Trying to find an equation to precisely predict happiness, I think it is the definition of being unhappy! "Happiness" is a vague concept. How can you have a precise equation for an imprecise concept.

Without an equation I can sy that "life" is full of ups and downs! When you are increasing towards the pick, you are happy and when you go down from the highest point you are unhappy.

Since antiquity, philosophers have held that happiness consists of activity rather than of passivity. In the "Nicomachean Ethics" Aristotle defines happiness as the activity whereby an individual fulfills his areté, or defining characteristic. So if the activity in the risk-reward task does not meet this condition, it would appear that something besides happiness is involved. You cannot equate momentary pleasure to happiness. Therefore, because of the imprecision of the terms, the BBC report is flawed, or at least, so it seems to me.  If, on the other hand, you change your terminology and speak of "instant gratification" instead of "happiness"-- which really is saying to much--, then the BBC report acquires greater precision.

If a person needs an equation to tell them they are happy they don't know what happiness is. Happiness is an insatiable quality of life. I doubt any model can adequately account for the impossibly large numbers of individual differences associate with individual happiness. These models are often confounded by the constraints on the model which make them difficult to approximate reality.

No, I think that it is merely mistaken terminology. The test examines delight for only a moment, and as you say, Reginald, happiness is insatiable. It extends over time.

Dear @Nageswara, I found another formula for Happiness.  Actually there are few formulas available but some are very complicated! Here is a simple one. Happiness (“H”) is equal to your level of Gratitude (“G”) ... plus the degree to which you are living consistent with your own personal Definition of Happiness (“DH”) ... plus how much you Contribute to others ("C") ... plus your success in what I call the 3 R’s of happiness (“3R”) ... all divided by 6, i.e.:.

H = (G + DH + C + 3R) ÷ 6

You can determine how happy you are in your life at any time (your “Happiness Score”), and then create a plan to improve it.

see the link to find out more details.

http://www.behappy101.com/happiness-formula.html

It will be a challenge for equations to measure happiness as it is an insatiable quality of life.  There are a lot of individual differences between people.  Wonder how the equation will account for these complexity.

It is hard and almost impossible to have a precise equation for happiness but expectations is certainly an important variable!.

Happiness = Reality/Expectations

“The secret to happiness is low expectations.” ~ Barry Schwartz

There is a very interesting TED talk by Barry Schwartz which I recommend to followers of this thread.

http://unlimitedbs.ca/the-secret-to-happiness-is-low-expectations-barry-schwartz/

http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_the_paradox_of_choice

dear Behrouz,

(Happiness = Reality/Expectations). It is a fact although as you said it is not a precise equation.

When I am reading such 'news' (especially in August) I am convinced that the relevant mentioned scientific theme has reached its maximum of references and use. So, the so many times references to equations is an indicator for us to see if equations in general are the proper tool to describe the phenomena around us. Probably for full deterministic systems is Ok, but for so complex 'systems' like intelligent beings I doubt a lot.

I am inclined to think that 'fuzzy logic model' may give better results to predict happiness.

I have to check if there are any papers on it!

Best wishes

Sundar

Trying to find an equation to precisely predict happiness, I think it is the definition of being unhappy! "Happiness" is a vague concept. How can you have a precise equation for an imprecise concept.

Without an equation I can sy that "life" is full of ups and downs! When you are increasing towards the pick, you are happy and when you go down from the highest point you are unhappy.

Dear @Nageswara, I think that  there is not any equation  that precisely predicts happiness because what me me happy is different than what makes others happy.

Spiritually satisfied before going to bed and start the next day with blessings; and

f (Self + Family + Work + Society) ; where limits tend to average and above.

It is good to have fun here sometimes, don't you think?

Here is another formula for happiness.

and the link to explore more.

http://flippingpencils.typepad.com/blog/2007/12/happiness-formu.html

I think that happiness is such a personal concept that it is totally impossible to predict or define it through an equation or whatever.

I do not understand very well. For example, I think  Tchaikovski's final symphony  is  an extremely tragic one. But without joy of creation of art , I believe he could not compose such a great music. I do not still understand joy and happiness are the different feelings  or not and measurable or not. .  

I fully agree with @Costas. Understanding happiness everyone has his. Everyone is happy in his own way. And the equation - this is another attempt to use the math anywhere. However, you can smile and be happy (see answer @Mahmoud).

I dont understand the need of such Equation..

why to Quntify everything..??

it is a Personal Feeling which very with different time with different person..

Shall this be an earnest question? Happiness as a quantifiable tool?. I´m horrified. The only reason I could imagine for such a number is an improved marketing for some products, which promise to get happy.

I love to be happy and live for others to be more happy

and bring freedom within my self

i will follow and see the equations coming in discussion

Happiness come from emotional condition and statement of happy, it will have complex calculation and formula it will not be only by the condition of formula before.

its also combining spiritual and physical condition that human have its own difference one and other more than dna.

its just my thought

Dear Nageswara,

Defining happiness is so relative and difficult to perform. Perhaps to predict unhappiness as: unpleasant events, damages, accidents, disasters subiectively felt is more possible ? This is just my reflection, not research based comment.

Dear Posinasetti, 

I find it plausible that someone could give a (more or less) precise description or prediction of "momentary delight." (I suspect it may be difficult to reasonably determine the variables, though. Might this be somewhat like the famous formula which predicts the number of intelligent and civilized worlds in the universe? )

Again, there is a considerable tradition contrasting "happiness" with "momentary" states of pleasure. "A single swallow does not a summer make," says Aristotle--in one of his more poetic moments. The focus on "momentary delight" strikes me as utilitarian in inspiration--something like J.S. Mill"s "higher pleasures."

H.G. Callaway

Have you researched for luckiness-hormones, which are produced and released, if somebody feels happy. That´s the only "number" I could imagine as to be combined with happiness.

It has been known for a long time that happiness depends on a lot of different circumstances in our daily lives. Scientists nowadays put a mathematical equation that can predict happiness basis, as the researchers found that the participants are happier when they are performing better than expected in tasks that involve risks for rewards.

You may predict happiness when you reach the level of conviction of full satisfaction for yourself and progress of achievements and goals.

Yes, Dear Mahfuz,

There in no magic or precise formula for happiness as many colleagues rightly mentioned,

Happy persons do need live based on equations!. they have just learnt the are of being happy!. Proposed equations should not be taken seriously and should be looked at  fun exercises with models!.

There are however certain factors which we will see in real happy persons around me (rare commodity!): Positive self-esteem,Optimism, Empathy, positive social relationships and being helpful to others, A sense of meaning and purpose to life, Reality/Expectations, Faith.

Here is part of transcript which is related to this Question (video link in page 1)

The reason that everything was better back when everything was worse is that when everything was worse, it was actually possible for people to have experiences that were a pleasant surprise. Nowadays, the world we live in -- we affluent, industrialized citizens, with perfection the expectation -- the best you can ever hope for is that stuff is as good as you expect it to be. You will never be pleasantly surprised because your expectations, my expectations, have gone through the roof. The secret to happiness -- this is what you all came for -- the secret to happiness is low expectations.

http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_the_paradox_of_choice/transcript

There is a formula for happiness? Martin Seligman, founder of positive psychology, says so! Seligman has overturned the traditional approach of classical psychology, centered on disease and discomfort, making another priority objective; to increase positive states of well-being that make life full of meaning. He founded a real science of optimism, which teaches us to appreciate the positive personality traits, learning to ward off negative thoughts and attitudes and to increase its stake in a durable manner of happiness.

Dear Enzo, 

You, and others, may be interested in the following talk by Seligman:

http://www.ted.com/talks/martin_seligman_on_the_state_of_psychology

H.G. Callaway

Fine-tuned mathematics has been recently able to explain particular phenomena. Hence, Math is not constrived any longer to dealing with universal formal systems. 

Happiness is, as it happens, a personally or even culturally dependent phenomenon. There is no problem about that.

The formalizatin and abstraction of mathematics can also cope with non-universal phenomena. As a matter of fact, the most appealing problems are. nowadays, more particular than formally universal.

The argument about the "maigc" of happiness is, therefore, not valid or necessary in the framework of the equation pose.

Dear friends:

There are two important research papers on "Happiness Models" from the point of view of nonlinear dynamical systems and chaos theory.

Seminal Paper 1:

J.C. Sprott - "Dynamical Models of Happiness"

 Download Link:  http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/pubs/paper281.pdf

 [This is a great paper! One of the best works of Chaos Maestro - J.C. Sprott]

Abstract: "A sequence of models for the time evolution of one’s happiness in response to external events is described. These models with added nonlinearities can produce stable oscillations and chaos even without external events. Potential implications for psychotherapy and a personal approach to life are discussed."

Seminal Paper 2:

  Lei Song, Shiyun Xu, and Jianying Yang - "Dynamical Models of Happiness with Fractional Order"

 Download Link: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1007570409002123

Abstract :

"This present study focuses on a dynamical model of happiness described through fractional-order differential equations. By categorizing people of different personality and different impact factor of memory (IFM) with different set of model parameters, it is demonstrated via numerical simulations that such fractional-order models could exhibit various behaviors with and without external circumstance. Moreover, control and synchronization problems of this model are discussed, which correspond to the control of emotion as well as emotion synchronization in real life. This study is an endeavor to combine the psychological knowledge with control problems and system theories, and some implications for psychotherapy as well as hints of a personal approach to life are both proposed."

Kindly read these two great papers - thanks!

Best wishes

Sundar

I have a feeling that an answer - regarding any equation concerning the prediction of happiness and other human feelings or emotions -  cannot exclude Rene Thom's Catastrophe Theory. 

Dear Szabo, 

Interesting comment, I think; and likely akin to the critique of teleological judgment --would you say? As I see it, the need of self-restraint is closely connected with such danger points. I think of related ethical theory as primarily developed in the stoic tradition, in some contrast with the Epicurean tradition, and rediscovered among the Renaissance humanists for example.  

I wonder if you would like to expand on your reference to Rene Thom and Catastrophe Theory. Though fairly abstract and mathematical, it strikes me as interesting. 

H.G. Callaway

Happiness is truly an opportunity, not a causal and planned strategy. As a matter of fact, there as no strategies for being truly and authentically happy. (In spite of all that self-edyifiying literature out there. That literature is just a matter of marketing, period).

In other words, being an opportunity, happiness is a sudden and unpredictable experience that "falls on us". Some of us happen to be happy, some others have been happy sometime in pas, some others are still longing for it.

Thom's catastrophe theory (if 

Oops! Sorry about the end of my last post: I shall briefly continue (and finish):

Thom's catastrophe theory (if Attila and H. G. allow me) is about unpredictable sudden changes.

However, Thom's theory is not so much a formal mathematical theory as a language as Thom himself recognized in his Sketch of a Semio-Physics.

Dear Maldonado, 

Thanks very much your your thoughts on the matter. It seems clear to me that things can go suddenly and catastrophically wrong for particular persons or for societies, in general; and I wonder if this is all that might be suggested by a mathematical theory (or language) of "Catastrophe Theory." As in the case of a mathematical description or prediction of happiness via a formula, you would think that the variables would be more or less difficult to fill in regarding any given or specified case. Indeed, in some languages both the English "happiness" and "luck" translate the same word, as with the German "Gluck." 

The point is implicit in Aristotle and in the Stoic tradition, in particular, in that for Aristotle, the best life is the life of "contemplation," which, as we may note, is intrinsically less risky than, say, the life of action. The Stoics tradition recommends a shifting back and forth between more public and less public forums of inquiry, while the Epicurean tradition is more suggestive of a retreat into private --discourse in the protected inner garden --which may threaten public relevancy. 

In the end, of course, there is no taking all risk out of life, and we wouldn't likely want that life if it were possible. On the other hand, a life based on a "race to the bottom" of competitively ever increasing risks, will surely throw all self-restraint to the wind and  invite disaster. I doubt that we will get any mathematics which will tell us much more than that.

It is worth noting, though, that particular aggressive social and political practices may aim to focus risk upon others. Liberal society (as in society formed by the "liberal arts"), we may well remark, in aiming to equalize opportunity for development, also opposes practices which focus risks upon particular (outsider) individuals or groups. Tolerance of such practices, such as tolerance of the generalized practice of focusing prejudice on others, is a mark of decline.  General tolerance or intolerance of related practices, however, is something within the range of human control. In that degree at least, we may by law and custom facilitate the pursuit of happiness--via the pursuit of equality before the law and in public opinion. 

H.G. Callaway

... sudden "unexpected / not calculable / unforeseeable" changes (catastrophe?) - in either direction - occur too often (in fractions of seconds, depending on stimuli's frequency and amplitude) in human emotions. Happiness - in the definition and scope of the original paper - was define as affect, and affect is determined by composite emotions (or the totality of emotions / given time).

May I come back to "Happiness = Reality/Expectations".

Two examples:

death: reality 1, expectation 1, greatest happiness factor = 1.

illness: reality 1, expectation 1, greatest happiness factor = 1.

No! This attempt is to easy.

Dear H.G., as you know, the concept "catastrophe" in Thom's theory does not mean anything bad or harming, in any sense. On the contrary, jus as Attila says, sudden unpredictable and irreversible phenomena. Thom insisted a couple of times in the distinction between a "catastrophe" and a "débacle". Happines is, indeed a catastrophe, A marvelous one! Just like when you felt really in love, when you won the lottery, and the like.

Now, back to Hanno's invitation: catastrophic events by definition cannot be expected. They just happen, they just fall upon us. We can rephrased them as if they were Graces. You ca expect a Grace but the reality is that you never know if you'll get, when you will get and many times you don't even know if that is truly a Grace. (Literature is full of stories about this).

@Carlos,

I appreciate your comment, but all of us expect the death at the end of our life. I just wanted to show, that such a simple algorithm without boundary conditions and further definitions does not convince me.

Dear Maldonado, 

Your point is well taken. The tradition that identifies happiness with luck in well represented world wide. But, then again, people are often said to "make their own luck." That points to the opposite tradition which relates happiness to virtue -- the paradigmatic expression of this is found in Aristotle's ethics. Again, by tradition, though "grace is not earned," neither is it unrelated to the pursuit of virtue. Are we to buy the old dogma of the elect? 

The idea that catastrophic events cannot be predicted (whether positive or negative) tends too far in the direction of happiness or well being (or unhappiness for that matter) as purely a matter of luck. It is surely true that some matters are very difficult to predict or control. But are we to believe that all human efforts toward control of untoward possibilities, in politics, policy, diplomacy, say, --poverty, violence, war, etc. are merely a matter of hand waving and pious hope? Is there no genuine intelligence in policy virtue or in self-restraint? No relation of cause and effect relating virtue and its outcomes? For me that is a very doubtful line of thought, in the extreme, tending to passivity, veneration of elites and fatalism. 

H.G. Callaway

Dear H. G., I like your point. Let me please say the following: life, as it happens, is not always and not merely a mater of causality, planning and strategy. Additionaly, life is made up, it seems, of opportunities. un-planned events. It is this mixture what makes up the complexity of one' s life. This can be easily rephrased with the Greeks. We are a sort of mixture of Chronos and Kairós. Hence, I agree with you in the critique to elitism and fatalism - on any sort.

That said, happiness is one of those events that indeed can be formalized (taking up Hanno's question - supposed the discussion along this thread).

Now, @ Hanno. Dear Hanno, of course we all know about the thermodynamics second law. Death will happen, eventually. Nonetheless, I am far from being convinced that death will gain the match at the end of the day. The arrival of the Angel of Death does certainly no mean the triumph of death after all. Would you agree with me on this point?

Why well, because this points smack to your question: happiness! 

Dear Carlos,

functioning of the second law makes me happy. You see "death" is a luck. ;-))

But I don´t want to insist further on my "dead and illness" examples. I´m convinced, You understood my objection.

Dear Hanno, I do. - Being as it might be, happiness is one of those inflections in people's life that is susceptible of the highest and most sophisticated studies. Science, I believe, does imply formality, and by this I just mean rigor. Conceptual, methodological, semantic….. rigor.

Dear Maldonado, 

Of course, I agree about the weather--and keeping track of it. 

BTW: I'm all for formalism and rigor--where is shows its usefulness. But I am yet to see the usefulness of formalism in this case. 

H.G. Callaway

Dear H. G., Just for the sake of conversation - but still, keeping the thread -, I would like to add this:

The paper published in PNAS journal (en passant, impact factor of 9.809), is a mathematical equation. I think that mathematical formalism is absolutely valid. However, not the only one. One point that strikes me is that other, just as equally valid as the math formalism, such as logical formalism are usually left on the second rank in mainstream science.

I know this points out in another direction, but a logical formalism - yes, of an equation or a given system or phenomenon - is as valid as a mathematical one, in principle. The still prevailing accent on math is - I dare say - a remnant of classical science.

The formula to precisely predict happiness should have some factors which should have a descending value (they are DONT's)

Although Fuzzy Logic is often used for function approximation and for systems of control, It can be utilized to model happiness as it applies meaning to imprecise concepts.  Happiness is subjective [1]. It is difficult to compare one person’s happiness with another. Happiness cannot be defined in terms of rigid boundaries and it is a vague term and it is appropriate to use Fuzzy Logic to measure it.  For example, in binary logic the statement “she is happy” is either completely true or completely false; or numerically, assigned 1 for true or 0 for false. However, there are clearly degrees of happiness, as well as an area between completely happy and completely not happy, which are not accounted for in binary logic. In fuzzy logic, someone who is partly happy might be assigned a .3, someone who is very happy might be assigned a .8, and someone who is ecstatic might be assigned a .98. A word like “partly” may also imply a range of assignments. For instance, we would probably not object to assigning “partially happy” anywhere between, say .2 and .8. In other words, fuzzy logic maps overlapping linguistic meaning to a continuum of numbers representing a range of truth.. 

To find out how to figure out happiness using fuzzy logic, the following paper may be consulted:

[1] A. Victor Devadoss and  D. Mary Jiny. A Study on Finding the Key Motive of Happiness Using Fuzzy Cognitive Maps (FCMs), Indo-Bhutan International Conference On Gross National Happiness Vol 02, October 2013 Pages: 225-23.

This is a completely logical approach to assess moment-to-moment happiness, we are creatures of habit that can be modeled.  Yet, this question merits a two-pronged answer:

It is likely that we all have an intuitive sense of being "right" and also being "happy", but a recent study suggests being happy is perhaps a better option - and rather easily assessed (although a significant downside in the methodology used is misogyny). ("Being right or being happy: pilot study." BMJ 2013; 347 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f7398).

The second relates to Carlos and Hanno's contribution about thermodynamics second law and approaching the happiness threshold. One just needs to stay one step ahead of the threshold (i.e. gait speed faster than 0.82 m/s), which is in itself often a source of significant and lasting happiness. ("How fast does the Grim Reaper walk? Receiver operating characteristics curve analysis in healthy men aged 70 and over." BMJ 2011;343:d7679).

@Kamal, I have the vague impression that you my be right ....

Dear Kamal,

Please neglect this possibility. In formulas you of course won´t find a neglecting factor.

My goodness, dear Kamal. Reading carefully the posts aove, no body has claimedthat happiness can be predicted. The discussion is about the feasibility of a formal explanation of happiness, either thanks to mathematics or also even via logics.

BNow, for the sake of the discussion, let' s suppose that the point was about the predictability of happiness. In that case, the uncertainty principle would allow us to say: either we can predict the moment of someone's hapiness, but then one cannot predict the expience or intesity of such a happiness. And vicersa, we could probably predict the intensity of happiness, but then one cannot not predict the moment when that may occur.

@ Mahmoud, I agrre with the spirit of your contribution. I get your point. Howeve, please allow me this:

Fuzzy logic is not about vague or imprecise concepts or values. Never! Rather, it is about ampler and hence much more accurate concepts and values. Instead of assuming like formal classical logic that the values are 1 / 0, as we know a large and even variable set in-between are to be accounted for. For example, 0.89, 045, 0.11, etc.

Pushing the argument further, then, yes one can go on to the many-valued logics wherein the examintation becmes much richer and refined.

Please allow me to give my simple humble equation:

Straightforwardness + Giving + Love - Worries = Happiness

Yes  dear Dr. Nizar, this sounds like a good recipe for a chance of happiness.

Dear @Carlos. I meant Fuzzy Logic can deal with vague or imprecise concepts or values.  I did not mean "Fuzzy logic is not about vague or imprecise concepts or values, as you stated. "  I hope the misunderstanding is resolved. Thank you.

Respected Dr. Rao,

Quite interesting and informative question. I was not aware of that kind of research. So thanks for sharing it. I would refer equation by@Dr. Nizar Matar  with certain modification.

Straightforwardness + Forgiveness + Fair amount of money +Love - Worries = Happiness 

Dear Mahmoud, never mind. I completely buy your suggestion - and in fact that is own personal take - about the importance of non-classical logics. I firmly believe that logics (in general) can serve as an alternative or compliment to the mathematical formalism - which has prevailed so far. In others words, nothing forces us to write an equation in mathematical terms, for we can also formalize it thanks to logics.

My own concern is that we all seem to handle math much better than logics - and that is, I believe, rather a weakness than a strength.

Dear Nageswara,

Dear All,

The example what you described above (BBC report) is not happiness but the customary manifestation of vanity.

When anybody of us really can find the equation of happiness, please send it to the UNO in order to make happy everybody. It would be high time to invent this equation: it is worth of 100? Nobel price at least.

Dear Dr. Nizar Matar,

Your equation is great but how can one implement it.

However, please remember straightforwardness generally has got negative consequences. Who has nothing, can give even the same thing. Love is a question of chance. Worries are easy to get but difficult to get rid of them. All the other factors are OK.

Honestly, I'm not surprised. There are determinate kinds of situations we can simplify in binary terms of "good" and "bad".

Within the boundaries of a cluster of consistent situations, related to depending choices > risks > rewards >> judgment (good ; bad), we could determine some linear relations, although more complex as the cluster has grown-up.

For instance, trading dollars through a fast string of micro-values, simplified for their degree of "neatness" ("good is 10, bad is 0"), is a proper field to predict (influence, hijack) trivial states of happinesses.

The matter is in the dimension of patterns:

but if I reduce the IRL domain (In Real Life) in a solid stream of atomic items, if I clusterize similar atoms, if I reduce the variety of characters pruning large fields in the neighborhood of my wished median, if I homogenize big mass of items (data), and somewhere I demote diversities, if I gamify the risk:reward mechanism and I make consistent the loss with the opt-out and the gain with the staying, then the Technium machine goes like a dream. Then, happiness is contagious.

—g

Costas, your countryman Aristotle offered a precise concept of happiness: an activity which enables the actor to be himself, to live in accordance with his essential areté or defining quality or function.   Here  is another precise definition of happiness as defined by Spanish philosophy José Ortega y Gasset: happiness is the exact equality between vocation (personal calling) and circumstance (individual situation). 

Given the precision possible in the idea of happiness, however, I would not define it as pleasure, as was done in the original question.

If habituation reduces the feeling of happiness, the feeling of happiness is induced by change and therefore expresses fluctuations. In this respect, if change cannot be predicted, happiness cannot be predicted.....

Mhm Marcel. Prediction looses any sense for static phenomena.

—g

edit: the question is that now that I know that someone is measuring my happiness, and predicting my will, I'm less happy. I will be happier if they stop. And if they just change something, I would not bet a single cent on my reaction. And I am just one. Or maybe the matter is that is a blessing phenomenon that I am just one. Thus, they need multitudes, and small marginal conditions as application points, for derivatives. —g

As is has been suggested, what if we take happiness not as a state, but as a process. The equation and formalization is then quite different. I think the equation cited in "The Guardian" refers somehow to that.

Pushing the argument a bit further: we must be able to step from continuous math on to the maths of discrete systems...

Marcel, Spanish philosopher Miguel de Unamuno wanted an Afterlife of continuous change, continuous growing toward God. He wanted a Purgatory, not a static Heaven.

Dear Nelson, please allow me this:

Of course you already know this book: J. Le Goff, La nuisance du purgatoire, Paris, NRF. (I am not aware of an English or Spanish translation).

La naissance du purgatoire. The system corrects me and shifts the word.

(The purgatory was invented in the 12th C.).

As a chaos scientist, I like Sprott's dynamical models for happiness highly suitable and explain the chaotic behaviour also! Chaos in deed has many applications in psychotherapy.

Best wishes

Sundar

Dear all, 

I've been following this question with some interest, though engaged with a project. It strike me that those following this thread might find Aristotle's classic discussion of interest, and I've just put up a new version of Book I, here titled "On Human Happiness."

 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1E4VdI70ZShQ85TLDgfq-OfkmqduDaxe-x_oW7fny1Yw/edit?usp=sharing

This is based on the translation of D. Ross, the old Oxford translation, long widely available on the web, to which I've added some, including annotation and definitions of the chief Greek terms. I've also gone through it carefully, reduced the wordiness, and made some clarification.

The idea of happiness as a process, from Maldonado, just above, stimulated me to want to make this chapter available. For Aristotle, of course, happiness is an activity, specifically, "an activity of the soul (psyche) in accordance with virtue." The alternative of viewing happiness as a "process" strike me as very interesting; and I hope we'll get some discussion of the contrast. 

H.G. Callaway

Dear H. G., it is so, indeed. And he very beautiful concept used by the Greeks - far deeper than the mere "eudaimonía", is precisley the concept of eupraxein - whence, yes: eupraxis. Meaning, having a good life as a result of good praxis.

Dear Maldonado, 

So, then, how are you contrasting "process" with "activity" here? Are we to understand the contrast in terms of that between "eupraxein" and "eudaimonia"? Can you be a bit more explicit? 

Surely, given the place of the political in Aristotle's conception of happiness, and on grounds of the importance of action to the virtues, eudaimonia (happiness) must already involve a good deal of eupraxein --or so it seems. No one can acquire the virtues without acting and doing, and presumably, one must act well in order to acquire the habit of acting well--which (specific) habit is the virtue. Before anyone discounts Aristotelian happiness, I would think we'd need to hear some more about how it contrasts with your "good praxis." Right? 

I suppose we do not want the good life to simply reduce to politics --though this is often the connotation of "praxis." 

H.G. Callaway

Dear H. G., I like your comment, indeed. Let me please highlight this, which is usually forgotten by Aristotelian scholars.

Aristotle clearly says (n his Politeia): politics is but one way in which society is ordered.

Well, this means that society can be ordered or even ruled by politics, but also by other fields or domains. F. i., the arts (in the ancient Greece several cases were well known), by philosophy or also by other possible disciplines.

All in all, politics contrario sensu to what happened in Modernity is only one possible mean. As a consequence, happiness does not depend on politics (solely, or mainly), but also and probably fundamentally on everyone' s own choices and actions. And that is precisely what eupraxein point to.

Dear Maldonado, 

My concern is not with politics, whether or not politics, as it were, though I believe that politics was actually more important to the ancient Greeks than it is to us today. They were continually involved in politics on a day-to-day basis--think of Socrates and of Plato's emphasis on the political. I doubt that many of our contemporaries would want to be as continually involved in politics as, say, the ancient Athenians were. We prefer having representatives to do this work for us--which I think all to the good as long as they do represent. 

On the other hand, what is done in other fields may certainly have its influence upon politics and the political--for better or worse. There has been much contemporary emphasis on the concept of the institutions of "civil society," for example. The view is that they are of crucial import in sustaining democratic society. I don't think of this as a matter of other fields "ruling," but of the development of public opinion in our various ordinary activities and interactions. Society is indeed ordered by the attitudes, habits and opinions we develop in ordinary, civil life; and the politicians do not do well to depart very far from this in modern democratic societies. 

So, I do not see modern society as tied up with a domination of politics, I think that an anomaly. But to get back to Aristotle, he is concerned with themes such as virtue and character. "Happiness" is defined by reference to "virtue." and virtues, and, of course, politically relevant virtues are only one sort. He does believe, however, that the study of ethics belongs to "political science," and that it is only by knowing the chief or central good for human beings, that wise political decisions can be made. Aristotle has it that mankind is a "political animal," and "the rational animal." This certainly suggests the importance of rationality to politics. Yet Aristotle was not a politician--more, at best a theorist of the political. Clearly, he was more interested in other matters and saw ample scope for development of virtue and happiness for the more non-political. 

So, I should ask you again to tell us more about how you think "good praxis," contrasts with Aristotle on happiness. Aristotle, in any case, was certainly aware that our being able to do well in other fields and the good life generally depend on political conditions. Of course, bad politics can, as it sometimes happens, simply take us by surprise--especially if we are very much involved in particularities of specialized fields and endeavors.  It is not as though the proponents of bad politics are going to clearly announce and specify their aims, so that anyone can easily evaluate them. Recall that Aristotle himself decided to leave Athens near the end of his life, not wanting to allow Athens to "sin twice against philosophy." Does Aristotle's career, or his ethics contrast somehow with the "good praxis" you recommend? Do you have a criticism of Aristotle on happiness? You do seem to suggest a criticism, but you have yet to explain it. 

H.G. Callaway

Dear H. G., this an ample subject. One thing is sure: happiness in Aristotle is closely related (if not grounded) on virtues. As Rorty has highlighted very well, Aristotle's ethics stand out in the history of moral and ethics as a philosophy rooted on virtues.

One reason why Aristotle is a "systematic" moral philosophy is because every single argument leads to the rational necessity or foundation of happiness. In other words, for him not being happy or not wanting to be happy is simply irrational. (Very much like in Kant's case: not wanting to be (morally) free is irrational). (Happiness and freedom are the two icons and the two only systematic moral and political philosophies in the history of the western civilization. All others are, if you allow me, just (moral or ethical) "ideas").

Now, virtues are in Aristotle a habit, and therefore a matter of carrying a good life (= good praxis). It is not a habit in the contemporary sense of the word, but a matter of one trying to be or become as perfect as possible.

Yes, I take it that thereafter happiness depends on your being able to live as or in eupraxein and that is a matter of continuous incessant time.

(Between brackets, regarding a couple of sentences of your comment, let's not forget that Aristotle was the moral and intellectual supporter of Alexander, and believe he was a tyrant: I would want to live under Alexander's government, believe me).

Excuse me, the system made a mistake: I wouldn't want (or wouldn't have wanted) to live  under Alexander's government, believe me.

Dear Maldonado, 

You seem to become more Aristotelian with each note! As I read you, you now identify "good praxis" with the life of the Aristotelian virtues --with happiness. I agree with you about the centrality of the value of happiness and freedom in the Western tradition. I think to emphasize, too, that freedom can be rooted in Aristotle as a matter of "self-actualization," to use a contemporary term. We are born with a particular "nature," (physis) which, in its plasticity, and potential for reason, is open to development. Freedom is for the sake of happiness. The central aim of liberal education is, then, to develop human potentiality as fully as possible. The development of the intellectual and moral virtues is central in Aristotle's account of this. The frequent talk of "excellence" in the universities is a translation of Aristotle's "arete" --virtue. (Yet how far short do these institutions often fall!)  

If you can point to any undue concessions of Aristotelian ethics in the direction of Alexander, that would be very interesting. My impression is that Aristotle was known to have been the teacher of Alexander, and fear of Alexander may have protected Aristotle as long as Alexander lived. So, historically when Alexander died, Aristotle was no longer safe in Athens. I know of no reason to think this was a rational reaction, or that Athens was not on the point of "sinning twice against philosophy." Aristotle simply became a scapegoat--or so it seems. 

Concerning "habit" in Aristotle (ethos), you may be right that contemporary concepts of habit stand in some contrast. I would tend to believe that great or contemporary exemplars of existing Athenian society and Greek history would have been taken for granted as illustrating the life of the virtues. I think of the many references to Homer in Aristotle--and to the Greek poets and writers of plays. Again, "courage" is a kind of paradigm of the virtues, and the accounts of this are rooted, though not exhausted by, military exploits. I would tend to think that our exemplars are more pluralistic than that. Still, there is considerable development in Greek thought away from an exclusive focus on Achilles as exemplar of manly virtue.

There is much in the Nicomachean Ethics connected with the theme of moral education, or the means of acquiring the virtues, and of course, no one has them in the first place. This is a chief source of the "variability" and constant debates of political and moral topics --the lack of precision concerning happiness and the good life. Those who have not attained to the virtues tend to misjudge them in others as well. Each generation has to go through the entire process of attaining the virtues anew. 

Now, you mentioned, earlier the idea of "good praxis" as a process. It would seem that this is your opening for the contrast between "process" and Aristotle's idea of happiness as an "activity."  Attaining to the virtues would seem to be a process, while practicing them may more plausibly be regarded as a (more set) activity. Again, we live in more pluralistic societies of diverse backgrounds, racial, ethnic and religious diversity --in contrast to the Greek polis or city state, which we easily see as more homogeneous. What do "excellence" and "virtue" mean in pluralistic societies? Are the extreme skeptics and moral relativists to teach us virtue? 

Again, there is the oddity that Aristotle says that children cannot be happy--because they have not yet attained to the virtues. This does not mean, of course, that children cannot have pleasant and joyous lives while they are children. Aristotle's saying that children cannot be happy, tell us more about Aristotle on "happiness" than it does about children. Aristotle also assumes that children need moral guidance to acquire the virtues.  

I'm still looking for your critical perspective on Aristotle's ethics, and for more about "process" and "activity." This would seem to lead into moral education. 

H.G. Callaway

Dear H. G., thank you, really for this fine conversation: I do appreciate it. This is, by and large, one of the things I sincerely fall in love with RG.

That I am very (much) an Aristotelian, I take it as a complement just because it comes from you, really. (Between brackets, if you wish a confession, I am rather an Heraclitean, you know, the Obscure of/from Ephesus).

Since I agree with your remarks, please allow me to focus on a new subject you bring about. As we all know, "childhood" was not discovered  - neither by Aristotle nor in the ancient Greece. The continuous references to children and ephebus are to be taken cautiously. As such, childhood was discovered by moderns such as Pestallozi, Rousseau, and Goethe. As a consequence, before that, we jumped from nothingness up into adulthood.

If so, then the references about children in Aristotle, f.i., do not have the same meaning as they do, nowadays.

Being as it might be, happiness is among the Greeks an experience based or rooted in friendship. We need wait till the arrival of the Christian era to discover love and ground society on love. The Greeks distrusted love very much as the Christians distrust friendship, contradictorily.

Thus, friendship is, in contemporary terms, sort of kinship, or fellowship. And the eupraxein is really an experience of friendship, vey much like happiness.

Dear Maldonado, 

Many thanks for your kind words. I think you are right, and that maybe "friendship" is the way to go, the Greek "philia" --falling as it does between the extremes, as it were, of "eros" and  "agape."  Aristotle devoted most of two chapters to friendship in the Nicomachean Ethics. In a way, it the key to understanding the significance of locality, and the particularities of locality. Friendship, we might say, naturally builds local configurations; and I would not say that Christianity has always or generally distrusted friendship. Its a matter of who will trust the local and particular configurations to contribute to development viewed more universally. 

More later. 

H.G. Callaway

I like the discussion of H.G. Callaway and Carlos Eduardo Maldonado! Although the question asks for an equation predicting happiness, the discussion adds up in philosophy which is the real field for discussing happiness! 

Since happiness and sadness are complementary behaviour, can we derive / deduce a model for sadness as a complementary model from the happiness model?

Kindly comment on this please! Thanks..

Best wishes,

Sundar

Wonderfull conversation. So, you  have come to the longitudinal solution that since 6 thousands years roots the cornerstone of happiness in friendship, in praxis (the practice (soc.) or conditioning (Marx)), and [local degree of] relations — as to say of separation.

I have to say, unwillingly, that now we have got a philosophical proof that the current Agorà, then, was reborn in the place where those mentioned dimensions live all together: a modern ecosystem called Facebook.

Dear Sundar, maybe this is the doorstep to start the opposite analysis for sadness model. A counter-happy-friendship, an individual with no friends, followers, the equation to count the increase of degrees of separation.

—g

Dear Lacquidara, 

You make an interestingly paradoxical response, as it seems to me. I want to at least say, that though I tried Facebook, I didn't care for it. It took too much time, and had too little interesting content. Philosophy one does not do in the public market place.

This seems a world of difference from living locality to me. Locality is an emphasis on connections to living people and daily relations. To treat this as a matter of separation is to overlook at great deal. High thought must eventually show its value to real people. The convolutions and perturbations of academics must eventually show some benefit and genuine relation to ordinary people and their problems. 

You neglect some considerable scholarly discussion of Aristotle on happiness to jump to --what? Denigration of friendship? Disregard of happiness? --which is, after all, the central question of this particular thread. Basically, you seem capricious in the note just above. 

If you believe that greater emphasis on on central institutions and their development are needed in the E.U., then, that is all fine and good so far as I'm concerned. It would not follow that greater emphasis on locality is unneeded here. I believe I remarked to you, at one point, that globalization has done serious damage here in our town. It has meant long-term unemployment and extensive poverty for many--and those often the least able to adapt.  

Ah! but its an academic provocation! Right? No arguments to present, so turn up the levels of contention? Well, perhaps you mean to do some great good. 

H.G. Callaway

Please, sir. Read again my writing. I'm talking about science of networks. And quantitative equations to algoritmically evaluate happiness. Via frienship numbers, as a score. And, sometime, some suicide coming from depression, measured through the ratio following/followers. And huge amount of money to increase traffic, and friendship 2.0. Too much trivial for you? Too much short?

—g

Dear Laquidara, 

The implication I take from the discussion of Aristotle on happiness, is that the topic is fundamentally discursive, normative and qualitative. So, I do not think anyone will get far with quantitative accounts. Nonetheless, I am open to an explanation of how a scientific account may help in some particulars. (We were listening all the while, but heard little that seemed to clarify the scientific concept or account of the subject.)

I have no doubt that one might simulate an account of happiness in mathematical terms, perhaps it could be predictive statistically, but I suspect it will be reductive as an account of what happiness comes to. I think that any prospective scientific proposals should be responsive the the classical discussions. That is no doubt difficult--which helps make the point of the general need to attend to the classical discussion. What you say does not respond to the classical discussion. 

H.G. Callaway

''They found that participants were happiest when they performed better than expected during a risk-reward task.''

Is'nt it obvious?  Success is generally appreciate and failure is generally not pleasurable.

Probably that the equation they proposed is applicable into a trivial context.  Probably folk psychology would predict better even in the same trivial context.  The only way to predict human being is to constraint them to operate in a very limited kind of game.  In such trivial machine like context, human being are constraint to operate like machine and simple equations are good at predicting.  Here is an example.  You have ten thousand people into a stadium and there are two exist doors giving on two wide street.  You can predict the movement of the crowd simply by using the equation of fluid.  Does it mean that the equation of fluid predict peoples.  Yes but only in trivial contexts such as this one.

The late Professor Macnamara of McGill University said: What was Calculus for physics, is category theory for psychology”. Following this we can take the people of a closed locality, as a category. Relationship between people is a kind of arrow. Since happiness and sadness are a kind of duality, we can search for a kind of adjunction that expresses happiness and sadness. The synthesis of the adjunction exresses the grade of happiness of a certain atom. By making this idea rigorous we may hope that we can ad up with a qualitative relationship between happiness and sadness.

@Luis, 

you got the point, the need is in the boundaries, i.e. clusters and districts.

The fact is that they can be treated, too, as a fluid. Their urgent changes, and their treatment in "fine-grained" dimensions [while your example of a mass escaping from a stadium is a case of "coarse-grain", cause you're considering the mass as an unique item with just one subjectivity], then, allow to extend those limitations and revert the so called "contextual polarity" of the original trivial situation computed in something very-fine-computable. Thus, instead of having a single mass that moves fluidly towards 2 gates / output doors [then we'd have 1 "sentimental" ‹good=escaped› and 1 "sentimental" ‹bad=trapped› – within their bipolar trends during the escape], you will have a discrete pathcy region of individuals: your interest, as a computational machine, will be to find coherent districts of "needs", and to fine-tune a proper "offer" to each of them; the initial 2 gates will become ‹1 gate per item›, maybe on-demand; Etc.

@Costas,

absolutely yes. And in terms of "quality" we could consider peculiarities of each single atom, as its nuclear instability — that, in a thin metaphor [in phys. and phyl.] could be consider/feel as a kind of pursuit of/for happiness.

–g

edit:

#1. attached, an example of a Sc. Framework including the eco-systematic pillars of: 
(1) friendship, (2) praxis, (3) social relations graph / locality, and (4) separation degrees, within the boundaries of a determinate community.

#2. The billions of personal multi-dimensional data we're self-delivering for each day, included the super-dense of multi-dimensions "selfies", will allow to have very dense and multi-modal patterns about the emotional state of each of us, a very nice self-narration, for every moment. 

#3. The state of the art is not concerned with speculations wether an individual sentimental state could/not be quali/quantitatively be represented, nor with its dynamics. But with the choice wether it has to be represented more properly as linear or non linear.


http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v481/n7382/abs/nature10736.html

Costas,

I am not familiar with category theory and I thrust your confidence in its high modeling power.  If we put a human being in a situation where there is a very limited among of choices then modeling quantitative aspects of this human being in feasable for this very specific situation.  Modeling emotions within a human being in complex social contexts were the role of emotion is important is totally another business and the difficulty of finding such a model is not one of finding an appropriate modeling framework, which is important but totally premature since the scientist has first to review large amount of empirical evidence, follow his/her own insight/emotion along the way and then a vague portrait will emerge and only then a modeling choice be made to best express this image.

Dear friends, please allow me two little points. On the one hand (even though I do work on some logical formalism/formalization) I' d like to support H. G.'s view in that at the end of the day, it is not a quantitative aspect what truly matters about a theory or science - but the story that that theory or equations aims at. As a consequence, I firmly believe that scientists should be good storytellers. Whence, my love for high caliber literature.

On the other hand, I support Louis' comment even though with a punctual remark. Complex systems are not so much of moiling as of simulation. This entails a - subtle - distinction, namely between modeling and simulation.

Happiness, as mentioned, is a discrete phenomenon, not a continuous one. In real life very as in poetry or literature.

(And finally, yes, dear H. G., the point about sadness let us all down here…).

Carlos and H.G.,

I am totally sold to this story telling story.

A last word on emotions.

Even the most rational of all domain of inquiry, the mathematical reseach field, is a highly emotional domain.  Henri Poincarre who was a very intuitive type of person described his creative process as a four stage process.

http://www.is.wayne.edu/DRBOWEN/CRTVYW99/POINCARE.HTM

 He draws the following conclusions:

1. The creations involve a period of conscious work, followed by a period of unconscious work.

2. Conscious work is also necessary after the unconscious work, to put the unconscious results on a firm footing.

3. Earlier in this piece, Poincar� drew the conclusion that mathematical creation cannot be mechanical. Many of the choices are based on grounds of symmetry, mathematical elegance, consistency with other areas of mathematics, and even esthetics. Therefore the unconscious is not simply a mechanical processor; (quoting again from Poincar�) "it is not purely automatic; it is capable of discernment; it has tact, delicacy; it knows how to choose, to divine. What do I say? It knows better how to divine than the conscious self, since it succeeds where that has failed. In a word, is not the subliminal self superior to the conscious self? ... Does it follow that the subliminal self, having divined by a delicate intuition that [certain] combinations would be useful, has formed only these, or has it rather formed many others which were lacking in interest and have remained unconscious?"

4. The unconscious can present the conscious mind with something that is not fruitful, but which is nevertheless elegant or beautiful.

5. What the unconscious presents to the conscious mind is not a full and complete argument or proof, but rather "point of departure" from which the conscious mind can work out the argument in detail. The conscious mind is capable of the strict discipline and logical thinking, of which the unconscious is incapable.''

What is remarkabe for me in this description is that the most of the work is done subconsciously by the muses like for all other story tellers.   I think that emotions are closely related for the preparation of the muses so they accept to work for us.  I think that listening to emotions is actually a process were the story teller becomes one with the muses during brief prized moments.

Dear All,

We are discussing on the forecasting of happiness but we can but imagine what happiness is. Happiness, das Glück, le bonheur, la felicidad, a boldogság? These words do not mean exactly the same thing. Happiness as a notion may mean various state/process even for the same individual. Marcel mentioned and wanted to integrate the fluctuation of these factors into the equation. I feel it is really challenging to discuss on obscure and subjectively determined notions.

Dear Andras, 

as you know, any question could be approximated from the front, or with a lateral approach.

Instead to consider differences, one could consider commonalities. Than, one could try to find sequences of commonalities; and it could be observed that, looking at sequences, the number of peculiarities decreases, while the number of commonalities increases.

Please, have a look at the gamificated approach used in The Great Brain Experiment [link1]. And, for instance, consider other studies about something even more complex and subjective than happiness, i.e. "love". In the second link, in fact, please look at the methodology of "modular statistics in time-varying fluctuations", e.g. to determine homogeneous thin classes in a more broad, unstable, and vague group [in the example, see the classes of "robust couples" vs. "fragile couples" (of individuals who love each other!); in turn, the two classes are still subjected to determination of thinner sub-sets. On each of those short-clusters, it will be possible to apply a differentiated function].

—g

http://www.thegreatbrainexperiment.com/

http://digbib.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de/volltexte/documents/783884

The discussion about the equation is the core of this thread, indeed, dear András. Agree with your invitation.

Now, as we know, math has reached - some time ago - the stadium in which she can recognize that hers are not exact, infallible and completely accurate statements (= equations). Math - along with the good contemporary spearhead science has openly given a place of their own to issues such as instability, uncertainty, fluctuations, randomness, and the like, in the sense that they are unavoidable or inescapable.

Very much as a sense of saudade is closely related to happiness in the Portuguese speaking world, f.i.

Very difficult to define happiness, A lot of parameters have to take into consideration including chemical changes in brain and body.

For the ancient philosophers, Greek ones on particular, philosophy was not the art of creating a philosophical discourse about the world and the write philosophical book like the type of philosophical art of today.  Back then philosophy was the art of transforming oneself such as to live harmoniously with others and the world.  A way to achieve wisdom and to live the most happy and harmoniously as possible.  The different philosophical schools were proposing different ways to transform oneself towards wisdom.  Philosophical discourse training, mathematical training, meditative training, social relation training, everything was include in the type of philosophical religion without Gods characters.  

For all these ancient philosophers, morality was character building.  And since only a character living in harmony with the whole cosmos including other people was their aim, they thought that it would necessarily lead to the common good.  In the first days of the emerging capitalist system in England , a new breed of common good philosophy emerged.  The common good would be reached not by the achievement of virtious life by individuals but by them serving, to the best of their knowledge, their self-interest. The common good was conceived by a sum of individual good and whatever is done that increase that sum is the best policy.  So if you have to burn a few millions and then the sum increase then this is the best policy.  Who care about if your butcher is a good person as long as it cut the meat perfectly for money only this is what will make everybody the happiest.  The gospel of Greed which is more alive than ever was born.

Dear Brassard,

I would suggest a close study of Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice --which as I take it, maintains a moderate position toward the themes you broach. There are many good filmings of the play, too. I especially liked the filming--available on DVD, with Al Pacino in the role of the merchant. In spite of the often critical image of the merchant, the play, as I understand it, is basically a positive take on the emerging roles of the Italian banks in the early modern period. Part of the background is that when the play was written, the Jews had long been exiled from England --for a total of some 400 years. Strange as it may (or may not) seem, it was the Puritan general Oliver Cromwell who allowed them to return--after the English Civil Wars of the 1640s. Within the play, the purely financial relationships are counter-posed to the code of honor among the aristocrats. In the end, though the merchant demands his "pound of flesh" --which is, a negative image in concession to the aristocratic mores--, the law will not allow it. That is to say that financial power is good, so long as abuses are legally restrained. 

More directly to your theme of ancient philosophy, it does seem clear to me that Adam Smith and the "invisible hand" have too often replaced our conceptions of virtue and the good life. Aristotelian virtue, and most other varieties I am aware of, involve some conception of self-restraint. It seems to me that the 18th and 19th century liberal tradition, linked to early industrialization, started out presupposing something quite similar, and recall that Smith wrote a "Theory of Moral Sentiments," but in the transition from the Whig to the newer liberal tradition the stress of virtue and self-restraint tended to get lost. In the mid-19th century, with J.S. Mill, "happiness" gets re-defined without general constraint by virtue--though there is his concession to the "higher pleasures."  The "greatest good for the greatest number" was thought something you could calculate, for the early utilitarians, at least--and for the sake of legislation! 

In any case, I think that the conception of virtues in the American founders typically viewed public service as a sacrifice for the public good--and often they felt they could not escape it quickly enough. The American Whig tradition (which originated in GB, as the loyal opposition to too robust kingly power) persisted up to the time of the American Civil War, 1861-1865. They carried a strong conception of the public good, say in comparison to the politicians of the Gilded Age. That concept of the public good contrasts strongly with the frequency of current politicians becoming millionaires. The idea of self-restraint for the public good needs, very much, to be re-emphasized.

H.G. Callaway

In the first pages, prof. Terumi Touhei was wondering about Tchaikovsky's way to transfer his motus of creative joy in a musical tragedy. Well, we could know almost nothing of the myriads of transient emotional states that have passed through the mind of Tchaykowsky while he was writing the final pages of the score of the Symphony No.6.

For a long time I was personally subjected to a type of measurement with inferential acoustic stimuli [ANOVA] while composing music patterns in live electronics; well, I do not remember to have ever experienced any sense of completeness and satisfaction, scrutinizing the score spat by the machine after the experimental session, and matching that "card" with the amount of emotional states that I had experienced while playing and calculating. Now, try to imagine how much greater depth may have generated in the creative state of mind of Tchaykowsky, compared to mine…

However, what we know is that if we invert the opposite measurement, that is enquiring what Tchaykowsky's wonderful, and tragic scores, generated into the emotional state of the listeners, we could use something called "Theory of Musical Equilibration".

The relationship between the emotional and sentimental grammatics present in the acoustic lexicon of the score, and the emotional state [and aesthetic judgments, and moral strifes] inferred into the listeners, finds its Equilibrium in a reversed order: the acoustic phenomenon transfers [as well as the verbal narration is able to do] some so-called "volitional processes", that determine a linear / non-linear (?) flow of relations between the ontologically defined musical utterances / propositions / and sentences, and the floating moods / motiefs in the listener; so that, due to that Equilibrium the listener will feel themes [and/or arguments] perceptually clear, aesthetically objective, and consequent judgments self-subjectivly polarized. Balanced.

The seven major emotional states will be clearly recognizable.

What we do know, in short, is that Tchaykowsky knew very precisely what he was composing.

He was probably more awkward in other private practices, such as not being able to predict whether a gesture of… courtesy, would have been perceived by Mme von Meck, or wether would have generated her annoyed reaction.

But of course, during his motions of super creative composition [a tidy fluid dynamic chaos], he could exactly predict any emotional fluctuation connected in his innumerable amount of listeners for every sixteenth of his musical score.

Now, some models that reverse the fluid dynamics that someone was citing before, the "escape from the stadium" to the "gates of various emotional outputs" are possible, tidy and balanced.

The models could be applied much better as longer is the sample of application: both in terms of time and quantity of singular samples. Of "atoms".

It is not only a prerogative of psycho-acoustics, where all the above mentioned is happening since a long time. Today we are investigating patterns in thin details, even in the three-dimensional solid models, i.e. in facial mimicry; or inside of baric utterances bouncing from the ventricles to the rooms of our heart device; in the micro-variations of salinity of our inner tears; in supercomplex superorganisms, as the stock exchanges.

Praxis, relationships, districts and separations live also here, in RG.

Everything that I'm writing — despite this place is little more than a 1.0 — has at least five irreversible sides [because scripta manent], and it is not so difficult through a little more 'of equipments to establish a sentimental base of LSTM-hybrid-network [Long Short-Term Memory] type.

For our own salvation, or to protect ourselves from this type of "profiling" [in "quantity" — which does not imply disregard for substance and quality; quite the opposite, indeed] will be very difficult if our current approach is so skeptical.

Social networks and in general all the ecosystems "profiling" users, adopt a Socratic behave: their maieutics is constant and continuous. On behalf of yourself, you will tell them exactly when you're happy, in every details, and the equilibrium of the happiness equation will be quasi-reached, exapted on the basis of an exponential number of multimodal data, evolving itself continuously.

—g

http://www.mmk.ei.tum.de/publ/pdf/12/12woe2.pdf

From the article of Rutledge et al:

 "We provide an analysis of one of the foundations on which happiness is assumed to be built, namely the subjective response to rewards. We focus on rewards that are external quantifiable objects (e.g., money) that might elicit affective and motivational responses".

My conclusion is that it's always important to "not confuse the map with the territory."

This is true in particular for politicians, who may use this equation for establishing measures for well being. Back to the article:

"Our findings show that conscious emotional states can be precisely manipulated and characterized using computational models".

PS This article is published by PNAS !.

Happiness is self perceived content or achievement,  surpassing the hurdle or constraint or competition restraining desired state..

It is a derivative of the following 

• Expected Outcome or Event or Relationship
• Pleasant Surprise

@Ruxandra, I agree with you. However, my impression is that someone will conclude like this: "the territory is unmappable!" — and again, "cartographists are bad!" [~"mathematicians who use to decipher useful maps of territories, are poor fools!"; "emotions are very different from happiness!"; "money is only a conventional measure!"; "the scheme risk-reward is just a game!"; "game is for kids!"; "the human being is unique and innumerable!"; "brain is the most strange thing in the universe!"; "the universe has already been described by sages, ascetics, priests and prophets; you do not need to look further!". Etx.]

—g