Happy, Joshua Wolf Shenk Examines

¶ … Happy, Joshua Wolf Shenk examines whether there is a key to happiness. He does this by looking at a Harvard research study, which followed 268 men who entered college in the late 1930s through their lifetimes. However, Shenk's examination of the study does not really focus on the study. He does reveal some details about the study, but what Shenk reveals is that the study is far too immense to cover its details in a 20-page article. It spanned almost the entire history of modern psychology.

Therefore, at various points in time, the study has focused on different aspects of psychology that were believed to be relevant at these different points in time, from whole-body phrenology to psychoanalysis. Moreover, the article also places quite a bit of emphasis on the study's longtime director, George Vaillant. The emphasis on the researcher differs from many psychological studies, where the goal is for the researcher not to impact the behavior of the study's subjects. For all of those reasons, one must question the results of the study.

It has almost all of the weaknesses anyone wishes to avoid in a research design. The study was not random, there is no real control group, the researcher was biased, not all participants engaged in every data collection point, the questions were mainly subjective, and it would be absolutely impossible to come close to replicating the study. All of those flaws suggest that the study is a good example of bad science. However, those weaknesses are actually the reason that the article is worth reading.

While Shenk's article, like Vaillant's study, does not actually reveal the secret of happiness, it does give a great overview of the practice of psychology in 20th century America. Moreover, Shenk's article gives a really interesting glimpse into the lives of upwardly-mobile American men in the 20th century. For its historical insights, cautions about research methodology, and ability to really humanize the practice of research psychology, Shenk's article should be included in the curriculum, despite the fact that Shenk's article does not provide the formula for happiness.

Shenk begins his article with a question. "Is there a formula -- some mix of love, work, and psychological adaptation -- for a good life?" (Shenk, 2009). It is a wonderful question, and one that Shenk acknowledges drives much of the practice of today's modern consumer-driven psychology. For example, the self-help shelves are full of advice for people seeking happy lives.

Moreover, when Shenk first mentions that this article is going to review the results of a study that lasted almost an entire century and followed its participants through the entire lives, one has the glimmer of hope that Vaillant actually uncovered the key to happiness and that Shenk is going to share it with the reader. He does not. Yes, Vailliant's work uncovered some factors that happy people have in common, and Shenk shares them with the reader.

However, what Vaillant's work makes clear is that there is no guarantor of happiness. Repeatedly in the article Shenk gives examples of people who have all of the outward trappings of success that one might associate with happiness, and still do not report being happy. He also gives examples of people who do seem to have far more struggle in their lives, but still manage to be happy.

Therefore, the first reason that Shenk's article is worth including in the curriculum is that it serves as a wonderful reminder of the complexity of psychology. Even an emotion as seemingly simple as happiness is not easily reduced into component parts. Shenk's article covers an investigation that spanned almost an entire century. One of the reasons that it should be used in the curriculum is because it discusses some theories that are of historical interest in the study of psychology.

For example, Shenk mentions the fact that the study used every scientific tool available at its inception to really study the different subjects. These tools included, but were not limited to measures of physical function, brain activity, social history, and handwriting samples, Rorschach inkblot tests, and body measurements for anthropomorphic analysis (Shenk, 2009). While some of these features may be part of a modern psychological study, some of them have been debunked.

For example, early psychologists believed that physical features were linked to character traits, so that one could predict success or failure by examining physical features. This emphasis on phrenology and other pseudo-scientific methods has since been abandoned by mainstream psychology, but it is illuminating for a student to see the relationship between theories in psychology and outside social influences. The third reason that Shenk's article should be included in the curriculum is that it describes one of the most successful longitudinal research programs in the history of psychological research.

By successful, this writer simply means that the program was designed to continue across the lifetimes of its participants and was able to do so. This feature is a rarity in psychological research. While there is often initial scholarly and financial support for a study, changing attitudes and theories can make a once-promising study seem dated or old. However, the reality is that a psychological study that can predict behavior at 30 is really inapplicable to 80-year-olds.

So much of modern psychological research and what is "known" about how people behave is based on research that has been conducted on college students, that any study that specifically examines an older population is important. Moreover, because this study followed the subjects over their lifetimes, it provided insight into the fact that early-life success and happiness was not necessarily predictive of success or happiness in later life.

One of the interesting factors about Vaillant's study, which many people may think should mean it should not be part of psychological theory, is that the subjects in his study, on average, performed better than the average American. That should come as no surprise; the subjects were pulled from Harvard students in the 1930s. Therefore, one should expect the subjects to be all white males from somewhat affluent families.

Basic sociology would suggest that these people would have an easier time being upwardly mobile and having success in their careers than members of other social groups. After all, there is a reason that people want to attend Ivy League schools. However, this is actually a reason that the article should be included in the curriculum. First, knowing the identities, if not the particular details, about some of the study's participants makes the study more interesting to the reader. For example, President Kennedy was one of the study participants.

Becoming the President of the United States is the highest position an American male can take. When his study information becomes available in the 2040s, knowing how that related to personal happiness could be very illuminating. After all, there is a tremendous amount of speculation about President Lincoln suffering from depression, and some of Kennedy's personal behavior would suggest someone who was unhappy. Knowing that a study exists that has examined a U.S. President's psychology in a way that no other study has is very interesting.

Of course, the primary reason that Shenk's article should be included in the curriculum is that it really helps illuminate the connection between a researcher's personal life and his professional life. Vaillant seems to have been an extremely well-respected professional. However, despite having made the study of happiness his life's work, he was not a very happy man. Moreover, he even acknowledged that he was not a great example of a healthy adult.

The fact that a researcher can study healthy behaviors while actively and knowingly engaging in unhealthy behaviors helps illuminate one of the problems in psychology. As Shenk says at the end of his article, Vaillant was aware that he employed defenses in his own life, but did not think he would be capable of telling how those defenses applied to his life. This lack of self-awareness is very interesting, because it suggests that there is a significant distinction between recognizing a flaw and remedying that flaw.

Shenk's description of Vaillant also helps warn against the bias a researcher almost inevitably introduces into research. After all, the choice.