Solid article, Todd. As slippery as the construct can be, this is why I keep coming back to the idea of a well-being equation. Rather than treating happiness, meaning, and psychological richness as rival versions of the good life, I see them as different parts of a good life, with each one playing a different role depending on the person in front of me. Psychological richness may be a useful way of describing what happens when curiosity leads a particular person into experiences that change how they understand the world and experience themselves. But that does not make it a universal prescription, and it does not mean, to your point, that we know yet whether it is truly separate from curiosity, temperament, or the older language of the good life.
So I would not throw out psychological richness. I would put it back inside a larger equation. The question is not whether a rich life is better than a happy or meaningful one, but when richness actually improves the quality of a particular person’s life and when it does not. For some, unfamiliar experiences may help them question assumptions they have been living inside for years. For others, it may become too much stimulation, or even a way of avoiding what they already need to face in themselves. That is why the good life cannot be reduced to one crowned path. It has to be worked out person by person.
But the scientific question is unavoidable: if every equation is different, what can we actually define and test? My answer would be that the categories have to be clear enough to study, while what they mean in a person’s life remains particular to that person. What changes is how they combine for a particular person at say a particular phase in their life. The equation varies and changes to some degree across time. That is also what your article pushes me to ask of my own framework: can it honor the person in front of me without becoming so loose that it can no longer be defined, measured, or tested?
Thank you Todd! Some “free time” over the weekend. I’ll need to read your article again as well. Definitely got me thinking about how I would test it out in a lab.
Hi Todd, in the example with the monk and the adventurer would you say they both experience psychological richness? To me it seems that under all three models you could make a case for them fulfilling the criteria - they may both experience happiness, meaning and richness as they go further into their own experiences. The monk will go through awakenings and ascensions internally while the adventurer may have these same experiences externally.
I also wonder if curiosity necessarily leads to perspective shifts? I can imagine that reading many books can expand one’s perspective or add to one’s mental model of the world without causing a radical shifting in perspective.
On the other hand I can also imagine that someone who is persuaded to join an extremist group of who is swept up by a conspiracy theory or multiple conspiracy theories would report a radical perspective shift without necessarily being a curious person. What do you think?
This text moves me. The reason is that, for a long period in my life, I had to address several difficult challenges. At the same time, I pushed myself tremendously hard. So I recognize the idea that difficult experiences can change your perspective. But I also know that I do not need more drama for life to feel rich.
Today, when I meet people from that time and they ask, “How are you?” I answer: “My days are undramatic, and I love it.”
At the same time, I would say that I act on my curiosity more today than I ever have. Thank you, Todd. Important text!
Beautiful piece Todd. My personal observation is similar. My experience of rebuilding is sometimes like a roller coaster, sometimes deeply psychologically rich even with heartbreak or distress underneath. These are different tracks, I can be both be distressed and have high wellbeing, purpose, or levels of richness.
I wonder if environment or the more ordinary is the key, the coherence of ordinary life.
Beautiful and thought provoking piece Todd. I’ll support your ideas with a personal observation
Given my own experiences rebuilding, I’m sometimes frustrated that my efforts to incorporate richness into life don’t amount to much; I’m still in my first year as a new widower and am intentionally exploring novel things in hopes of growth and rediscovery. Yet, sometimes I feel like a deeply rich life is merely a battered ping pong ball enduring an exciting international tournament. It’s still hollow.
My work is extremely purposeful. I very recently helped my company get through a workplace suicide and the aftermath of a major tragedy in LaGuardia, both very profound perspective-changing experiences.
Despite the abundance of purpose and richness, I sometimes still struggle to connect with meaning or general happiness. Hedonic moments emerge (who doesn’t like a Dorito once in a while?) but without a capacity to facilitate integration, these rich moments can lack resonance.
Solid article, Todd. As slippery as the construct can be, this is why I keep coming back to the idea of a well-being equation. Rather than treating happiness, meaning, and psychological richness as rival versions of the good life, I see them as different parts of a good life, with each one playing a different role depending on the person in front of me. Psychological richness may be a useful way of describing what happens when curiosity leads a particular person into experiences that change how they understand the world and experience themselves. But that does not make it a universal prescription, and it does not mean, to your point, that we know yet whether it is truly separate from curiosity, temperament, or the older language of the good life.
So I would not throw out psychological richness. I would put it back inside a larger equation. The question is not whether a rich life is better than a happy or meaningful one, but when richness actually improves the quality of a particular person’s life and when it does not. For some, unfamiliar experiences may help them question assumptions they have been living inside for years. For others, it may become too much stimulation, or even a way of avoiding what they already need to face in themselves. That is why the good life cannot be reduced to one crowned path. It has to be worked out person by person.
But the scientific question is unavoidable: if every equation is different, what can we actually define and test? My answer would be that the categories have to be clear enough to study, while what they mean in a person’s life remains particular to that person. What changes is how they combine for a particular person at say a particular phase in their life. The equation varies and changes to some degree across time. That is also what your article pushes me to ask of my own framework: can it honor the person in front of me without becoming so loose that it can no longer be defined, measured, or tested?
Then you’ll love Oishi’s papers. They gel with what you’re saying. Click the links to his psych review article in the post. Nice.
Thank you Todd! Some “free time” over the weekend. I’ll need to read your article again as well. Definitely got me thinking about how I would test it out in a lab.
I test it out individually in my office.
Fantastic. We need more Bronces testing this w feral humans
🧪🧐🧠❤️🔥
this is beautiful
Hi Todd, in the example with the monk and the adventurer would you say they both experience psychological richness? To me it seems that under all three models you could make a case for them fulfilling the criteria - they may both experience happiness, meaning and richness as they go further into their own experiences. The monk will go through awakenings and ascensions internally while the adventurer may have these same experiences externally.
I also wonder if curiosity necessarily leads to perspective shifts? I can imagine that reading many books can expand one’s perspective or add to one’s mental model of the world without causing a radical shifting in perspective.
On the other hand I can also imagine that someone who is persuaded to join an extremist group of who is swept up by a conspiracy theory or multiple conspiracy theories would report a radical perspective shift without necessarily being a curious person. What do you think?
This text moves me. The reason is that, for a long period in my life, I had to address several difficult challenges. At the same time, I pushed myself tremendously hard. So I recognize the idea that difficult experiences can change your perspective. But I also know that I do not need more drama for life to feel rich.
Today, when I meet people from that time and they ask, “How are you?” I answer: “My days are undramatic, and I love it.”
At the same time, I would say that I act on my curiosity more today than I ever have. Thank you, Todd. Important text!
Is 'psychological richness' simply a consequence of exercised autonomy?
Beautiful piece Todd. My personal observation is similar. My experience of rebuilding is sometimes like a roller coaster, sometimes deeply psychologically rich even with heartbreak or distress underneath. These are different tracks, I can be both be distressed and have high wellbeing, purpose, or levels of richness.
I wonder if environment or the more ordinary is the key, the coherence of ordinary life.
Beautiful and thought provoking piece Todd. I’ll support your ideas with a personal observation
Given my own experiences rebuilding, I’m sometimes frustrated that my efforts to incorporate richness into life don’t amount to much; I’m still in my first year as a new widower and am intentionally exploring novel things in hopes of growth and rediscovery. Yet, sometimes I feel like a deeply rich life is merely a battered ping pong ball enduring an exciting international tournament. It’s still hollow.
My work is extremely purposeful. I very recently helped my company get through a workplace suicide and the aftermath of a major tragedy in LaGuardia, both very profound perspective-changing experiences.
Despite the abundance of purpose and richness, I sometimes still struggle to connect with meaning or general happiness. Hedonic moments emerge (who doesn’t like a Dorito once in a while?) but without a capacity to facilitate integration, these rich moments can lack resonance.