A study that suggests looking at
Facebook can make you less happy has
made the national news. It seems we are less likely to report ourselves unhappy the less time we spend on facebook; and the more time we spend on facebook, the more we perceive other people as happier than us. (The theory is that this is on the basis of the very cheerful photos Facebookers choose to display.)
Here is the original study.
Some responses have pointed out that Facebook is used for many things other than posting party pics: There are groups that serve as lifelines to people with issues they need to share information about (Rare Love, a group for families whose children have unusual genetic disorders or diseases is one good example). And, of course, it is obvious to anyone who uses it that Facebook isn't just for good news. I, for one, am very grateful for how it serves as a means to pay tribute to people we lose. (A new technology filling in for a very ancient need.)
But I have not yet seen this response to the study yet: why do we assume that our happiness ought to be premised on feeling happier than, superior to, better off than others? From the perspective of traditional ethics, this is a completely misleading proposal. The compass is off.
Can you imagine how far that could take someone? "You don't feel good about yourself because Jane is doing better? We have to fix this! Get away from that Jane!" (The homicidal Texas cheerleader mom always comes to mind.) I hope I've missed some commentary that pointed out this bizarre implication of the worry about Facebook.
It can be frustrating to see so much new attention on happiness (what a great topic!), and so little discussion of what it is. Pop authors do such a disservice, I think, when they blend together advice on how to bring about momentary feelings with quotations from philosophical sources, never bothering to provide the account the quotation is from. (Without that, what is the point? To make us more confused? The quotations they borrow aren't compatible with each other.)
When we feel better, "happier!", because someone is doing worse than us, a sophisticated account of happiness ought to categorize this type of feeling. It just isn't the same as other experiences we have, that we (for lack of enough terms) count as happiness (or real happiness or lasting content-- or better yet, see Dan Haybron's work (below) for a really good way of breaking happiness down into component parts). (I've explained Dan's work before, but related it to the Real Housewives. I thought I'd use my comparative advantage. :))
Anyway, overcoming feelings of jealousy; celebrating the goods of news of others, just, in general, sharing more -- this is why I think Facebook is so great.
Readings
Here is a primer on happiness, from the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, written by Dan Haybron. The bibliography at the end demonstates how much work has been done to clarify things about happiness that the big pop books (and the news stories) just seem to obscure.
Here is a wonderful book that sums up (and moves forward) the philosophical work that has been done on happiness, it relates this to the psychological research done and explains where philosophers leave off: Dan Haybron's
Here is a shorter article you can access online, a really useful one that explains why survey data on happiness is likely testing social norms, rather than actual happiness.
And, just FYI, philosopher Dan Russell has a forthcoming book on happiness, it is one that I am eagerly awaiting.
Thanks!
