The Easterlin Paradox is explained by the Maslow Hypothesis

The Easterlin Paradox states that at a point in time, happiness varies directly with income—both among and within nations; But over time the long-term growth rates of happiness and income are not significantly related. The principal reason for the contradiction is social comparison. At a point in time, those with higher income are happier because they are comparing their income to that of others who are less fortunate, and conversely for those with lower income. Over time, however, as incomes rise throughout the population, the incomes of one’s comparison group rise along with one’s own income and vitiate the otherwise positive effect of own-income growth on happiness.

Figure 1: The relationship between income and happiness (Kahneman and Deaton, 2010)


Figure 2: The relationship between household income and wellbeing (Killingsworth, 2021)


The Maslow Hypothesis explains this paradox—money matters insofar as it addresses the bottom two levels of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (food, clean air & water, shelter, clothing, health care, safety & security…). That's the rounding-off of well-being measures seen in Figure 1 and the inflection point at $75,000in Figure 2. After that, Grant’s Razor kicks in, and the biggest factor affecting happiness and well-being is relationships.

This is why smaller, self-contained communities (The Blue Zones, Amish/Mennonite communities, indigenous tribes…)—even without modern comforts and technology—are happier and live longer than those living in modern society; they have unconditional love and belonging, experience no loneliness, and are never forced to bear stress or hardship alone.

In our culture, there is this insidious belief that one needs to earn their place on the planet through their behaviors or achievements. Thinking you have a debt to pay every time you wake up in the morning is emotionally exhausting and an untenable way to live life over the long term.

The key difference between our modern society and those happier tribal societies: we have made it possible to live life playing a series of finite games—best illustrated by the cooperation dilemma (aka the prisoner's dilemma). Whereas in tribal society, everyone is playing the infinite game collectively. Sure, individuals can choose to give up the infinite game, but that means getting kicked out of the tribe.

Among the Amish, young adults leave their community and live in modern society (known as rumspringa—literally “running around”). At the end of their time, they get to choose—reject their community of origin and remain in modern society or rejoin the community along with all of the limitations and constraints therein. It’s notable that 90% choose to return. Community and connection matter more than modern comforts and technology.

Figures from “Will faster economic growth make us happier?” by Michael Plant

A lateral thinking perspective on mindfulness and meditation: “sensefulness” or “present sense”

Mindfulness is a misnomer*. The goal of mindfulness and meditation is to let go of thoughts of the past and the future—to be fully in the present moment, with complete attention on our sensory input. You want to get out of your head and into your body and senses.

“Sensefulness” is an apt term. But what I like even better is “present sense”. It parallels the commonly used term “present tense.” And it reinforces the goal of being in the present moment with attention fully on what you are sensing right now.

Your [thinking] mind is an instrument; a tool. It is there to be used for a specific task, and when the task is completed, you lay it down.

—Eckhart Tolle in “The Power of Now”


* tangentially, mindlessness is likewise a misnomer. People acting mindlessly are often lost in their thoughts and not paying attention to what’s going on around them. They are too much in their mind and barelyin their senses. It's no wonder we struggle to meditate when our language has these concepts completely reversed.

Grant’s Razor: the only thing that truly matters in life are your relationships

The Harvard Study on Adult Development is the combination of The Grant Study—which followed 268 Harvard University male graduates from the classes of 1939-1944 throughout their entire lives—and The Glueck Study—which similarly followed 456 men who grew up in low socioeconomic Boston households. They tracked all the major events in their lives, their lifestyles, and their medical histories. All of that data from all of those people across all of those years boiled down to one simple truth. As Robert Waldinger, the study’s current director says

“Good relationships keep us happier and healthier. Period.”

A previous director, George Valliant, puts it even more bluntly:

“The only thing that really matters in life are your relationships.”*

I call this Grant’s Razor.† The William T. Grant Foundation is the original funder of this study, and they absolutely deserve credit for being a visionary supporter of this effort.

Philosophical razors are very useful tools in eliminating large swaths of possibilities as irrelevant. Common misbeliefs about the impact of achievement, wealth, fame, diet, and exercise are completely obliterated by Grant’s Razor. For example, The Roseto Effect shows that strong communal relationships outweigh poor diet. Even disease can be no match for relationships. Our social genes so much want us to have strong connections with others, that they will quite literally step up and save our lives (ᴘᴅꜰ) when we commit ourselves to healthy social connection. Even The Blue Zones (which are essentially “longevity communities”) all have strong community as a foundation, and that more than makes up for the fact that one of the nine habits is regularly ingesting a known Group 1 carcinogen (alcohol).

Grant’s Razor goes hand-in-hand with The Bowlby Conjecture. The only things you need for a long, healthy happy life were all available to our ancestors 50,000 years ago on the African savannah, and chief among them are the strong social bonds that kept the tribe together. As Johann Hari said in his fantastic book, Lost Connections:

“Every human instinct is honed not for life on your own, but for life… in a tribe. Humans need tribes as much as bees need a hive.”

Robin Dunbar goes even further in his excellent treatise Friends:

“…Social measures most influence your chances of surviving... The best predictors are those that contrasted high versus low frequencies of social support and those that measured how well integrated you are into your social network and your local community. Scoring high on these increases your chances of surviving by as much as 50 percent... it is not too much of an exaggeration to say that you can eat as much as you like, drink as much alcohol as you want, slob about as much as you fancy, fail to do your exercises and live in as polluted an atmosphere as you can find, and you will barely notice the difference... You will certainly do yourself a favor by eating better, taking more exercise, and popping the pills they give you, but you’ll do considerably better just by having some friends.” 

So given this information, how can we use it to improve the world? I have an idea that combines a concept from the Grant Study with one from the Blue Zones that I call 4am friends…


* George Valliant’s actual quote is “The only thing that really matters in life are your relationships to other people.” But this is imprecise. Firstly, it really should be with other people, because relationships are bidirectional, not one way. Secondly, the relationships we have with other sentient creatures (such as our pets or animals in nature) matter equally as well. Thirdly, I would expand this to include the relationship one has with oneself. Our frugal brains use the same neural pathways for all relationships. It’s imperative to have a good relationship with oneself in order to have good relationships with others. So the more precise modified quote I prefer is “The only thing that truly matters in life are your relationships: with others, but also with yourself.”

Apologies to the Gluecks. I absolutely recognize you have done amazing things in service of this discovery. But Grant-Glueck is simply unwieldy.

We are all always teachers; we are all always students

Every moment, you make choices in your actions. You are modeling for yourself and others what you consider to be proper, appropriate behavior in your given situation. Likewise, you observe others and their actions. They are modeling to you what they consider to be proper, appropriate behavior in their situation.

Never underestimate the power you wield in simply showing up and being authentic. People notice, and it moves them.

We are all always teachers; we are all always students.

The Roseto Effect shows the extreme power of good relationships for health and wellness

In the 60s, the town of Rosteo, Pennsylvania has statistically significantly fewer heart attacks and heart disease than surrounding towns that on their surface looked identical. In fact they worked difficult blue-collar jobs, ate rich foods, and even smoked cigars. The one difference: Roseto was founded by recent Italian immigrants and they embraced their old tight-knit community ways of living life. The evidence is clear: if you belong unconditionally to a tribe, practically every other lifestyle choice you make is a rounding error.

The Roseto Effect

The Dalai Lama on our inner critic

In a meeting between the Dalai Lama and a group of American psychologists in 1990, one of the psychologists brought up the concept of negative self-talk. Since there are no words in Tibetan that translate into low self-esteem and self-loathing, it took quite a long time for the psychologists to convey what they meant. But this wasn’t a translation problem. It was a problem of conceptualization. Self-loathing? People do that? The Dalai Lama was incredulous. Once the Dalai Lama understood what they were saying, he turned to the Tibetan monks in the room, and after explaining what the psychologists were suggesting, he asked, “How many of you have experienced this low-self esteem, self-contempt or self-loathing?”
Complete silence.
Here was a psychological state of mind so ubiquitous in our culture that everyone experiences it from time to time, if not every single day. Yet the Tibetans—trained since childhood in the art of a mental exercise they call meditation—acted like they were being told about some alien life form. The Dalai Lama turned back to the psychologists and asked a simple question: “Why would you ever let your mind get like this?”
—Excerpt from The Awakened Ape


SHARON SALZBERG: I would like to ask you about the mind state, very common in Westerners, of strong hatred toward oneself. In Theravadin Buddhism, we teach that the strongest cause for loving kindness, or metta, is to see the goodness in somebody, but very often people say they cannot see their own goodness. Or, when we ask people to reflect on good things they have done in the past so that the mind is filled with joy, self-respect, and confidence, they say they cannot easily do this. They can dwell on the bad things they have done but not on the good … Sometimes, Your Holiness, there’s another component as well. It’s not just that people wish to be happy and aren’t. They wish to be happy but feel they don’t deserve to be; they feel guilty, as if it would somehow be wrong for them to be happy. So when we teach loving kindness and compassion, should we talk very specifically about loving yourself?

[After a long exchange in Tibetan, Alan Wallace comments that this concept is alien to His Holiness.]

DALAI LAMA: Is this self-contempt or lack of compassion for oneself something that arises now and then as a result of specific circumstances, or is it a matter of temperament, an enduring mental trait?

SHARON SALZBERG: I think this is an enduring mental trait that is very commonly found in Western culture.

DANIEL BROWN: Cognitive therapists have discovered that many ordinary people carry on an incessant and very negative inner monologue. They say to themselves in effect, “I can’t do this. I hate myself. Nothing good will ever happen.” This becomes a constant habit, even when people aren’t aware of it. Therapists say you have to intervene and intentionally think positive thoughts as an antidote to change this habit, which is very difficult. When people get depressed, this negative talk becomes much more intense. It’s also very characteristic that when Westerners start to look inward, in psychotherapy or in meditation, a lot of this self-hatred emerges in their early experiences.

JON KABAT-ZINN: Your Holiness, this problem of low self-esteem is very common in the West. People ordinarily are not even aware of the negative inner monologue. Much of this comes from early childhood experiences: a mother is angry and says to a child, “You’re a bad girl,” where what she really means is, “I don’t like what you’re doing.” The message, “I’m bad,” stays with the child even when she has grown and forgotten why. We see this in almost everybody who comes to the hospital with medical problems. People don’t feel like they’re worth much.

DALAI LAMA: Are those people violent?

JON KABAT-ZINN: No, they are normal, ordinary people.

SHARON SALZBERG: That’s us. [laughter]

DALAI LAMA: If people with such low self-esteem are caught in a situation where they lose their temper, don’t they have a strong feeling that their own self is worth defending?

JON KABAT-ZINN: Sometimes they just give up. They feel helpless, as if they deserve whatever bad happens. On the other handmany people respond to deep inner feelings of low self-esteem by creating aggression. They run over others like steam rollers. …

DANIEL BROWN: Usually it doesn’t lead to aggression or violence directed outwardly, but to more negative self-hatred.


JON KABAT-ZINN: Are you surprised?

DALAI LAMA: Oh, yes, very much. I thought I had a very good acquaintance with the mind, but now I feel quite ignorant. I find this very, very strange, and I wonder where it comes from. Are you all suffering from nervous disorders, and is the source of such self-deprecation simply physiological?

THUBTEN JINPA: Maybe it really comes from your culture, maybe your religious heritage, and these kind of social factors.

DALAI LAMA: Perhaps it arises from an absolutist mentality. That is, if something is somewhat negative then one labels it as absolutely negative; and if something is rather good, it is seen as absolutely good, ignoring all the subtle variations in between. That might give rise to this mental dysfunction.

JON KABAT-ZINN: There is another possibility here … In our society in the past, there were many systems that gave the individual a sense of belonging and connectedness. The systems provided some control and defined a little world that made sense. The church and the extended family, for instance, were very powerful forces in people’s lives. Nowadays, the church in the West is much weaker and less important to many people. The family has very often broken up. Work also is very fragmented: it’s no longer the farm that your father had, and your father’s father, and on back in time on the same land. Social relationships now are much more in flux, and this makes it difficult for young people to know where they belong in the society.

LEE YEARLEY: It isn’t just a modern phenomenon. When Alexis de Tocqueville observed America in 1830, he identified one of the two major characteristics of Americans as what he called “American nervousness.” Although he was in favor of a liberal, democratic society, he thought the price for such a society was quite extraordinary; because of it, you couldn’t place yourself. Not being clear who you were, or what was valuable, seemed built into the system. He believed that the American experiment might therefore fail, and this was close to two hundred years ago.

DALAI LAMA: Does a high percentage of the American population have this type of attitude?

JON KABAT-ZINN: Very high.

DALAI LAMA: Is there much difference for Europeans or South Americans?

FRANCISCO VARELA: It’s very much less common, Your Holiness. I think part of the reason is something that was mentioned earlier: the possibility that emotions are partly culturally conditioned by language. When I go to the United States, the enormous amount of talk about self-esteem surprises me. In Europe and South America, that is much less the case. In France, for example, the word for self-esteem is not normally heard. The language reinforces the emotion and makes it very prominent in their lives. I think it might be a very good example of how history, culture, and language shape a certain repertoire of emotions.


DALAI LAMA: Does this mentality occur among mute people?

DANIEL GOLEMAN: Yes, Your Holiness. In fact, in America people with handicaps often have it even more.

DALAI LAMA: I mean, are there such obstructions for people who have no possibility of communicating in words?

FRANCISCO VARELA: There is the case of Helen Keller, who was born blind and deaf. However, she had a very good tutor, who communicated through touch. She eventually learned to read and write, and described her experience of being blind and deaf … It is a perfect example of what you’re asking, and the answer would be definitely yes, the lack of language in participation in a culture would shape the sense of self.

DALAI LAMA: An important term in Tibetan Buddhism is self-centeredness, which means cherishing your own well-being above that of anybody else. Is it possible to have self-centeredness simultaneously with this lack of self-esteem?

DANIEL BROWN: Yes, they often go together. People with extreme esteem problems often have a puffed-up, grandiose self-image, as well as low self-esteem.

DALAI LAMA: These people with low self-esteem certainly have a sense of “I.” Don’t they also have some sense that they want to be happy?

DANIEL BROWN: Yes, of course, very strongly.

DANIEL GOLEMAN: Wanting to be happy is self-centeredness?

DALAI LAMA: In Tibetan Buddhism one can ask, “Does a buddha have self-interest or only concern for other people?” The answer—and this is a crucial point—is that a buddha has both. Similarly a Bodhisattva, who is free of self-centeredness, still wishes to attain full enlightenment for the benefit of all creatures; and so such a person has both self-interest as well as public interest. Without that, there’d be no confidence and you’d have very low self-esteem.

But self-centeredness is something beyond that, and a buddha or a Bodhisattva does not have self-centeredness. Self-centeredness wishes for one’s own happiness but discards the well-being of others. It doesn’t need to be grandiose, but it does make oneself the priority and put everything else second.


DALAI LAMA: In these cases of people with low self-esteem, three things seem to be present. First, they certainly have a sense of self; secondly, they do want to be happy; but thirdly, there is this self-directed contempt, or anger. This may also be related to hopelessness and despair. You commented that when people with these kind of problems are taught through mindfulness meditation to watch their thoughts arising, and they realize that they are mere thoughts, this somehow helps reduce their low self-esteem. Is this because by so doing, they feel a sense of achievement? Is that what reduces their low self-esteem, or is it something else?

JON KABAT-ZINN: […] To answer your question…it increases people’s feelings of self-efficacy when they discover in meditation that they do not have to feel weighed down by a thought — when they recognize the thought “I’m no good” as a thought rather than as true, and let it go. The next time it happens, they let it come, catch it, and then let it go, so they don’t feel so depressed. Their belief in their capacity to become more skillful grows, and that feeling of mastery is a very positive way to increase self-esteem.


DANIEL BROWN: Let me speak to the issue of methods here … In the West, the usual approach to these kinds of problems is psychotherapy, and within psychotherapy there are two methods that have been useful for this problem. One method, cognitive therapy, works directly with the thoughts. You first identify the pattern of negative thinking, for example, by asking people to write a list of their typical negative thoughts, such as, “I’m a bad person; I can’t do anything; bad things will always happen; it’s going to get worse.” Then, on the other side of the page they write down the positive thought, or affirmation, that serves as an antidote. For example, in opposition to “It’s going to get worse,” people write, “Take one step at a time,” or they counter the statement “I’m a bad person” by saying what they value about themselves.

They then take those affirmations and practice holding them in their mind continuously, like a meditation or a mantra. It’s been found that when people practice those affirmations regularly, twenty minutes or half an hour a day, or a few minutes at times interspersed throughout the day, this whole pattern of negative thinking eventually changes, and they think more positively about themselves. So that’s one way: identifying the negative and applying the antidote, which is affirmation.

[…] A second approach used in psychotherapy has more to do with the quality of the relationship between people, in this case between the patient and the therapist. It’s believed that a patient who thinks so negatively was ignored by parents and others while growing up, or was not praised enough for realistic accomplishments. These people have a legitimate need in their desire to be admired. So the therapist tries to praise them for realistic accomplishments. Over time, if the therapist is continuously interested, respectful, and admiring of the patient, the self-hatred will change and the person will develop a more healthy, balanced sense of themselves. It’s as if they’re being re-parented by the therapist.

DALAI LAMA: I am trying to trace the etiology, the natural causal links leading to this. To trace this, we note there is a sense of self that wishes for one’s own happiness, and then the low self-esteem and self-deprecation come in. But underlying this, might there not already be compassion toward oneself on a deeper level? In that case, the low self-esteem is a distortion on a more superficial level, whereas underlying that is a sense of appropriate self-love.

JON KABAT-ZINN: I think that’s true, but if you can’t get in touch with that sense of self-love then you feel cut off and alone.

DALAI LAMA: If there is no genuine sense of love underlying all that emotion, then even if others praise you, you are not affected by that praise. When others praise a person with low self-esteem, he or she says they’re wrong. The method that Dan Brown described about affirmations to counter negative feelings was almost like reminding the patients of their own value.When the patients read the list of negative words on one side, and positive words on the other, it reminds them that they can do something, they actually are worthy in these ways, and it seems to help them. But unless one assumes there is some kind of self-love underlying their emotion, it would be difficult to understand; there would be no motivation.


DANIEL BROWN: In Western psychotherapy, we have a concept called healthy self-esteem, which is different from what you’re describing about Bodhisattvas, Your Holiness. An individual with healthy self-esteem is not grandiose, not arrogant without basis, but most important is that the person maintains self-esteem relatively independent from the context … People with healthy self-esteem are less dependent both on the external context and on the discrepancy between their performance at the moment and their own internal standards for that performance. So we can say their self-esteem is steady, without a lot of change.

DALAI LAMA: Because it’s based on evidence, based on reason, then it has a greater stability.

DANIEL BROWN: Yes, it has greater stability, so these people are not easily affected by whether others think badly of them or admire them greatly. It’s beyond praise or blame in that sense, and it’s less affected by whether what they’re doing at any given time falls short of their own internal standards or goals. What’s missing in this Western notion of healthy self-esteem is the very thing that your tradition emphasizes. The concept of healthy self-esteem usually emphasizes autonomy, that is, independence. The concept of the Bodhisattva emphasizes relationship to others, doing things for others, and in that sense it seems different.


DALAI LAMA: For people who have such a problem and are not Buddhists, what is the best method?

DANIEL GOLEMAN: Cognitive therapy.

DALAI LAMA: Can you take elements from Buddhism and apply them for people who don’t believe?

DANIEL GOLEMAN : A very important part of cognitive therapy is mindfulness, just learning to notice that you have these thoughts.

ALEX BERZIN: But I think the other aspect is also very important, a relationship with somebody like a teacher, not necessarily a psychiatrist … but someone who sincerely wants to help you and takes you seriously, who makes you feel you are worthy of being helped. This relational aspect is very important for Westerners, since we’ve been raised so much in isolation and everyone feels so lonely.

DANIEL GOLEMAN: For instance, when Western students find a teacher who is very loving and very accepting, that’s very healing for this problem of low self-esteem, because they feel loved for themselves, as they are, and that helps them get over this feeling.

DALAI LAMA: So possibly a major cause of this low self-esteem is simply lack of being loved.

DANIEL BROWN: Yes, and being loved in the right way. With conditional love, where the child is loved only if he or she does the right things, the child learns that he or she is valued and respected only if the child behaves in a certain way.

JON KABAT-ZINN: And that way is the way some parents want it to be.

ALEX BERZIN: There’s another important factor in Western child-raising. Children are rewarded for being bad. If you cry enough and you act in a horrible way, then your parents will finally give in and give you what you want.

DALAI LAMA: That may be much more widespread. The Tibetans seem to do that as well. [laughter]

FRANCISCO VARELA: Don’t you find, Your Holiness, that is also true among Tibetan families, that love is perhaps not always unconditional? That parents also have their own obscurations, and therefore they’re not completely able to love their children unconditionally?

DALAI LAMA: Generally, the Tibetan attitude is that parents’ love toward their children is not so much based on the feeling that “My child is good,” but rather, “This is my child.” I think that’s the main reason. This love is based on the fact that the child is one’s own, and the love simply increases if the child improves and cultivates good qualities. If the child has bad qualities, and continues with those, then the love may diminish.

Perhaps there could be some sociological factors. For instance, the capitalist economic system of the West is very competitive, and many of its values are considered in terms of economic consequences, so that pattern may be extended to the parent-child relationship. In the economic system, you give some money and you get something in return, and that may even be applied to children’s behavior. It’s almost like a business transaction: For children to receive their parents’ compassion, the children should pay something, such as respect, or a nice attitude.

LEE YEARLEY: I would like to offer a different view on this, with which my colleagues may not agree . I do think that there is a deep problem with self-esteem for a part of the American population. But there is another very large part of that population, who have very strong self-esteem, and who aren’t simply grandiose or somehow sick. Many of them hold power. They run the country, and they do so with a forcefulness that represents a very strong sense of self, even if it’s a largely deluded one. A significant part of that country consists of people who would be better off if they had more problems with self-esteem!

DANIEL BROWN: If you look at depression, the statistics are significant. Fifteen percent or so of the entire population are diagnosed as depressed at some point in their lives, and depression is usually associated with low self-esteem. That’s only the people who come to clinical attention, so I would estimate that at least a quarter of the country should be included, at a minimum.

LEE YEARLEY: I don’t question that, but I think for another half or at least a third of the population, this is not applicable at all; and many of those people are the ones that make the major decisions about what the country is and where it goes.

DALAI LAMA: Have you found any differences in this regard in a socialist system as opposed to a capitalist system?

DANIEL BROWN: We don’t know. But there have been some family studies concerning low self-esteem. One pattern that emerges in a number of studies is that families with very high expectations, particularly those that are upwardly mobile, are likely to raise children with problems of low self-esteem. […]

ALEX BERZIN: From my experience in socialist countries, I find it’s not so much the economic system that makes the difference. Each country seems to have its own culture. Polish people really don’t care what anybody says, and in Russia , with the Orthodox Christian background, they don’t have the Western problem of guilt. Each culture, each country is quite different.

DALAI LAMA: So, in answer to your initial question about beginning the cultivation of loving kindness directed toward oneself, and whether this has a place in Buddhist practice: Yes, it does. [laughter]

Excerpt from Healing Emotions, ed. Daniel Goleman.


“Is it not possible to feel hatred for oneself? You seem to define it as only toward others.”

Matthieu Ricard: “When one speaks of hating oneself, hate is not really at the core of the feeling. You might be upset with yourself, but this could be a form of pride, a sense of frustration arising from the realization that you don’t live up to your expectations. But you can’t truly hate yourself.”

“So there’s no such thing as self-loathing in Buddhism?”

Matthieu Ricard: “Probably not, because that would be against the basic wish of any living being to avoid suffering. You may feel you hate yourself because you want to be so much better than you are. You may be disappointed at yourself for not being what you want to be, or impatient for not becoming so fast enough. Self-loathing actually includes a lot of attachment to the ego.”

Excerpt from Destructive Emotions, ed. Daniel Goleman.

The acceptance gap

For any event in your life, there is an acceptance gap. It is the time between the event happening and your acceptance of the event.

[Note that acceptance does not mean approval.]

Your death is a form of acceptance. So there may be some events for which you never quite get to full acceptance.

Some events you get to an almost immediate acceptance. 

And then there's everything in between.

I am trying to shorten the acceptance gap as much as possible for all events in my life. Radical acceptance is sometimes used to describe this.

Acceptance also doesn't mean denial, minimization, rationalization, toxic positivity, or any other defense mechanism that prevents you from fully confronting the event, allowing any feelings that come up, working through them with full attention, then letting them go.

What can you do to shorten your own acceptance gap?