Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Possibly an interesting Master's thesis

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I'm a grad student in psychology, and my faculty advisor is old, tenured and doesn't have many friends in the department, which means he is open to me doing non-traditional research.

First a little background. In psychology, both research and counseling, a few ideas are held to be self-evident, or at least "just how it is." Among these are:

1. Altruism leads to happiness. The more you help people, the happier you are.

2. Faith in any god or gods leads to happiness, for one or more of the following reasons: Faith gives a person guidence in his or her life- being given rules to live by by God or religious leaders keeps people from being anxious about the decisions they make. Being part of a religious group gives a person an instant social group of like-minded people, and having lots of social support makes people happier.

Additionally, being part of a faith group and being altruistic generally go hand-in-hand. (I don't mean that religious people are more altruistic. I mean that religious organizations often do community-oriented things, such as soup kitchens, building houses, mission trips etc.)

3. Another assumption that is made (though the research is not as supportive of this point) is that people in collectivist cultures (think Japan, for example) are generally happier than people from indiviualistic cultures (think America). Also, within the same culture, people who score higher on collectivism scales (people who place more importance on their social group or family) tend to be happier. (The validity of dividing cultures into a Indiviualism / Collectivism dicotomy is begining to be questioned, but the terms are still used quite frequently.)

Now, as it turns out, for many, many people, these assumptions hold true (though the findings on the third one are shakier and more complicated). People who are involved in community service often score higher on happiness or satisfaction scales. People who go to church, or at least believe in some god, also tend to report higher happiness / contentment with their lives. Rogers, the first Humanism counselor (1950's or so) often told people who were depressed to go help other people, perform some kind of community service, and many of his clients experienced a lifting of their depression.

My question to you is this- Would it be worth studying happiness in Objectivists? After poking around on these forums, it struck me that people who have been living by Objectivism for a long time (I mean, not someone who is going through the growing pains of realizing they haven't thought at all during thier life) seem to be very happy people. Content. Confident in their abilities to interact with the world, and secure in the knowledge that they are great humans. ALSO: Not altruistic in the way the word is used in psychology. ALSO: Aethists. ALSO: The strongest individualists in existence. Unless I am off the mark in some major way, this would make for a very interesting paper. (That probably wouldn't be published, but who knows...)

What are your thoughts on this? Do you think that Objectivists are the happiest people around?

(I want to make it clear that I view you all as human beings, not just potential data points. It would be easy to take this all in the wrong way, so please please don't think that I want to poke you all with a stick to see what you do.) :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ALSO: Not altruistic in the way the word is used in psychology. 

This confused me since it seems to suggest that Objectivists are altruistic in some other way. I doubt this is what you meant... :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adleza,

What is the hypothesis you would seek to prove?

Would it be: "Altruism and religion are not correlated with happiness?"

Or would it be something broader?

For instance: "Purpose and philosophy are correlated with happiness even when they do not come from altruism and religion, respectively?"

The advantage I see in the latter is that it does not run the (probably insurmountable) task of attempting to invalidate existing research, but rather shows that the existing research -- while valid in its context -- is too narrow in its interpretation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are your thoughts on this?  Do you think that Objectivists are the happiest people around?

I'm not sure that's an idea that could be conclusively proven. Philosophically, you might be able to suggest that Objectivists hold the highest potential to become the happiest a human can be, but that might be outside the realm of psychology.

Additionally, I would say that while an Objectivist may be extremely sure of himself and his actions, his happiness would still vary depending on his ability to successfully achieve his particular goals in life. If one goal (say, a marriage to a wonderful person) is blocked (because they can't/haven't yet found a suitable partner), their happiness may still be limited even if their self-confidence is intact.

So are you looking at making a psychological connection between happiness and self-esteem as they relate through individualistic tendencies? I've read extremely basic material about the positive aspects of the Type A behaviours, when certain ideals are realized (such as seeing life as a challenge instead of an obstacle). They immediately made me think of an Objectivist's mindset.

The previous poster had good suggestions as well. It almost seems to be the case (to me anyway) that perhaps you haven't narrowed down the topic quite enough. So indulge us :lol: What is the topic you're heading towards, specifically?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's probably a danger of getting Objectivism lumped in with religion if you present it badly, but it certainly sounds like an interesting topic, and one I would like to read. I would imagine that most people who are seriously committed to an ideology, be it religion, Objectivism or Marxism, would be happier than the average person due to the sense of meaning and purpose which can be derived from having an overarching set of principles which integrate your life. But even with that caveat, I think Objectivists would be happier than most, due to the overwhelmingly positive aspects of the philosophy.

Edited by Hal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few weeks ago, maybe a month, Time magazine had a special report on happiness and what makes people happy. In reading the various articles, it became clear, though never stated, that the best correlation to happiness was what I would describe as the strength of one's values. Since most non-religious people are also largely amoral (Objectivists excluded, of course), and conversely those with strong values tend to get them from their religion, I don't find it surprising that the academic research has shown a correlation between religiosity and happiness, and by extension between altruism and happiness. An interesting topic might be to discover the extent to which these two, religiosity and altuism, have been mistakenly used as surrogates for strength of values.

There was also an article in the magazine that pointed out that those with colltivistic value systems (the article was discussing religion specifically, but it could apply to other systems as well), might be more inclined to say that they're happy, because they feel that any hint of dissatisfaction would reflect poorly on the group, which of course they regard as more important than their own personal happiness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This confused me since it seems to suggest that Objectivists are altruistic in some other way.  I doubt this is what you meant... :lol:

Ah... sorry. While I was writing that I was thinking of another post that included a link to a Department of Altruism at a university. Bad stuff. I mean altruism as sacrifice in order to help another. But I just now went and looked in a dictionary, and that seems to be the actual definition. So nevermind. I'll rephrase that: Objectivists are not altruistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adleza,

What is the hypothesis you would seek to prove?

[snip]

... but rather shows that the existing research -- while valid in its context -- is too narrow in its interpretation.

Right, to clarify, my intention would be basically that last sentence there. Most psychology tends to lump everyone in together, in the search for an average to write about. Another thing on my mind while writing this is my experience with some counselors, and the experience of another poster with a counselor- basically if you don't fit the norm, many counselors will encourage you to forget about your set of values, because they are obviously wrong and / or hurtful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... his happiness would still vary depending on his ability to successfully achieve his particular goals in life. 

[snipping!]

....What is the topic you're heading towards, specifically?

Ah! Of course! You know, oddly enough, I hadn't thought of the first point you made.

What Evangelical said: "An interesting topic might be to discover the extent to which these two, religiosity and altuism, have been mistakenly used as surrogates for strength of values."

This would be closest to what I was looking to investigate, and would make a fantastic research question. Thank you :lol: My mom gets Time, I'll see if she can dig that one up for me.

(On an unrelated note, is there a way to quote and respond to multiple people within one post, so I don't have to make multiple posts?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, as it turns out, for many, many people, these assumptions hold true (though the findings on the third one are shakier and more complicated).  People who are involved in community service often score higher on happiness or satisfaction scales.  People who go to church, or at least believe in some god, also tend to report higher happiness / contentment with their lives.  Rogers, the first Humanism counselor (1950's or so) often told people who were depressed to go help other people, perform some kind of community service, and many of his clients experienced a lifting of their depression.

I want to resopnd to why I believe the above generally holds true.

In my life, I was taught several things:

1) Do what your parents ask of you.

2) Listen to your teachers.

3) Listen to authority figures.

The overall message was, "do as you are told"and "don't trust yourself, trust those in positions of authority". How did I work to achieve that? By looking out, and trying to learn what others wanted of me. By trying to see how I could make them happy, or at least avoid making them angry. I still did things for myself, but inside the box left untouched by the expectations of others.

Because I was taught to fear and feel ashamed of losing the approval of those in authority, it was only natural for me to seek happiness by gaining the approval of others (whether or not it was what I really wanted, or whether they deserved anything from me).

It was only recently that I learned this about myself. That even though I loved Rand and her ideas, I subconsciously would thwart myself, always trying to avoid that pain that would result by taking actions that might give other people cause to be upset with me (even sacrificing my values in the process).

In addition to learning a lot about myself in this regard, it gave me new insight into the actions of other people around me. That's not to say that everyone acts by the same motivations. That's clearly not the case.

Just the same, it is crystal clear to me why people would find a sense of happiness by helping others whom they may not care about in the culture of today, given what some (and I suggest many) of us are taught, and what is reinforced from many sides. When society tells you to seek to be "accepted" by others, it can not be a surprise that many people try to do just that.

And it should be no surprise that people can gain some sense of happiness from that. What are they shown as an alternative? The hedonist who cares nothing for others, who defies his parents, his teachers, the authority figures, his peers, who refuses to fit in. They don't see any other way to be happy. After all, doing for yourself is "greedy".

To huddle with the crowd and gain their approval, or to stand alone and be at war with the world. This is the false alternative that I believe traps and confuses many good people. They just don't see that they can be independent and be happy. And that doing so does not confine them to a life of lonliness, isolation, and bitterness.

Also consider the courage and independence required to be independent; the possible ostracism as well as the impact on ones world-view of accepting the fact that you are not wrong, all those other people are (the tendency to accept a malevolent worldview).

And so I urge you not to take at face-value any notion that community service is the key to happiness, or be confused by the findings. Over the long run, those who live to satisfy others whom they don't genuinely care for will become an empty shell. I know people who fit that description quite comfortably. They gain a moments feeling of happiness here and there, but they are not happy with themselves, and it's obvious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(On an unrelated note, is there a way to quote and respond to multiple people within one post, so I don't have to make multiple posts?)

It's easiest if you type in the code, but The Rules encourage us to make multiple posts when responding to multiple people to avoid confusion. No one will complain if you make a bunch of posts responding to different people in a row.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People who call themselves Objectivists are not a particularly sad or happy bunch.

I could say the real Objectivists among them are happy, but I doubt I could defend myself in argument.

Strength of values again, or perhaps strength of belief. I'm assuming "real" Objectivists to mean people that are fairly well cognizant of Ayn Rand's readings, understand the underlying structure, agree with it, and attempt to implement it?

Adleza: it might be best to present Objectivists simply as people with a strong, definite philosophical structure that lacks the two factors you're trying to isolate: altruism and mysticism. You may also want to see if you can find other people that fit those criteria (if any such exist?) and survey them also.

Defining mysticism may be difficult, just remember that any collectivist system has mysticism of some kind at its root and you can probably weed them out pretty easily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...