In a well-reviewed (by NY Times) book, The Art of Choosing by Sheena Iyengar, the author cites her own research: “Members of more fundamentalist faiths experienced greater hope, were more optimistic when faced with adversity and were less likely to be depressed than their counterparts. Indeed, the people most susceptible to pessimism and depression were the Unitarians, especially those who were atheists. The presence of so many rules didn’t debilitate people; instead, it seemed to empower them. Many of their choices were taken away, and yet they experienced a sense of control over their lives.”
In my estimation choice linked to the spiritual notion of freedom is a cardinal value and virtue, too. My immediate response to the author's judgment regarding happiness and Unitarians was amusement mixed with a desire to argue. I had plenty of justifications why Unitarian are so, as well as why such a "realistic" outlook is not only fitting but good.
I remembered decades ago discourse about inner locus of control vs. external locus of control of one's own behavior, and that the former was evidence of a human being rising to the apex of self-actualization.
In the end I recalled a Unitarian hymn, "A Fierce Unrest" from a Don Marquis poem: "A fierce unrest seethes at the core of all existing things...."
If choice there were, though I believe it to be already a fact of the human condition, I wouldn't hesitate to choose a fierce unrest at the core of my own life.
Posts
1 comment:
I would question her study methods as well as I find myself being skeptical that a confirmation-bias is at work.
But, assuming her data are correct, it reminds me of a similar study that found people who have an UNrealistically high estimation of the power and control they have over their own lives tend to be happier overall than those with a realistic estimation.
Conflating the two ideas leads me to think conservative adherence to rules and mores may provide one with a greater sense of control, and thus contentment.
Post a Comment