Shane Brykailo
U-Write 1104
2/15/17
Double Entry Journal
Citation: Diener, Ed, and Robert Biswas-Diener. "Chapter 6: Can Money Buy
Happiness?" Happiness: Unlocking the Mysteries of Psychological Wealth. Malden, MA: Blackwell,
2011. Print.
Source: Quote (Page# or Paragraph #)
We thought about his question, and then
deleted his email. It was a bit like
demanding a yes or no answer to the
question Is Chinese food better than
Mexican food? pg. 160
As the income gap between rich and poor
widens daily, it makes sense to wonder
which economic group- the rich or the poor
is the greater inheritor of happiness?
pg. 161
It turns out that forty-seven
of the forty-nine rich people who responded
to Eds survey were satisfied with their lives,
significantly more than a control sample of
average Americans taken from the same
geographic locations. pg. 162
Indeed, the wealth of nations is one of the
strongest, if not the strongest, predictors of
the life satisfaction in societies. Pg.163
When they were interviewed, the pool
Responses
I wonder what changed the minds of the
researchers. Ive thought the relationship
between money and happiness has always
been subjective, based on a person to person
case. But Im interested in seeing how these
guys try to quantify the relationship, and see
the path they take.
The article mentioned how wealth distribution
has changed over history. In the past, wealth
was reserved for those deemed noble. Thus
the vast majority of the common folk were
poor. I wonder if the association money has
with happiness is affected by how it is
distributed amongst the people. This reminds
me of the USSR vs. the USA during the cold
war. How did socialism compare against
capitalism relative to happiness?
This was the result I was expecting from this
research. Reading the results, it makes sense
that its not money itself, but the ease it brings
to finical changes. Instead of being widely
happier than the average person, the group
on average was much higher. I wonder what
the statistics for the non-rich resident were.
If the wealth of a nation is one of the best
ways to predict the satisfaction of life, then
wealth is directly related to how societies
interact. Its humbling to think of all the
guaranteed amenities offered by 1st world life.
Ive seen losing friends due to lottery winning
winners in the study sometimes mentioned mentioned several times. This was also
problems that came with the money, such as considered to be one of the main factors that
losing a few of their old friends. Pg.164 contributed to dissatisfaction. Was this due to
the winners changing, or their friends
becoming manipulative.

Its easy to imagine that these
people were miserable. The data showed,
instead, that they were slightly negative to
slightly positive on scales of life
satisfaction. Pg. 165
So, this contradicts the theory that money is
related to happiness. I now think that
happiness adjusts to a consistent
environment. Overtime habituation kicks in
and returns the level of satisfaction to
average.

Happiness= Attainments/Aspirations I was fairly surprised about how much this

Pg. 170 formula makes sense. It explains how the
lottery winner whos meager $3 million payout
cannot sustain their desires. Compared to the
3rd world leper whos only known that life, the
leper would score higher.

We spent months in Amish country pg. 171 I impressed at the lengths these researchers
went to gather information about happiness.
The variety of sources is impressive, from
poverty stricken nations to reclusive Amish.

As the industrialized world has become
more affluent, the average level of
aspirations has also risen. Pg. 172
Looking at all the modern day convivence and
materialism we have today, its easy to see
why some people become dissatisfied with
life. The American Dream has grown, with
people craving more and more.

Thus the merest hint of money led to a
tendency for folks to feel confident, but also
to feel more distant from others.
I wonder is professionalism is related to this
phenomenon. If people associate money with
productivity, and anti-social behavior, then
exposing a group could have led to a better
performance.