Why are we happy?

Dan Gilbert says that people have the capacity to simulate an experience. This means that we don't have to actually experience something before we make decisions. For example: I don't have to actually eat poop before I can conclude that it would be a horrid, horrid experience.

He categorizes happiness between (1) Synthetic Happiness and (2) Natural Happiness. Synthetic Happiness is perceived when we don't get what we want but our psychological defense mechanisms convince us that whatever we have now is better than what could have been. Natural Happiness on the other hand is perceived when we feel happy when we get what we want: our goals, ambitions, dreams, etc.

However, Dan Gilbert also says that our ability to simulate happiness often leads us in less than ideal situations because we are delusioned to believe that Natural Happiness weighs better than Synthetic Happiness. In truth, both Synthetic and Natural happiness are experienced in the same manner, in the same duration, etc. This delusion stems from the belief that Natural Happiness can be achieved in the freedom to choose.

Freedom to choose which job would make us happier is believed to be beneficial to our happiness. In contrast to this belief, their research shows that people under irreversible conditions end up happier as compaired against people that were given the freedom to choose.

In the end, it's not about revoking freedom from people so that we can make them happier. We're wired to believe that freedom will lead to happiness, so that won't work at all. History will attest to that. It's simply about understanding happiness.

I can easily relate this video with one of the most important lessons I learned from my Theo professor, Fr. Dacanay, that commitment maximizes the potentials of freedom.