Download MP3 · RSS · Subscribe via iTunes · Discuss

Digg · Facebook · del.icio.us · reddit · StumbleUpon

Good podcast! Left me wanting more. Wanted to hear not just the results of Keltner’s studies, but also a little more about the methodologies. In particular, I wanted to hear support for his theory (which I might slightly misconstrue here) that people’s happiness is best viewed as the ratio of happiness that they solicit in others over the unhappiness they solicit in others. Are his data more than a bunch of people self-reporting? And his ratio theory didn’t quite seem to jell with his mention of people with smiling faces being happier. That seems more like an anatomical basis for happiness, not so much a social one. (Offtrack: It’d be neat if there were twin studies where their happiness quotients differed; researchers could check out their faces for different anatomical features.) 

Best,
Jordan

I REALLY enjoyed this segment!
And D.J., as always, was an excellent interviewer.

I could write many pages on my reactions to the discussion.  Here are a few thoughts at random, FWIW:

First, this episode dovetails nicely with the recent interview of Eric Maisel about his book discussing meaning for atheists. 

Recently various writers, not least the Dalai Lama, have made much of the idea that happiness is the fundamental goal in life.  I think this notion is not quite false, but rather incomplete, because it can lead to too much inward, self-oriented focus, which is actually self-defeating and can therefore actually lead to less happiness.
I think its better to say that a life filled with meaning and fulfillment is the fundamental goal of life.  Meaning is also found in the inevitable losses in life and fulfillment is found in rich relationships, or as Mr. Keltner says, in creating happiness for others.

In the latest Free Inquiry magazine, Paul Kurtz calls for the development of a more defined secular humanist morality.  I think the work of people like Dacher Keltner and Eric Maisel should be a part of this.  We should ask, “What is the purpose of morality?” 
Is it only for social and utilitarian ends?  Or is the ultimate goal of morality the fulfillment of individuals as much as the peace and prosperity of society?  I think the purpose of morality is very much the latter proposition.

On another topic, that of touching, Keltner points to the value of empathetic touching, and that among other things, a person who is raised in a family that understands that value is likely to be happier (and more compassionate?).  I presume the opposite is also true.
As a personal anecdote, I like to think of myself as a compassionate person, but I have to admit to lots of troubled relationships and the absence of consistent happiness so far in life.  I was raised as an only child in a fundamentalist and rather militaristic household where the touching involved corporal punishment as often as not.  Also, my extended family (and southern culture) was quite discouraging of males touching each other in any manner other than shaking hands, and needless to say, the religious taboos made a whole lot of male/female touching off limits, too.
Certainly secular parents have more opportunity to transcend these sorts of issues and find greater wisdom and a better balance for their children.

I’ll stop with this last thought, and get off the silly computer!
Keltner mentions some sort of study where it was found that green spaces in cities create calm among the urban populace.
If I remember my history more or less correctly, in the late 1850s there was considerable debate about what to do with the space in the upper center of Manhattan, which was a collection of swamps, pig farms, and so forth.  The population was moving north from downtown and a grid of streets had been laid out for the whole island.  It was clear that land on the entire island was going to be hugely valuable.  The conservative and wealthy mayor at the time wanted the grid to extend the entire length of Manhattan with the only interruption being a relatively small “parade ground,” while others wanted a very large park. 
The mayor and various real estate interests were set to prevail until the draft riots occurred, which made wealthy New Yorkers take greater note of the swelling numbers of poor, unemployed Irish, among others.  Then the park idea was resurrected as a means of putting those people to work, the result of which is now Central Park.  Like many New Yorkers, Central Park was a key promoter of my sanity during the time I lived there!

Great podcast, DJ.  I thought it was really well done.  Thanks.

I’ve listened to this podcast twice, and will probably listen to it again.

I was reminded that I have a copy of Keltner’s magazine. I went out of my way to purchase it because I was very interested in the cover story “Are We Born Racist?” But, I haven’t read it yet.    I will definitely read it now.

I remember reading an article on altruism in a supplement to the Sunday edition of my daily newspaper. I cut out a list of altruistic traits worth cultivating not because I needed to cultivate them (I relate very closely with all of them except the last-I’m not always very confident; and the one about being religious-I’ll substitute the philosophy of cosmopolitanism here, thank you!), but because I thought it might catch the attention of someone who needed to cultivate them. Here’s the article that contains the list.  The list is below.

Want to have a more altruistic personality?
Cultivate these traits.

Empathy. Altruists easily imagine what it’s like to be in another’s shoes.

An urge to give. “People who are altruistic have the genuine desire to see others prosper,” says philosopher Elliott Sober. “They don’t have to fight against some stronger tendency to keep the cookie for themselves.”

Tolerance. Altruists tend to reject stereotypes and to have friends from different racial, ethnic and religious groups.

A keen sense of justice. They protest unfair treatment of others.

Religious, in a particular way. Altruists have “a kind of spirituality that believes we all belong to the human family,” says sociologist Samuel Oliner. “It’s a belief that everyone is part of a common universe.”

A history of generosity. They make helping people a habit.

Confidence. “Altruistic people have a strong sense that they can shape their destinies,” says University of South Florida psychologist Louis Penner. “They have a great deal of self-confidence, bordering on arrogance. It’s not enough to think good thoughts. You have to feel, ‘I can change things.’ “

Anyway, I really enjoyed the show. 

I had several concerns on some of the data Keltner, especially the smiling—> happiness.  Does the data really point to a causal relationship, as Keltner seems to interpret them, or is there a third variable which is causal to both, or do the two variables interact with each other?

I would propose that an important third variable could be relative attractiveness with respect to one’s peer group.  For example, I could imagine a scenario where more attractive people get more positive feedback when they exhibit duchenne smiles.  So:

Attractiveness—> others smile and give more positive feedback—> attractiveness + duchenne smiling—> more positive feedback—> etc.—> happiness + lots of duchenne smiling

Versus:

Unttractiveness—> others smile less and give less positive feedback—> unattractiveness + less duchenne smiling—> less positive feedback—> etc.—> less happiness + little duchenne smiling (especially during yearbook photos!)

I would have liked to have known whether he and his colleagues controlled for attractiveness.  It would also have been interesting if they had studied both men and women, to see how gender might interact with these variables.  Indeed, there could be many variables that would have affected an individual greatly by the time they get their high school senior picture taken.  I wouldn’t find it surprising that the amount of happiness we experience on average by the time we reach high school is highly correlated with later happiness in life, but I don’t think there is any convincing evidence presented here that smiling is the cause - more likely, it is symptomatic. 

My other concern is his characterization of “bullying” and “teasing”.  I don’t believe the two phenomena are as reducible as Keltner suggests (bullying only involves physical violence, teasing does not).  But more importantly, does the lack of violence in teasing make ‘teasers’ less culpable when it comes to hurting their peers?  What about emotional abuse?  I can think of many instances where children gang up and tease other children, with lasting damaging psychological effects on the one that is being teased.  Again, gender probably plays a role here too: girls are more likely to engage in emotional abuse, whereas boys tend to resolve these disputes with physical challenges.  While some forms of teasing among peers can be positive, there are most likely degrees of hurtfulness in teasing ranging from playful/not hurtful to recurrent pervasive emotional abuse.  Keltner seems to validate all forms of teasing as innocuous and positive based on data suggesting that boys who tease each other seem to form stronger bonds and respect the leader of the teasing.  While I can’t comment on the content of the teasing in those studies, since it wasn’t described, I still think this interpretation is overly simplistic.  Perhaps children appear to ‘respect’ the teaser because they don’t want to be teased themselves.  Perhaps they form ‘strong bonds’ as a way to join the ‘winning side’ to prevent any further teasing.  In fact, I have heard comedians self-report that they were targets of teasing as children and adopted a ‘class clown’ persona in response.  By making fun of themselves first in front of their peer group, often they were able to defuse the teaser/bully and recruit allies.

Keltner would benefit from more nuanced thinking on both issues.  In terms of the smiling/happiness research, I think the story would be much richer if additional data on the childhood and personality traits of the women in the pictures were collected.  The teasing issue is very important because it impacts the mental and emotional well-being of children, and shapes their cognitive and emotional styles, potentially and often in ways that extend into their adult lives. Just ask any shy or awkward person what their childhood was like (or any overbearing blowhard, for that matter).  Keltner is making light of a common and potentially damaging social phenomenon - and the extension of his logic would be to look to children to ‘teach us’ their wisdom in the realm of interpersonal interactions.  Children are still children; they are continuing to learn about the world around them and determine the most successful social strategies.  Adults benefit from some leveling of the playing field (adults can find success in many niches, whereas children are limited to a few attributes such as size, strength, and the acceptance of a peer group of limited size). Overall, I think it’s dangerous to suggest (to both children and adults) that teasing is a social glue and encouraging or bonding with teasers blindly is a successful social strategy.

ks

Thank you, Ms. Safron, for those very thoughtful and excellent points.  I’d love to see Mr. Keltner respond to each of them.  Perhaps you could copy your comments in a submission on his web site and maybe get a response there?
http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/
Or apparently he would receive an email at this address:  [Edited to remove address. Avoid posting email addresses in the clear as they will get harvested by spammers. Send the email by PM if necessary.  dougsmith—Admin]

For several reasons I was generally very enthused about the segment and about the work Mr. Keltner and his colleagues are doing, but I, too, was troubled about the seemingly much too general endorsement of teasing.  At minimum, I think the definition of the term should be “teased out” far more specifically.

Also, while I’m neither a psychologist nor a sociologist, I believe that there is already a very large body of data demonstrating that emotional set-points are solidified long before a person’s high school graduation, so your point here is quite valid:

  I wouldn’t find it surprising that the amount of happiness we experience on average by the time we reach high school is highly correlated with later happiness in life, but I don’t think there is any convincing evidence presented here that smiling is the cause - more likely, it is symptomatic. 
ks

Still, I think Keltner’s study with the high-school photos is useful, even if it only offers an intermediate starting point.

My own childhood experience with what was called “teasing” was that when it came from other children at school (I was an only child) it often ranged from passive-aggressive to vicious in style, and when it came from adults it seemed intended to humiliate about as often as it was playful.
And I believe my general emotional tone was about the same at age fifteen as it is today at age fifty-two, unsurprisingly.

Keltner would benefit from more nuanced thinking on both issues.

Do you think he would? Were he to concentrate on attractiveness (a genetically determined trait that one cannot change) he would probably sell a lot less books. Most people don’t want to know the truth, they want to feel they are in charge of their future.

Oy!  Thank you, Doug Smith, I hadn’t thought of that, but will bear it in mind in the future.

George, you are absolutely right.  People want to hear that they have control over their own lives.  You are pointing to the fundamental issue with Keltner’s research which spurred me to comment on his interview.

I do think, however, that people can still believe they have some control over their lives (although this is never absolute) by giving them the complete picture, instead of a white-washed kiddie version, which is more of a ‘quick fix’ than a valid way to tackle the problem.  Smile more, and everyone will love you!  As Jim Gaffigan related in one of his standup routines, “when an attractive person smiles at you, you think ‘ah, that person’s nice!  When an ugly person smiles at you, you think ‘ugh, what do they want?!’”

Related to Trail Rider’s response, it’s reasonable to assume that Keltner never seriously dealt with the negative outcomes of teasing in his childhood.  Thus, I’m especially concerned about the implications of Keltner’s views on our understanding of child psychology.  Rather than sit back and say that the status quo is beneficial because it is evolutionarily supported, I’d rather see a more rigorous treatment of children’s interactions.  It’s easy and perhaps more convenient to tell parents and teachers that the status quo is a positive influence than suggesting that we need to change the way we teach and parent.  And as George points out, it sells more books.

TR, I think I will contact Keltner and I’ll keep you all updated on any interesting feedback.

Keltner’s book is being discussed on SomaSimple.com where therapists interested in the treatment of painful problems gather regularly. It’s a well-referenced and entertaining book, but I am wondering about the absence of any mention of sociopathy (inherent badness) that makes it possible to take advantage of those who are inherently good.

I’ve been told Keltner is aware of the discussion and I hope he will join us.

I would have liked to have known whether he and his colleagues controlled for attractiveness.

Hi Katherine. You make some good points and let’s face it in the general media correlation and causation are synonyms. That’s how we know facts like video games will make you a violent killer and pot will make you rape your girlfriend. Anyway your remarks here lead me to imagine the ramifications of the technical term you necessitate: clinically attractive. This would be required so that a researcher may control for attractiveness. I’m at once intrigued with how this may be defined and also what the consequences are. I imagine a hiring manager at the wings chain Hooters explaining to an applicant, we got the lab results back.. you’re technically not attractive.. I mean I think you’re hot but the analysis here is pretty thorough.. we can’t hire ya. Try Olive Garden, their lab is a little loose with the P-values if you know what I mean…

Five-point scale should be enough:

1. Very attractive (supermodels)
2. Attractive (the girl you knew in high school every boy had a crush on)
3. Average (average Joe)
4. Ugly (who needs a husband anyway, I’ll get a cat)
5. Very ugly (The Hunchback of Notre Dame)

OTOH, five points wouldn’t do, since 90% of people would fall into the third category. But then I remember when I was sitting one morning in front of a Starbucks, McDonald’s and some super-health-juice-and-veggie-wrap store, trying to guess who was going to walk into which store. I could only judge the people by their appearance but to my surprise I was mostly right:

Starbucks: mostly attractive;
McDonald’s: mostly unattractive;
“the health place”: somewhere in between.