#anyway i just think they deserve a little post-fall hedonism | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

500wordtheology · 5 years

Text

Detour: The Good Place Conclusion

Please forgive me, I’m about to break protocol. Normally this blog is dedicated to theological topics and I strive to keep each post at around 500 words. Today’s post will certainly be theology related, but it is extremely unlikely I will be able to keep it brief. Should you want to skip this post, feel free to click here to advance to the next blog entry.

The TV show “The Good Place” has now concluded. If you haven’t seen it, close this window and go watch the first season. It’s great. Possibly one of my favorite single seasons of any TV show ever. Genius creative work, and brilliant comedy and heart.

I cannot say the same for the final season, and especially the final two episodes. That is what this blog post is about, and in case it wasn’t obvious:

COMPLETE SPOILERS FOR “THE GOOD PLACE” AHEAD.

I will not recap the show’s four seasons here, nor even the episodes being discussed. This is written for those who have already seen them. Instead let’s jump into exactly how, unfortunately, the conclusion of the show failed both morally and creatively.

Please understand I do not write this as some stuffy critic. I lived the life of a stuffy critic in my younger days, and while it is a lovely boost to the ego, it is empty and dumb. I’ve learned that much at least. The reason for my critique here is because we as human beings need to KNOW this stuff. We need to not be tricked into shallow thought.

Where It All Falls Apart

The Good Place made a number of mistakes with the final two episodes. Let’s discuss the errors and try to make clear where things went awry (and how/why they were hand-waved away).

The penultimate episode, “Patty,” introduced the idea that an undisclosed amount of time in Paradise would cause you to become a boring, intellectually-stunted zombie. Apparently even the greatest thinkers who ever lived who managed to get into the Good Place only ever wanted milkshakes and orgasms, and instantly abandoned all big questions about the Universe for simple Hedonism. (And yes, it’s very true that Hedonism is empty and meaningless.)

This outcome makes very little sense, and I am unsure if it was a result of running out of episodes (which would be a shame, because the early bits of the final season were often dull and it would have been far better spending more time exploring these later concepts instead of cheap laughs at the expense of stereotypical, hollow characters introduced and then thrown away) or if it was simply bad and unimaginative writing. Considering the fantastic writing of Seasons 1 and 2, and sometimes 3, this is extremely puzzling. At any rate, it shows a serious lack of creativity.

Here is an important truth that was almost totally avoided in these final episodes: The question “Why?” does not disappear simply because you can conjure up a Coke and some sunglasses any time you want. Those questions remain. They might even move more to the forefront of the mind. Why are things the way they are? Unanswered, unexplored. Not just unexplored by the writers, but unexplored by the characters like Patty who were set up to have been in the Good Place for an undetermined amount of time (but “long”).

This is the ultimate problem with exploring Philosophy without also exploring Theology alongside. Interviews with the creator of the show consistently have him bringing up things like Buddhism or Hinduism, but strangely absent are Monotheistic religions. Why is this? For starters, I expect it is because many of the loudest voices in the modern Western world do not care for such concepts. They don’t like what it entails. If we are not in charge of our own ultimate destiny, which is the case when God exists and has made you with a purpose of his intention, our ego gets a slap in the face.

And it should, because that is what our ego deserves when it is out of order, but that is another post.

Anyway, it is possible this choice was made to avoid ruffling feathers of media and the societal elite. It is easier to play it safe, even for a show that tackled some very large concepts like morality.

It is also possibly because studying such religions requires a great amount of work. Heaven, in Christianity, is not a fluffy cloud where you get everything you ever wanted (like margaritas and monkeys in go-karts), where you sit and play a harp (or guitar) all day and also, hey look, your childhood dog is there. That is a foolish, childish caricature of Heaven, but unfortunately has become widely accepted as true simply because people refuse to go study further. So mistruths are believed due to ignorance. Cartoonish ideas are thought to be accurate, because non-cartoonish ideas are hard and sometimes extremely uncomfortable.

It’s more than a shame.

Not only is Heaven infinitely better than such a stupid caricature, but it isn’t even the final destination! New Earth and bodily resurrection comes after. However that is Christianity, and The Good Place makes its own version of heaven instead. A cartoonish one. Fine. But even ignoring that, the problem The Good Place’s ending faces is in the mantra “Death makes life meaningful.”

Here’s the kicker: That’s not untrue. And because it is not untrue, we can quickly and easily get extremely confused. In fact, go read some reviews of the final episode from a number of popular websites and you’ll find they herald this truth. Because in our earthly life, it is right to say death makes this part of our existence precious.

The problem, and it is a HUGE one, is they then transpose the earthly lesson onto eternity. Ignorantly (and forgive me for this is not an insult but a statement of why they claim it, they simply don’t KNOW and I realize even saying such a thing is unpopular) they claim that eternity would be “like this life but longer.” And yes, if that was eternity they might have a point. However even within the universe The Good Place has created that is not accurate! We are shown concepts like The Time Knife, and IHOP, and Janet, and the Judge. These things alone make eternity not simply Earth-life-but-forever. And here arises a major problem, because the writers suddenly go from thinking reasonably large to thinking utterly small, right at the end when thinking big is so important.

Creativity is boundless. The Good Place was certainly not short on creativity! At least… up until the end. At the end what you had was creative bankruptcy. A nihilistic conclusion that there is no real meaning - except this conclusion gussied up with terms like “peace” and “love” before folks walked off to their annihilation. It is, in fact, the gussying up that I have the biggest problem with. It is a flat-out lie, paraded as some virtue.

This is detestable. Tricking the viewer into believing such ridiculousness as “if you’re ready to die, you should do it and your suicide is a good thing. The best thing, even. The only way to be happy forever.”

I am sorry, but this is not only trash, it is dangerous trash. I hope I do not need to go into detail as to why.

Retirement for All

Let me jump slightly sideways for a second and point out something extremely telling: The “solution” that everyone got on board with at the end of it all was The Eternal Shriek.

Think about that for a second. That is what their solution was. The thing that in Season 1 and 2 seemed (rightfully) so horrific.

Now immediately one might say “Oh, no, that is not the same at all! The Eternal Shriek was a forced thing, the pretty gate in the forest was a willful decision.”

Really?

WAS it?

This is the response the writers want you to have, and it is one, again, of shallow thinking. This is the trick of the pretty forest scene and the constant throwing around words like “peace” and “calm” and “love” at the end. What we learn from the show is that the Forest Gate ends up being everyone’s ONLY ultimate option. Tahani, after mastering demonic/angelic architecture, will be left with the same ending. She will “be ready” but only because she has no choice but to eventually be ready. It is no longer a choice, but, as Eleanor says in the show itself in Season 2 “It’s a crappy deal, but it’s the only one we get.” Even after all they’ve learned (and have the potential to learn, let’s never forget that aspect) they play God (but far worse, because they are not God) and give humanity the *same deal* they say is crappy and lament how it is the only deal they got.

You might also say “Oh, no, the Eternal Shriek had all that awful stuff like having your soul scooped out with flaming ladles.” Yeah? What of it? You’re not conscious anymore (otherwise Michael wouldn’t have lamented “no more me” when he had his existential crisis) so the desecration of your esense and the atoms of your body are as meaningless to you as if someone dumps your cremated ashes in the forest vs. in the ocean. Or, yes, even in a rubbish bin.

Note the throw-away joke of the creature Derek has become. In his final speech (before getting rebooted again against his will) he mentions the heat death of the Universe. Let’s not ignore that. We are left by the writers (manipulated, really) with warm fuzzy feelings as one of Eleanor’s golden particle-thingies lands on a person who then does something decent instead of cruel. But what is not shown (because it would harp on our buzz) is that man will die. Michael will die. They will be annihilated and then, eventually, all humans will die, the earth will die, the universe will die, Derek will die, Janet will die, the Good Place will die, the Judge will die, and the final pretty gold sparkle will no fall on some new person to help them improve, but instead cease to Be entirely and have absolutely no meaning at all. It will all amount to exactly the same in the end as if the Bad Place guys ran things.

To use the pretty analogy of the show, “The wave will still be water and return to the ocean,” but then the ocean will disappear entirely for no reason or purpose and even the wave and water will be worth nothing. (They don’t note this second half, because that second half doesn’t make you feel good. Yet it lurks there, undiscussed and ready to pounce and surprise.)

This is the stark, awful truth of a purposeless universe and existence. It is an awful thing, but it is the truth if that is the worldview we’re exploring. (A reminder this is not the truth of God, though. God loves you, and you do not exist for no reason. A necessary reminder because when we start to really dig in and explore nihilism it gets “real dark real fast.” We need to hold onto the Light at such times.)

At any rate, what then seems to separate the Eternal Shriek from the Forest Door is only that the last fleeting moments are located in a peaceful looking (though ultimately doomed) place. The results end up being identical. The final option of The Good Place ends up being the worst-possible-option of The Bad Place: Annihilation. This is the “solution” the writers came up with. The one they themselves made fun of in previous episodes (rightfully so, because it is terrible.)

And yes, it is that big and important. The *foundation* of ideas is precicely where they either stand firm or topple and crush everyone around them. We must dig deep when it comes to what we think and believe.

Selfishness and “Love”

Here I will break and tackle another awful, awful thing these final episodes support: Complete selfishness as somehow compatible with Love.

Jason is not all that bright. But generally he seems to have a good heart, particularly for those he cares about. Yet after completing a single perfect round of a video game, he chooses to leave the not-a-woman he loves forever. To abandon her, because he just doesn’t feel like sticking around anymore.

What?

But okay. It’s Jason. I was willing to suspend some disbelief for the sake of the character, who is a few crayons short of a box.

Then Chidi does the same thing.

WHAT?

This is utterly absurd. Here the writers want to write what they want to write, rather than be honest. It is one of my biggest convictions that an author must be honest. He or she may nudge things in certain directions, but if the author of a story ever forces a character to do something against their character, that is not only poor writing but completely dishonest. It is the lowest form of storytelling to do such a thing. And we find it here.

Chidi, by his own admission, has a sense of calm and peace. Chidi is just fine. Yet he knows his choice to kill himself (annihilate, really, because we need to be crystal clear on that) will hurt Eleanor deeply. It will cause her extreme pain. He still chooses it.

My friends, that is not love. That is also not Chidi.

Love sacrifices for the beloved. And in this case, Chidi wouldn’t even be sacrificing much if he stayed, because we’ve already established he is at peace and internally calm. So rather than maintain this feeling, or even work to be better IF other feelings arose in the future, he checks out on Eleanor. Quits on her. Deserts her. (Leaving her a hedonistic even if hilarious calendar, no less. Fun joke but morally what the fork.)

Loving relationships in our modern age have taken a severe hit. One reason may be that we think this is how you should treat someone you love. “Me first” has become the battle cry of the age.

No, my friends. Love first. Always.

I anxiously await Heaven and New Earth. But also I love my wife, family, and friends. If I must stay here to support them, I will. Even if “there and then” is better, it doesn’t matter. I love them. I will remain for them. (I will even eat kale and exercise if it means I get to remain here to support them a little longer than if I only ate bacon and browsed Twitter from bed all day.)

Beyond that, I will remain because God has me here for a purpose. But since The Good Place did not deal with such topics, resorting instead to vague concepts of “helping people is good, so totally do it” and the like, I will even abandon this particular train of thought for this discussion. Even if it was ONLY my wife, family, and friends, they are worth it. Love is big enough to cause me to keep going for them.

Yes, Eleanor was noble in letting Chidi go. But Chidi was completely ignoble for going when he knew, without a doubt, she wanted him to remain. That she was not ready.

I think this may be one reason after thousands of years (or whatever a Bearimy is, they keep it vague on purpose and that is very clever of them) Chidi and Elenor are still calling each other “boyfriend and girlfriend.” They REFUSE to commit. Why? Because a husband does not walk out on the wife he loves and we know it. We all know it. Deep inside we know that is not what a husband is meant to do. That would make Chidi a horrific husband. But walk out on a girlfriend? Eh. Sure. Not great, but okay. The world says that’s not so serious. Walk away, dude, no one will care.

Sorry, Good Place writers, I care. I care deeply.

Why?

Here is where we get to the meat of it. WHY do I care? (Especially as a number of people point out to me “it’s just a TV show.”)

I care because I have SEEN what real love brings with it. Bliss. Not hedonistic happiness, but JOY. Ecstasy beyond frivolous ideas like orgasms. Delight beyond mere milkshakes and talking pandas. Glory. Perfection. Eternal Good with no end.

It is better, and it is worth striving for.

What happens when we accept and perpetuate ideas like “It is totally fine to abandon people you love as long as it is in your own best interest” is that it degradates our concept of love itself. Love becomes lesser and watered down. This is the same with divorce. Divorce is never easy. Sometimes it is necessary. But it SHOULD never be easy. And honestly? It SHOULD never be necessary. It’s because of our sin that the necessity arises. Here we see the problem not with eternity, but with eternity WITH sin still permitted. Yes, eternity breaks when we are simply “us” but “forever.” (Even if it is slightly-better-than-on-earth “us.”)

Going back to the idea of love, when we chip away at love and redefine it to mean something lesser we open the doors wide for awful things like what Chidi did and what Jason did. Selfish things. And newsflash, for anyone who didn’t already know, WE WANT TO BE SELFISH. It is in us. We desire to look out for number one, and always have number one be us. This is why the great command is “Love God, and Love your neighbor as yourself.” Because we already know how to love ourselves. Loving ourselves is “I don’t feel like being here in paradise with you anymore, bye.” We are called to do better than that.

Real love is epic, you guys. Real love is flippin ridiculously good. It redefines GOOD itself. We shouldn’t settle for the “this is nice” false love that is tossed around these days as if that is the bar. That is a garbage bar! Raise that puppy to where it belongs!

When you experience the utter glory of God and his love, it changes everything. The cheap love the world peddles becomes laughable. But not just laughable: sad. After I watched the finale and read review after review online where people heralded this idea of “eternity would be boring without death” I cried. I laid on the floor and cried for a world that doesn’t know God. That thinks this is all there is, or that boredom could ever come about from true paradise. Forgive me, but what shallow thinking that is! What despair, without even knowing it.

Alas, this is what people are taught. Let us never forget that Story does not just entertain us, it teaches us. It molds us. This is, sadly, the emptiness The Good Place ends up teaching as its last lesson. “Do good, because it’s good (don’t ask why), but then abandon doing good if it means you get what you want.” Hedonistic Nihilism is the conclusion they offer, spit-shined so you don’t think too hard about it or feel too bad. Yes, feel a little bad, they want you to do that. But not bad enough to really think about how the hope and golden particles of light in a peaceful forest are a trick to shy away from ultimate meaninglessness and selfishness behind it.

This is the final moral of the show, and it is desperately sad. This is the emptiness of Philosophy without God. And when it is sugar-coated like they sugar-coated it, it is a cyanide pill that tastes great and goes down smooth.

You know, until it kills you.

#goodplace #the good place #God #theology #philosophy #review

11 notes · View notes

itsclydebitches · 3 years

Note

God I want so bad to like the dandelion and geralt friendship, it's too mean and just unnecessarily aggressive in the show and I hate dandelion in the game (Though I barely know him but I cannot accept on of the first quests with him cause he literally planned to fuck over a woman he already fucked over once before, and going around to all the women he fucked over when looking for him OOOOOOOO NO) so I rly should read the books lmao, they sound like they really care about each other

For me personally, as someone interested in the portrayal of gender in media and whose knowledge of that absolutely colors readings of character interactions, both Netflix and the TW3 failed to do anything inspiring. Worse, they erased what little complexity we started out with. The game is very focused on Dandelion's playboy nature, to the point where it becomes outright insulting to the women associated with him. To my mind there's nothing inherently wrong with Dandelion sleeping around, it's not even a problem to make the flamboyant guy into that caricature (no matter how stereotypical it may be), but it is discomforting to, as you say, provide this list of women who didn't merely have short-term relationships with him, but were "fucked over" in one manner or another. Women who are waiting for him to return because they believed his lies. Women who are presented as so stupid they can't see past the ridiculous trick he and Geralt are pulling. Women presented as "too" feminine because they want him to do awful things like read to them from romantic stories. Women who are so dense Geralt can make comments about Dandelion's sister having a different father and mother, but they don't pick up on that... It all just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. They're presented as his foolish toys, not his equal lovers. We could have easily gotten a character who just liked sex. Likes hedonism. He's happy enjoying his time with a variety of people and they, in turn, are happy to share that with him. Instead, TW3 presents most of the interactions as conquests, demeaning the women in the process, with Pricilla presented as the mythical, not-like-other-girls woman who therefore deserves Dandelion's actual love. Insert a non-ironic "I can change him" meme here.

In contrast, Netflix presents Jaskier as a little less of a womanizer (so far), but his relationship with Geralt is so shockingly aggressive that I honestly didn't think I was watching the same characters at first. Geralt hates Jaskier's music? Acts like he thinks he's stupid? Is so immersed in his own grief that he lashes out to the extent that he drives Jaskier away? Outright hits him? It's another characterization built on a simplistic understanding of masculinity, in this case not that one man is a womanizer, but that the other, as the tough one of the duo, must be cold, unfeeling, violent, and aggressively dominant. We know ("know") that deep down he's a softie, but a real man — a real witcher, a real action hero — never shows that unless his back is up against the metaphorical wall. Both the game and the show strip Jaskier and Geralt of their complexity, reducing them to a sterilized version of their assumed character types, rather than the original versions that had far more depth. And I don't want to present Sapkowski's work as super progressive from a Western perspective or anything — it's really not, particularly when it comes to how he writes women. That's it's own can of worms... — but for someone who's not really a book fan, the Geralt-Dandelion dynamic was nevertheless one of my favorite parts. The super tough monster hunter unambiguously loves this flamboyant bard and they have philosophical discussions together while helping the local people? Sign me up! And yeah, the Netflix dynamic is its own kind of relationship, it's even one that that audience can (obviously) get super invested in (we love a tsundere), but it's definitely not their relationship — which is what the creators claimed they were adapting and what anyone with a passing knowledge of the books has been led to expect. Which is why the claims of, "But it's only been one season. They're going to develop" fall flat to me because there was no need to start the two in a worse place — to bank so heavily on those gendered stereotypes — when the books never needed that. Do we really think development can only occur through one character starting by hating the other? Or at least pretending to?

I know I've used this example in another post somewhere, but imagine if Harry met Ron on the train and just... really disliked him. Ron forces himself into Harry's presence and is way too annoying about it. He's a tagalong, a nobody, a complete simpleton, talking too much and is way too invested in Harry's fame. (And not in the way book!Ron legitimately struggles with later on. Just in a... “”Wow, this guy is actually the worst” way). Harry spends the entire first movie trying to ditch this guy, or very grudgingly putting up with his presence, going so far as to hex him for the talking about The Boy Who Lived and getting so cruel he drives Ron away before they can go after the stone together. We know, because they're both main characters, that they "really" love each other, but the movie has largely failed to show that. Harry Potter fans would rightly be like, hey... what the fuck lol. This isn't Ron and Harry? At all. You've not only erased the fantastic dynamic they had, you've completely messed with Harry's character by turning him into the very thing he's not supposed to be: a stuck-up, judgmental, overly critical celebrity. What were you thinking? And if people were like, "But it's only the first movie. There are six more on the way!" you'd know it wouldn't really matter. Even if the rest of the movies turn them into the best friends they were always supposed to be, we've lost the original start to their tale. Their future interactions will always be colored by this beginning. And the entire fandom, a good portion of who will only ever see the films, has run with this canon, filling up the community with a thousand "Harry initially can't stand Ron" fics, fanart, and headcanons. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that enjoyment, but fans of the books, particularly those who know the movie was trying to pass itself off as a faithful adaptation, aren't wrong to be frustrated by such a needless change, the impact it's had, and go, "Why didn't you just have Harry smile at Ron on the train and buy him sweets? Why couldn't they just have been friends like they were written?" even if you can simultaneously understand why this new dynamic is interesting and compelling all on its own.

ANYWAY yeah, I would recommend the book dynamic over all others. I'm really only a short story fan, but within that Geralt and Dandelion's interactions are absolutely some of my faves 👍

#witcher #mymetas #harry potter #HP

5 notes · View notes

mikemortgage · 6 years

Text

Material things don’t define happiness, so why are we obsessed with money?

Book excerpt: In Melissa Leong’s latest book, Happy Go Money, the former Financial Post reporter challenges everyone to revamp their relationship with money. Here’s where to start.

“If I only had a little more money, I’d be happier.”

When was the last time that you had this thought? Every day, we make choices based on the idea that joy can be bought and that more money makes everything better. We take the new job with the extra hour in trafﬁc because it pays more. We put a coat on credit because it’s designer. We buy the big house because it has a yard for our future kids and a kitchen island that’s “an entertainer’s dream.”

To be fair, scientiﬁcally speaking, when we see something we want, a new pair of shoes or a gadget, we do feel joy; it triggers a patch of tissue in the brain, the nucleus accumbens, the so-called sex and money area. It gets activated when humans receive a reward, whether drugs, money or food. Then when we buy something, we get a delicious burst of dopamine in the brain.

That sounds sexy and yummy and all, but the euphoria doesn’t last. Then we just need more stuff. All that crap we buy loses its lustre. When the novelty wears off and the shopping high from the endorphin and dopamine dump dissipates, we’re left with a void and possibly regret.

More people are going broke in Canada as interest rates rise

Tax tips to kickstart 2019 for every age group, from teens to seniors

All the frugality in the world won't let this millennial retire at 45

“Why did I spend money on this?!?” we ask. Because I need it. Because I deserve it. Because I had a rough day. Because I have no willpower. Because it was on sale. Because it’s a habit. Because it was a whim, a knee-jerk reaction. But when you get down to it? Because I want to be happy.

So, what do we actually need to be happy? Let’s break down our thoughts on the subject and rebuild. This is me swinging on a wrecking ball (fully clothed) to help.

The magic number

We all need a certain amount of money to be happy. But how much?

For those of us who are on the verge of losing our homes, who fret about feeding our children, who cringe when the phone rings because debt collectors may be calling, without question, more money will make us happier. But for the rest of us, before connecting cash with joy, we need to talk about what we mean by “happy.”

Scientists in neuroeconomics (the study of how we make economic decisions) break happiness into two types:

1. Life satisfaction: an evaluation of your well-being as a whole (the kind of happy where you’re pleased with life in general). 2. Day-to-day mood: the highs and lows; the joy, stress, sadness, anger and affection that you experience from one moment to the next — how you feel today, how you felt yesterday. (The kind of happy that most of us relate to — the right now happiness.)

With life satisfaction, the richer people got, the more satisﬁed they were with their lives. In worldwide studies, people in richer countries reported higher life satisfaction than those in poorer countries. (We should also consider that wealthier countries are more politically stable, more peaceful and less oppressive — which affects well-being.) But according to a 2018 Purdue University study, there was a limit: $95,000 U.S. (pre-tax, per single-family household). Above that, more money didn’t mean that you were more satisﬁed. With day-to-day happiness, the threshold is $60,000 to $75,000 per household, according to various studies. The 2018 study showed that after these salaries are met, life satisfaction and day-to-day happiness actually slightly decrease with more money.

( function() { pnLoadVideo( "videos", "OF6AG33YZlg", "pn_video_800872", "", "", {"controls":1,"autoplay":0,"is_mobile":""} ); } )();

What the what?

Well, apparently, when all of our basic needs are met, we become driven by other desires such as chasing after more material stuff and comparing ourselves to others, which make us unhappy. Also, high incomes can come with high demands (more working hours, more stress and less time with family and for leisure).

This doesn’t mean that we should all go out and try to make exactly $75,000 a year — our so-called feel-good ﬁnancial sweet spot. The studies are averages, and we all need different things to be happy. But all of us ﬁnd joy in some simple things — kisses, laughter, getting ID’d over the age of 25.

Marketing professor Hal Hershﬁeld once told me, “Even if I have an amazing car in my driveway, a huge house and a big fat income, that doesn’t necessarily mean that I’ll be happier on a day-by-day basis, because the types of things that inﬂuence happiness are who I interact with, how I spend my time and the things that I do.”

Think of some of your happiest times in the past week. Were you spending it with people? Were you taking time to enjoy an activity, going for a run or catching up with a good friend? Would a wad of cash have made those moments that much better?

Probably not. If you answered “yes” to the latter question, how much more do you need to be happy? Read on.

Your magic number is probably wrong

Let’s do an exercise together.

How happy are you on a scale of one to ten?

Now think about how much money you have in the bank, your salary. How much more money would you need to be a perfect 10?

Michael Norton, who teaches at Harvard Business School and co-authored Happy Money: The Science of Smarter Spending, surveyed average-income earners and high-net-worth Britons (with a net worth of more than $1 million), and he asked them those questions. “Everybody said two to three times as much money,” Norton told me.

“Why is that a problem?” I asked, estimating the same for myself.

“That’s a problem because people at $1 million said, ‘If I had $3 million, I’d be a perfect 10. Except that people who had $3 million said, ‘If I had $9 million, I’d be a perfect 10.’”

Basically, happiness is on a sliding scale. Think about how much this sucks. No matter what you have, you’ll always want more. Even if you have millions. When you ﬁnd the gold at the end of the rainbow, the pot is just too damn small, and then you’re off again, chasing more rainbows.

It’s like a curse really. It also takes the fun out of my childhood dream of winning a million-dollar lottery. That was the very ﬁrst fantasy I ever had: winning a jackpot and marrying one of the New Kids on the Block (anyone but Danny). I’d have fancy clothes and we’d eat at Red Lobster every weekend. (Still my idea of a hot date today.)

But despite what we may think, winning the lottery doesn’t buy you a one-way ticket to Euphoria Town. Take this famous study from 1978 where researchers asked two very different groups about their happiness: recent Illinois State Lottery winners who scored $50,000 to $1 million and recent victims of catastrophic accidents who were now paraplegic or quadriplegic. They asked the lottery winners and the accident victims to rate how happy they were at that stage of their lives, how happy they were before the life-altering event and how happy they expected to be in a few years. They asked them to rate how pleasant they found simple activities (talking with a friend, watching TV, eating breakfast, buying clothes, getting a compliment, etc.).

Seriously? Who’s happier, the person cruising in the wheelchair or in the Lamborghini?

Yes, the lottery winners were happier in the moment. The winners reported feeling more present happiness. But the people with disabilities rated their future happiness higher. They also enjoyed the simple things in life more: they had more appreciation for the mundane pleasures of things such as hearing a joke or reading a magazine. Actually, research shows a link between high income and a reduced ability to savour small pleasures. Experts blame it on hedonic adaptation — our tendency to just get used to whatever we have. Even a dramatic life improvement eventually becomes the new normal. You don’t smell the roses because they’re everywhere, any time of the day. And research has shown that our inner thermostats are set some-where between happiness and sadness: they can rise and fall depending on circumstance, but they generally return to that baseline. So, if you were a miserable moaner before hitting the jackpot, you’ll likely just be a rich miserable moaner.

In another real-life example, Markus Persson, who created Minecraft and sold it to Microsoft for $2.5 billion in 2014, reportedly bought a $70-million mansion, complete with a candy wall, vodka and tequila bars, designer ﬁre extinguishers (because safety ﬁrst, fashion second) and 15 bathrooms equipped with $5,000 remote-control operated toilets with air deodorizers and heated seats. But in 2015, he tweeted, “Hanging out in Ibiza with a bunch of friends and partying with famous people, able to do whatever I want, and I’ve never felt more isolated.” In another tweet, he said, “The problem with getting everything is you run out of reasons to keep trying, and human interaction becomes impossible due to imbalance.”

Now this could be super depressing to you. For me, it’s reassuring. It tells me that no single event or any material thing or external factor ultimately deﬁnes my happiness. Human beings are adaptable. A million dollars or a misfortune, over time, can become the new normal. Sure, with money, you’ll enjoy stylishly ﬁghting ﬁre with your Louis Vuitton extinguisher, but the riches may also make old pleasures seem less enjoyable.

So remember, there’s a better use of your money than playing the lottery. The odds of winning the Powerball jackpot prize are 1 in 292 million — and odds are that more money won’t guarantee that your days will be happier anyway.

Your happy money to-do list

If you ﬁnd yourself thinking, “If I only had [insert anything], I’d be happy,” challenge it. Ask your partner or co-worker or friend to poke you (lovingly) if they ever hear you say that phrase. It’ll be like that awful baby shower game where you can’t say “baby” — but for your life.

If you’re relying on something (or someone) to make you happy, you’re wasting your time and energy. If afﬁrmations are your jam, write this down and stick it somewhere: “I control my own happiness.”

Name three big things that make you happy regardless of money (good health or a loving partner). Now name three very speciﬁc things (sleeping in on the weekend, your jam on repeat). Repeat the exercise every time you feel crappy about your ﬁnancial situation — or any situation.

Stop playing the lottery. Now. Next time you want to play the lottery, buy someone a coffee or put the money into a donation box instead for a guaranteed happiness payoff.

Money talks

If you think more money would make you happier, how much more?

How would your life be better with more money?

Think of a time when you made less money. Were you unhappier then? How much?

Think of some of your happiest moments from the last week. Would more money have made those moments better?

from Financial Post http://bit.ly/2ADhzza via IFTTT Blogger Mortgage Tumblr Mortgage Evernote Mortgage Wordpress Mortgage href="https://www.diigo.com/user/gelsi11">Diigo Mortgage

#IFTTT #Financial Post

0 notes