I think a lot about happiness — about my own happiness and about the happiness of those around me. Knowing my interest in the subject, Kris forwarded a recent column from David Brooks of The New York Times about what he terms “the Sandra Bullock trade”:
Two things happened to Sandra Bullock [in March]. First, she won an Academy Award for best actress. Then came the news reports claiming that her husband is an adulterous jerk. So the philosophic question of the day is: Would you take that as a deal? Would you exchange a tremendous professional triumph for a severe personal blow?
Brooks uses this question as a jumping-off point to discuss research into happiness. He notes that you’d be crazy to make the trade. “If you have a successful marriage,” he writes, “it doesn’t matter how many professional setbacks you endure, you will be reasonably happy.”
Brooks says that the research into money and happiness is complicated. (Although from my own experience, it isn’t really — the research seems pretty clear.) As I’ve mentioned before, money does make people happier, but its effects are much more pronounced on the poor than on the rich. If you earn $20,000 a year and experience a $5,000 windfall, that’s going to bring more joy to your life than if you earn $200,000 and get the same $5,000 windfall. Brooks also mentions that lottery winners don’t experience lasting happiness, either.
The New York Times piece continues by noting that although money doesn’t always bring a lot of happiness, personal relationships do. Brooks writes:
The daily activities most associated with happiness are sex, socializing after work and having dinner with others. The daily activity most injurious to happiness is commuting. According to one study, joining a group that meets even just once a month produces the same happiness gain as doubling your income. According to another, being married produces a psychic gain equivalent to more than $100,000 a year.
So, what do you think of Brooks’ question? Would you exchange a professional triumph for a severe personal blow? Or, perhaps a better question is what sorts of trades are you willing to make for money or happiness? What trades have you made in the past? Which have been worth it? Which do you regret?
Note: A couple of commenters have noted — correctly — that Brooks sets up a false trade. That is, Bullock didn’t actually trade one of these for the other; they just happened. Still, I think it’s an interesting hypothetical question with real-life applications. We do make these trades all the time. I traded four months of my life and gained 20 pounds in order to write a book. I’m not sure I got the better end of that bargain.
[The New York Times: The Sandra Bullock trade]
GRS is committed to helping our readers save and achieve your financial goals.Savings interest rates may be low, but that’s all the more reason to shop for the best rate.Find the highest savings interest rate from Ally Bank, Capital One 360, Everbank, and more.
This article is about News, Psychology, Relationships
Disclaimer: This content is not provided or commissioned by American Express. Opinions expressed here are author's alone, not those of American Express, and have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by American Express. This site may be compensated through American Express Affiliate Program.
Discover is a paid advertiser of this site. Reasonable efforts are made to maintain accurate information. See the Discover online credit card application for full terms and conditions on offers and rewards.
SEARCH FOR RECENT ARTICLES
The problem with these studies (and the subsequent problem with your post) is their assumption that what concerns most of us is happiness. Your narrow focus on happiness encourages you to make false assumptions because who says that happiness is the ultimate goal in life? What you, and apparently the others on the post, assert defines you only; many of us are unconcerned about how happy we are on a day-to-day basis. If that is your measuring rod, then you use it, but be careful before you assume that others are in the same dilemma.
For many of us, our focus rests solely on what we do.
loading....
@Nicole
Being from Mars as well I get where you’re coming from, and while individual differences trump just about everything and there will always be empirical evidence of the man being the more sensitive and nurturing in a relationship, I was speaking of generalizations. Apparently my sarcasm went astray as you are correct that no one makes men make pregnancy jokes, my more boring point was that men can’t understand it because a) they will never give birth, and b) they will never be able to experience anything else as a woman either. Much brain research suggests we learn and think different, we have different hormonal makeups, we have different physiology. I don’t think it’s overly controversial to say: we’re different and as such typically fill different roles within a relationship. Just like introverts/extroverts will fill different roles. Yeah, there are women that think more analytically like men (though the fact that it is pointed out means it’s abnormal). And there are men who are very empathetic. So?
I don’t think anyone is BLAMING Sandra for the situation, much less due to the pervasive patriarchy of our culture. But she DID make choices and take actions to which he reacted. No one is saying that his choices were appropriate or that she was responsible for them, but it is a logical fallacy to state that she had no effect on them.
She was part of the dynamic system that was her marriage. I think you may have missed HollyP’s point. Holly wasn’t saying that Sandra cheated, and I didn’t get that she was blaming her. But tradeoffs are made when when one has a demanding job or project. SB not only acts but produces and gets involved in a lot of the behind the scenes stuff in her movies. No, a good man/woman doesn’t cheat when their spouse is that absorbed in a job/project. But it DOES put a strain on the relationship, and the (unfortunate) typical result when one feels abandoned by one’s significant other is to find someone new. Once again that doesn’t make it right, but it’s human.
To play devil’s advocate, if she was out of pocket for nine months with her project what does that say about the value SHE placed on HER role in the marriage? His cheating isn’t her fault, but as was pointed out, she CHOSE to marry him, and she CHOSE to take the projects she did. His role in the relationship isn’t just to follow her around like a lapdog and be ready when she has time.
I am not saying that is how it was, but when a marriage falls apart it isn’t usually the result of choices by just one party. Sometimes it is, but in my experience it is then usually due to extreme personality issues to which there were clues before the marriage. Once again I am not saying it is the FAULT of both parties (only one has to cheat for all bets to be off), but it is the result of the accumulation of both of their choices.
loading....
The classic trade off that I’ve seen in my life is the high-achieving manager or entrepreneur whose family life is a wreck. I’ve worked for managers whose kids are in legal trouble or whose marriages are in shambles. I’ve had opportunities for career advancement, but turned them away because of the time commitment they would involve.
I’m not fooling myself, I know that some of the reason that I didn’t choose that path is that I can be a little lazy. But another big reason is that I LIKE being home with my family for dinner and going to my kids’ events. As my kids reach the age where they’re looking at leaving the nest in a few years, I look back at the time my wife and I have had with them and we both think we’ve traded well.
So, in that regard, I’ve done OK! Economics is all about the allocation of scarce resources. Time is a scarce resource in our personal economics.
loading....
Q: Would you exchange a tremendous professional triumph for a severe personal blow?
A: It truly depends on the circumstance. In review of the opportunity and potential vulnerability, I would have to weigh the pros and cons.
I spent much of my free time at the start of my marriage away from my wife, despite her being pregnant with our 1st at the time. I was finishing up a masters and preparing for a major professional licensing exam in my field at the time, and my time was limited. I missed many of the adventures of the bun-in-the-oven phase, but the long term reward was worth the lost time. Since then, my career advancements have allowed me more family time, higher salary, and wonderful travel opportunities for the entire family.
loading....
Even with the addendum I find the premise of the NYT article and the GRS post to be faulty, and a little offensive! Come on, most of us don’t know jack about Sandra Bullock’s personal life and to use it as a jumping-off point for an unrelated discussion seems kind of cheap. To say that Bullock didn’t choose her situation while debating whether personal happiness or professional success is a BETTER CHOICE is silly. This would be a stronger post if it left out the Bullock analogy altogether, but I guess then it wouldn’t be topical? I, for one, could do without the pseudo-concerned celebrity scandal debate is all I’m saying.
loading....
Like J.D. I bought a lot of Stuff in my early 20′s that I’m paying for now. And I don’t even have any of it anymore! I’d much rather have not ever had the stuff and have an extra $200/month in my pocket.
Money may not buy happiness, but not having money definitely seems to cost it.
loading....
“So in a way it IS a trade, maybe not a conscious one, but a trade none the less. Perhaps Sandra’s husband was one of those 80% people. He can be trusted 80% of the time and 20% she needed to keep her eye on him to keep him from temptation, and she spent that 20% on another movie instead of her marriage. Maybe he was just a sleeze and would have cheated anyway. But people are dynamic. People are responsible for their actions, but someone isn’t born a cheater. It is a decision that is made based on a situation.”
This is a specious explanation, made up simply to back up a claim.
loading....
The article doesn’t actually suggest a connection or blame anyone. The author just used it to ask a question using the context of a famous person who had a professional triumph and personal loss both in the same week.
Then he used that to ask what are professional triumphs worth compared to personal ones? How do we make intangible well-being comparable with tangible accomplishments like raises, advanced degrees, promotions and accolades?
Thats a good and complicated question. It makes me think of how Bhutan is the only country in the world to measure Gross National Happiness over Gross National Product. I wonder how different things would be in people’s life if we had to report our annual contentment instead of salary to the IRS on April 15th. Would it be a better world? A less productive world? Would people be more moral, or less? I don’t know. It would be interesting though.
loading....
Recently I realized why I have been somewhat unhappy for the past year. I live in a crappy apartment.
My apartment is too small and cramped to have people over, and I can’t keep any pets, hence I feel lonely in the apartment.
My trade-off: shortest commute ever (walk 12 mins to work), cheap rent (saved at least $5,000) year, in smacking downtown Chicago.
For most people, an extra $5,000 and getting to walk to work is SUPER awesome, right?
I really enjoy socializing, cooking and entertaining. I know people would say but spending time with friends cost 0 money. What I love the most is cooking for my friends. I need a proper apartment with a proper kitchen and there are inexpensive apartments like this but so far away that nobody would come visit me. So yes, it would cost me relatively $5000 a year to entertain my friends at home. I am not sure I’m willing to make that trade-off (especially given that I’d have to go back to taking the bus/train to work ughhh).
I’m considering toughing it out for one more year to save up some money. But I’m afraid I might turn anti-social.
loading....