Tall, Dark, and Handsome, or Overweight, Old, and Unattractive?

Written by

It is likely the most important, yet most illusive goal one can pursue. Different strategies for achieving it have been passionately debated throughout the ages. The goal: achieving lasting happiness.

What makes people happy? Which, if any, factors are universal across all races, genders, and locations? The New York Times’ Nicholas Kristof explored this issue in his Op-Ed column, irresistibly titled, “Our Basic Human Pleasures: Food, Sex and Giving.” Borrowing examples from University of Virginia psychology professor Jonathan Haidt, he poses the question, “who would you rather trade places with?”

First up is Richard: “an ambitious 36-year-old white commodities trader in Florida. He’s healthy and drop-dead handsome, lives alone in a house with a pool, and has worked his way through a series of gorgeous women.”

Next is Lorna: “a 64-year-old black woman in Boston. She’s overweight and unattractive, even after a recent nose job. Lorna is on regular dialysis, but that doesn’t impede her active social life or babysitting her grandchildren. A retired school assistant, she is close to her 67-year-old husband and is much respected in her church for directing the music committee and the semiannual blood drive.”

The somewhat predictable outcome is that Lorna is more likely to live the happier life. As you may already know, our class spent the beginning of the semester reading Robert Putnam’s Bowling Alone, in which he argues vehemently for the positive impacts of social capital. Putnam argues social capital creates a positive impact in all areas of people’s lives, including the social, political, and economic realms. Looking into recent studies on happiness in different groups, the data seems to suggest Putnam was right (at least when it comes to happiness).

Moving across the NYTimes website to the Freakonomics blog, we are shown some interesting and pleasing findings on happiness inequality: the gaps in race and gender are shrinking. The gap between those with more education and those with less education appears to be widening, but this fits with our expectations based on Putnam’s social capital arguments. The benefits of higher education are myriad: a better functioning democracy, a better understanding of the world and each other, more fulfilling careers and countless others. Let’s be sure not to forget one of the most important and often overlooked benefits: happiness.

If you’re interested in reading more, Jonathan Haidt’s book on the subject can be found here: The Happiness Hypothesis.

– Terry Hayes
(Twitter: @TCHayes
Blog: The Sunroom)

Comments

11 responses to “Tall, Dark, and Handsome, or Overweight, Old, and Unattractive?”

February 21, 2010

Nikki Perrotti

I was intrigued when I read this “blog of happiness” so to speak. What REALLY is happiness? Why does the person that seems to have it all never the happy one compared to the person with no money and 1,000 friends? Not to be cynical or anything, but I am starting to think that happiness itself is a brand. Throughout our IMC class, we talked about Branded Nation and how churches (and religion, not faith), museums, and universities have all become part of a brand. Is it so far fetched that happiness would be a form of a brand as well? We have learned many lessons from society explaining to us that money can’t buy happiness and true joy can only come from friends and family etc etc. Happiness is what we have made it out to be; a PBS special that says that wealth is the obvious polar opposite of happiness. I’m pretty sure Angelina Jolie, with all of her wealth, is pretty content with her life of good deeds, movies, and adoption. I’m not arguing all of the studies done saying John Doe is miserable with his million dollar play boy life and Jane Doe is content despite her hardships because of her 26 year marriage to her high school sweetheart. It is what it is. And it makes sense because that’s always what society told us would happen. I’m just saying that maybe, POSSIBLY, John Doe really is happy with his bachelor life and Jane has been stuck in an abusive marriage since her teens and simply plasters on a happy face because that’s what society tells her to do. Maybe I am wrong and happiness is not a brand at all and I am just way too skeptical of the human race and our inherently selfish society. To be honest, I really hope I am.

Reply
1. February 22, 2010
  
  tchayes
  
  Thank you for commenting Nikki.
  
  I agree that happiness is nothing more than the meaning each person attributes to it, much like the word “love.” Also, I hope it was clear that I don’t believe being wealthy is detrimental to a person’s happiness. The point is that regardless of wealth, class, and success, the benefits of social capital are relevant to all people in society. The damages of not fostering social capital are destructive to all people in society as well, although the poor are likely to feel the effects greater.
  
  Reply
February 22, 2010

Lauren Locke

How can an individual really achieve lasting happiness? Isn’t this “happiness” what all humans are really searching for through the process of buying a product? Aren’t we all really searching for a product that will make us a better people or fulfill our direct needs, wants or desires. Sure, some people fill the void with religion or relationships but ultimately the pressure is still there. The ad campaigns are still out there tempting us…they allure us…”if you only had me, your life would be better. You might actually be…HAPPY.”

As we have read in Twitchell’s Branded Nation. He speaks about how many facets of life that we never usually think about are branded. How churches market themselves to attract consumers, how colleges attract new students and even museums have to compete for their market share. But really what are they competing for? In my opinion, they all want to convince us that with this or that product…YOU will be Happy! The difficulties in this begin when something different makes each individual happy. This is why Harvard is attractive to some while UNCW is attractive to others, this uniqueness is the challenge. The root of the challenge lies in what inspires an individual’s happiness.

Reply
1. February 22, 2010
  
  tchayes
  
  Thanks for your feedback Lauren.
  
  I agree with you that marketers typically position products in a way that suggests: “You’re unhappy, but you don’t have to be. Buy our product and feel better!” I don’t necessarily even have a problem with this, but it’s quite clear that this model can’t work for sustainable, lasting happiness.
  
  It reminds me of a quote in Liar’s Poker, discussing the attitude of Wall Street traders and the insatiable hunger for more money, “You don’t get rich in this business, you just attain new levels of poverty.”
  
  As marketers, you couldn’t be more right: “The root of the challenge lies in what inspires and individual’s happiness.” Well said.
  
  Reply
February 22, 2010

Ryan Kelley

It is interesting to see happiness try to be defined. It is diffucult to find the right words to describe your happiness other than just beig happy. As Nikke posted before we have been learning about how everything is branded. Branded Nation has opened my eyes to the branding of religion, schools, and even museums. This leads me to ask, is happiness branded? Are we told by advertisers what makes us happy? I don’t think, but some might argue different.

We should do things because they make us hppy. Some ads try and tell us what makes us happy. Buy this car because it will make you happy or buy this beer because it promotes a happy liffestyle. I just want to say that we shouldn’t lose sight of what makes us happy. Be happy for all the right reasons not the wrong ones.

Reply
February 22, 2010

Megan Regele

I was really interested in this blog and in the question “What makes people happy?” This has been a long-standing issue and it is hard to define happiness and the source of one’s happiness, because there are so many aspects in life that could cause it. Although there can be many causes of happiness, there has been a gradual shift towards a common belief of what makes a person happy. Many people believe that having a family, having a group of good friends, getting a good education, having a good job, being rich, having a nice house, having a nice car, and having the luxuries in life is what defines one’s happiness. After being in IMC for the past two months, I know see that much of this belief of what happiness is can be attributed to marketing and branding. We always are constantly bombarded with messages each and everyday that talk about happiness and show one story of happiness, which often times we assume to be the truth and start patterning our lives after those messages. I know that many people have learned the lessons in the hard way that money and fame do not buy happiness. Happiness is not something that can be branded, yet marketers keep pushing towards that because they know that people will adopt their views and start living the way that the messages have told them to.

Reply
February 22, 2010

Haley Williams

The relationship between beauty and happiness is often misunderstood. We all think that having the right clothes, grooming the right way, and carrying ourselves correctly will lead to happiness when in reality it is all too often the simpler, not materialistic things that will lead to a greater happiness. I think we too often SEEK and search for happiness when it can be found in the things we take for granted every day.

As we have been discussing branding in our COM 295 class, I have found myself truly analyzing how branding effects me and my decision making. It is so easy for brands to create a sense of happiness through their products that consumers get caught up in the marketing and advertising and oftentimes do not think for themselves whether or not the product is bringing them happiness. It is very important, as consumers, that we realize that we are being marketed to and make decisions for ourselves on how satisfying or unsatisfying products are and that through this, we define our own happiness.

Reply
February 23, 2010

Meghan French

There is a quote that I used for my senior picture in our high school year book by Democritus and it says that, “Happiness resides not in posessions and not in gold; the feeling of happiness dwells in the soul.” Being a naive high school senior, I thought this was true; that I was utimately the only person who could make myself happy. Although I still agree with this, I have to wonder… If there is no feeling of happiness in possessions then why am I so happy to buy something I really wanted? The key phrase here being, “really wanted.” Why do I always have a burning desire to buy the latest trends? and once I do I feel a sense of satisfaction. Well I have these burning desires and wants because of marketeres. They have inspired my own personal happiness that resides in opjects outside of my soul.
This can also be true for schools. We possess a higher education because we want to learn, yes but because we want to go further in life. Since money the one thing in our culture that it’s ok to have an addiction to. It makes you wonder, how much of all this fits into Putnam’s Social Capital Arguments?

Reply
February 23, 2010

Constantia Belleza Paat

From my point of view, the basic things that people need in their life are: love and happiness. As a student majoring Communication sometimes these motives got me thinking: are we taking advantage of what people need in their life with the work that we “communication people” do?
Chuck Palahniuk; a novelist and journalist that wrote the novel Fight Club; once said that “Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy sh*t we don’t need”.
Since we are living in a world of consumerism, it got to the point where we think that materialistic things will make us happy. However referring back to the article Our Basic Human Pleasures: Food, Sex and Giving, happiness does not necessarily have to come from materialistic things. Advertising should make people buy things that can compliment their happiness, instead of making it the ultimate happiness.

Reply
February 23, 2010

tchayes

Thanks for the comments everyone. You’ve all raised some interesting discussion topics.

There seems to be a shared sense among you that advertising has negative consequences on our ability to achieve lasting happiness. It’s certainly true that advertising often leads people to pursue trivial things that only provide transient moments of happiness, and then leave them wanting more. To some extent however, isn’t this the job of advertisers?

I believe that people should take time to evaluate what makes them happy, and also to establish the difference between pleasure and happiness. I think this responsibility rests on individual people and their families.

Simply put, I don’t think that advertisers should be held accountable for establishing people’s values and teaching them how to live their lives.

Reply
February 24, 2010

Dr. Persuit

Good discussion everyone!
The distinction between happiness and pleasure is an important one. Aristotle said that “Happiness is labor worthy of being done.” I’d say advertising as it stands today skews more toward pleasure than happiness.
However – not all advertising is large-scale, brand image advertising. B2B advertising takes a different perspective, as do local ads for local firms. Advertising as a phenomenon is not inherently good or evil. Just as we can look at PR as a means to a more engaged and civil society, so can we hope for – and create – advertising that promotes good social capital, instead of just pleasure.

Reply