can be a matter of months or a couple of years at most.
When people win lotteries, for example, Layard said, "initially there is a big increase in happiness, but then it reverts to its original level. So why do people want to win lotteries? . . . They have a rather short-term focus, and they don't seem to grasp long-term ways their own feelings work."
The journal Science reported last week yet more evidence and another theory about why wealth does not make people happy: "The belief that high income is associated with good mood is widespread but mostly illusory," one of its studies concluded. "People with above-average income . . . are barely happier than others in moment-to-moment experience, tend to be more tense, and do not spend more time in particularly enjoyable activities."
Wait, there's more.
"The effect of income on life satisfaction seems to be transient," the researchers added. "We argue that people exaggerate the contribution of income to happiness because they focus, in part, on conventional achievements when evaluating their lives and the lives of others."
Wow. Let's pause a moment to let all priests, nuns and anarchists take a bow and say, "I told you so!"
"People grossly exaggerate the impact that higher incomes would have on their subjective well-being," said Alan Krueger, a professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton University and an author of the study.
The problem is that once people get past the level of poverty, money does not play a significant role in day-to-day happiness, Krueger said. It certainly can buy things, but things do not usually address most of the troubles people experience in daily life -- concerns about their children, problems in intimate relationships and stressful aspects of their jobs.
When people daydream about winning big, Krueger said, "they focus on all the things they would buy, without recognizing that does not contribute all that much to their well-being."
In fact, the study noted, data from the Department of Labor show that the more money people have, the less likely they are to spend time doing certain kinds of enjoyable things that make them happy. High-income individuals are often focused on goals, which can bring satisfaction. But working toward achievements is different from experiencing things that are enjoyable in themselves , such as close relationships and relaxing leisure activities.
"If you want to know why I think poor people are not that miserable, it is because they are able to enjoy things that Bill Gates has not been able to enjoy, given his schedule at Microsoft," Krueger surmised.
Various studies have shown that people are enormously reluctant to accept a pay cut, even if that would give them more freedom, less supervision or a shorter commute -- all things that are tangibly associated with moment-to-moment happiness. The emphasis on salary is identical to the lottery ticket winner's mistake in thinking that money changes everything.
"One of the mistakes people make is they focus on the salary and not the non-salary aspects of work," Krueger said. "People do not put enough weight on the quality of work. That is why work looks like, for most people, the worst moments of the day."
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
[分享] Nobody will believe me but WashPost says ...
[分享] Nobody will believe me but WashPost says ...
Re: [分享] Nobody will believe me but WashPost says ...
$12,000 a year? I don't think anyone homeless could be very happy.Jun wrote:Science Confirms: You Really Can't Buy Happiness
By Shankar Vedantam
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, July 3, 2006; A02
A wealth of data in recent decades has shown that once personal wealth exceeds about $12,000 a year, more money produces virtually no increase in life satisfaction. From 1958 to 1987, for example, income in Japan grew fivefold, but researchers could find no corresponding increase in happiness.
现在偶是胡军的扇子。
我觉得这边的社会并不太存在着“钱越多越快乐“这个想法，当然可能我接触的人不够多。
再者，高收入可能是结果不是原因。收入本身能带来多少快乐，这篇文章里已经分析过了，答案是不太多，甚至可能没有。但平均来看，高收入的职位有更多的在工作上展示能力的机会，从而获得成就感。成就感是一种“复杂“的快乐，里边有挫折，有开动脑筋解决问题的过程，最后是做成功了，看到自己的成果。成就不一定就带来立即的加薪，但通过自己的经验，我可以说，成就感带来的快乐，远比加薪或中彩票持久得多。如果有人对成就感特别有兴趣，比如比尔盖茨，那么高薪是他追求快乐中的副产品，而并非他是为了高薪才努力工作的。比尔盖茨的工作日程也许很繁忙，没有悠闲的快乐；但他做出一样什么来的时候，那种快乐同样跟躺在沙滩上晒太阳不一样。
人的收入几十年来增长了五倍，快乐没有增长相同的倍数，还有一种可能是：因为生活水平普遍提高，人们的快乐标准高了，痛苦标准低了。在国民医疗不发达的时候，婴儿生下来如果活不了，大部分大人挥两滴泪也就过去的。如果有个把不能释怀的，恐怕会被讥为特别娇气；现在如果有个别婴儿生下来就死了，肯定是人间惨剧。快乐和痛苦都有适应性，本来一件孤立起来看应该很快乐的事，一来二去的发生多了，就显不出快乐，比如天天吃香辣蟹，沸腾鱼；痛苦也是一样。
再者，高收入可能是结果不是原因。收入本身能带来多少快乐，这篇文章里已经分析过了，答案是不太多，甚至可能没有。但平均来看，高收入的职位有更多的在工作上展示能力的机会，从而获得成就感。成就感是一种“复杂“的快乐，里边有挫折，有开动脑筋解决问题的过程，最后是做成功了，看到自己的成果。成就不一定就带来立即的加薪，但通过自己的经验，我可以说，成就感带来的快乐，远比加薪或中彩票持久得多。如果有人对成就感特别有兴趣，比如比尔盖茨，那么高薪是他追求快乐中的副产品，而并非他是为了高薪才努力工作的。比尔盖茨的工作日程也许很繁忙，没有悠闲的快乐；但他做出一样什么来的时候，那种快乐同样跟躺在沙滩上晒太阳不一样。
人的收入几十年来增长了五倍，快乐没有增长相同的倍数，还有一种可能是：因为生活水平普遍提高，人们的快乐标准高了，痛苦标准低了。在国民医疗不发达的时候，婴儿生下来如果活不了，大部分大人挥两滴泪也就过去的。如果有个把不能释怀的，恐怕会被讥为特别娇气；现在如果有个别婴儿生下来就死了，肯定是人间惨剧。快乐和痛苦都有适应性，本来一件孤立起来看应该很快乐的事，一来二去的发生多了，就显不出快乐，比如天天吃香辣蟹，沸腾鱼；痛苦也是一样。
http://harps.yculblog.com
搬家了搬家了
搬家了搬家了
Statistically there is no correlation between wealth and happiness in a survey sample? Of course not. Too many confoudning factors. Plus, how do you measure happiness anyway? Self-reported! It is such a subjective matter. Researchers have been spending years to come up with quality of life measures but none of them is satisfactory.
吾家小爱是斩钉截铁充满自信地说：Social science is not science!tiffany wrote:我很偏见的觉得社会科学有点儿bs。
其实有时候我觉得他很沙文主义的。。。
http://harps.yculblog.com
搬家了搬家了
搬家了搬家了
我说过了嘛，这里没有人会相信这篇文章的。
这个survey也就是意思意思，提出一种现象，本来也不是拿来当cause-and-effect类型的hypothesis来证明的。
其实，我看看周围我自己认识的快乐和不快乐的人，快乐的也不是因为有钱才快乐，不快乐的也不是因为没钱才不快乐。
这个不是要说没钱一样快乐，而是说收入超过一定程度以后，钱多不能带来相应的快乐增长。
中国人对这种说法尤其不买帐啦，因为在中国人心目中的没钱的定义绝对比美国社会的没钱定义要低得多了，我们上面多少辈儿的人都挨过饿呢，当然这个＂穷＂字给人的联想和assumption都不一样。我称之为famine mentality.
其实我觉得social science固然不是跟硬科学一回事，里面想当然耳的太多太多了，但是economics还是挺有些有趣的可靠的东西，能描述＂人群＂的behavioral and psychological trends. 只不过拿出来一说，很不好听，也没人爱信。其实这就是心理学的障碍之一，如果能把人心理行为的规律准确地归纳出来，可是这幅自画像挺丑的，人也不爱接受相信啊。
这个survey也就是意思意思，提出一种现象，本来也不是拿来当cause-and-effect类型的hypothesis来证明的。
其实，我看看周围我自己认识的快乐和不快乐的人，快乐的也不是因为有钱才快乐，不快乐的也不是因为没钱才不快乐。
这个不是要说没钱一样快乐，而是说收入超过一定程度以后，钱多不能带来相应的快乐增长。
中国人对这种说法尤其不买帐啦，因为在中国人心目中的没钱的定义绝对比美国社会的没钱定义要低得多了，我们上面多少辈儿的人都挨过饿呢，当然这个＂穷＂字给人的联想和assumption都不一样。我称之为famine mentality.
其实我觉得social science固然不是跟硬科学一回事，里面想当然耳的太多太多了，但是economics还是挺有些有趣的可靠的东西，能描述＂人群＂的behavioral and psychological trends. 只不过拿出来一说，很不好听，也没人爱信。其实这就是心理学的障碍之一，如果能把人心理行为的规律准确地归纳出来，可是这幅自画像挺丑的，人也不爱接受相信啊。
Jun说得真好。其实我觉得social science固然不是跟硬科学一回事，里面想当然耳的太多太多了，但是economics还是挺有些有趣的可靠的东西，能描述＂人群＂的behavioral and psychological trends. 只不过拿出来一说，很不好听，也没人爱信。其实这就是心理学的障碍之一，如果能把人心理行为的规律准确地归纳出来，可是这幅自画像挺丑的，人也不爱接受相信啊。
这也是为什么economist容易让人批判成cynical的原因。比如我去医学院给talk, 讲到financial incentive会改变人的行为，因为医生知道消费者有保险所以out-of-pocket费用比实际成本低很多，就会induce demand....往往就会有人非常upset. 我觉得软科学这个软字用在economist上挺靠谱的，因为经济跟别的学科结合可以衍生出很多边缘fields，比如game theory + psychology = behavioral economics; microeconomics + health = health economics; etc. etc. 不是不象万金油的。
哇，牛皮吹破了。我也没读过许多这类的书，Freaconomics是一个，很久以前翻过一本关于投资心理的书，名字和作者都忘记了（作者似乎N开头，这里学经济的各位知道吗？）。还有就是零敲碎打看到的一些文章，跟人聊天，加自己的瞎猜乱想呗。从八十年代以后，华尔街里赚钱，好多时候是武装到牙齿的内行们赚啥也不懂的个人小投资者的钱。
过去工作的地方（跟经济没关系）的CEO是学social psychology出身的，有次跟他聊天，问：个人的心理很复杂，社会心理就更复杂了吧？他说一点也不复杂，人群的行为和动机很有规律，例如用恐惧控制人群，效果从来都是百试不爽－－这还是99年听到的话，两三年后便得到鲜明直接的印证。虽然各民族文化有别，在基本的＂群众心理＂上是惊人的相似，或许你可以说是因为各地人类来源同一家族，分枝也是极现代的事情。
过去工作的地方（跟经济没关系）的CEO是学social psychology出身的，有次跟他聊天，问：个人的心理很复杂，社会心理就更复杂了吧？他说一点也不复杂，人群的行为和动机很有规律，例如用恐惧控制人群，效果从来都是百试不爽－－这还是99年听到的话，两三年后便得到鲜明直接的印证。虽然各民族文化有别，在基本的＂群众心理＂上是惊人的相似，或许你可以说是因为各地人类来源同一家族，分枝也是极现代的事情。