Cockerham 1

S. Nicole Cockerham
Deborah Jizi
University Writing
22 February 2016

Double Entry Journal

Citation:

Source: Quote (Page# or Paragraph #)

Responses

And yet in two million years, the human

brain has nearly tripled in mass, going from
the one and a quarter pound brain of our
ancestor here, Habilis, to the almost three
pound meatloaf that everybody here has
between their ears. (0:11)

I have heard over the years that your eyes

are the only organ that are born the size they
will be the rest of your life, and a persons
ears and nose grow continuously the rest of
their life. I believe Dan Gilbert is correct
saying that the brain triples in mass/size.
Over the years, our brains have continued to
develop for the better, survival of the fittest at
its finest. Our brains have evolved, and in the
process become more dense and better.

Human brains have this marvelous

adaptation that they can actually have
experiences in their heads before they try
them out in real life. This is a trick that none
of our ancestors could do, and that no other
animal can do quite like we can. (1:06)

We utilize this simulator every day, and it is

nothing new. Like pilots, we do have the
ability to simulate situations and events. As
humans, we dont all know how to use our
brains to their full potential. There is no
handbook on how to simulate theses
situations or how to use al of the capacity of
our brains.

Heres two different futures that I invite you

to contemplate. You can try to simulate and
tell me which one you think you might prefer.
One of them is winning the lottery. This is
about 314 million dollars. And the other is
becoming a paraplegic. (2:06)

Although we all simulate things differently, I

would have thought that winning the lottery
would have skyrocketed happiness. But when
Dan Gilbert spoke that their happiness levels
a year later were equally happy, it makes
sense. You learn to be happy in the
environment you are placed in.

We synthesize happiness, but we think

happiness is a thing to be found. (5:00)

I dont think we consciously know when we

are synthesizing happiness, but we do know
when we are truly experiencing happiness. I
agree that we all think happiness is
something to be found. We all think we

Cockerham 2

deserve it, and are all upset when we arent.

Natural Happiness is what we get when we
get what we wanted, and synthetic
happiness is what we make when we dont
get what we wanted. (8:37)

I can agree with this. We make the best of

bad situations to make them better.

I want to suggest to you that synthetic

happiness is every bit as real and enduring
as the kind of happiness you stumble upon
when you get exactly what you were aiming
for. (9:18)

This makes perfect sense because we

experience this daily. Little highs are as
important as the big highs, and happiness is
happiness. I dont think we question whether
happiness is real as long as it is there.

Because the reversible condition is not

conductive to the synthesis of happiness.
(17:28)

I have come to learn that giving people

choices really causes problems. Like in this
Harvard study, people who have the
opportunity to choose, and reverse, end up
unhappier than those of us who are told what
to do or only given one choice. I believe that
we synthesize happiness when in a situation
where we have options because we always
second-guess the choices we have made.

Cockerham 3

How could this point be possibly right?

What is interesting or helpful about this view?
What would I notice if I believed this view?
In what sense and under what conditions could this be true?
Suppress the urge to disagree, be contrary, or argue with
the view.