This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
“how we might attain it” vs “how one might attain it”
By default, an encyclopedia is expected to use third-person pronouns only (unless citing a text). The first-person plural pronoun in that context overemphasizes collective happiness. “One” is a neutral alternative. EIN (talk) 02:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
You are quite right! I changed it into "how it might be attained." Lova Falktalk 09:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Good idea. Passive voice suits it even better. EIN (talk) 15:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
People often debate whether money, material luxuries, social status, fame, or power bring happiness. These things are missing from this overview, though happiness economics does cover some of these. -- Beland (talk) 22:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
The article, as often, is clearly biased and written from a Western Anglo-American perspective, from start to finish.
The first paragraph cites the US Declaration of Independence and the "unalienable right for happiness" but we all know that this was written cynically at the same time that the Anglo colonizers of North America were assassinating the Native Americans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 23:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Specific suggestions for changes? --NeilNtalk to me 23:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2014
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I am surprised that Daniel Kahneman's work has not been considered in this discussion of happiness. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I am could tackle this. Hans Pitsch Hanspitsch (talk) 19:08, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Failure to adequately characterize Happiness
I'm sorely disappointed with the treatment of Happiness. First, if Happiness be a state of mind, and I think all would agree with that, then no one has presented even the properties of Happiness. Properties would include a list of the gradient of affective states, autonomic responses, behavioral responses, the satiation of biological drives to appease impulses of dissatisfaction with the present psycho-physical state. All this historical presentation just muddies the waters and explains nothing. They all focus on what may lead to happiness, not what happiness is and how it's state is established in the mind. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 13:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC) Dalton Seymour 8/24/14