Man Doesn’t Like Working, Is Well, Has Swagger

There’s something fairly epic about the life of Benedict, aka Ultra Romance, a tattooed, muscle-bound, bushy-beard-wearing, bike-touring, not-so-fond-of-working, foraged-food-eating, $10-a-day-living nomad. A recent article in Business Insider called attention to his adventures and I think you’ll be glad they did. While his lifestyle might not be for everyone, it is testimony that life can be as much a choice as a prescription.

ultraromance-beach

Since leaving college 15 years ago, the 35 year-old hasn’t spent more than six months in any one locale. He splits his year working and relaxing. Six months are spent as a commercial or charter fisherman. The other six are spent going where he pleases aboard his touring bike (he seems to be a big fan of Grant Petersen’s Rivendell Bicycle Works). He definitely falls into the “work to live” category, seeing it as a means to support his ultralight, adventure-and-relaxation packed lifestyle. He told Business Insider, “We have this preconceived notion of what success is in the modern world…[but] I’m not ashamed that I don’t like to work. It’s just very unnatural.” He says that in hunter-gatherer days, people worked a fraction of the hours they do today (BI pegs it at around 47 hours a week), and that most of their time was devoted to leisure.

ultraromance-forage

He says that he has his expenses down to a mere $10 a day. This is supported by the fact that he spends most every night camping out, claiming that he spent only 15 nights indoors in the last year. In terms of food, he supplements his simple diet with a healthy dose of foraged greens and berries. When he’s near the coast he eats seaweed and crabs.

It’s easy to dismiss someone like Benedict as an outlying kook–someone whose extreme lifestyle can only work in the most particular circumstances (i.e. single, healthy, male). But this dismissal would miss an important point. The fact is there are people choosing their lives all around us–they are single women, families of five, older folks and many other situations. What they all have in common is that they have chosen to have less overhead, requiring less money and work in order to support a life of richer experiences, deeper relationships and more leisure.

Read more about Benedict in Business Insider and check out his amazing Instagram feed.

HT to Tim F

Whose Life Are You Living?

Are there things that concern you more than your time?

Jack Johnson

This site often features things like cool design, architecture and demographic trends–novel, interesting things, but ultimately things that hint at important things. At our heart, LifeEdited is about an existential query. Beneath the cool designs and analysis is the fundamental question: “What will we focus on during the life we have?” We want to ask whether we are going to focus on stuff we find important–relationships, experiences, health, contributing something unique to the world? Or are we going to focus on stuff that might not be so important–jobs just kept to pay for a house that’s bigger than we need, time spent doing excessive cleaning, reading inane top ten lists on the internet and so forth (you can make your own lists). If we find ourselves spending more time in the latter category than the former, might we be able to edit some of the unimportant stuff out of the narrative of our lives?

A few months ago I wrote about unMonastery, an activist collective that uses disused real estate to provide free lodging; they want to give people the ability to pursue endeavors free from economic concern. As I mentioned back then, the question “what would you do if money was no object?” can be a threatening one for many of us. We might not even deign to answer it lest it create too much dissonance between the answer and how we are currently living. But just because the question is not asked doesn’t mean there’s not an answer. The answer is there if we take the time to ask and answer.

Today, take three minutes to watch this video by writer and philosopher Alan Watts. In plain language, he describes the absurdity of living a life in pursuit of money and the expectations others have of you. Moreover, how this way of life can set forth patterns of behavior for generations to come.

I don’t think the implication of Watts’ statements is that course correction is a simple or easy thing. Merely that living a life that is not aligned with who we are and what we find important is not a path to living a happy, meaningful life.

You Probably Don’t Need That

The world is brimming with awesome stuff. Amazing products. Gorgeous clothes. Exquisite artifacts. Fast cars. And electronics. So many awesome electronics! Smartphones, laptops and apps galore. There’s no question that we live in an age of unfathomable material bounty. And you know what? In nine cases out of ten, the chances are that you don’t need any of this stuff. Your current stuff probably works great. Your clothes clothe you with style and function (okay, you might need a couple pair of new socks). Your current car works great (it might need an oil change). And electronics, oh electronics–your iPhone 4 is awesome (like Star Trek, holy-crap awesome); your four year old laptop that starts up reliably, is a marvel–maybe not a marvel like the one that just came out yesterday, but a marvel nonetheless; and c’mon, you know you’re probably not going to use that awesome app in a week.

Remember, all of our stuff has an impact, be that impact psychological, financial, spatial (i.e. clutter) or environmental (the latter point can’t be overstated). The best course is normally to just not get it. And if you do get it, if you determine it’s something you really need, or, more likely, really want, make it count. Get the great stuff. Stuff you’ll cherish, care for and keep.

So if you’re on the fence about getting some new stuff, just remember, the stuff you have is awesome. You probably don’t need that.

Just say no image via Shutterstock

What is Ephemeralization and Why it Matters

In 1956, IBM offered its RAMAC 105 digital storage system. It was the size of two refrigerators and cost about $1.4M in 2014 dollars. It held an industry-leading 5MB of storage on its 50, 24″ platters. 25 years later, the Seagate Corporation introduced the ST-506, the first 5.25″ disk storage drive. It could fit on your desk, stored the same 5MB of storage as the IBM and cost a mere $4500 in 2014 dollars. A minute ago, I searched Amazon and found a SanDisk 32GB thumb drive; it’s smaller than a lighter and cost $18.35, which includes free shipping through Prime. The respective price per gigabyte for each unit in 2014 dollars is $286M, $307K and $.57.

The evaporating cost and size of digital storage exemplifies (at least) two principles. The first–the one you’re probably thinking of–is Moore’s Law, which posits that the number of transistors in a dense integrated circuit doubles approximately every two years. This compounded rate of technological progress is how we are able to fit computers in our pockets that are more powerful than ones that used to require warehouses.

The other principle is called ephemeralization, a term coined by Buckminster Fuller. He believed that technological advancement would one day allow humans to do “more and more with less and less until eventually you can do everything with nothing.”

Ephemeralization is relatively easy to grasp with digital technology, where the mass and volume of hardware has gotten increasing small, while the computational capabilities have gotten gigantic. To better understand how it applies to other realms, we suggest checking out the above video by dMass, an organization that sees “enormous potential for businesses to leverage innovation to deliver more benefits to more people with fewer resources–to do better with less on a large scale,” according to their website. They seek to take Bucky’s ideas and apply them to best business practices, something that pays significant economic and environmental dividends.

The dMass video’s narrator Howard J Brown recounts the story of the bridge, which Bucky would use to illustrate how ephemeralization works. The first bridge was a huge amount of rocks placed in a river to span the divide from one bank to another. When the rocks stopped the flow of water, early humans put a hole in the wall of rocks, leading to fewer materials to span the same divide (i.e. wall minus rocks that occupied hole). When those rocks fell down, they optimized the opening by creating an arch (still fewer rocks). People refined the arch until it required fewer and fewer materials to support a bridge’s weight. There was a continual refinement and evolution up to the modern suspension bridge, which uses a fraction of the relative materials of the stone-filled river, yet is infinitely more capable of spanning divides and bearing weight. Bucky said that eventually you could even do away with the wires and all other forms of mass to make a bridge. He would point to the invisible tether between the earth and moon–the two bodies have a perfect, but formless, massless tension and compression holding them together. Why couldn’t everything be like that?

In the video, Brown says that ephemeralization can be applied everywhere. Whereas computer progress has moved along with great rapidity, other things like home building are more or less carried out the same way they were 100 years ago from a resource management standpoint.

While the phenomenon of ephemeralization is particularly relevant with industrial design, dMass’s co-founder and CEO Kathryn Lewis told us that ephemeralization is affecting the public through things like the maker movement, where “individuals will increasingly exert greater control over the resources and inputs that deliver benefits.” She sees people being able to create a “hyper-customized lifestyle that offers the potential to do better with less.”

She went on to say things like “open source information distribution, the sharing economy, crowdsourcing, modularity, and the trend toward multifunctional goods, and onsite resource recapture” exemplify how ephemeralization are playing out in our lives in concrete ways. Think about it: one shared car might serve ten people, reducing material needs ninefold from individual car ownership; or one transforming bed/sofa might convert a bedroom into an office, reducing the materials needs required to have two separate rooms.

While living with less sometimes means doing without, at a certain point even the most ardent minimalist is confronted with inescapable material needs. Ephemeralization is a way of approaching those needs, seeing how the things we have do achieve the most using the least amount of resources.

The Week of Living Connectedly

As regular LifeEdited readers know, I am no tech zealot. Sure, I use the stuff copiously. I have up-to-date gadgets: 15″ Macbook Pro with SSD, iPhone 5, iPad 2, etc. I am pretty facile with social media: Facebook, Twitter, Instagram. I know my way around apps, how pay bills online and troubleshoot my network printer when it goes offline. But I am no true believer. I certainly don’t believe in salvation through technology. I shudder when I see people glued to their phones. I find the concept of the Singularity frightening. Like many of us who were not fully immersed in technology from the womb, people who remember vinyl, landlines and bunny-ear antennae, I hold onto a certain degree of technological nostalgia. I often wonder whether we’d be better off if technological progress stopped right after humans figured out how to stop plagues.

In many ways, because of these beliefs and prejudices, I don’t give tech a chance. I don’t see how it can and does improve my life. I wonder what my relationship to tech would be if I were to let go of these beliefs and take on the idea my friend Jason Silva calls “radical openness”–a state abetted by technology, where the free-flowing exchanges of ideas initiates an unprecedented rate of growth for human evolution and consciousness? What if technology is here to help me grow and connect with something greater than myself?

So I am conducting an experiment. Rather than going on a tech and online media fast as many are wont to do nowadays, I’m going to pig out for the next seven days, I’m going to avail myself of as much technology as I can and be as connected and reachable as possible. I even took my first selfie (though it may be my last).

Here’s where I’ll start:

  • Turning on all of my chats: Facebook, Google +, G chat. (they’re all black right now. Skype is reserved for work).
  • At least 10 tweets/day.
  • At least three Instagram pics/day.
  • Share at least five things/day I’m reading across various social media channels.
  • Regularly checking in my location with Facebook and Four Square.
  • Experimenting with other social networking sites such as Nextdoor.com.
  • Most important, I will be proactive in reaching out to others–i.e. not just a passive observer of the others who do share (I think this is the big one).

You are personally invited to find me, engage me, introduce yourself, drop me a message, if you happen to see that I’m near you, say hi to me. Share your ideas for LifeEdited, your editing challenges and triumphs, you experiences with tech, whatever. Below is where you can find me online:

I’ll be reporting regularly on my experience and write up a summary on this site next week. I look forward to meeting you on the interwebs and exchanging ideas.

Yes, Families Can be Minimalists Living in Small Houses

When LifeEdited received a bunch of press a couple years ago, our founder, 420 sq ft apartment-dwelling Graham Hill became a whipping boy for the pared-down life. “Sure,” the chorus cried, “It’s easy for a single guy to live this way. All he needs to do is take care of himself. He can live in a small, white box. He can get away with a small amount of stuff. But I’ve got a family. Kids need stuff and space, otherwise they’re unhappy. And when they’re unhappy, it makes my life hard, and then I’m unhappy. Don’t tell me to be unhappy!” [I’m paraphrasing slightly].

To some (small) extent, the charge that families need extra space and stuff is accurate. Whereas one person needs one pair of shoes, four people need four pairs; that’s three more pairs of shoes, and more shoes require more space. But to suggest that having a family necessitates a large amount of stuff and space–one that is preclusive to living a materially simplified life–is more fiction than fact.

I live in a 675 sq ft apartment with my wife and almost-two year old son, and we’re doing just fine. And I would content that families have a greater imperative to live pared down, minimal lives than single people. Graham can afford to have extra stuff in his closets (and he does ;-). He has a whopping 420 sq ft of floorspace all to himself. We have 225 each–with less storage.

When families start accumulating excessive stuff, things can get hairy quickly. There can be mountains of toys and accessories to buy, manage, maintain and, most difficultly, keep contained. We have kept our son’s clothes and toys at modest levels, which, coupled with our easy-to-manage house size, makes clean up a breeze (admittedly, it’s a breeze that passes through the house several times a day).

Incidentally, my family stayed in the LifeEdited Apartment quite a few times. While an extra wall-offed room would have been ideal, the built-in storage was amazingly child-proof and the small size made it easy to keep an eye on our son. A playground a block away helped greatly as well.

If you don’t believe me, here are a few other families who are living edited lives:

  1. The Sragues (video at top) are a Texas family of four who share a 260 sq ft home. The couple have two sons (six and eight years old) and have lived in their home for six years. Granted, their house is part of father Scott Sprague’s mother’s house and I’m sure they hang out there regularly. And there is ample yard space to offset the interior space. But taking a tour of their home makes it clear that the Spragues are the real deal–they have removed all extraneous elements from their home. The most interesting thing Scott says about this type of compacted living is that there is no room for avoiding issues. The space necessitates speedy resolutions to conflicts.
  2. Leo Babauta writes books and is the author of the popular Zen Habits blog. He’s the Brad Pitt of the minimalist world. And like Pitt, he has a large posse of children–six to be exact. He disagrees with the notion that minimalism can’t be done with families. He wrote a great post the other day about how to do minimalism with your family. The first tip is starting with yourself. Truer words couldn’t be spoken.
  3. If you’re new to the parenting game, Treehugger’s Katherine Martinko has 16 great suggestions for not accumulating 2,000 lbs of stuff for a 10 lb baby.

This is by no stretch a comprehensive list (there are oodles of other minimalist family blogs). It’s more to show that how we choose to live–whether minimalist or maximalist, whether in a large space or small, whether alone, in a couple, or a family (of any size)–is our choice, not something prescribed by the laws of physics.

Terror, Cold Showers and Living Life to Its Fullest

What is it that keeps us from doing the things we most want to do in life? On the surface, we have myriad reasons: lack of time, money, skill, natural aptitude, poor timing, a spouse, kids, etc. But when we dig a little deeper, we realize it’s usually garden variety fear that’s holding us back. Point of fact, we aren’t even afraid of doing stuff. Consciously or not, we are afraid of the discomfort we anticipate we will feel when we do that stuff–it’s basically that fear of fear FDR was talking about. Rather than enduring the few, brief, uncomfortable pinpricks necessary to confront our fears and move forward, many of us accept slow-drip fear, ongoing, mild discomfort, existential inertia and lives half-lived (sorry if that sounds harsh).

The capacity to act in the face of fear and discomfort is at the heart of a short (free!) eBook called “The Flinch” by Julien Smith (incidentally, the guy behind Breather).

The Flinch’s thesis is pretty straightforward: years of evolution have given humans the flinch, a biological mechanism designed to warn us of and keep us away from danger. Back in the day, we would flinch at an approaching animal, for example, because it might cause us bodily harm (this particular flinch might serve us in the present day, I suppose). We flinched at the novel and unknown, because in that unknown may lie danger. This evolutionary mechanism, so useful when being chased by a pack of hyenas, has become a total liability in the modern world where the vast majority of threats are more perceptual than actual. We flinch at having a tough conversation, starting a new project, asking for help, etc. Smith says this of our reaction to flinch-worthy stimuli:

When coming across something they know will make them flinch, most people have been trained to refuse the challenge and turn back. It’s a reaction that brings up old memories and haunts you with them. It tightens your chest and makes you want to run. It does whatever it must do to prevent you from moving forward. If the flinch works, you can’t do the work that matters because the fear it creates is too strong.

Yet these flinches and their associative fears of the unknown, the foreshadowing of danger based on memories of past injuries, have little or no basis in what’s going on in the present moment, much less real danger. Rarely does anything truly awful–or anything that can’t be reversed fairly easily–happen when we face the things that scares us. We are flinching at our imaginations.

All of this wouldn’t be that big of a deal were it not for the impact. In our avoidance of the flinch, we avoid our lives. As Smith writes, there are no good stories without overcoming our flinch mechanism. He writes:

Behind every moment of courage was a man or woman who faced a difficult internal struggle. When they face it, it becomes an amazing story. They become legends. But if they turn away from the flinch, their stories are unexceptional. They’re like everyone else. They vanish.

What Smith proposes is mastering the flinch. Rather than overcoming it through intellect and will power, he gives homework assignments that put you face-to-face with your flinch mechanism. By far the most provocative is the first assignment. He writes:

Walk up to your shower, and turn on the cold water. Wait a second; then test it to make sure it’s as cold as possible.

Do you see what’s coming? If you do, you should tense up immediately. You should feel it in your chest. You might start laughing to release the tension—and you haven’t even stepped inside. You’re predicting a flinch that hasn’t happened yet. You’re already anxious about it—about something that hasn’t happened and won’t kill you—anxious about something that barely hurts at all.

Ok, do it. Now is the time to step in the shower.

As the cold water hits you, you might shout or squirm. But the discomfort lasts only a second. You quickly get used to it. You get comfortable with cold, instead of trying to avoid it. You put yourself in the path of the shower to speed up the adjustment process.

This is not an exercise in masochism. It’s a way of training yourself, of “seeing the flinch and going forward, not rationalizing your fear and stepping away.” It’s a way to develop a physiological tolerance for facing the things that most scare us–things that pose no real threat (trust me, I have taken prescribed cold showers and lived to tell about it).

[divider]

Editing our lives means evaluating every facet of our lives, determining whether they contribute or detract from our ability to live to our fullest capacity. Extraneous possessions and too much space, in our opinion, can detract from that objective; in the act of managing, purchasing and paying attention to those things, we might take our eyes off the prize of connecting deeply with others, finding meaningful work, etc. But few things cheat us of the minutes, hours, days and years of our lives like fear. The Flinch, while not promising to rid us of fear, does provide a nice little set of tools for dealing and not being stopped by it.

3 Tips for Transitioning Your Aspirations

As a child, few things got me more excited than cars. In particular, I loved European sports cars: Porsches, Ferraris, Lamborghinis, Lotuses and the like. I subscribed to magazines, bought books and memorized specs. Though I had a very vague idea of what a dual overhead cam was, I knew that an AMG Hammer had em.

My car-lust continued unabated until one day I learned about something called global warming. I learned that things humans did and consumed were imperiling the planet’s ability to sustain life. I learned that seemingly benign, everyday things like aerosol cans, refrigerator freon and styrofoam were in fact evil, earth-harming, animal-habitat-destroying substances–things I should stop using immediately.

But it got worse. I learned that those beloved, V8-powered, petroleum-parched cars I loved so much were one of the biggest emitters of greenhouse gasses. The things I aspired to have were destroying the planet.

My situation was far from unique. Many of the popular objects and activities held up as signifiers of success were revealed as net harmers to the planet and the people who live here. Turns out that sparkling jewelry is manufactured by slave labor. Dye runoff from our favorite fashion company’s factory contaminates Bangladeshi groundwater. That fancy designer house in the woods creates sprawl and consumes far more resources than that drab coop in the city. Even the jets that take us to exotic ports of call are acidifying the ocean.

And therein lies one of the bigger challenges of making significant life changes: letting go of aspirations, desires and ideals that no longer align with where we want to take our lives.

These things can be pretty hardwired. For years, we have associated particular stuff with success and happiness, even when these associations are purely a construct of an advertising campaign. A Louis Vuitton handbag (a real one) means you’ve made it. But the more we learn, the more we realize that popular belief doesn’t make something true. As Anthony De Mello put it:

There is only one cause of unhappiness: the false beliefs you have in your head, beliefs so widespread, so commonly held, that it never occurs to you to question them.

Letting go of these associations–in the interest of personal and global welfare–often requires replacement. A sports car is replaced by a hot bike. A big mansion with a tiny house. Carrie Bradshaw with Courtney Carver. But we caution to say that these things–though an improvement–can become more refined versions of the old, politically incorrect stuff we used to aspire to have.

If your old aspirational models are bringing you down, here are a few suggestions that might help replace and/or let them go:

  1. Find new influencers. Generally speaking, we learned what was aspiration-worthy via TV and other traditional media. I wanted a Ferrari Testarossa because Sonny Crockett had one. These influences can be subtle and surprisingly powerful. Find sources of media–like this one ;-)–and friends that speak your new language and share your new values. Our thoughts are a function of our conversations. Make sure those conversations are the right ones for who you want to be. Quarantine yourself from the old conversations if necessary.
  2. Go local for inspiration. It’s easy to desire things from afar. It’s easy to want to live like or have something someone in a TV commercial or fashion ad has; worlds where all problems are edited or photoshopped out. Aspiring to have or be something or someone you are intimate with–with which you are familiar with all its, his or her problems–is a different matter. When we truly know something, we can better determine if we want that for ourselves.
  3. Start with the end goal. When I lusted after cars, I was seeking power–something most boys feel lacking. The problem is fast cars make you fast, not powerful. Remember Be > Do > Have. Start paying attention to the things that produce the desired state, whether it’s power, simplicity, happiness, etc. Investigate and try things for yourself. Don’t take someone else’s word for what will produce these things–and certainly not someone who’s trying to sell you something. Start doing those things more often.

Sergio Gutierrez Getino / Shutterstock.com

Living for a Better Eulogy

There’s a classic exercise in which people are asked to imagine their funerals. Imagine yours. Who would be there? What would be the mood of the room be? Would there be many people in attendance? What would be said in your eulogy? Would you want it to be about your accomplishments, possessions, skill at playing Angry Birds? Or would you want to be remembered for who you were, for how you touched the lives around you, for your part in furthering a mission greater than yourself?

In the short video above, NY Times columnist David Brooks talks about whether we are living a life dedicated to building a better résumé or a better eulogy. Are we interested in the “skills you bring to the marketplace”–the small accomplishments, the things the elevate personal gain? Or are we interested in “who are you, in your depth, what is the nature of your relationships, are you bold, loving, dependable, consistency?”

Brooks confesses that his thought life–like most of us surely–is spent résumé building. Moreover, the world tends to reward our résumé building tendencies, even when a good eulogy is what we want at our core. He claims that “we live in perpetual self-confrontation between the external success and the internal value.”

As they say, we can’t take it with us. The significance of our small accomplishments and cool stuff will fade before the second round of pigs-in-a-blanket are passed at our memorial services. Our character, our love for others, our contribution to something greater than ourselves are the things most likely to endure and certainly be missed.

Take a minute right now to write out your eulogy. Write it from a place of how you want to be remembered–not necessarily how it’d be written based how your current life would conclude. Then take a moment to reflect on whether your life now is building toward that eulogy. If not, what can you do today to start living into that eulogy?

This is Why We Shop When We Don’t Need To

To someone who has drunk the less-is-more Kool-Aid, it’s easy to judge those who shop beyond their needs and financial means. Why do they need so much? Don’t they know what’s going on with our planet? Why would someone rack up credit card debt on something so useless? The answer, so says one study, is that people often shop driven by an earnest belief that the things they buy will make them happier, confident, complete people.

A study called “When Wanting Is Better than Having: Materialism, Transformation Expectations, and Product-Evoked Emotions in the Purchase Process” sought to get to the heart of why people shop. What author Marsha Richins found was that people expected a whole lot from their purchases. Those surveyed thought a purchase would make them happier–an expectation that was particularly true for people considered materialistic (as determined by a questionnaire within the study).

The driving force behind purchases is what Richins calls “transformation expectation,” which is what it sounds like: people expect their purchases to have a transformative effect on their lives. Richins explains:

The idea that goods can transform consumers pervades marketing practice. Advertisements make both implicit and explicit claims about the transformations that will accrue to buyers (Braun-LaTour and LaTour 2005; Puto and Wells 1984). Indeed, some products are purchased expressly for their transformative powers, including cosmetics, virility aids, hair restoration remedies, and weight loss products, all of which promise a transformation of the physical self. Other products–breath mints and attractive clothing, for example–may enhance consumers’ self-confidence or other self feelings. Some products (a new computer, a GPS device for the car) can make one’s life easier, and others (books, music, or recreational equipment) can greatly add to the pleasure experienced in daily life. Indeed, one can argue that the hope for transformations such as these is the driving force behind the acquisition of many consumer goods.

The study includes several excerpts from those surveyed that articulate the narrative that drives people to buy. One woman thought a dishwasher would be the thing that would improve her standing in the world. She says:

I like my home and kitchen clean, and dirty dishes piled up do not make them look clean, and the moment you open the front door that’s what you see is the kitchen sink. If I don’t do them the first impression anybody, even the mailman, would have is “This lady really needs to get her act together.”

Others thought their purchases wouldn’t just improve their lives, but their relationships. One woman who wanted a larger house said this about her desire:

I’d probably have more room to entertain than I do now. I’d probably want to. I’d probably want to be able to show off, show them my house…. I’d probably have more friends, wouldn’t I?

Another man said this about an in-ground pool he wanted to install:

My daughter would have something to do. It would enhance her life and keep her from being bored and therefore she wouldn’t be complaining to me because she’s bored all the time, and then I’d be happier, less stressed. [Apparently, this man wasn’t aware of the stress of maintaining a pool.]

This promise of improving your looks, confidence, comfort, relationships–your self–made people less averse to debt and mismanaging their money, according to the survey.

There was only one problem: the expectations of those surveyed were not fulfilled. They were actually happier before the purchases than after. The expectation and the desire elicited excitement and euphoria, but the acquisition of the stuff, save for a fleeting climax, failed to live up to the promise.

It should be noted that the transformation expectation was greater in those who were considered materialistic. These people, while excited about the upcoming purchases, were also more likely to worry about making the correct purchase. Non-materialistic subjects were less likely to expect a purchase to make them happy or worry prior to its acquisition.

So what does this all mean?

Two things we can deduce from Richins study:

  1. Happiness comes from within not without. The people who got all psyched about their upcoming purchases generated that excitement without the object. It’s unfortunate that the object didn’t make them any happier, but it’s informative to note that their mental states surrounding the purchases, not the objects purchased, were the progenitors of their happiness. Want a happy life? Focus first on your mental state.
  2. Don’t expect stuff to make you happy. Even for the diehard minimalist, it’s easy to fantasize that an object–either one we want or perhaps one we already have–holds the key to making us better people. It doesn’t (see point #1). We might all do well to place more focus on living a good life (engaging in meaningful work, cultivating relationships, taking care of your health, etc), than acquiring one.

Happy Family Shopping image via Shutterstock