Against Happiness by Jim Holt Essay -- Against Happiness, Jim Holt

Jim Holt fails to label triumph as yet an other(a)wise neighborly evil in "Against Happiness", an essay in the sunday cartridge holder of the New York Times from June 20, 2004. In this essay Holt argues that "Sad people are nice. Angry people are nasty. And, oddly enough, happy people hunt to be nasty, too." This presents an intriguing, foreknowintuitive arguement to his readers, and while this is definately an intresting arguement to engage in, Holt falls short of convert me of happiness darkside. Sometimes he seems to just be rambling- this piece feels more same(p) a discussion than an arguement, many times in the essay he reports deduction which may be convincing, if it wasnt immediately deflated by counter evidence or the authors own cautiousness, and worst of all, the report used to allow his otherwise irresitable thesis, doesnt support it at all.     The appeal in "Against Happiness" seems to be purely emotional. It seems t hat Holt belives that if the reader questions happiness enough, and gets sideways enough about the description of happiness, they might be confused and paranoid enough to start beliving that maybe, possibly, if happiness were like that, and if happy people might do that, then I guess it may be possible that happiness could be regretful in a certain circumstance. According to Holts research, happiness is a mood, an "everything is fine military strength that reduces motivation for analytical thought", "positive affect" (Holt later comments that " exercise scales have been invented to measure individual happiness, but researchers admit that difficulties remain), "well impression", "a shallow and selfish goal", "a psychiatric disorderliness" (although Holt rebuffs by saying "that may be going a endorsement far"), and "An agreeable sensation arising from contemplating the misery of another" (Holt again step back, "the res no need to be that cynical"). Thats a confusing combining that leads to a very loose definition of happiness, which makes this a difficult arguement to follow.      The evidence Holt uses might work if he didnt undermine it by questioning it or prividing a counterpoint. He seems to be overly cautious, almost like hes having a hard time believing it. On one hand, "the United States consist... ...al. mayhap it was just an overlooked slew by Holt, but considering that NYTs fact checking section was involved, and considering Holt writes in trusted, widely circulated publications like The New Yorker, The New York Times, and Slate, this is a mistake he simply should not make.     Holts misuse of evidence, poor use of other evidence, lack of support, lack of definition, and almost neutral stance make his arguement unattainable to get behind. His message comes across unclear, and Im still not sure what to depend of it. It lacked the p ower to illicit an immediate response from me, and Im sure many other readers. Please do your readers a favor Mr. Holt- next time you settle down to kick an idea around, dont stake your claim in bad science, dont dispose by confusion, and please use less "journalistic caricature".DeSteno, David, Dasgupta, Nilanjana, Bartlett, Monica Y. & group A Cajdric, Aida (2004) Prejudice >From Thin Air. Psychological Science 15 (5), 319-324Misreporting Science in the New York Times Against HappinessBy Martin E. P. SeligmanJuly 29, 2004http//learnv.ycdsb.edu.on.ca/lt/FMMC/hpteacher.nsf/Files/mcmanad/$FILE/auth2.html