Having problems with message search?
> The author completely missed the whole meaning of happiness.
What is "the whole meaning of happiness", and how did Nettle miss it?
> Nettles used science and he arrived at the most absurd conclusions to happiness.
Are you saying you can't take a scientific approach to happiness?
> He does not know anything about happiness and some of his scientific information is wrong.
What does he get wromg? And where can you find the correct information?
> In some cases he does not even understand what authors have written and has miss-quoted them as well.
Any examples?
> There is no agreed upon definition for happiness.
There is no absolute, agreed upon definition of anything - but many authors I've read produce what seem to me reasonable pragmatic defintions (e.g. Seligman and Layard)
> There is no objective way for measuring happiness.
> There is no proven system for teaching happiness.
Again, there is no absolute certain proof of anything. But there are many happiness techniques which appear to work for many people, at least they have seemed worth trying to me, and they have increased my happiness.
> We aren’t even able to properly describe happiness nor do we have a sure-fire way for identifying
> individuals who actually are deeply happy.
Why this demand for 'sure fire' certainty? Seligman and the Dalai Lama say they're happy, sound happy, appear very wise, give
'em a chance and their books may lead you to greater happiness (they certainly did for me!)
> While this appraisal is limited and not at all scientific
And incredibly negative! Nozik certainly knows how to take the positive out of positive psychology :-)
> I should point out that it seems that many of the scientists studying happiness do not appear to be particularly happy themselves.
I have not made this observation.
> 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.”
I agree this is rather dour, as well as vague.
> Nettle, our science proxy, considers no other source than science for steering us to happiness.
This is simply wrong, check out the reviews on:
For instance, onre review states that Nettle quotes Nathaniel Hawthorne: 'Happiness is like a butterfly which, when pursued, is always beyond our grasp, but, if you will sit down quietly, may alight upon you.'"
> While we eagerly wait for happiness science to mature past its awkward adolescence,
I don't find Seligman or Layard awkward.
> 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.
I'm an admirer of "the happiness club" and Pliskin's amazing "Daily Lift", but find Seligman, Buddhist and Layard's works just as helpful (in different ways). Nozick's review praises a limited group of happiness practioners while slagging off scientists and ignoring other resources (Buddhist monks, ancient Greek stoics, modern philosophers of consolation) Why? He may have found happiness through his limited group of practioners, but (given there are no absolute answers) others may need other resources ... maybe even Nettle?
Offline 
Send Email