Happiness- due Friday 3/9
8 views
Skip to first unread message
Mrs Sparrow
Mar 2, 2012, 9:03:42 AM3/2/12
to ap-psych...@googlegroups.com
What does the "happiest man in the world" have to say about happiness? Find out by watching Mathieu Ricard's TED talk. Respond with connections to Ch 13 and relevant concepts from other chapters.
Responses are due by the end of the school day on Friday 3/9.
Kailey Filiere
Mar 3, 2012, 4:56:02 PM3/3/12
to AP Psychology P4
Matthieu Ricard brings up many enlightening points about happiness. He
claims that what we feel in the inside relates to our individual well
being and happiness. Meyers describes subjective well being as an
individual's self precieved happiness or satisfaction with life.
Ricard describes well being as a deep sense of fulfillment, being
seperate from a mere pleasurable sensation. Ricard goes on further to
say that pleasure with an object, such as eating a first helping of
chocolate cake, becomes less fulfilling when having a second helping
of chocolate cake. This concept is known as the adaptation- level
phenomenon, where we form judgements relative to a neural level
defined by our prior experience. In order to keep getting the
pleasurable experience we had before, the level of intensity must keep
increasing. Matthieu explains that if we are always searching for
objects in life to make us happy, then we will never achieve
happiness. An example of this was brought up in class when we found
that people that were seeking to become more wealthy were less
satisfied with their lives than those who were not focused on money,
focusing more on their relationships with others. In his talk,
Matthieu says if you are "unhappy within, all you are going to look
for a window from which to jump." This relates to the thought that "if
you scowl, then the world will scowl back", quoted in the Meyer's
book. Negative people are seen to have more pessimistic views on life,
where as positive people see the world as a safer place, live
healthier, and overall are more satisfied with their lives. Matthieu
brings up a point that our control of the outer world is limited and
that our mind is the only thing that translates the event into
suffering or happiness. This view connects to a chapter 15 term known
as inter locus of control, a belief where one's own self controls
their own fate by determining if events are good or bad. He goes on to
say that our own experiences contribute to our emotions, especially
with anger. From Meyer's definition of emotion, we know that conscious
experience is not the only factor that contributes to our emotion, but
physiological arousal and expressive behaviors also play a great role.
As Matthieu continued with his views on anger, he explained that as
anger progresses, an individual becomes more obsessed with their
emotion and that is all the mind will think about. This is why
psychologists suggest to forgive the object of annoyance, helping to
free the mind and release anger in a positive way. Another way to
relase anger in a benifical way is through meditation, where one
retreats to a calm state. As Matthieu mentioned, meditation helps to
train the mind, and over time shows an increase in brain activity in
the left prefrontal lobe, which we learned controls positive emotions.
I found it interesting that Matthieu brought up the fact that we
cannot feel two opposite mental factors at the same time. This
relates to the facial feedback hypothesis. If you are feeling happy
and are instructed to move facial muscles that involve a frown, then
you will suddenly feel less happy.
claims that what we feel in the inside relates to our individual well
being and happiness. Meyers describes subjective well being as an
individual's self precieved happiness or satisfaction with life.
Ricard describes well being as a deep sense of fulfillment, being
seperate from a mere pleasurable sensation. Ricard goes on further to
say that pleasure with an object, such as eating a first helping of
chocolate cake, becomes less fulfilling when having a second helping
of chocolate cake. This concept is known as the adaptation- level
phenomenon, where we form judgements relative to a neural level
defined by our prior experience. In order to keep getting the
pleasurable experience we had before, the level of intensity must keep
increasing. Matthieu explains that if we are always searching for
objects in life to make us happy, then we will never achieve
happiness. An example of this was brought up in class when we found
that people that were seeking to become more wealthy were less
satisfied with their lives than those who were not focused on money,
focusing more on their relationships with others. In his talk,
Matthieu says if you are "unhappy within, all you are going to look
for a window from which to jump." This relates to the thought that "if
you scowl, then the world will scowl back", quoted in the Meyer's
book. Negative people are seen to have more pessimistic views on life,
where as positive people see the world as a safer place, live
healthier, and overall are more satisfied with their lives. Matthieu
brings up a point that our control of the outer world is limited and
that our mind is the only thing that translates the event into
suffering or happiness. This view connects to a chapter 15 term known
as inter locus of control, a belief where one's own self controls
their own fate by determining if events are good or bad. He goes on to
say that our own experiences contribute to our emotions, especially
with anger. From Meyer's definition of emotion, we know that conscious
experience is not the only factor that contributes to our emotion, but
physiological arousal and expressive behaviors also play a great role.
As Matthieu continued with his views on anger, he explained that as
anger progresses, an individual becomes more obsessed with their
emotion and that is all the mind will think about. This is why
psychologists suggest to forgive the object of annoyance, helping to
free the mind and release anger in a positive way. Another way to
relase anger in a benifical way is through meditation, where one
retreats to a calm state. As Matthieu mentioned, meditation helps to
train the mind, and over time shows an increase in brain activity in
the left prefrontal lobe, which we learned controls positive emotions.
I found it interesting that Matthieu brought up the fact that we
cannot feel two opposite mental factors at the same time. This
relates to the facial feedback hypothesis. If you are feeling happy
and are instructed to move facial muscles that involve a frown, then
you will suddenly feel less happy.
sarah_rook
Mar 4, 2012, 11:17:53 AM3/4/12
to AP Psychology P4
Mathieu Ricard's TED talk was very interesting, especially in the way
that he perceived happiness. In the beginning of the talk he mentioned
that no matter what a person is doing they are consistently looking
for happiness. Whether it be looking for their soul mate or committing
suicide, to get to a happier place. This point I found very inspiring,
due to the mere fact that people are always looking for happiness,
just in different ways. Myers does not specifically define happiness
but he does define subjective well- being. This is a self- perceived
happiness or satisfaction with life. Usually it is determined with
physical or economic indicators to evaluate the quality of life. Some
aspects of this definition are congruent to Ricard's definition. He
claims that there is no clear definition for happiness and it is very
vague. So, instead he defines it as well-being or a deep sense of
serenity, that underlies all emotional states. In the subjective well-
being definition it states that it can be determined with physical or
economic factors. This point contradicts Ricard's point of view on
happiness. Instead of relying on the outside world to make you happy,
you have to learn to use your mind to control your happiness. Ricard
says that the person has little control over the outer world, so the
mind is what has to be used to make yourself happy. The adaptation-
level phenomenon was also mentioned in Ricard's talk. He said that if
we are constantly looking for something in life to make up happy, we
will never be happy because we will always be looking for something
more to out due the last. Adaptation- level phenomenon is defined as a
tendency to form judgements relative to a neutral level. That neutral
level will constantly be changing as you look for something different
each time to fulfill your happiness. Also this realtes back to
Ricard's main point that a person needs to look within themselves for
happiness, instead to the outer world. Research in Myers shows that
money cannot buy happiness, thus proving Ricard's point again that
people should look to themselves for happiness. Later in the talk
Ricard mentioned the idea, if it was possible to change the nature of
the mind to get rid of negative emotions. He said that it was possible
and all it required was mind training, the idea that you have to train
your mind to think of only positive emotions. Overall I thought that
this was a very interesting TED Talk. I think that going through life
day to day focusing on the positive things in life will ultimately
bring you great happiness. I also agree with a lot of Ricard's ideas
on happiness, seeing that he has had much happiness in life.
that he perceived happiness. In the beginning of the talk he mentioned
that no matter what a person is doing they are consistently looking
for happiness. Whether it be looking for their soul mate or committing
suicide, to get to a happier place. This point I found very inspiring,
due to the mere fact that people are always looking for happiness,
just in different ways. Myers does not specifically define happiness
but he does define subjective well- being. This is a self- perceived
happiness or satisfaction with life. Usually it is determined with
physical or economic indicators to evaluate the quality of life. Some
aspects of this definition are congruent to Ricard's definition. He
claims that there is no clear definition for happiness and it is very
vague. So, instead he defines it as well-being or a deep sense of
serenity, that underlies all emotional states. In the subjective well-
being definition it states that it can be determined with physical or
economic factors. This point contradicts Ricard's point of view on
happiness. Instead of relying on the outside world to make you happy,
you have to learn to use your mind to control your happiness. Ricard
says that the person has little control over the outer world, so the
mind is what has to be used to make yourself happy. The adaptation-
level phenomenon was also mentioned in Ricard's talk. He said that if
we are constantly looking for something in life to make up happy, we
will never be happy because we will always be looking for something
more to out due the last. Adaptation- level phenomenon is defined as a
tendency to form judgements relative to a neutral level. That neutral
level will constantly be changing as you look for something different
each time to fulfill your happiness. Also this realtes back to
Ricard's main point that a person needs to look within themselves for
happiness, instead to the outer world. Research in Myers shows that
money cannot buy happiness, thus proving Ricard's point again that
people should look to themselves for happiness. Later in the talk
Ricard mentioned the idea, if it was possible to change the nature of
the mind to get rid of negative emotions. He said that it was possible
and all it required was mind training, the idea that you have to train
your mind to think of only positive emotions. Overall I thought that
this was a very interesting TED Talk. I think that going through life
day to day focusing on the positive things in life will ultimately
bring you great happiness. I also agree with a lot of Ricard's ideas
on happiness, seeing that he has had much happiness in life.
khan...@townisp.com
Mar 4, 2012, 1:28:15 PM3/4/12
to AP Psychology P4
I thought it was interesting how Matthieu Ricard said that happiness
is “something that determines the quality of every instant of our
lives.” He describes happiness as a deep feeling of serenity and
fulfillment. He mentions how money and the objects and trips that
you can take with that money will only bring you so far. At the end
of the day, it still depends on your inner feeling of satisfaction
that can make you truly happy. Relative deprivation comes into play
here because many people perceive their own state as worse than those
they compare themselves to. Ricard seems to think that people have a
choice that they can make to be happy, instead of sad or upset. He
talks about rejoicing instead of jealousy, loving instead of hating.
The feel-good, do-good phenomenon is also a term that could coincide
with this information. If you are in a good mood, you are more apt to
help others. That is due to happiness. Our choice to be happy. He
mentions neural connections in the brain that are important with
emotion and happiness, just as we learned about how the left
prefrontal cortex is responsible for our positive emotion, and the
right prefrontal cortex is more so for negative emotion. People with
more activity in the right cortex were more commonly depressed and
withdrawn. People with more activity in the left cortex were more
commonly happy and expressive. His goal is to put a focus on how the
mind functions to try to make people happy. Lastly, he speaks a
little in the end of this talk about catharses and how people exercise
and do all of these things to try to make themselves look better on
the outside, when what matters is how we feel on the inside and
becoming connected with our minds. Confirmation bias could be used to
argue that those who are unhappy will search for information that
validates their unhappiness. Cognition is also a key term in this TED
talk because it has to do with knowing, thinking, remembering, and
communicating, which are all things that Matthieu Ricard told us we
need to do with our minds in order to find happiness.
is “something that determines the quality of every instant of our
lives.” He describes happiness as a deep feeling of serenity and
fulfillment. He mentions how money and the objects and trips that
you can take with that money will only bring you so far. At the end
of the day, it still depends on your inner feeling of satisfaction
that can make you truly happy. Relative deprivation comes into play
here because many people perceive their own state as worse than those
they compare themselves to. Ricard seems to think that people have a
choice that they can make to be happy, instead of sad or upset. He
talks about rejoicing instead of jealousy, loving instead of hating.
The feel-good, do-good phenomenon is also a term that could coincide
with this information. If you are in a good mood, you are more apt to
help others. That is due to happiness. Our choice to be happy. He
mentions neural connections in the brain that are important with
emotion and happiness, just as we learned about how the left
prefrontal cortex is responsible for our positive emotion, and the
right prefrontal cortex is more so for negative emotion. People with
more activity in the right cortex were more commonly depressed and
withdrawn. People with more activity in the left cortex were more
commonly happy and expressive. His goal is to put a focus on how the
mind functions to try to make people happy. Lastly, he speaks a
little in the end of this talk about catharses and how people exercise
and do all of these things to try to make themselves look better on
the outside, when what matters is how we feel on the inside and
becoming connected with our minds. Confirmation bias could be used to
argue that those who are unhappy will search for information that
validates their unhappiness. Cognition is also a key term in this TED
talk because it has to do with knowing, thinking, remembering, and
communicating, which are all things that Matthieu Ricard told us we
need to do with our minds in order to find happiness.
Alicia Hillsamer
Mar 7, 2012, 7:51:13 PM3/7/12
to AP Psychology P4
Mathieu Ricard's TED talk was interesting and eye opening. He
presented himself very well and was calmly and funny. He talked about
how consciously or subconsciously it seems that people all seek
happiness. He talked about how pleasure and happiness or often
confused. He said happiness was such a broad word so instead he used
the word well being. Subjective well being is self perceived happiness
or satisfaction with life. Furthermore he explained how we look
outside to find materialistic things to make ourselves happiness and
when certain things are not there it often collapses our world. Also,
that when things go wrong we try to fix it instead of accepting it.
People of different circumstances are able to keep serenity because
they are happy with their life and they do not fall for the adaption
level phenomenon which is our tendency to form judgments relative to a
neutral level defined by our prior experience. Our control of the
outside world is very limited. He talks about how being mad, jealous,
and all those negative emotions just affect us in a bad way and those
around us. Relative deprivation isthe perception that one is worse off
relative to those with whom one compares oneself which prevents people
from being happy. I agree with Mathieu Ricard that negative emotions
prevent us from achieving happiness and that happiness is under our
control.
presented himself very well and was calmly and funny. He talked about
how consciously or subconsciously it seems that people all seek
happiness. He talked about how pleasure and happiness or often
confused. He said happiness was such a broad word so instead he used
the word well being. Subjective well being is self perceived happiness
or satisfaction with life. Furthermore he explained how we look
outside to find materialistic things to make ourselves happiness and
when certain things are not there it often collapses our world. Also,
that when things go wrong we try to fix it instead of accepting it.
People of different circumstances are able to keep serenity because
they are happy with their life and they do not fall for the adaption
level phenomenon which is our tendency to form judgments relative to a
neutral level defined by our prior experience. Our control of the
outside world is very limited. He talks about how being mad, jealous,
and all those negative emotions just affect us in a bad way and those
around us. Relative deprivation isthe perception that one is worse off
relative to those with whom one compares oneself which prevents people
from being happy. I agree with Mathieu Ricard that negative emotions
prevent us from achieving happiness and that happiness is under our
control.
Steve Trudeau
Mar 7, 2012, 9:59:18 PM3/7/12
to AP Psychology P4
Matthieu Ricard to me seemed to be speaking general sense of
wellbeing, perhaps not overt happiness in anything in particular, but
a general contentedness. As he describes, the path to such happiness
is a contentedness with what one has. He acknowledges the adaptation
level phenomenon and stresses the importance of not trying to find
pleasure in material goods. Pleasure, he defines, is temporary and
fleeting, and will eventually wear off once a new toy or Bach piece is
no longer novel. Instead, to promote lasting contentedness, one ought
to find enjoyment in their day-to-day lives and acquaintances. Also,
as other chapters have mentioned, a sense of optimism contributes to
lasting happiness by promoting an inner locus of control, while
relying on external goods for pleasure promotes looking outward for
meaning in one’s life. This is similar to the arousal theory of
motivation in that, by seeking outwardly to fulfill a need for
excitement, the pleasure that one gets from a stimulus, such as
skydiving, soon fades. The skydiver would experience a rush from the
sympathetic nervous system pumping epinephrine into his/her
bloodstream that would satisfy their pleasure. After repeated
exposure, one may become habituated to the stimulus and need one that
is more intense just to feel the same level of excitement. To be
consistently happy then, it is important not to rely on such stimuli
to be content, rather to use them as supplements to happiness, if
wanted. Also, as Mathieu Ricard mentioned, the increased left frontal
lobe activity that is associated with positive feelings is an
interesting aspect of happiness. It is well known that certain
functions, such as control of one side of the body, are controlled by
a specific region and hemisphere of the brain. Even language, while it
incorporates parts across the brain, is localized in the left
hemisphere more so than in the right. It is not too surprising then
that positive vs negative feelings could too be processed locally and
separately. Through meditation, one can focus on positive emotions,
strengthening the synapses through long term potentiation. With these
synapses more readily activated, happiness would become a more natural
response out of sheer laziness of the brain by responding with the
neurons that it has already been priming through meditation. As Ricard
said, the negative emotion may still occur, but the rehearsed positive
emotions overpower it and leave the individual feeling better than he
would otherwise. As Ricard explained, happiness takes only a
willingness to be happy. By making a commitment to being happy and
practicing making a calm, happy response one’s first instinct, the
brain may automatically revert to creating a positive sensation. This
ties in with the two-factor theory because as an individual
cognitively appraises a situation, they can control the emotion they
experience. With practice, the brain can learn to automatically label
positive events positively, and negative events as at worst not so bad.
wellbeing, perhaps not overt happiness in anything in particular, but
a general contentedness. As he describes, the path to such happiness
is a contentedness with what one has. He acknowledges the adaptation
level phenomenon and stresses the importance of not trying to find
pleasure in material goods. Pleasure, he defines, is temporary and
fleeting, and will eventually wear off once a new toy or Bach piece is
no longer novel. Instead, to promote lasting contentedness, one ought
to find enjoyment in their day-to-day lives and acquaintances. Also,
as other chapters have mentioned, a sense of optimism contributes to
lasting happiness by promoting an inner locus of control, while
relying on external goods for pleasure promotes looking outward for
meaning in one’s life. This is similar to the arousal theory of
motivation in that, by seeking outwardly to fulfill a need for
excitement, the pleasure that one gets from a stimulus, such as
skydiving, soon fades. The skydiver would experience a rush from the
sympathetic nervous system pumping epinephrine into his/her
bloodstream that would satisfy their pleasure. After repeated
exposure, one may become habituated to the stimulus and need one that
is more intense just to feel the same level of excitement. To be
consistently happy then, it is important not to rely on such stimuli
to be content, rather to use them as supplements to happiness, if
wanted. Also, as Mathieu Ricard mentioned, the increased left frontal
lobe activity that is associated with positive feelings is an
interesting aspect of happiness. It is well known that certain
functions, such as control of one side of the body, are controlled by
a specific region and hemisphere of the brain. Even language, while it
incorporates parts across the brain, is localized in the left
hemisphere more so than in the right. It is not too surprising then
that positive vs negative feelings could too be processed locally and
separately. Through meditation, one can focus on positive emotions,
strengthening the synapses through long term potentiation. With these
synapses more readily activated, happiness would become a more natural
response out of sheer laziness of the brain by responding with the
neurons that it has already been priming through meditation. As Ricard
said, the negative emotion may still occur, but the rehearsed positive
emotions overpower it and leave the individual feeling better than he
would otherwise. As Ricard explained, happiness takes only a
willingness to be happy. By making a commitment to being happy and
practicing making a calm, happy response one’s first instinct, the
brain may automatically revert to creating a positive sensation. This
ties in with the two-factor theory because as an individual
cognitively appraises a situation, they can control the emotion they
experience. With practice, the brain can learn to automatically label
positive events positively, and negative events as at worst not so bad.
Allie Schlener
Mar 8, 2012, 4:18:52 PM3/8/12
to AP Psychology P4
I thought it was interesting that Ricard referred to happiness as well
being because as Myers describes, subjective well being is perceived
happiness so he considers it all part of consciousness. He also
compares happiness to pleasure and decries happiness as consistent and
pleasure as more of a mood because it changes depending on the
situation. As we talked about in class, overall happiness stays
consistent throughout ones life. I thought that this idea connects to
the importance of accepting one's life instead of trying to fix all of
the problems within it. If you accept things the way they are, no
matter what they are then you will always be happy no matter what the
circumstance. This also connects to the idea of the external verses
the internal locus of control. The external locus of control is the
perception that chance or outside forces beyond one's personal control
defines fate and the internal locus of control is the perception that
we control our own fate. I think that what he was saying related more
to the internal locus of control, but instead of focusing on fate,
focusing on happiness; so the perception that we control our own
happiness. By accepting things the way they are and by believing that
we control our own happiness, there will be a higher sense of personal
control, which is our sense of controlling our environment rather than
feeling helpless. This is because if we try to fix things rather than
accept them, we loose control because somethings we just can't change.
This reminded me of the serenity prayer which I believe that Ricard
would agree with: "God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I
cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know
the difference."
being because as Myers describes, subjective well being is perceived
happiness so he considers it all part of consciousness. He also
compares happiness to pleasure and decries happiness as consistent and
pleasure as more of a mood because it changes depending on the
situation. As we talked about in class, overall happiness stays
consistent throughout ones life. I thought that this idea connects to
the importance of accepting one's life instead of trying to fix all of
the problems within it. If you accept things the way they are, no
matter what they are then you will always be happy no matter what the
circumstance. This also connects to the idea of the external verses
the internal locus of control. The external locus of control is the
perception that chance or outside forces beyond one's personal control
defines fate and the internal locus of control is the perception that
we control our own fate. I think that what he was saying related more
to the internal locus of control, but instead of focusing on fate,
focusing on happiness; so the perception that we control our own
happiness. By accepting things the way they are and by believing that
we control our own happiness, there will be a higher sense of personal
control, which is our sense of controlling our environment rather than
feeling helpless. This is because if we try to fix things rather than
accept them, we loose control because somethings we just can't change.
This reminded me of the serenity prayer which I believe that Ricard
would agree with: "God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I
cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know
the difference."
Ben Vokes
Mar 8, 2012, 6:49:07 PM3/8/12
to AP Psychology P4
Mathieu Ricard’s TED Talk reveals interesting secrets about emotional
enlightenment and the brain behind it. Himilayan Buddhist monks are
some of the happiest people on this planet, having an extreme
subjective well being or perceived happiness within their life. This
is largely fue in part to the fact that they have time to train their
emotions and mind through meditation and mind-clearing techniques. The
mind is essentially a muscle, full of conscious experience. Mathieu
says that the conscious is like a mirror, thinking optimistic thoughts
will reflect happiness in the world, while pessimistic frowns make the
world frown back. He explains how happiness does not come in the form
of material things, and changing environmental factors for one’s
happiness is more exhausting than changing your inner self perceptions
by elevating optimistic emotions. Meditation training for multiple
hours has allowed monks to have achieved this heightened optimism.
Using an almost meditation-catharsis technique, monks transform or
view their anger as something ugly and convert it into more pure
emotions. MRI scans reveal that these monks have extremely increased
left frontal lobe activity which is where optimistic thoughts are
processed, while average individuals show more right frontal lobe
activity (depressive thought processing). Mathieu discusses the work
being done to help people and environments. Thus, the global change
for happiness only is increasing this over arching theme of the feel-
good, do-good phenomenon, inspiring others to pass on the optimism.
enlightenment and the brain behind it. Himilayan Buddhist monks are
some of the happiest people on this planet, having an extreme
subjective well being or perceived happiness within their life. This
is largely fue in part to the fact that they have time to train their
emotions and mind through meditation and mind-clearing techniques. The
mind is essentially a muscle, full of conscious experience. Mathieu
says that the conscious is like a mirror, thinking optimistic thoughts
will reflect happiness in the world, while pessimistic frowns make the
world frown back. He explains how happiness does not come in the form
of material things, and changing environmental factors for one’s
happiness is more exhausting than changing your inner self perceptions
by elevating optimistic emotions. Meditation training for multiple
hours has allowed monks to have achieved this heightened optimism.
Using an almost meditation-catharsis technique, monks transform or
view their anger as something ugly and convert it into more pure
emotions. MRI scans reveal that these monks have extremely increased
left frontal lobe activity which is where optimistic thoughts are
processed, while average individuals show more right frontal lobe
activity (depressive thought processing). Mathieu discusses the work
being done to help people and environments. Thus, the global change
for happiness only is increasing this over arching theme of the feel-
good, do-good phenomenon, inspiring others to pass on the optimism.
Liz Franger
Mar 8, 2012, 6:55:10 PM3/8/12
to AP Psychology P4
Matthieu Ricard defined happiness as our inner well being. He said it
was a deep sense of fulfillment, and it can underly other states as
well. Well being was defined as self perceived happiness with life in
Myers. It also conflicted with what Ricard believes, when it states
that well being measures objective well being, from physical and
economical indicators, to evaluate the quality of life. Many people
think that having many material objects will make us happy, but as
Ricard points out, this is because it gives us a sense of control of
the outer world. In reality, our control on the outer world is
limited, temporary and sometimes illusory. He also separates pleasure
from happiness. He says that pleasure eventually dinimishes, but
happiness can remain stable.This relates to the adaptive level
phenomenon. The phenomenon is our tendency to form judgments based on
a neutral state, and when it becomes higher or lower than that state,
we eventually get used to it. For example, getting a raise will at
first make someone very happy, but then they get used to it and want
more money. This is also materialistic. To be happier, Ricard proposes
that we look at our inner selves, and change our being and mind to rid
ourselves of negative emotions. I thought this was an interesting
concept, especially because he further describes bad feelings, like
anger, as a cloud, that we can turn to nothing. Destroying the bad
feelings will eventually reduce our tendencies to feel negative
emotions. Because two mental factors can't happen at the same time, we
can't love and hate at the same time, we should just get rid of the
hate. Another interesting point Ricard touched upon was brain
plasticity. Brain plasticity means that the brain can fix itself and
adapt to new situations (like a brain injury). Ricard brought up the
question if we could do this with traits and emotions by using
meditation. Paul Ekman saw that meditators were able to control their
emotional responses extremely well. In one experiment, he would try to
startle them, and they wouldn't react at all. It is possible to
diminish emotions with hard work and dedication. Ricard talks about
the the parts of the brain that activate during emotion, and confirms
that we need more activity in our left frontal lobe, which relates to
positive mood. He showed a graph of the activity of the left and right
prefrontal cortex, and the bell curve was shifted drastically towards
the right. This shows that people are more unhappy and that a solution
life meditation could help.
was a deep sense of fulfillment, and it can underly other states as
well. Well being was defined as self perceived happiness with life in
Myers. It also conflicted with what Ricard believes, when it states
that well being measures objective well being, from physical and
economical indicators, to evaluate the quality of life. Many people
think that having many material objects will make us happy, but as
Ricard points out, this is because it gives us a sense of control of
the outer world. In reality, our control on the outer world is
limited, temporary and sometimes illusory. He also separates pleasure
from happiness. He says that pleasure eventually dinimishes, but
happiness can remain stable.This relates to the adaptive level
phenomenon. The phenomenon is our tendency to form judgments based on
a neutral state, and when it becomes higher or lower than that state,
we eventually get used to it. For example, getting a raise will at
first make someone very happy, but then they get used to it and want
more money. This is also materialistic. To be happier, Ricard proposes
that we look at our inner selves, and change our being and mind to rid
ourselves of negative emotions. I thought this was an interesting
concept, especially because he further describes bad feelings, like
anger, as a cloud, that we can turn to nothing. Destroying the bad
feelings will eventually reduce our tendencies to feel negative
emotions. Because two mental factors can't happen at the same time, we
can't love and hate at the same time, we should just get rid of the
hate. Another interesting point Ricard touched upon was brain
plasticity. Brain plasticity means that the brain can fix itself and
adapt to new situations (like a brain injury). Ricard brought up the
question if we could do this with traits and emotions by using
meditation. Paul Ekman saw that meditators were able to control their
emotional responses extremely well. In one experiment, he would try to
startle them, and they wouldn't react at all. It is possible to
diminish emotions with hard work and dedication. Ricard talks about
the the parts of the brain that activate during emotion, and confirms
that we need more activity in our left frontal lobe, which relates to
positive mood. He showed a graph of the activity of the left and right
prefrontal cortex, and the bell curve was shifted drastically towards
the right. This shows that people are more unhappy and that a solution
life meditation could help.
Spencer Stevens
Mar 8, 2012, 7:39:58 PM3/8/12
to AP Psychology P4
Matthieu Ricard had interesting comments on happiness, being a man who
has been said to be the happiest man on Earth. I thought he described
the differences between happiness and pleasure well, and he described
the differences relating it to the adaptation-level phenomenon. He
basically said that we get used to pleasure, such as when we eat a
slice of cake for the first time and it’s delicious but, piece by
piece, it gets more and more bland, but we don’t necessarily feel
happiness from that pleasure. This exhibits the adaptation-level
phenomenon because by having that moment of pleasure, we may perceive
ourselves as happier, but then we return to the same level of
happiness in the end, while others may be suffering elsewhere. He also
described how sometimes people don’t pay attention to even horrible
circumstances and external influences but have more internal strength
and self-confidence. He says that the mind “translates” that inner
feeling into external expressions of serenity. This connects to two
ideas: the concept of subjective well-being and the Chapter 15 term
“inner locus of control.” A person who puts, to use a cliché term,
“mind over matter,” for example, will perceive themselves as being
very happy and have a higher subjective well-being to somebody who,
let’s say, lives in less-than-satisfactory conditions but chooses not
to embrace each day with optimism. With the inner locus of control,
people who, even if they are suffering, perceive themselves as having
complete control of a situation, their life, their destiny. This
connects to Ricard’s idea that inner thoughts and emotions conquer
external influences. He discussed meditation, which I found
fascinating, having taken karate in the past and meditating on a daily
basis during that time period. He discussed meditation’s effect on
anger and how, through meditation, a person can “train” their mind to
conquer anger and become more tranquil. He touched on a bell curve
which showed relative happiness and the side of the brain; as we know
from our study of Chapter 13, people who have more activity in their
right prefrontal cortex tend to be more depressed. Ricard said that
many of those who meditate are “off the bell curve” and have
significantly higher amounts of activity in their left prefrontal
cortex, meaning that they’re generally happier. I’ve actually been
meaning to meditate more, and watching Ricard and his discussion of
happiness and anger squelching through meditation, I think it is a
legitimate thing I should pursue. Overall, this was a very
enlightening video, and I only wish I had a life of serenity like
Matthieu Ricard. (I kept almost writing Picard the entire time because
he’s the captain in Star Trek: The Next Generation. It annoyed me so I
thought I’d share. The end.)
has been said to be the happiest man on Earth. I thought he described
the differences between happiness and pleasure well, and he described
the differences relating it to the adaptation-level phenomenon. He
basically said that we get used to pleasure, such as when we eat a
slice of cake for the first time and it’s delicious but, piece by
piece, it gets more and more bland, but we don’t necessarily feel
happiness from that pleasure. This exhibits the adaptation-level
phenomenon because by having that moment of pleasure, we may perceive
ourselves as happier, but then we return to the same level of
happiness in the end, while others may be suffering elsewhere. He also
described how sometimes people don’t pay attention to even horrible
circumstances and external influences but have more internal strength
and self-confidence. He says that the mind “translates” that inner
feeling into external expressions of serenity. This connects to two
ideas: the concept of subjective well-being and the Chapter 15 term
“inner locus of control.” A person who puts, to use a cliché term,
“mind over matter,” for example, will perceive themselves as being
very happy and have a higher subjective well-being to somebody who,
let’s say, lives in less-than-satisfactory conditions but chooses not
to embrace each day with optimism. With the inner locus of control,
people who, even if they are suffering, perceive themselves as having
complete control of a situation, their life, their destiny. This
connects to Ricard’s idea that inner thoughts and emotions conquer
external influences. He discussed meditation, which I found
fascinating, having taken karate in the past and meditating on a daily
basis during that time period. He discussed meditation’s effect on
anger and how, through meditation, a person can “train” their mind to
conquer anger and become more tranquil. He touched on a bell curve
which showed relative happiness and the side of the brain; as we know
from our study of Chapter 13, people who have more activity in their
right prefrontal cortex tend to be more depressed. Ricard said that
many of those who meditate are “off the bell curve” and have
significantly higher amounts of activity in their left prefrontal
cortex, meaning that they’re generally happier. I’ve actually been
meaning to meditate more, and watching Ricard and his discussion of
happiness and anger squelching through meditation, I think it is a
legitimate thing I should pursue. Overall, this was a very
enlightening video, and I only wish I had a life of serenity like
Matthieu Ricard. (I kept almost writing Picard the entire time because
he’s the captain in Star Trek: The Next Generation. It annoyed me so I
thought I’d share. The end.)
Matt Minafo
Mar 8, 2012, 7:58:30 PM3/8/12
to AP Psychology P4
I thought Mathieu Ricard is a very interesting individual; I think he
said he was a Frenchman and now he is a Buddhist Monk, wow! His
opinions on happiness were just as interesting, and I would like to
take a moment to appreciate his use of economics in his TED talk.
Ricard mentioned that happiness seems to decreases as we experience
more of a pleasurable stimulus. For example, the first bite of cake
yields a lot of pleasure, but with more and more bites, the pleasure
wanes and can even turn to sickness or disgust. This is known as
diminishing marginal utility, since the utility (or pleasure derived
from a good or service) decreases as you consume more of that good or
service. Ricard explained it as people getting tired of the same old
cake, but it can also be seen as habituation in a way to an old
object: after eating cake for so long, it is no longer as fulfilling
as a novel taste, such as fruit salad, that will bring another source
of temporary happiness. This can also be seen as the adaptation level
phenomenon, which causes one to become accustomed to having cake that
they soon feel less satisfied as before; now they require a wider
array of desserts in order to feel as happy as they did with only one
bite of the initial cake. I also enjoyed his emphasis on the inner
factors involved in happiness, as opposed to the focus on external
factors (such as the internet, and even the weather). Someone who
acknowledges the impact of internal factors may indeed even have an
internal locus of control, since they are aware of their significance
and power to change the situation. One anecdote about internal factors
was very applicable to our chapter. He explained that if someone could
gain the most prominent job in the highest office of a skyscraper, he
would only look for a window from which to jump as long as he is not
internally happy. This relates to the explanation that those who seek
such lofty financial rewards tend to find low satisfaction from life
than someone who emphasizes love. Ricard also mentioned that doing a
good deed for someone, even when no one is looking, can make you feel
good. I felt that this applied to a part in the reading where Myers
brushed on the idea of a random act of kindness. While reading the
chapter, I also thought of Jeremy Gilley’s TED talk on Peace One Day,
which had a similar idea behind it. Another point that Ricard made was
that all emotions are fleeting. Such a statement makes sense based on
the reading, since it explained that we quickly rebound from a
depressing day with a better than usual day. Such a quick turn-around
shows how emotions can fade easily. Another thing that I found
interesting was Ricard’s point that love and hate are two opposite
emotions that cannot occur at the same time: love can turn into hate
and quickly turn back into love, but they cannot happen
simultaneously. This must mean that there is no such thing as a
“frienemy” who expresses love and hate for you all at once, but only a
person who switches from being a legitimate friend to an actual enemy.
He also mentioned explicitly a fact from our reading that activity in
the right prefrontal cortex is associated with negative feelings, and
activity in the left frontal lobe is linked with positive feelings.
Lastly, I appreciated his thoughts on mental training and how with
time and effort, one can become more placid. He defended this belief
with an explanation similar to brain plasticity; since the brain can
adapt to damage, the brain can also learn to less fully experience
anger. Although he mentioned the benefits of physical exercise like
jogging, as our textbook did, he still believes that the power of the
individual is key in feeling happiness, which is somewhat of a
humanistic ideal.
On Mar 2, 9:03 am, Mrs Sparrow <erinsparro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What does the "happiest man in the world" have to say about happiness?
> Find out by watching Mathieu Ricard's TED talk. Respond with connections
> to Ch 13 and relevant concepts from other chapters.
>
> http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/matthieu_ricard_on_the_habits_of_hap...
said he was a Frenchman and now he is a Buddhist Monk, wow! His
opinions on happiness were just as interesting, and I would like to
take a moment to appreciate his use of economics in his TED talk.
Ricard mentioned that happiness seems to decreases as we experience
more of a pleasurable stimulus. For example, the first bite of cake
yields a lot of pleasure, but with more and more bites, the pleasure
wanes and can even turn to sickness or disgust. This is known as
diminishing marginal utility, since the utility (or pleasure derived
from a good or service) decreases as you consume more of that good or
service. Ricard explained it as people getting tired of the same old
cake, but it can also be seen as habituation in a way to an old
object: after eating cake for so long, it is no longer as fulfilling
as a novel taste, such as fruit salad, that will bring another source
of temporary happiness. This can also be seen as the adaptation level
phenomenon, which causes one to become accustomed to having cake that
they soon feel less satisfied as before; now they require a wider
array of desserts in order to feel as happy as they did with only one
bite of the initial cake. I also enjoyed his emphasis on the inner
factors involved in happiness, as opposed to the focus on external
factors (such as the internet, and even the weather). Someone who
acknowledges the impact of internal factors may indeed even have an
internal locus of control, since they are aware of their significance
and power to change the situation. One anecdote about internal factors
was very applicable to our chapter. He explained that if someone could
gain the most prominent job in the highest office of a skyscraper, he
would only look for a window from which to jump as long as he is not
internally happy. This relates to the explanation that those who seek
such lofty financial rewards tend to find low satisfaction from life
than someone who emphasizes love. Ricard also mentioned that doing a
good deed for someone, even when no one is looking, can make you feel
good. I felt that this applied to a part in the reading where Myers
brushed on the idea of a random act of kindness. While reading the
chapter, I also thought of Jeremy Gilley’s TED talk on Peace One Day,
which had a similar idea behind it. Another point that Ricard made was
that all emotions are fleeting. Such a statement makes sense based on
the reading, since it explained that we quickly rebound from a
depressing day with a better than usual day. Such a quick turn-around
shows how emotions can fade easily. Another thing that I found
interesting was Ricard’s point that love and hate are two opposite
emotions that cannot occur at the same time: love can turn into hate
and quickly turn back into love, but they cannot happen
simultaneously. This must mean that there is no such thing as a
“frienemy” who expresses love and hate for you all at once, but only a
person who switches from being a legitimate friend to an actual enemy.
He also mentioned explicitly a fact from our reading that activity in
the right prefrontal cortex is associated with negative feelings, and
activity in the left frontal lobe is linked with positive feelings.
Lastly, I appreciated his thoughts on mental training and how with
time and effort, one can become more placid. He defended this belief
with an explanation similar to brain plasticity; since the brain can
adapt to damage, the brain can also learn to less fully experience
anger. Although he mentioned the benefits of physical exercise like
jogging, as our textbook did, he still believes that the power of the
individual is key in feeling happiness, which is somewhat of a
humanistic ideal.
On Mar 2, 9:03 am, Mrs Sparrow <erinsparro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What does the "happiest man in the world" have to say about happiness?
> Find out by watching Mathieu Ricard's TED talk. Respond with connections
> to Ch 13 and relevant concepts from other chapters.
>
Chris Akerson
Mar 8, 2012, 8:11:04 PM3/8/12
to AP Psychology P4
The first thing that struck me about Matthieu Ricard's talk in regards
to happiness was when he says literally everyone is looking for
happiness. He quotes a French philosopher in saying something along
the lines of "even the man who hangs himself is looking for the
cessation of suffering." Thinking about this I have realized that he
is correct and all people truly are looking to improve their well-
being in some way. He also talks about the adaptation-level
phenomenon, though he doesn't specifically say that. He uses real life
examples such as people getting sick of chocolate cake after eating
too much or moving away from a fire to cool down even though the
person may have moved closer in the first place to warm up. This is a
very good point that he makes and is clearly true in the everyday
lives of all humans. He explains why this could make it difficult for
a person to always be happy because they are always looking for more.
He says happiness is a feeling of deep serenity, and is more about
accepting one's happiness in their lives. Myers describes talks about
subjective well-being throughout chapter 13 and clearly Ricard feels
the same way that it is up to the person to determine they're
happiness. If they consider themselves happy, then they will be happy.
Ricard also provides evidence that negative emotions stimulate the
right prefrontal cortex whereas positive ones are in the left
prefrontal cortex. Myers discusses this subject as well but it is
interesting seeing the same information presented by a world-renowned
expert on happiness. Matthieu Ricard certainly has given me plenty to
think about in regards to happiness and has made a very vague concept,
such as happiness, a much more concrete definition in my mind.
to happiness was when he says literally everyone is looking for
happiness. He quotes a French philosopher in saying something along
the lines of "even the man who hangs himself is looking for the
cessation of suffering." Thinking about this I have realized that he
is correct and all people truly are looking to improve their well-
being in some way. He also talks about the adaptation-level
phenomenon, though he doesn't specifically say that. He uses real life
examples such as people getting sick of chocolate cake after eating
too much or moving away from a fire to cool down even though the
person may have moved closer in the first place to warm up. This is a
very good point that he makes and is clearly true in the everyday
lives of all humans. He explains why this could make it difficult for
a person to always be happy because they are always looking for more.
He says happiness is a feeling of deep serenity, and is more about
accepting one's happiness in their lives. Myers describes talks about
subjective well-being throughout chapter 13 and clearly Ricard feels
the same way that it is up to the person to determine they're
happiness. If they consider themselves happy, then they will be happy.
Ricard also provides evidence that negative emotions stimulate the
right prefrontal cortex whereas positive ones are in the left
prefrontal cortex. Myers discusses this subject as well but it is
interesting seeing the same information presented by a world-renowned
expert on happiness. Matthieu Ricard certainly has given me plenty to
think about in regards to happiness and has made a very vague concept,
such as happiness, a much more concrete definition in my mind.
Maddy McKinley
Mar 8, 2012, 9:02:22 PM3/8/12
to AP Psychology P4
Matthieu Ricard's seemed to know a whole lot about happiness. He spoke
about how people will get excited by material goods, or a warm fire or
song, but then after a while those material things become tiresome.
Anything that is overused, or overplayed become boring to people. We
like new and exciting and stimulating situations. This related to the
adaptation level phenomenon because the sensation or excitement of
something must continue to increase it is to keep satisfying us. This
also reminded me of habituation because once something is overused
then it no longer becomes of interest to people. Richard also talked
about how money and material goods do not provide satisfaction for
long. People often compare themselves to others (usually they compare
themselves with those who lead a richer or more popular lifestyle) and
it only brings them down because they wish to be like that person
because they'd be happier. This is called the relative deprivation
principle. But, as Richard pointed out, money down not cause
happiness. Matthieu Ricard also spoke of neural connections in the
brain and how they relate to happiness. It has been proven that the
right prefrontal cortex is responsible for showing more activity in
people who are more withdrawn and negative. The left prefrontal cortex
shows more activity in people who are positive and really goal-driven.
An over-all message that Matthieu Ricard tried to get across is that
we can control our own happiness. Everyday is a new opportunity to
make yourself and others happy for an overall better atmosphere.
about how people will get excited by material goods, or a warm fire or
song, but then after a while those material things become tiresome.
Anything that is overused, or overplayed become boring to people. We
like new and exciting and stimulating situations. This related to the
adaptation level phenomenon because the sensation or excitement of
something must continue to increase it is to keep satisfying us. This
also reminded me of habituation because once something is overused
then it no longer becomes of interest to people. Richard also talked
about how money and material goods do not provide satisfaction for
long. People often compare themselves to others (usually they compare
themselves with those who lead a richer or more popular lifestyle) and
it only brings them down because they wish to be like that person
because they'd be happier. This is called the relative deprivation
principle. But, as Richard pointed out, money down not cause
happiness. Matthieu Ricard also spoke of neural connections in the
brain and how they relate to happiness. It has been proven that the
right prefrontal cortex is responsible for showing more activity in
people who are more withdrawn and negative. The left prefrontal cortex
shows more activity in people who are positive and really goal-driven.
An over-all message that Matthieu Ricard tried to get across is that
we can control our own happiness. Everyday is a new opportunity to
make yourself and others happy for an overall better atmosphere.
> What does the "happiest man in the world" have to say about happiness?
> Find out by watching Mathieu Ricard's TED talk. Respond with connections
> to Ch 13 and relevant concepts from other chapters.
>
> http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/matthieu_ricard_on_the_habits_of_hap...
> Find out by watching Mathieu Ricard's TED talk. Respond with connections
> to Ch 13 and relevant concepts from other chapters.
>
Shreya Sitaraman
Mar 8, 2012, 9:38:14 PM3/8/12
to AP Psychology P4
I found it really interesting how Ricard differentiated between
pleasure and happiness. I’ve never really thought about the difference
between those terms- pleasure being more momentarily or temporarily,
and happiness being an actual state of being for a period of time. The
analogy that he used with the shallow shore waves representing
pleasure, and the deep, calm sea representing happiness was also
enlightening. I was not surprised by what he said about internal
happiness and peace mattering more than external. In this chapter, the
textbook gave a lot of detail about how wealth and materialistic
things do not improve happiness by describing how even though people
in the world today have a lot more money than they did fifty years
ago, the level of satisfaction hasn’t really changed much. The
textbook also talked about how those seeking wealth are less happy
than those seeking “intimacy, personal growth, and contribution to the
community,” which is similar to what Ricard said. I also thought it
was really interesting how he said that gratitude doesn’t lead to
happiness, but rather the level of satisfaction with one’s own life
does. So, in order to be happy, one doesn’t necessarily have to be
extremely grateful with what one has, they just need to be able to
acknowledge that they have a lot and are lucky to have that.
pleasure and happiness. I’ve never really thought about the difference
between those terms- pleasure being more momentarily or temporarily,
and happiness being an actual state of being for a period of time. The
analogy that he used with the shallow shore waves representing
pleasure, and the deep, calm sea representing happiness was also
enlightening. I was not surprised by what he said about internal
happiness and peace mattering more than external. In this chapter, the
textbook gave a lot of detail about how wealth and materialistic
things do not improve happiness by describing how even though people
in the world today have a lot more money than they did fifty years
ago, the level of satisfaction hasn’t really changed much. The
textbook also talked about how those seeking wealth are less happy
than those seeking “intimacy, personal growth, and contribution to the
community,” which is similar to what Ricard said. I also thought it
was really interesting how he said that gratitude doesn’t lead to
happiness, but rather the level of satisfaction with one’s own life
does. So, in order to be happy, one doesn’t necessarily have to be
extremely grateful with what one has, they just need to be able to
acknowledge that they have a lot and are lucky to have that.
Sunshine
Mar 8, 2012, 9:52:37 PM3/8/12
to AP Psychology P4
Mathieu Ricard's speech was very enlightening. Although he doesn't
seem like the "happiest man in the world" he did seem very calm while
up onstage, which is a very difficult thing to do in front of a lot of
people. After reading his bio, I learned he's the right-hand man for
the Dalai Lama, so I can trust what this guy is saying.
I was very interested in Ricard's idea about plasticity with emotions
and how we can improve our synaptic connections in order to control
some of our qualities. With just some practice--possibly meditation--I
can learn how to control my own happiness or anger, or whatever!
I also took into account Ricard's idea of happiness. Everyone searches
for something that makes them happy, but happiness cannot last
forever. No, you need some new sort of stimulation because of the
adaptation level phenomenon. Happiness determines the quality of our
lives, but we have a very difficult time finding pleasure; finding the
time and place--it's very difficult to some people! I appreciated his
relation to chocolate cake--it's awesome at first, but you get sick of
it after a while (especially if you don't have any milk!)
However, happiness isn't all Ricard discusses. He also talks a bit
about anger. When we experience the arousal and conciously listen to
the emotion, we become obsessed with it and it becomes the number one
thing on our mind. With meditation, one can control their own
furiosity much better then one could without meditation. Yes, anger
will still appear, but not with nearly as much force as usual.
This lecture makes me want to try meditation. It wouldn't hurt to take
some time and master my own brain
seem like the "happiest man in the world" he did seem very calm while
up onstage, which is a very difficult thing to do in front of a lot of
people. After reading his bio, I learned he's the right-hand man for
the Dalai Lama, so I can trust what this guy is saying.
I was very interested in Ricard's idea about plasticity with emotions
and how we can improve our synaptic connections in order to control
some of our qualities. With just some practice--possibly meditation--I
can learn how to control my own happiness or anger, or whatever!
I also took into account Ricard's idea of happiness. Everyone searches
for something that makes them happy, but happiness cannot last
forever. No, you need some new sort of stimulation because of the
adaptation level phenomenon. Happiness determines the quality of our
lives, but we have a very difficult time finding pleasure; finding the
time and place--it's very difficult to some people! I appreciated his
relation to chocolate cake--it's awesome at first, but you get sick of
it after a while (especially if you don't have any milk!)
However, happiness isn't all Ricard discusses. He also talks a bit
about anger. When we experience the arousal and conciously listen to
the emotion, we become obsessed with it and it becomes the number one
thing on our mind. With meditation, one can control their own
furiosity much better then one could without meditation. Yes, anger
will still appear, but not with nearly as much force as usual.
This lecture makes me want to try meditation. It wouldn't hurt to take
some time and master my own brain
Charles Garrido
Mar 8, 2012, 10:30:51 PM3/8/12
to AP Psychology P4
"Your beliefs become your thoughts. Your thoughts become your words.
Your words become your actions. Your actions become your habits. Your
habits become your values. Your values become your destiny."~Mahatma
Gandhi
I thought of this quote when listening to Mathieu Ricard. Both he and
Myers touch upon the dual concepts of facial feedback and behavior
feedback. By thinking more positively, acting more positively, and
putting on a smile, we actually become happier. In Ricard's case, his
happiness is amplified by his meaningful faith. Ricard lives by the
creed that many know but do not follow. Ricard lives with control over
his time, he acts happy, he gives focus onto things greater than
himself and is clearly spiritual. It even relates to Chaucer and
Dante's writings. Chaucer and Dante contributed to literature with
concepts like the wheel of fortune much like Ricard's analogy of
happiness and the wave. That the idea of happiness, however arbitrary
it may seem to us, appears as naturally periodic to us. However, by
"mental training", by increasing our subjective well-being, by
becoming more positive regardless of the circumstance. Ricard and
Myers seem to agree upon the fact that there's and adaptation level
phenomenon. That there are times in which the majority of us become
less happy when we get used to the source of the happiness. It is why
Ricard emphasized the importance of mental training. It becomes
evident that happiness transcends what material objects can provide.
Ricard mentioned that even the millionaire in the suite could want to
die. In Myers thoughts, "money doesn't buy happiness" a very agreeable
statement. All of the mental training inevitably lead to an
unconditional positive regard for humanity, that leading this
meditative life leads to total acceptance of other people. No
cognitive dissonance (because they are not both angry and happy at the
same time) and less stress because of the optimistic approach towards
even daily hassles. A fine example is how Ricard mentions that there
are monks that are so serene that they can hear a bomb go off and not
flinch. There's definitely value in what he's saying and it seems as
though there is much we people can learn from him and his experiences
as he leads a happy life.
Your words become your actions. Your actions become your habits. Your
habits become your values. Your values become your destiny."~Mahatma
Gandhi
I thought of this quote when listening to Mathieu Ricard. Both he and
Myers touch upon the dual concepts of facial feedback and behavior
feedback. By thinking more positively, acting more positively, and
putting on a smile, we actually become happier. In Ricard's case, his
happiness is amplified by his meaningful faith. Ricard lives by the
creed that many know but do not follow. Ricard lives with control over
his time, he acts happy, he gives focus onto things greater than
himself and is clearly spiritual. It even relates to Chaucer and
Dante's writings. Chaucer and Dante contributed to literature with
concepts like the wheel of fortune much like Ricard's analogy of
happiness and the wave. That the idea of happiness, however arbitrary
it may seem to us, appears as naturally periodic to us. However, by
"mental training", by increasing our subjective well-being, by
becoming more positive regardless of the circumstance. Ricard and
Myers seem to agree upon the fact that there's and adaptation level
phenomenon. That there are times in which the majority of us become
less happy when we get used to the source of the happiness. It is why
Ricard emphasized the importance of mental training. It becomes
evident that happiness transcends what material objects can provide.
Ricard mentioned that even the millionaire in the suite could want to
die. In Myers thoughts, "money doesn't buy happiness" a very agreeable
statement. All of the mental training inevitably lead to an
unconditional positive regard for humanity, that leading this
meditative life leads to total acceptance of other people. No
cognitive dissonance (because they are not both angry and happy at the
same time) and less stress because of the optimistic approach towards
even daily hassles. A fine example is how Ricard mentions that there
are monks that are so serene that they can hear a bomb go off and not
flinch. There's definitely value in what he's saying and it seems as
though there is much we people can learn from him and his experiences
as he leads a happy life.
Julie O'Connor
Mar 8, 2012, 10:33:27 PM3/8/12
to AP Psychology P4
Buddhist monk Matthieu Ricard defines happiness as a deep sense of
serenity and fufillment. From his experiences, Ricard stresses that
happiness cannot be gained through materialistic objects, similar to
Myer’s concept of an increase in wealth does not create an increase in
happiness. These objects create momentary feelings of pleasure, but we
become habituated to the pleasurable stimuli. Ricard used the example
of eating a piece of cake. Initially the cake tastes very good. After
eating more slices, we begin to lose those early pleasurable feelings.
This all relates to the fact that happiness remains stable throughout
one’s lifetime, unaffected by the negative experiences. These
experiences will occur, as Ricard said, because we have little control
of the outer world. However one can control their emotions in a given
situation depending on the way the individual interprets the
situation. As Myers said, arousal fuels emotion and cognition channels
it (520). If you scowl, the world seems to scowl back. This also
relates to the facial feedback hypothesis. Smiling makes someone feel
happier while frowning leads to more upsetting emotion; therefore we
do have control over our happiness and consciousness is like a mirror,
as Matthieu pointed out. One’s sense of happiness directly connects to
the perception of the world as a good or evil place. Those with an
optimistic viewpoint on life have more brain activity in the left
prefrontal cortex, an area with a large supply of dopamine receptors.
This is why Ricard emphasized the important of training one’s mind,
specifically through meditation. Meditators direct their energy into
creating complete states of happiness by focusing on the positive
emotions, increasing connections in the left frontal cortex. Matthieu
Ricard believes in the internal locus of control in terms of the
individual’s control of their subjective well-being. Individuals can
control their emotions. I enjoyed learning about happiness from a
different perspective.
serenity and fufillment. From his experiences, Ricard stresses that
happiness cannot be gained through materialistic objects, similar to
Myer’s concept of an increase in wealth does not create an increase in
happiness. These objects create momentary feelings of pleasure, but we
become habituated to the pleasurable stimuli. Ricard used the example
of eating a piece of cake. Initially the cake tastes very good. After
eating more slices, we begin to lose those early pleasurable feelings.
This all relates to the fact that happiness remains stable throughout
one’s lifetime, unaffected by the negative experiences. These
experiences will occur, as Ricard said, because we have little control
of the outer world. However one can control their emotions in a given
situation depending on the way the individual interprets the
situation. As Myers said, arousal fuels emotion and cognition channels
it (520). If you scowl, the world seems to scowl back. This also
relates to the facial feedback hypothesis. Smiling makes someone feel
happier while frowning leads to more upsetting emotion; therefore we
do have control over our happiness and consciousness is like a mirror,
as Matthieu pointed out. One’s sense of happiness directly connects to
the perception of the world as a good or evil place. Those with an
optimistic viewpoint on life have more brain activity in the left
prefrontal cortex, an area with a large supply of dopamine receptors.
This is why Ricard emphasized the important of training one’s mind,
specifically through meditation. Meditators direct their energy into
creating complete states of happiness by focusing on the positive
emotions, increasing connections in the left frontal cortex. Matthieu
Ricard believes in the internal locus of control in terms of the
individual’s control of their subjective well-being. Individuals can
control their emotions. I enjoyed learning about happiness from a
different perspective.
Bridie McKenna
Mar 8, 2012, 10:42:38 PM3/8/12
to AP Psychology P4
When we first learned in class that money can't buy happiness, I was
skeptical. After watching Mathieu Ricard's TED Talk on happiness, it's
more believable. In the beginning of his talk Ricard mentioned inner
and outer conditions of well being. He explained how the two are very
different, but in order for someone to be happy, both types of
conditions must be satisfied. Outer conditions that involve material
and financial well being are indeed influenced by money, but in order
for someone to truly be happy, they must also satisfy inner
conditions. This can include being compassionate and sure of yourself,
qualities that are not influenced by money. I liked Ricard's analogy
between happiness and an ocean. He was essentially saying that an
individual could be happy and have good well being, even when the
emotion they are experiencing is not happiness. He said that emotions
are temporary, whereas subjective well being is a typically lasting
notion. Another part of the talk I enjoyed was when Ricard's said how
everyone has their own definition of happiness. While most people
would think that a suicidal person standing on the edge of a building
is unhappy, that person may actually be experiencing happiness knowing
what they're about to do if it is what they want. If you can create
your own definition of happiness, then you can have a higher
subjective well being, and feel happier.
skeptical. After watching Mathieu Ricard's TED Talk on happiness, it's
more believable. In the beginning of his talk Ricard mentioned inner
and outer conditions of well being. He explained how the two are very
different, but in order for someone to be happy, both types of
conditions must be satisfied. Outer conditions that involve material
and financial well being are indeed influenced by money, but in order
for someone to truly be happy, they must also satisfy inner
conditions. This can include being compassionate and sure of yourself,
qualities that are not influenced by money. I liked Ricard's analogy
between happiness and an ocean. He was essentially saying that an
individual could be happy and have good well being, even when the
emotion they are experiencing is not happiness. He said that emotions
are temporary, whereas subjective well being is a typically lasting
notion. Another part of the talk I enjoyed was when Ricard's said how
everyone has their own definition of happiness. While most people
would think that a suicidal person standing on the edge of a building
is unhappy, that person may actually be experiencing happiness knowing
what they're about to do if it is what they want. If you can create
your own definition of happiness, then you can have a higher
subjective well being, and feel happier.
yili...@live.com
Mar 9, 2012, 5:03:03 AM3/9/12
to AP Psychology P4
As I was listening to Ricard’s speech and the way that he took the
simplest words to create a unique and novel perspective, I couldn’t
help but be reminded of Mitch Albom who wrote Tuesdays with Morrie and
Have a Little Faith and the book I’m currently reading, The Five
People You Meet in Heaven. Their eloquence arises from not the
elaborate sentences and elevated diction, but from penetrating the
core of “controversial” topics like death and religion and happiness
that ought not be so controversial. I thought he made a great point
distinguishing between pleasure and happiness with the fire metaphor
(“ If you are feeling very cold, you come near a fire, it's so
wonderful. Then, after some moments, you just go a little back, and
then it starts burning. It sort of uses itself as you experience it.”)
that explains pleasure. In a society in which we don’t even
distinguish between mood (temporary feelings and expressivity that
influences thoughts and actions) and emotion (response that includes
physiological arousal, expressive behavior and conscious experience),
at least colloquially, how can we understand it as “a deep sense of
serenity and fulfillment, a state that actually pervades and underlies
all emotional states, and all the joys and sorrows that can come one's
way”? Using a universally understood comparison simplifies the
concept, so it can be more easily understood. Again Ricard makes an
interesting point about the quest for happiness and how people often
wonder why if they have “everything,” they are still not happy, which
was essentially what I was thinking when we were going over all the
criteria for happiness (facial feedback through smiles, over the
minimum income, flow, relationships etc). I am not a beaming ball of
joy 24/7 because I must be missing one of the ingredients, possibly
sleep… But as Ricard said, I was trying to fix the visible problem,
when I should be focusing on the internal, the mind. Finally I really
appreciated his definition of mediation (“mind transformation”) and
the way he explained it from the Dali Lama in Portugal to exercise in
more human terms before diving into the statistics and laboratory
studies.
simplest words to create a unique and novel perspective, I couldn’t
help but be reminded of Mitch Albom who wrote Tuesdays with Morrie and
Have a Little Faith and the book I’m currently reading, The Five
People You Meet in Heaven. Their eloquence arises from not the
elaborate sentences and elevated diction, but from penetrating the
core of “controversial” topics like death and religion and happiness
that ought not be so controversial. I thought he made a great point
distinguishing between pleasure and happiness with the fire metaphor
(“ If you are feeling very cold, you come near a fire, it's so
wonderful. Then, after some moments, you just go a little back, and
then it starts burning. It sort of uses itself as you experience it.”)
that explains pleasure. In a society in which we don’t even
distinguish between mood (temporary feelings and expressivity that
influences thoughts and actions) and emotion (response that includes
physiological arousal, expressive behavior and conscious experience),
at least colloquially, how can we understand it as “a deep sense of
serenity and fulfillment, a state that actually pervades and underlies
all emotional states, and all the joys and sorrows that can come one's
way”? Using a universally understood comparison simplifies the
concept, so it can be more easily understood. Again Ricard makes an
interesting point about the quest for happiness and how people often
wonder why if they have “everything,” they are still not happy, which
was essentially what I was thinking when we were going over all the
criteria for happiness (facial feedback through smiles, over the
minimum income, flow, relationships etc). I am not a beaming ball of
joy 24/7 because I must be missing one of the ingredients, possibly
sleep… But as Ricard said, I was trying to fix the visible problem,
when I should be focusing on the internal, the mind. Finally I really
appreciated his definition of mediation (“mind transformation”) and
the way he explained it from the Dali Lama in Portugal to exercise in
more human terms before diving into the statistics and laboratory
studies.
Rachel Kositsky
Mar 9, 2012, 6:14:40 AM3/9/12
to AP Psychology P4
I found Matthieu Ricard’s TED talk on happiness extremely interesting
and useful. Ricard echoes many of the sentiments that Myers outlined
in the factors affecting happiness. I agree with Ricard’s point that
happiness is more dependent upon your inner world than your
environment. In other words, objective well-being, which uses physical
and economic indicators, is only a small part of subjective well-
being, which is self-perceived happiness or satisfaction with life.
Ricard created a persuasive argument for mind training, or
transforming the way you think, possibly by meditation. Not only do
the monks achieve high subjective levels of peace and good feelings,
but there are objective measures of this too. One monk was completely
off the bell curve for left prefrontal cortex activity, which is
linked to positive experiences, altruism, and happiness. Ricard
explains that that while being imaged, they were in a state of “loving
kindness.” I find it astounding that this kind of openness and
goodwill is objectively so powerful. Perhaps Ricard became a Buddhist
monk by observing the degree of happiness which they experienced while
he was primarily a biochemist.
Overall, I think Ricard’s happiness is influenced by many of the
factors identified by Myers: spiritual faith, agreeableness, and high
self-esteem. The Buddhist monks also demonstrate the feel-good, do-
good phenomenon by helping the people around them, such as the woman
dying of bone tuberculosis. Since they are happy, they help others be
happy as well.
and useful. Ricard echoes many of the sentiments that Myers outlined
in the factors affecting happiness. I agree with Ricard’s point that
happiness is more dependent upon your inner world than your
environment. In other words, objective well-being, which uses physical
and economic indicators, is only a small part of subjective well-
being, which is self-perceived happiness or satisfaction with life.
Ricard created a persuasive argument for mind training, or
transforming the way you think, possibly by meditation. Not only do
the monks achieve high subjective levels of peace and good feelings,
but there are objective measures of this too. One monk was completely
off the bell curve for left prefrontal cortex activity, which is
linked to positive experiences, altruism, and happiness. Ricard
explains that that while being imaged, they were in a state of “loving
kindness.” I find it astounding that this kind of openness and
goodwill is objectively so powerful. Perhaps Ricard became a Buddhist
monk by observing the degree of happiness which they experienced while
he was primarily a biochemist.
Overall, I think Ricard’s happiness is influenced by many of the
factors identified by Myers: spiritual faith, agreeableness, and high
self-esteem. The Buddhist monks also demonstrate the feel-good, do-
good phenomenon by helping the people around them, such as the woman
dying of bone tuberculosis. Since they are happy, they help others be
happy as well.
> What does the "happiest man in the world" have to say about happiness?
> Find out by watching Mathieu Ricard's TED talk. Respond with connections
> to Ch 13 and relevant concepts from other chapters.
>
> http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/matthieu_ricard_on_the_habits_of_hap...
> Find out by watching Mathieu Ricard's TED talk. Respond with connections
> to Ch 13 and relevant concepts from other chapters.
>
Kayleigh Gallagher
Mar 9, 2012, 7:55:48 AM3/9/12
to AP Psychology P4
I found Matthieu Ricard's talk extremely interesting. I think that it
is hard to explain what happiness truly is; however, he did a really
god job. He said that people are a always looking for happiness; they
just all go about it in different ways. He also discussed happiness in
terms of being subjective, which relates to relative deprivation, as
people think that other people are more well of than they are;
therefore, people are always striving to achieve a higher level of
happiness. Ricard also talks about pleasure associated with objects
and how it declines, for example eating seconds of cake is less
satisfying than the first serving. This is called the adaptation level
phenomenon; judgements are relative to neutral prior experiences. He
discusses how material things can only make someone so happy, and true
happiness stems from the more important things, like inner feelings of
satisfaction. Ricard made it clear that it was better to be happy,
which is exemplified in the feel good do good phenomenon, for happy
people are more likely to help others. He also discussed how unhappy
people have a more pessimistic view of the world, which we learned
about from a neuro-science perspective. Unhappy people show more
activity in the right frontal cortex.I think Ricard's talk was
important for something as simple as being happy influences the whole
world. Negative emotions prevent people from being satisfied and
therefore may not be as successful over all.
is hard to explain what happiness truly is; however, he did a really
god job. He said that people are a always looking for happiness; they
just all go about it in different ways. He also discussed happiness in
terms of being subjective, which relates to relative deprivation, as
people think that other people are more well of than they are;
therefore, people are always striving to achieve a higher level of
happiness. Ricard also talks about pleasure associated with objects
and how it declines, for example eating seconds of cake is less
satisfying than the first serving. This is called the adaptation level
phenomenon; judgements are relative to neutral prior experiences. He
discusses how material things can only make someone so happy, and true
happiness stems from the more important things, like inner feelings of
satisfaction. Ricard made it clear that it was better to be happy,
which is exemplified in the feel good do good phenomenon, for happy
people are more likely to help others. He also discussed how unhappy
people have a more pessimistic view of the world, which we learned
about from a neuro-science perspective. Unhappy people show more
activity in the right frontal cortex.I think Ricard's talk was
important for something as simple as being happy influences the whole
world. Negative emotions prevent people from being satisfied and
therefore may not be as successful over all.
> What does the "happiest man in the world" have to say about happiness?
> Find out by watching Mathieu Ricard's TED talk. Respond with connections
> to Ch 13 and relevant concepts from other chapters.
>
> http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/matthieu_ricard_on_the_habits_of_hap...
> Find out by watching Mathieu Ricard's TED talk. Respond with connections
> to Ch 13 and relevant concepts from other chapters.
>
Julie Hamilton
Mar 9, 2012, 9:04:06 AM3/9/12
to AP Psychology P4
Mathieu Ricard, a Buddhist monk, also known as the “happiness man in
the world” knows a lot about happiness. He said there is diversity in
the definition for happiness. He defines it as well-being, a state
that underlies all other emotions. Myers also didn’t define happiness.
Instead he defined subjunctive well-being as self-perceived happiness
or satisfaction with life. Their two definitions are very similar.
Ricard explained how sensation and joy could lead to happiness. He
talked about how we like new items and are interested in them until
they are overused. Then we lose interest in them like playing the
guitar all day, everyday. Or sitting by a fire and slowly having to
back up because you get too hot. This concept is defined by Myers as
adaptation-level phenomenon. Adaptation-level phenomenon states our
tendency to form judgments (of sound, of lights, of income) relative
to a neutral level defined by our prior experience. The way Richard is
so happy is by meditating. He claims that you can train your mind to
not allow the negative emotions. He says you must look inward, and
look at anger and make it disappear. After time he said anger will
leave without leaving a trace. Using fMRI’s, studies have shown that
they are outside of the bell curve. They have a much more active left
prefrontal cortex, which is connected to positivity. Richards said
this comes from many long hours of meditation. The right frontal lobe
is connected with negative emotions. Ricard wants us to stop focusing
on our image and focus on taking care of the way our mind functions
because it ultimately determines our way of life.
the world” knows a lot about happiness. He said there is diversity in
the definition for happiness. He defines it as well-being, a state
that underlies all other emotions. Myers also didn’t define happiness.
Instead he defined subjunctive well-being as self-perceived happiness
or satisfaction with life. Their two definitions are very similar.
Ricard explained how sensation and joy could lead to happiness. He
talked about how we like new items and are interested in them until
they are overused. Then we lose interest in them like playing the
guitar all day, everyday. Or sitting by a fire and slowly having to
back up because you get too hot. This concept is defined by Myers as
adaptation-level phenomenon. Adaptation-level phenomenon states our
tendency to form judgments (of sound, of lights, of income) relative
to a neutral level defined by our prior experience. The way Richard is
so happy is by meditating. He claims that you can train your mind to
not allow the negative emotions. He says you must look inward, and
look at anger and make it disappear. After time he said anger will
leave without leaving a trace. Using fMRI’s, studies have shown that
they are outside of the bell curve. They have a much more active left
prefrontal cortex, which is connected to positivity. Richards said
this comes from many long hours of meditation. The right frontal lobe
is connected with negative emotions. Ricard wants us to stop focusing
on our image and focus on taking care of the way our mind functions
because it ultimately determines our way of life.
Hannah Stahl
Mar 9, 2012, 9:06:33 AM3/9/12
to AP Psychology P4
Mathieu Ricard describes happiness as a deep feeling of fulfillment in
our lives and admitted that it is the one thing that people are always
searching for. As Meyer's said, well-being can change throughout the
day many times, defined as subjective well-being, or our self-
percieved satisfaction with life. Ricard also explained that we are
always searching for something better than what we have. This is known
as the adaptation level phenomenon which is our tendency to make
judgements based on a neutral level defined by our previous
experiences. He said that we cannot always find happiness with
materialistic things and this is supported by Meyer's claim that those
who put love and relationships above material wealth tend to be
happier. Further contributing to our happiness is the facial-feedback
phenomenon, which dictates that smiling will not only make us look
happier, but also make us feel happier internally. This can be
particularly useful for making the best of any situation we are in
because, as Ricard said, we cannot control what happens to us, but
only the way we view our experiences. He also described how anger can
become a perpetual obsession in life. To avoid this, Meyers said that
catharsis, an emotional release, should be used but only one that
promotes peace, forgiveness, and reconciliation. The last main thing
Ricard talked about was the benefits of meditation. He backed up the
information in Meyers saying that meditation increases left frontal
lobe activity, therefore increasing feeling of happiness.
our lives and admitted that it is the one thing that people are always
searching for. As Meyer's said, well-being can change throughout the
day many times, defined as subjective well-being, or our self-
percieved satisfaction with life. Ricard also explained that we are
always searching for something better than what we have. This is known
as the adaptation level phenomenon which is our tendency to make
judgements based on a neutral level defined by our previous
experiences. He said that we cannot always find happiness with
materialistic things and this is supported by Meyer's claim that those
who put love and relationships above material wealth tend to be
happier. Further contributing to our happiness is the facial-feedback
phenomenon, which dictates that smiling will not only make us look
happier, but also make us feel happier internally. This can be
particularly useful for making the best of any situation we are in
because, as Ricard said, we cannot control what happens to us, but
only the way we view our experiences. He also described how anger can
become a perpetual obsession in life. To avoid this, Meyers said that
catharsis, an emotional release, should be used but only one that
promotes peace, forgiveness, and reconciliation. The last main thing
Ricard talked about was the benefits of meditation. He backed up the
information in Meyers saying that meditation increases left frontal
lobe activity, therefore increasing feeling of happiness.
Fiona Merullo
Mar 9, 2012, 10:54:19 AM3/9/12
to AP Psychology P4
I found Ricard's talk interesting and enlightening, although I was a
bit skeptical of some of his points. I am sure Ricard would not
approve of my seemingly inherent cynicism.
Ricard starts off his talk by explaining that happiness is always
something that has been left in the vague. He then goes on to say that
if it is something that determines our life so much, we should
probably not give it such a vague description. I do agree with Ricard
that happiness is an extremely important part of our lives. As he
says, happiness underlies all emotional states. Which begs the
question: can we feel happy and some other negative emotion at the
same time? Ricard believes we can and I do as well. Even when we are
feeling a negative emotion like sadness, happiness can still be
present, I think we just label it with a different name. For example,
if we are sad about something, we could possibly be nostalgic for
better times. Ricard points out that people believe happiness can't
exist in the present, only in the past or future. If this is the case,
then the feelings of nostalgia we feel when we are sad is in fact just
our happiness in the past. Therefore happiness is still underlying our
sadness.
Ricard basically says that anger, jealousy, etc are all toxic negative
emotions. They invade in the present and this is why happiness can't
exist in the present (according to some). But happiness still
functions in the past. However, some 'positive' emotions do not
automatically mean happiness. Things like pleasure are fleeting.
Because of the adaptive level phenomenon, we are constantly growing
dissatisfied with what we have, craving more and more. Furthermore,
habituation to stimuli would decrease the pleasure we feel to things
that once make us happy. Say I watch a certain movie when I'm in the
mood to laugh. If I watch it over and over, eventually the jokes won't
seem as funny and the movie won't leave me happy. This distinction
between pleasure and happiness is crucial. It explains why things like
money do not automatically grant happiness, though they may grant
pleasure.
Ricard talks about something I was unfamilar with, mind training. This
is where I grew a bit skeptical. Ricard claims that negative emotions
are something we can actively analyize and that if we can look at it,
it will go away and the tendacy for its return was lessen. I don't
quite follow this. Being aware that something makes us angry doesn't
always make that anger go away; in fact, for me, being aware that I'm
mad just heightens my frustration. I do agree with mind training's
idea that happiness is a natural antidote to negative emotions. I
personally always like to watch funny tv shows or movies whenever I am
in a really bad mood. Laughing for 30 minutes really does increase my
feelings of happiness and it helps the negative emotions go away, at
least for a little bit.
I totally agree with Ricard that we all should make sure we dedicate
time to being happy. It reminds me of positive psychology: focusing on
what makes humans thrive rather than what makes us falter. Rather than
focusing on what we are angry about, we should try to pay attention to
making ourselves happy. This means meditation, finding jobs with flow,
etc.
bit skeptical of some of his points. I am sure Ricard would not
approve of my seemingly inherent cynicism.
Ricard starts off his talk by explaining that happiness is always
something that has been left in the vague. He then goes on to say that
if it is something that determines our life so much, we should
probably not give it such a vague description. I do agree with Ricard
that happiness is an extremely important part of our lives. As he
says, happiness underlies all emotional states. Which begs the
question: can we feel happy and some other negative emotion at the
same time? Ricard believes we can and I do as well. Even when we are
feeling a negative emotion like sadness, happiness can still be
present, I think we just label it with a different name. For example,
if we are sad about something, we could possibly be nostalgic for
better times. Ricard points out that people believe happiness can't
exist in the present, only in the past or future. If this is the case,
then the feelings of nostalgia we feel when we are sad is in fact just
our happiness in the past. Therefore happiness is still underlying our
sadness.
Ricard basically says that anger, jealousy, etc are all toxic negative
emotions. They invade in the present and this is why happiness can't
exist in the present (according to some). But happiness still
functions in the past. However, some 'positive' emotions do not
automatically mean happiness. Things like pleasure are fleeting.
Because of the adaptive level phenomenon, we are constantly growing
dissatisfied with what we have, craving more and more. Furthermore,
habituation to stimuli would decrease the pleasure we feel to things
that once make us happy. Say I watch a certain movie when I'm in the
mood to laugh. If I watch it over and over, eventually the jokes won't
seem as funny and the movie won't leave me happy. This distinction
between pleasure and happiness is crucial. It explains why things like
money do not automatically grant happiness, though they may grant
pleasure.
Ricard talks about something I was unfamilar with, mind training. This
is where I grew a bit skeptical. Ricard claims that negative emotions
are something we can actively analyize and that if we can look at it,
it will go away and the tendacy for its return was lessen. I don't
quite follow this. Being aware that something makes us angry doesn't
always make that anger go away; in fact, for me, being aware that I'm
mad just heightens my frustration. I do agree with mind training's
idea that happiness is a natural antidote to negative emotions. I
personally always like to watch funny tv shows or movies whenever I am
in a really bad mood. Laughing for 30 minutes really does increase my
feelings of happiness and it helps the negative emotions go away, at
least for a little bit.
I totally agree with Ricard that we all should make sure we dedicate
time to being happy. It reminds me of positive psychology: focusing on
what makes humans thrive rather than what makes us falter. Rather than
focusing on what we are angry about, we should try to pay attention to
making ourselves happy. This means meditation, finding jobs with flow,
etc.
michaela harrington
Mar 9, 2012, 12:04:06 PM3/9/12
to AP Psychology P4
Everyone wants to be happy, like Ricard said no one thinks I want to
be miserable today. Happiness is a vague idea. There are many
definitions to how we perceive happiness. That's why it is hard to
find happiness if we don't know what we are seeking. We often look to
the outside, or to material things to find happiness. But more money
and things don't lead to more happiness. People with a million dollars
are no happier than people with $65,000. This is adaptation- level
phenomenon, where we adjust our feelings depending on our situations.
It is more important to be happy within as Ricard says, or you will be
unhappy no matter how much money you have. If we do something good for
someone else then we will feel good and be happy about ourselves and
continue to do good things, like the feel-good, do-good phenomenon
states. If we change how we feel from negative to positive we will
feel better about ourselves and improve our well-being. Ricard also
says that we can use our brian plasticity to change our way of
thinking and human qualities. If we meditate and train our brains we
can be more compassionate which can allow us to be happier. Ricard
also states that the more activity on the right side of the brain, the
more depressed the people are and unhappy. But you can meditate to
change that. If you take time to meditate and train your brain you can
become happier. It is just as important to train your brain as it is
to stay in physical shape and get an education.
be miserable today. Happiness is a vague idea. There are many
definitions to how we perceive happiness. That's why it is hard to
find happiness if we don't know what we are seeking. We often look to
the outside, or to material things to find happiness. But more money
and things don't lead to more happiness. People with a million dollars
are no happier than people with $65,000. This is adaptation- level
phenomenon, where we adjust our feelings depending on our situations.
It is more important to be happy within as Ricard says, or you will be
unhappy no matter how much money you have. If we do something good for
someone else then we will feel good and be happy about ourselves and
continue to do good things, like the feel-good, do-good phenomenon
states. If we change how we feel from negative to positive we will
feel better about ourselves and improve our well-being. Ricard also
says that we can use our brian plasticity to change our way of
thinking and human qualities. If we meditate and train our brains we
can be more compassionate which can allow us to be happier. Ricard
also states that the more activity on the right side of the brain, the
more depressed the people are and unhappy. But you can meditate to
change that. If you take time to meditate and train your brain you can
become happier. It is just as important to train your brain as it is
to stay in physical shape and get an education.
> What does the "happiest man in the world" have to say about happiness?
> Find out by watching Mathieu Ricard's TED talk. Respond with connections
> to Ch 13 and relevant concepts from other chapters.
>
> http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/matthieu_ricard_on_the_habits_of_hap...
> Find out by watching Mathieu Ricard's TED talk. Respond with connections
> to Ch 13 and relevant concepts from other chapters.
>
Lekhya Vaddepati
Mar 9, 2012, 12:41:00 PM3/9/12
to AP Psychology P4
Matthieu Ricard believes that happiness can be defined as an
individual’s sense of well-being and satisfaction with life. Ricard
states that happiness is more than pleasures because pleasures are
temperorry and they can change the nature. Pleasures might make a
person happy at an instant moment but they don’t influence on one’s
overall happiness. For example, the first serving of chocolate cake is
delicious but by the fifth spoon, eating chocolate cake gets tiring.
This proves that finding pleasures in materialistic objects does not
make a person happier. As Myers stated, we usually measure our
subjective well-being by evaluating our physical or economic factors
in our life, but wealth has little effect on happiness if necessities
are already satisfied. Ricard makes a strong argument that being happy
is in our personal control and in our inner conditions. Most
individuals tend to let their outer world determine their fate but as
Ricard mentioned, outer world is “limited and temporary.” He also
thinks that we need to spend more time to understand the way we train
our minds and the way our mind functions. He believes that we can
train our minds to eventually feel a greater sense of fulfillment.
This is because if we can act happy then, we can be happier. I thought
his statement, “whatever we do, whatever we hope, whatever we dream is
somehow related to a deep, profound desire for well-being or
happiness,” clearly shows that our quality of life depends on our
overall well-being.
individual’s sense of well-being and satisfaction with life. Ricard
states that happiness is more than pleasures because pleasures are
temperorry and they can change the nature. Pleasures might make a
person happy at an instant moment but they don’t influence on one’s
overall happiness. For example, the first serving of chocolate cake is
delicious but by the fifth spoon, eating chocolate cake gets tiring.
This proves that finding pleasures in materialistic objects does not
make a person happier. As Myers stated, we usually measure our
subjective well-being by evaluating our physical or economic factors
in our life, but wealth has little effect on happiness if necessities
are already satisfied. Ricard makes a strong argument that being happy
is in our personal control and in our inner conditions. Most
individuals tend to let their outer world determine their fate but as
Ricard mentioned, outer world is “limited and temporary.” He also
thinks that we need to spend more time to understand the way we train
our minds and the way our mind functions. He believes that we can
train our minds to eventually feel a greater sense of fulfillment.
This is because if we can act happy then, we can be happier. I thought
his statement, “whatever we do, whatever we hope, whatever we dream is
somehow related to a deep, profound desire for well-being or
happiness,” clearly shows that our quality of life depends on our
overall well-being.
> What does the "happiest man in the world" have to say about happiness?
> Find out by watching Mathieu Ricard's TED talk. Respond with connections
> to Ch 13 and relevant concepts from other chapters.
>
> http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/matthieu_ricard_on_the_habits_of_hap...
> Find out by watching Mathieu Ricard's TED talk. Respond with connections
> to Ch 13 and relevant concepts from other chapters.
>
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages