Less freedom, more happiness ?

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

So, could it be that less freedom could lead to more happiness ?

https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_gilbert_asks_why_are_we_happy?language=en

S.

[Leon Louw (gmail)]

Very interesting, thanks Stephen.

Are you familiar with this book. It's a classic, well worth reading. He has much of interest on the subject of happiness -- eg whether humans are happier in advance than primitive societies.

Anyhow, as your video, and the Harari book suggest, less freedom could well lead to more happiness. But that's not necessary the conclusion to be drawn from the video regarding freedom in the libertarian sense -- which gets us back to why I prefer the word "liberty".

When somebody says "Move the sweets away from me", they are less free to reach out and have another sweet, but have not sacrificed liberty. That people routinely reduce their choices by choice, suggests that the research finding has been known for ever -- though not i the senses and contexts researched. 

I've argued at length with Jim Harris and other libertarians about this. Whether one is for liberty per se or for utilitarian reasons makes a big difference. I've often cited the rape anomaly. Rape is right for utilitarians of the pleasured derived by the rapist exceeds the trauma of the victim. Theft is right if the loot makes the thief happier than the victim.

The research measures happiness in an ingenious way, but not whether the person is a happier person in toto, only whether they are happier regarding the items concerned. Are free people happier than unfree people? maybe not, yet people prefer freedom. Or do they? They vote for less liberty routinely. 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to li...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/libsa.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Leon Louw

work:  +27-11-884-0270

mobile:  +27-84-618-0348

www.freemarketfoundation.com

"Money won’t create success, the freedom to make it will."

Nelson Mandela

[Leon Louw (gmail)]

Sorry, this is the book:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapiens:_A_Brief_History_of_Humankind

[Trevor Watkins]

Unquestionably the tension created by choice and uncertainty makes some people unhappy. Resignation to one's fate resolves anxiety. Deciding one's fate causes anxiety. I guess that is a good explanation for why most people do not crave liberty, but prefer the comfort of certainty. The "glorious" experience of the wrongly jailed prisoner is a case in point.

Successful politicians project certainty. Libertarians offer the angst of uncertainty, the need to think, to decide and then to act.

I wish someone would tell me how to make liberty popular.....

Trevor Watkins

On 24 September 2016 at 02:11, Stephen van Jaarsveldt <sjaar...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Stephen vJ]

Great - I have added this book to my wishlist and will get to reading it soon. Thanks for the recommendation and thought-provoking comments below.

In my view, the researchers are confusing variety of choices with the right / ability to choose. More choices may be a bad thing, but not being able to choose or having the choice made for you must surely be a) worse and b) immoral.

S.

Sent from an electronic device.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.

[Stephen vJ]

I can't get my head around how a species could evolve to prefer in general taking a bad course confidently to taking a good course doubtfully. Maybe it has something to do with the dangers of trying new things. Then again, I also can't get my head around how a species can evolve to build nests from mud under overhangs. Surely that inclination cannot appear fully formed from nowhere, but the intermediate steps don't seem to have any value at all. How did this happen ? How could people get to this state in the first place, without going extinct ?

S.

Sent from an electronic device.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.

[Leon Louw (gmail)]

@Stephen

Don't forget the good news, which is that the anticipation of choice -- having a choice -- indices happiness. The experiment found that we're inclined to be happy even if we never had a choice or made the wrong choice.

@Trevor

What liberty offers is the right to choose, which people want (most of the time) -- anticipation, feeling empowered etc -- even if they make bad choices. Maybe. It's all too complicated for now ... have to rush off ... no choice .... damn that's even more anxiety-provoking than choice.

[Humphry Hamilton]

We are not very well hard wired and it takes hard work to redo the wiring.

 

The average person has a risk aversion that is a stronger force than that force driving him in the right direction.  This is a well-known and documented problem for would be market traders. Many a trader has lost money because he would rather have a definite loss than an uncertain profit.

 

So in your example, if something or someone gives the crowd confidence then they will want to go in that direction.  Milford never explained (as far as I know) why people follow strong leaders like Hitler but I would imagine a big part of it is because the future is uncertain and the leader gave them confidence, even if unfounded.

 

And your assumption on our evolution is not a given.  I would argue that human nature is the same as it has always been.

 

From: li...@googlegroups.com [mailto:li...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen vJ
Sent: 25 September 2016 12:21 PM
To: li...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Libsa] Less freedom, more happiness ?

 

I can't get my head around how a species could evolve to prefer in general taking a bad course confidently to taking a good course doubtfully. Maybe it has something to do with the dangers of trying new things. Then again, I also can't get my head around how a species can evolve to build nests from mud under overhangs. Surely that inclination cannot appear fully formed from nowhere, but the intermediate steps don't seem to have any value at all. How did this happen ? How could people get to this state in the first place, without going extinct ?

 

S.

Sent from an electronic device.

On 25 Sep 2016, at 09:31, Trevor Watkins <bas...@gmail.com> wrote:

Unquestionably the tension created by choice and uncertainty makes some people unhappy. Resignation to one's fate resolves anxiety. Deciding one's fate causes anxiety. I guess that is a good explanation for why most people do not crave liberty, but prefer the comfort of certainty. The "glorious" experience of the wrongly jailed prisoner is a case in point.

 

Successful politicians project certainty. Libertarians offer the angst of uncertainty, the need to think, to decide and then to act.

 

I wish someone would tell me how to make liberty popular.....

Trevor Watkins

 

On 24 September 2016 at 02:11, Stephen van Jaarsveldt <sjaar...@gmail.com> wrote:

So, could it be that less freedom could lead to more happiness ?

 

https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_gilbert_asks_why_are_we_happy?language=en

 

S.

 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to li...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/libsa.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to li...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/libsa.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

To say that human nature is what it has always been is circular reasoning. It is the nature of the human which allows us to identify it as human and thus it has, by logical necessity, always been as it is. Before human nature was what it is, humans did not exist and there was something else - a proto-human, which was almost human, but not quite human. It's nature was slightly different and that is what made it not human. If it's nature was the same, it would be human and if it was not, it was not. Once human nature changes, as it eventually will, the things to which that nature applies will no longer be human, because, by its nature, it will be different from humans, which have a slightly different nature. Other fallacies ignored for now. ;-)

S.

On 26 September 2016 at 13:48, Humphry Hamilton <hwham...@icon.co.za> wrote:

We are not very well hard wired and it takes hard work to redo the wiring.

 

The average person has a risk aversion that is a stronger force than that force driving him in the right direction.  This is a well-known and documented problem for would be market traders. Many a trader has lost money because he would rather have a definite loss than an uncertain profit.

 

So in your example, if something or someone gives the crowd confidence then they will want to go in that direction.  Milford never explained (as far as I know) why people follow strong leaders like Hitler but I would imagine a big part of it is because the future is uncertain and the leader gave them confidence, even if unfounded.

 

And your assumption on our evolution is not a given.  I would argue that human nature is the same as it has always been.

 

From: li...@googlegroups.com [mailto:li...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen vJ
Sent: 25 September 2016 12:21 PM
To: li...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Libsa] Less freedom, more happiness ?

 

I can't get my head around how a species could evolve to prefer in general taking a bad course confidently to taking a good course doubtfully. Maybe it has something to do with the dangers of trying new things. Then again, I also can't get my head around how a species can evolve to build nests from mud under overhangs. Surely that inclination cannot appear fully formed from nowhere, but the intermediate steps don't seem to have any value at all. How did this happen ? How could people get to this state in the first place, without going extinct ?

 

S.

Sent from an electronic device.

On 25 Sep 2016, at 09:31, Trevor Watkins <bas...@gmail.com> wrote:

Unquestionably the tension created by choice and uncertainty makes some people unhappy. Resignation to one's fate resolves anxiety. Deciding one's fate causes anxiety. I guess that is a good explanation for why most people do not crave liberty, but prefer the comfort of certainty. The "glorious" experience of the wrongly jailed prisoner is a case in point.

 

Successful politicians project certainty. Libertarians offer the angst of uncertainty, the need to think, to decide and then to act.

 

I wish someone would tell me how to make liberty popular.....

Trevor Watkins

 

On 24 September 2016 at 02:11, Stephen van Jaarsveldt <sjaar...@gmail.com> wrote:

So, could it be that less freedom could lead to more happiness ?

 

https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_gilbert_asks_why_are_we_happy?language=en

 

S.

 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to li...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/libsa.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to li...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/libsa.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to li...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/libsa.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Humphry Hamilton]

If we make the assumption that evolution is the result of accidents that either work or don’t work then you are correct, at some point someone or a critical mass will be born without the herding instinct that makes him feel safe when going along with the herd behind a strong leader.  If the conditions are right it will work and we enter the age of libertarianism. 

 

Don’t hold your breath.

Trevor Watkins

 

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to li...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/libsa.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to li...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/libsa.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to li...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/libsa.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to li...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/libsa.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.

[Garth Zietsman]

I'd like to point out that the research that purported to show that we prefer fewer choices was flawed.  It was based on a small, unrepresentative sample Stephen and the conclusion has been invalidly generalized to a dizzying array of other contexts.  The original study checked to see what the effect of limiting choices (of jams) would have on sales.  They came to the conclusion that fewer choices increased sales.  It was only tried in a few stores on 4 Saturdays.  The authors concluded that fewer choices make us happier - a leap of logic if ever I saw one.

Anyway many replication attempts showed that the finding was false - that in fact a greater variety led to higher sales and coincidentally also makes people happier (the odd perfectionist excepted.)

As an aside I don't see why one can't be for liberty or freedom both per se and for instrumental reasons and I have logical problems with the anti-utilitarian rape and theft examples.

Trevor Watkins

 

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to li...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/libsa.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to li...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/libsa.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to li...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/libsa.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to li...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/libsa.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to li...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/libsa.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Stephen vJ]

I like the rape and theft examples. What are your criticisms of them ?

S.

Sent from an electronic device.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.

[Garth Zietsman]

They rely on your assuming what they are meant to show.   The argument relies on you experiencing a sense of absurdity if it turned out that the rapist's pleasure exceeded the degree of suffering of the victim and one concluded therefore that rape was good.  To experience a sense of absurdity you would have to come from a moral framework different from utilitarianism which therefore doesn't engage utilitarianism but just preaches to the choir.  A real utilitarian would not experience a sense of absurdity and would conclude that rape was obviously good in that case.

Note that the possibility of the victims enjoyment exceeding the victims suffering is fantastically unlikely - and probably impossible to compute.  This unlikeliness contributes to the sense of absurdity one might feel about the example.  I have never heard anyone seriously suggest that it could be true.  At best they might say I value my enjoyment more than I do your suffering and I don't count how you would value the situation.  I suspect that if someone REALLY thought the rapist's enjoyment exceeded the victim's suffering they may well conclude rape was good.

Finally there are all sorts of other very relevant consequences which are not included in the evaluation.  What about the aggregate happiness and suffering of society if rape was declared OK?

[Colin Phillips]

Off topic, but the discussion of seriously considering the pleasure of the rapist reminded me of a scene in this short story:

http://lesswrong.com/lw/y4/three_worlds_collide_08/

It's quite a thought provoking and interesting story, that I enjoyed immensely.  NSFW.

Colin

[Trevor Watkins]

@Colin

Well, that cost me a morning - but it was fascinating. Very inventive, raised some huge issues. If you could choose for everyone to be happy all the time, would you? Roll on, Prozac world.

Trevor Watkins