Talk:Happiness

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Psychology (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7 / Vital
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
 
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is a vital article.

“how we might attain it” vs “how one might attain it”[edit]

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 Falk talk 09:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Good idea. Passive voice suits it even better. EIN (talk) 15:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

HAPPY[edit]

Anyone and anything can be happy DINNER! Random can be happy too. =) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.19.139.155 (talk) 08:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

added section on positive emotion and its benefits[edit]

Work done by a student in my nutrition course reviewing nutrition literature related to happiness Rocordman (talk) 22:17, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

What's with the weird guy with birds?[edit]

Is this a joke? It's pretty fucking ridiculous.

Furthermore, there are no women prominently featured on this page. In fact, the only women present at all are two (debatably three) kind of, sort of visible in the back rows of the Annapolis graduation. Obviously, neglecting to portray happiness as exhibited by a whole half of the world's population is quite silly. If this article is going to contain illustrative photographs, they should be better than what's now up. Here are some nice options: <https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/Rebecca_L._Felton.png>, <https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/Bride_and_bridesmaid_happy.jpg>, <https://secure.flickr.com/photos/julien_harneis/590028480/>, <https://secure.flickr.com/photos/dfid/7348237818/>, <https://secure.flickr.com/photos/seeminglee/3885634615/>. 71.235.191.162 (talk) 22:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Missing factors[edit]

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)

Western Perspective[edit]

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 90.244.6.71 (talk) 23:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Specific suggestions for changes? --NeilN talk to me 23:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2014[edit]

happiness Geliepter Fuhrer (talk) 04:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

No actionable request made. --NeilN talk to me 05:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

more weblinks[edit]

Daniel Kahneman[edit]

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[edit]

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. 173.25.55.24 (talk) 13:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC) Dalton Seymour 8/24/14