A life that was CONSTANTLY HAPPY was NOT a good life ?

Question

An economist at Carnegie Mellon University recently said, "I think it's possible to way overestimate the importance of happiness. Part of the meaning of life is to have highs & lows. Alife that was constantly happy was'nt a good life". Do you all agree with him ???

Pls give an answer as long as u can, i will provide BA. No doubt about it.

Answer 1

The economist does not agree with current psychological research; people tend to report more happiness if they have lots of frequent, small victories, rather than occasional massive rewards.

Economists think like this because they measure happiness too commercially - like Dicken's character Mr Macawber their view of happiness is a bottom-line "profit" of good over bad. While this view has some truth, perpetual misery broken occasionally by massive joy is stressful, whereas constant, uncomplicated comfort is the goal of most sane people.