The surprising science of happiness | Dan Gilbert Dan Gilbert, author of Stumbling on Happiness, challenges the idea that we’ll be miserable if we don’t get what we want. Our “psychological …

Watch More TedxVideo


  1. Felix Bruyns

    There is no "science" to happiness. There are biochemical positive reinforcements, yes, but those give a short-term rush and create addiction to themselves. The only way to happiness is to find ultimate purpose, a non-scientific concept avowedly outside the scope of scientific observation. In other words, we have to look at metaphysics.

  2. E Sh

    Ya this is great, truly inspiring but you know this guy is probably sitting at home alone right now, eating a bowl of cereal and muttering about his ex. Just like the rest of us.

  3. John S

    The cynic in me says that when somebody approaches you with advice on how you should go about living your life, turn around and run away as fast as possible.

  4. Saso nilha

    If most people in any location you choose of the develouped world; were unhappy. Reather if the majority of power currently represented in moeny… etc.. would be particurily unhappy…. you could make a political party… at the very lelast; a spiritual leader course! 😉 … People are not suo unhappy I bealive quite strongly… You say it as if + happiness was good '' from an evolutionary viewpoint … and would grant simulation…. that might be very well true… and is very interesting… but the wholl synthetics and happyness is dong.. bull
    Happy peole are not very motivated poečle. … Happy people don' reproduce enough 🙂 … or reather… don't want to much disruptive elements that would be

    So the happy people … if they are wiilling can either use their power to disable … such a threat…. like war or murder [which is obviousely against all (even adam's principles .. ] are not of an honorable nature… or, … maybe its' better to givein the evoltion game and let the AI takeover

  5. mehmed A

    In the nomadic stage, man needed only three or four things, and it was only two out of ten who could not obtain them. But now, through wastefulness, abuses, stimulating the appetites, and such things as custom and addiction, present-day civilization has made inessential needs seem essential, and in place of the four things of which he used to be in need, modern civilized man is now in need of twenty. And it is only two out of twenty who can satisfy those needs in a totally licit way; eighteen remain in need in some way.
    That is to say, modern civilization greatly impoverishes man. Because of the needs, it drives man to wrongdoing and illicit gain. It perpetually encourages the wretched lower classes to challenge the upper classes. It has abandoned the Qur'an's sacred fundamental law making the payment of zakat obligatory and prohibiting usury and interest, which ensured that the lower classes were obedient towards the upper classes and the upper classes were sympathetic towards the lower classes, and encouraged the bourgeousie to tyranny and the poor to revolt. It destroyed the tranquillity of mankind.
    Damascus Sermon – 128

  6. Amelia Ennis

    Idk but I'm a little irked by how he used the Shakespeare quote to simply fit his point rather than its intended use. Which is that …reality is made of information, what is information? People giving meaning to things and thus: "nothing is good nor bad, but thinking so makes it"
    We have SYNTHESIZED a world of meaning for ourselves.
    I'm trying not to dismiss the whole talk on a couple of things that stuck out to me.

  7. Doctor RUSH.

    We watch movies with violence fake or based on true events, and maybe if a violent scene's music was something energenic or exciting we would be amazed.
    Yes either we know it's a movie, but it's just the same thing that could or could've happened to us, just switched around and filtered.

  8. Somebody

    So our brain makes us happy even when we don't think, on paper, we should be happy? That sounds like a healthy brain! I've recently noticed that that is in fact how other people work. In other words, recently I've found out that I've been depressed all my life. Not terribly so, but enough to make me shy and withdrawn and unconfident. It's stripped a lot of joy out of my life, simple joy, which is also the case for many others and which this video does not address. So if you're generally unhappy and are looking for this video to fix that then, sorry, it's mainly for entertainment but I still think it is useful information. If anything, it should help you make decisions quicker or with less pressure.

  9. lapa stel

    Thank you, what valuable information! I am so heartbroken right now, I didn't think I could ever recover. Love rejection, you know… Now I know I will.

  10. Steven Lam

    What a great message this video contains. I've recently been debating between two similar career paths. One pays over twice as much and carries more prestige, while the other fits more with my life vision. After watching this video, I think I'm that much closer to making a decision now 🙂

    Thank you Dan Gilbert for your research and presentation!

  11. zerothehero123

    Synthesizing happiness is restoring social status. You posture so that your tribe members believe you didn't lose where you actually did. A common way in which this is expressed is when people believe they will fail at a task that's too complex(in their mind), so to avoid the shame of public failure(loss of social status) they claim beforehand to be so incompetent at the task to make it seem that it isn't as shameful to fail as it would be if they would put forth a serious genuine effort, in the process making a claim to skill(status) and putting more weight on the performance, while at the same time blowing up the value of succeeding at the task should an attempt by happenstance go well. The people who were interviewed claimed that even though they didn't become famous/rich/succesfull etc they still ended up in the most optimal situation for them, because that's how they protect their social status. It telegraphs, whether genuine or not, confidence(status) instead of weakness(portraying the event in a negative, cynical way). It's the basal sense that if I communicate positively, you will communicate positively in return. This applies only to people who have a normal working nervous system and upbringing(leading to an integrated sense of self esteem). Society today is filled with broken people unable to toil the weight of perceived low social status. Their nervous system tries to "synthesize happiness", but it simply fails. Human communication is primarily the regulation of social status. A constant flux of conflict, exploitation, deceit and posturing. Social behaviour is simply a more intelligent, cunning way of competing for reproductive priority. It's at it's roots selfcentered(the struggle to bring forth your genes into the next generation).

  12. Jerome Bosch

    This is brilliant, but you should give some credit to Epictetus don't you think? And another thing: How do you measure how happy people are? By letting them rate themselves? That would be very subjective, because you may rate yourself happy without even knowing some forms of happiness that other people are taking into account (same goes for unhappiness). Or by some objective measurement? In that case, could you explain which one?
    On the experiment with the amnesiacs: Couldn't it just be that their brain remembered the "gift" and hence associated the print Nr.3 with something positive (gift) thus causing them to prefer it the next time? I find it difficult to believe that they synthesize happiness without even having owned the print and seen it every day for some time…