The Paradox of Choice by Barry Schwartz’s conclusion is that having a fishbowl, or a set of limitations, is necessary in order to be happy. We should focus on having the right fishbowl that is not too large or small. That is, people should be aware of the reduced returns of having an abundance of options and the potential for increased dissatisfaction it may present. His premises for arriving at this conclusion include that having too many options can lead to paralysis, regret, heightened expectations, and feelings of disappointment, as well as feelings of personal responsibility and guilt when faced with a choice.
“From the ‘perfect’ salary to keeping up with the Joneses, here’s how money really affects your happiness” by Cory Stieg’s conclusion is While money can provide happiness to some extent, other factors such as purpose and experiences are more important for happiness and well-being. The premises for this conclusion is that research has consistently shown that having a job that provides purpose is more important for happiness than having a high salary; there is a certain “happiness” salary, above which money does not increase happiness; and that material purchases and splurging on luxury objects does not lead to lasting happiness.
I agree with Cory Stieg’s conclusions that money does not necessarily equate to happiness, having meaningful, purposeful relationships and community can be a far more reliable source of satisfaction in life than any amount of material wealth. I agree with the premise that a job with purpose is highly important to happiness, and that when it comes to spending money, experiences will likely bring longer-lasting satisfaction than physical items. Additionally, research has shown that experiencing gratitude and giving to others or engaging in volunteer work can be far more fulfilling than expecting or relying on others to bring satisfaction and joy.
