Study on stuff and happiness

[Mustache Fatty]

I thought this was an interesting article.  Sorry if this was already posted!

http://time.com/22257/heres-proof-buying-more-stuff-actually-makes-you-miserable/

[lifejoy]

Awesome article!!

[Jamesqf]

I thought it was pretty silly, actually.  If we take their premise to its logical conclusion, the happiest people should be those with nothing at all, a reductio ad absurdum if I've ever seen one.  Instead of embracing either extreme, we need to seek our own Goldilocks point.

[matchewed]

I thought it was pretty silly, actually.  If we take their premise to its logical conclusion, the happiest people should be those with nothing at all, a reductio ad absurdum if I've ever seen one.  Instead of embracing either extreme, we need to seek our own Goldilocks point.

It's only reductio ad absurdum if you take it to, as you put it, the "logical conclusion". Not if you take what the article actually says which includes this -

No, you don’t need to sell all your worldly possessions and move to the top of a mountain, but Kasser says one thing that can help is taking yourself out of environments or reevaluating your relationships with people that focus on the materialistic.

Nowhere in the article does it say that the happiest people are those with nothing. It does state that those who are less materialistic are happier but that doesn't equate to having nothing. It's just those that place value in having things. Those that don't place value in having things can still have things.

[Jamesqf]

Nowhere in the article does it say that the happiest people are those with nothing.

Of course the article doesn't come right out and say that.  If it did, everyone - maybe even the author - would immediately see the fallacy.

It does state that those who are less materialistic are happier but that doesn't equate to having nothing.

But it does imply that, from the very first sentence: "Our piles of crap don’t just contribute to reality-TV shows like Storage Wars and Hoarders — they also make us miserable..."  It is stating that it is having stuff that is making people unhappy, not the materialistic attitude that leads them to acquire piles of stuff they they don't use.

Those that don't place value in having things can still have things.

But why would they?  Obviously, because having a certain amount of 'stuff' can improve your life.  It's just finding that Goldilocks point where the stuff - say a bike - improves your live (you can go places, get exercise, etc) but doesn't cause debt-related stress.

[matchewed]

Nowhere in the article does it say that the happiest people are those with nothing.

Of course the article doesn't come right out and say that.  If it did, everyone - maybe even the author - would immediately see the fallacy.

Ah, got it so we're not talking about the article anymore. Just a conclusion drawn through slippery slopes and never stated in the article.

It does state that those who are less materialistic are happier but that doesn't equate to having nothing.

But it does imply that, from the very first sentence: "Our piles of crap don’t just contribute to reality-TV shows like Storage Wars and Hoarders — they also make us miserable..."  It is stating that it is having stuff that is making people unhappy, not the materialistic attitude that leads them to acquire piles of stuff they they don't use.

Your basing that only off the first paragraph? You seem to be ignoring the entire rest of the article which doesn't support that statement you claim the article is making.

Those that don't place value in having things can still have things.

But why would they?  Obviously, because having a certain amount of 'stuff' can improve your life.  It's just finding that Goldilocks point where the stuff - say a bike - improves your live (you can go places, get exercise, etc) but doesn't cause debt-related stress.

I think we're talking past each other on this one. People who identify their value with possessions is what I mean by people who place value in having things. I may value things, but I don't place value in the having of them. I hope that makes my point a bit more clear. I don't think someone who has a bike (car/house/outdoor swimming pool/pet lion) is a better person, that would be valuing the having of the thing. But I can see how someone may value their pet lion.

[lifejoy]

Ascetics for the win?

[Jamesqf]

Ah, got it so we're not talking about the article anymore. Just a conclusion drawn through slippery slopes and never stated in the article.

Of course we are.  Or do you limit your reading to the few (if any) things that simply make statements, and don't invite the reader to think further?

Your basing that only off the first paragraph? You seem to be ignoring the entire rest of the article which doesn't support that statement you claim the article is making.

Sorry, but the rest of the article DOES support it, at least in my understanding - yours may of course be different :-)  Remember high school English class, and what they taught you about beginning your articles with a topic sentence?

I think we're talking past each other on this one. People who identify their value with possessions is what I mean by people who place value in having things.

Sure, and I wouldn't disagree that there are some (perhaps too many) people who are materialistic in that way.  But the author doesn't limit herself to people of that particular type: she uses words like 'us' and 'our', clearly meaning that everyone is subject to the same condition.