Well, I had to quit watching it after 7 mins b/c I had somewhere to go, so I'm left with the memory of colonoscopies, so my remembering self isn't liking that so much. lol.
This is a GREAT presentation! The 33 "dislikes" are just plain idiots. There is no good rational reason to dislike this informative and educational presentation.
@18.44: The questioner had a dishonest question in regards to American public policy.
America is about protecting the *RIGHT* to pursue happiness; it is not about "increasing taxes" on some to have the state give the money to others to "make them happy."
I love the opening line "I had someone checkout how many book titles have happy in it". This guy lives in such a privileged bubble that he couldn't do this himself in 5 minutes on Amazon.
He prolly asked his graduate student to do it. Besides the precise reason he asked is because he prolly already knew there'd be far too many to count...
While traveling through Ethiopia i ended up in trouble and had to sleep on the streets, the experience was horrific as you would imagine BUT the story i have to tell is one of the most amazing things i have to tell and people enjoy listening to it.
How do you suppose "sleeping on it" affects an individual's happiness?
If one's happiness is influenced by memories rather than experiences, and memories are synthesized in different caches of the brain according to their temporal necessity, and sleep has an important role in the synthesis of long-term memories, then can "just sleeping on it" in fact contribute to one's happiness?
Moreover, how does anterograde amnesia affect happiness? Drew Barrymore seemed so happy in "50 First Dates"!
If all these educated people are "pro socialist" doesn't it make those of you who hate socialism, wonder why all these smart and educated people like it? Perhaps they like it because they are SMART!!!!!!!!!!!
@fjramirez No offense, but judging by your comment... you are not SMART, or at least your comment isn't. Now, sorry for going to the very extreme to make my point, but unfortunately for the world there were some pretty damn smart Nazis, does that say anything about Nazism?...
We construct our reality in our revisioning of experience. Knowing the present is one of the most difficult skills in life. Keeping score is what we practice and become brilliant at constructing. fascinating to see how quickly we restructure an experience after living it. miliseconds.
imho, the speaker is making a fundamental mistake in relating to the two concepts "experience self" and "remembering self" as equally divided psychological dimenstions when in fact the latter is an EMERGENT self layer of the former. Upon recognizing that you're dealing with an Emergent property here the line of reasoning mentioned breaks down.
@opptynox The purpose of Ted is to request donations from the super rich. It's not as if they were discriminating deliberately....Obviously there are more white millionaire donors than black millionaire donors, statistically. Please don't take offense, it's just representative of demographics. You don't go take your fundraiser to the poorest neighborhoods.
Tim2 we can all tell you have a hard time being happy. There is great happiness in not over thinking something. And the flaws you have our your flaws with the speech not mine. So there are some flaws with your flaws.
Could you give me some evidence in how you know that I'm unhappy? Yes I do agree, there is great happiness in not over thinking or even in thinking. That's the reason they say "Ignorance is bliss." So being that I'm flawed, my argument is flawed. How can I correct the flaws of my flaws?
Could you give me some evidence in how you know that I'm unhappy? Yes I do agree, there is great happiness in not over thinking or even in thinking. That's the reason they say "Ignorance is bliss." So being that I'm flawed, my argument is flawed. How can I correct the flaws of my flaws?
Wow. I am so glad to have seen this extraordinarily inspiring video! What a wonderful orator and a human being! I will from now on be looking at life though a different lens. thanks for posting this!
flaws continued. 4. The more money you have doesn't mean the happier you will be is partially true. However, if I get my happiness and meaning from making lots of money, I'm going to really upset if I'm not allowed to make more money than the next guy. The reality of it is, if I can’t become rich by legal means because the government wants everyone to be equal, then I’m going to become a crook or a politician. A politician just considers government funds for his or her wealth.
flaws cont. 3. When we move to another place and then think that we are happier but he knows that we are just as happy as we just as happy as the other place. It is just that we think we are happier. What?! If I think that I'm happier how can anyone prove to me that I'm somehow equally happy or less happy than before. Ambigious and seemingly circular reasoning is going on here.
Flaws 1. When you study people, you have to use statistics because of the inability of isolating the variables such as personality.He only shows the comparison of two people&we have to take his word at everything else.Show me the raw data&then then interpret if for me so I can examine not just the data but your methods of analyst. 2."...you were told that his father is 6ft tall.How much would you know about his height?" uh I would know he was 6ft tall, mybe he meant how big the father was.
Enemy Belligerent Act:- Arrests and Indefinate Imprisonment without Lawful Cause and Due Process. Weed out Resisters
DHS Malintent & Naked Body Scanners:- Conditioning your Adherence to the Lovely Tyranny
S.773 - Cybersecurity Act of 2009:- Destroying Free Speech on the Internet. FED GOVERNMENT software standards for all ISP's. Allows Removal of all Global Communication at whim. Good to prevent Organized Resistors
Health Care HR 3590:- Completely Dicated Health Care Decisions. No Freedom
A few people didn't like the "pro-socialist" or "left-wing hook" at the end. How is a fact ideological? They did the study...If you really think they rigged it because they were looking for something, do your own study. I find nothing more idiotic than viewing facts through the lens of political ideology. One's ideology should be sensitive to the facts (and open to change), and such an approach makes one's ideology unfalsifiable.
@mattpier Im all for different ideas and different ways to do things, the problem with left wing is that the ideas have to be forced on to everyone else. It is always a collectivist action through government. They should be voluntary and if its popular people will do it. Convince people and persuade them that it works and is a good idea, then let people participate if they want to.
@AroundSun "the problem with the left wing is that the ideas have to be forced on everyone else." LOL. Because the right wing only pushes legislation that is optional?!? Everyone places limits on what can be opted out of...YOU prefer the "collectivist action through government" that makes murder illegal (I imagine), without permitting some to opt out. Your rhetoric fails to recognize the difference in politics is on particular issues, not the principle the governments can actually govern.
@mattpier The right and left wing are the same now. They both want to control your lives in different ways. Whether it is socially or economically. Laws violating life, liberty, property, fraud, and contracts are the only laws that really need to exist. Who said Republicans push through optional laws? Most things the left wing advocate are unconstitutional. Murder being illegal is constitutional dummy. I do not fail to recognize anything. The principles are in Article 1 Section 8 pal.
@AroundSun Uh..thnx for calling me "dummy"...So if you didn't fail to recognize what I pointed out, then you omitted it on purpose? or by accident? You called out the left wing as if it were in particular to blame...not very even-handed. From this 2nd post, I imagine you are libertarian. So don't Liber's want their view "forced on everyone else"? Don't Lefties and Con's see their viewss as needed to preserve "life, liberty, property" prevent "fraud," and keep "contracts"?
@mattpier It is the view that brings the most amount of prosperity to the widest range of people the world has ever seen. Is there something wrong with that? It is the view that is in our founding documents. Our view is not force at all, it is the opposite of force. I do not want my view forced on anyone because my view states that you can not force things on people. Individual rights not collective rights. Leftism is predicated on economic illiteracy and historical inaccuracy.
@AroundSun "Leftism is predicated on economic illiteracy and historical inaccuracy." Oddly, that is probably what a Leftist would say about you. Dude, I'm not anti-capitalist, nor anti-democracy, nor anti-freedom. I'm just saying that your simplifications of views that you don't agree with is based on incoherent platitudes. You say your view isn't about "forcing" anything on anyone, but you would "protect" it by forcing opponents to comply. I'm NOT saying you are wrong to value freedom...
@mattpier A leftist would say the same about me, but the difference is I am right. Proven through historical facts and evidence. Proven in ideology and philosophy of liberty. Proven by the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. Proven by individual rights being more sacred than collectivism. I am bias towards freedom, shoot me. I dont believe in force and coercion on behalf of the state to make people equal. That is the opposite of why this country was fucking founded. We live in a republic
@AroundSun nice comments. Have you ever read Uncommon Sense - A Real American Manifesto? I think that is a book all Americans should read. It opened my eyes up to how great American principles are. I was beginning to condemn and despise America, but so much of the problems with this country today are from fascist, corrupt government officials along with ignorant citizens who put up with it, because they don't know that the government can only legally do what a person can legally do.
@mattpier My right to individualism does not impede on your right to voluntary collectivism. But, your forced collectivism impedes on my right to voluntary individualism. There is no such thing as forced individualism. What you are saying, is that I am forcing you to not force me to do anything. You are saying that I am forcing you to leave me alone, which is absurd if you think that is force. But of course, like most liberals think, your forcing me to participate isn't force.
@AroundSun And just to clarify...if you think the constitution should be "forced on everyone else" then you are guilty of the same thing you accuse lefties of. my original point: EVERYONE does/thinks this (except genuine anarchists, who would not participate in politics). Libertarians have one conception of how to preserve freedom, social conservatives another, liberals another, socialists another. [again, that's why I brought up murder...a fairly universally recognized legal restriction]
@mattpier The constitution being "forced" on everyone? No guy. The constitution gives us our rights as humans and sets limits on our government. It is not a forcing document. Yes, life liberty and property must be protected. That is up to the people. You can not give the state rights you yourself do not have. The whole point is the absence of force. How can the absence of force and coercion be forced on people??
@AroundSun (cont.) I'm saying that you can't see how most others who disagree with you ALSO think they are serving freedom. and yes, "guy" you would force the constitution on others. If I went out this weekend and violated someone's "constitutional right" you would most certainly agree that I should be punished by law, no? If so, you would have the strong arm of the government inflict suffering on me to coerce me to comply or take away my freedom through imprisonment. ....
@mattpier Liberal is not what liberals are. There is nothing liberating about being a liberal If you are calling for greater control of our lives by the GOV'T, that's the opposite of liberation. The modern day liberal has nothing in common with the Jeffersonian concept of liberal and liberty. So if we have people who call themselves liberals, who are subscribing to an ideology that is the opposite of the spirit of our founding documents, then they are on the wrong, and yes, bad side of things
@AroundSun and let's just return to my original post to which you replied. All I said was people should not ignore facts or attack fact-providers because the facts challenge their ideology (which several posters seem to do by the ad hominem accusation that the speaker has a leftist agenda). You replied (only mentioning lefties as the problem) and promoting an "optionalism"...in what way does that refute my point that our ideologies are irrelevant to facts??
@mattpier I never said we should ignore facts, but we also can't let them make us panic using knee jerk reactions and legislation discoursing from our freedom. Most of these "facts" are bias and slanted towards the agenda. Like saying the gap between the rich and poor is growing, yes, but BOTH classes have had increases in standards of living and income. So the "gap" is irrelevant. Theyd rather the poorer be poorer granted the rich were poorer.
@AroundSun (cont. #2)...I'm saying that it still is coercion. I'd agree with it too (i.e., not all coercion is unjustified). But Lefties don't advocate coercion for its own sake, and you are uncharitable to them and yourself to suggest otherwise. They just disagree about justice. Consider your own example...today's poor are better than yesterday's poor...does that make it ok that today's rich take a greater portion than yesterday's?
@AroundSun (cont. #3) The real questions is whether we'd be as well off today if different policies had been in play, and this is not nearly as straightforward as many ideologues would suggest. And what is included in "well off" is not always the same set of values and data. All I originally said is "stop politicizing facts" and all I'd say to you is "stop polarizing debate." But honestly, I'm not expecting much.
@mattpier We would be richer, more prosperous, freer, with more available opportunites and we would enjoy a higher standard of living if government had less of a role in our lives. If we had followed the founding documents from day one, we would be a more prosperous nation with nearly little corruption or crime. Ever hear of unintended consequences guy? Or are you just a simpleton who says, that sounds good, lets do it. Do you believe in equality or freedom? I wouldnt expect much from you
@Minnesnowtakid Kuhn applies to theoretical entities in science. If there is an apple on a table, then there is an apple on the table. True, what we understand an apple to be may be different than what a Medieval thought...but this doesn't really change this fairly basic fact. If you don't agree that certain claims are less vulnerable to the 'relativistic' insights than others, then I'm afraid you are the very kind of person I was commenting about. (cont. to next)
@Minnesnowtakid (cont.'d) The real question is whether the study produced facts that were somehow biased in a way that was not truth-oriented. As I said originally...ok, then point to the flaws, show the assumptions, the suppressed context, redo the study or do an additional augmented one...but don't just dismiss the facts as "ideological." And if you really are mentioning Kuhn to legitimate those who dismiss facts simply because they see them as "ideological" (cont. to next)
@Minnesnowtakid (cont. #2), then you make no sense. Aren't then the "facts" of these dismissive viewers just as ideological? Anyway, as I first mentioned in response to you, Kuhn applies to scientific concepts/systems and only when "normal science" gets exhausted and revolution occurs (if you accept his view)...it seems disingenuous to hide behind a grandoise theory of changes in science to legitimate an ideological dismissal of a study because it challenges one's assumptions.
If the gallop survey shows that people with less money are miserable, it's because of the false ideology that having money makes you happy. Belief is bankrupt. Happiness is highly subjective.
@HigherPlanes No. Not having enough food to eat, or being homeless, or not having heat or power, that's what makes people miserable. It has nothing to do with ideology or belief. It has to do with hunger, and cold, and illness.
@JeanKM1 Exactly, it's not money, it's the things that money can buy, or rather the things that money can't buy that makes you miserable. But that's ideology. Isn't it so interesting that we all have to pay for the two most important things that assures our survival: food and shelter? Think about it for a minute. We have to pay to survive. Yet another fucked up thing that sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom.
@HigherPlanes True. We should not have to pay to survive. How did we get so messed up? I'm thinking... I have a vague notion it has something to do with our culture and/or competition for resources. I'm thinking about it..., but I can't figure out why things are the way they are, or what we can do about it.
Few years back I have become suspicious of my judgement about the memory I had on my experiences. I tended to repeat experiences that I remembered as pleasant only to discovered that I could not experience the pleasure as I remembered. Then I stopped spending money to repeat the experiences for which I had good memory and concentrate on small things. I found that I got more pleasure in meeting with friends for a coffee, or watching together a movie or going for a tour. Now that Kahneman ...
... put it in words it is even more clear to me that I was suspicious (and fed-up) of the decisions taken by the remembering self and favour the experience self. Although one can argue that it is the remembering self that keep me doing the right experience. But then one can also argue that likely my two selves are now in sync. :-)
Ok... Bear with me: digesting this video I experienced some decree of happiness. It gave insight and was for me an interesting talk. Then it ended with a leftwing social hook (earning more then 60k) and an irritating commercial I know by heart now, followed promptly. So my remembering self only sees that? Ted should take this finding to the heart and change their commercial policy! And power to the experience self! Let's all get high! :)
@doloppost , Depends, are you focusing on the commercial being part of the reason you don't like the segment? Or are you just addressing the commercial separately? Something to consider, most people use ego before they relate to something. Some don't like knowing they fit in a category "everyone is different" etc.
I would have to ask you the obvious question, did you like the show? A yes or no will suffice. Of course with documentation ala posting, its easy to make false claims.
Looking back I did enjoy the video, and when I tell people about it, I forget the left wing part that I felt was misplaced. So could one use the findings presented and use it on my experience? Btw I place the commercial behind it as something separate, which I click away.
@doloppost your remembering self dosn't see at all, it only remebers. And the experienceing self sees all of it. if a group were to hear a list of nine digits, and then asked to recall the list, more people would remember the digits closer to the beginging and end.
@doloppost your remembering self dosn't see at all, it only remebers. And the experienceing self sees all of it. if a group were to hear a list of nine digits, and then asked to recall the list, more people would remember the digits closer to the beginging and end.
@InsaneRevolt so you followed his logic until it landed on something you didn't want to agree with? Then you just jumped ship? What's your problem with his Dr. Kahneman's interpretation of the mountains of data he was talking about?
This lecture has really left me to ponder over my life hmm... I think people nowadays are getting increasingly unhappy with life despite the various pleasures they can indulge themselves in unlike people in the past. I guess this is because people are started to unravel secrets within the universe and at the same time, we human beings are starting to know more abt ourselves and the imperfection within us....
that's not true. The real pleasures are still there to be enjoyed, and had not changed since paleolitic age. Thay have became more sofisticated, but not chaged in it's essence. True happines comes from art, witch, at the same time that gives you instant relif and pleasure, also justifies all of our sufering, since, as was said by falamansa, a forró band from Brazil, "If i didn't had pain in my life, I wouldn't have reason to sing".
so, That was a reply to dreamylife08, but I don't understand why youtube doesn't make those conected replyes anymore. Take a look at his comment, and you will understand mine... I gess... Any ways, it wasn't me who said we are not happy.
Actualy, happines is such a subjective matter, that is realy hard to tell weather we are happy as hole or not.
Personaly, I think that happyness is stricly connected to liberty, witch is connected to conscienseness. Most people, I think, is not conscient.
Like in every thing in life, balance is the solution. A seek for 'pleasure', as shimas47 defined the moment happines, will lead to an hedonistic life, and thus, to an irrespossible, egoistic and unwanted behavieur along society. In the other hand, the satisfaction of your memory self can end up transforming you in a Smaug (from the hobbit), a dragon, sleeping over a treasure that can not be enjoyed for real. Like spending your vacancies doing nothing, or acumulating thousands of useless dolars.
I have a friend who defines himself as a hedonist. It's interesting to talk to him.
He claims that many people don't really understand what living for experience is.
An example -
People may think a hedonist would drink excessively without concern. My friend insists that maximizing pleasure includes avoiding hangovers, because you want to maximize your pleasure the next day as much as the night before.
Just an interesting perspective your comment brought into my head.
I am aware of that notion regarding hedonism. But stil, to became a true hedonist, one major step is to let go of any attatchment, relative to matirial possessions and people. You see, when you love people, you are doomed to suffer. I'm not talking about romantic afair, but any kind of human relation. You might call him your friend, but if he is an hedonist, he should not be sad if you die or get sick or what ever. Hedonist don't suffer for others. That's the kind of egoism I refered to before.
and thanks for your reply! hope to get an answer regarding your opinion in the truthness of your friends hedonist. I hope you can make him understand that hedonism has consequences beyond ourselfs. Try looking for Ricardo Reis poetry (it must have been translated!). It shows exactly this kind of hedonism.
I think he's pretty sincere in his description of his habits, but it might be that he doesn't qualify as a true hedonist.
He doesn't have any trouble feeling attached to others, and he manages an old folks home for a living. I think he just finds his internal interpretation of pleasure seeking a good way to balance his life.
Thanks for the poet suggestion. I'll look him up. :)
As a Bharatiya (Indian) I found myself listening attentively to this great talk. And it leaves me impressed that my personal thoughts on happiness now stand verified by an eminent person. Thanks TED!
it seems like everythings reaching a climax or peak at the same time. everyones in debt. conspiracy's are coming out while technology is so dam advanced, but our government is less than responsible. plus the secrets of the mind are slowly being revealed.. this video is proof of that. soooo
It is very interesting how Mr. Kahneman makes distinction between the two notions of happiness. But maybe we could eliminate the confusion that arises from mixing up these notions, by simply calling the experienced happiness "a pleasure". Wouldn't that sound right, and be easier?
in simple terms, those who have good memory in some ways battle with their past thoughts, good thoughts and bad thoughts both circulate, those who have a bad memory, yours truly, live life in the moment, if say something abominable happens today, we will suffer that thought for a short period and switch the brain pattern to a constant once again, subconsciously, therefore forgetting the bad and moving on towards the good...hope that makes sense....
Unhappiness would develop in those working more for those working less; there has to be a reward for expertise unless development will stagnate and producers will fail.
I have a solution to the public policy issues brought up by behavioral economics: educate people, then let them choose. (Yes, this is new information; it is valuable, but it is not unique per se.) The same has been true of psychology. I do not want the government to tweak my life in an attempt to make me happier, in principle because I believe in self-determination, in practice because I am pretty sure that the government would totally mess up. I doubt it would settle for a nudge.
@Waranoa - He isn't saying they are completely separate. He isn't talking about mirror neurons and etc. either. He's referring to the difference in focus - what is attended to in experience is not the same as what is attended to in memory. As well, memory is highly malleable and is often changed in favour of personal narrative.
His research backs this. Unless you're conducting opposing research (or can cite it), try not to say opposing things you can't support. "I think..." isn't support.
@Scottium Ok, I agree that you can distinguish between two functions, which his research backs; however, his claim is that there are two selves, which is an argument for a distinction in structures, which is on the one hand an oversimplification and on the other hand can be misleading. I do not think this distinction is there. One finding that backs this up is that if you make people remember a specific, emotional episode in the past, this alters their perception of the present.
@Scottium His research does not back up the distinction between two selves or the conflict between them. He mentions that there is a conflict between the remembering and experiencing self when we remember a short procedure with painful ending as being overly painful. I say that this is a functional quality of a single system. This might seem an arbitrary argument but it deletes the psychological concept of split selves while it is still supported by the same line of evidence: Occams razor.
Experiencing can't be thought about. If you try to make some type of "laws" for people to follow so they can be happy, they won't be. Only when the "remembering self" aka ego is recognized as a fantasy we create for social convenience, can we be free to experiencing.
I didn't watch the whole video, because i get more & more unhappy every second watching it. The moment I switch channel I got back my happiness. Ha ha . . . life + happiness is the basic of existence, there is no rocket science complication about it. I guess human trying to be smart & clever, kick their own ass, mess up their brain, screwed up their own natural instinct to live life happily.
For a lot of people, this video actually achieves the opposite effect. While you see it as making you sad, many who live a life that they don't think is so great, or have had things happen to them which they are still hurting over, will realize that maybe things weren't actually so bad.
He could have avoided the whole dualism about the selves if he had said "the experiencing self and the REMEMBERED self"...which is really what he meant. Of course, thinking of it has two selves is a pedagogical device and wasn't meant to be taken literally. But I guess all the comments below whining about just goes to show that even TEDtalks are beyond what some people can get a grasp on.
It's not dualism......for the very reason you state O_o......the experiencing self does the remembering, but remembering is by definition not of the present and thus not of immediate experience. So you're remembering a memory of yourself and that's the remembered self. In the same way that the experiencing self can look at a picture of itself when it was younger. The picture (and thus memory) is a representation of the experiencing self at a different period.
I don't deal with badly defined things. What I am concerned with is to make you understand that it is impossible to remember any event from any other time than right now. The picture is recreated in the present.
this talk reminded me of a saying we have in germany. it roughly translates to "you should stop when the fun is at its peak."
what this guy found out is true and many people unconsciously know it. a good method for self-motivation at home is: if you work, stop when you get tired, because if you keep on working even a bit when you're tired the work gets really hard and you will remembe rhow hard it was at the end and the next day you will not want to do it.
but when you stop yourself when it's still easy you will look at what you have achieved so easily and feel good and look forward to working again the next day.
Oh for god's sake you daft psychologist... Two selves, there's no experiening self or remembering self. I challenge everyone here to present evidence for the hypothesis that there are two shifting selves that are not connected at all. Don't bother, you won't find anything. Experiencing and remembering are are two functions of the same self.
@Waranoa I think it would be better to interpret his talk as an analogy for how people think. Just because you can't find physical evidence doesn't mean that you can clearly make a distinction between how happy you are during the experience and how satisfied you are with the memories of those experiences.
I am dealing with it; it's not a proper analogue. There is no seperation in time nor in space, which is the two things that make up the analogue he tries to make. We perceive things to be seperated in time and space but they are not; If we could please formulate a better analogue people would not try to answer the question 'what is the self' by summarizing the parts of a modular system but by studying the relevant dynamics and interactions!
calm down and feel with ur mind. the two selves are contained in the same entity, but they are separated by time. one is in the past, the other is in the present. that is the difference. both are u, but not each other.
But you remember the past in the present. So I would say you make your past the way you want it to. The past doesn't actually exist, all remembering is actually in the present.
he's saying the memory of an experience is different from experiencing something. and i agree because ive thought about this myself.
for example, i assume u have eaten an apple before. think about an instance of u eating an apple from ur memories. u remember how it tastes, u remember how it felt, how juicy it was, its color, texture. but what u sense when u remember that experience is different from what u sense when u eat the same type of apple again.
a better example is having sex. the memory of a really good fucking isnt gonna get u to jizz, but if u have another really good fucking at the present, u will jizz. thats the difference between memory of an experience and the actual experience itself. that is why there is a experiencing self and a remembering self.
Good example. However the fact that remembering sex and actually having sex have different end-results, does not mean that they are mediated by two systems that are COMPLETELY seperate; like this man is saying. Of course; different functions require different systems, but when we remember sex, we actually use neural pathways that are very similar to those we use when having sex; there's a difference but there's so much overlap that makes it nonsense tos peak about two seperate 'selves'.
I, and I am not alone in that, think that we should focus our efforts in understanding connections and interactions between the things. The paradigm of looking for discrete, individual elements of a system begins to lose it's momentum. I agree with you, and also at some level with Kahneman; but the words he uses seem outdated and frankly, inaccurate even at certain fundamental points; even though his work as a researcher is incredible!
@Waranoa I agree that perhaps to speak of 'selves' is not very accurate, but I don't think Kahneman is a neuroscientist. He's using very psychological terms, and if you keep that in mind and do some background translating to neuroscience, it makes more sense.
You'd probably agree with me that psychologists and psychiatrists need to pay more attention to neuroscience than they do, but still, the distinction between experiencing and remembering is important experientially, if not neurologically.
Agreed. But as I say to UnluckyGambler, it is becoming less and less fruitful, scientifically, to study the brain and the mind as discrete, interacting units; there are modules for everything, but their borders are very vague and show much overlap with other modules; neural and psychological functions are for an important part very much part of a spectrum of functions which are interconnected at every level: at the level of the microscopic synaps, local networks, modules, dispersed nets...!!
Is there any other way to feel than with your mind? The two parts are not seperated by time; when you think about how you are feeling this week, you still perceive the world around you at the same time. Most importantly, there is a profound interaction between the temporal integration of your mood states (the remembering self) and our sensory experience (experiencing self); this interaction is so powerfull that the functional seperation between the two is completely arbitrary and misleading.
Would I be wrong in saying that time is non existent in actuality? Time is just a social convenience but besides that, I don't believe I have ever seen such a thing as time. Everything happens now.
@cloud1232006 'Would I be wrong in saying that time is non existent in actuality?'
No, you'd be correct. Time is a process that occurs (the changing of what is) rather than a thing that exists. We abstract it into a thing because, frankly, it's probably the only way to wrap a child's mind around the notion of a changing present, and once we've learnt it that way, it becomes difficult for many to break the habit. Like erroneous application of agency (see: theism).
Something else that's interesting about this idea is that it might be the answer to the main criticism of utilitarianism--that happiness can't be accurately measured. Understanding the difference between our memory selves and experience selves should give us better methods of testing happiness.
What he's talking about here is something that politicians have known about for a long time. One of the best ways to deceive the public is to minimize the pain at the end of a politician's term or role in a policy decision to make the constituent's "memory self" judgement outweigh the "experience self" when looking back at the politician's performance.
so what he is saying is if you give electric shock therapy longer than someone else you'll remember it as a plesant experience. What some wonderful minds we have in this world.
@jsebastianfilms, no, what he's saying is that if you would taper off electric shock therapy at the end by spending a few minutes giving very weak shocks, the memory of the traumatic event would be less harsh than if you didn't.
Well, I had to quit watching it after 7 mins b/c I had somewhere to go, so I'm left with the memory of colonoscopies, so my remembering self isn't liking that so much. lol.
toddmorrow1 6 days ago
This is a GREAT presentation! The 33 "dislikes" are just plain idiots. There is no good rational reason to dislike this informative and educational presentation.
dij7878 1 week ago
@dij7878 lol
invincibleidle 1 day ago in playlist Daniel Kahneman - behavioural economics
TED is the remembering self.
usemoreproduct 1 month ago
This talk has solved for me all the discrepancies between happiness statistics i've ever heard
JonathanBloggs 1 month ago
12:44 a guy in the audience doing a Stephen Hawking impersonation.
DontTouchMyVicodin 1 month ago
👎؟؟؟
faresnaif 2 months ago
@18.44: The questioner had a dishonest question in regards to American public policy.
America is about protecting the *RIGHT* to pursue happiness; it is not about "increasing taxes" on some to have the state give the money to others to "make them happy."
bahamamark 2 months ago
It's worth being happy about this realization entering a forum like this (j. Krishnamurti - anyone?). Memory is often total bullshit.
Md1ux 2 months ago
Read his book: Thing Fast and Slow. Wonderful!!!!!
Baystreetboy1947 3 months ago
I love the opening line "I had someone checkout how many book titles have happy in it". This guy lives in such a privileged bubble that he couldn't do this himself in 5 minutes on Amazon.
dookiee0000001 3 months ago
@dookiee0000001 I bet you that your statement is based upon quite a bit of uncertainty. ;)
tonyfalca 1 month ago
@dookiee0000001
it's called being a professor.
He prolly asked his graduate student to do it. Besides the precise reason he asked is because he prolly already knew there'd be far too many to count...
timetraveler2006 1 month ago
Great insight on Happiness and Experience. Bravo!
VarunRevamped 3 months ago
Happiness in the face of annihilation? Impossible.
klindred 3 months ago
Interesting insights, with applicability to self-image, community, and perhaps even morality.
Sojourneer 4 months ago
Excellent.
doug24444 4 months ago
While traveling through Ethiopia i ended up in trouble and had to sleep on the streets, the experience was horrific as you would imagine BUT the story i have to tell is one of the most amazing things i have to tell and people enjoy listening to it.
BADCOPNEWMEDIA 6 months ago
How do you suppose "sleeping on it" affects an individual's happiness?
If one's happiness is influenced by memories rather than experiences, and memories are synthesized in different caches of the brain according to their temporal necessity, and sleep has an important role in the synthesis of long-term memories, then can "just sleeping on it" in fact contribute to one's happiness?
Moreover, how does anterograde amnesia affect happiness? Drew Barrymore seemed so happy in "50 First Dates"!
jpaceyanthony 6 months ago
@15:37 ...I resent that.
lacomidaboy 6 months ago
amazing
littlebeartelevision 6 months ago
If all these educated people are "pro socialist" doesn't it make those of you who hate socialism, wonder why all these smart and educated people like it? Perhaps they like it because they are SMART!!!!!!!!!!!
fjramirez 7 months ago
@fjramirez No offense, but judging by your comment... you are not SMART, or at least your comment isn't. Now, sorry for going to the very extreme to make my point, but unfortunately for the world there were some pretty damn smart Nazis, does that say anything about Nazism?...
Joniversity 4 months ago
We construct our reality in our revisioning of experience. Knowing the present is one of the most difficult skills in life. Keeping score is what we practice and become brilliant at constructing. fascinating to see how quickly we restructure an experience after living it. miliseconds.
TheCovitch 9 months ago
imho, the speaker is making a fundamental mistake in relating to the two concepts "experience self" and "remembering self" as equally divided psychological dimenstions when in fact the latter is an EMERGENT self layer of the former. Upon recognizing that you're dealing with an Emergent property here the line of reasoning mentioned breaks down.
dmokhtar 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Need to marry you Be Naughty girls benaughtyman.info
nadisaniamila 1 year ago
I watch 3 times, I still don't understand what he is talking about will watch again next time
goingyourway101 1 year ago
I like how the discrepancy between the "two selves" was recognized by Proust almost a century ago. Science is just now catching up to art.
kikokieko 1 year ago
huh
wasdwasdedsf 11 months ago
Why I noticed is irrelevant, but where are the minorities in the crowd? Eleven minutes in and I haven't seen a black person yet.
opptynox 1 year ago
@opptynox The purpose of Ted is to request donations from the super rich. It's not as if they were discriminating deliberately....Obviously there are more white millionaire donors than black millionaire donors, statistically. Please don't take offense, it's just representative of demographics. You don't go take your fundraiser to the poorest neighborhoods.
Brainbuster1000 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Date a naughty woman online benaughtyman.info
cfhgfjfdhjr 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Meet sexy large women in your area naneedj.info
serinagregson 1 year ago
I guess it takes about 60k to just maintain and not live in fear of the bill collectors or an emergency. Sounds about right which is sad.
098anne 1 year ago
$60,000 a year.... okay that's my goal.
Pam0284 1 year ago
Tim2 we can all tell you have a hard time being happy. There is great happiness in not over thinking something. And the flaws you have our your flaws with the speech not mine. So there are some flaws with your flaws.
MrPerfectState 1 year ago
Comment removed
tim2timtim 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrPerfectState
Could you give me some evidence in how you know that I'm unhappy? Yes I do agree, there is great happiness in not over thinking or even in thinking. That's the reason they say "Ignorance is bliss." So being that I'm flawed, my argument is flawed. How can I correct the flaws of my flaws?
tim2timtim 1 year ago
@MrPerfectState
Could you give me some evidence in how you know that I'm unhappy? Yes I do agree, there is great happiness in not over thinking or even in thinking. That's the reason they say "Ignorance is bliss." So being that I'm flawed, my argument is flawed. How can I correct the flaws of my flaws?
tim2timtim 1 year ago
He should have keep it to 15 minutes.
jmartinez562 1 year ago
Wow. I am so glad to have seen this extraordinarily inspiring video! What a wonderful orator and a human being! I will from now on be looking at life though a different lens. thanks for posting this!
orawal 1 year ago
flaws continued. 4. The more money you have doesn't mean the happier you will be is partially true. However, if I get my happiness and meaning from making lots of money, I'm going to really upset if I'm not allowed to make more money than the next guy. The reality of it is, if I can’t become rich by legal means because the government wants everyone to be equal, then I’m going to become a crook or a politician. A politician just considers government funds for his or her wealth.
tim2timtim 1 year ago
flaws cont. 3. When we move to another place and then think that we are happier but he knows that we are just as happy as we just as happy as the other place. It is just that we think we are happier. What?! If I think that I'm happier how can anyone prove to me that I'm somehow equally happy or less happy than before. Ambigious and seemingly circular reasoning is going on here.
tim2timtim 1 year ago
Comment removed
tim2timtim 1 year ago
Flaws 1. When you study people, you have to use statistics because of the inability of isolating the variables such as personality.He only shows the comparison of two people&we have to take his word at everything else.Show me the raw data&then then interpret if for me so I can examine not just the data but your methods of analyst. 2."...you were told that his father is 6ft tall.How much would you know about his height?" uh I would know he was 6ft tall, mybe he meant how big the father was.
tim2timtim 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
google Doe's Account.
seekfears 1 year ago
This is profound, anyone with a mastery of this idea could make their lives far more fulfilling.
GORMLESSwonder 1 year ago
without sadness, there wouldn't be happiness. You can't have one without the other.
amxrtdket 1 year ago
@amxrtdket Married with children?
crudhousefull 2 months ago
this is an ancient distinction.
most clearlty stated as Ego vs Organism.
happiness of the ego which remembers is different from (and i would say secondarty too) the happiness of the organism which senses.
qwortor 1 year ago
I wonder if Dr.Daniel has read Patanjali's yoga sutras ? If anyone understands this subject its him :-)
acidcrashguy 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Enemy Belligerent Act:- Arrests and Indefinate Imprisonment without Lawful Cause and Due Process. Weed out Resisters
DHS Malintent & Naked Body Scanners:- Conditioning your Adherence to the Lovely Tyranny
S.773 - Cybersecurity Act of 2009:- Destroying Free Speech on the Internet. FED GOVERNMENT software standards for all ISP's. Allows Removal of all Global Communication at whim. Good to prevent Organized Resistors
Health Care HR 3590:- Completely Dicated Health Care Decisions. No Freedom
Terra7Q 2 years ago
also, that $60,000/yr figure was very interesting.
Does anyone know howto convert that to PPP (Purchasing Power Parity) dollars in various other currencies?
roidroid 2 years ago
@roidroid
well i did my own math.
In Australia $60,000 USD is the equivalent of $74,703 AUD (PPP).
So that's how much an Aussie would have to earn per year to avoid the unhappiness of poverty mentioned in this vid.
Actually, i'm not sure the original $60,000 figure is before or after Tax.
roidroid 2 years ago
What kindof effect does longterm experiencial happiness have on a person? Even if they don't remember it. Does it have any kindof lasting impact?
If we don't remember happiness (think the movie "Memento") - should we even bother? Unless there are some lasting benefits.
So are there?
roidroid 2 years ago
probably better than any alternative
crankthetoto 1 year ago
...eff the american dream, charity should be mandatory so we can all have that flat line of experience-happiness
justforwatchingcraps 2 years ago
I think one of the biggest things that makes people unhappy is never stopping to smell the flowers
goleador1990 2 years ago 2
A few people didn't like the "pro-socialist" or "left-wing hook" at the end. How is a fact ideological? They did the study...If you really think they rigged it because they were looking for something, do your own study. I find nothing more idiotic than viewing facts through the lens of political ideology. One's ideology should be sensitive to the facts (and open to change), and such an approach makes one's ideology unfalsifiable.
mattpier 2 years ago 50
@mattpier Sry! I don't really get your point!
Trinivalts 1 year ago
@mattpier Im all for different ideas and different ways to do things, the problem with left wing is that the ideas have to be forced on to everyone else. It is always a collectivist action through government. They should be voluntary and if its popular people will do it. Convince people and persuade them that it works and is a good idea, then let people participate if they want to.
AroundSun 1 year ago
@AroundSun "the problem with the left wing is that the ideas have to be forced on everyone else." LOL. Because the right wing only pushes legislation that is optional?!? Everyone places limits on what can be opted out of...YOU prefer the "collectivist action through government" that makes murder illegal (I imagine), without permitting some to opt out. Your rhetoric fails to recognize the difference in politics is on particular issues, not the principle the governments can actually govern.
mattpier 11 months ago
@mattpier The right and left wing are the same now. They both want to control your lives in different ways. Whether it is socially or economically. Laws violating life, liberty, property, fraud, and contracts are the only laws that really need to exist. Who said Republicans push through optional laws? Most things the left wing advocate are unconstitutional. Murder being illegal is constitutional dummy. I do not fail to recognize anything. The principles are in Article 1 Section 8 pal.
AroundSun 11 months ago
@AroundSun Uh..thnx for calling me "dummy"...So if you didn't fail to recognize what I pointed out, then you omitted it on purpose? or by accident? You called out the left wing as if it were in particular to blame...not very even-handed. From this 2nd post, I imagine you are libertarian. So don't Liber's want their view "forced on everyone else"? Don't Lefties and Con's see their viewss as needed to preserve "life, liberty, property" prevent "fraud," and keep "contracts"?
mattpier 11 months ago
@mattpier It is the view that brings the most amount of prosperity to the widest range of people the world has ever seen. Is there something wrong with that? It is the view that is in our founding documents. Our view is not force at all, it is the opposite of force. I do not want my view forced on anyone because my view states that you can not force things on people. Individual rights not collective rights. Leftism is predicated on economic illiteracy and historical inaccuracy.
AroundSun 11 months ago
@AroundSun "Leftism is predicated on economic illiteracy and historical inaccuracy." Oddly, that is probably what a Leftist would say about you. Dude, I'm not anti-capitalist, nor anti-democracy, nor anti-freedom. I'm just saying that your simplifications of views that you don't agree with is based on incoherent platitudes. You say your view isn't about "forcing" anything on anyone, but you would "protect" it by forcing opponents to comply. I'm NOT saying you are wrong to value freedom...
mattpier 11 months ago
@mattpier A leftist would say the same about me, but the difference is I am right. Proven through historical facts and evidence. Proven in ideology and philosophy of liberty. Proven by the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. Proven by individual rights being more sacred than collectivism. I am bias towards freedom, shoot me. I dont believe in force and coercion on behalf of the state to make people equal. That is the opposite of why this country was fucking founded. We live in a republic
AroundSun 11 months ago
@AroundSun nice comments. Have you ever read Uncommon Sense - A Real American Manifesto? I think that is a book all Americans should read. It opened my eyes up to how great American principles are. I was beginning to condemn and despise America, but so much of the problems with this country today are from fascist, corrupt government officials along with ignorant citizens who put up with it, because they don't know that the government can only legally do what a person can legally do.
tarantism 2 months ago
@mattpier My right to individualism does not impede on your right to voluntary collectivism. But, your forced collectivism impedes on my right to voluntary individualism. There is no such thing as forced individualism. What you are saying, is that I am forcing you to not force me to do anything. You are saying that I am forcing you to leave me alone, which is absurd if you think that is force. But of course, like most liberals think, your forcing me to participate isn't force.
AroundSun 11 months ago
@AroundSun And just to clarify...if you think the constitution should be "forced on everyone else" then you are guilty of the same thing you accuse lefties of. my original point: EVERYONE does/thinks this (except genuine anarchists, who would not participate in politics). Libertarians have one conception of how to preserve freedom, social conservatives another, liberals another, socialists another. [again, that's why I brought up murder...a fairly universally recognized legal restriction]
mattpier 11 months ago
@mattpier The constitution being "forced" on everyone? No guy. The constitution gives us our rights as humans and sets limits on our government. It is not a forcing document. Yes, life liberty and property must be protected. That is up to the people. You can not give the state rights you yourself do not have. The whole point is the absence of force. How can the absence of force and coercion be forced on people??
AroundSun 11 months ago
@AroundSun (cont.) I'm saying that you can't see how most others who disagree with you ALSO think they are serving freedom. and yes, "guy" you would force the constitution on others. If I went out this weekend and violated someone's "constitutional right" you would most certainly agree that I should be punished by law, no? If so, you would have the strong arm of the government inflict suffering on me to coerce me to comply or take away my freedom through imprisonment. ....
mattpier 11 months ago
@mattpier Liberal is not what liberals are. There is nothing liberating about being a liberal If you are calling for greater control of our lives by the GOV'T, that's the opposite of liberation. The modern day liberal has nothing in common with the Jeffersonian concept of liberal and liberty. So if we have people who call themselves liberals, who are subscribing to an ideology that is the opposite of the spirit of our founding documents, then they are on the wrong, and yes, bad side of things
AroundSun 11 months ago
@AroundSun and let's just return to my original post to which you replied. All I said was people should not ignore facts or attack fact-providers because the facts challenge their ideology (which several posters seem to do by the ad hominem accusation that the speaker has a leftist agenda). You replied (only mentioning lefties as the problem) and promoting an "optionalism"...in what way does that refute my point that our ideologies are irrelevant to facts??
mattpier 11 months ago
@mattpier I never said we should ignore facts, but we also can't let them make us panic using knee jerk reactions and legislation discoursing from our freedom. Most of these "facts" are bias and slanted towards the agenda. Like saying the gap between the rich and poor is growing, yes, but BOTH classes have had increases in standards of living and income. So the "gap" is irrelevant. Theyd rather the poorer be poorer granted the rich were poorer.
AroundSun 11 months ago
@AroundSun (cont. #2)...I'm saying that it still is coercion. I'd agree with it too (i.e., not all coercion is unjustified). But Lefties don't advocate coercion for its own sake, and you are uncharitable to them and yourself to suggest otherwise. They just disagree about justice. Consider your own example...today's poor are better than yesterday's poor...does that make it ok that today's rich take a greater portion than yesterday's?
mattpier 11 months ago
@AroundSun (cont. #3) The real questions is whether we'd be as well off today if different policies had been in play, and this is not nearly as straightforward as many ideologues would suggest. And what is included in "well off" is not always the same set of values and data. All I originally said is "stop politicizing facts" and all I'd say to you is "stop polarizing debate." But honestly, I'm not expecting much.
mattpier 11 months ago
@mattpier We would be richer, more prosperous, freer, with more available opportunites and we would enjoy a higher standard of living if government had less of a role in our lives. If we had followed the founding documents from day one, we would be a more prosperous nation with nearly little corruption or crime. Ever hear of unintended consequences guy? Or are you just a simpleton who says, that sounds good, lets do it. Do you believe in equality or freedom? I wouldnt expect much from you
AroundSun 11 months ago
@mattpier How is a fact ideological? Try reading Thomas Kuhn on that.
Minnesnowtakid 11 months ago
@Minnesnowtakid Kuhn applies to theoretical entities in science. If there is an apple on a table, then there is an apple on the table. True, what we understand an apple to be may be different than what a Medieval thought...but this doesn't really change this fairly basic fact. If you don't agree that certain claims are less vulnerable to the 'relativistic' insights than others, then I'm afraid you are the very kind of person I was commenting about. (cont. to next)
mattpier 11 months ago
@Minnesnowtakid (cont.'d) The real question is whether the study produced facts that were somehow biased in a way that was not truth-oriented. As I said originally...ok, then point to the flaws, show the assumptions, the suppressed context, redo the study or do an additional augmented one...but don't just dismiss the facts as "ideological." And if you really are mentioning Kuhn to legitimate those who dismiss facts simply because they see them as "ideological" (cont. to next)
mattpier 11 months ago
@Minnesnowtakid (cont. #2), then you make no sense. Aren't then the "facts" of these dismissive viewers just as ideological? Anyway, as I first mentioned in response to you, Kuhn applies to scientific concepts/systems and only when "normal science" gets exhausted and revolution occurs (if you accept his view)...it seems disingenuous to hide behind a grandoise theory of changes in science to legitimate an ideological dismissal of a study because it challenges one's assumptions.
mattpier 11 months ago
@mattpier sensitive to the facts... i like how you worded that and i agree with your opinion as a whole...
BigBen81 8 months ago
If the gallop survey shows that people with less money are miserable, it's because of the false ideology that having money makes you happy. Belief is bankrupt. Happiness is highly subjective.
HigherPlanes 2 years ago
@HigherPlanes No. Not having enough food to eat, or being homeless, or not having heat or power, that's what makes people miserable. It has nothing to do with ideology or belief. It has to do with hunger, and cold, and illness.
JeanKM1 1 year ago
@JeanKM1 Exactly, it's not money, it's the things that money can buy, or rather the things that money can't buy that makes you miserable. But that's ideology. Isn't it so interesting that we all have to pay for the two most important things that assures our survival: food and shelter? Think about it for a minute. We have to pay to survive. Yet another fucked up thing that sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom.
HigherPlanes 1 year ago
@HigherPlanes True. We should not have to pay to survive. How did we get so messed up? I'm thinking... I have a vague notion it has something to do with our culture and/or competition for resources. I'm thinking about it..., but I can't figure out why things are the way they are, or what we can do about it.
JeanKM1 1 year ago
Few years back I have become suspicious of my judgement about the memory I had on my experiences. I tended to repeat experiences that I remembered as pleasant only to discovered that I could not experience the pleasure as I remembered. Then I stopped spending money to repeat the experiences for which I had good memory and concentrate on small things. I found that I got more pleasure in meeting with friends for a coffee, or watching together a movie or going for a tour. Now that Kahneman ...
dec041 2 years ago 3
... put it in words it is even more clear to me that I was suspicious (and fed-up) of the decisions taken by the remembering self and favour the experience self. Although one can argue that it is the remembering self that keep me doing the right experience. But then one can also argue that likely my two selves are now in sync. :-)
dec041 2 years ago 2
Ok... Bear with me: digesting this video I experienced some decree of happiness. It gave insight and was for me an interesting talk. Then it ended with a leftwing social hook (earning more then 60k) and an irritating commercial I know by heart now, followed promptly. So my remembering self only sees that? Ted should take this finding to the heart and change their commercial policy! And power to the experience self! Let's all get high! :)
doloppost 2 years ago 3
@doloppost , Depends, are you focusing on the commercial being part of the reason you don't like the segment? Or are you just addressing the commercial separately? Something to consider, most people use ego before they relate to something. Some don't like knowing they fit in a category "everyone is different" etc.
I would have to ask you the obvious question, did you like the show? A yes or no will suffice. Of course with documentation ala posting, its easy to make false claims.
PrisonCipher 2 years ago
Looking back I did enjoy the video, and when I tell people about it, I forget the left wing part that I felt was misplaced. So could one use the findings presented and use it on my experience? Btw I place the commercial behind it as something separate, which I click away.
doloppost 2 years ago
hahaha
weightpro 2 years ago
@doloppost your remembering self dosn't see at all, it only remebers. And the experienceing self sees all of it. if a group were to hear a list of nine digits, and then asked to recall the list, more people would remember the digits closer to the beginging and end.
qwortor 1 year ago
@doloppost your remembering self dosn't see at all, it only remebers. And the experienceing self sees all of it. if a group were to hear a list of nine digits, and then asked to recall the list, more people would remember the digits closer to the beginging and end.
qwortor 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Was good until the pro-socialist bit at the end.
InsaneRevolt 2 years ago
@InsaneRevolt so you followed his logic until it landed on something you didn't want to agree with? Then you just jumped ship? What's your problem with his Dr. Kahneman's interpretation of the mountains of data he was talking about?
DanHipp 2 years ago 2
7:40 glorious
freaketchic 2 years ago
while this wrong perception might seem like a mistake it does make some sense.
the over biasing of the end might be important, for learning.
sadly our modern world is not that simple, it is not always the end that counts, often it is the overallexperience.
0MoTheG 2 years ago
This lecture has really left me to ponder over my life hmm... I think people nowadays are getting increasingly unhappy with life despite the various pleasures they can indulge themselves in unlike people in the past. I guess this is because people are started to unravel secrets within the universe and at the same time, we human beings are starting to know more abt ourselves and the imperfection within us....
dreamylive08 2 years ago
that's not true. The real pleasures are still there to be enjoyed, and had not changed since paleolitic age. Thay have became more sofisticated, but not chaged in it's essence. True happines comes from art, witch, at the same time that gives you instant relif and pleasure, also justifies all of our sufering, since, as was said by falamansa, a forró band from Brazil, "If i didn't had pain in my life, I wouldn't have reason to sing".
ferqwert 2 years ago
Maybe, the reason we are not happy nowadays, is because we don't have any real pain. I know it's contradictory, but makes sense.
ferqwert 2 years ago 9
Are we not happy?
AtheistSid 2 years ago
so, That was a reply to dreamylife08, but I don't understand why youtube doesn't make those conected replyes anymore. Take a look at his comment, and you will understand mine... I gess... Any ways, it wasn't me who said we are not happy.
Actualy, happines is such a subjective matter, that is realy hard to tell weather we are happy as hole or not.
Personaly, I think that happyness is stricly connected to liberty, witch is connected to conscienseness. Most people, I think, is not conscient.
ferqwert 2 years ago
@ferqwert
interesting point. similar to how there is no light without darkness, and good without evil, etc..
tamicha1 1 year ago
@ferqwert It does?
yvranx 1 year ago
Like in every thing in life, balance is the solution. A seek for 'pleasure', as shimas47 defined the moment happines, will lead to an hedonistic life, and thus, to an irrespossible, egoistic and unwanted behavieur along society. In the other hand, the satisfaction of your memory self can end up transforming you in a Smaug (from the hobbit), a dragon, sleeping over a treasure that can not be enjoyed for real. Like spending your vacancies doing nothing, or acumulating thousands of useless dolars.
ferqwert 2 years ago
I have a friend who defines himself as a hedonist. It's interesting to talk to him.
He claims that many people don't really understand what living for experience is.
An example -
People may think a hedonist would drink excessively without concern. My friend insists that maximizing pleasure includes avoiding hangovers, because you want to maximize your pleasure the next day as much as the night before.
Just an interesting perspective your comment brought into my head.
t3tsuyaguy1 2 years ago
I am aware of that notion regarding hedonism. But stil, to became a true hedonist, one major step is to let go of any attatchment, relative to matirial possessions and people. You see, when you love people, you are doomed to suffer. I'm not talking about romantic afair, but any kind of human relation. You might call him your friend, but if he is an hedonist, he should not be sad if you die or get sick or what ever. Hedonist don't suffer for others. That's the kind of egoism I refered to before.
ferqwert 2 years ago
and thanks for your reply! hope to get an answer regarding your opinion in the truthness of your friends hedonist. I hope you can make him understand that hedonism has consequences beyond ourselfs. Try looking for Ricardo Reis poetry (it must have been translated!). It shows exactly this kind of hedonism.
ferqwert 2 years ago
I think he's pretty sincere in his description of his habits, but it might be that he doesn't qualify as a true hedonist.
He doesn't have any trouble feeling attached to others, and he manages an old folks home for a living. I think he just finds his internal interpretation of pleasure seeking a good way to balance his life.
Thanks for the poet suggestion. I'll look him up. :)
t3tsuyaguy1 2 years ago
Native northeast Ohioan here, I lol'd hard at the Ohio comments XD
nintendomaniac64 2 years ago
10:03 is that Daniel Craig?
Jedkrj 2 years ago
@Jedkrj hahaha noooooo
riche22 2 years ago
Comment removed
Jedkrj 2 years ago
As a Bharatiya (Indian) I found myself listening attentively to this great talk. And it leaves me impressed that my personal thoughts on happiness now stand verified by an eminent person. Thanks TED!
hereaminow 2 years ago
it seems like everythings reaching a climax or peak at the same time. everyones in debt. conspiracy's are coming out while technology is so dam advanced, but our government is less than responsible. plus the secrets of the mind are slowly being revealed.. this video is proof of that. soooo
i wonder what will happen next
djindox3 2 years ago
Very interesting lecture.
It is very interesting how Mr. Kahneman makes distinction between the two notions of happiness. But maybe we could eliminate the confusion that arises from mixing up these notions, by simply calling the experienced happiness "a pleasure". Wouldn't that sound right, and be easier?
Shimas47 2 years ago
in simple terms, those who have good memory in some ways battle with their past thoughts, good thoughts and bad thoughts both circulate, those who have a bad memory, yours truly, live life in the moment, if say something abominable happens today, we will suffer that thought for a short period and switch the brain pattern to a constant once again, subconsciously, therefore forgetting the bad and moving on towards the good...hope that makes sense....
please check out my channel
wickedinsight 2 years ago
Unhappiness would develop in those working more for those working less; there has to be a reward for expertise unless development will stagnate and producers will fail.
Pichounator 2 years ago
I have a solution to the public policy issues brought up by behavioral economics: educate people, then let them choose. (Yes, this is new information; it is valuable, but it is not unique per se.) The same has been true of psychology. I do not want the government to tweak my life in an attempt to make me happier, in principle because I believe in self-determination, in practice because I am pretty sure that the government would totally mess up. I doubt it would settle for a nudge.
Wormtail81 2 years ago
@Waranoa - He isn't saying they are completely separate. He isn't talking about mirror neurons and etc. either. He's referring to the difference in focus - what is attended to in experience is not the same as what is attended to in memory. As well, memory is highly malleable and is often changed in favour of personal narrative.
His research backs this. Unless you're conducting opposing research (or can cite it), try not to say opposing things you can't support. "I think..." isn't support.
Scottium 2 years ago
@Scottium Ok, I agree that you can distinguish between two functions, which his research backs; however, his claim is that there are two selves, which is an argument for a distinction in structures, which is on the one hand an oversimplification and on the other hand can be misleading. I do not think this distinction is there. One finding that backs this up is that if you make people remember a specific, emotional episode in the past, this alters their perception of the present.
Waranoa 2 years ago
@Scottium His research does not back up the distinction between two selves or the conflict between them. He mentions that there is a conflict between the remembering and experiencing self when we remember a short procedure with painful ending as being overly painful. I say that this is a functional quality of a single system. This might seem an arbitrary argument but it deletes the psychological concept of split selves while it is still supported by the same line of evidence: Occams razor.
Waranoa 2 years ago
@Scottium Well said.
Saerain 2 years ago
Experiencing can't be thought about. If you try to make some type of "laws" for people to follow so they can be happy, they won't be. Only when the "remembering self" aka ego is recognized as a fantasy we create for social convenience, can we be free to experiencing.
cloud1232006 2 years ago
I didn't watch the whole video, because i get more & more unhappy every second watching it. The moment I switch channel I got back my happiness. Ha ha . . . life + happiness is the basic of existence, there is no rocket science complication about it. I guess human trying to be smart & clever, kick their own ass, mess up their brain, screwed up their own natural instinct to live life happily.
jxguy 2 years ago
For a lot of people, this video actually achieves the opposite effect. While you see it as making you sad, many who live a life that they don't think is so great, or have had things happen to them which they are still hurting over, will realize that maybe things weren't actually so bad.
JimMayBeInSexTown 2 years ago
He could have avoided the whole dualism about the selves if he had said "the experiencing self and the REMEMBERED self"...which is really what he meant. Of course, thinking of it has two selves is a pedagogical device and wasn't meant to be taken literally. But I guess all the comments below whining about just goes to show that even TEDtalks are beyond what some people can get a grasp on.
BuBBaGump014 2 years ago
How is the "experiencing self" and the "remembered self" not dualism? It's all going on in the self, whatever THAT is...
cloud1232006 2 years ago
@cloud1232006
It's not dualism......for the very reason you state O_o......the experiencing self does the remembering, but remembering is by definition not of the present and thus not of immediate experience. So you're remembering a memory of yourself and that's the remembered self. In the same way that the experiencing self can look at a picture of itself when it was younger. The picture (and thus memory) is a representation of the experiencing self at a different period.
BuBBaGump014 2 years ago
I don't deal with badly defined things. What I am concerned with is to make you understand that it is impossible to remember any event from any other time than right now. The picture is recreated in the present.
cloud1232006 2 years ago
O_o....which is why it's not dualism...
BuBBaGump014 2 years ago
^_^
cloud1232006 2 years ago 2
this talk reminded me of a saying we have in germany. it roughly translates to "you should stop when the fun is at its peak."
what this guy found out is true and many people unconsciously know it. a good method for self-motivation at home is: if you work, stop when you get tired, because if you keep on working even a bit when you're tired the work gets really hard and you will remembe rhow hard it was at the end and the next day you will not want to do it.
1schwererziehbar1 2 years ago 3
but when you stop yourself when it's still easy you will look at what you have achieved so easily and feel good and look forward to working again the next day.
this works very well for me.
1schwererziehbar1 2 years ago
i need to make 60,00 dollars a year is what i got out of this
loyesj 2 years ago 2
at the very least
pikiwiki 2 years ago
My experiencing self liked this video. My remembering self, didn't think it was that great.
NTSmith87 2 years ago
Oh for god's sake you daft psychologist... Two selves, there's no experiening self or remembering self. I challenge everyone here to present evidence for the hypothesis that there are two shifting selves that are not connected at all. Don't bother, you won't find anything. Experiencing and remembering are are two functions of the same self.
Waranoa 2 years ago
@Waranoa I think it would be better to interpret his talk as an analogy for how people think. Just because you can't find physical evidence doesn't mean that you can clearly make a distinction between how happy you are during the experience and how satisfied you are with the memories of those experiences.
Radjehuty 2 years ago
It's a frigging analogue... deal with it.
mismos00 2 years ago
I am dealing with it; it's not a proper analogue. There is no seperation in time nor in space, which is the two things that make up the analogue he tries to make. We perceive things to be seperated in time and space but they are not; If we could please formulate a better analogue people would not try to answer the question 'what is the self' by summarizing the parts of a modular system but by studying the relevant dynamics and interactions!
Waranoa 2 years ago
@Waranoa
calm down and feel with ur mind. the two selves are contained in the same entity, but they are separated by time. one is in the past, the other is in the present. that is the difference. both are u, but not each other.
UnluckyGambler 2 years ago
But you remember the past in the present. So I would say you make your past the way you want it to. The past doesn't actually exist, all remembering is actually in the present.
cloud1232006 2 years ago
he's saying the memory of an experience is different from experiencing something. and i agree because ive thought about this myself.
for example, i assume u have eaten an apple before. think about an instance of u eating an apple from ur memories. u remember how it tastes, u remember how it felt, how juicy it was, its color, texture. but what u sense when u remember that experience is different from what u sense when u eat the same type of apple again.
UnluckyGambler 2 years ago
a better example is having sex. the memory of a really good fucking isnt gonna get u to jizz, but if u have another really good fucking at the present, u will jizz. thats the difference between memory of an experience and the actual experience itself. that is why there is a experiencing self and a remembering self.
UnluckyGambler 2 years ago
Good example. However the fact that remembering sex and actually having sex have different end-results, does not mean that they are mediated by two systems that are COMPLETELY seperate; like this man is saying. Of course; different functions require different systems, but when we remember sex, we actually use neural pathways that are very similar to those we use when having sex; there's a difference but there's so much overlap that makes it nonsense tos peak about two seperate 'selves'.
Waranoa 2 years ago
no one said they are completely separate ;]
they are definitely connected and definitely not the same, so it is more accurate to see them as two connected things rather than one thing.
UnluckyGambler 2 years ago
I, and I am not alone in that, think that we should focus our efforts in understanding connections and interactions between the things. The paradigm of looking for discrete, individual elements of a system begins to lose it's momentum. I agree with you, and also at some level with Kahneman; but the words he uses seem outdated and frankly, inaccurate even at certain fundamental points; even though his work as a researcher is incredible!
Waranoa 2 years ago
oh go easy on him, hes old ;]
UnluckyGambler 2 years ago
@Waranoa I agree that perhaps to speak of 'selves' is not very accurate, but I don't think Kahneman is a neuroscientist. He's using very psychological terms, and if you keep that in mind and do some background translating to neuroscience, it makes more sense.
You'd probably agree with me that psychologists and psychiatrists need to pay more attention to neuroscience than they do, but still, the distinction between experiencing and remembering is important experientially, if not neurologically.
Saerain 2 years ago
Agreed. But as I say to UnluckyGambler, it is becoming less and less fruitful, scientifically, to study the brain and the mind as discrete, interacting units; there are modules for everything, but their borders are very vague and show much overlap with other modules; neural and psychological functions are for an important part very much part of a spectrum of functions which are interconnected at every level: at the level of the microscopic synaps, local networks, modules, dispersed nets...!!
Waranoa 2 years ago
Is there any other way to feel than with your mind? The two parts are not seperated by time; when you think about how you are feeling this week, you still perceive the world around you at the same time. Most importantly, there is a profound interaction between the temporal integration of your mood states (the remembering self) and our sensory experience (experiencing self); this interaction is so powerfull that the functional seperation between the two is completely arbitrary and misleading.
Waranoa 2 years ago
Would I be wrong in saying that time is non existent in actuality? Time is just a social convenience but besides that, I don't believe I have ever seen such a thing as time. Everything happens now.
cloud1232006 2 years ago
@cloud1232006 'Would I be wrong in saying that time is non existent in actuality?'
No, you'd be correct. Time is a process that occurs (the changing of what is) rather than a thing that exists. We abstract it into a thing because, frankly, it's probably the only way to wrap a child's mind around the notion of a changing present, and once we've learnt it that way, it becomes difficult for many to break the habit. Like erroneous application of agency (see: theism).
Saerain 2 years ago
@Saerain Well then here's a policy change for education ^_^
cloud1232006 2 years ago
Something else that's interesting about this idea is that it might be the answer to the main criticism of utilitarianism--that happiness can't be accurately measured. Understanding the difference between our memory selves and experience selves should give us better methods of testing happiness.
NsaneNtheNbrane 2 years ago
What he's talking about here is something that politicians have known about for a long time. One of the best ways to deceive the public is to minimize the pain at the end of a politician's term or role in a policy decision to make the constituent's "memory self" judgement outweigh the "experience self" when looking back at the politician's performance.
NsaneNtheNbrane 2 years ago 2
all that talk of colonoscopy and now I gotta take a dump.
xjustamem0ryx 2 years ago
"We don't think of our future normally as experiences. We think of our future as anticipated memories."
jonmahoney04 2 years ago 6
so what he is saying is if you give electric shock therapy longer than someone else you'll remember it as a plesant experience. What some wonderful minds we have in this world.
jsebastianfilms 2 years ago
@jsebastianfilms, no, what he's saying is that if you would taper off electric shock therapy at the end by spending a few minutes giving very weak shocks, the memory of the traumatic event would be less harsh than if you didn't.
DavidMTRutten 2 years ago 6
No he didn't say that.
mlpoulter 2 years ago
in a nutshell he did. Referring to pain not to electric shock directly