THE NEW OXYMORON: HAPPINESS SCIENCE

                                                                   By Bob Nozik, MD

          British psychologist Daniel Nettle’s new book, HAPPINESS: The Science Behind Your Smile, really put a burr under my saddle.  Not because it isn’t well written; it is.  Not because it hasn’t enough scientific data; it has.  Not that it is lacking in humor or bounce; it isn’t.  No, I realized after reading it that my objection targets the domain of happiness science itself.  Let me be clear, I am a science lover having spent more than 35 joyfully productive years as a medical scientist prior to embarking on my second career as a happiness speaker, writer, teacher, and practitioner.

          Here are some of the problems with happiness science from my perspective.

          First of all, science is a Johnny-come-lately when it comes to happiness.  Most scientists studying happiness are psychologists whose training and experience come from their studies of patients with mental dysfunction and unhappiness.  For the most part, their training in happiness and the positive emotions is, well, limited.  But things are changing.  Because of the new burgeoning field of positive psychology, more and more psychologists are now studying positive mental and emotional functioning in addition to their dysfunction.

          Also, happiness may well be second only to spirituality in the difficulties it presents for scientific study.  Some of these stumbling blocks include:

·        There is no agreed upon definition for happiness.

·        There is no objective way for measuring happiness.

·        There is no proven system for teaching happiness.

·        We aren’t even able to properly describe happiness nor do we have a sure-fire way for identifying those individuals who actually are deeply happy.

          While this appraisal is limited and not at all scientific, I should point out that it seems that many of the scientists studying happiness do not appear to be particularly happy themselves.  Since happiness is universally desired, why should we believe the recommendations of those who would tell us how to be happier unless they are using their information for enriching their own happiness?

          Nettle asserts this about happiness: “…if you are above neutral, but below the maximum most of the time, then this is probably as good as it gets.”  Despite this dour prognosis, Nettle, our science proxy, considers no other source than science for steering us to happiness. 

          I disagree.  While we eagerly wait for happiness science to mature past its awkward adolescence, there is another more immediately helpful wellspring available to us: happiness practitioners.  Examples of such people include Lionel Ketchian, founder of the Happiness Clubs, Julian Kalmar, author of the CD collection,  Happiness: The Highest Gift, and Rabbi Zelig Pliskin, who wrote Gateway to Happiness.  These are people who, through a combination of serendipity and great effort, discovered what actually works for cultivating deep abiding happiness. 

          We all want happiness, although few of us actually experience the happiness of our dreams; happiness that is independent of external events, happiness that doesn’t leave just as we begin enjoying it, happiness that arises from deep within us.  Someday science will provide the best answers; of that I am certain.  But we’re not there yet.  Until we get there, I suggest we make use of the wisdom and methods of those of us who have already succeeded in finding lasting happiness; the happiness practitioners.