Also I like how you just dismiss piles of scientific studies and psychology. That shit isn't really in dispute.
It's also not exactly controversial... those studies are conducted with the intent of helping people to be happier. You kind of sound like an asshole.
Here is an excerpt from an excellent primer on the subject of positive psychology, "The Happiness Hypothesis" by Jonathan Haidt
"MISGUIDED PURSUITS
An axiom of economics is that people pursue their interests more or less rationally, and that’s what makes markets work – Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” of self-interest. But in the 1980s, a few economists began studying psychology and messing up the prevailing models. Leading the way was the Cornell economist Robert Frank, whose 1987 book “Passions Within Reason” analyzed some of the things people do that just don’t fit into economics models of pure self-interest – such as tipping in restaurants far from home, seeking costly revenge, and staying loyal to friends and spouses when better opportunities come along. Frank argued that these behaviors make sense only as products moral emotions (such as love, shame, vengeance, or guilt), and these moral emotions make sense only as products of evolution. Evolution seems to have made us “strategically irrational” at times for our own good; for example, a person who gets angry when cheated, and who will pursue vengeance regardless of the cost, earns a reputation that discourages would-be cheaters. A person who pursued vengeance only when the benefits outweighed the costs could be cheated with impunity in many situations.
In his more recent book “Luxury Fever,” Frank used the same approach to understand another kind of irrationality: the vigor with which people pursue many goals that work against their own happiness. Frank begins with the question of why, as nations rise in wealth, their citizens become no happier, and he considers the possibility that once basic needs are met, money simply cannot buy additional happiness. After a careful review of the evidence, however, Frank concludes that those who think money can’t buy happiness just don’t know where to shop. Some purchases are much less subject to the adaptation principle. Frank wants to know why people are so devoted to spending money on luxuries and other goods, to which they adapt completely, rather than on things that would make them lastingly happier. For example, people would be happier and healthier if they took more time off and “spent” it with their family and friends, yet America has long been heading in the opposite direction. People would be happier if they reduced their commuting time, even if it meant living in smaller houses, yet American trends are toward ever larger houses and ever longer commutes. People would be happier and healthier if they took longer vacations even if that meant earning less, yet vacation times are shrinking in the United States, and in Europe as well. People would be happier, and in the long run wealthier, if they bought basic, functional appliances, automobiles, and wristwatches, and invested the money they saved for future consumption; yet, Americans in particular spend almost everything they have – and sometimes more – on goods for present consumption, often paying a large premium for designer names and superfluous features.
Frank’s explanation is simple: Conspicuous and inconspicuous consumption follow different psychological rules. Conspicuous consumption refers to things that are visible to others and that are taken as markers of a person’s relative success. These goods are subject to a kind of arms race, where their value comes not so much from their objective properties as from the statement they make about the owner. When everyone wore Timex watches, the first person in the office to buy a Rolex stood out. When everyone moved up to Rolex, it took a $20,000 Patek Philip to achieve high status, and a Rolex no longer gave as much satisfaction. Conspicuous consumption is a zero-sum game: Each person’s move up devalues the possessions of others. Furthermore, it’s difficult to persuade an entire group or subculture to ratchet down, even though everyone would be better off, on average, if they all went back to simple watches. Inconspicuous consumption, on the other hand, refers to goods and activities that are valued for themselves, that are usually consumed more privately, and that are not bought for the purpose of achieving status. Because Americans, at least, gain no prestige from taking the longest vacations or having the shortest commutes, these inconspicuous consumables are not subject to an arms race.
Just try this thought experiment. Which job would you rather have: one in which you earned $90,000 a year and your coworkers earned on average $70,000, or one in which you earned $100,000 but your coworkers earned on average $150,000? Many people choose the first job, thereby revealing that relative position is worth at least $10,000 to them. Now try this one: Would you rather work for a company that gave you two weeks of vacation a year, but other employees were given, on average, only one; or would you prefer a company that gave you four weeks of vacation a year, but other employees were given, on average, six? The great majority of people choose the longer absolute time. Time off is inconspicuous consumption, although people can easily turn a vacation into conspicuous consumption by spending vast amounts of money to impress others instead of using the time to rejuvenate themselves.
Frank’s conclusions are bolstered by recent research on the benefits of “doing versus having.” The psychologists Leaf van Boven and Tom Gilovich asked people to think back to a time when they spent more than a hundred dollars with the intention of increasing their happiness and enjoyment. One group of subjects was asked to pick an experience or activity they had paid for. After describing their purchases, subjects were asked to fill out a questionnaire. Those who described buying an experience (such as a ski trip, a concert, or a great meal) were happier when thinking about their purchase, and thought that their money was better spent, than those who described buying a material object (such as clothing, jewelry, or electronics). After conducting several variations of this experiment with similar findings each time, Van Boven and Gilovich concluded that experiences give more happiness in part because they have greater social value: Most activities that cost more than a hundred dollars are things we do with *with* other people, but expensive material possessions are often purchased in part to *impress* other people. Activities connect us to others; objects separate us."
Fog On The Barrow Downs EoG
)
)
)
)