At the end of last week's marathon thread, I think Alan H. and I ended up talking at cross purposes. I thought I was making the unremarkable statement that it's healthy to notice inequality, to find it unfair, and to do one's bit to try and make things fairer, and that deep down I supposed he did do that, being after all a decent human being. I think he was saying that I and various campus activists were commending self-hatred to him as a virtue. I can't speak for these campus activists -- he knows who he's talking about, I don't -- but I think anyway he and I were saying different things. Were we?
[MORE: Seen the research suggesting helpfulness is an innate trait of human beings?]
Posted by Martha Bridegam at March 4, 2006 10:19 PMYou ducked, if I remember correctly, the question of whether you think being happy is something that people ought be slightly ashamed of. That was certainly the implication of a lot of the things you were saying. Do you want to answer it now?
Posted by: Alan Allport at March 5, 2006 04:53 AMI think one of the reasons these conversations bog down is that we all tend to switch back and forth between discussing policy-as-strategy and policy-per-se. For example, my "Chairman Mao" quote was intended to express my opinion of whether a policy would "sell", rather than to equate the policy to Maoism, but you read it the other way -- no doubt because up until that point I'd been ranting about the policy itself.
Posted by: Ben Brumfield at March 5, 2006 05:55 AMYou ducked, if I remember correctly, the question of whether you think being happy is something that people ought be slightly ashamed of. That was certainly the implication of a lot of the things you were saying. Do you want to answer it now?
Not sure what got ducked at this point, but maybe a little recap is in order:
The studies that began the other thread did suggest that people tend to be happier when they feel less empathy for others.
As we eventually learn in life, total empathy is paralyzing; complete lack of empathy is sociopathic. Somewhere between the two we each decide how much empathy we can afford.
A further study said political conservatives tend to be happier than political liberals. Which suggested to me that conservatives have decided they can't afford as much empathy as liberals have, which might explain why it's conservatives who have stopped worrying and learned to blame the victim when it comes to things like domestic budget cuts.
So, cheerfulness per se, no, nothing wrong with it. Cheerfulness while Rome burns -- well, it's at least a little creepy.
Posted by: Martha Bridegam at March 5, 2006 10:33 AMSo, cheerfulness per se, no, nothing wrong with it. Cheerfulness while Rome burns -- well, it's at least a little creepy.
... and since you seem to be implying that Rome is indeed aflame - then yes, you do think happiness is something people ought to be slightly ashamed of. Right?
Posted by: Alan Allport at March 5, 2006 01:45 PMIn general, no. While, e.g., watching the "State Of The Union" speech, yes.
Posted by: Martha Bridegam at March 5, 2006 02:15 PM