G as in Good H as in Happy

Let Me Count the Way$

June 30, 2005

Interesting reflection by Will Wilkinson on the likely neurology of "stuff" vs. friendship. The latter is more valuable and life-giving (even coded as "companionship" and "familiarity"); but the former gives the more immediate hit. Furthermore, in a munificently prosperous society, it's easier unilaterally to buy something than to negotiate a relationship. Or we think it is. Or that it leaves our egoism more intact, less challenged.

We think he's on to something, and had even picked up a similar idea earlier embedded here.

Money makes a big difference to people who have none.

On the other hand, once basic needs are met, further wealth doesn't seem to predict further happiness. So the relationship between money and happiness is complicated, and definitely not linear. If it were linear, then billionaires would be a thousand times happier than millionaires, who would be a hundred times happier than professors. That clearly isn't the case.

On the other hand, social relationships are a powerful predictor of happiness—much more so than money is. Happy people have extensive social networks and good relationships with the people in those networks. What's interesting to me is that while money is weakly and complexly correlated with happiness, and social relationships are strongly and simply correlated with happiness, most of us spend most of our time trying to be happy by pursuing wealth. Why?
-- Daniel Gilbert

Papyrus Plus

St. Paul's Letter to the Romans, a fragment dating from when the Good News was still regarded as news. From the handsome Chester Beatty Library image collection.

Courtesy mirabilis

Optimism for the Sceptic

As we have mentioned before, we are admirers of Martin B. Seligman's approach to the psychology of optimism, related to resourcefulness, robustness, and [wait for it!] happiness. His The Optimistic Child, and the algorithm that has been developed from it, is a fast turn-around from misery. We're never put off by "child" in the title. At heart, and particularly in times of stress, we are all children. And yet can teach ourselves what we haven't learned yet.

Dr. Seligman's interactive self-measure of optimism is available here. The best part of it is the meta-observation at the end, which moves Optimism Studies from Pollyanna to real service. Sometimes optimism is not the best default position, at least to begin with.

When To Use Optimism -- And When Not To

The data are also clear that we should not all be optimists all the time. When risks are high, for example, pessimists may be more firmly grounded in reality -- and less likely to get hurt.

• If you are in an achievement situation (getting a promotion, selling a product, writing a difficult report, winning a game), use optimism.
• If you are concerned about how you will feel (fighting off depression, keeping up your morale), use optimism.
• If your physical health is the issue, use optimism.
• If you want to lead or to inspire others, use optimism.
• If your goal is to plan for a risky and uncertain future, do not use optimism.
• If your goal is to counsel others whose future is dim, do not use optimism initially.
• If you want to appear sympathetic to the troubles of others, do not begin with optimism, although using it later, once confidence and empathy are established, may help.

Via the Neurolearning Blog.

Shelby Foote, Room in His Heart for Folly

Also from Neurolearning, a heartwarming remembrance of someone who had a way with words and simply couldn't sit still for conventional acquiescence.

Of all the passions of mankind, the love of novelty most rules the mind. In search of this, from realm to realm we roam. Our fleets come loaded with every folly home.

R.I.P. Thanks for the vision.

Interview with Mark Steyn

June 29, 2005

Probably there is a whole gaggle of people who don't enjoy the political and cultural columnist Mark Steyn. That gaggle's formations are winging somewhere else, far overhead, not to Chez Dilys. We, on the other hand, willingly eavesdrop on this conversation, querying with a cupped ear the paradox of those who

think the idea of a religion telling you how to live your life is primitive, but the government regulating every aspect of it is somehow advanced and enlightened,

and more, including an airborne solution to the demographic crisis, and an observation that echoes our admiration of Secretary of State Rice.

She has a kind of formality which is oddly appealing in an age when most politicians feel obliged to take refuge in a faintly creepy fake chumminess.

Not unrelated to her background as a concert musician. According to us, every child should learn platform decorum, no giggling, slang, slouching, or fidgeting. Comfort with his own non-ironic presence when communicating to an audience of more than one.

Enjoy. Or not.

Via Betsy's Page.

Puzzling Contradiction Puzzles Puzzled Journalist

The Anchoress and her trusty sidekick Buster found this:

The Times of London takes a look:

In person Mr Bush is so far removed from the caricature of the dim, war-mongering Texas cowboy of global popular repute that it shakes one’s faith in the reliability of the modern media.

Apparently the President was able intermittently to pronounce, in grammatical phrases, without prompting, words such as clandestinely, admonition, and objective. Who knew?

Krystal Grow of the North Adams Transcript, Redux

Krystal is the journalist intern whose public perspective on job hunting made a few jaws drop. Here's another peephole into the same universe, an open letter by Andrew Whitacre, also of Massachusetts, on behalf of "the best-educated generation in American history."

We read the whole thing, did a lot of nodding at the comment from John Franklin of New York's Catalyst Group Design, then retired with our lavender-soaked lacy linen hankie to go lie down in a darkened room with a case of the vapors. High Noon is a-comin' soon down the workplace tracks, is our guess.

Via Future Tense, Corante's new blog on the future of work; they're right, it may be tense. Heads-up via the wide-ranging Instapundit. 

Speaking of...

...troubling innovations in property law.

Presumption of gift, abandonment, or conversion? A first-year law exam question, with international features. Governing law is MA USA. Discuss.

No extra points will be awarded for consideration whether debonair entrepreneurial panache requires Patriots' owner Kraft retrospectively to declare the item a gift.

Via The Corner

Update: Kraft now reports that the ring was a gift reflecting "respect and admiration" for the Russian leader.

Hotel Justice Souter

June 28, 2005

A thought neither worthy nor serious, probably. Will Kelo enable taking the home of a Supreme Court Justice who supported the lamented decision's majority? The Instapundit hopes so. And also notes T-shirts and mugs displaying the pith of Justice Thomas' dissent.

Kelo, More Discussion

June 27, 2005

We have moved here a long update to What is to be Done?:

Update: Another Postrel summary, with suggestions. 6.30.05. Shareholder activism not a promising route, in our opinion. Swelling the membership of Castle Coalition probably good, though. Subject to keeping an eye that their policies and methods are not blunderbuss.

And, there's a Kelo blog.

Virginia Postrel's "Appalled but not surprised" sees it pretty much like we do -- a wake-up call, not much of an innovation. People finally get it. The Institute for Justice, which represented the Kelo plaintiffs, is coordinating opposition.

While Kelo rightly sparks the immediate demand for political action, motivated by a visceral sense of injustice, over the long run a lot of intellectual work needs to be done. Kelo is the logical result... These are not easy questions, and they need to be asked.

And certainly, cities can legally bind themselves not to abuse eminent domain. A Dallas suburb has. Postrel also links to her 1999 essay about how to define pollution, one of the problems eminent domain is used to solve.

Thinking it through is essential, and that is difficult either in soporific indifference or white-hot outrage. Sneaking Suspicions says it clearly: "Accept the invitation."

Houston environs, however, wastes nary a moment. Seafood warehouse has been condemned for a private marina.

This latter occasions our default to a cognitive rumination. The marina folks could have embarked on the uncertainty and expense of negotiations with the seafood folks. Unlike Cuba, where property is not bought or sold, this is always a possibility.

But now there is known to be a more direct route, of lobbying, influence of one kind or another. A law professor used to say, "The goal of the monopolist is not profit, but a quiet life." The goal of the condemner is profit without an equal adversary, one who can walk away from the table. It is a different, and we think flimsier, temperament that insists on bypassing the give-and-take and going directly to fiat.

The entrepreneur vs. the fait-accompli tyrant. We know on which of those two branches our chirping admiration sits.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Becker and Posner are applying precisely the kind of thought that sweeps a keen fresh wind over the roots of the heart of the matter [Ed.: keeping our powder dry here, no time for consistent metaphor!] here and here. They identify the issues and distinctions that eminent domain has never properly addressed.

• The value of property to its owner -- especially his home -- is greater than some generic fair market value.

FAIR COMPENSATION. To me, the only reasonable interpretation of "fair compensation" is the worth of property to the present owners. This often is greater than the highest bids for the property in the marketplace. For example, one of the 15 homeowners who objected to selling her home to the city of Bridgeport was born there 87 years ago. Clearly, the house was worth more to her than the city's assessment. Why should she be forced to sell at a price that could be way below its full value to her?

A second problem with the fair compensation test is that large property owners usually do better in the litigation over compensation than do small owners.

• The only problem eminent domain really needs to address is the greedy holdout.
• Courts face a difficult task in making rules that are right, but not getting involved in the facts and emotions of every justified taking.

They are so fine! The blogosphere is so rich!

And last, some links on Kelo from the often-problematic-"social-justice" site, Mirrors of Justice. They seem torn between their distrust of what they regard as individualism, and their visceral dislike of this decision.
Link, link, link, link, and yet another, via Amy Welborn, who likes them. There may be more later, or if you scroll further.

Update:
John Cornyn's bill in Congress won't really address the full scope of what people are concerned about. It's also awfully fast-out-of-the-holster (see "a lot of intellectual work" Virginia Postrel commends above). But our attorney-advisor applauds its simplicity.

Update:
Chocolate and Gold Coins nails it. Our private property rights are not protected by some document; they are protected by the right to vote.

Texas legislators are on the case.

Update:
Another intelligent discussion from Knowledge Problem.