Happiness, Unhappiness, Depression and The Personal and National Economies

Submitted by tonyplant on April 12, 2006 - 13:38.

I've previously offered a bone-achingly long post that shares my confusion about the topic Is Unhappiness A Symptom Or A Passing Phase. A handwave summary would be that unhappiness is part of the rhythm of our lives: however, when it persists it can be part of the symptom spectrum of depression. There is professional conflict that suggests that depression is over-diagnosed, and under-diagnosed according to demographic groups (e.g., under-diagnosed in men) and that it is over-medicated or under-medicated. There is little conflict over the life-distorting impact of depresson and its implications both for personal quality of life and well-being (a personal economy) and the general economy (depression can impact people's ability to be economically active). I hope that is clear (yes, your suspicion that I'm at the state of ignorance where all I can say is "One the one hand this. On the other hand..." is absolutely true). I am choosing to bodyswerve any attempt to summarise whether depression statistics should be included in any discussion of happiness economics.

Anyhow. I've introduced more confusion into my thinking by reading the transcript of a thought-provoking debate between psychiatrist Raj Persaud and happiness economist, Lord Layard. As part of the background to the debate, we are told that although research indicates that money doesn't necessarily make us happier, "the greatest predictor of unhappiness...is still real poverty and hardship, with mental illness a close second". It is from this position that Layard argues:

...that public policy, and even how we spend our time, should be more devoted to trying to help people who are very unhappy. There’s another reason there actually, which is in the research and has not been pointed out very much. We know a lot more about what makes the difference, what causes the difference between the misery and average happiness. Knowing what causes the difference between average happiness and great happiness, we have it more in our power (as well as it being a duty) to do more about the least happy.

…Unfortunately this is not the way the government has been thinking up till now. Psychiatry and psychology have been Cinderella sections of the NHS. If you have blood pressure (I have) or a skin problem, or asthma, or diabetes, or whatever, you will almost automatically, at some point, see a specialist. But not if you have a crippling depression which is stopping you from working for a year; you’re extremely unlikely to see a specialist. Not more than 10% of people in that condition will see a specialist, and this reflects I think our obsession at the moment with ‘objective indicators’ rather than the feelings of people, which are what I believe matter most of all. So it’s encouraging that by pointing out some of these facts, there is now a move going on in the government to provide more psychological therapy, which is of course what these patients want, they just don’t want to be put on a few pills by the GP and sent off home.

Unlike the usual discussion as to whether unhappiness is a prodrome for depression in the way that high blood pressure is for heart disease, Layard is proposing a call to action that discusses misery, unhappiness and depression as if they are synonyms. Persaud commends Layard's work for promoting positive psychology as a necessary part of public policy. He disputes Layard's definition of happiness and how it is measured: he argues that we need to take personal responsibility for our own happiness.

Internality and externality are two key dimensions the psychologists feel you can divide the population over. Internals are people who take responsibility for their lives, they believe that they can have an impact on the future of their life, on their destiny. And they believe their destiny is in their hands. Externals, on the other hand, believe that their life is down to external forces beyond their control and they have very limited ability to control their future.

...externals are more prone to various problems.

Persaud speculates that a blame culture is pushing more of the population in an external direction.

And the squeezing out of personal responsibility means that people are much more external in orientation. And it has dramatic implications for happiness, because externals feel happier in the short run, because when bad things happen to them, they can always blame someone else for why it happened to them. But in the long run, because they don’t take personal responsibility for their lives, they’re not going to be successful.

Persaud suggests that the pernicious effect ascribed to television and other entertainment media (similar to the earlier discussion of television) could be mitigated by

educating people as to the dangers of the entertainment industry and then leaving it to people to make decisions for themselves.

Persaud also outlines the research that shows that we are notoriously poor at predicting what will make us happy. Accepting this, he says:

I would be worried about governments saying, well, you know, you guys are really bad at this decision-making stuff; we’re going to take over and help you with your decisions. I think people should be educated about the fact that they’re error-prone when it comes to these decisions, but hopefully with that education they’ll be moved to a place where they can make better decisions over happiness.

Entertainment and public policy are both sources of mis-information and FEAR (False Experience Appearing Real). Both Layard and Persaud discuss the corrosive impact that these can have.

Now you’ve got this extraordinary view, which is obviously completely wrong, that there are many people according to the surveys, people in their late teens or early 20s, who think they’re not going to be as rich as their parents. Now this is completely fatuous. It’s inconceivable that that should come about. And yet this is the atmosphere of fear and anxiety that’s been created.

Persaud summarises the influence of politics on our sense of well-being. Both agree that it would be better if politicans and public policy:

encouraged more that we thought about positive emotions, like happiness and wellbeing. And encouraged ourselves to orientate ourselves towards positive emotions like wellbeing, and that we voted on that rather than voting on fear.

It's an intriguing discussion. I am not convinced that we can only shed unhappiness with the aid of a psychologist or psychiatrist. We can change how we experience our lives and the quality of our lives by learning to be happy. However, although happiness is a legitimate individual pursuit that can be self-cultivated, it seems as if there is a role for our local and national governments. Researchers like Ed Diener say that it is easier to be happy when there is a sense of trust, safety, stability and security. He says that governments can create conditions such as recreational facilities, working hours legislation, a health infrastructure and transport infrastructure that have a profound influence on people's happiness.

Copyright 2006, Tony Plant Happystance Project

resilience | persaud | Layard | happiness economics | happiness | FEAR