I’m defining it the way you define being actively content. 
That’s the second point in my theory. Content, IMO, means that you are open and accepting to whatever emotion you are experiencing, without the attachment to hold on to it or the desire to change it. That is much healthier, than “trying to be happy all the time.”
Meh. I’ve had bosses who congratulated me on how sparkling and happy I was to be at work every day when I was crying every day on the car ride in because I didn’t want to be there so badly. Just because someone looks happy doesn’t mean they are.
Then yes. I wake up every morning happy to be alive and look forward to the day. I have my down days just like everyone else but I am pretty sure I am neither biologically or chemically wired to be depressed, and I also react well to external stimuli - three things I think one needs not to be depressed.
Obviously most of this is not in my control (biological and chemical wiring specifically) and I believe that anti-depressant drugs are to ‘normalize’ these. Then, therapy is to fix what is or can be under your own control.
Agreed that I don’t know a lot of happy shrinks…but I don’t know many shrinks socially, so it’s a small sample pool.
ETA: That was to tdn. Inner Stickler, how did you sneak in there.
True enough. But it’s the detachment to negative emotions that brings back a state of peace, which in itself is a state of happiness.
ETA: That was to living_in_hell. Anaamika, how did you sneak in there? 
Drive by post: there is a branch of psychology (positive psychology), and research institute, and a bestselling bookfor everything.
The most superficially-happy person I know is a psychotherapist. Or, rather, she used to be a psychotherapist; she abandoned the field to “follow her bliss,” as she puts it when trying to annoy me. She has excellent coping skills and is skilled at manipulating her own mental state so that she can usually maintain at least the veneer of happiness.
Incidentally, I used the words “superficially” and “veneer” above not to cast aspersions on my friend but because I obviously lack access to her internal mental states. I don’t think she’s faking, but as we’re good friends and I’ve seen her in very dark moments (the death of her mother, to be specific) I don’t think it’s an act.
And that would be the first point I said. People show. What they want to show the world. And other people see what is shown them. So there ya go.
Sure. But what does that have to do with what we’re talking about?
Post 18. I was replying to you when I said it.
Ah, OK. And I disagree with you. I’m taking a class on the subject, and it’s not like the tutor pastes a false smile on his face. We talk about these things very deeply and share what we experience.
I’d post more, but I’m off to my class!
We all paste smiles on our faces. That’s why psychology has terms like “affect display.” The fact is, while there are people who are more prone to feel “up” more often than others, the key points in Post 18 remain–it is generally impossible to be “happy” all the time.
Happiness, just like most other things, is centered in the brain, and the brain functions on neurotransmitters. While we don’t fully understand how or why they work the way they do (or seem to) there’s enough evidence to support the assertion that, say, a surplus or deficit in Serotonin will have effects on mood. That’s why antidepressants seem to work–they regulate one or more of those neurotransmitters.
It’s also why recreational drugs work. Marijuana feels good because it affects our brain’s cannabinoid receptors. Those substances are produced in our body naturally, just in far smaller amounts. Manipulating them will have an impact on mood.
The research indicates that Oxytocin is a key neurotransmitter in what we’d call feeling “happy.” Outside some extremes, human beings just don’t have the capacity to produce enough Oxytocin (or anything else) to flood the brain with “happy” all the time. And even if we did, it would take ever-increasing amounts of the chemical to reach the same effects.
So no, “happy” just isn’t possible all the time. A general sense of contentedness is, and there are people out there (unfortunately, I’m not one of them–stupid dysthymia) who feel content most of the time, but it really isn’t the same thing.
I think happiness is conserved. That is, there is only a fixed and finite amount of it in the Universe, and once it is all acquired by people, thereafter people can only gain (or increase) happiness at the expense of other people’s happiness.
tdn’s (and others’) observation that psychologists are unhappy suggests that they function as repositories, or brokers, of happiness. They gather happiness where they can and dole it out to their clients, but might only retain a smaller inventory for their own use.
My husband is an almost-psychologist (dissertation defended, all but internship, current practicing therapist) and he’s one of the most mentally stable people I know. Even when he’s really mad, he speaks softly and is calm. In fact, the only thing that has really taxed his mental health is studying clinical psychology, ironically enough.
We tend to really focus on evidence-based living around there, though. None of that ‘‘peer into your subconscious’’ mumbo-jumbo. He’s made me use CBT techniques and I’ve done the same to him in his darkest moments. We’re problem solvers. (I’m crazy myself. But for a crazy person, I do pretty well.)
I meant to say more, but I was pressed for time. The reason I mentioned my craziness is because it’s his knowledge and calm that has helped to stabilize me. If you’re a person who is very proactive about your own mental health, living with a behavioral psychologist is wonderful. He’s pointed me to many resources that have had a positive impact on my life. He is the one who got me into CBT and ACT and the whole concept of evidence-based treatments to begin with. Not to mention the many mental health crises he’s supported me through over the years.
However, one of the big challenges of our relationship was (and to some extent, is) accepting that it is not his responsibility to ‘‘fix’’ me. He is not my therapist, he is my husband. And he has expressed many times that there is a massive difference between providing outpatient treatment and actually living with someone who is mentally ill. He had to learn to draw a line in the sand for the sake of his own sanity. In practice that meant sometimes refusing to engage me when I was really anxious and seeking reassurance from him. ''Am I okay? Am I a bad person?" - something I rarely say any more - he now responds with, ‘‘Only you can answer that.’’ That might sound callous but he and I both know that if he keeps reassuring me, it will only make my anxiety worse and increase my dependence on him. It’s tough love. (He’s also used ‘‘shaping’’ -a behavioral modification technique - to get me to do things, like put my own dishes away. We have fun with it.)
And he’s had his moments, too. Grad school is very stressful. I’ve had to learn that it’s not my responsibility to fix his problems, either.
So I guess what I’m saying is, psychologists might have some great insights into how certain behaviors and thought processes lead to mental suffering, but that doesn’t mean they always recognize those behaviors and thought processes in themselves and loved ones. And it doesn’t mean applying these concepts is necessarily easy. I know a number of psychologists and many of them are driven into the field because of their own mental health issues or issues of loved ones. ‘‘Happiness’’ is a nebulous concept and I think people who aren’t in the field have unrealistic expectations about what mental health treatment entails. For many clients, including psychologists themselves, mental illness isn’t something they learn to cure, it’s something they learn to cope with. It is a chronic condition. You might as well ask why a doctor can’t cure his own Type I Diabetes. He’s going to know more about how to treat himself than the average person would, but he’s also going to know there is no cure.
My girlfriend is a psychologist, and she’s one of the happier people I know. She has her issues, insecurities and moods like everyone else does, but in general she’s cheerful, optimistic and a lot of fun. I don’t think this is because she’s a psychologist, though, I think it’s just her personality.
I don’t believe this at all. But I believe that it’s a pretty common misconception.
Really, when was the last time that you saw one person breaking out in laughter, and everyone else in the room getting sadder because of that? Laughter and good feelings are generally contageous. (Sad feelings can be too, of course.) If a roomful of people gets happy, does another roomful of people somewhere else automatically get sad? Who’s balancing the cosmic checkbook on this?
If I go out into the Sun, does that mean that a cloud must automatically fall on someone else?
Maybe we should redefine happiness. Once again, I’m not talking “OMG OMG OMG I just won the lottery!” type of happiness. But more like you said, contentedness, peace, joy, and stillness. And that can be had in infinite abundance.
And let’s draw a distinction between happiness and pleasure.
Well it can be true because they are the ones that are in contact with depressed people all the time, so it’s normal for them to feel that way too if they can’t fix others’ problems.
I’d suggest you take a look at existential psychology and and any book or essay by Rollo May.
He was a Freud caliber psychologist who invented a whole new direction in psychology. And I’ve found it really helps with depression
Or maybe you should rephrase… if your definition of “happy” matches everybody else’s definition of “content”, it’s you and not everybody else who should get a new dictionary (more cost-effective and effort-effective overall, you see).