British Prime Minister David Cameron's "Wellbeing Index" was interesting for me to read. Especially, the organization of his speech was clear and powerful. First, he introduced the three main oppositions against the introduction of wellbeing index, and then refuted those oppositions in favor of his own argument. He argued that even though there are some points that well-being index could be impractical and superficial, and government might not be able to exert the fullest power to improve people's well-being and happiness, he makes clear that it is still possible that the government's effort through well-being effort can stimulate British society to be more family-friendly and happier place to live. Since in today's society, capitalism and consumerism partly contributed to people's lives to be drier, busier and more materialistic, this speech came to me a bit moving. Furthermore, he commented a few names of Nobel Prize winners and many intellectuals who were also in line with the Prime Minister when it comes to well-being thus reinforcing his credibility. Furthermore, the following question and answer section made it clear why the prime minister was supporting well-being index and also resolved my curiosity toward his speech. I thought the speech was quite decent and well spoken.
After looking over the map, and the videos, I have noticed that happiness is defined as well-being. Matthieu Ricard's TED Talk discusses happiness, but he says that happiness is a vague word so he uses well-being. On the other hand, the British Prime Minister's view of well-being seems to be solely on the economy of the country as well as for the individual. The map from the Happy Planet Index gives a number for well-being according to three components. All three pieces have a different definition of happiness or well-being, and different factors or components involved in solving the overall happiness. I found Ricard's argument a little more compelling because he had little specks of humor (not too much), and he gave analogies. I did get lost in the analogy about the sea, and how you will hit the solid rock if you are at the bottom of the wave, but if you are surfing you are going up and down, but then there is the high sea where the depth is always there. I didn't understand this after watching the video a few times. One point that Matthieu Ricard made about happiness really stuck with me. He said that to have everything is happiness and that we try to fix everything on the outside when something is wrong. It's like we try to fix what other people can see, rather than try to fix ourselves and our "insides" whatever that may be. Another thing he said was that "our control over the outer world is limited, temporary, and often, illusory." This was the main statement that stuck with me because I know how much I get irritated or unhappy when people are not paying attention when walking, or are just disrespectful. My day can go from happy and yellow, to dark and red. I have to remind myself that you can't control everything and that you have to learn to deal with certain situations. I am sure several people have their days go wrong all because someone took their seat, or got their coffee order wrong, or someone didn't do their part at work, or someone cut them off on the highway. We all need to learn to breathe, and just let things go.
The Matthieu Ricard's TED talk was extremely soothing and informational. I really liked how he mentioned that happiness is not something "you always radiate on the outside" which I think is true. When I feel happy i have this sense of calm and peace that I don't feel the need to express it outward. He also mentioned that the word happiness is a vague word (because not everyone is happy the same way) so it is better to call it wellbeing: a deep sense of serenity and fullfillment. When he mentioned that people look outside (job, other people, etc) for happiness and wellbeing, I really thought it applied to the majority. I know I have done this on several occasions, but he explained further that eventually we may having everything in the outside great, but inside we feel unhappy. Ricard then discusses mind training which he explains take time and allows inner peace which helps the body's well-being
In David Cameron's policy speech, he talked about the three objections he would present to his challengers about measuring wellbeing in Britain and its importance. He gives great evidence using past historical moments where it shows that government actions affect people good or bad. This is when the Happy Planet Index graph we saw comes into play because it represents many countries depending on their happiness. It was good information to see that life expectancy was higher in countries with also high life satisfaction scores. Although, the high satisfaction scores had low ecological footprint scores
Having made the distinction between pleasure and wellbeing, Ricard shifts to the core of his argument: if happiness is a state of mind that controls one’s wellbeing, then training the mind to find this deeper awareness of happiness is possible. He reiterates the danger of defining happiness as an external source by stating, "To have everything to be happy… That very sentence already reveals the doom of destruction of happiness. To have everything. If we miss something, it collapses” (Ricard). He states that our society needs to transform the mind through mind training, building on the pretense that all emotions are momentary. “Mind training is based on the idea that two opposite mental factors cannot happen at the same time. You could go from love to hate. But you cannot, at the same time, toward the same object, the same person, want to harm and want to do good” (Ricard). Building on this he goes one step further, showing that the main point of mind training is “to try to find a general antidote to all emotions,” meaning one needs to once again look inward to find out what causes their negative emotions instead of looking at the external source that caused it.
I found Matthieu Ricard’s TED talk on the habits of happiness to be really interesting. I find it pretty incredible that a former biochemist completely altered his life and became a Buddhist monk. I have never been able to understand how monks can devote hours upon hours to simple meditation and prayer. With that said, the idea of training your brain to be more compassionate or more kind is a rather intriguing one. Ricard likens this concept to improving any kind of skill through extensive practice, such as playing the violin. He says that the violinist must play 10,000 hours to perfect his/her skills. This number is regarded as the benchmark for the amount of time one must spend to become excellent at any practice (Malcom Gladwell’s Outliers discusses this point). I find it hard to imagine people adopting this practice in order to improve their ability to love or be kind since the time devotion is rather significant, however, it’s a possibility. Ricard makes a strong case for these claims when he presents a graph displaying the left prefrontal activation of the brain during the generation of compassion of a skilled monk and a random sample. The graph shows that the monk is much more inclined to happiness as his left prefrontal cortex (the one associated with happiness) had considerably more activation than the sample population. With this graph, Ricard appeals to the viewer’s logos while further establishing his ethos with this statistical data. Ricard’s ideas seem somewhat abstract at first, but through his use of analogies and statistical data, he is able to help the viewer understand how one can actually improve their happiness through mental training.
Matthieu Ricard's TED talk argues how training the mind is an important factor to our own well-being. He discusses how happiness is more than just "having everything" or a "pleasurable sensation". He explains that well-being is about peace and serenity. His use of analogies helps the reader understand this better. For example, he compares a person surfing the waves in a shore to the emotions of elation and depression. A surfer goes from being elated (when being on a high wave) to depression (when hitting a solid rock). Also he compares the state of being calm and serene to the depth of an ocean. I can imagine myself on a ship in the middle of the sea. My mind is clear. Ricard says that the “there might be storms, but the depth of the ocean is… unchanged”. Meaning that one's mind can still be calm even through "storms"(problems) because this state of being is not a “fleeting emotion”. The imagery being used in his speech is powerful and convincing for his argument. What further convinces the audience is Ricards graph scientifically explaining how meditation or mind training can improve the quality of one’s life.
Matthieu Ricard offers some very interesting ideas about training the mind in habits of well-being. I really liked his example of anger/hatred/annoyance. It is very true that the mind goes back to that state of anger, and reinforces the annoyance. He suggests that in such situations we need to look inward at the anger itself, and it will vanish. I also liked how he defined happiness: To have everything to be happy, this very sentence, brings the destruction of happiness because if something is missing, the whole happiness collapses. The Happy Planet Index was an interesting exercise as well. I looked at life expectancy in different countries and came across Zambia with life expectancy of 40.5 years. That's 37.4 years less that the US. I can't even imagine how life would be like over there. What's interesting is that life satisfaction is higher in Zambia than Madagascar, and not very different from South Africa.
The Prime Minister’s speech advocating the measurement of well-being was very successful in pulling me over his side. He stated “if ‘your’ goal in politics is to help make a better life for people- which mine is” reaches out to the multitude of constituents who believe politicians should really care for their civilians. Though not very subtle, the way it was integrated into his speech raised a red flag when I read the sentence. I was thinking, “oh, he’s trying to pull us to his side. Very good.” He emphasized a lot about making Britain a family-friendly country, which will resonate with many mothers and fathers who want the best for their children. He utilizes a lot of pathos, especially in the last paragraph where he says anyone who cares about community and civility should support his directive. This is basically signaling out every reader who even remotely cares about their country should be supporting the measurements.
The author begins his position on happiness by explaining that he prefers the term well-being. His view, based on Buddhist belief, is that happiness is “not just a mere pleasurable sensation. It is a deep sense of serenity and fulfillment, a state that actually pervades and underlies all emotional states.” He helps the audience understand this by using a metaphor of the ocean. He explains that happiness versus sadness is a wave that crashes to shore without depth, yet well-being is a state like the calm sea. There may be an occasional storm, but the depth of the ocean remains . I found this image to be very helpful in distinguishing what is different about Ricard’s argument. His view is clearly illustrated and easy to understand with this metaphor.
What made the Prime Minister's speech effective is that he was clearly stated the purpose of his speech to his audience. The Prime Minister's speech is organized around the 3 arguments made in opposition to his view. The Prime Minster believes that the government can measure the wellbeing of the country and by looking at the quality of life of the population the government can therefore make changes in policies in order to improve the wellbeing of the country.
THe Prime Minister repeated each of the arguments before refuting them. This repetition is helpful to the audience since it alerts them of which opposing argument is being tackled. Repetition is also a good idea if speeches are lengthy, since it keeps the audience focused.
I don't entirely understand the Happy Planet Index. It states that "It shows the relative efficiency with which nations convert the planet’s natural resources into long and happy lives for their citizens" and that "it is possible to produce high well-being without excessive consumption of the Earth’s resources" but the majority of countries in Africa are low-scoring in life satisfaction, life expectancy but high in ecological footprint. Whereas the US scores high in life satisfaction and life expectancy but incredibly low in ecological footprint. So how can they say the above quoted, when the difference between the countries in Africa and the US display the opposite? Maybe I'm just looking at it wrong, but still...
Cameron's idea is good in theory, but not sure how it would do in practice. He states that when people are given more control over their life, they're happier; so by giving them choices in education, planning policies, etc it'll make them happier. But although everyone may be allowed to give their opinion on what would make them happy, not everyone agrees so how would the government decide which opinion to follow and act on? Either way someone ends up discontent and then his well-being index just lets him know that.
I liked Matthieu Ricard's thoughts on mind-training for happiness, the 10,000 hours of practice idea and looking inward when different emotions arise. It doesn't sound like a hard thing to do, to focus on one's emotions and try to figure out why one feels a certain way, and try to train your mind to be happier, more compassionate, etc. People say they have a lack of time for things, but if you look at your schedule there are a lot of things you could cut out, like TV. Maybe I'm bias though because I like monks.
British Prime Minister, David Cameron, argues that a country's success can not only depend on the increase of GDP but also it's the well-being, “quality of life”. He states a country should also be based on a measurement of well-being. He defends his argument by stating each counter case with an explanation. For example, Cameron quotes Robert Kennedy on how the GDP “…does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It measures neither our wisdom nor our learning; neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country; it measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.” This can also be seen as a rhetorical device that build his ethos with his audience by building his character as good willed. Cameron also claims that there are three things that matter to a societies well-being. He explains the correlation of how giving people more control of their life, improving relationships, and planning policy in the neighborhood through the change/improvement of government policy can lead to a more satisfied country.This point of view concentrates on the importance of politics and the government it has on a person’s well-being. This definition of well-being is similar to that of Ricard’s when saying that material (GDP in this case) things are not as important as happiness.
I agree with Matthieu Ricard when he simply stated the fact that everyone has a different perception of what happiness is! Is it contingent upon pleasure? The place? Delicious cake? I agree that different people search for different things to become happy, and I believe that every person wants different things out of life. Some want a family, some want a successful career, and some just want to be loved. I also agree that happiness is a "vague word" because it cannot be truly defined! I liked that he changed the definition to "well-being" and a "deep sense of serenity of fulfillment" in your emotional state. I felt like I could agree with this definition, but I also believe happiness is something that is so difficult to put a finger on that could be used worldwide as a definition that everyone can agree upon.
British Prime Minister David Cameron's "Wellbeing Index" was interesting for me to read. Especially, the organization of his speech was clear and powerful. First, he introduced the three main oppositions against the introduction of wellbeing index, and then refuted those oppositions in favor of his own argument. He argued that even though there are some points that well-being index could be impractical and superficial, and government might not be able to exert the fullest power to improve people's well-being and happiness, he makes clear that it is still possible that the government's effort through well-being effort can stimulate British society to be more family-friendly and happier place to live.
ReplyDeleteSince in today's society, capitalism and consumerism partly contributed to people's lives to be drier, busier and more materialistic, this speech came to me a bit moving. Furthermore, he commented a few names of Nobel Prize winners and many intellectuals who were also in line with the Prime Minister when it comes to well-being thus reinforcing his credibility. Furthermore, the following question and answer section made it clear why the prime minister was supporting well-being index and also resolved my curiosity toward his speech. I thought the speech was quite decent and well spoken.
After looking over the map, and the videos, I have noticed that happiness is defined as well-being. Matthieu Ricard's TED Talk discusses happiness, but he says that happiness is a vague word so he uses well-being. On the other hand, the British Prime Minister's view of well-being seems to be solely on the economy of the country as well as for the individual. The map from the Happy Planet Index gives a number for well-being according to three components. All three pieces have a different definition of happiness or well-being, and different factors or components involved in solving the overall happiness. I found Ricard's argument a little more compelling because he had little specks of humor (not too much), and he gave analogies. I did get lost in the analogy about the sea, and how you will hit the solid rock if you are at the bottom of the wave, but if you are surfing you are going up and down, but then there is the high sea where the depth is always there. I didn't understand this after watching the video a few times.
ReplyDeleteOne point that Matthieu Ricard made about happiness really stuck with me. He said that to have everything is happiness and that we try to fix everything on the outside when something is wrong. It's like we try to fix what other people can see, rather than try to fix ourselves and our "insides" whatever that may be. Another thing he said was that "our control over the outer world is limited, temporary, and often, illusory." This was the main statement that stuck with me because I know how much I get irritated or unhappy when people are not paying attention when walking, or are just disrespectful. My day can go from happy and yellow, to dark and red. I have to remind myself that you can't control everything and that you have to learn to deal with certain situations. I am sure several people have their days go wrong all because someone took their seat, or got their coffee order wrong, or someone didn't do their part at work, or someone cut them off on the highway. We all need to learn to breathe, and just let things go.
The Matthieu Ricard's TED talk was extremely soothing and informational. I really liked how he mentioned that happiness is not something "you always radiate on the outside" which I think is true. When I feel happy i have this sense of calm and peace that I don't feel the need to express it outward. He also mentioned that the word happiness is a vague word (because not everyone is happy the same way) so it is better to call it wellbeing: a deep sense of serenity and fullfillment. When he mentioned that people look outside (job, other people, etc) for happiness and wellbeing, I really thought it applied to the majority. I know I have done this on several occasions, but he explained further that eventually we may having everything in the outside great, but inside we feel unhappy. Ricard then discusses mind training which he explains take time and allows inner peace which helps the body's well-being
ReplyDeleteIn David Cameron's policy speech, he talked about the three objections he would present to his challengers about measuring wellbeing in Britain and its importance. He gives great evidence using past historical moments where it shows that government actions affect people good or bad. This is when the Happy Planet Index graph we saw comes into play because it represents many countries depending on their happiness. It was good information to see that life expectancy was higher in countries with also high life satisfaction scores. Although, the high satisfaction scores had low ecological footprint scores
Having made the distinction between pleasure and wellbeing, Ricard shifts to the core of his argument: if happiness is a state of mind that controls one’s wellbeing, then training the mind to find this deeper awareness of happiness is possible. He reiterates the danger of defining happiness as an external source by stating, "To have everything to be happy… That very sentence already reveals the doom of destruction of happiness. To have everything. If we miss something, it collapses” (Ricard). He states that our society needs to transform the mind through mind training, building on the pretense that all emotions are momentary. “Mind training is based on the idea that two opposite mental factors cannot happen at the same time. You could go from love to hate. But you cannot, at the same time, toward the same object, the same person, want to harm and want to do good” (Ricard). Building on this he goes one step further, showing that the main point of mind training is “to try to find a general antidote to all emotions,” meaning one needs to once again look inward to find out what causes their negative emotions instead of looking at the external source that caused it.
ReplyDeleteI found Matthieu Ricard’s TED talk on the habits of happiness to be really interesting. I find it pretty incredible that a former biochemist completely altered his life and became a Buddhist monk. I have never been able to understand how monks can devote hours upon hours to simple meditation and prayer. With that said, the idea of training your brain to be more compassionate or more kind is a rather intriguing one. Ricard likens this concept to improving any kind of skill through extensive practice, such as playing the violin. He says that the violinist must play 10,000 hours to perfect his/her skills. This number is regarded as the benchmark for the amount of time one must spend to become excellent at any practice (Malcom Gladwell’s Outliers discusses this point). I find it hard to imagine people adopting this practice in order to improve their ability to love or be kind since the time devotion is rather significant, however, it’s a possibility. Ricard makes a strong case for these claims when he presents a graph displaying the left prefrontal activation of the brain during the generation of compassion of a skilled monk and a random sample. The graph shows that the monk is much more inclined to happiness as his left prefrontal cortex (the one associated with happiness) had considerably more activation than the sample population. With this graph, Ricard appeals to the viewer’s logos while further establishing his ethos with this statistical data. Ricard’s ideas seem somewhat abstract at first, but through his use of analogies and statistical data, he is able to help the viewer understand how one can actually improve their happiness through mental training.
ReplyDeleteMatthieu Ricard's TED talk argues how training the mind is an important factor to our own well-being. He discusses how happiness is more than just "having everything" or a "pleasurable sensation". He explains that well-being is about peace and serenity. His use of analogies helps the reader understand this better. For example, he compares a person surfing the waves in a shore to the emotions of elation and depression. A surfer goes from being elated (when being on a high wave) to depression (when hitting a solid rock). Also he compares the state of being calm and serene to the depth of an ocean. I can imagine myself on a ship in the middle of the sea. My mind is clear. Ricard says that the “there might be storms, but the depth of the ocean is… unchanged”. Meaning that one's mind can still be calm even through "storms"(problems) because this state of being is not a “fleeting emotion”. The imagery being used in his speech is powerful and convincing for his argument. What further convinces the audience is Ricards graph scientifically explaining how meditation or mind training can improve the quality of one’s life.
ReplyDeleteMatthieu Ricard offers some very interesting ideas about training the mind in habits of well-being. I really liked his example of anger/hatred/annoyance. It is very true that the mind goes back to that state of anger, and reinforces the annoyance. He suggests that in such situations we need to look inward at the anger itself, and it will vanish. I also liked how he defined happiness: To have everything to be happy, this very sentence, brings the destruction of happiness because if something is missing, the whole happiness collapses.
ReplyDeleteThe Happy Planet Index was an interesting exercise as well. I looked at life expectancy in different countries and came across Zambia with life expectancy of 40.5 years. That's 37.4 years less that the US. I can't even imagine how life would be like over there. What's interesting is that life satisfaction is higher in Zambia than Madagascar, and not very different from South Africa.
The Prime Minister’s speech advocating the measurement of well-being was very successful in pulling me over his side. He stated “if ‘your’ goal in politics is to help make a better life for people- which mine is” reaches out to the multitude of constituents who believe politicians should really care for their civilians. Though not very subtle, the way it was integrated into his speech raised a red flag when I read the sentence. I was thinking, “oh, he’s trying to pull us to his side. Very good.” He emphasized a lot about making Britain a family-friendly country, which will resonate with many mothers and fathers who want the best for their children. He utilizes a lot of pathos, especially in the last paragraph where he says anyone who cares about community and civility should support his directive. This is basically signaling out every reader who even remotely cares about their country should be supporting the measurements.
ReplyDeleteThe author begins his position on happiness by explaining that he prefers the term well-being. His view, based on Buddhist belief, is that happiness is “not just a mere pleasurable sensation. It is a deep sense of serenity and fulfillment, a state that actually pervades and underlies all emotional states.” He helps the audience understand this by using a metaphor of the ocean. He explains that happiness versus sadness is a wave that crashes to shore without depth, yet well-being is a state like the calm sea. There may be an occasional storm, but the depth of the ocean remains . I found this image to be very helpful in distinguishing what is different about Ricard’s argument. His view is clearly illustrated and easy to understand with this metaphor.
ReplyDeleteWhat made the Prime Minister's speech effective is that he was clearly stated the purpose of his speech to his audience. The Prime Minister's speech is organized around the 3 arguments made in opposition to his view. The Prime Minster believes that the government can measure the wellbeing of the country and by looking at the quality of life of the population the government can therefore make changes in policies in order to improve the wellbeing of the country.
ReplyDeleteTHe Prime Minister repeated each of the arguments before refuting them. This repetition is helpful to the audience since it alerts them of which opposing argument is being tackled. Repetition is also a good idea if speeches are lengthy, since it keeps the audience focused.
I don't entirely understand the Happy Planet Index. It states that "It shows the relative efficiency with which nations convert the planet’s natural resources into long and happy lives for their citizens" and that "it is possible to produce high well-being without excessive consumption of the Earth’s resources" but the majority of countries in Africa are low-scoring in life satisfaction, life expectancy but high in ecological footprint. Whereas the US scores high in life satisfaction and life expectancy but incredibly low in ecological footprint. So how can they say the above quoted, when the difference between the countries in Africa and the US display the opposite? Maybe I'm just looking at it wrong, but still...
ReplyDeleteCameron's idea is good in theory, but not sure how it would do in practice. He states that when people are given more control over their life, they're happier; so by giving them choices in education, planning policies, etc it'll make them happier. But although everyone may be allowed to give their opinion on what would make them happy, not everyone agrees so how would the government decide which opinion to follow and act on? Either way someone ends up discontent and then his well-being index just lets him know that.
I liked Matthieu Ricard's thoughts on mind-training for happiness, the 10,000 hours of practice idea and looking inward when different emotions arise. It doesn't sound like a hard thing to do, to focus on one's emotions and try to figure out why one feels a certain way, and try to train your mind to be happier, more compassionate, etc. People say they have a lack of time for things, but if you look at your schedule there are a lot of things you could cut out, like TV. Maybe I'm bias though because I like monks.
British Prime Minister, David Cameron, argues that a country's success can not only depend on the increase of GDP but also it's the well-being, “quality of life”. He states a country should also be based on a measurement of well-being. He defends his argument by stating each counter case with an explanation. For example, Cameron quotes Robert Kennedy on how the GDP “…does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It measures neither our wisdom nor our learning; neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country; it measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.” This can also be seen as a rhetorical device that build his ethos with his audience by building his character as good willed. Cameron also claims that there are three things that matter to a societies well-being. He explains the correlation of how giving people more control of their life, improving relationships, and planning policy in the neighborhood through the change/improvement of government policy can lead to a more satisfied country.This point of view concentrates on the importance of politics and the government it has on a person’s well-being. This definition of well-being is similar to that of Ricard’s when saying that material (GDP in this case) things are not as important as happiness.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Matthieu Ricard when he simply stated the fact that everyone has a different perception of what happiness is! Is it contingent upon pleasure? The place? Delicious cake? I agree that different people search for different things to become happy, and I believe that every person wants different things out of life. Some want a family, some want a successful career, and some just want to be loved. I also agree that happiness is a "vague word" because it cannot be truly defined! I liked that he changed the definition to "well-being" and a "deep sense of serenity of fulfillment" in your emotional state. I felt like I could agree with this definition, but I also believe happiness is something that is so difficult to put a finger on that could be used worldwide as a definition that everyone can agree upon.
ReplyDelete