Some people seem to have permanently sunny outlooks, while others never stop complaining. Naturally, scientists have asked why.
In a famous 1996 study, University of Minnesota researchers David Lykken and Auke Tellegen analyzed well-being questionnaires answered by 254 twins over a 10-year period. They found that identical twins’ happiness was much more closely paired over time than that of fraternal twins. In a smaller sample of twins separated in infancy and reared apart- removing the influence of a shared environment-the effect was slightly more pronounced.
The authors went on to calculate that about 50 per cent of happiness is genetic. The scientific community is still arguing about the exact numbers, but the basic finding is widely accepted.
If a large part of happiness is inherited, does that mean the rest can be acquired by upgrading your job, your house or where you live?
Decades of research support the theory of hedonic adaptation, sometimes called the “happiness treadmill”: after negative and positive life changes, individuals tend to revert to a baseline level of well-being. One study published in 2011 examined 3,658 Germans who moved into new houses because they were frustrated with their old ones. Housing satisfaction generally rose in the first year and then began falling, though remained higher than before the move. But life satisfaction remained unchanged.
Other studies have found that spikes in well-being after marriage or a job promotion tend to fade within months. On the flip side, even after traumatic changes like widowhood, disability and job loss, happiness levels usually trend upward again (albeit slowly and with more variability).
In other words, chasing material life changes doesn’t offer much joy. Does that mean happiness is out of our control? Not at all, says Sonja Lyubomirsky, a psychology professor at the University of California, Riverside and the author of The Myths of Happiness.
After conducting a 2009 review of 51 “happiness interventions”-including writing letters of gratitude, counting one’s blessings and practising random acts of kindness-
Lyubomirsky and her co-author, Nancy L. Sin, found that these simple activities had a significant effect on well-being. In addition, savouring positive experiences tended to increase appreciation of them.
“Happiness is not something where you either have it or you don’t. You definitely can do something about it,” says Lyubomirsky.
Since 2006, David Suzuki has scored at or near the top of the Reader’s Digest Most Trusted Canadian poll. Today, at age 79, the celebrated broadcaster, scientist and activist describes himself first and foremost as an elder. For those who know him best as the level-headed host of CBC’s The Nature of Things, this Suzuki is a different kind of voice: more personal, more provocative, more passionate. Here, your Most Trusted Canadian Influencer of 2015 talks about his love of Kraft Dinner, the nature of our national identity and a plan for the environment in which we can all believe.
You’ve recently become a grandfather for the sixth time. What’s it like to welcome a grandchild into today’s world?
It’s very, very mixed. I’d never say it’s too late for the planet, but I’ve been around long enough to see where all the curves are going. When my two youngest daughters each got pregnant, my question was, “Look, you know what the situation is. Why are you doing this?” And what they said was interesting: that if you don’t have a child, you haven’t really made a commitment to the future. And that you’ll fight like mad for the future because you’ve made that commitment.
Is that sentiment part of your new book, Letters to My Grandchildren?
I thought that fatherhood was the greatest thing that ever happened to me. But having grandchildren is even better. Even in the best father-child relationship, there are times when one of you is angry with the other. You end up yelling or stomping out or whatever. With grandchildren, it’s different. They don’t see the flaws from living with you full- time. I was thinking back on my two sets of grandparents. Beyond simple exchanges, I never talked to them because they couldn’t speak English and I couldn’t speak Japanese. When they died, I felt terrible that I never got to ask the deep questions: Why did you come to Canada? What was it like when you came? Why did you stay, and are you glad? I’d like to leave some explanation about who I am and why I’ve done what I’ve done for my grandchildren.
How does it feel to be so trusted by Canadians?
I’m very honoured, but it does carry this huge responsibility. You know, I never really learned to cook, and when I went to college, one of the things I depended on was Kraft Dinner. To me, it’s comfort food. I remember I was shopping in Toronto and this woman came up and said, “You eat Kraft Dinner! I can’t believe it! How disappointing!” I thought, This is what you get from notoriety. But I’m just a human being, and I’m fallible.
Some people are afraid to call themselves environmentalists because of this “gotcha” kind of criticism. They feel they’re not “good” enough-they drive cars, fly in airplanes, don’t always eat organic food, and so on.
We don’t have the infrastructure to be ecologically neutral. Right now, the important thing is to share ideas and change minds, and the way I do that is by meeting with people or speaking. Unfortunately, in Canada, that means I have to fly, and flying generates a lot of greenhouse gases. Still, it doesn’t mean that we don’t need to try to minimize our ecological footprint. I did that by trying not to use a car, or when I needed to, I bought the first Prius [electric car] sold in Canada. We have a rule in our household: if you’re going to work or school, you take a bus or walk. We’ve reduced our garbage output to about one green bag a month, and I think we can reduce it further. But every time I jump in a plane, it negates everything else I do to live sustainably.
Why do you think it’s important that Canadians make these efforts to be environmentally sustainable when, as you say, we all live in an unsustainable system?
It’s an acknowledgement that these things matter. We have to at least try because we’re hoping to convince others that they all have to try, too. But there are different levels of contribution each person can make. In Canada, our highest level of contribution is our prime minister. He’s got to do the big things that we individually can’t do, like make a commitment to getting off fossil fuels and 100 per cent onto renewable forms of energy.
We live in an age of information overload. How can Canadians know whom to trust when it comes to environmental issues?
This morning I heard a corporate executive, a pipeline guy, saying, “We’ve got state-of-the-art technology, don’t worry.” And I’m thinking, What the hell else is he going to say? He’s a pipeline guy. Is he going to say, “We only detect five per cent of the oil leaks every year,” or “Once a spill happens, there’s not a lot we can do”? Why do we even bother listening to those people?
But you could say the same thing about environmentalists-that it’s just a propaganda battle between environmental groups and industry or the government.
I know that some people believe environmentalists are trying to scare you so they get more money. That’s just an astounding critique. Environmentalists are scrounging for dollars-an organization like the David Suzuki Foundation depends completely on ordinary people donating $30, $50 a year.
So there are easier ways to get rich.
A lot easier. The idea that people are going to somehow get rich by being environmentalists is laughable.
What sources of information do you rely on?
I read books. I go to Huffington Post, which I know is very middle-of-the-road. I read National Post columnist Andrew Coyne, even though I disagree with him a lot of the time, and I’m a big fan of Guardian columnist George Monbiot. The one source I read consistently is DeSmogBlog. I think they’re fantastic. But it’s a very sad time for media. That’s why the CBC is so important. Yet it’s being cut back so drastically-the one source showing Canada to itself is becoming toothless.
In 2012, you famously wrote that “environmentalism has failed.” Is your new Blue Dot campaign-to legally recognize our right to a healthy environment-a response to that realization?
I’d come to a point where I wasn’t exactly saying, “We’ve gotta give up,” but I didn’t know where to go next. To deal with our environmental challenges in a serious way, we have to modify everything. So how do you go about shifting society? There’s no magic bullet. But then environmental lawyer David Boyd came to us and said, “Do you know that more than 100 countries have some kind of protection for a healthy environment written into their constitution, and Canada doesn’t?” I immediately said, “That’s it!” A constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to a healthy environment shifts the conversation.
How have Canadians responded?
We originally thought we’d be on our way if we could get one community to approve a declaration of the Right to a Healthy Environment within six months. The city of Richmond, B.C., signed it three weeks after the Blue Dot tour started. We now have Montreal, Vancouver, Yellowknife and The Pas in northern Manitoba signed on, and dozens of other communities where people are trying to get a declaration passed. The campaign has taken off. What we’re saying is that if you really believe that clean air, clean water and clean soil should be among our highest priorities as a country, then you’ve got to get out there and get involved. You’ve got to fight for it.
We used to have a reputation for being a green country. Of course, it has never been that simple-we were criticized in the past for cutting down old-growth forests and overfishing, for example. And yet, it does seem that something has changed. Would you agree?
Yeah, that’s a part of Canada’s mythology. Well, the country was dragged reluctantly to that point by the environmental movement. Having said that, when the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro happened in 1992, opposition politicians, environmentalists and youth activists participated and were sponsored by the government. Canada was definitely committed to that process. What you see now is something fundamentally different. I just can’t get into the head of a person like our current prime minister. He’s not a builder. He is divisive.
Do you think Canadians have a special connection to our natural environment?
Over 90 per cent of Canadians say nature is critical to our identity and who we are. But the reality is that 80 per cent of us live in big cities, where the highest priority is having a job. We’ve come to accept that the economy is our government’s highest priority. The fact is, the average child today spends far less time outside than in front of a computer or iPad. We’re living in a world that is separated from nature.
What did nature mean to you as a child?
Being in nature was what we did. It was fun. Dad was an avid gardener, he loved collecting wild bonsai, and he was an avid fisherman. I never thought, Oh, we’re getting out in nature and I’m connecting with it. Nature was a part of who I was.
What changes in the natural world have you observed over the course of your own lifetime?
To me, one of the most profound ideas is shifting baselines-the way we are constantly changing our concept of what is normal. I was born in Vancouver in 1936, and when I was little, my dad and I would go to the mouth of the Fraser River and catch sturgeon. There used to be an annual salmon derby in English Bay, right off of downtown, with thousands of dollars in prizes. That was cancelled 30-odd years ago when there was nothing left to catch. The changes have been immense within my lifetime. In America they used to say, “That’s the price of progress.” We need a different definition of progress.
Such as?
A way of living a healthy, happy life, within a healthy environment and a community that gives us meaning and dignity.
What does time spent in nature mean to you now?
To be honest, I’m at an age where a lot of things-like backpacking, which I love-aren’t as easy as they once were. When you’re younger, you revel in it-if it rains, what the hell, you live with it. Now it’s, Oh, God, I’m going to be cold. And my wife has had a severe heart failure, and we can’t go anywhere where we don’t have access to medical care, so long, wild trips probably aren’t going to happen anymore. But I still call nature my medicine. I love getting out where you don’t have to worry about, “Oh, another voice mail,” or all the email you’re going to have. We’ve complicated our lives so much, it’s unhealthy.
We’re in an election year. What topics would you like to see on the political agenda?
We’re facing a catastrophic moment with climate change, and we’ve seen this crazy plunge in the price of oil. It’s an opportunity to really talk about the energy future of this country, and we’re not. What we need to do is have more Canadians engaged in the political process. I’m telling parents, you’ve got to be eco-warriors fighting to make the future of your children a political issue. You’ve got to force candidates to make a statement about where young people’s futures lie in their political agendas. We’ve got to reclaim democracy.
It seems to me that your public persona is evolving. You’re not just the gentle scientist from The Nature of Things I knew growing up-you seem angrier.
I think it’s passion more than anger. I never apologize for being passionate. But it is interesting. I am getting angrier because I’m speaking now as a grandfather and an elder. I think it’s our job to be pissed off! We have a very important role because we don’t have to worry about getting fired or losing a promotion or a raise. Elders are free to speak the truth from our hearts. There has never been a time to be more frightened and angry than now, so if that’s the way I’m perceived, good. I embrace it!
So you’re not planning to fade from the public eye any time soon.
My wife has finally got me to stop saying “retirement.” She says, “You’re doing what you want to do and what you enjoy doing, and you believe in what you’re doing-what better thing could you do with your life?” I’ll keep going as long as I can.
J.B. MacKinnon is co-author of The 100-Mile Diet. His most recent book is the national bestseller The Once and Future World: Nature As It Was, As It Is, As It Could Be.
Earlier this year, in the final few seconds of the game, a football coach made a decision that cost his team the Super Bowl. The Seattle Seahawks’ Pete Carroll changed a play that left his star running back-the best in the league-without a shot at the ball, and his team without the win.
They watched as quarterback Tom Brady leaped for joy when his New England Patriots took the game with a slight edge, the final score 28-24. “I hate that we have to live with that,” Carroll said after the match, “because we did everything right to win the football game.” It was a decision he’d question long into the off-season.
Whether it’s failing to land a lucrative contract, being narrowly outbid on the house of your dreams or losing a hard-fought game of Scrabble, life is full of near misses. Two University of Pennsylvania professors studying the issue in the 1980s coined the term “outcome bias.” Loosely defined, it refers to those times after a success or a failure when we put too much stock in the action we took, even if we fell victim to bad luck. For example, if you flip a coin, call tails and it lands heads, you might scold yourself-even though either decision was perfectly reasonable. The truth is, good strategies don’t lead to success 100 per cent of the time.
Think strategy, not results
What’s more, bad outcomes can beget bad decisions-and more bad outcomes. Last year, a group of scientists from Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah, published a study on NBA head coaches, whose job security depends almost entirely on team performance. In such a highly scrutinized environment, a knee-jerk reaction to a tough loss, or complacency after a big win, can be both hard to avoid and detrimental to future success.
The researchers showed that NBA coaches reacted to narrow defeats by making changes to their starting lineups, even though the losses were generally a matter of chance, not strategy or team play. “We judge ourselves or others harshly based on the outcome, when it was impossible to know when we were making the decision,” says Lars Lefgren, one of the study’s authors.
Unfortunately, we’re all susceptible to outcome bias. No one thinks as analytically with the adrenalin of a victory or disappointment from a loss running through their veins, particularly if the answer to the question “What could I have done differently?” is “Not much.” In these cases, Lefgren says, your gut instinct will be to beat yourself up or find a short-term solution. Ignore it-don’t forsake a strong strategy because of a single outcome.
Examine all angles
Martin Antony, a psychology professor at Ryerson University in Toronto, says it’s natural for people to only pay attention to information that’s consistent with their beliefs. For example, if you’re someone who feels responsible for the consequences of your decisions regardless of outside elements, you might be ignoring other relevant causes. Try not to dismiss them. “Force yourself to look at all of the different factors responsible,” Antony says. He recommends asking yourself questions that will challenge your beliefs, such as: “If I were to share my interpretation with a close friend, would they agree with me?” or “Will this still be important to me tomorrow? Next week? Next year?” Talking to a friend who’s not invested in the situation or working through the angles in writing can also be useful.
Even if you do find yourself to blame after taking stock of a situation, move on and adjust your expectations. “It’s not the end of the world,” Antony says. “Part of learning to become an expert at something is making mistakes. You’d never learn to play the piano unless you got the notes wrong a whole bunch of times.”
Let emotions settle
When things don’t go well, we may react emotionally and quickly take steps to rectify the situation. Instead, Lefgren suggests waiting it out until you have a better idea of what went awry and aren’t planning next steps based on anger or disappointment that you’ll regret. “If you have the luxury, don’t make a decision immediately,” says Lefgren. “Count on the fact that, over time, luck averages out.”
David Fairless of Daysland, Alta., writes, “My son, Sam, is very curious about nature. This shot was taken near Onoway, Alta., several years ago.”
Send in your funny one-liners through the comments below or here (please identify it is an entry for Caption Corner)!
Sheri Patterson of Sherwood Park, Alta, writes, “My mom bought this item at a garage sale. It measures 10¼ inches in height from the base to the top of the brass ring. Brass knobs hang from the four round, wooden sections, and the base swivels. We hope someone can help solve this mystery!”
Submit your answers in the comments below or here (please identify it is an entry for What Is It).
Number of servings : 6
Prep time:
Cooking time:
Type of meal : | Main Courses | Main Courses
Special diet : | Vegetarian
Ingredients
3 cups (750 mL) zucchini, shredded
3 eggs
1/3 cup (75 mL) all-purpose flour
1/2 tsp (2 mL) salt
2 cups (500 mL) part-skim mozzarella cheese, shredded
2 small tomatoes, halved and thinly sliced
1/2 cup (125 mL) onion, chopped
1/2 cup (125 mL) green pepper, julienned
1 tsp (5 mL) dried oregano
1/2 tsp (2 mL) dried basil
3 tbsp (45 mL) Parmesan cheese, grated
Directions
Nutritional information:
Number of servings : 5
Prep time:
Cooking time:
Type of meal : | Soups | Soups
Special diet : | Vegetarian
Ingredients
1 cup (250 mL) uncooked small pasta
2 celery ribs, thinly sliced
2 medium carrots, thinly sliced
1 medium onion, chopped
1 tbsp (15 mL) olive oil
1 garlic clove, minced
2 cups (500 mL) water
1 can (14 1/2 oz or 410 g) tomatoes, diced and undrained
1 1/4 cups (300 mL) reduced-sodium chicken or vegetable broth
1 tsp (5 mL) dried basil
1/2 tsp (2 mL) dried rosemary, crushed
1/4 tsp (1 mL) salt
1/8 tsp (0.5 mL) pepper
1 can (15 oz or 425 g) white kidney or cannellini beans, rinsed and drained
2 cups (500 mL) fresh spinach, shredded
1/4 cup (50 mL) Parmesan cheese, grated (optional)
Directions
1. Cook pasta according to package directions, strain and set aside. Meanwhile, in large non-stick saucepan, sauté celery, carrots and onion in oil for 5 minutes. Add garlic; cook 1 minute longer.
2. Stir in water, tomatoes, broth, basil, rosemary, salt and pepper. Bring to a boil. Reduce heat, cover and simmer for 10 minutes or until carrots are tender.
3. Stir pasta into vegetable mixture. Add beans and heat through. Stir in spinach; cook until spinach is wilted, about 2 minutes. Sprinkle with Parmesan cheese if desired.
Nutritional information:
If you have heard of the microbiome at all, you likely have no idea what to make of it.
In recent years, scientists have published a series of discoveries linking changes in the trillions of micro-organisms that coexist peacefully in our skin, mouth and especially our gut-whose collective genomes are known as the microbiome-to health problems as diverse as asthma, cancer and obesity. Yet, apart from a growing chorus of questionable Internet gurus, advice on how to acquire a better microbiome is scarce.
There is good reason for that. Scientists emphasize that, while we know that microbiomes differ from culture to culture, person to person and even day to day, we don’t yet know exactly what a “good” gut composition looks like. However, at this point, the broad strokes of microbiome research point toward changes to our habits we know to be beneficial.
“The function and diversity of this community is affected by lifestyle choices, the most important of which is what you eat,” says Justin Sonnenburg, a microbiologist at the Stanford University School of Medicine in California and the co-author of a forthcoming book about the microbiome and health. “It’s early days, but if you take the whole body of literature
and distill it, it’s screaming some really obvious things at us.”
In two studies published together in an August 2013 issue of Nature, scientists from Danish, French, German, Chinese, Spanish, Dutch and British research centres reported that individuals with less diverse microbiomes tended to have more body fat and higher insulin resistance than those with more bacterial richness. In overweight individuals, a high-fibre diet with lots of fruits and vegetables increased bacterial richness and led to improved clinical symptoms of obesity. Fibre-rich foods, which we already know are better for us, are likely better for our microbiomes, too.
What about antibiotics, which kill the good bacteria along with the bad? These drugs are still our best line of defence against many common and potentially life-threatening ailments; when antibiotics are necessary, make sure to nurture your microbiome. A 2012 meta-analysis published in The Journal of the American Medical Association found that adults and children who consumed probiotic products had a lower risk of diarrhea after using antibiotics.
Is it fair to say that Canada Reads is Survivor for bookworms?
It is a classic reality-show format. We start with five books, with five prominent Canadians defending them. Each day, we vote off a book until we’re left with one. Breaking barriers is this year’s theme.
Last year, you defended Joseph Boyden’s The Orenda and won the competition. Any advice for the 2015 advocates?
The contest benefits the well-prepared. I sat with every one of the books and read them very thoroughly. I considered strengths and weaknesses. I went online and tested out different arguments, measuring the amount of likes, retweets, favourites. Social media was my polling group.
This edition pits a singer (Martha Wainwright) against an actress (Kristin Kreuk) against a movie guru (Cameron Bailey) against an activist (Craig Kielburger) against a professional gossip (Elaine Lui). Who’s got the edge?
The only thing I’ll say is that a person who’s super well-known is probably super busy-they may expect to coast on charisma, but you need substance as well as style. This is more than a show about books and a chance to celebrate Canadian authors. It’s an opportunity to address issues you care about in front of a national audience.
In 2012 you hosted a series called 8th Fire about the need to improve relations between First Nations and the rest of Canada. Three years on, do you see progress?
There has been more attention paid to political issues like Idle No More and First Nations education in the mainstream media. Musicians like A Tribe Called Red and writers like Boyden and Richard Wagamese are crossing over. We have a long way to go, but I think many Canadians are starting to engage with these issues in a meaningful way.
You recently filled in as the host of Q on CBC Radio. You’re hosting Canada Reads. You’re a musician and a social activist. The comparisons to Jian Ghomeshi are inevitable. How have you handled that?
My approach is just to be straight-up and do my best to deal with it. With Canada Reads, it doesn’t make sense to speak specifically about what happened. I don’t have insight into Ghomeshi’s case. But I do feel like I’m watching the broader conversation, whether it’s around Q, Bill Cosby or the NFL, and it seems like a good chance to speak about sexual misconduct and gender violence.
On a lighter note, you got to interview Paul McCartney!
That was huge. I’m not a diehard Beatles fan, but I have tremendous respect for the band. To hear McCartney say “Hey, Wab” was like, whaaaa! I felt warm and fuzzy.
If I’m a guest genie and I can grant you your dream guests, who would they be?
Edward Snowden and Barack Obama, for sure.
I thought you were going to say Rihanna. I hear you have a crush on her.
Ha! Yeah, but where do I take that?
Canada Reads runs from March 16 to 19.
Norma Sherrer of Brigham, Que., shares this pic snapped by her friend, Karen Ingalls. “It depicts what spring in Quebec is all about,” writes Norma. “Even this heifer is enjoying the sap!”
Send in your funny one-liners through the comments below or here (please identify it is an entry for Caption Corner)!
