Evolutionary Psychology and "Happiness"

Just for what it's worth, The final paragraph of the second article:

Quote

The pursuit of happiness is one of the cornerstones of western culture. It is so thoroughly enmeshed with our social, economic, and political lives it is hard, if not impossible, to extricate ourselves from it. But I think we should extricate ourselves from it, no matter how difficult and counterintuitive it might be, because it’s bullshit.

As with this final paragraph, my reading of both articles is mostly that they are coarse. There's no positive message here in this last word, just coarseness for the sake of coarseness. There are lots of ways to express the need to examine what happiness really means, but simply saying "because it's bullshit" doesn't strike me as a very persuasive of Epicurean way to go about it.

First off, I think that this blogger has a hidden agenda, when he uses the word "bullsh*t". And his choice of words hints that he is basically an unhappy person looking for why he isn't feeling happy in life. It makes it hard for me to want to even spend any time analyzing what he actually wrote.

I started with the second article, and from an Epicurean standpoint I think he is unknowingly focusing on the "natural but unnecessary" things in life:

Quote

The goal of Happiness Is Bullshit was not merely to show that happiness is bullshit (in the sense of being unattainable), but to give a plausible theory for what happiness is—how it evolved, how it works, what function it serves. I tried to convey the gist of the theory with an analogy: the “getting warmer” signal in a guessing game. The function of happiness is to improve our predictions about how good things are going to be. I described the theory in technical language in a footnote. At last, I can unbury the footnote and put it right here:

Quote

The brain computes, using evolved and learned priors, which of various outcomes have the highest expected value (in terms of fitness proxies). The higher the expected value of an outcome, the greater the motivation—i.e. the amount of attention and energy mobilized—to pursue it. “Happiness” is triggered by a positive prediction error. We feel happy when the actual value of an outcome turns out to be greater than its expected value. This error causes us to rapidly mobilize energy (if more energy is needed), rapidly relax (if energy is no longer needed), attend to (i.e., “savor”) the outcome, simulate it in working memory, determine which features were counterfactually unique to it, upweight those features’ expected value, and encode them in long-term memory. As a result, those unique features will appear more valuable to us (i.e. more energizing, more attention-grabbing) the next time we encounter them. This is just another way of saying that we are “positively reinforced”—i.e., the features that were counterfactually unique to the outcome now have a higher expected value than they did before. The more frequently we experience the outcome, the better we get at predicting its value (i.e. the prediction error decreases), and the less “happy” we feel when we experience it (i.e., the less attention and reinforcement is needed). Eventually, after many repetitions of this process, we stop “liking” the outcome while still continuing to “want” it: that is, we continue to value and pursue it but are no longer surprised by it, attentive to it, or further reinforced by it. This model is an amalgam of the prediction error theory of dopamine and the internal regulatory variable theory of motivation.

I think he is describing the experience of novelty and surprise, but we don't always need those to feel happy.

Also, one's attitude in life (whether one is optimistic) greatly affects happiness levels, and the feelings.

When one satisfactorily achieves the "goods" in life (friendship, wisdom, etc.) they will continue to bring a pleasant and happy feeling, and for the wise a sense of gratitude.

And from an Epicurean standpoint, happiness equals a life filled with more pleasures than pains. It takes both wisdom and effort to learn how and to cultivate a full Epicurean life.

I recommend this book, for anyone interested in increasing their optimism and positivity:

Matteng I found these provocative (in a good way). Have you read any of Robert Wright's books? The Moral Animal was a memorable read for me.

I have a favorable view of evolutionary psychology and feel it has strong explanatory and predictive power. That is, it often serves as a reliable guide to how people actually behave (as opposed to how we think we behave), and this can relieve some anxieties.

That said, I also think the approach has limitations.

For one thing, it tends to fall into the kind of logical trap suggested by VS40. If evolutionary conditioning motivates our behavior, then it follows that our concepts of happiness are also motivated by evolutionary conditioning--and therefore valid. It's not clear why we should abandon them.

Indeed, Pinsof appears to stumble in this fashion towards the end of the second essay, when he discusses the centrality of "pursuit of happiness" in Western thinking and says we should extricate ourselves from it. But why? The West is doing pretty well. What if the notion of pursuing happiness contributed in some way to the comparative success of the societies in question?

It seems to me that, from an Epicurean point of view, evolutionary conditioning would fall under the category of "necessity," and Epicureans believe we do not have to be controlled by necessity (VS9). To put this a little differently, Pinsof may overestimate the extent to which we are biology-driven automatons (or sentient thermostats) and underestimate the degree to which we can self-fashion, set rational goals, and take prudent steps to achieve them. Contrary to his overgeneralizing "we," some people do make a decision to pay more attention to sunsets, work less, be less anger-prone, take up birdwatching or pastels, and so on. We'd need to look at what the science says about people who set out consciously to improve their overall happiness.

Relatedly, he seems to define happiness mainly in terms of event-specific moments of enjoyment--eating pizza, getting a promotion, driving out of the dealer lot in your new car, or achieving temporary bliss during meditation. This emphasis aligns with the "guessing-game" model he advances in his essays, and he's almost certainly right that habituation diminishes the pleasurable impact of such events. It's a rather Cyrenaic view of happiness, though, and he seems less interested in the possibility of long-term increases in our baseline sense of well-being.

Again, though, what I'm commenting on here has more to do with perceived limitations of the approach, rather than questioning its value. I do think that it's valuable and can make us less puzzled about behavior--other people's and our own.

Robert thank you for your comments there. I felt sure when I was reading through those articles that there was a point to be dealt with despite the off-putting language. Your analysis of the article seems to track what parts I did follow as I was reading it, and your take makes a lot of sense. So the articles do have a point that's worth understanding so it can be refuted, even though (in my view) it's buried under obnoxiousness. I'm glad you straightened that out because I did not want Matteng to think that my overall negative view of the articles meant that they shouldn't have been posted. I'm glad Matteng posted them and glad you took the time to provide an informed response.

Quote from Robert

Relatedly, he seems to define happiness mainly in terms of event-specific moments of enjoyment--eating pizza, getting a promotion, driving out of the dealer lot in your new car, or achieving temporary bliss during meditation. This emphasis aligns with the "guessing-game" model he advances in his essays, and he's almost certainly right that habituation diminishes the pleasurable impact of such events. It's a rather Cyrenaic view of happiness, though, and he seems less interested in the possibility of long-term increases in our baseline sense of well-being.

Just some free-roaming thoughts:

Regarding habituation...Pizza...I don't think he (the author) is taking into consideration that eating pizza when genuinely hungry will almost always bring a certain amount of pleasure. Also, if a person enjoys driving places, then it doesn't matter what kind of car it is or if it is brand new, the experience of skillfully driving (usually faster highway driving ) can bring enjoyment. And when a person learns how to enjoy yogic breathing then it will, most often than not, bring an experience of pleasure.

As far as: "he seems less interested in the possibility of long-term increases in our baseline sense of well-being"...

....I think we need to always define what we mean when we say the word "happiness". For me it seems that the best way to think about it is whether or not I am generally feeling in "good-spirits" most of the time. There will be occassions when something is disappointing or irritating, but if I can recover from those situations fairly quickly and return to feeling in "good-spirits" then my sense of well-being is going well. (I think that a large portion of well-being is the right diet, the right level of exercise, and the right amount of sleep, and the other parts are "goods" such as friendship and a sense of security, etc.)

RobertI appreciate your analysis; I think you're trying to find the kernel of truth that Pinsoff is using in the first essay to make his case. Yes?

Just on that first essay, I noticed two things. He appears to be using an average of all the things he thinks people do against self interest to prove why pursuing happiness of bull shit. I don't like that style of logic to win an argument against a principal: all people do this--this is wrong--everything people do is wrong.

The second thing I noticed was where (DT note: I'm just focusing on the bolded text of his quote) he concludes: "Now don’t get me wrong. Happiness is great. It serves a vital function. But it’s not what you think it is. It’s not a substance you’re directly pursuing, like food or water. It’s not the purpose of life, or even something you’re particularly interested in. You don’t want it, and even if you did want it, you couldn’t pursue it, because it’s unpredictable, and you can’t pursue something if you can’t predict it.

Happiness is an excuse, a placeholder, an illusion a story we tell ourselves. In other words, it’s bullshit."

The stories we tell ourselves can be and probably mostly are illusions. They are subjective. They are the interpretations we make of what our senses tell us. In other words our anxieties are also illusions. I don't therefore have a problem if he wants to say happiness is an illusion. However, at the same time it is illusory it is an illusion that results from active prudent pursuit of pleasure. But in no sense is it bullshit.

Following up with the second essay. I suppose I need help here. I started to read it, but my nose started itching. It itches when I think someone is just repeating the bogey man, average person as the typical human who doesn't understand the basic human skill of noticing when he is happy argument.

I started skimming, but still didn't find much new to comment on other than what I noticed while reading the first essay.

Anyone care to clarify something I might have missed?

I just posted an article over in this other thread, which in my opinion is a more contructive take on key Epicurean questions: what is happiness, and what are the things which are needed to produce it.

Thread

A Systematic Review of the Determinants of Happiness (Article)

I found this article (which may possibly already be on the forum in another thread) and thought it might be good to discuss. (Published February 2023)

Excerpt:

[…]

Health, Hope, and Harmony: A Systematic Review of the Determinants of Happiness across Cultures and Countries

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9963575/

I would recommend to not let the author's word choice of "hope" be an issue, as for myself I could imagine other labels used such as "anticipations".

It is worth reading for anyone…

Kalosyni

September 9, 2026 at 8:12 AM

Quote from Matteng

I like challenging articles like these; they allow one to examine and defend—or rethink—one’s own ideas and attitudes, as well as to develop more well-founded arguments and viewpoints.

That’s why I think it’s so great that you analyze Cicero’s criticism on the Lucretius Podcast.

Yes I agree that it is very helpful to engage with criticisms, and that's why we do the podcast the way we do. HOWEVER I would stress this -- we never intentionally raise an opposing argument without presenting the Epicurean response in the same presentation. There are plenty of people who are motivated to be "the devil's advocate" and argue against Epicurean positions. Epicurus has all-too-few advocates for the Epicurean posiiton, so we need to cultivate the positive and firm Epicurean position whenever we bring up the challenges.

Quote from Matteng

For me, a key point is the reduction of suffering. One can criticize the pursuit of happiness in various ways, but ultimately, choosing one's own harm and suffering is self-contradictory and self-destructive. Furthermore, uncovering and dispelling illusions ultimately serves the goal of a happier life.

I will continue to suggest that this "reduction of suffering" is an essentially negative half-glass-empty approach that is ultimately self-defeating. You can reduce sufferering to zero quite easily if you choose too - but Epicurus specifically argues against that alternative and it makes no sense to entertain it except as a logic problem - such as we are doing right now. The goal is a life of pleasure, not "reduction of suffering."

Quote from Matteng

Overall, however, I believe that Epicurean philosophy offers many good answers to the criticism and would even agree on certain points (e.g., the limits of pleasure and pain, the concept of happiness, opposition to Cyrenaic notions of happiness, and non-prudent or non-virtuous approaches to pleasure/happiness).

And I always advise caution in looking too broadly for "agreement on certain points." To use a religious analogy, the devil probably agrees that ice cream tastes good, but most religious people see clearly that it is not a good idea to look for areas in which the devil agrees with you. I don't think Epicurus was any less rigorous in seeing the folly of such an approach to philosophy specifically or life in general. When an opposing philosophy or religion happens to agree with one's interpretation of one's own philosophy that is more a warning sign to you that you may not be thinking clearly than a good thing. If I get a direct message from the Pope of Rome or the Rabbi of Jerusalem or the Ayatollah or the Dalai Lama that the sun is going to rise in the east tomorrow that's more of a reason to look up at the sky and make sure nothing has changed than it is to feel confident about it.

Quote from Cassius

When an opposing philosophy or religion happens to agree with one's interpretation of one's own philosophy that is more a warning sign to you that you may not be thinking clearly than a good thing.

Speaking frankly as Epicurus advised; I think this phrasing is not a helpful way of addressing the individual search for knowledge. Yes, evaluation of one's beliefs should be an ongoing project. Epicurus learned from Democritus on atoms, and the Cyreniacs on happiness as a goal, yet he refined those areas he agreed with in a positive way by going steps further.

I have to think Epicurus was very well read in the pre-Socratics, in Plato, and others and agreed, at minimum, with their search for knowledge by using rational thinking. For scholars (like those of us at this level in the Forum, finding agreement with other schools, itself rational thinking, is a positive act. And when found, it should be done without looking for warning signs of being poisoned by other schools.

Quote from Matteng

I like challenging articles like these; they allow one to examine and defend—or rethink—one’s own ideas and attitudes, as well as to develop more well-founded arguments and viewpoints.

There are also points against Stoic views in it ( against Virtue ethics as Virtue signaling for status or if happiness would be excluded from externals and would only center in the head about itself it would have no function and Evolution/Nature would get rid of that organisms.

For me, a key point is the reduction of suffering. One can criticize the pursuit of happiness in various ways, but ultimately, choosing one's own harm and suffering is self-contradictory and self-destructive.

Furthermore, uncovering and dispelling illusions ultimately serves the goal of a happier life.

Overall, however, I believe that Epicurean philosophy offers many good answers to the criticism and would even agree on certain points (e.g., the limits of pleasure and pain, the concept of happiness, opposition to Cyrenaic notions of happiness, and non-prudent or non-virtuous approaches to pleasure/happiness).

I agree that the essays raise interesting questions. Like hard determinism, evolutionary psychology presents some challenges that just about any philosophical position has to respond to.

For example, as you indicate, Stoics like Seneca and Marcus Aurelius would probably not take kindly to the notion that they were just virtue-signaling. Maybe, indeed, Marcus Aurelius's son rejected Stoicism because he came to see that it was BS, and that life is really about tasty yum-yums, sex, and being a faux gladiator. But since "showing off our health and virtue" is something we want, according to Pinsof, can we say that the Stoics were wrong in pursuing it? This is where it gets complex. We might need to adopt a kind of meta-philosophical stance in which we recognize that philosophy is illusory, from a certain perspective, yet also necessary, because the impulse to philosophize and seek wisdom is part of our conditioning.

Regarding the reduction of suffering, one observation I would make is that, in various philosophical contexts, this is usually posited within a certain framework. For instance, in Epicureanism, it occurs within a hedonistic framework in which pleasure is both possible and sustainable. Thus, following Epicurean logic, if we were able to eliminate suffering entirely, we would still have pleasure. As I understand it, this is "the blessed life of the gods." It wouldn't, in other words, be some kind of null state.

In Buddhism, the cessation of suffering is taught within the metaphysical framework of karma and samsaric rebirth, which is why death in Buddhism doesn't constitute the end of suffering. The reason I make this observation is that the framework is sometimes needed in order to avoid the problem that Cassius raises--"elimination of suffering" as a telos is easy to achieve. (Traditional) Buddhists get out of bed in the morning because they believe there is no escape from samsara (and thus no way to eliminate suffering) except via the "noble eightfold path." Epicureans do so because life is pleasurable, especially when your prudent decisions minimize bodily pain and mental anguish.

Quote from DaveT

The stories we tell ourselves can be and probably mostly are illusions. They are subjective. They are the interpretations we make of what our senses tell us. In other words our anxieties are also illusions. I don't therefore have a problem if he wants to say happiness is an illusion. However, at the same time it is illusory it is an illusion that results from active prudent pursuit of pleasure. But in no sense is it bullshit.

Dave, my thoughts exactly. Except you've expressed them far more succinctly!

Quote from Robert

Quote from DaveT

The stories we tell ourselves can be and probably mostly are illusions. They are subjective. They are the interpretations we make of what our senses tell us. In other words our anxieties are also illusions. I don't therefore have a problem if he wants to say happiness is an illusion. However, at the same time it is illusory it is an illusion that results from active prudent pursuit of pleasure. But in no sense is it bullshit.

Dave, my thoughts exactly. Except you've expressed them far more succinctly!

I think that what is being said here in this paragraph is swinging a bit too far into skepticism. And I have quite a bit of trouble with the word "illusion"...as anything that is labeled an illusion is assumed to actually not exist.

You still are going trust your feelings of bodily pain and pleasure, and just because pain and pleasure is subjective doesn't mean it is an illusion.

As for mental pains and pleasures, I wouldn't classify those as illusions and there is something there that needs to be acknowledged to exist. But if at the root of mental pains you are holding onto "empty desires" and those are in turn leading you toward feeling anxieties, then I would label that as "stories that are untrue"...and therefore "empty".

Quote from Cassius

And I always advise caution in looking too broadly for "agreement on certain points." To use a religious analogy, the devil probably agrees that ice cream tastes good, but most religious people see clearly that it is not a good idea to look for areas in which the devil agrees with you. I don't think Epicurus was any less rigorous in seeing the folly of such an approach to philosophy specifically or life in general. When an opposing philosophy or religion happens to agree with one's interpretation of one's own philosophy that is more a warning sign to you that you may not be thinking clearly than a good thing. If I get a direct message from the Pope of Rome or the Rabbi of Jerusalem or the Ayatollah or the Dalai Lama that the sun is going to rise in the east tomorrow that's more of a reason to look up at the sky and make sure nothing has changed than it is to feel confident about it.

I would guess here that the issue has to do with Platonic philosophy, and most of the time religious ideas are built on ideas of striving for absolution perfection. So the word of caution is to be wary when you are agreeing with anything that holds "idols" of perfection, and especially those which have nothing to do with actual embodied life experiences.

Quote from Robert

Stoics like Seneca and Marcus Aurelius would probably not take kindly to the notion that they were just virtue-signaling.

And this is one situation in which I would agree with them. Doesn't help anything for me to restate it, but this is where I find the whole deterministic-laced idea of psychological hedonism a very unproductive path and something I too do not take kindly to.

Quote from Robert

(Traditional) Buddhists get out of bed in the morning because they believe there is no escape from samsara (and thus no way to eliminate suffering) except via the "noble eightfold path."

Which Is why I would never look for common ground with Buddhism - life as slavery to suffering which not even death can extinguish is -- from my point of view -- about the worst possible way of looking at life.

Quote from Kalosyni

I think that what is being said here in this paragraph is swinging a bit too far into skepticism.

Do you mean classical skepticism? How so.

Quote from Kalosyni

You still are going trust your feelings of bodily pain and pleasure, and just because pain and pleasure is subjective doesn't mean it is an illusion.

I intended to indicate anxiety and happiness can be described as illusions, not pain or pleasure.

Quote from DaveT

Do you mean classical skepticism? How so.

No, just loosely in that if someone observes the world and starts labeling various things as "an illusion" then it creates ideas such as: "we just can't know much about the world because it is all just an illusion".

Quote from DaveT

I intended to indicate anxiety and happiness can be described as illusions, not pain or pleasure.

I apologize that I'm a bit unclear regarding whether you were making remarks regarding the article or whether you we saying what you yourself think is true. (We're all entitled to our own opinions, but the emphasis here on the forum is "what would Epicurus say" )

As for myself, I believe that the experience of emotions and feelings such as anxiety are not an illusion. Yet for a small population of people the cognitions and beliefs that generate those emotions/feelings are. (Here is an article on phobias and disorders).

As for happiness being an illusion, I would venture that perhaps there are greater numbers of people feeling like they can't get the "goods" that lead to a happy life, and they then say "oh well, happiness is just an illusion". But this is cynicism, and the opposite of what Epicurus taught. We would of course would need to compare what exactly all the modern masses of people think that happiness actually is.