[uberPhil]

Not sure why you getting downvoted. It appears that anyone with an opinion which is not inline with the general consensus gets downvo... Nevermind..

In any case, I think the idea that true happiness comes from within, which I think is what your describing, makes sense. True happiness cannot be manufactured by buying "experiences". I don't think a laundry list, created by someone other then you, of things to do with your money can make you happy with yourself. If your not happy with yourself nothing you experience will just make you happy.

It starts with you and I'm not sure that money can buy you internal happiness.

A better idea would be to find out how people without money are able to be truly happy. I'd love to see that list...

[NathanRice]

The internet is a quixotic place.

I have known homeless artists, poets and musicians who were much happier than some very wealthy people I've met. Creative endeavors are the most common, with lots of genuine friendships being high on the list as well.

[lutorm]

Not sure why you getting downvoted

Because he takes a scientific study based on actual data, calls it "bullshit", and substitutes his own pet theory of happiness, maybe?

[NathanRice]

Their whole hypothesis is that money can buy happiness, but there is a weak correlation because people have poor consumption patterns, and if people just had better consumption patterns, money would correlate strongly with happiness. There are a couple of assumptions baked into this hypothesis that I can tear apart on the spot:

1. This assumes that consumptive happiness is additive and unbounded, i.e. if consuming A makes you X points happier, and consuming B makes you Y points happier, consuming A and B makes you (X + Y) happier, ad infinitum. There is no evidence of this, and this is such a strong assumption that to assume it in the absence of evidence is fallacious.

2. Their data surrounding giving does not control for interpersonal interactions, and personality characteristics. Since these two variables are both strongly confounding, their results are weak at best.

Beyond that, this is a review paper containing no new data. They are essentially taking isolated data points and playing connect the dots to generate their own pet hypothesis.

My "pet theory" of happiness is actually the distillate of the idea of happiness as established in a variety of neutral literature (from Aristotle to moderns like Layard and Lyubomirsky), informed to a degree by evolutionary biology. Do you really trust the impartiality of people publishing in journals for "Consumer Psychology"? That reminds me of health studies commissioned by cigarette companies.

Down-vote away, it only saddens me to the degree that it makes people less likely to be exposed to a dissenting but informative viewpoint. I don't care a whit for the popularity contest aspect of it.

[gk1]

Because he is arguing a strawman. The article is not about buying experiences, but about spending money on or for the benefit of others.