• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Is "happiness" a biological/hereditary trait?

guesswho

Active member
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
1,977
MBTI Type
ENTP
Is "happiness" a biological/hereditary trait?
If so, it's pursuit seems rather irrelevant.

I'm not talking about the ideal concept of happiness, more like the little things that make some people happy and have no effect on others.

Of course, nothing that behavioral is 100% bio, there is also a cognition component to it. I'd say 50%-50%.

I was with 3 friends out tonight and one of them said that I always seem rather melancholic, pointing out that all of us have a default mode and that's mine, but I don't necessarily see myself as melancholic all the time. The idea is that one of my friends is my opposite, he's always happy with basically very little.

And most people I know have this default mood. I see my mood as neutral, not necessary unhappy.

So if unhappiness is regarded as being somewhat biological, can we say happiness is the same?
Can we assume that achievement is not necessary in order to reach some kind of self satisfaction? Because most overachieving people don't seem that happy, it's the ordinary people who seem to be happy, living a simple life, without too much fancyness.
( I specifically chose achievement, because that's the most common happiness myth)

Of course, my view on this issue seems terribly one sided, ignoring the rest of things, but I'm willing to give biology a 50% slice, if not more.
 

Stanton Moore

morose bourgeoisie
Joined
Mar 4, 2009
Messages
3,900
MBTI Type
INFP
Is it possible that when someone seems to be unhappy, that this is simply a perception of the viewer and not the person's intent? In other words, it could be that your friends perceive you as more unhappy than you feel.
There are lots of reasons why someone may seem meloncholic or obsequious that are based in experience rather than a set-point for happiness or contentment. My mother was always trying to put on a happy face for my meloncholic father, but I don't think that was a reflection of her true nature. It was an expedient, necessary at a certain time and place.
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
Maybe. Some people seem prone to a perpetually low-grade dysphoric or melancholic mood, while other people have bigger ups and downs - they seem to feel more happiness and more sadness. People in my family tend to be this way (greater sense of happy/sad), at least on my mom's side, though it could just as easily be cultural as biological.
 

Bri

New member
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
106
MBTI Type
INTJ
Looking at it in a totally unscientific way, I don't think moods are inherited. I don't think I have the same base mood as my mother or father, or any aunts, uncles, or any grandparent that I can recall. Of course, I did not know any of them when they were in their early 30's, so I could be wrong about that.

The biology of the brain is likely inheritable, but we each have to form our own synaptic structures as we grow, learn and experience life. Consider that the average quality of life during my childhood in the 1980's was probably 2x better than the average quality of life my father had as a child in the 1950's. My moods could be more similar to people who had upbringings much like my own - two parent household, stay at home mother, limited alcohol/no drug use in the home, raised with strong religious/moral convictions, witnessed the birth of cable television, etc.

:p
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
I dunno there seem to be plenty of dysphoric people from middle-class two parent households, and plenty of people who are happy with relatively little who were raised in near poverty.
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
But now I wonder - if the real underlying cause is a focus on love in the home, or an over-focus on achievement.

If you were raised in an environment where you were constantly pushed to achieve and felt like you could only be loved if you were special and accomplished certain things, would you not go through life never satisfied unless you were constantly acquiring? (unless you got therapy or a had a major epiphanal life shift)
 

Bri

New member
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
106
MBTI Type
INTJ
I dunno there seem to be plenty of dysphoric people from middle-class two parent households, and plenty of people who are happy with relatively little who were raised in near poverty.
Any idea if most of those people have parents with the same base mood/temperament?

If you were raised in an environment where you were constantly pushed to achieve and felt like you could only be loved if you were special and accomplished certain things, would you not go through life never satisfied unless you were constantly acquiring? (unless you got therapy or a had a major epiphanal life shift)
It seems like classic nature vs. nurture. guesswho may be on to something with the 50% slice idea.
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
I honestly thought all of this actually had something to do with personality type, as well. Like...aren't NTs supposed to be more phlegmatic, and are therefore more emotionally "level." Wouldn't an INTJs emotional baseline be somewhat different than many other people around them, apart perhaps from maybe INTP and ISTJ being the most similar in temperament.

I find that my emotional temperament is most similar to my ExFP mother and sister, my brain workings are most similar to my ENFJ sister, but that my family tends to be made happy overall by simple things, because we realize how important those simple things are. I think that's an ethical or cultural outlook as opposed to a biological one, but I could be wrong.
 

guesswho

Active member
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
1,977
MBTI Type
ENTP
So can it be fair to assume that we experience things to the extent that our brain lets us experience them, therefor not being able to experience other things because of our biology? So other things outside of our own limits might exist, but we're unable to experience them? And we're so familiar to our own point of reference, reality, that imagining one from another point of reference is way difficult if not impossible? And what we experience as being the foundation of reality is just what other animals might experience, for instance a monkey, but in a more advanced way. The monkey itself when being compared to other animals might appear high tech, as we may appear when compared to the money.

So we are the top animal in our system, on Earth. But looking at the entire universe, Earth is just a tiny fraction, there's no big difference between Earth compared to the Universe, and a particle of sand in the desert compared to the Universe. Odds are that we are not the top animal of the Universe, and the ways in which we can biologically evolve are limitless.

But this is totally unrelated and I think I should stop watching so much sci-fi.:doh:
Si kicking in.
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
I seriously don't believe that all that many things are completely rooted in biology, though certainly some are, and I wouldn't call it impossible to imagine what other people experience.


It seems perfectly obvious to me that most people - and their larger social constructs - are combination of nature and nurture.
 

rav3n

.
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
11,655
Consider subject A who comes from a household full of laughter, love, security and warmth. Consider subject B who comes from a morose and dour household, where they're never good enough. Wonder which one will be the happier adult?
 

guesswho

Active member
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
1,977
MBTI Type
ENTP
No I was thinking what it would be to experience things trough a radically different 'biology'. I think everything's rooted in biology, but in the end it's what you do with that, the way you develop.
This:
The biology of the brain is likely inheritable, but we each have to form our own synaptic structures as we grow

Which I think is the same with" nature and nurture " but said differently.

Consider subject A who comes from a household full of laughter, love, security and warmth. Consider subject B who comes from a morose and dour household, where they're never good enough. Wonder which one will be the happier adult?

As I said, the nurture part is 50%. If subject A's father suffers from clinical depression, he can likely inherit the condition, and be quite unhappy no matter how much love he receives. The hereditary factor being the other 50%.

And I was wondering if this is valid for depression can it not be valid for "well being"?
 

nolla

Senor Membrane
Joined
May 22, 2008
Messages
3,166
MBTI Type
INFP
I was with 3 friends out tonight and one of them said that I always seem rather melancholic, pointing out that all of us have a default mode and that's mine, but I don't necessarily see myself as melancholic all the time. The idea is that one of my friends is my opposite, he's always happy with basically very little.

I am usually on the happy side with very little. I've been observing people with different approaches to life and it seems like the ones that are mostly happy have different sort of philosophy behind their lives than the ones who are a bit on the negative side.

First of all, it seems that all authoritarian people are slightly unhappy. I find this quite logical, since in the authoritarian game it is very easy to say who is the loser, but not so easy to say that someone is a winner. You know, even the ones on the very top of the game are so stressed out by the possibility they might fall. Basically it is a constant uphill battle. No happy people there.

Ok, then another huge group of people, the science people. If someone follows the scientific thought long enough they will see themselves as a tiny particle inside a huge universe. Other than that, they don't have any control of anything, it is all just a chain reaction. Unfortunately these news seem to be taken negatively. It could be said like "Look at this: We are part of a huge explosion, circling around a spark called sun with a speck of dust called earth! Isn't that awesome!!" I think there is something in the culture that makes us interpret science negatively.

Then there are all kinds of people with some psychological blocks that result in focusing life on only one or two aspects (either running for them, or away from them) , and this seems to lead to unhappiness as well.

And then there are all the isolated people who don't have real connections with other people and who don't even have a real connection between their work and their survival. What I mean is that the things they do don't feel concrete. It would feel very concrete to grow a garden and store the harvers and eat it. It would feel very concrete to do this with your friends and family, in order to support all of you. I think that money as a medium is making real world achievement- like collecting ripe fruit from the supermarket -feel to abstract.

So, to sum up. I don't think it is biological, in most cases. It has a lot to do with the society. We are given enormous stress to keep the system running, and we are isolated of the real achievements of our work, and isolated from other people. I don't find it surprising at all that people are unhappy.
 

guesswho

Active member
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
1,977
MBTI Type
ENTP
We'll never know : )
But we can speculate though...
 

Kasper

Diabolical
Joined
May 30, 2008
Messages
11,590
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Ever wonder why we talk of the "pursuit" of happiness? Cause it doesn't come easy and is hard to hold onto, for anyone. The main difference seems to stem from a person's innate optimism or pessimism, what we choose to focus on, there's certainly patterns in Enneagram in regards to that. So I guess the question is what do you think determines our Enneagram type?
 

Such Irony

Honor Thy Inferior
Joined
Jul 23, 2010
Messages
5,059
MBTI Type
INtp
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Is Our Happiness Preordained?
Though most of us spend a lifetime pursuing happiness, new research is showing that that goal may be largely out of our control. Two new studies this month add to a growing body of evidence that factors like genes and age may impact our general well-being more than our best day-to-day attempts at joy.

In one study, researchers at the University of Edinburgh suggest that genes account for about 50% of the variation in people's levels of happiness — the underlying determinant being genetically determined personality traits, like "being sociable, active, stable, hardworking and conscientious," says co-author Timothy Bates. What's more, says Bates, these happiness traits generally come as a package, so that if you have one you're likely to have them all.

Bates and his Edinburgh colleagues drew their conclusions after looking at survey data of 973 pairs of adult twins. They found that, on average, a pair of identical twins shared more personality traits than a pair of non-identical twins. And when asked how happy they were, the identical twin pairs responded much more similarly than other twins, suggesting that both happiness and personality have a strong genetic component. The study, published in Psychological Science, went one step further: it suggested that personality and happiness do not merely coexist, but that in fact innate personality traits cause happiness. Twins who had similar scores in key traits — extroversion, calmness and conscientiousness, for example — had similar happiness scores; once those traits were accounted for, however, the similarity in twins' happiness scores disappeared.

Another larger study, released in January ahead of its publication in Social Science & Medicine this month, shows that whatever people's individual happiness levels, we all tend to fall into a larger, cross-cultural and global pattern of joy. According to survey data representing 2 million people in more than 70 countries, happiness typically follows a U-shaped curve: among people in their mid-40s and younger, happiness trends downward with age, then climbs back up among older people. (That shift doesn't necessarily hold for the very old with severe health problems.) Across the world, people in their 40s generally claim to be less happy than those who are younger or older, and the global happiness nadir appears to hit somewhere around 44.

What happens at 44? Lots of things, but none that can be pinned down as the root cause of unhappiness. It's not anxiety from the kids, for starters. Even among the childless, those in midlife reported lower life satisfaction than the young or old, says study co-author Andrew Oswald, an economics professor at the University of Warwick in Britain. Other things that didn't alter the happiness curve: income, marital status or education. "You can adjust for 100 things and it doesn't go away," Oswald says. He and co-author David Blanchflower, an economist at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire, also adjusted their results for cohort effects: their data spanned more than 30 years, making them confident that whatever makes people miserable about being middle-aged, it isn't related, say, to being born in the year 1960 and growing up with that generation's particular set of experiences.

At first glance, the new studies may appear at odds with some previous ones, largely because in happiness research, a lot depends on how you ask the question. Oswald and Blanchflower looked at responses to a sweeping, general question: "Taken all together, how would you say things are these days — would you say that you are very happy, pretty happy or not too happy?" (The wording changes slightly depending on where the survey was conducted, but the question is essentially the same.) In a 2001 study, Susan Charles at University of California, Irvine, measured something slightly different: changes in positive affect, or positive emotions, versus negative affect over more than 25 years. Charles found that positive affect stayed roughly stable through young adulthood and midlife, falling off a little in older age; negative affect, meanwhile, fell consistently with age.

Charles thinks that feelings like angst, disgust and anger may fade because as we get older we learn to care less about what others think of us, or perhaps because we become more adept at avoiding situations we don't like. (The Edinburgh researchers, too, found that older study participants scored lower than younger ones on scales of neuroticism — worry and nervousness — and higher on scales of agreeableness.) Oswald chalks up the midlife dip in happiness shown in his study to people "letting go of impossible aspirations" — first, there's the pain of fading youth and the realization that we may never accomplish all that we had dreamed, then the contentment we gain later in life through acceptance and self-awareness. "When you're young you can't do that," Oswald says.

An oft-cited finding from other happiness research suggests, however, that neither very good events nor very bad events seem to change people's happiness much in the long term. Most people, it seems, revert back to some kind of baseline happiness level within a couple years of even the most devastating events, like the death of a spouse or loss of limbs. Perhaps that kind of stability is due to heredity — those happiness-inducing personality traits that identical twins have been shown to share.

Still, lack of control doesn't necessarily mean lack of joy. "The research also shows that most people consider themselves happy most of the time," says University of Edinburgh's Bates. "We're wired to be optimistic. Most people think they're happier than most [other] people." And even if you aren't part of that lucky majority, Bates says, there's always that other 50% of overall life satisfaction that, according to his research, is not genetically predetermined. To feel happier, he recommends mimicking the personality traits of those who are: Be social, even if it's only with a few people; set achievable goals and work toward them; and concentrate on putting setbacks and worries in perspective. Don't worry, as the saying goes. Be happy.



Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1721954,00.html#ixzz1ByEF36dX
 
Top