Here’s an interesting talk on principle #2 from Michael Norton:
No matter how you go about it, the most pleasure I get from money is when I give it up.
Spending it on loved ones is the most rewarding and long lasting pleasure I can ever get from it.
Darn!
Isn’t most of this from 59 seconds?
Also, I don’t agree with 7 or 8 - the problem is “the herd” pays too much attention to brand name. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FL7yD-0pqZg
- Get a life insurance and sign up for cryonics. If you have extra money, the chance to get a “1-UP mushroom” when you die is definitely worth it.
This stuff is always interesting, but some of the conclusions the researchers or (more likely) other people draw amount to “oh, we’ll just take everything above $XX,000; it’s not like you’ll miss it anyway.” That’s probably just my paranoia kicking in 
Also, you (or the article) didn’t mention the relationship between income and the second kind of happiness, the “life evaluation.” IIRC, your emotional well-being takes a huge hit when you have kids, so there’s clearly something big missing there or else all parents are fools.
Finally, as a comedian (Louis CK, I think) once said, “it’s hard to be unhappy on a jet ski.”
Maslow’s heirarchy, like most psychological concepts, is based on psychological studies of students of psychology.
The idea that psychology students wouldn’t be representative of the general population would be obvious to anyone other than a psychologist, but to a psychologist they all seem normal.
The search for “self-actualization”, as the highest goal, is true only for a set of personality types that represent a fairly small proportion of the population that also happen to represent the majority of psychology students.
So when you go asking an ESFJ about “self-actualization” or an INTP about “esteem”, their lack of interest does not indicate that they’re stuck on lower levels, as Maslow would suggest. It simply means that different people have different values and different goals.
The insurance conclusion is really interesting, but also seems terribly dangerous. Losing something and not having insurance or the means to replace it certainly repositions your emotions/attitude, but I’d be hard pressed to say it would certainly be a good change. I feel pretty guilty of the comparison shopping though, much appreciated.
Blog about whatever you want and I’m sure I’ll be interested Keep it coming!
About #5, I disagree.
In the past, I would wait to buy a product till I “think” I have enough knowledge about the product. However, the downside is that if you delay your purchase to decide if you truly want the product, you will end up “thinking” about the product each passing day until you have bought it. You wouldn’t have to do this “thinking”, if you purchased it right away or with little deliberation.
There are two ways to satisfy an urge to experience a “want”. One is to get it right away or the ignore (not suppress) it. Ignoring is quite difficult, right-away execution is much easier 
I haven’t read these papers, so maybe I’m missing something, but this seems at first glance to be (yet another) misunderstanding of correlation v. causation. Maybe happy people are more likely to have the energy/enthusiasm to try new experiences; maybe happy people are less likely to succumb to impulse buying and generally spend their money more wisely; maybe they’re less phased by the loss of something uninsured, etc.
An 8-step program to happiness sounds overly simplistic to me.
This is incredibly fascinating to me, especially given that I’ve convinced myself that I need to make a significant amount of money more than I do right now, mainly due to my perception that more money equals more autonomy.
Reputation attracts up-votes, which is why I don’t particularly like point #8, about “follow the herd”. If there are 10 competing products and the first 5 people prefer product A, subsequent shoppers will lean towards it simply for that reason, even though products B, C, and D might be just as good, or for that INDIVIDUAL, even better! Weigh what they say, and see if what mattered to them even matters to you.
Shame on you for referring to the unscientific, oversimplified bullshit that is Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.
To properly evaluate some of the 8 points you need to read the paper. For example, “follow the herd” doesn’t mean to do so blindly, but that there is value in listening to what your peers say. When I look for a new place to eat I have no problem using Chowhound or eGullet recommendations.
Similarly the insurance point: make sure your necessities are covered. I am pretty sure the authors of the paper don’t mean to not have life, medical, car, and home insurance, for instance. But beyond the necessities (including work-related ones) optional insurance packages represent an inferior bang-for-the-buck most of the time.
1 Like
Near the self actualization image of the Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs pyramid, what is the “W” icon sign signify? The other icons are twitter, facebook and linkedin but cannot figure the “W” icon.
I’ve translated this excellent article into Chinese.
http://blog.csdn.net/happydeer/article/details/8270481
1 Like
It’s Wordpress, of course! Blogging. Not that anyone uses wordpress for actual blogging these days…
1 Like