The world is too complex to make an exact prognosis, of course (honestly, we don’t have a clue what the future will be like just five years from now). However I believe some developments are outright logical and will lead to predictable results in the long run, even if they are hard to imagine today.

One of these developments is the increasing sophistication in achieving happiness. Eventually, I believe, we will be able to stimulate our brain however we want to and become maximally happy. It may even lead to the scenario depicted in the 1999 movie The Matrix, where brains are maintained in a gelatinous substance and stimulated by computers electronically in order to create a fake, but perceived-as-happy reality.

This may sound crazy, so let me give you the reasons why I believe this is going to happen.

1. Happiness is our primary goal
   First, we all aim to be happy. Even though happiness is only a by-product of evolution, it’s one of the most important goals in our lives (maybe the only goal with intrinsic value, as argued here). The happier we can become, the better.
    
2. We already “trick” nature
   Second, stimulating our brains artificially to achieve happiness would be nothing new – we do it all the time. For example:

   • Eating sweets
   Nature has developed an incentive system that rewards us for consuming foods containing high concentrations of energy (e.g., sweet fruits), because energy is crucial for survival. However, eating food with an unnaturally high sugar content (e.g., sweets) is an unnatural overstimulation of our reward system.

   • Consuming nicotine (or other drugs)
   I don’t know the scientific explanation for how smoking can be rewarding to the body, but I doubt it helps to achieve nature’s goal (survival & reproduction).

   • Having sex with contraception
   Nature “thinks” we reproduce, but we don’t! We just want to get the good part without the bad (no, I don’t hate kids ).

   • Engaging in other “unnatural” activities that make us happy
   Whether we’re playing video games, listening to techno music etc., most of the “modern-world” activities we perceive to be rewarding succeed in stimulating our incentive system in a positive way, but without necessarily serving nature’s goals. However, we don’t worry too much about that. As long as these diversions serve our purpose (achieving happiness) we welcome them.
    

3. It will be technically feasible
   Third, humanity will discover ever more effective ways to stimulate our inherited incentive system in a positive way (without negative side effects). Ultimately, we will also understand how the brain works (the brain is still largely a black box to science today) and be capable of creating the world we want – a world full of happiness, free of suffering.

Personally, I draw two conclusions from this: one positive and one negative. The positive conclusion is that paradise on earth is indeed possible. The negative conclusion is that you (if you are reading this before, let’s say, the year 2100) and I have been born too early to experience it. However, we should look on the positive side: we’re literate, we live on more than $1 a day, we live in times of peace, etc. This puts us ahead of so many unfortunate people today and in the past, so we should not complain about our lot in life.

If you enjoyed reading this post, please subscribe to my RSS Feed or Email Newsletter!

This post raises two related questions:

1. How effective is this incentive system (for the goal of reproduction) today?
2. Should reproduction be our ultimate goal?

1. How effective is this incentive system today?

Considering that the world’s population is quickly approaching seven billion people, the incentive model seems to work quite well. However, on an individual level, nature sometimes evaluates our actions incorrectly.

• In many cases, the incentive system demonstrates a chronic short-sightedness. For example, we don’t want to go to the dentist because it causes pain, but dental care is necessary to avoid much more severe pain and maybe even life-threatening consequences later. The incentive system of pleasure and pain cannot reflect this long-term approach, so our actions must be guided by other means, such as rational thinking.    
• Some of nature’s rewards are not in the best interest of reproduction. For example, we are rewarded for eating sugary and fatty foods, driven by the evolutionary scarcity of crucial calories. If nature “knew” that eating at McDonalds makes us fat, shortening our life expectancy as well as making us less attractive to the opposite sex, we would experience severe pain each time we bit into a hamburger.³

In other words, the incentive system of pain and pleasure does not always work as it should (from nature’s perspective) and therefore is imperfect.

2. Should reproduction be our ultimate goal?

Nature gave us the goal of reproduction and built an incentive system around it. However, do we need to accept this inheritance?

Most people who answer “yes” to this question are convinced of the intrinsically good nature (i.e., the belief that because something is natural, it must be good). I am very sceptical of that conclusion, for several reasons.⁴ 

If we don’t regard reproduction as the ultimate end-goal in itself, what should take its place? In an earlier post, I argued that happiness should fill this role, despite being only a byproduct or a means-to-an-end-tool from nature’s perspective.  

Conclusion

The takeaway from all this is that pleasure and pain should not be regarded as untouchable. Instead, we should keep in mind that:

• Pleasure and pain are an incentive model with clear weaknesses
• We don’t have to agree on the goal implied by the model
• We should deliberately try to maximize pleasure and minimize pain as much as possible

Continuing this line of thinking, a future post will discuss how we can reduce pain or uncomfortable feelings. Until then, I welcome your feedback, as always!

If you enjoyed reading this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed or email newsletter! 

—

1) Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, 1789.

2) Or, more precisely, for our genes’ reproduction, as evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins pointed out. Our cousins also carry our genes, at least in part, so we should be interested in their reproduction as well. Read more on this in Richard Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene.

3) Many similar examples like this exist, and perhaps the most dramatic is that of taking drugs. The direct reward (in terms of happiness) could not be higher, yet the effects on our capability to reproduce (quick death) could not be more disastrous. 

4) To avoid any misunderstandings: I like nature very much, in the sense that I love walking in the woods, climbing mountains, enjoying the view, being impressed by the sublime and vast sky, etc. However, I also understand that nature is only the result of how it has developed. I am not religious, and I don’t believe anyone masterminded this Greatest Show on Earth.

If I remember correctly, I started to question the concept of intrinsically good nature (which every kid is taught, either directly or indirectly) when I began to understand the horrible consequences of natural disasters, such as hurricanes and tsunamis, which kill hundreds of thousands of people. These phenomena are nature in its purest form. I recently watched a documentary on TV, showing the remains of a herd of zebras that died painfully after their source of water dried up. This made clear to me again that nature is just how things came about, without the intervention of a higher power and without mercy. 

I am not religious. However, this post is not about my beliefs (or non-beliefs), but rather about whether religion should be regarded as a good thing. For me, being primarily interested in people’s happiness, the question is: does religion bring more happiness into the world, or not?

The Advantages of Religion

What’s good about religion?  

• Religion can provide a strong feeling of security
  Believing in a higher power who looks over the world can provide substantial comfort. It simplifies people’s lives and diminishes feelings of incomprehensible and overwhelming complexity, as well as concern about the lack of order and uncertainty, which can be very unsettling.
• Religion can reduce the fear of dying
  Fear of death is in our bones, and everything which reduces it can be beneficial to our happiness. Religion does this by telling us that God will take care of us and that our life will continue in some form after our death.
• Religion can give us hope
  No matter how bad the situation is, the belief in a divine power which metes out ultimate justice can provide an almost inexhaustible source for hope and optimism from which we can draw new strength.
• Religion can give us a mission and energy
  Any task we believe in can be a very strong source of energy and motivation. Religion can provide such a task. Think about Mother Theresa: her belief gave her the energy to help increase people’s happiness and decreate their suffering, all while making herself happier. Even atheists must struggle to not develop sympathy for the driving force behind these actions!
• Religion can give us guidance on how to behave in society
  It’s true for the Ten Commandments and all similar rules: having guidance that directs people to do what is good (e.g., don’t steal) can be very beneficial to the happiness of the individual obeying these rules, as well as for the happiness of the society (provided they are good rules, of course!). This is especially true in cases where there would be no other “law” to take its place (leading to chaos).
• Religion can make people socialize
  Meeting with others for religious events is more than just practicing faith. It is an opportunity to meet old friends and make new friends, sing together and socialise. This can be a very powerful source of happiness, as many research studies in the field of happiness have shown.
• (?) – Please add your ideas below!

The Disadvantages of Religion

I only see one main disadvantage of religion, but it is a big one: Religion poses a threat to logical reasoning, and therefore puts at risk all the benefits we receive from analytical thinking and critical reflection.

For example, the price we pay for the feeling of security and simplicity (see above) is that we don’t reflect on our belief which we’ve accepted as the truth (otherwise, it does not work). If this state of non-reflection is “locked” in a belief which is causing unhappiness (e.g., kill everyone who denies my god) it can be fatal – literally.

Religion’s threat to critical thinking can be observed in many situations. For example, a staggering 29% of Americans believe that creationism should be taught in science class in schools (either exclusively or along with evolution). This does not provide a healthy ground for human progress, which is based on logical reasoning and constant reflection.

Conclusion I (for you are not religious)

Religion offers major benefits, as well as a substantial drawback. So how should we deal with this two-faced power?

Firstly, get an appropriate view of religion. Non-religious people, such as me, should acknowledge that religion can be a major contributor to people’s happiness. It may be a source of happiness we are unfamiliar with and don’t think we need (maybe because we were lucky to have sufficient alternative sources of happiness), but we should not try to take it away from other people – especially not by arguing that there is no god, which misses the point entirely.

We should also keep in mind that logical thinking (which we should value very, very highly) is not an end in itself, and we should not make it become “our god”. For example, imagine the following scenario: you are terminally ill and know you have only weeks to live. Despite having been a highly sceptical and non-religious being all your life, you now feel the draw of religion, which could remove your fear of dying and diminish your pain (just accept this scenario for a second, it may happen). Who would not turn to this method to diminish the pain, and why?

Conclusion II (if you are religious)

If religion makes you happier, appreciate that you have discovered this source of happiness. However, keep in mind that religion is not founded on a scientific analysis and that it poses a threat to analytical reasoning and critical reflection. Especially in situations where religion guides you to take actions that cause unhappiness for other people, it is important to keep this in mind.

Also, all proponents of religion should understand that being religious is a personal choice. As soon as that belief intimidates or otherwise negatively affects other people’s free choice in any form (e.g., by educating pupils based on a religious belief), it must be fought against rigorously. Everybody should consciously decide whether they want to follow a religion, being fully aware of its advantages and drawbacks.

If you enjoyed reading this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed or email newsletter!

I analysed the matter and came up with a couple of techniques which have worked well for me. Let me share them with you.

When Do We Take “Action”?

If we want to make ourself do something, it is crucial to understand the basic structure of why we “do things” at all:

1. We Do “It”… If We Don’t Have a Choice

This scenario has two possible subsets:

• We physically don’t have a choice
  Example: We are at home and hungry. We have only vegetables in the fridge and all the shops are closed. If we want to eat something, we have to eat vegetables. Other options are physically impossible.

  

  For example, if you want to eat healthier foods, first remove all the junk food from your home. Then take some time (e.g., over the weekend) to cook tasty but healthy food for the whole week. When you come home from work on weekdays, your prepared food will already be in the fridge and you will have no other option.¹

• We don’t know about other options 
  If we don’t know that our favourite show is currently on TV, we don’t have the choice between studying or watching our favourite show, because the latter option does not exist for us. 

  

Crucially, the true value of these two techniques is more than just that they force us to do something. They are effective ways to reduce the pain associated with a task. Continuing the examples above, it is certainly easier to… 

           – … eat healthy food if you aren’t looking at a chocolate cake
           –  … study if you don’t know your favourite show is on TV

Why does limiting our options reduce the pain? One possible explanation may be that the role of pain (and pleasure) is to steer us toward specific choices. However, if we don’t have a choice, there is not as much need for pain.³

2. We Do “It”… If We Don’t Give Ourself a Choice (Mentally)
This differs from the above in that we physically have a choice (and know it, if asked), but we don’t consider any other options. No mental “arguing” occurs.

One example (for me) would be getting up in the morning to go to work. On an intellectual level I know sleeping in is an option (it is physically possible), but I don’t consider it, because I perceive it as an unquestionable task to get up and go to work. Importantly, I don’t need to picture all the negative consequences of sleeping in (making it appear as an unattractive option) which would be associated with arguing / evaluation (which is considered under section 3). Instead, I get up automatically, without thinking about it.

Most of what we do falls into this category. We breathe, scratch an itch, change gears when driving (assuming you are used to it), and do many other activities without thinking about them in detail. Arguably, this is the most powerful and efficient way to get things done.

Interestingly, we could provide logical reasons for why we do these things, although these are not actually why we do them. For example, if somebody asks you why you are breathing, you could say that failing to breathe would be fatal, and therefore not a good choice. This makes sense, but it is not the direct reason why we do breathe – we do it because our brained is programmed to do it (I don’t want to be a nitpicker, but I believe this is an important difference).

How can we make our brain carry out the things we know we should do without arguing or complaining?²

• Our brain does not argue if… we don’t let it

  One way to prevent our brain from evaluating different options is by simply not allowing it to do so. Reaching an internal resolve to do something beforehand and then implementing it without the slightest doubt is an invaluable skill (also called self-discipline).

  I believe this is one of the most crucial skills for getting things done. Like all skills, it has to be learned and practiced. Steve Pavlina, who has written a wonderful series of free articles on self-discipline, compares developing this skill with lifting weights: start with easy tasks and then gradually increase the challenge according to your skill level.

  

• Our brain does not argue if… it is used to performing the task

  Habits can be very powerful: they can make us do things “automatically” without leaving room for internal arguing.

  How can we establish good habits? Here, again, I believe Steve Pavlina came up with a very good proposal in the form of 30-day-trials. He suggests trying “it” out (not smoking, going to the gym, eating healthy food, etc.) for 30 days and only later deciding whether we want to stick to it. This makes it easy to start (after all, it is only for 30 days) and in many cases the new action becomes a habit, so that stopping almost requires an effort.

  

• Our brain does not argue if… it sees how the task directly relates to a greater goal, mission, task or purpose it has already fully accepted

  Most tasks are performed in the context of a greater task or goal. For example, if you’ve fully bought into the idea of working for a charity, the task of “meeting with the other charity members” directly relates to this greater task and therefore does not get “questioned” anymore.

  To tap this source of energy:
  1. You need to have a greater goal, mission, task or purpose which your brain has fully bought into and
  2. The task in question must be directly connected to achieving the greater goal

  How do we get there? As this source of energy a very important one, a future post will dive into it in detail. For the time being, please read Steve Pavlina’s How to discover your life purpose in about 20 minutes.

  

Please note: When applying these techniques, I realized that they can be useful if applied individually, but they become really strong when combined.

These techniques are the major ones which came to my mind. This is certainly not a complete list.⁴ If you know any others, please describe them below!

3. We Do “It”… If We Perceive It to Be the Best Option

If we have several options, we pick the best one. “Best” refers to how attractive we perceive the option to be versus all the other options available to us. Therefore, the challenge becomes making “it” as attractive and appealing as possible, while making all alternatives as unattractive as possible.

Techniques for doing this will be described in a follow-up post. In the meantime, I welcome your feedback, as always!

If you enjoyed reading this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed or email newsletter!

–

1.) However, keep in mind that this technique creates some inflexibility. For example, if you want to focus on studying and you lock yourself in a room with a time-lock set for two hours (physically removing the option of going into the living room to watch TV), it may create problems (or foster some serious creativity!) if you then realize you have to go to the bathroom.

2) Warning: We must keep in mind that these techniques aim to cancel out our rational and conscious thinking, and may therefore be dangerous. Some people are capable of doing terrible things because they accept “it” as an unquestionable task and stop reflecting on it (which may lead to disastrous results, such as war crimes). These techniques can be a powerful source of energy and drive to do things, but they must be applied with care!

3) I say as much need for pain, because only some elements of pain can be reduced by limiting our options.

For example, a certain type of pain (or uncomfortable feeling) is experienced directly when doing something, such as eating healthy, less-tasty food while looking at a chocolate cake. This uncomfortable feeling can be reduced by limiting the options (e.g., by not knowing about the cake).

Another type of pain provides deterrence, such as physical pain, which clearly instructs us to make different decisions in the future (don’t touch the fire!). This type of pain cannot be reduced by limiting our options. The pain does not diminish if we are tied to a chair (no options) and pain is inflicted.

Pain perception can play a crucial role when trying to get things done. A future post will dive into this topic (and that of how to reduce perceived pain) in greater detail.

4.) Basically everything that removes alternatives in our brain can be used to help us focus on the things we should do. Here’s one more example: Some people find it useful to schedule a task on their calendar. This can make it feel as if the decision to do that task has already been made, preventing internal arguing when the time arrives (this works especially well if you respect your calendar as something “holy” and committal – it won’t help if you don’t usually use a calendar).

Therefore, I was delighted to find out about TED, an organization which holds an annual four-day conference for top speakers to share their ideas on almost any topic (motivated by three US $100,000 prizes). Most presentations are limited to 15-20 minutes, which ensures that the speakers stick to the key messages.

Attending this event requires an invitation and a US$6,000 fee (the prize money has to come from somewhere), so it is great that TED posts all the presentations online for free viewing.

Below please find a selection of what I consider to be “must-see” presentations:

1. Ken Robinson: How schools kill creativity
   
   

   Click here to view the embedded video.

2. Steve Jobs: How to live before you die

   Click here to view the embedded video.

   
    
3. Benjamin Zander: On Music and Passion

   Click here to view the embedded video.

   (For more information on how to enjoy classical music please have a look at this blog post)
    

4. Marc Pachter: The Art of The Interview

   Click here to view the embedded video.

   
    
5. Dan Buettner: How to live to be 100+ 

   Click here to view the embedded video.

   
    
6. Rory Sutherland: Life lessons from an ad man

   Click here to view the embedded video.

   
    
7. VS Ramachandran on your mind

   Click here to view the embedded video.

   
    
8. Murray Gell-Mann on beauty and truth in physics

   Click here to view the embedded video.

   
    
9. Jill Bolte Taylor's stroke of insight

   Click here to view the embedded video.

   
    
10. Thulasiraj Ravilla: How low-cost eye care can be world-class

    Click here to view the embedded video.

Other presentations I enjoyed watching (among many others):

• Charles Anderson discovers dragonflies that cross oceans 
• Arthur Benjamin does "Mathemagic" 
• Brian Greene on string theory 
• Hans Rosling stastistics 
• Scott Kim takes apart the art of puzzles 
• Barry Schwarz on the paradox of choice
• Steven Pinker on the myth of violence
• Sunitha Krishnan fights sex slavery 
• Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi on flow
• The Raspyni Brothers juggling
• Steve Truglia: A leap from space

Did I miss any?

Things have begun to change recently. A bookseller in my neighbourhood offered discounts on several books, among them Andrew Graham-Dixon’s Art: The Definitive Visual Guide. Despite my previous experience with art, I decided to buy it, mainly driven by the cheap price and the sympathetically high picture-to-text ratio.

The book turned out to be very good and it showed me that art can be highly interesting and enjoyable, which was a new experience for me. Much as Schubert and Mendelssohn awoke my interest in classical music, Graham-Dixon’s book raised my interest in art considerably.

Reflecting on this experience, two questions came to my mind:

1. Now that I know the arts can be enjoyable, what can I do to maximize this joy?
2. How can people who believe art is boring be convinced that it can be enjoyable (and therefore “tap a new source of happiness”)?

To find the answers, I first analysed why art can be enjoyable (i.e., in what ways it can give us pleasure). Based on this, I will try to come up with practical suggestions.
 

What Makes Art Enjoyable?

Here are some dimensions which play a role when enjoying art:

         1.)    Recognition

When walking in London’s National Gallery a couple of days ago, I was delighted to see Georges Seurat’s Bathers at Asnières from 1884…

… which I recognized from the book mentioned above. It wasn’t the beauty of the painting (I don’t think it is very beautiful), nor the atmosphere it creates or any reason other than  the fact that I saw something which felt familiar. Maybe the feeling of “success” played a role here as well: finally not everything in the museum is new to me.  

The importance of recognition becomes clear when we consider two different types of visitors. What a difference there must be between the uninitiated museum visitor who is overwhelmed by the number and size of unfamiliar paintings, compared to one who knows them all and perceives a leisurely stroll through the rooms as a nostalgic opportunity to catch up with good old friends.¹

2.)    Beauty

I used to think beauty was the only, or at least most important, criteria for evaluating works of art. Now I believe it is only one possible component (not even required to make art enjoyable) and the role it plays is far from the most important one.

That said, the beauty of some paintings is stunning and just looking at them brings joy that is reason enough to buy a copy and pin it up on a wall at home. Personally, I find paintings with a strong or interesting use of light beautiful (which is highly subjective, of course). For example, I perceive beauty in Bierstadt’s “Oregon Trail” from 1869:

I also enjoy Max Liebermann’s The Terrace at the Restaurant Jacob in Nienstedten on the Elbe from 1902 (sunlight filtering through leaves was one of Liebermanns’s favourite themes):

(By the way, if you want to buy these pieces of art (copies, I mean, unless you are filthily rich), OldMastersOnline.com seems to be an interesting source, although I have not tested it yet).

Beyond this rather superficial definition of beauty, there are other ways in which we can find beauty in art. For example, Rodin’s sculpture and masterpiece, The Kiss is beautiful, too, although in a slightly different sense than the pieces cited above:²

Art is capable of triggering positive feelings, all of which may be described as “beauty” in a broader sense.

3.)    Understanding / Empathy

Understanding a piece of art (in terms of when it was created, what the artist intended to convey with it, etc.) plays a fundamental role in our enjoyment. Maybe this is the most important way to enjoy art. But why is that? Let me list some hypotheses:

·         Firstly, when we understand a piece, we don’t feel lost, but rather more educated and knowledgeable, which is a good feeling in itself. 

·         Secondly, we are able to develop a deeper relationship with the work and with the artist. This is especially true when we can identify with the work, maybe because we have had similar experiences in our life.³

For example, I believe a melancholic individual longing for the good old days is capable of finding a strong connection to Turner’s Fighting Temeraire (1838)…

…which depicts a once successful battleship (literally a ghost of her former noble and majestic self) getting towed by a steam tug to its final destination to be broken up for scrap. Several elements of the painting transform the ship’s final journey into a mournful hymn for the passing of the great days of sail:⁴

·         A trail of fiery smoke from the tug’s funnel cuts dramatically across the Temeraire, symbolising the end of sail and the future of the steam engine.

·         The hull of the boat and the missing sails (in contrast to the full sails of a number of sailing ships receding into the distance, reminiscent of the Temeraire’s glory days) give the Temeraire a strangely skeletal appearance.

·         The viewer’s eye is drawn across the canvas in a way that creates a sense of forward movement, suggesting the Temeraire’s final journey towards the ominous, dark buoy and the setting sun on the right.

·         Thirdly, understanding pieces of art enables us to compare them and appreciate their context with each other, which further increases our joy. In other words, the more we know about art, the more enjoyable it becomes.  

If understanding plays such a crucial role, how can we achieve a state of knowledge quickly which allows us to understand the piece, put it into context and analyse it?

When reading the aforementioned book, it became clear to me that reaching such a state does not require as much effort as we may think (the book is not the answer, even though it does go very much in the right direction). If the information is presented well, reading it is fun and memorable. What might such a guide look like?

One important element, I believe, is a structured approach to show the dimensions in which art can be understood or analysed, and which different shapes exist within each of those dimensions. For example, the dimensions for paintings could be:  

·         What the painting shows/depicts (portraits, landscapes, stories, etc.)

·         How the object or scene is depicted (e.g., for portraits: frontal view, 3/4-view, etc.) and why

·         The “background” of the picture/story

·         Perspective of the viewer (from above/below) and why

·         What conclusions can be drawn about the artist based on how he or she presents the characters, etc.

·         Which colours are used, and how

·         Which materials were used to create the piece

·         What “atmosphere” is created

·         How the eye is led into the painting

·         Which epoch the piece belongs to

·         Etc.

With a bit of basic knowledge in each of those dimensions, even beginners can try to analyse formerly unfamiliar paintings, which should increase their joy considerably.  

In conclusion, recognition, beauty and understanding of a piece of art seem to be three important reasons why art can be enjoyable. They are not the only ones (for example, art can also provide inspiration), but for me they are on top of the list. Or have I missed other key points?

Practical Suggestions

1.)    Get a good teacher (or good books)

As with any other discipline, getting a good introduction is key. You can start with the book I mentioned above. If you find other books (or videos or other materials) of similar quality, please share that information below!

Even better, of course, is a real teacher who is an expert on the subject and can convey that expertise in an interesting way.

2.)    Don’t go unprepared to an art gallery or museum

Unless you are sure you’ll find a good teacher there (or a good audio guide, which is rare – see below), I would be careful about going to an art gallery and expecting to enjoy it right away.⁵ Most of the time, the way the art is explained is not sufficient to make it fully enjoyable for newcomers. At least, this has been my experience.  

It may be better to learn some basics about art (see above) and learn what pieces are on display before you go. Get some background information on the specific works and their context (e.g., epoch). With this preparation, you’ll almost certainly get more out of the experience.

3.)    Suggestion for museum directors: upgrade your audio guides

This is very important: If you, the museum director, want more people to enjoy art and visit galleries, help them find their path to it. Based on my experience, today’s audio guides are not as good as they could be, for two main reasons:

·         The content is too academic

Very often the audio guides aim to be academically correct, instead of raise passion in the listener. Consequently, the joy factor falls short most of the time. Many interesting or funny background details which a real guide would mention are often not mentioned on the audio guides.

·         The content is not conveyed passionately enough  

Also, the way in which the content is conveyed affects the listeners’ enjoyment. Often the monotonous voices on the audio guides lack passion. It appears as if a speaker reads the information off a piece of paper. This does not make the tour exciting.

Please, invest some money in making a really good audio guide. Collect all the interesting facts about the pieces which listeners would enjoy. Then record a compassionate and authentically excited (funny?) person delivering those facts. The money invested will almost certainly pay off in the long run.

4.)    Focus on specific epochs / types of art first

Art spans a very wide field, and any attempt to try to understanding all pieces at once is doomed to fail. Start with one specific episode or genre. Learn about it and, when going to an art gallery or museum, focus on that episode or genre first until you know it really well. Your interest in exploring other areas will grow naturally from there.

Where should you start? I suggest opening an art book (with a lot of pictures covering all epochs, if possible, such as the one recommended above) and browse it to identify the works that are most interesting to you. The works that first interested me were created during the epoch which is named romanticism, but everybody is different.

5.)    Try to analyse the work

After having prepared a little, try to analyse the art along the dimensions listed above. It can be exciting to discover things on your own and then compare then to the artist’s ideas when revealed.

6.)    Adapt the right mindset

Remember that art appreciation will get better and better over time (understanding breeds understanding). As with everything in life, it takes some investment at the start. Most of the time, however, you are more than compensated for your efforts.

If you enjoyed reading this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed or email newsletter! This post is part of the series “Tapping New Sources of Happiness” in which one other topic has been discussed so far: A Guide to Enjoying Classical Music.

–

1) Inquisitive readers may go one step further and ask why familiarity is capable of creating a positive feeling at all. My hypothesis is that this may have its roots in humans’ core need for security. (Security is fundamental in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, although I believe this pyramid needs to be updated based on our advances in the past 70 years – the subject of a future post).

2) This is a different sense of beauty as it requires more interpretation than the instant, more superficial beauty described above. Perhaps it can be called “secondary beauty” (without prioritizing it).

3) This may also be the reason why experienced (i.e., elderly) people are more capable of enjoying art. The probability that a painting conveys emotions they have experienced is higher, because they have presumably experienced more. Does an empathic viewer find access to art easier for that reason?

4) The following description of the painting is quoted from the aforementioned book by Andrew Graham-Dixon.

5) Keep your expectations low: The Role of Expectations in Being Happy

I have not performed a detailed analysis, but I believe that different forms of anxiety are high up on the list, stemming from worries about the future, one’s career or family, or direct forms of fear. Therefore, if we want to increase happiness, how can we reduce people’s anxiety levels?

This post takes a detailed look at public speaking anxiety, which is frequently identified as people’s greatest fear:

“According to most studies, people's number-one fear is public speaking. Number two is death. Death is number two. Does that sound right? This means to the average person, if you go to a funeral, you're better off in the casket than doing the eulogy.”
- Jerry Seinfeld

Understanding the Problem

In order to really understand the problem, I’ve tried to illustrate the different elements and how they are connected:¹

(Click on picture for full page view) 

Let’s examine the root causes of public speaking anxiety one by one:

1. Belief That Public Speaking is Stressful

This is a self-fulfilling prophesy: we believe public speaking is stressful, and therefore it actually becomes stressful.

It is important to understand that this is our mind messing with us. Speaking in public is not inherently stressful. When you were a kid, you didn’t hesitate to speak in front of others. Only later in life do we develop this fear, and as adults we believe it is an integral part of public speaking.²

Also, keep in mind that many people have succeeded in managing their fear of public speaking, so you can as well. Always remember (repeat after me): speaking in public is not inherently stressful.

2. Fearing the Fear

This is a nasty, reinforcing effect triggered by our belief that speaking in public is stressful: we start to fear the fear itself, causing a spiral of fear that leads to very high anxiety levels.

What can we do to prevent this vicious cycle? Here are some proposals:

• Remember that speaking in public is not inherently stressful (see Section 1.)
  (By the way, if you suffer from very high anxiety levels, you can also draw a positive conclusion from this analysis: if you succeed in believing that speaking in public is not stressful, you can reduce your anxiety levels considerably, reversing the reinforcing negative effect. In other words, success is not as unachievable as it may seem.)
• Don’t fight the fear
  A common mistake is to fight the fear by trying to resist it or by refusing to give into it. However, such an approach simply makes the fear stronger.
  Instead, experience fear and regard it as a normal and expected part of public speaking. Don’t try to run from it. Make peace with it and say to yourself:³

  - This is an uncomfortable feeling, but it is okay that I feel this way.
  - This is not the best feeling in the world, but it is truly not the worst feeling.
  - The more I can accept this feeling when I experience it, the more I will learn to manage my fear and do specific things to mitigate it.
  - I’m going to be ok, no matter what happens.
  - The fear won’t kill me; it is simply an uncomfortable feeling.
  - The feeling will come and go from time to time and I can handle it.
  - It is ok that I am anxious. I can still speak or perform when I feel anxious.

A bit of nervousness may actually be beneficial as it allows you to concentrate fully and reach peak performance. Try to use your fear to enhance your presentation, channelling it into dynamic energy and enthusiasm.

3. Pressure on Yourself to Succeed

If putting pressure on ourselves increases anxiety levels, why do we do it? There seem to be three main reasons:

3.1. Thinking “It’s All About Me”

To put it succinctly: no, it’s not about you. It’s about contributing value to the audience, mainly by teaching audience members something they didn’t know before.

Instead of focusing on yourself, focus on the audience and especially on the message you want to get across. This is what the audience cares about – not you.

Maybe this is why humour, openness and a willingness to show vulnerability go a long way. When you don’t take yourself too seriously and instead show everybody (yourself and the audience) that it’s not about you, but rather about the content of what you are saying, it reduces the pressure and takes the burden off your shoulders.

3.2. Belief That You Have to be Perfect or Brilliant to Succeed

You don’t have to be perfect or brilliant to succeed. Your task is merely to add bit of value to the audience. If you can convey a couple of key messages that are interesting and/or new to the audience, you’ve already succeeded.

Therefore, get the idea out of your head that you have to be perfect to succeed. Perfectionism will make you go crazy. The belief that one has to be perfect may emerge in various ways:

a) Belief that you cannot make any mistakes
This is rubbish. Everybody makes mistakes – a lot of them. In the end, all that matters is whether you’ve conveyed important messages which added value to the audience.

b) Belief that you have to give your audience every detail
Oh, God, no. Nobody wants to hear every minor detail, and nobody can remember all the details anyway. Just convey the key points.

c) Belief that everybody in the audience has to approve
You will not receive approval from everybody. Trying to behave so that everybody likes you is understandable, but unfortunately unrealistic. It is better to accept this from the beginning so you don’t go crazy if and when you see sceptical faces in the audience or some individuals leave the room during your presentation.

Also, it may be useful to lower the bar by saying to yourself, “I am not a public speaker.” That can help you dissociate from the I-have-to-be-perfect mindset and instead focus on your message.

3.3. Thinking You Are the Only One with This Problem

Believing that you are the only person with public speaking anxiety may reinforce the problem. You may mistakenly believe that while all others have succeeded, you are the last stupid individual still struggling to overcome the problem.

Of course, this is not true. Public speaking anxiety is often identified as people’s greatest fear, so don’t think you are alone – you certainly are not.

4. Not Being Yourself

As a result of putting pressure on yourself, you may try to mimic other people whom you consider to be successful (or your abstract and vague idea of how a good public speaker behaves and feels), thereby pretending to be somebody you are not.

Unfortunately, this:

• Further increases anxiety levels
• Is an unauthentic, uncomfortable feeling
• Distracts from the message you want to convey, and
• Is spotted by the audience in about 100% of the time

So be yourself and tell the audience naturally whatever you have to say. Your listeners will thank you for it.

5. Preparing Too Much and in the Wrong Way

This is a tricky one. Preparation is good, isn’t it?

In my experience, preparation is very important to the extent that it helps you add value, (e.g. allowing you to convey information clearly and helping you indentify any inconsistencies in your message).

The best way to prepare may be to rehearse the presentation on your own while imagining the audience in front of you (videotaping yourself may be a good idea) or to practice your presentation in front of some of friends who will provide feedback.

However, you can also over-prepare (or prepare in the wrong way). This often happens to those who think they have to be perfect. For example, imagining every second of your talk (which exact words you will say, how you will say them, how the audience will react, etc.) may give you a deceptively comfortable feeling of control before the presentation. However, because the actual presentation will always differ from what we had anticipated (which is absolutely fine), this mindset can make you panic as soon as you realise things are different than imagined.

6. Lack of Purpose / No Value to Contribute / Nothing to Say

Unless you are a politician, you will always feel uncomfortable if you don’t have a message to convey. Without a message, facing hundreds of eyes that are eager for knowledge can indeed be an uncomfortable situation.

Therefore, make sure you have good, well-thought-out messages to convey, and you’ll be fine.

7. Belief that Something Bad Will Happen

Sometimes our imagination and creativity can harm us. When thinking about speaking in public, many overblown and unrealistic thoughts come to mind. What if I pass out from exhaustion? What if I forget everything I intended to say and am left standing alone, totally speechless?

The question is: how can we avoid going crazy?

• Remind yourself that your fears are completely overblown.
  
• Apply this mindset: “everything that happens can be used to my advantage.”
  The credits for this one go to Morton C. Orman. He proposes to always think that no matter what happens, you can use it to your advantage.

  For example, if some members of your audience leave the room, ask them why they left and whether your topic, style or manner offended them. Regardless of what they tell you, dealing with the situation honestly and humbly will often score points with the remaining audience members.

  Morton C. Orman continues:
  “Even if everyone walked out and refused to give me a reason, I could ultimately find ways to benefit from this experience. At the very least, I could use it as the opening for my next presentation. "You know, I gave this same talk the other day and everyone in the audience walked out in the first ten minutes. That's my current record, so I guess we'll just have to see what happens today."
  
  The same principle holds for dealing with hecklers or people who ask harsh or confrontational questions. If you assume that nothing truly bad can ever happen when you're speaking in public, you'll be amazed how well you can relate to such events and how often you can indeed use them to your advantage.”

• Do NLP exercises
  Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) provides an interesting set of techniques to change our learned perceptions. The following method can be useful in reducing our fear that something bad will happen:

  1.) Imagine yourself speaking in front of an audience (as vividly as possible, seeing every detail, hearing voices, taking in the smell from the room, etc.)

  2.) Imagine the worst possible scenario happening (you are completely speechless, or you run into a pole, knocking yourself out, etc.)

  3.) Once you have this vision in mind, make it as ridiculous and silly as possible by unleashing your creativity (make people have wings and fly around the room as you stand on your head looking at everyone upside down, etc.)

  During this exercise, your mind will struggle to reconcile the absurd scenario with the original frightening vision, thereby preventing your mind from developing those horror scenarios altogether.

8. Belief that the Audience Does Not Want You to Succeed

Your relationship with the audience is another key point. As long as you regard your audience as your enemy (which is almost never justified) you will put unnecessary pressure on yourself.

In reality, your audience members want you to succeed and deliver the information that interests them. A slip of the tongue or a mistake of any kind might seem a big deal to you, but it’s not that important for the audience. Your listeners are just interested in learning something new.

Generally, it is a good idea to like the audience and/or establish a relationship with your listeners. Think of them as sympathetic people who have fears just as you do and who truly want you to succeed. If possible, speak with some of your audience members before the presentation.

Core of the Matter: Lack of Experience

I believe that anyone (I mean anyone), with enough practice, can become comfortable speaking in front of other people. Think about those who didn’t choose to speak in public, but now do so because their role requires it, such as –professional athletes. I don’t think any of them who are still nervous after they’ve had enough practice.⁴

Arguably the most important conclusion from the flowchart above (which is not new at all) is that practice is the key. Only through practice can we convince ourselves that many of the fears are merely creations of our minds.

There are several ways to gain practice:

• Join Toastmasters
  Toastmaster clubs exist for only one reason: to help individuals overcome public speaking anxiety and give them the skills needed to be a good speaker. The clubs are inexpensive and effective ways to get practice. If you are serious about overcoming your fear, come out of your closet and give Toastmaster a try. Toastmaster clubs exist all around the world. Find a nearby one here.
• Seek public speaking opportunities
  Opportunities abound to speak in front of others. If you have public speaking anxiety, chances are that you tend to avoid these situations. This only makes the problem worse. Next time you have an opportunity, seize it!
• Start slowly if required, but start!
  As with lifting weights, you may start slowly, perhaps speaking to only a few people at once. After a while, you may gradually increase the “weights” and seize opportunities to speak in front of larger groups.
  The important thing is that you do something about your fear and get practice speaking in public. Starting slowly is fine. (“Be not afraid of going slowly. Be only afraid of standing still.” – Chinese proverb)

Dealing Directly With the Symptoms of Public Speaking Anxiety

The approaches described above try to tackle the root causes of the problem, which is necessary for a long-term solution. However, we can also deal with the symptoms in the short term.⁵ Most of these techniques aim to help you feel calmer and more relaxed:

• Learn relaxation techniques / deep breathing
  You can learn many relaxation techniques, such as yoga. As a quick fix, breathing techniques can release tension in the body. For example, try the following breathing technique:

  - Make yourself comfortable (either lying down or sitting in a chair)
  - Gradually deepen your breath, allowing it to gently expand your lungs
  - Count to four while inhaling, two while holding your breath, and eight while exhaling (exhaling should take about twice as long as inhaling)

  This technique can have a very relaxing effect. If you feel dizzy while practicing it, stop immediately.

• Do workouts before the event
  After a good workout, you may feel naturally relaxed and less susceptible to anxious thoughts. Before you speak in front of an audience, go to the gym beforehand and see if it helps.
• Avoid caffeine
  Avoid caffeine (coffee, colas, black or green tea, etc.), which increases tension in the body and may increase anxiety levels. 

  However, if caffeine motivates you and helps you look forward to sharing your ideas with your audience, it may help you deliver your presentation with more energy. People are different, so the best suggestion is to try things out and observe the impacts on you (this applies to everything said on this blog).

• Consume relaxing food / drinks
  Consider drinking tea before the event, which has a relaxing effect on the body. For example, try valerian tea, which is sometimes used to facilitate sleep.

  Some people with very high anxiety levels use medication to deal with the problem, perhaps by taking Inderal, a type of beta blocker that is generally used to treat patients with heart problems. I am very sceptical of taking any medications. Do so only after consulting your doctor and after you’ve tried everything else.

• Do other things that help you to relax
  I’m sure you can do many other things that have a relaxing effect on you. You know best what these are. For example, some people calm down when walking outside and getting fresh air.

Conclusion

Key takeaways:

1. Speaking in public is not inherently stressful.
2. Don’t fear the fear. Don’t fight it.
3. Don’t put pressure on yourself to succeed: 
   - It’s not about you.
   - You don’t have to be perfect or brilliant to succeed. 
   - You are not the only one with this problem.
4. Be yourself.
5. Don’t over-prepare or prepare in too much detail, but do rehearse if possible.
6. Make sure you have a message to share. Focus on your audience and on the message itself during your presentation.
7. Don’t believe something bad will happen.
8. Don’t think your audience does not want you to succeed.
9. Get practice to see firsthand that all the points above are true.

A final thought: This post was written in an effort to reduce an uncomfortable feeling (i.e., reduce “unhappiness”), but it could just as well have been written to tap a new source of happiness: many speakers say that speaking in front of others while feeling relaxed and engaged is a fantastic feeling they will never forget. The rewards of overcoming public speaking anxiety are very, very high!

I sincerely hope this advice helps you. Please leave your comments and ideas for further improving this advice.

If you enjoyed reading this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed or email newsletter!

–

1) I used many sources (mostly online) for this analysis. Morton C. Orman’s article, How to Conquer Public Speaking Fear, was especially useful. I also took some information from Janet E. Esposito’s excellent book, In the Spotlight 

2) This is a key point throughout this article: our learned beliefs cause public speaking anxiety (they were not there from birth). Therefore, the logical solution to the problem is to question those beliefs and unlearn them.

Many proposals targeted at reducing public speaking anxiety don’t take this approach, but instead ask us to actively “do” a lot of things, such as:

• “Keep your hands still!”
  
• “Walk around during the talk!”
  
• “Tell jokes!”
  
• “Speak slowly!”
  
• “Imagine holding a magnificent speech!”
  
• Etc.
  

While these proposals may be useful for some individuals, they should be used with care.

• They may make us even more nervous (as we actively try to think about all this advice).
  
• They may give us a false sense of comfort (and backfire).
  
• They may be difficult to remember (all forgotten when facing the audience, in my experience).
  
• They don’t tackle the underlying problem (so how can they be solutions?).
  
• Most of them (keeping the hands still, moving around during the talk, etc.) result from confident speaking, but do not always lead to it. Instead of imitating others, be authentic (see above).
  

The approach proposed in this article is to understand the problem and react to any incorrect beliefs that emerge.

3) These suggestions are taken from Janet E. Esposito’s excellent book, In the Spotlight 

4) This also applies to athletes who are no longer successful, so it cannot be said they are comfortable speaking in public only because they excel in their sport (and due to the confidence that comes with it).

5) However, if these short-term solutions make it easier for you to speak in front of others, you may get more practice while using these techniques. Again, practice is the most effective way to deal with public speaking anxiety in the long term.

Imagine the following (dramatic) scenario: it is wartime, and you are a military general. You know you can end the war with a final strike. You have two options:

1. You can invade your enemy's territory, which will most likely lead to the death of 10,000 people, or
2. You can drop a big bomb on a remote village, leading to 11,000 deaths (demonstrating your military strength and causing your enemy to surrender)

Assuming you had to choose one of these two (horrible) options, which would you choose?

This article does not intend to answer this question, but rather to highlight effects which are relevant in the context of happiness and which may not be considered in practice if such a situation should arise.

These effects include:

• Happiness of the Victims’ Relatives
  In Scenario 1, the victims will most likely represent different families all over the country. Their death will make many relatives fundamentally unhappy for a long time; many of the victims’ parents may never become fully happy again.

  In other words, there are high “multiplier effects” of unhappiness in this scenario: one victim’s fate leads to the unhappiness of many other people.

  In Scenario 2, the multiplier effects are not as strong, because presumably the victims’ relatives are victims as well (they lived in the same village).

• Physical Injuries
  Scenario 1 will most likely lead to more injuries than Scenario 2. Let’s assume for a moment that Scenario 1 will lead to 10,000 injuries while Scenario 2 will lead to 1,000. How should this information be incorporated into the decision? How do the 1,000 additional deaths in Scenario 2 compare to the 9,000 additional injuries in Scenario 1?

  We face an impossible task: to weigh one goal (saving lives) against another (preventing injuries). It’s an ethical dilemma, but we must answer this question, as our decision (either for Scenario 1 or Scenario 2) implies an answer – we cannot negate the question.

• Traumatisation
  As with a physical injury, traumatisation can impact the victims’ future happiness considerably, and may even lead to suicide in some cases.¹

  Traumatisation is most likely less prevalent in Scenario 2 than in Scenario 1. How can this information be incorporated into the decision-making process?

As stated above, I don’t advocate opting for Scenario 1 or Scenario 2. This is only a thought experiment which illustrates important effects on happiness which may not be taken into account if such a situation arises. I am not familiar with the military’s decision-making processes, but I’d be very surprised if they included a detailed analysis of happiness.

Beyond this example, there are many other decisions in which a detailed analysis incorporating (un)happiness-spreading effects would be useful. Basically, every decision which directly impacts people’s happiness could benefit from such an analysis. For example, consider the following decisions:

• (Everybody’s) decisions on financial donations and which organizations should receive those donations
• (Health organisations’) decisions on who should receive scarce medications and treatments
• (Governments’) decisions on which national conflicts merit intervention
• Etc.

Conclusion and Proposals

Based on the example above, we may draw the following conclusions:

• Some effects that are relevant for happiness are not obvious. Time must be dedicated to identify those effects and then include them in the decision-making process.
• It seems doubtful whether any such analysis is being performed today for all the “big” decisions impacting many people’s happiness (e.g., governmental decisions).² Therefore, “think tanks” could be engaged to perform this analysis and perhaps provide fresh perspectives.
• Sometimes we face situations in which one worthy goal has to be weighed against another (e.g., saving lives vs. preventing injuries). Decisions made today imply a response to this dilemma, but are not made explicit in terms of rules or guidelines, leaving the decision up to the personal preferences of the decision-maker (e.g., the military).

  The logical proposal resulting from this conclusion would be to develop a methodology which serves as a guide in case of conflicting goals. However: 

a.) Reaching an agreement on such a guide would be very difficult, and
b.) Even if such a guide were in place, it would be difficult to assess the input variables (which we took for granted in the example above) objectively

Nevertheless, developing such a guide would be a step toward better, less arbitrary decisions.

If you enjoyed reading this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed or email newsletter! 

–

1) Suicide is just the tip of the “unhappiness iceberg”: you have to really, really suffer to take such a tragic action. We can assume that many more traumatised victims are considerably less happy with their lives, even if they are not driven to suicide.

2) I believe most western governments do try to maximize happiness implicitly (of course, this also depends on which government we are talking about), but if it is not made explicit and analysed ”on paper,” there is a risk that some (un)happiness-spreading effects are missed and a suboptimal decision is made. 

This blog aims to spread happiness, and at some points may convey the impression that happiness is the only thing that counts. So let’s ask the question directly and explicitly: is happiness (as defined here) the only goal we should be striving for?

Let’s go back one step and think about whether happiness is relevant at all. If it was not, it would imply that states of severe pain and those of joy or satisfaction are not better or worse, i.e. given the choice we would be indifferent which to choose. I believe most people would disagree, and confirm that happiness at least plays some role in their lives.

The more difficult question is: now that we have confirmed happiness plays a role, does it share its place with any other goal? In other words: what could be another goal besides happiness which would justify that happiness is not always maximized (for the sake of that other goal)?

Getting to the Bottom

In summary, so far I’ve not come across other goals which are not connected to happiness in some form and still worth pursuing. For all the candidates I’ve screened, be it freedom, friendship, honesty, peace, healthy environment or other, a series of “why”-questions always lead me to happiness again.

For example, for “healthy environment”:

The Evolutionary Perspective

Another way to look at this question is from an evolutionary perspective. At the beginning (when only atoms where floating around in space) there were no values per se. Then, life began to exist, and with it “consciousness” and an incentive system for the individual to behave in a way which is good for reproduction, i.e. pleasure and pain. If we now have to declare a “goal” to strive for – what else could it be than the positive part of this incentive-system?

Other Values are Important Too – as Practical Guidelines

So does this mean we should evaluate all of our options only on the account how much happiness or unhappiness they cause (as proposed by utilitarianism)? In theory yes, but in practice we don’t have enough time to make a full-blown analysis before taking decisions. Instead, we need other easy-to-understand values which guide us like “lighthouses” or landmarks to make the decisions which lead to most happiness and least suffering.

There are many of those “practical values” which should be held up high, including friendship, honesty, respect for others, and many more. These values, which are propagated by many institutions which influence community life (rules within families, national law, religion etc.) incorporate humanity’s experiences gained over thousands of years. Ignoring those (often) leads short-term hedonism which is in conflict with long-term happiness.

The Tricky Cases

That said, it is important never to forget the role of these practical values (means to the end of happiness), so that they don’t develop a life on their own, or become “untouchable”. In theory no value or rule is untouchable (however in practice it may make sense to position some in this way¹).

What about the cases where we need to break with our practical values for happiness sake? For example, would it be justified to torture the captured terrorist to find out where the bomb is hidden, even though it would be in conflict with our practical value to “not inflict pain on others” (see ticking time bomb scenario)?

A straight “yes” or “no” to this question is not possible, at least not without a detailed analysis (which, by the way, I have not seen yet, neither from those who believe it is justified in some cases (such as The Economist²), nor from the ones who rule out torture completely). Time allowing, I will try to provide such an analysis in one of my next posts.

Conclusion

As far as I can see, happiness is the only end-in-itself goal we should be striving for. Or did I miss anything? Which other goals would justify that happiness is not always maximized?

If you enjoyed reading this post, please subscribe to my RSS Feed or Email Newsletter!

–

1) One examples with kids: the rule “only cross the road in case of a green light” is a useful mandatory rule which should be positioned as “untouchable”, but only because kids’ assessment skills are limited. Later on, when we have a broader view and see things in context, we may occasionally break that rule (e.g. a long road with no cars in sight and no kids watching ).

2) See The Economist, Sep 20th 2007: “Is torture ever justified?”

I believe one implication is: if we want more happiness in the world, we should be primarily concerned with reducing unhappiness and suffering.¹ This may appear obvious, but it’s still useful to have a theoretical explanation why this makes sense (as laid out in mentioned article).

From a practical perspective, this conclusion may urge donors and charities to consider their engagements in the light of which reduce most unhappiness². This is frequently done, but not always. Money is often spent for “good causes” but could be spent for even “better causes” which reduce unhappiness to a higher extent.³

However, to be fair, this critique comes with two major caveats:

• The question which spending reduces most unhappiness is far from straightforward
  For example, measures to increase happiness in areas where happiness is already fairly high (such as developed countries) may well lead to significantly less unhappiness, for example if this triggers the developed countries to spend more for good causes (see happiness begets happiness). In other words, happiness – which is usually an end in itself – can also be a means to an end in some cases.

  Also, it’s tricky to say which actions directed at reducing unhappiness actually succeed, or may even make matters worse. For example, some argue giving direct aid to poor countries may risk doing more bad than good. It’s not easy, and therefore I believe that the increasing analytical approach and professionalism in philanthropy is a good trend.

• The cause originates the donation
  Critique for donations not being spent the “most effective” way should be applied with care; instead, it should be valued that people give their hard earned money for a good cause at all.

  This is especially true when considering that many donations are originated by their cause. For example, if we omit giving money to a charity worker on the street it does not mean that we would have spent it for other good causes. Most likely we would not have spent it at all.

In summary, my recommendation to donors is the following: When deciding how to spend money (assuming it is not already predetermined by the cause that originated the donation), the reduction of unhappiness should be on top of the agenda. It should be consciously laid down in what ways the donated money will achieve that, and questioned critically whether there may be more effective ways.

One of the future posts will aim to initiate a discussion for an objective “guideline” how to spend money in order to reduce most unhappiness. Until then, I am happy for your feedback as always.

—

1) Actually this conclusion is not forced, because we also need to consider a) the existing distribution on the “happiness scale” and especially b) how difficult it is to change the status of the “points on the scale”. However, it seems to be easier to reduce unhappiness among unhappy people than make happier people happier, so the conclusion is the same as mentioned above.

2) Assuming happiness is the main goal to strive for, which will be discussed in a future post.

3) For example (without having looked at it in detail) I believe there are more effective ways for reducing unhappiness than donating it for the renovation of historic buildings in rich countries.