Descriptions like these always miss one crucial thing: The time component. In a similar vein, there's this saying that if people get in a terrible accident and lose a limb, they are back to their normal happiness after a year.
Now imagine, you are in an accident, you lose a limb. Exactly one year later, you are in another accident, lose another limb, and this goes on and on and after 80 years in your death bed, you look back on a miserable life of being traumatized every year.
Now imagine, you make new experiences, before they become your daily box, as the article shows. Say, it takes a year to become the new normal. After a year, you find something new that excites you, before it becomes the new normal. And this goes on and on and after 80 years, in your death bed, you reflect back on a life that kinda was never dull.
Is this a defense of the hedonic treadmill? No, make what you want of this, but I guess that is why many people find it enticing. The counter argument almost always misses the time component.
Now imagine, you are in an accident, you lose a limb. Exactly one year later, you are in another accident, lose another limb, and this goes on and on and after 80 years in your death bed, you look back on a miserable life of being traumatized every year.
Now imagine, you make new experiences, before they become your daily box, as the article shows. Say, it takes a year to become the new normal. After a year, you find something new that excites you, before it becomes the new normal. And this goes on and on and after 80 years, in your death bed, you reflect back on a life that kinda was never dull.
Is this a defense of the hedonic treadmill? No, make what you want of this, but I guess that is why many people find it enticing. The counter argument almost always misses the time component.