Yea this part was insufficiently clear—my bad. The point was not that people lose interest in playing the game after they’ve mastered it. The point was that they no longer need the getting warmers after they’ve mastered it. But they still want to play the game, because they don’t need the getting warmers—or happiness—to motivate them. Fo…
Yea this part was insufficiently clear—my bad. The point was not that people lose interest in playing the game after they’ve mastered it. The point was that they no longer need the getting warmers after they’ve mastered it. But they still want to play the game, because they don’t need the getting warmers—or happiness—to motivate them. For the more complete (and complicated) model, check out the footnote.
Even in that model, though (which makes sense to me), it would seem as if someone who continues to play the game is doing so for the sake of a short-term increase in happiness (or decrease in unhappiness), however minute. This kind of behavior (which could also describe habits like complaining about Twitter on Twitter, or neglecting to practice positive psychology, etc.) might sabotage longterm happiness, but it also sabotages fitness — what’s to stop someone on that basis from arguing “fitness is bullshit; your real goal is happiness”?
"it would seem as if someone who continues to play the game is doing so for the sake of a short-term increase in happiness (or decrease in unhappiness), however minute."
Yes it would seem this way, and it often seems this way to me. But we cannot trust these seemings--they're often bullshit. Things often aren't as they seem. This seeming is precisely the thing I'm challenging. We *don't* play the game for happiness, either short-term or long-term; we play the game for the specific things evolution made us want (e.g. dominance in the case of Twitter pile-ons). And we don't *need* happiness to motivate us. Motivation is different from happiness. Happiness is not there to motivate us; it's there to recalibrate us when we're off-target. Besides, I'm not sure what "long-term happiness" even means. If it means "getting what we want" then sure, we want what we want. But if it means "being in a recalibrational state at some point in the future" or "being in a constant state of recalibration" then it is clearly not what we want. And even if we did want it, we couldn't get it, because recalibration requires expectation-violation, and we cannot pursue something if it's never what we expect.
Do we know though that people don’t want to be in a constant state of recalibration? A lot of human behavior after all is prompted by boredom or a baseline dissatisfaction to which people tend to return no matter how much fitness or how many resources they acquire. Even (especially?) millionaires and world-class athletes find themselves bored without a goal to pursue or a challenge to stimulate them. (And by a similar token, it's possible to improve one's overall mood by weaning oneself off of a need for stimulation, for instance by avoiding Twitter or taking up meditation.)
Yea this part was insufficiently clear—my bad. The point was not that people lose interest in playing the game after they’ve mastered it. The point was that they no longer need the getting warmers after they’ve mastered it. But they still want to play the game, because they don’t need the getting warmers—or happiness—to motivate them. For the more complete (and complicated) model, check out the footnote.
Even in that model, though (which makes sense to me), it would seem as if someone who continues to play the game is doing so for the sake of a short-term increase in happiness (or decrease in unhappiness), however minute. This kind of behavior (which could also describe habits like complaining about Twitter on Twitter, or neglecting to practice positive psychology, etc.) might sabotage longterm happiness, but it also sabotages fitness — what’s to stop someone on that basis from arguing “fitness is bullshit; your real goal is happiness”?
"it would seem as if someone who continues to play the game is doing so for the sake of a short-term increase in happiness (or decrease in unhappiness), however minute."
Yes it would seem this way, and it often seems this way to me. But we cannot trust these seemings--they're often bullshit. Things often aren't as they seem. This seeming is precisely the thing I'm challenging. We *don't* play the game for happiness, either short-term or long-term; we play the game for the specific things evolution made us want (e.g. dominance in the case of Twitter pile-ons). And we don't *need* happiness to motivate us. Motivation is different from happiness. Happiness is not there to motivate us; it's there to recalibrate us when we're off-target. Besides, I'm not sure what "long-term happiness" even means. If it means "getting what we want" then sure, we want what we want. But if it means "being in a recalibrational state at some point in the future" or "being in a constant state of recalibration" then it is clearly not what we want. And even if we did want it, we couldn't get it, because recalibration requires expectation-violation, and we cannot pursue something if it's never what we expect.
Do we know though that people don’t want to be in a constant state of recalibration? A lot of human behavior after all is prompted by boredom or a baseline dissatisfaction to which people tend to return no matter how much fitness or how many resources they acquire. Even (especially?) millionaires and world-class athletes find themselves bored without a goal to pursue or a challenge to stimulate them. (And by a similar token, it's possible to improve one's overall mood by weaning oneself off of a need for stimulation, for instance by avoiding Twitter or taking up meditation.)