| I originally drafted several paragraphs in defense, but I think it's a bit of a tangent and better addressed in a separate comment. Csikszentmihalyi did a study on happiness, the results being the notion of flow. There's a book and papers, but basically the result is that you're happiest when you're completely absorbed in a challenging task that you are qualified for (state of flow). The inverse is that you're unhappy when you're not challenged and doing something that's low skill (apathy). Csikszentmihalyi called it the paradox of work. The study showed that they have their most positive experience on the job, but even when they feel good, they'd report that motivation was low. They'd report surprisingly low moods during leisure, but keep on wishing for more leisure. One theory is that they'd disregard the quality of immediate experience, and base motivation on the cultural stereotype of what work is like. Another is that the perception is based off their goals in relation to it - someone investing energy into achieving their own goals (e.g. finishing a season of a show) is more motivated than that energy being invested in achieving someone else's goals (making the boss rich). So, the notion of achieving your own goals is probably getting the way of your own happiness. Perhaps the goals are wrong. Perhaps it's a culture problem. I think there's lots of models missing in mainstream Western culture. There's alternate goals like becoming a shokunin - this endless goal to climb to a higher level of mastery, knowing you can never reach the top. There's tawakkul, where you have absolute faith in God's goodwill; there's no need to rely on anyone or anything. You keep to a standard code of ethics and find a way to practice that. You're honest when you could be punished for honesty, forgive when a situation allows vengeance, charitable when you could use more money, and so on. |