"On Twitter, folks have started using the Slate-created hashtag #sadbook to tweet about how Facebook makes them sad."

And what am I supposed to tweet if that makes me sad?

Is your partner helping you with your "self-expansion"?

It's the secret to a happy marriage, according to some experts:

While the notion of self-expansion may sound inherently self-serving, it can lead to stronger, more sustainable relationships, [says Professor Gary W. Lewandowski Jr.,].

“If you’re seeking self-growth and obtain it from your partner, then that puts your partner in a pretty important position,” he explains. “And being able to help your partner’s self-expansion would be pretty pleasing to yourself.”

The concept explains why people are delighted when dates treat them to new experiences, like a weekend away. But self-expansion isn’t just about exotic experiences. Individuals experience personal growth through their partners in big and small ways. It happens when they introduce new friends, or casually talk about a new restaurant or a fascinating story in the news.

Introducing you to a fascinating story in the news? The secret to happiness is, perhaps, marrying a blogger!

"A human mind is a wandering mind, and a wandering mind is an unhappy mind."

"The ability to think about what is not happening is a cognitive achievement that comes at an emotional cost."

A report of another one of those "happiness" studies. If unhappiness correlates with a wandering mind, is it because a wandering mind makes you unhappy or because it's when you're unhappy with what you're doing that you think about doing something else?

I rewatched "Vicky Cristina Barcelona."

I saw this movie when it came out and wrote about it — using my random list blogging approach — on August 15, 2008. The movie is all about romantic love and sexual feeling, and when I saw if the first time, I hadn't been in love in a long while. So it was fun to see it again and to go back and read that old post about it. And it was really fun to dip into the comments and find my then-future-husband Meade, who said: "If only I had a nickel for every time someone has come up to me on the street and mistaken me for a lesbian Javier Barden..." Ha. Lord knows what I pictured back then, before Meade ever sent me his photograph. But did the movie affect me differently now that I have my dear Meade? I'd say it made a deeper impression when I was love-deprived, because it's about people trying to understand and get to the love they want.

Too much personal happiness may diminish one's appreciation of art!

In the movie, Javier Bardem — Meade typo'd his name — plays an artist who can't maintain a stable attachment to his wife. He passionately loves her, but it's all tempestuous and violent. And it makes his art fabulous, of course. He's splattering paint all over the canvas — as painters in movies usually do, because it's not sufficiently cinematic to be dabbing paint carefully. A great exception to the movie rule that every painter must fling paint like Jackson Pollock is the Catherine Keener character in "Synecdoche, New York." She paints pictures so extremely tiny they require magnifying glasses to view.

But painting in movies is always a metaphor for sex, is it not? It's different sex in Synecdoche and Barcelona. And that makes me wonder if, on rewatch today, "Synecdoche, New York" would make a deeper impression.

What are the works of art that become more profound when you are, in real life, experiencing great happiness?

"It’s a very encouraging fact that we can expect to be happier in our early 80s than we were in our 20s."

"And it’s not being driven predominantly by things that happen in life. It’s something very deep and quite human that seems to be driving this."

"I kind of see myself as a man of God and being like Joseph."

"In a sense, I feel like a bear, coming out of hibernation. Like, they come out to eat, mine would be coming out to enjoy what I have missed."

CNN is clinging to women readers.

It's so pathetic and obvious. Here's a screen grab of the center of the home page at CNN:



What makes people happy? Engagement... unhappy? Baby sloths enjoy the sweet life... aw... A big fish is in trouble! Miss USA! The lighter side of Elena Kagan! The style of the First Lady! A sitcom! Dancing With the Stars!

Reading CNN to find out the latest about happiness... that's not going to make this woman happy.

IN THE COMMENTS: Palladian switches the captions around:

A poll about the way we feel about things.

I was just thinking about the way we feel about the things that belong to us. Picture all the personal and real property that you own and don't own — furniture, clothing, cars, houses, toys, gadgets, etc. etc. Now, let me set out 3 categories of how we might feel:

A. When I own something, it takes on special value and feels more precious to me than it did before I owned it or in comparison to similar things that I don't own.

B. When I own something, I'm more aware of its imperfections and problems, and I tend to feel that it's worse than it seemed before I owned it or in comparison to similar things that I don't own.

C. I have a pretty objective feeling about things, and they don't seem either better or worse when they  belong to me.

And here are 3 categories of how you might feel about acquiring more things.

D. I feel a fairly strong urge to acquire more things, not just what I'm sure I need, but additional things that will give me pleasure and satisfaction.

E. I am trying to resist acquiring more things.

F. I get what I need and maybe some extra things, but I don't put much mental energy into wanting to buy things or resisting.

Now, here's the poll, and please be honest:

Which of these combinations is closest to the way you feel?
	A and D
	A and E
	A and F
	B and D
	B and E
	B and F
	C and D
	C and E
	C and F
pollcode.com free polls

The unselfish husband.

"If a man were to invite a lady to marry him on the ground that he ardently desired her happiness and at the same time considered that she would afford him ideal opportunities of self-abnegation, I think it may be doubted whether she would be altogether pleased."

"My ideal state as a reader when I'm reading other people is feeling I'm vaguely wasting my time when I'm not reading that novel."

Ian McEwan on the feeling the writer should create in the reader.

Also, on what makes him able to write: "I suppose it just so happens that the woman I love happens to be my wife, and that is a piece of luck. That creates a sort of stability and a sort of endless interest. I know there are other writers who need the kind of spur of unhappiness to work, but not me. When I'm unhappy I can't work."

ADDED: (Via reader email.) "This is the nature of empathy, to think oneself into the minds of others. These are the mechanics of compassion: you are under the bedclothes, unable to sleep, and you are crouching in the brushed-steel lavatory at the rear of the plane, whispering a final message to your loved one. There is only that one thing to say, and you say it. All else is pointless."

Got any recipes?

"John told me about why he left Hollywood just a few years earlier. He was terrified of the impact it was having on his sons..."

"... he was scared it was going to cause them to lose perspective on what was important and what happiness meant. And he told me a sad story about how, a big reason behind his decision to give it all up was that 'they' (Hollywood) had 'killed' his friend, John Candy, by greedily working him too hard."

Alison Byrne Fields was a high school student when she started writing to John Hughes. We were talking about Hughes's death, and Reader_Iam pointed us to Fields's blog post.

Women are unhappier than ever.

According to a new study.

That's what we get for being more in touch with how we feel — we notice it, we admit it to ourselves and others. And we get attention because of it. If men were/are sad, who would know? Who would care?

But the linked blog post, by Meghan O'Rourke, asks — assuming it's really true that women are less happy than men and less happy than they were 35 years ago — why would this be so?

[T]he drop in happiness is pegged to an anxiety caused by the plethora of choices available (Barry Schwarz's paradox of choice) and women's feeling that they have to perform well across more categories. This is not exactly the same as struggling to balance so-called work and life (i.e., children): The study's authors are quick to point out that the decline in happiness is consistent across many categories, irrespective of marital or employment status or whether you have young children....

Oh, how I loathe this liberal meme about choice and happiness! Though liberals believe fondly in "the right to choose," they also love to say that choice makes us sad — but they only seem to mean that choice in the economic sphere is bad. (Notice how it softens you up to accept the crappy car the government wants you to drive and the good-for-everybody health care system it would like to provide.)

Anyway, why are women so sad? I think it's because we think about our feelings so much and care so much about being happy.

What's with Althouse?

She's not blogging, not much anyway. She's — what? — in Ohio for Spring Break? Who goes to Ohio for Spring Break.

Well, that picture is from last Tuesday, when I was meeting Nina for some laughing and serious talk at Barrique's Wine Cave on Monroe Street in Madison. Nina memorializes the confabulation at the end of this long post, thusly:

Tuesday – I paid the price for my protracted recline on the ER bed the previous day. I had classes and endless meetings and appointments to get through and it was a tight fit. Luckily the day ended with a glass of wine with my most happy friend. I suppose you don’t remember my suggestion that mental health requires putting in hours with happy people? I did that tonight.

I'm aiming to spill the happiness, my friends, so be happy here.

"If people with Down syndrome ruled the world."

From the National Association for Down Syndrome:

Affection, hugging and caring for others would make a big comeback....

All people would be encouraged to develop and use their gifts for helping others....

People would be refreshingly honest and genuine....

We believe, too, that a stuffy high society would probably not do well in the world of Down syndrome.

However, we believe that BIG dress up dances would flourish. People with Down syndrome love dressing up and dancing at big shindigs. They have a ball, and ...can they dance!...

People engaged in self talk would be considered thoughtful and creative. Self talk rooms would be reserved in offices and libraries to encourage this practice.....

Order and Structure would rule...

IN THE COMMENTS: hokiepundit writes:

Um...let's not forget that adults with Down Syndrome aren't just perpetually-innocent children in big-people bodies. They still have things like libidos and the capacity to act hatefully. They're just as human as the rest of us and it's unspeakable that people will abort their Down Syndrome babies, but these aren't supermen but simply men.

Man, I feel like I just harshed some mellow. I'll just go back to my legal reading now.

I respond:

Hokie, sure, we know that. This is just an effort to encourage respect for people who are part of the diversity of humanity.

I'm getting a vibe from some of the anti-Palin writings on the web that it's irresponsible to give birth to a Down's child unless you are planning to give up all your other aspirations in life. To me, this is thinly veiled abortion-encouragement, and it's quite horrifying.

I don't really want people with Down syndrome to rule the world. "Order and Structure would rule"... I think we know how things like that work out in practice.

ADDED: Rule-the-world fantasies are interesting and crazy and, at bottom, scary.

If I ruled the world/Every day would be the first day of spring/Every heart would have a new song to sing/And we'd sing of the joy every morning would bring/Every man would be as free as a bird/Every voice would be a voice to be heard/Take my word we would treasure each day that occurred/My world would be a beautiful place/Where we would weave such wonderful dreams/My world would wear a smile on its face/Like the man in the moon has when the moon beams/Every man would say the world was his friend/There'd be happiness that no man could end/No my friend, not if I ruled the world.

Hey, I can picture Barack Obama singing that, but here's the great original recording by Tony Bennett.

"This could be bad news for Hillary"... or not.

John Horgan and George Johnson — the science guys at Bloggingheads — are talking on January 4th about how — for each of them independently — they couldn't figure out whether they wanted Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama to be the Democratic nominee, but then when they looked at the newspaper and saw that Barack Obama had won the Iowa caucuses and felt happy, they realized they were for Barack Obama. Both seem to think that they really already were for Obama and that seeing that he won let them know what was already true.

I say "seem to think" because I haven't watched the whole diavlog, only that clip, which is linked on the front page of Bloggingheads with the line: "Are you on the fence about Obama? You could be rooting for him without even knowing it."

But it seems obvious to me that this is probably an illusion that reflects our capacity to adapt to whatever the situation is. We see that something has happened and we reflexively perceive that it's what we wanted all along — as long as it's within the range of things that are good enough. That's why we're always saying things like: Things happen for a reason, It's for the best, I meant to do that, etc. (A lot of the experiments Daniel Gilbert describes in "Stumbling Into Happiness" illustrate this psychological mechanism.)

I bet Horgan and Johnson didn't know which candidate they preferred, and then when they saw Obama had won, they imagined they were perceiving that they preferred him before they saw the news. They mentally backdated their preference — and are happier for it.

Now, I wonder if when they saw the news today, they "realized" that they had already started to think that Barack Obama was not the best person for the job, somewhere in between Iowa and New Hampshire, their preference shifted to Hillary — and they're still smiling.

Anyway, if you want to be happy, don't firm up your preferences. Stay undecided. Then when you see who wins — whoever it is — you'll feel good that it was your candidate. Could it be that this is why so many people stay undecided? (I include myself!) We're good at keeping happy.

IN THE COMMENTS: We are favored with a visit from our delightful — and long-dead — commenter, Sir Archy:

To Professor Althouse.

Madam,

It is a wise Observation, indeed, that a temperate Detachment is the best course in Politicks. As the Ghost of someone dead these 250 years and more, I have seen many an Election, and many a Scene attendant upon these Publick Actions, such as this one, very justly depict'd by Mr. Hogarth. It may be observ'd, however, that here Mr. Hogarth paints not the Passion, but the Folly of Electioneering.

Passion and Folly are the Sun and Moon of Election Day. A Person may follow Events keenly; but 'tis not worthy of a Gentleman, nor indeed a Lady, such as yourself, to be too visibly attach'd to one Interest or Another. A calm Disinterest becomes all well-bred Persons who would be Rational.

As the charming impressaria of this Theatre of Topicks, as I call it, you no doubt feel the Call to attract the Publick. It speaks well of You and your Theatre, that You do so without Tricks or Displays of false Passion or Rabble-rousing so commonly found in other Entertainments of this Kind. That some of the Groundlings here may arouse themselves to a Pitch of Excitement may hardly be laid against you, for your Attitude of even-handed Equanimity shows the way of a true Philosopher.

By way of closing, I should quote the Example of Captain Halley, the late Astronomer Royal, who Discover'd the famous Comet that bears his Name. Captain Halley—for he always styled himself by his Naval Title, and was Captain in the Royal Navy before he was Doctor of Laws—observ'd at the time of the Glorious Revolution (when poor King James was unjustly expell'd) that he, Captain Halley, was, "for the King in possession. We pay dear enough for our Protection, and we ought to have the Benefit of it."

As attached as some of my Relatives were, at that time, to the auld Interest, as they call'd it, they shift'd for Themselves, and were, in the end, much the happier for it.

Recommending such a Course to your Readers, I remain ever, Madam,

Your humble & obt. Servant,

Sir Archy

6 a.m.

There's something special at 6 o'clock in the morning...



... when it's still to early to go to Starbucks...



... because it's Sunday, and they don't open until 6:30 on Sundays, and the door's unlocked, but when you go in, they say "We're not open." It's 6:11, and you're a woman alone. Outside, it's snowing and there's not yet a hint of dawn. It seemed beautiful when I stepped outside my building a few moments earlier, saw the first snow of the season and took those pictures, but now, it seems really sad and lonely. The barista can't say, "Please, take a seat, and I can serve you when it's 6:30," and she doesn't think to say, "I know we're usually open at 6, but not on Sunday... I'm really sorry." She just glares at me, and I see I'm a trespasser. I must retreat into the night. I could walk back to my apartment, and I would if only the WiFi weren't malfunctioning again. I could go walk on the Promenade, take some more pictures, but does a woman walk alone in the dark on the Promenade?

My exile in New York continues....

Eventually, I get a wisp of happiness from a doggywog....





I think about home...

Into the movie theater, "Into the Wild."

I saw the movie "Into the Wild" yesterday. This was only the second movie I've seen since arriving in New York in mid-August. (The other was "Across the Universe" — blogged here.)

Why don't I see more movies? 1. I don't like the physical constraint of committing to sitting in a chair for 2 hours. 2. I only go to movies I think I'll like and still don't much like the movies I see. 3. Few movies seem like the sort of thing I'll like. 4. I have no shortage of other things to do (which is the case for anyone who loves to read). 5. I don't find myself in social situations where going to the movies is what people do together (and I don't see why people want to spend their precious time together doing something that involves so little interaction with each other).

Why did "Into the Wild" overcome my resistance? 1. I wanted to take a cab to 27th Street and 11th Avenue to begin a walk that would take me through a bunch of art galleries...



... and then all the way back to Brooklyn Heights, and "Into the Wild" was playing at a theater on 19th Street and Broadway, so what I usually experience as noisome restraint would rest me up for the walk through downtown Manhattan and across the Brooklyn Bridge. 2. Having read the book "Into the Wild," I was interested in seeing a visualization of it. 3. Some of my very favorite movies are about men at the existential edge: "Grizzly Man," "Touching the Void," "The Pianist," "My Dinner With André." (I know André is just sitting at a restaurant table throughout the movie, but he describes a search for his soul through mountains, deep forest, the Sahara, and the inside of a grave.)

How did I like "Into the Wild"?

1. The actor — Emile Hirsch — who played Christopher McCandless, was cute — like the young Leonardo di Caprio — but he did not radiate emotion. Compare him to Adrian Brody in "The Pianist," whose character, like McCandless, is starving. Brody made me feel what was happening to him as he descended into the most desperate human condition. Hirsch couldn't do that, though he was supported by terrific actors (especially Hal Holbrook), profound landscapes, and that squalid little bus. He seemed like a really nice kid with a lot of idealism and enthusiasm who made a few unfortunate choices and so, sadly, never got the chance to grow up. Unlike the character in "The Pianist," McCandless made his own choices. He rejected society, but we can't see much anti-social edge in Hirsch's portrayal.

2. The photography didn't move me. The beach, the canyon, the desert, the mountains — these are all beautiful locations, but this isn't a travelogue. These things should be photographed to convey emotion, but they looked about the way they'd look if you went there and saw them for yourself. There are 2 key scenes where Hirsch climbs up a hill, acts enthused, and gets the old man played by Holbrooke to climb up there too. It reminded me of the scene in "Titanic" when Leo DiCaprio shows Kate Winslet how to live by getting her to stretch out her arms on the prow of the ship. It's a Hollywood cliché. (Too bad Hirsch didn't yell "I'm king of the hill!")

3. I nearly walked out about a third of the way in. Something about Hirsch and Catherine Keener romping on the beach and plunging into the ocean felt stupid and phony. We're told the character is afraid of water, and then Keener — the mother figure he finds to replace his real and too-distant mother — makes it possible for him to go swimming. I forced myself to stay, and I see the story arc this was part of. He leaves his inadequate parents. (They're excited about the idea of him going to Harvard Law School and haven't a clue why he doesn't want them to buy him a new car.) He goes on the road where he finds replacements for his mother and father (Keener and Holbrook). He interacts with water — gets caught in a flash flood, kayaks through rapids, plunges in the ocean, fords a stream — which are probably meant to symbolize birth/mother. And he encounters a rocky terrain and kills and butchers some animals — squirrel and moose — (squirrel and moose???) — which are probably meant to symbolize his struggle with death/father.

4. The movie raises but hardly explores the issue of celibacy. We're shown this attractive young man, who seems to have a feeling for other people, in the presence of sensuous females. Kayaking, he comes upon a bare-breasted woman, but she has a boyfriend and he has to run off. (He's running from park rangers). Later, a beautiful, sensitive girl throws herself at him, but she's 16, and he's upstanding about that. (He burns his money and Social Security card, he kayaks in violation of clearly stated rules, and he steals rides on freight trains, but he's rigorous about the age-of-consent laws.) So the movie shows us the path not taken — love from a woman could replace the inadequate parents — and the character is given pat excuses for not going there. Still, why did he forswear sex? In the end, dying alone, he writes in his notebook: "Real happiness must be shared." This is very affecting, and it is an important idea in the intellectual development of this man who reads a lot of books. But something is left unexplored. Why didn't McCandless want sex?

Did you walk all the way home?

Me, in a few dark places.

There was last night, doing the blogger meetup at Pete's Ale House:



I forget who took this picture, but we looked at it right then, and Palladian remarked on the Diana iconography.

Today, I was sitting in a nook, under a bust of Mozart, at the Caffe Reggio in the Village.



I say that I always avoided the Caffe Reggio, back in the old days when we lived near here. We loved the Caffe Dante. And later, walking back toward my temporary home, I stopped, alone, at the Caffe Dante, where we sat all the time, circa 1980.



No, there's no going back. And nothing can ever be the same.

There is no greater sorrow than to recall happiness in times of misery.

"He likens the mind’s subterranean moral machinery to an elephant, and conscious moral reasoning to a small rider on the elephant’s back."

How morality may have evolved:

In... "The Happiness Hypothesis," Jonathan Haidt, a moral psychologist at the University of Virginia, has been constructing a broad evolutionary view of morality.... driven by two separate mental systems, one ancient and one modern, though the mind is scarcely aware of the difference. The ancient system, which he calls moral intuition, is based on the emotion-laden moral behaviors that evolved before the development of language. The modern system — he calls it moral judgment — came after language, when people became able to articulate why something was right or wrong.

The emotional responses of moral intuition occur instantaneously — they are primitive gut reactions that evolved to generate split-second decisions and enhance survival in a dangerous world. Moral judgment, on the other hand, comes later, as the conscious mind develops a plausible rationalization for the decision already arrived at through moral intuition.

Read the whole thing. And take the tests. I did. The tests compare your answers to the answers of political conservatives and liberals, and, for me, supported my belief that I am in the middle. (I'm not sure whether my test results were classified as conservative or liberal. You're asked several questions in the beginning, about social issues, economics, and national security. Since I go left, middle, and right, respectively, on those questions, I don't know where my answers counted.)