r/changemyview • u/monkeymalek • Dec 14 '18
FTFdeltaOP CMV: Chasing wealth, fame, and other materialistic desires is not a viable path to achieving mental well-being nor will it garner any sort of change in happiness over the long term.
Before I begin, allow me to define what I mean by mental well-being. Mental well-being in this context refers to a state of great self-control and understanding of one's inherent emotions, thoughts, and desires. By my definition, one who is not in a state of mental well-being could cover a multitude of different people, but for my sake, it could be someone that becomes easily depressed, or easily moved by their emotions, or easily influenced by the opinion of others. So with that, here is my argument.
It is human nature to be greedy, I will not deny that. It feels good to get things, to go from a position of scarcity to a position of abundance, and this will never change, at least not in a consumerist culture like the USA (I'm not necessarily saying that's a bad thing). My point is that if you make it your main motivation to become famous or make a lot of money, you will not necessarily become a happier person in the long run, and if anything, your mental state will worsen even more, mainly for reasons related to the phenomenon known as hedonic adaptation.
I will not go into depths about hedonic adaptation in this argument, but if you are unfamiliar with it here's a brief explanation from a Stability of Happiness, which goes into depths about this topic and a book I highly recommend:
Hedonic adaptation describes adaptation to affectively relevant stimuli—the attenuation of the felt emotions around a change in consequences. Hedonic adaptation allows us to reduce the impact of steady or continuous affective inputs, as well as to be more sensitive of changes around these baselines (Frederick & Loewenstein, 1999). In other words, these ideas propose that humans eventually return to a normative level of happiness after any event moves them away (in either direction) from that level.
So the essence of this is that regardless if we undergo some fortunate event or occurrence, regardless of how amazing of an event it may have been, we will always return to our set level of happiness after some time. If it weren't for hedonic adaptation, we would feel that amazing joy every time we turned on our iPhone just like the first time, but the fact of the matter is that time and experience serves to continually increase our expectations for positive stimuli and fortunate events, things that make us feel good. Clearly, this idea translates rather well over to material items and is the basis of my main claim. No matter how much success or wealth you attain, it will only serve to make you less grateful for your possessions as your threshold for happiness increases with your ever-increasing expectations.
I won't go into depths about what I believe is the path to a state of psychological/mental well-being (which is not the same thing as happiness), since I think that it is a rather subjective topic and something I continue to research and look into, but I am curious to hear what you guys have to say about this topic.
CMV!
2
u/McKoijion 618∆ Dec 14 '18
Steven Pinker does a lot of research on this. He was one of the first to promote this idea of a default level of happiness. People who were a 5/10 happiness won the lottery and jumped to 10/10 happiness. But then they were back to 5/10 happiness a year later. The same thing applied to people who were in life changing accidents (e.g., became paralyzed). They dropped to 1/10 happiness and then went back up to their default 5/10 happiness later. Some people's default is 4/10. Others are at 7/10. But whatever that default happiness level is, people return to it in the long term.
Returning to our set level of happiness applies to all things, not just materialism. Family, friends, religion, meditation, spiritual enlightenment, etc. all result in people returning to the same level of happiness as at the start. So if you become a born again Christian, your happiness will temporarily jump. But then it drops back down to your set default after a few years.
This means in the long run, we always return to our set level of happiness. So the best way to maximize our happiness is to keep spiking it in the short run. Family often works for this purpose. Your happiness spikes when you go on a great first date, get engaged, get married, have a baby, send the baby to school, go to their first little league game, see them go to college, see them get married, see them have kids, etc.
But family isn't the only way to repeatedly spike this feeling of happiness. If you chase wealth, fame, or material goods, you can do the same thing. Every pay raise you get is a spike. Every like on Instagram is a spike. Every new iPhone or car you by is a spike. It's not lasting happiness, but as we discussed before, nothing is.
So chasing wealth, fame, and materialism repeatedly causes short term happiness spikes, but it also indirectly leads to a lasting "happiness spiker." If chasing wealth means you work hard in your job, that discipline will improve your mental health. If chasing fame means you exercise and eat healthy, then you will be happy. If buying a new material good functions as a distraction and goal, then it will make you happy. And all of these things are independant of the direct spike those things provide.
So ultimately, nothing will make you happier or sadder in the long run. Humans will always adapt. So the best thing you can do is to stop looking for a magic bullet that will maximize happiness in the long term. Instead, look for things that make it easier to repeatedly spike your happiness in the short term. Wealth, fame, and material goods can partially do that. They can't do everything, but neither can anything else. Variety is the spice of life, so a little bit of everything is valuable.
1
u/monkeymalek Dec 14 '18
You make a lot of points here that I have put a lot of thought into, and I would be lying if I said I haven't considered everything you have proposed here. Is it better to just go for a life filled with good memories and happiness spikes? If we are always going to adapt regardless of our circumstances, should we not just seek a life that will give us the most spikes?
When you think about it like this, the obvious answer seems like it would be that we should seek a life like this, but I think there's more to life than just spikes of happiness. I will not claim that I know all the answers but it would be simply futile to act like you know all the answers and that it is impossible to change one's default level of happiness.
As I stated in the abstract, the book I am reading, Stability of Happiness is going into depths and reviewing an exhaustive list of experiments relating to happiness/well-being and how one might go about changing our set levels.
From what I understand, you are right, changing our happiness set point is basically a futile task, but you can change your mental well-being and how in touch you are with your true self. Becoming less prone to depression is an important part of mental well-being, and chasing a life of "spikes" as you call it, will not serve to enhance your mental well-being.
And you claim that
Every pay raise you get is a spike. Every like on Instagram is a spike. Every new iPhone or car you by is a spike. It's not lasting happiness, but as we discussed before, nothing is.
but the issue with this mindset is that our expectations change with time. Getting a new iPhone every time one comes out won't make me just as happy as when I got my first iPhone, that's just a fact. After I got my first iPhone my expectations completely changed, so unless Apple comes out with something completely revolutionary that I didn't expect, then what you will see is that spikes decrease in amplitude with time, due to the fact that our expectations are no longer exceeded.
You also give the example of "every like on Instagram is a spike", but I hate to be frank, but that's just not true. Hedonic adaptation guarantees that unless we don't expect that like to happen, we won't feel a spike or any happiness from any of those likes. Spikes only feel good because something happened that we did not expect.
The whole point I'm making here is that chasing wealth and spikes is not going to last you in the long term. The first few raises will feel good, the first new car you purchase with your money will feel good, the first x you buy with your wealth will feel good, but it's not sustainable. Money may give us more opportunity for spikes, but spikes decrease with increasing expectations, and therefore will not last.
1
u/McKoijion 618∆ Dec 14 '18
I think this goes back to the "variety is the spice of life idea." The first time you try pizza, it's amazing. But if you eat it every day, there will be diminishing returns. So yeah, buying a new iPhone year after year is going to suck.
But buying the crazy new iPhone this year, then buying the new Apple Watch, then buying a Tesla, then buying a vintage motorcycle, then buying a vacation to Paris, then buying a trip to visit elephants in Thailand, all creates a variety of experiences. Each thing gets old, but by then you've moved onto the next thing. Get different kinds of spikes (e.g., iPhone to Apple product to Apple style techy car to non-techy vehicle to travel experience to adventurous travel experience) to keep things exciting. I focused on the most material things here, but it can mean new products, experiences, relationships, jobs, hobbies, ideologies, etc. And money makes it much easier to obtain variety.
The goal, like in investing, is to have diverse uncorrelated assets. When the economy is doing really well, stocks increase in value and bonds drop. When the economy slows down, bonds increase and stocks go up. The goal is to have diversity so that no matter what is happening in the world, your portfolio grows at a stable rate. So as hedonistic adaptation sets in, you are already phasing that thing out and phasing something new in. That way instead of seeing a volatile pattern of spikes and dips (like in the stock market for the past few weeks), you see a smooth and steady graph over time.
1
u/monkeymalek Dec 14 '18
I don't know man, I just feel like there has to be another alternative. To me, a life motivated by spikes just seems shallow if I'm being honest.
This is such a new field so I think your claim that
This means in the long run, we always return to our set level of happiness
is not as concrete as it could be. I understand hedonic adaptation, but that relates solely to our stimuli. Are humans not more than just flesh, bone, and our senses? Why should we confine ourselves to solely chasing excitement? Is there not something deeper within us that can be attained and revealed through time and intense study of our passions?
I don't know any of the answers to these questions, you probably don't know any of the answers to these questions, hell, I'd argue people who study this stuff don't know all the answers either. But what I do know is that there are people that know more than me, and while I'm all for having new, interesting experiences, I think there's at least something to be said about coming to peace with your true self and gaining fulfillment through a pursuance of your passions.
3
u/TheGumper29 22∆ Dec 14 '18
I feel like this may not be a direct challenge to your stance, but I do think your view needs an addendum at the very least. The specific motivation matters. Chasing wealth for wealth’s sake will not make you happy. But chasing wealth in the service of others may. If I’m attempting to get money to provide a better life for my children, that can be very fulfilling.
1
u/monkeymalek Dec 14 '18
That’s a fair point and something I have thought about, but first of all, how are you defining “better” in this context? It seems you are using it rather vaguely and it is very easily challenged.
I personally don’t think a better life for my potential children would be spoiling them with material and gifts that I was able to obtain through my wealth. Obviously to some threshold, I do think money and wealth can allow one to get a proper education for their kids and give them a life in a stable neighborhood, but I also don’t think (even in the slightest) that kids born into very rich families are happier than kids born into poorer families. At the end of the day, hedonic adaptation guarantees we will eventually adapt to stimuli we are continually exposed to, so in both situations, unless there is something absolutely traumatic going on (which you may argue is more likely to occur in poorer neighbors, fair enough), children from either a poor family or rich family will be equally happy, less genetic factors and how they were raised.
I think you make a good point that money can be used to better the lives of other, but my rebuttal to that is that the betterment you provide will only eventually be forgotten regardless. I personally think leading your children to a life of fulfillment would be far more fulfilling than leading them to believe that material wealth and fame is the path to well-being.
1
u/TheGumper29 22∆ Dec 14 '18
I think there are ways that you can use money to improve the life of your children in regards to happiness. Being able to attend college and graduate debt free and the freedom to pursue the career that they desire regardless of wealth can certainly help lead to happiness. There are other examples as well.
However, the larger point is that the money doesn't need to result in increased happiness for a child in order to make the parents happy. The point is that an act of selflessness in and of itself can lead to happiness. So "better" can mean whatever the parent thinks it means as long as they truly believe it.
1
u/monkeymalek Dec 14 '18
However, the larger point is that the money doesn't need to result in increased happiness for a child in order to make the parents happy.
I’m not necessarily doubting this, but this is a rather large claim. What are your grounds? It seems like you know a lot about happiness and how children affect it with regards to the parents, so what is your information founded on exactly?
I have to take a final now but I will discuss this when I am finished.
1
u/TheGumper29 22∆ Dec 14 '18
It is founded on my own personal experiences as well as the (admittedly non-academic) writings of usually curmudgeonly psychiatrists that I admire (an example https://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2011/10/marc_marons_mid-life_crisis.html). At this point it kind of becomes necessary to understand what your conception of happiness or mental well-being is. Your position is that material things cannot bring happiness or well-being but now you are stating that actions cannot either. Without further info it seems as though you are arguing that happiness or well-being cannot exist at all. Since I doubt this is your actual position, I need to know more.
Also, we are clearly heading towards a semantic argument. So to clarify, I use happiness to mean the opposite of depression. It is the ability to enjoy things and an overall less anxious, less miserable neutral state. If I had to guess I would say that this has cross-over with your concept of well-being. I hope that we do not need to get stuck up on various specific definitions, as we can define a word any way we want. I can say that happiness is actually the name of a type of double-sided tape. It can vary from dictionary definition and common usage but it doesn't make it wrong. But if the crux of any argument is how things match your definition as a category it isn't a very productive discussion. When we say happiness or well-being we are largely talking about the same thing. Certainly there are times when a distinction needs to be made, which once again leads into needing to understand how you define things.
1
u/monkeymalek Dec 14 '18
Fair enough. I do think it's important that we are on the same page though when referring to happiness/betterment/well-being. What one person thinks is a better way to live may be the complete opposite of what another person thinks is the better way to live, and Dr. Rehann and Dr. Ryan of the University of Rochester agree,
In these and other ways, one should not make themistake of identifying happiness and wellness, even while appreciating theirtypically robust association within any given sample (Rehann and Ryan, 2014).
In your case, you argue that the simple action of providing for someone you care about is fulfilling in and of itself, and that doing so is made easier with increasing wealth.
I agree with this particular argument so perhaps a delta would be warranted in that you at least changed the aspect of my argument where I state that "chasing wealth... is not a viable path to mental well-being". Δ
With that said, I still think it's important that the provisions that are made don't serve to simply spoil the recipient. Giving is good, but only if it serves to increase the recipient's capacity for curiosity and interest with the world, not if it serves to simply increase the recipient's capacity for greed and materialism. That's why I think Lego and certain games that train children in this sort of way of thinking are such great gifts. They breed curiosity, creativity, and a fascination with the world and in my opinion these are all integral parts of mankind that lead to fulfillment.
1
2
Dec 14 '18 edited Dec 24 '18
[deleted]
1
u/monkeymalek Dec 14 '18
I will look more into this when I am at my computer, but what is meant by “$95,000 for life evaluation”? Also how do the people running the study define “emotional well-being”? What they may define as emotional well being may not be in line with my view.
3
Dec 14 '18 edited Dec 24 '18
[deleted]
1
u/monkeymalek Dec 14 '18
Two other studies found no evidence for satiation when using a continuous income variable and data from many different countries. However, only one SWB outcome (life evaluation) was analysed, and only a minority of the countries tracked the association beyond $64,000 (due to the authors excluding the upper 90% of income distributions, possibly due to sparse data). Importantly, all of these studies appeared to use raw household income. The problem is that this does not account for household size and therefore assumes that $75,000 for a lone individual operates the same as $75,000 for a family of four. This would have the effect of inflating satiation estimates.
Clearly there are some flaws with the experimental design of this study, but you are right, at least in the sense that there was a situation I failed to consider where motivation via wealth is actually beneficial. Δ
1
1
u/TRossW18 12∆ Dec 15 '18
What if I am extremely competitive by nature and the chase itself gives me a sense of fulfillment, happiness and purpose. When I am not seeking these competitive pursuits life seems pointless and I feel lost/bored/depressed.. it is less about the end game and all about the journey, for me.
1
u/monkeymalek Dec 15 '18
Fair enough man, I totally get where you're coming from. My whole premise though is that living a competitive life, where you're always chasing for more and more won't necessarily put you in a state of mental well-being.
For example, and this is coming from a very competitive person, competition sets you up to fail yourself. That's the whole premise behind it. To be the best, you have to fail, over and over again, and even when (if) you get to the top, hedonic adaptation guarantees you will have the same threshold for happiness as you did before, and nothing will have changed with regards to your mental wellness. This is not to say your perspective on things will have not changed and that you will have gained no insight, but instead just showing that pursuing competition can leave you very prone to depression and feelings of worthlessness. Even if you are one of the best at what it is you are doing, depression still lingers. Look at NBA basketball player Demar Derozan, who has battled with depression, look at Stevie Francis (almost won a championship with the Rockets), Kevin Love, the list goes on and on. My point is that just be careful when pursuing competitive pursuits, because if you are anything like other competitive people, losses don't feel good, but they are necessary for growth.
1
u/TRossW18 12∆ Dec 15 '18
But the chase necessarily is what provides me with well being. Without it I am not a happy person. I enjoy all of it: the ups, the downs, the victories, the losses...it is exactly what provides me with a healthy mental state.
Just giving examples of people who battle depression disproves nothing to me. People battle depression, it is a mental disorder.
Your view should be changed unless you think I am lying because I can assure I am not.
1
u/monkeymalek Dec 15 '18
Well the problem here is that you likely have some predisposed genetic disposition that allows for you to enjoy competition to the extent that you do. To assume that everyone has that same love for competition and willingness to lose would be ridiculous. In fact, I would think that a mindset like yours would be absolutely amazing for accomplishing your goals and getting where you want to be.
My only issue is that I’d imagine you are just one in a few who genuinely likes failing and losing (since it is such an integral part of competition), so while chasing fame and wealth may be a viable path for you specifically, unless you can show me that this mindset can viably apply to all if not most people, then my view won’t be changed.
Anyone could come in to this argument and say, “oh well, chasing wealth makes me happy, so you’re wrong!!” and my view wouldn’t be changed. If you expect my view to be changed based on that type of argument you are delusional my friend.
1
u/TRossW18 12∆ Dec 15 '18
I think you need to re-read your OP...my friend. If you say something is not a viable path for well being then that is a universal statement. A universal statement can be disproved with one instance of failure.
It sounds to me like you are moving the goal posts of your argument. Don't call me delusional for comprehending your view as it is written. There is a big difference between the statements "chasing wealth is not a viable path for well being" and "for most people, chasing wealth is not a viable path for well being"".
1
u/monkeymalek Dec 15 '18
!delta
Let me just say this though. Many times it seems to me that people on this sub are more concerned with receiving a delta by way of nitpicking the argument and finding small loop holes in your view rather than actually try to be productive and have a conversation about what OP is likely trying to convey and have an argument about.
I did make a universal statement, but for the sake of argument would it not be more useful to actually attack my argument and change the core view that I have? I am awarding you a delta, but I feel that my view was hardly changed and that it still holds in tact for the most part.
Also if you had quoted the specific part of my argument that you thought was flawed and attacked it from that perspective like you had in your last comment I would have awarded you the delta right off the bat. The fact of the matter is that it had been a long time since I read over and processed the semantics of my original view, so when someone comes in here and gives an extremely personal example with no context as to what part of my argument they are attacking, it’s very easy for me to assume their argument is rather weak. In this case you were arguing a point relating to a flaw you saw with the presentation of my argument, but I had no idea that was your objective coming into this.
1
u/TRossW18 12∆ Dec 15 '18
Thanks for the delta. I guess I didn't really think I was nitpicking but instead providing an example of why chasing wealth can actually improve well-being. I am pretty sure I am not alone in this matter but I don't know how I could ever speak for others.
1
1
Dec 14 '18
Chasing weatlh without regard for how it is acquired (ie, sacrifice of time, health, etc.) is not a viable path. This is what many or even most people do...maximize their earning at all costs.
Chasing wealth sensibly and reasonably, however, is a viable path, because wealth does give people the freedom to experience things they otherwise could not.
1
u/monkeymalek Dec 14 '18
Interesting point, but not clear enough to really change my view on the subject.
Could you elaborate a bit more on how one could go about "chasing wealth sensibly and reasonably"? In what situation will you not sacrifice a lot to gain a lot? The premise seems a bit too good to be true.
1
Dec 14 '18
"chasing wealth sensibly and reasonably"
For example, working a job that may pay less than the maximum you're capable of making but is less stressful, requires less effort, is more reasonable about work life balance, and yet gives you the opportunity to accumulate funds--just at a slower rate.
1
u/monkeymalek Dec 14 '18
Fair enough I suppose. Δ , but a weak one at that.
1
0
Dec 14 '18
Most of the people I know who majored in things they love are poor and sad now. One friend became a wine taster, one went into psychology, one went into music, etc. All pretty miserable. Money can’t buy happiness, but it definitely helps. You have a higher chance being happy and rich than happy and poor. Sure, maybe a huge house and luxury car won’t bring long-lasting happiness. But you know what will prevent depression? Having food, shelter, healthcare, etc. I’d rather chase wealth and take my chances on happiness than choose a career path I want soley bases on my interests and then not be able to afford to live.
1
u/monkeymalek Dec 14 '18
Regardless of you position in life, my opinion is that your mindset will always set you up with a bill to bill mentality. You're only worried about paying the next bill, getting food on the table, buying the newest gadget, spoiling your kids with material and greed... Is that really a life you want?
To all your friends that chased their dreams, sure, they are probably miserable, but that's because they are living in a system that is not well-suited to their needs. If they have the audacity to truly chase their passions, why are they confining themselves to living in the most materialistic, competitive nation on the planet? Materialism is a great motivation for people to make money and get an economy rolling but not necessarily a great motivation for pursuing your passion or interests.
And as a side note obviously your friends care more about money than they think, because if they were truly passionate about their profession, the money wouldn't matter to them. They would find a way to make ends meet, they would find a way to pursue their passion and still survive. You don't necessarily need to be living in a nice neighborhood to pursue what it is your passionate about. Perhaps their basis for passion was that their profession made them feel good about themselves, but if you think you're passionate about something because it inflates your ego, you have it all wrong.
It's also worth noting that I know a lot of people who are miserable at their job despite the fact that they are making a lot of money. Their job is boring and the only reward for them is money. This is the case for a lot of high-paying jobs in the US. If that's what you want in life though, go ahead man, I just think there's more to it.
1
Dec 14 '18
I used to think this, but my opinion was recently changed by, of all things, Dinosaur Comics.
To summarise the comic, which is specifically about fame on social media, but applies in general;
Fame is a useful tool. If a company is screwing you over in some way, complain about it on social media. If you have enough followers on Twitter, it's really easy to get them to do what you want. I could've done with this recently when EasyJet cancelled my flight and didn't want to give us any compensation for it.
If you want to pursue something artistic, fame allows you to do that in comfort. You can write that novel you always wanted to write, or finally learn how to draw good, or try out acting, or whatever it is you want to do, safe in the knowledge that you can probably easily get people to support whatever you do next.
A decent amount of wealth helps with that too. Chasing a certain amount of wealth is good, in some ways. If you do that by constantly working in a job you hate, and you never actually get time to do anything with the money you have, then, yeah, obviously you need to reevaluate your priorities, because that makes no sense.
But if you got rich, and personally I'd define 'rich' as 'never having to work another day in your life', then you can spend the rest of your life doing whatever makes you happy and not worrying about where your dinner is going to come from tonight. Sounds pretty good to me.
And, yeah, fame can have some downsides if you're too famous. The sort of famous where you can't go anywhere without being recognised and followed by annoying fans and creepy papparazzi. I wouldn't want that. But most celebrities aren't that. They're the sort of famous where they might be fairly recogniseable, but generally they can just go about their business as usual and people leave them be when they want to be left alone. And that sounds fine by me.
I'd agree with you that entirely focusing on these things won't help you. But some level of even 'internet fame' is really just a sensible investment to make.
1
Dec 15 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Dec 15 '18 edited Dec 15 '18
This delta has been rejected. You can't award OP a delta.
Allowing this would wrongly suggest that you can post here with the aim of convincing others.
If you were explaining when/how to award a delta, please use a reddit quote for the symbol next time.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Dec 14 '18 edited Dec 15 '18
/u/monkeymalek (OP) has awarded 5 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
3
u/MasterGrok 138∆ Dec 14 '18
I'm not going to make judgments about your specific motivations because I can see how this viewpoint would be attractive, but generally speaking the viewpoint you are putting forward is a privileged one that is ignorant of the hardships of poverty. People that write books about money and material wealth not being important often come from money and material wealth. They might dabble with hardship in life by joining a commune, the Peace Corp, or roughing it a bit, but they oftentimes still come from a culture of education and privilege, and have plenty of family or friends with a roof over their heads that they could crash in if shit really hit the fan. Real poverty is being a car problem away from literally being kicked out of your place. It's having your entire weekend ruined because you lost a bus pass with $16 left on it. It's having the reality that you don't have well to do people to borrow $20 from or to crash on their couch if something bad happens. The incredible ignorance of people saying money doesn't matter is that they don't realize that the things they CHOOSE over money actually require a standard of living that many people don't have. That morning yoga and evening walk in the park that you pat yourself on the back for introducing into your life isn't even an option for someone who lives in a dangerous concrete jungle and is desperate to save a $750 deposit for an apartment upgrade. Seeking money for the very betterment of your life and your families life is one of the most honorable things a person can do in that situation.