Arthur Brooks says we are starving our right brains of love, meaning, mystery, purpose, and (thus) our whole selves of happiness… https://youtu.be/rSJQf72jlGA?is=rylTWtsfMI0oNQnx
Sonja Lyubomirsky has been a leading researcher on the science of happiness for decades. And for just as long, people have asked her: What is the secret?
Dr. Lyubomirsky, a distinguished professor of psychology at the University of California Riverside, has always chafed at this question. The secret to happiness? How ridiculous and reductive.
When pressed, she told me she tends to say something along the lines of: “Connection and relationships. Positive thinking, which includes gratitude. And a sense of control in your life.”
But if she really had to choose one thing, she said, the secret to happiness is “feeling loved.”
That’s the premise of her latest book, “How to Feel Loved,” out today, which she co-wrote with Harry Reis, a professor of psychology at the University of Rochester who studies close relationships...
Linda Holmes was an apostate Phillies fan who only recently returned to fandom for her team, and for baseball. I think she rationalizes it well here, somewhat echoing Roger Angell’s point about the crucial importance of caring— even for something as trivial as the flight of a ball or the fate of professional sports team—as a consistent feature of life.*
“So, here’s the big question: Does this new daily, super-intense fanhood make you happy? Absolutely. The other day, when the Phillies had that walk-off hit, I said to one of the other Phillies fans: “I had honestly started to think that nothing good could happen.” And that applied both to that specific baseball game and to my team in general and in the world, right? I don’t ever want to be misunderstood as if I’m saying: “If your baseball team wins, that makes up for horrible things going on in the world.” Not true. However, I do think it is important to activate the part of your brain that is happy about something. And to keep that part of your brain active and alive. And even if it’s a little bit artificial compared to so many other things, I think it’s really important to activate those brain chemicals, really important to remember that sometimes things are fun and exciting. Sometimes, I can feel excited and happy.”
— Big Fan: Two Friends, 82,490 Miles, and the Wild, Wonderful Sports We Love by Michael Schur, Joe Posnanski https://a.co/0gkG3PNy
==
*“It is foolish and childish, on the face of it, to affiliate ourselves with anything so insignificant and patently contrived and commercially exploitative as a professional sports team, and the amused superiority and icy scorn that the non-fan directs at the sports nut (I know this look - I know it by heart) is understandable and almost unanswerable. Almost. What is left out of this calculation, it seems to me, is the business of caring - caring deeply and passionately, really caring - which is a capacity or an emotion that has almost gone out of our lives. And so it seems possible that we have come to a time when it no longer matters so much what the caring is about, how frail or foolish is the object of that concern, as long as the feeling itself can be saved. Naïveté - the infantile and ignoble joy that sends a grown man or woman to dancing in the middle of the night over the haphazardous flight of a distant ball - seems a small price to pay for such a gift.” Five Seasons
…some have responded by seizing the female obsession with looks, already rooted in misogyny, and rebranding it with maximum toxicity—in other words, by becoming looksmaxxers.
Looksmaxxing is a product of the men’s-rights movement, whose adherents previously gathered in fringe corners of the internet, where they solidified their reactionary community around the conviction that women do not deserve equal rights. Now much of their thinking has infiltrated nu-conservatism, and the rest of us have been forced to learn about Braden Peters, better known as Clavicular—the king of the looksmaxxing sphere. Peters, who is twenty, looks like a hot guy in a fraternity; his most remarkable traits are his obsessive commitment to achieving this beauty—he’s used peptides, supplements, meth, hammers—and the total lack of joy it seems to bring him. (“I have, like, no regard for, like, my happiness,” he said recently, on a podcast. “Like, that seems like a very immature idea.” A few months later, he collapsed at a club after a suspected overdose.) The table of contents on the message board looksmax.org enumerates every aspect of the male physique and life style that can be quantified and improved: more than a dozen sections (Eye Area, Craniology, Penis, etc.) broken into even more arcane subtopics (“Limbal Rings Influence Facial Attractiveness,” “The Falio of a Recessed Anterior Nasal Spine”). It goes without saying, or perhaps can be gleaned from the word “craniology,” that looksmaxxers view race, sexuality, and disability from roughly the same vantage point as that of an early-twentieth-century eugenicist…
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-weekend-essay/our-plastic-surgery-nightmareIf It’s not the only good, it’s still one of the better ones. “While I am opposed to all orthodox creeds, I have a creed myself; and my creed is this. Happiness is the only good. The time to be happy is now. The place to be happy is here. The way to be happy is to make others so. The creed is somewhat short, but it is long enough for this life, strong enough for this world. If there is another world, when we get there we can make another creed.” — Robert Ingersoll Susan Jacoby, The Great Agnostic: Robert Ingersoll and American Freethought
“…Matter-of-factly, he told me about his virtual job, dating apps, social media friends, and video gaming. But then, flatly, he said this: “I feel like I’m living in a simulation.” I asked others if they felt the same way. “Yes, yes—that’s it,” they told me. Life felt unreal: full of false rewards, empty accomplishments, therapeutic talk, and fake experiences, all curated to pass the time as painlessly as possible. I drilled down further: What exactly was missing? And this is where the penny finally dropped for me. What was missing was the one thing that can never be simulated: meaning. Again and again, people said that life was busy but not meaningful. That experiences and relationships felt meaningless. Or that they didn’t know what they were meant to do in work and life. The meaning of life: such a big question that it is the root of a lot of jokes. But it’s no joke in real life, especially when you can’t find it, like millions of people today. To understand why, let’s back up a little to talk more broadly about happiness, which happens to be the subject I study and teach. Researchers define happiness in a variety of ways, but the clearest characterization for me is one that brings meaning into the happiness equation, literally: Happiness = Enjoyment + Satisfaction + Meaning In other words, the happiest people enjoy their lives, take satisfaction in their activities and accomplishments, and have a sense of the meaning of their existence. Enjoyment, satisfaction, and meaning…” — The Meaning of Your Life: Finding Purpose in an Age of Emptiness by Arthur C. Brooks https://a.co/012tqBz8
“…Matter-of-factly, he told me about his virtual job, dating apps, social media friends, and video gaming. But then, flatly, he said this: “I feel like I’m living in a simulation.” I asked others if they felt the same way. “Yes, yes—that’s it,” they told me. Life felt unreal: full of false rewards, empty accomplishments, therapeutic talk, and fake experiences, all curated to pass the time as painlessly as possible. I drilled down further: What exactly was missing? And this is where the penny finally dropped for me. What was missing was the one thing that can never be simulated: meaning. Again and again, people said that life was busy but not meaningful. That experiences and relationships felt meaningless. Or that they didn’t know what they were meant to do in work and life. The meaning of life: such a big question that it is the root of a lot of jokes. But it’s no joke in real life, especially when you can’t find it, like millions of people today. To understand why, let’s back up a little to talk more broadly about happiness, which happens to be the subject I study and teach. Researchers define happiness in a variety of ways, but the clearest characterization for me is one that brings meaning into the happiness equation, literally: Happiness = Enjoyment + Satisfaction + Meaning In other words, the happiest people enjoy their lives, take satisfaction in their activities and accomplishments, and have a sense of the meaning of their existence. Enjoyment, satisfaction, and meaning…” — The Meaning of Your Life: Finding Purpose in an Age of Emptiness by Arthur C. Brooks https://a.co/012tqBz8
“…In moments of despair, I always come back to the words of Robin Wall Kimmerer, who reflects that ‘even a wounded world holds us, giving us moments of wonder and joy. I choose joy over despair. Not because I have my head in the sand, but because joy is what the Earth gives me daily and I must return the gift’. An absence of joy is an act of violence on the Earth itself; it is to ignore the beauty that the world offers us every day, without fail, and despite destruction. Accessing and enacting joyful rage is a rebellion against not only the material impacts of environmental breakdown, but also the mindsets and worldviews that give rise to it. Seeing joyful rage as a way to connect to the living world requires us to be able to not only identify and fight for the systems we want to end, but also imagine those that we want to create.“ https://open.substack.com/pub/princetonuniversitypress/p/reimagine-environmentalism?r=35ogp&utm_medium=ios
Even though so much in life is out of your control, you can train your own mind and regulate your own nervous system. That is huge — and that is in your control. IPMF. —Dan Harris https://www.threads.com/@danharris/post/DZshi34lTd_?xmt=AQG0KCeu8oOIJW-MzSPXEot-Ap_7iRX5apTe42lZdoUoBKTAOmkfPlcjPdwXL4f_Yo38sBM&slof=1
I propose something new: hetero-optimism, in which one does not shy away from the ills (real and imagined) of heterosexuality but considers our own potential for navigating them, still believing that some hope for our romantic future exists.
Much of the disappointment in heterosexuality stems from a place of mismatched expectations. According to the Survey Center of American Life, just over half of single women believe they and their peers are happier than married women. They’re wrong, at least on average: Married women are more likely to report being “very happy” with their lives than single women, and the same goes for men, the General Social Survey has found...
I propose something new: hetero-optimism, in which one does not shy away from the ills (real and imagined) of heterosexuality but considers our own potential for navigating them, still believing that some hope for our romantic future exists.
Much of the disappointment in heterosexuality stems from a place of mismatched expectations. According to the Survey Center of American Life, just over half of single women believe they and their peers are happier than married women. They’re wrong, at least on average: Married women are more likely to report being “very happy” with their lives than single women, and the same goes for men, the General Social Survey has found...
Lots of philosophers have tackled the question of happiness going back to ancient Greece, and there are two main types of happiness according to ancient Greek philosophers as far as I can tell: hedonic and eudaimonic. Can you explain the difference? Hedonic happiness is what a lot of laypeople mean when they say happiness — just a sense of good feeling. Often when we’re thinking of hedonic pleasure, we’re thinking of the really basic stuff: good food, good sex, a feeling of accomplishment. Eudaimonic happiness is bigger. It’s about living a good life. Happiness that comes not just from your own success, your own pleasure, but from other people and from building character. If you look back at the ancient folks like Aristotle, they knew about both, but when push came to shove they were like, Go for the eudaimonic.
In ancient Greece, the big philosophical debate was also if happiness was nature or nurture. What does science say? Are certain people more predisposed to be happy? The way scientists study this is they do these classic studies with twins, and what they generally find is that happiness is heritable. The important thing to know, though, is that the heritability factor is pretty low. It’s about the same rate as what you’d see for religiosity or risk-taking. If your parents were super religious, maybe you’re more likely to be super religious, but it’s not set in stone. That’s the message of happiness: There’s probably some component that’s a little built in, but so much more of it is under our conscious control.
So we can learn to be happy? That’s the premise of my work...
Picture two people on their deathbeds. The first lived comfortably, surrounded by loving family and friends, enjoying diverse pleasures and achievements throughout a long life. The second dedicated herself entirely to fighting injustice, achieving remarkable social change, but at great personal cost. Who lived the better life?
Your answer might depend on what you mean by ‘better’. Philosophers have long recognized that when we call a life ‘good’ we can mean different things. So we could be talking about a life’s moral goodness – how virtuous the person was – or its prudential goodness – how well the life went for the person living it. But there’s a third dimension we often overlook: how meaningful the life was. This gives us three distinct questions we can ask about any life: 1. Was it morally good? 2. Did it go well for the person living it? 3. Was it meaningful?
These questions pull in different directions. A morally exemplary life might involve suffering for others’ sake, making it less prudentially good. A meaningful life might also require sacrifices that reduce personal well-being. Understanding these tensions can help us navigate our choices about how to live.
Here’s where things get philosophically interesting. When we examine what makes lives meaningful, we find striking similarities to what makes lives go well. Theories of both meaning and well-being come in subjective and objective varieties, appealing to overlapping goods, such as love, knowledge, achievement, and aesthetic experience. This raises an uncomfortable question: Is ‘meaning in life’ just another way of talking about well-being? Perhaps then when someone complains that their life lacks meaning, they’re really just saying it lacks important components of well-being.
Consider the parallels. Subjective theories of well-being say your life goes well when you’re satisfied, your desires are fulfilled, or you experience pleasure. Some theories of meaning make identical claims about meaningfulness. Objective theories of well-being point to goods like knowledge, love, and achievement as being valuable for the person who has them. Theories of meaning point to exactly the same goods as sources of life’s significance.
This similarity is puzzling. If meaning and well-being are genuinely distinct, why do their theories look so alike? The most obvious explanation is that they’re actually the same thing – that ‘meaning’ is just a fancy way of talking about certain aspects of well-being…
Arthur has come in for some harsh bashing lately, especially in The New Yorker. It’s not all undeserved. But I’m looking forward to his Vandy commencement and residency this year (a dear family friend is graduating) and appreciate his past contributions to happiness scholarship (and popularizing). And I share his positive feeling for ambitious and aspirational students.
“I was born to be a college professor and, in fact, have been on campuses since I was a baby: My dad was a professor. His dad, too. For me, academia is the family business, and mine as well since I took my first professorship nearly thirty years ago. The research is interesting and rewarding, but even more, the students are my people—ambitious strivers just starting out on what promise to be terrific careers and lives. They give me energy because they always are so inspired by ideas, so purpose-driven, and so enthusiastic.” — The Meaning of Your Life: Finding Purpose in an Age of Emptiness by Arthur C. Brooks
https://news.vanderbilt.edu/2026/04/23/professor-bestselling-author-arthur-c-brooks-to-join-faculty-at-vanderbilt/
In a public statement of its intentions for its Claude chatbot, the artificial intelligence company Anthropic has said that it wants Claude to be “a genuinely good, wise and virtuous agent.” The company raised the moral stakes this month, when it announcedthat its latest A.I. model, Claude Mythos Preview, poses too great a cybersecurity threat to be widely released. Behind the scenes, Anthropic has been trying to shore up the ethical foundations of its products, working with Catholic clergy and consultingwith other prominent Christians to help foster Claude’s moral and spiritual development.
Anthropic’s intentions are admirable, but the project of drawing on religion to cultivate the ethical behavior of Claude (or any other chatbot) is likely to fail. Not because there isn’t moral wisdom in Scripture, sermons and theological treatises — texts that Claude has undoubtedly already scraped from the web and integrated — but because Claude is missing a crucial mechanism by which religion fosters moral growth: a body.
While Claude might have a mind (of sorts) that can process information, it cannot meditate, fast, prostrate itself in prayer, sing hymns in a congregation or participate in other aspects of the physical life of religion. And this makes all the difference: According to the scientific literature, it’s the practice of religion — not merely the believing in it — that brings about its characteristic benefits.
There is robust data, for example, linking religion to greater health and well-being. But that link is not strong for people who merely identify themselves as believers. It’s only when people also practice a faith — attend weekly services, pray or meditate at home — that religion’s benefits become pronounced: The more people “do” religion, the happier and healthier they tend to be...
