Why doesn't stuff that improves our genetic fitness make us happy

Great Debates
1

In positive psychology they talk about how the stuff you think will make you happy doesn’t. Wealth, being attractive, health, having high quality sex partners, kids, fame, etc. Not only that but things like advanced medical care and high quantities of food doesn’t seem to make people happy.

So why? Why aren’t we designed to feel a deep sense of happiness and fulfillment from those things? Wouldn’t that make us pursue them? All the stuff that encourages our survival (medicine/health, food, social status, sexual options, resources, procreation) doesn’t seem to actually make us happy in a meaningful way.

Or would that be counterproductive? If survival/fitness is a ladder if you ever reach a point of fulfillment, you stop climbing. So we are designed to be deluded into thinking climbing the ladder makes us happy (being wealthier, more famous, more attractive, better/more sexual partners, kids, better health) but when we get there we realize it doesn’t, then we believe the next rung makes us happy? Isn’t there a risk people become disillusioned under that reward system? Like ‘why bother’?

I believe one of the most important non-genetic determinants of happiness is the quality of relationships with people and the world at large (does your life have meaning, etc). That and gratitude, optimism, altruism, etc. It seems the pro-social stuff makes us happy, not the genetic fitness stuff.

I guess my question is why. Why would pro-social behavior lead to happiness but not behavior that increases genetic and reproductive fitness? Why does having high quality friendships, or being grateful seem to factor into happiness but having enough wealth, good looks and fame to have 1000 high quality sex partners does not?

If it is the hedonistic treadmill, why does pro-social behavior seem to result in lasting happiness but behaviors that affect (for better or worse) genetic fitness we get used to in a few months?

2

To (mis)quote Loki: “Satisfaction is not in our nature.”

3

Thats not really the debate though. The debate is this.

Stuff that improves our reproductive and genetic fitness does not cause increases in lasting happiness. Stuff that is pro-social (volunteering, healthy relationships, a meaningful connection to the world, volunteering, helping others, gratitude, etc) does.

As an example, of this list of 10 happy behaviors most are pro-social.

4

We are not “designed,” period. Happiness is the result of achieving one’s own personal goals, assuming they’re not psychotic or harmful to oneself or others. It has nothing to do with survival/fitness. The things you mentioned (being attractive, healthy, etc.) can add to your happiness in many ways. And of course their absence can make you miserable.

Much of what you’ve said may be true only for yourself, not necessarily for others. Many people do not get happiness from pro-social behavior. Wouldn’t it be odd if everyone achieved happiness from exactly the same things?

Besides . . . it’s only recently that happiness was even a factor in people’s lives. As recently as a few generations ago, any consideration of happiness was moot.

5

We are designed by natural selection to engage in behavior that increases our survival odds. Ergo, our behaviors and motivations should reflect that.

(Non-genetic) happiness being due to pro-social behavior is a studied phenomena. Materialism and behaviors that increase our fitness have little impact on happiness. It is not my personal opinion.

6

First, we aren’t designed by natural selection in that every trait is a positive. Some traits are neutral, some are detrimental in our current environment but were a positive on the savanna, and some are accumulated accidents of history.

Second, evolution doesn’t really reward survival, it rewards producing offspring that survive. Once you’re past childbearing age, or once you’re past what your expected lifetime was millennium ago, evolution really isn’t much interested in you.

Finally, human behavior is really complex. It’s a side effect of the large brains we have that all sorts of things happen. You shouldn’t expect simple cause and effect.

7

In pure Darwinian fitness terms, our collective pursuit isn’t happiness. It’s making viable offspring.

So this is incorrect:

  1. We aren’t designed by natural selection. There’s a lot about human beings that is suboptimal.
  2. Survival isn’t the target of natural selection. It’s reproduction. The winner in the fitness race isn’t the guy who lives the longest. It’s the guy who has the most fecund offspring. They could be the most miserable lot in the world, but as long as they have babies that will have babies, they are all “fit”.
    Perhaps the constant pursuit of happiness is associated with a higher reproductive fitness. Think about it. What does the guy going through a midlife crisis do? He dumps his peri-menopausal wife to be with the pretty young secretary who is still churning out a bunch of eggs. Ambition and drive are more positive expressions of inner discontent, and they also can be attractive. Maybe people who are prone to more negative emotions are more likely to be empathetic and “pro-social”–increasing the likelihood of them mating.

Another explanation (assuming your observation is true) is that perpetual unhappiness is a trade-off of us being social creatures. We have evolved to be social because sociality confers a heap of benefits. But that doesn’t mean that being social produces only benefits. I know that I am happiest when I am alone. I have to work with others to support myself, but man, do people drive me crazy sometimes. I’d like nothing more than to be a hermit. But this wouldn’t be healthy at all. Not everything that is good for us makes us feel good

8

Maybe this is evidence for the existence of God and/or the human soul? :slight_smile:

9

We are genetically designed to want salt and fat. I am at a loss why that doesn’t translate to desiring vitamin C.

10

You’ve started with a hypothesis: “We are designed by natural selection to engage in behavior that increases our survival odds.” In your OP, you note observations that do not match your hypothesis. It’s time for a new hypothesis.

11

You are just arguing from an undistributed middle. To summarise your argument:

All happiness is a reward for doing things that are evolutionarily beneficial.
X is evolutionarily beneficial.
Therefore doing X will be rewarded with happiness.
So why is a person doing X not happy?

To which I respond:

All executions are a punishment for committing felonies.
OJ Simpson committed a felony.
Therefore OJ Simpson was executed.
So why is a OJ Simpson not dead?

It’s exactly the same argument structure, and exactly as invalid logically. Just because execution is a punishment for committing a felony, that does not mean that *all *felonies are punished that way. Just because happiness is a reward for evolutionarily beneficial behaviour, that does not mean that *all *evolutionarily beneficial behaviour is rewarded that way.

It’s really that simple. happiness is one reward for doing “the right thing”, but it’s only one of a whole lot of carrots that our brain has evolved to reward us with. Satisfaction, satiety, comfort and confidence are even more commonly used as rewards. They are very, very distinct from happiness.

And clearly, people are rewarded with those things when they make money, which is why almost everybody in the world will spend vast amounts of time and effort making money. Just because I feel more relaxed knowing that I have enough savings to weather a rainy day does not make me happy, it just makes me more comfortable. In exactly the same way, scratching an itch won’t make me happy, it just makes me more comfortable. Comfort is an evolutionary reward, it’s just a different one from happiness.

The sole flaw in your argument is that you have tried to progress from “Some behaviours of type Y are rewarded with X” to “This behaviour is type Y, therefore it *should *be rewarded with X”. That’s not logically valid and it clearly isn’t true.

12

Not really correct I don’t think. Happiness doesn’t work how most of us (me included) tend to feel like it does. Listen to Dan Gilbert’s TED talk on happiness. The science tends to suggest happiness is mostly the result of settling into what we have. Achievement doesn’t really work, particularly as choices run contrary to happiness, and personal goals implies we have had and made choices.

13

This is probably accurate. Food, mating, status, etc may not provide happiness but they have other reward mechanisms like pleasure, pride, a buffer against negative experiences etc.

It still raises the question of why pro social behavior has a different and (by most standards) more meaningful reward mechanism than other life affirming behavior.

14

Evolution doesn’t care if you’re happy - only that you’re having babies.

15

I think the OP is in large part answering his own question.

Clearly, the human mind “uses” pleasure in various ways.
Some things give you pleasure each and every time: eating, good social relationships, solving novel problems, and yeah, sure, orgasms.
Some things you can get bored of a particular item / state, and in some ways are chasing a high: style of living, sex with a particular partner, achievement generally.

…And when you think about it, from that evolutionary point of view, this is all the right way round.
When you factor in also the flipside: sadness, envy, fear etc, our consciousness is strongly motivated to achieving greater success / poon tang, but being quite content about the things there’s no benefit in trying to escalate.

But if you’re wondering why so many people nonetheless have no success in relationships, their career etc, well the first answer is that we’ve changed the world a lot, a lot faster than evolution can keep up with. Not all our behaviours are optimal in the modern world.
But secondly, not everyone can be a winner. If you’re feeling unhappy, well, the system is working – it’s telling you you’re failing, even if it has nothing to say about how to solve your problems (nice to finish a post on a positive note…).

16

I’m happy as a clam at high tide, and I think the things listed are a big part of that.

17

Perhaps we get more satisfaction scratching ourselves and laying around that we get from achieving lofty goals. I’m pretty sure I do.

18

You are missing the point. My assumption is that happiness is a reward mechanism designed to encourage us to engage in behavior that enhances our survival odds. However happiness doesn’t work that way according to positive psychology researchers. The stuff that increases genetic and reproductive fitness does not really enhance happiness. there are other rewards to doing those things, but rewards like happiness, inner peace, contentment with life, etc. isn’t among them.

Happiness is enhanced, from what I know, by social relationships. Social relationships enhance survival also (being valued by the group increases your odds of surviving bad times, etc) but the reward mechanism is different. Sex gives pleasure, not happiness. Good friendships enhance happiness but may not have the kick of pleasure that food or sex do. The question is why?

19

I think you’re taking a very narrow view of genetic fitness.

There is a simplistic example of someone who’s so horny he runs around having kids all over the place, and we can show how that increases his likelihood of producing offspring.

However, many of the other behaviors you mention do still increase the chances of reproductive success. Let’s take volunteering for example.

In a prehistoric context, humans lived in groups of 100-300, most of whom were related to each other. So if you volunteered to help out your cousin, the reproductive fitness of your genes just went up, to the extent that you and your cousin share genes. If you’re eaten by a smilodon, many of your genes still exist for your cousin to carry on. Or maybe you’re not eaten by a Smilodon. Maybe you help you cousin during his bad times and he helps you during your bad times. Now you both increase your fitness to successfully reproduce. This kind of thing is especially true when humans have babies who are basically helpless for the first five years and not mature for another ten. Plus, those kids need lots of education in order to be productive adults because the suckling instinct is only going to get you so far. We would like a nice, stable, friendly environment in which to raise those kids.

So the fact that an activity like volunteering may provide you with a desirable feedback mechanism isn’t surprising.

BUT… let’s say the volunteering-pleasure feedback mechanism was very, very strong. You work 24 hours a day to help other people out and never stop to eat or sleep or procreate yourself. You can see how this behavior pattern is not particularly good for reproductive success.

So the solution is an equilibrium, right? You are motivated to be selfish to a degree by immediate gratification kinds of rewards, but purely selfish people rarely feel the long-term happiness/satisfaction that you ascribe to those who volunteer. If either behavior was taken to an extreme, you’d reduce overall reproductive fitness (of the individual and/or community), so most of us exist in a point of tension where the pull of both impulses is equal.

Whether happiness results from that equilibrium is not really important from an evolutionary standpoint. We don’t have to be happy if we’re motivated to find an optimal (or at least, less bad) strategy for reproductive fitness.

20

Given the right hedonistic technology, everyone on Earth could probably be made happy. This might include some neural re-wiring. Fun, fun, fun every day.

Sure we could artificially improve our general level of happiness - but if we were to remove the impulse to strive for something more, even if that striving causes dissatisfaction and discomfort - then that would be an ignominious end to the evolution of our species.