« Justin Wolfers speaks | Main | Underappreciated economists: a continuing series »
Gratitude tips
These are from the new and noteworthy Thanks!: How the New Science of Gratitude Can Make You Happier, by Robert Emmons:
1. Keep a Gratitude Journal
2. Remember the Bad
3. Ask Yourself Three Questions (What have I received from...?, What have I given to...?, and What troubles and difficulty have I caused ...?
4. Learn prayers of gratitude
5. Come to your senses
6. Use visual reminders
7. Make a vow to practice gratitude
8. Watch your language
9. Go through the motions [of showing gratitude, thanking, smiling, etc.]
10. Think outside the box [TC: this one should have been left out]
I didn't learn anything from this book, but in terms of both truth and importance it is one of the most significant books you can find. Ever. Provided you live enough above subsistence, gratitude is the single most important key to personal happiness. And how commercial society affects gratitude is one of the great underexplored questions of economic science and sociology.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on July 27, 2007 at 04:23 PM in Philosophy | Permalink
Comments
"Provided you live enough above subsistence, gratitude is the single most important key to personal happiness. And how commercial society affects gratitude is one of the great underexplored questions of economic science and sociology."
I couldn't agree more. If all that a few moments thinking on gratitude regularly is to achieve is to create/reaffirm ones sense of good fortune, and the insignificance of some of the reasons/excuses for frustrations, then it is a high value exercise indeed. It can of course do much more. Truth is, most people don't spend just a few moments regularly giving it serious thought. Thanks for the reminder.
Posted by: CM at Jul 27, 2007 5:11:35 PM
Tyler,
Thanks for the blog!
Posted by: Floccina at Jul 27, 2007 5:20:59 PM
this may explain why religion is so effective at making people happy, healthy, etc. almost by definition, religion requires that you be grateful to another -- a deity -- for what's good in your life, rather than attributing it to your own abilities, skills, etc.
Posted by: dj superflat at Jul 27, 2007 5:31:32 PM
Ok, I will bite: what makes you think that there is "the single most important key" to personal happiness?
What is the content of this claim: that gratitude trumps all other considerations, all of the time? Appears false.
It is likely that there are various levels of gratitude; what is the proper Aristolean mean in which gratitude resides? Don't know.
But I do know that it highly unlikely that "the single most important key" exists.
Pressed I could up with a formal proof, for a nickel.
Posted by: michael webster at Jul 27, 2007 5:37:02 PM
From the thesaurus: grateful -
"obliged, indebted. Grateful, thankful describe an appreciative attitude for what one has received."
To my mind this implies that the recipient is in an inferior position to the giver. For example, grateful to one's boss for the job, promotion, whatever. Notice also the sense of obligation.
Is this the best position in life, to be the recipient of charity? I thought the ideal in the US was the self-made man.
Posted by: robertdfeinman at Jul 27, 2007 5:44:05 PM
I have migranes. Often when I have them I wish that I could just feel normal. But the pain is so bad that i cannot remember what normal feels like. So I tell myself to make an effort to consciously be aware of what normal feels like when I don't have physical pain. In a way that is my way of being grateful for my good health.
Posted by: Richard.Pointer at Jul 27, 2007 5:44:47 PM
Ok, this may sound a little creepy, but do I practice gratitude because I really care about others? Or is this something that I do (only/mostly) for me? Perhaps I should just read the book!
Posted by: Scot Johnson at Jul 27, 2007 5:56:03 PM
It has long been one of my observations that one has to construct a way of life that includes:
gratitude
dealing with pain and evil
a sense of community
dealing with guilt
some sort of sense of the goodness of life
an ethic which helps you get along
a way of passing these values on to children
some sort of sense of generosity
What further struck me: whether one is religious or not the task is the same, and probably the ability to do so successfully is about the same. A former nun/RC/ Christian (I think she is former, in some sense of the term) wrote a book, The History of God, and says much the same thing. She also observes that all religions view God in much the same way, and in rather specific ways, ie, most faiths have an equivalent of the Christian Trinity in terms of their all over understanding of God.
Posted by: Rob at Jul 27, 2007 5:56:09 PM
robertdfeinman writes: "I thought the ideal in the US was the self-made man."
Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as a self-made man.
Posted by: Johan Almenberg at Jul 27, 2007 6:20:51 PM
What size is the type face in the book? Large or small print? Self help or information/analysis driven?
Posted by: iam at Jul 27, 2007 6:21:13 PM
Nietzsche had an interesting take on gratitude:
"Gratitude and revenge.— The reason the man of power is grateful is this. His benefactor has, through the help he has given him, as it were laid hands on the sphere of the man of power and intruded into it: now, by way of requital, the man of power in turn lays hands on the sphere of his benefactor through the act of gratitude. It is a milder form of revenge. If he did not have the compensation of gratitude, the man of power would have appeared unpowerful and thenceforth counted as such. That is why every community of the good, that is to say originally the powerful, places gratitude among its first duties. Swift suggested [Actually, it was Alexander Pope.] that men are grateful in the same degree as they are revengeful." - Aphorism 44, Human, All Too Human: A Book for Free Spirits.
Posted by: Michael Giesbrecht at Jul 27, 2007 6:26:00 PM
May I suggest "Genuine Happiness" by B. Alan Wallace?
Posted by: baiano at Jul 27, 2007 8:40:39 PM
Dennis Prager's daily radio show, and book are indespensible.
Posted by: Ray G at Jul 27, 2007 9:15:09 PM
I'm really getting sick of recent happiness research, which is almost always libertarian based and supported by wealthy people, and which inevitably concludes that money isn't important, so we shouldn't bother trying to correct growing inequality in society.
It's just the same old "bread and circuses" - make the masses happy so they won't care about how much money other people have and won't raise income taxes on the wealthy.
Inequality is the biggest problem in society today, and people need to wake up to it and take it more seriously. Not to get absorbed in things that make them happy without money while the rich get richer.
Posted by: Dirk at Jul 27, 2007 11:50:37 PM
Thank you for sharing your blog with us Tyler.
I guess we never take a moment to thank the bloggers who are very much a large part of our lives..
The blogger/blog reader relationship is very interesting...
Posted by: Stan at Jul 28, 2007 2:13:37 AM
"To my mind this implies that the recipient is in an inferior position to the giver."
For the non religious, gratitude can be to society and the people in the past, who's hard work and creativity provided us a much better life. Economists, at least, should be aware of their inheritance of infrastructure, institutions, and intellectual capital. Believing that all you have is due to your own efforts is the path to selfishness and, if this post is right, unhappiness.
Posted by: joan at Jul 28, 2007 2:34:14 AM
"To my mind this implies that the recipient is in an inferior position to the giver."
For the non religious, gratitude can be to society and the people in the past, who's hard work and creativity provided us a much better life. Economists, at least, should be aware of their inheritance of infrastructure, institutions, and intellectual capital. Believing that all you have is due to your own efforts is the path to selfishness and, if this post is right, unhappiness.
Posted by: joan at Jul 28, 2007 2:35:07 AM
I'm grateful for Anne's cut and paste postings on De Long and Thoma's blogs.
Posted by: Keith at Jul 28, 2007 5:09:04 AM
Alright, I was being snarky. I'm sincerely grateful that Marginal Revolution actually has some commenters worth reading.
Posted by: Keith at Jul 28, 2007 5:11:51 AM
Dirk: "Inequality is the biggest problem in society today, and people need to wake up to it and take it more seriously. Not to get absorbed in things that make them happy without money while the rich get richer."
Do you expect the masses will be grateful to you for keeping them from becoming absorbed in things that make them happy?
Cheers
Posted by: Michael Giesbrecht at Jul 28, 2007 5:15:51 AM
Dirk:
Actually overpopulation and resource depletion is the biggest problem in society today, inequality is just one of its manifestations.
To deal with the underlying problem requires a reconsideration of what the goals of society should be. This is complicated by the fact that societies at different stages of development require different solutions. The predominant economic/political philosophy only permits a single solution however, growth.
Growth in the advanced societies will supposedly eliminate the need to equalize wealth maldistribution. The "rising tides lifts all boats" argument.
Growth in the developing countries (China and India) is leading to environmental degradation and probable economic collapse when the have-nots start to cause civil unrest over their inferior economic status. There were an estimated 88,000 protests by workers and peasants in China just last year.
Growth in the undeveloped countries needs to be done. No one should have to live on $1-2 per day. After 60 years of trying to fix the situation the results haven't been all that was expected. There is no consensus on what to try next.
The developed world doesn't need growth, we have enough "stuff'. We need to allocate our resources better. We need to stop squandering them on militarism and redirect them towards socially productive goals. We need to scale down our total consumption to a sustainable level. All these goals are in direct conflict with the present capitalist/consumerist model. There are probably less than 100 economists willing to examine the present economic axioms and acknowledge that we live in a finite world. Try the "ecological economists" like Herman Daly to get a feeling for their approach.
Posted by: robertdfeinman at Jul 28, 2007 11:24:56 AM
Dirk:
Actually overpopulation and resource depletion is the biggest problem in society today, inequality is just one of its manifestations.
To deal with the underlying problem requires a reconsideration of what the goals of society should be. This is complicated by the fact that societies at different stages of development require different solutions. The predominant economic/political philosophy only permits a single solution however, growth.
Growth in the advanced societies will supposedly eliminate the need to equalize wealth maldistribution. The "rising tides lifts all boats" argument.
Growth in the developing countries (China and India) is leading to environmental degradation and probable economic collapse when the have-nots start to cause civil unrest over their inferior economic status. There were an estimated 88,000 protests by workers and peasants in China just last year.
Growth in the undeveloped countries needs to be done. No one should have to live on $1-2 per day. After 60 years of trying to fix the situation the results haven't been all that was expected. There is no consensus on what to try next.
The developed world doesn't need growth, we have enough "stuff'. We need to allocate our resources better. We need to stop squandering them on militarism and redirect them towards socially productive goals. We need to scale down our total consumption to a sustainable level. All these goals are in direct conflict with the present capitalist/consumerist model. There are probably less than 100 economists willing to examine the present economic axioms and acknowledge that we live in a finite world. Try the "ecological economists" like Herman Daly to get a feeling for their approach.
Posted by: robertdfeinman at Jul 28, 2007 11:25:43 AM
"Inequality is the biggest problem in society today, and people need to wake up to it and take it more seriously. Not to get absorbed in things that make them happy without money while the rich get richer."
Not the biggest problem, but class warfare and envy are definitely an eternal one.
Someone whose happiness is affected by others success or lack thereof will never be happy anyway.
It's a serious psychological flaw much like the insecure adolescent girl who suddenly feels less pretty when another pretty girl walks in the room. Verbally abusing the other girl, calling her fat or whatever, of course does not make the first girl any skinnier, prettier or whatever, but it makes her feel better in some twisted way for about 2 seconds.
". . . Not to get absorbed in things that make them happy without money". . .
So their happiness in and of itself is inconsequential. It only counts if they have money to go along with that perceived happiness.
Is Dirk real?
Posted by: Ray G at Jul 28, 2007 12:29:11 PM
So practicing gratitude is a good idea, as long as I don't do it with you.
Posted by: Aaron Haspel at Jul 28, 2007 7:47:36 PM
Kurt Vonnegut often wrote of his uncle, who had the habit of saying, "hey, everyone, it's a wonderful day and all is going well and we're happy; let's notice that and remember it."
It's hard to have a bad day and not either come home and gripe about it, or think about griping about it. Stopping to point out good days makes it more likely that I (at least) will remember them.
Posted by: Amanda at Jul 29, 2007 9:55:24 PM
